quickie

[jazzfish]

Anti-telemarketing script: print and use the next time you get a telemarketing call. I eagerly await the Fraternal Order of Police's next fundraiser. [via prog]

His new fighting technique is unstoppable. ". . . but can you defeat the 1000 styles of Rumsfeld?"

Papers please: "On the 22nd of March 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Dudley and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show 'the papers' whenever a cop demands them."

Bush 'troubled' by gay marriages: "'People need to be involved in this decision,' Bush said. 'Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully.'" To quote chaobell, "what the hell do you think all the couples in San Francisco are doing when they march downtown to get marriage licenses!?"

---

Life less eaten now. Rehearsal report and story done; Riva app and geography test still to go. Things should be back to 'normal' by the weekend, though, at which time I may or not resume my regularly-scheduled blogging.

Comments

[rubinpdf.livejournal.com]

I think the officers did a very reasonable job given the bizarre situation they were facing.

I think this is one of those few times where I agree with Rob. The officers received a complaint and came to the scene to investigate. It looks to me that the officers remained calm and only "arrested" the man because he demanded to be arrested rather than cooperating. This is a situation that could have easily turned violent (by either side) but did not. (And what was that girl thinking charging a police officer - she's just lucky she wasn't shot).

It is healthy to have a rational fear of government, but the proposition presented by "Papers Please" approaches paranoia. I wonder how long it will be until someone attempts to tie this incident to the Patriot Act. 8-)

That said, as for the Mayor of SF, more power to him :) At best he's legally right. At worst he's engaging in Civil Disobedience.

I wonder if you would you have said the same about Judge Roy Moore (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_41792.asp). I suspect not.

[vileone.livejournal.com]

I wonder if you would you have said the same about Judge Roy Moore. I suspect not.

Obviously I didn't say the same of Judge Moore. It's an excellent question, but at least at this point there is still an important difference. The Mayor of SF has not yet been ordered by the Courts to stop. If he is, and he continues to issue the licenses, then I believe he's gone outside where his office is allowed to go. (When I say "he" here it's a bit confusing, because actually the Clerk issues them, but it's at the Mayor's instructions.)

Judge Moore's issue was that he directly disobeyed a ruling of a higher court. Our whole system is based on the premise that all parts of government will obey court rulings. If they don't, our system doesn't work anymore.

So Judge Moore was fine in interpreting the Alabama Constitution to require him to post the monument. He was not ok in defying a higher courts ruling that he was wrong and must stop.

Note this (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/national/19GAYS.html) article:

In the interview in his office in City Hall, [SF Mayor] Mr. Newsom ... promised to "step down" on the policy if the courts ruled against it, saying his main objective, to put a "human face" on the gay marriage debate nationwide, had been achieved.

That's the difference between this situation and Judge Moore.