SATs

Squirrels are cute.
"A dangling penis is a happy penis."

I'm sure most of you have heard that many SATs last year were scored incorrectly. For my overseas readers, the SAT is a test used my many colleges to evaluate applicants for admissions as well as scholarships. The errors in scoring were not caught in time for most scholarship decisions and even probably application decisions. This morning I saw a feature on a young man whose score went up 140 points after re-scoring. That could be the difference between being denied admission and getting a significant scholarship!

So naturally this left me wondering what kinds of legal claims one could have against Kaplan, the company that administers the SAT program. It would probably have to fit into a contract mold, and it certainly seems that there may be a breach of the contract by Kaplan. But the measure of damages is problematic. An obvious remedy would be to refund the cost of taking the test, but for many people that may not be enough. At the same time, however, I can't imagine bringing a case and trying to prove that
1. The client would have been accepted to a better college
2. The client would have gotten a scholarship (the price of the scholarship should be paid by Kaplan)
3. And the better college would have gotten the client a better standard of living (just imagine the cost of the difference in wages over a lifetime)

This doesn't seem to be the right method for correcting the situation, because of the multitude of problems with the suit. But something needs to be done! I'm sure Kaplan will be more careful in the future, or they may lose their position as owning the premier college entrance exam. There is already an alternative, the ACT, which I don't believe is owned by them. But it looks to me like they screwed up big time, and they should have to pay something to the students who were hurt by their mistake.

Guest Blog

I have my first-ever guest blog at Full Metal Photographer! Click the image to check it out:


It's from a good old friend of mine, Khorbin, who runs the new blog Geeks Incognito.

Also, I've noticed nobody has clicked on my renter for this week. Honestly, I wouldn't bother myself because it's nothing special, but if you click it then that makes me look good.

FBI Checking License Plates

Before I discuss this issue, I'd like to note that I've posted a lot of brand new pictures on my photoblog, and they're at these locations:
Snow-covered Swing
Snow-covered Telephone Pole
Solo Conversationalist
Orange-lime
But I've gotten into the habit of not posting these links here, so make sure to check out every day!

Yesterday I got into a discussion with someone about an interesting topic. Apparently, some protesters planned to meet at a book store somewhere in Colorado. The FBI, upon learning this, decided to run all the license plate numbers for the cars in the store's parking lot. She was, probably understandably, bothered by this. My response? Well, maybe it's a little bit 1984, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it. And I think the fact that she didn't tell me what these people were protesting gives me a bit of added clarity on the issue.

Every contra-factual situation (hypothetical) she threw at me to get me to change my mind either elicited the same response or the response that it violated the 4th or the 1st Amendment.

Think about it for a second. There is no 4th Amendment violation. The FBI isn't searching anything, in the constitutional sense. They're only looking through their own records, which they have full right to do. And they're only looking at license plate numbers that are in plain view. They're not interfering with these people's lives by stopping them, so there's no arrest or even a simple stop. So clearly the 4th Amendment isn't violated here.

One hypothetical that particularly bothered me was this: what if the FBI hides somewhere across the street and looks in your window on a full-time basis. This is incredibly bothersome, but they're not searching anything in the constitutional sense. So far as I know, SCOTUS haven't even decided to make this a violation of their generalized "right to privacy." My friend then pointed out that this is a waste of government resources, but so what? That's still not illegal, it's just stupid.

As far as the 1st Amendment, there would only possibly be a violation if the FBI was doing this with the intent of suppressing speech based on viewpoint, and even then I think you have an uphill battle if you take it to court. They have every right to find out if someone has an outstanding warrant for their arrest and to arrest them. Just because you're going to a protest doesn't protect you from crimes that you've committed. I think they also have the right to observe that some groups of speakers are more likely to have criminal records than others and to act accordingly. And they certainly shouldn't be required to blind their eyes to the fact that a particular known criminal is a member of a particular protest group, and those that associate with that criminal may be involved in a joint criminal enterprise.

Sure, I don't want the FBI tracking my every move. But that's not what's going on here. They're only picking either an arbitrary or an incredibly efficient method of looking through their own records. They could certainly look through every fifth name they have in the system, but it's more efficient to look through records when they know where a person is. I don't see any problem with the FBI goig to a Wal-Mart parking lot every day and checking every license plate there. The only way you're going to be harassed here is if you've already committed a crime. Is this a problem? I think not.

Springtime, and a New Renter

It's spring! Even though we had a lot of snow last week, nearly all of it is gone. And I know it's spring because the forsythia are starting to bloom and I saw some squirrels doing the nasty.

I also have a new renter, "Pictures from My World." It's a photoblog (yay!), and while it's not a "WOW" photoblog, the owner certainly shows some talent and it's definitely worth checking out. Click the thumbnail in the sidebar to pay them a visit!

The Crime of Rejecting Islam

There's a lot of hubbub in the news right now about a man in Afghanistan who rejected Islam in favor of Christianity. The clerics all want him executed, and apparently in that country it is a crime punishable by death.

The first thing that comes to my mind is, what kind of government did we allow to remain there? Sure, the Taliban was bad, but how much better is this?

But although I'm as outraged by the whole thing as everyone else, I can't entirely condemn the people of Afghanistan. They're scared, and understandably so. They had Westerners come into their country five years ago and shake things up, and they want to hold on to their old way of life. Islam is the one thing that unites them and it's the central fact of their lives.

The good thing? At least they don't execute people for never accepting Islam in the first place.

The worst thing? It certainly doesn't show a very strong faith when you have to use duress to keep people in the faith. And it really doesn't encourage people to convert. The only people who apparently want to convert to Islam are boxers and basketball players.

But you know what? They're no worse than a good number of Medieval Christians. They're just a few years behind us in social development, and I don't think it will be too many years before they've caught up. We should be thankful this incident is an excellent example for instruction of these people, so they can really think about the issue if they're able, or at least be forced by international pressure to spare him and let this "rejecting Islam" crime to be an institutionally unenforced law.

KISS

I didn't get this picture onto this computer in time for Halloween, and I've already been waiting too long for the next Halloween to come around. We should have at least four Halloweens every year. Anyway, this is a pic of me and some friends from my class in high school, taken my senior year (2000). I'm Ace (far left), in case you can't tell. This wasn't actually Halloween, but rather "favorite band day" during "Spirit Week," in which you were supposed to dress up as a member of a band to show your school spirit. I don't actually care for Kiss, but it was fun to dress up like them, and I know why their fans do it for their concerts. Aside from us, however, the only other person to participate was a junior high kid who went as one of the members of the Insane Clown Posse, and I won't comment any more on that.

EDIT: That smear on the left-hand side is actually from darkroom chemicals, and not part of the real picture. Make sure to clicky-clicky for a bigger version.

At the time I was dating a girl who was going to a Lutheran high school in nearby Norfolk, Nebraska. I went with Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons to wait for her at the school (since we got out early that day). I was informed later that when one of the teachers saw us she started crying and thought that we were there to kill everyone like the kids at Columbine. They almost called the cops . . . . I'm not sure whether this story is funny or not.

The Right (Not) to Associate

Note: new picture at FMPhoto.

Today in Constitutional Law II we will be talking about two cases involving the First Amendment right not to associate. The justification for this right is simple. If you have the right to speech and to peaceably assemble, then this right would be violated if you could not associate with others for the purposes of speech. And your ability to associate with others presupposes the ability to exclude those that you wish to exclude.

We read two cases on the subject. In the first, the Jaycees (a largely commercially-oriented organization) wanted to exclude women from voting membership in their organization. The Court upheld a state's right to force integration of the group. In the second, the Court struck down a state's attempt to force the Boy Scouts of America to allow a gay-rights activist to be a scout leader.

I agree with the result in both cases, but their methods trouble me. In both cases, the Court looked to the speech that the organizations were trying to engage in and tried to determine whether allowing state inteference would interfere with the message of the group. This appalls me. If a group is making a claim that it interferes with their speech, this should be prima facie, indisputable evidence that it does interfere with the speech of the group. If the BSA says that they disapprove of homosexuality, then you should accept that message--if only because the claim in court is a powerful First Amendment-protected message itself.

If you don't like the latter result, try to think about it from another perspective. Assume that an actively racist person is also an avowed homosexual. This gay, racist man is very active with his views, and speaks out against non-whites on a regular basis in full public view. He also wants to join the GBLT, a homosexual-rights group. The GBLT wants to exclude him because of his racist views. Would you want a court determining whether forcing the GBLT to include him would interfere with the message that the GBLT is trying to convey? I think not. The BSA case was a perfect opportunity for the Court to overturn the analysis in the Jaycees case, but they didn't take it. This was one time when stare decisis would not have been greatly offended by doing so.

Blizzard

Sorry, I've been gone due to the blizzard. But I did get some nifty new pictures, like this one.

Euthanasia, Part 2 (Finally)

Note: new picture up at FMPhoto.

Sorry it took so long to post this follow-up to my previous discussion of the subject. My thoughts are still somewhat all over the place on euthanasia. But here I go anyway.

Assisted Suicide

Implementation of legalized euthanasia is no easy task. What grounds for euthanasia are permissible? Who is capable of making the decision?

The easiest area to deal with (aside from passive euthanasia) is when a person decides for himself or herself to end his or her own life. But I think we all agree that suicide is more often than not a bad choice. There should be safeguards to prevent using legalized euthanasia to act out the suicidal choice of someone who is mentally unstable. Here is one process that I envision for ensuring responsible assisted suicide:
1. The person must file a petition with a court of law.
2. Interested parties must be given notice. These would include:
a. Close relatives, named in the will or otherwise, if any
b. Dependents, if any
c. Spouse, if any
d. Anyone else who would have standing to challenge the will
3. The court would appoint a psychiatrist
4. An informal trial would be held on the issue of mental capacity to choose euthanasia, as well as whether the grounds for choosing euthanasia are acceptable.

Another advantage of this system is that any challenges to the will could be litigated with the testator present to give evidence. The most important issue is often the intent of the testator, and who would be better to give evidence on that issue?

But should any grounds be acceptable? Depression by itself I think would not be enough. I think anyone amenable to legalized euthanasia would agree that painful terminal illness would be sufficient grounds. Should we otherwise limit it?

Nursing homes can cost a lot of money—about $70,000 a year. Many people, when forced into nursing homes, will first convey most or all of their property to relatives so the nursing home can’t seize all of their assets to pay for care. This makes them wards of the state. It’s quite natural, I think, for people to want to pass on their assets to their loved ones, and to keep it out of the grubby hands of the care providers. Should you be able to end your life simply to avoid these massive expenses?

What about the early onset of Alzheimer’s or some other disease? Personally, if I was diagnosed with a disease that will destroy my mental capacity, I think I would want to end it all. Paralysis is a similar situation. Many people go on from paralysis to lead very fulfilling lives, but many others simply sink into a deep depression from which they never recover. I think assisted suicide should be available in these circumstances, although if I was a legislator I may require a waiting period after onset of paralysis or some other diseases.

But these questions are relatively easy to answer. What about involuntary euthanasia?

Involuntary Euthanasia

I limit this part of the discussion to “active” euthanasia, the administering of lethal treatment rather than the denial of life-saving measures.

Should active, involuntary euthanasia ever be permissible? I established in the previous discussion on this subject that the impossibility of leading a happy life is the basic premise behind the support for euthanasia. But many people that are incapable of leading a happy life are also incapable of choosing to end that life. Examples include people in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease. They are very expensive (and mentally taxing) to care for, and are certainly unhappy and confused a majority of the time. Perhaps the severely retarded would also qualify, as well as possibly some others.

But the question here is, who gets to decide? We naturally loathe letting some people decide. A very rich man with Alzheimer’s may be at the mercy of the people named in his will or who would receive property through intestacy statutes. At the same time, however, those who stand to gain nothing also likely don’t know what the wishes of the person would be. And we certainly don’t want the government to decide, especially when the person’s life at issue is a life supported by the government’s treasury. Most people could handle these issues in a living will, and I think that’s probably the best option. But then there are still countless others who can’t decide for themselves. Can we trust the parents of a severely retarded child to make the right choice? Most such parents love their children without regard to any mental or physical defect. But what about the others? And when you get into this area, I think you are getting dangerously close to the issue of abortion.

Conclusion?

This is why it took me so long to post. Note all the question marks in the post. I think it’s very difficult to answer most of these questions, and I personally don’t know how. I’m not immediately opposed to involuntary, active euthanasia, but once these questions start to pop up then sometimes my gut squirms a bit. Maybe some of you will be able to help the discussion along.

Happy 55th!

Check out my new renter, "Smile if You're Lying," especially if you've ever wondered why anyone (other than Tom Selleck or Alex Trebek) would grow a mustache!
Then, when you get back, check out Crane Reflection, a brand new shot up at FMPhoto.

And then, when you get back, say happy 55th birthday to Kurt Russell.
He is quite clearly the greatest actor of all time. People who still celebrate St. Patrick's Day are chumps. That's right. I went there. Instead, I recommend that you watch one of these fine movies to celebrate. You can still get drunk and puke, but green beer is out. It might give people the wrong idea. Irish beverages (such as Irish Cream, Guinness, or Jameson) are acceptable. I'm going to watch Escape from L.A. and drink to celebrate. How about you?