25
Mar
An orchestral maneuver performed using only sndrec32.exe and Windows stock system sounds (chord, ding, chimes and The Microsoft Sound). The Flash animation even lets you watch the “performance” in real time.
Researchers from the University of California working in Indonesia have discovered a species of octopus that uses a Two-limbed camouflaged tiptoe to slip away unnoticed.
"When we noticed one was walking, I thought my gosh, this is amazing. It’s the first underwater bipedal locomotion I know of," says Christine Huffard of the University of California, Berkeley, who captured the behaviour on video.
Huffard’s team filmed the apple-sized Octopus marginatus in the tropical waters of Indonesia. Instead of its usual sprawling crawl, O. marginatus fled from divers by striding on two arms, with the rest of its arms wrapped around its body, giving it the appearance of a walking coconut.
Link to Quicktime movie of the walking coconut. Link to video of a different species pretending to be a clump of algae.
[via Boing Boing]
Ann Althouse makes a point that I’ve been trying to make in comments on blogs and in conversations about the Schiavo case. Put as simply as possible, the federal courts did not ignore the federal statute in declining a request for an injunction. They may have disregarded the oration of Tom DeLay, but not the statute. Let’s look at the language of the statute for a minute. Section 1 defines the federal court jurisdiction and the cause of action granted to the Schindlers:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. (emphasis added)
Section 2 defines the procedure to be used by the Middle District in considering a claim filed by the Schindlers pursuant to Section 1:
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted. (emphasis added)
Everyone who has been claiming that the federal courts violated the intent of the statute, the will of Congress, and the rights of Terri Schiavo in failing to hold a new trial on the facts underlying the state court decision has been willfully ignoring the plain language of the statute. The statute does speak to de novo review, but only within "the scope of th[e] Act." The scope of the Act includes only federal and constitutional law claims. That is why the Schindlers’ motion to the Middle District in response to the statute speaks to claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and says not a word about Judge Greer’s findings of fact in either of the hearings under Florida state law. The federal court was not granted such jurisdiction by the Schiavo statute.
Members of Congress have certainly tried to portray the law as requiring the court to issue an injunction and requiring the court to give the Schindlers a new trial on the merits under state law. And they’ve been successful, if opinion on the news shows and in the blogs is representative. I suspect that this was their intention all along. Congress knew that a statute purporting to give the federal court jurisdiction to hold a new trial under Florida state law would likely be held unconstitutional, so they passed a statute conferring on the Court jurisdiction over federal claims. In the process of debating the statute and in sound bites ever since, they have portrayed the statute as something it is not, hoping that the courts would interpret the statute to mean what Congress says it means rather than what it actually says. The federal courts did not fall for this gambit, and considered the Schindlers’ request for a TRO under longstanding precedent and the clear language of the statute. The Schindlers have a probability of success on the merits of their federal law claim that approaches zero, which is why the federal courts rejected the Schindlers’ earlier petition for a writ of habeus corpus. The court concluded at that time that the Schindlers’ claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which provides that a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights. Therefore, the only jurisdiction the federal court had was what was granted by statute, and the only jurisdiction granted by statute was over federal and constitutional claims under existing law.
To claim otherwise, and include the federal courts in the grand conspiracy to "murder" Terri Schiavo requires either (1) willful ignorance of the law or (2) a belief (as Glenn Reynolds put it) "that Congress and the federal courts have a free-ranging charter to correct any injustice, anywhere, regardless of the Constitution." What is happening to Terri Schiavo is sad, but the damage that the supporters of her parents are trying to do to our system of laws and the Constitution is sadder.
24
Mar
NCAA Tournament Chairman Bob Bowlsby on March 13, 2005:
Louisville is a tremendous basketball program, and they’ve had a great
year. They won their regular season and the postseason, and
we felt like we gave them some credit for doing both of those things.
But when you look at who is on the first three lines, it’s a pretty
competitive lot.The Big 12 Tournament champion is there on line two. Oklahoma State
was considered a possibility for the top line for a lot of the year.
The Big East champion is on that line. Washington was there at one
time. Now Kentucky is there. Wake Forest is there, long considered to
be a contender for the top line.Then Oklahoma, the regular-season Big 12 champion, is on line three.
Gonzaga, who has wins over Washington and Oklahoma State, may have a
case for being higher than the three line. And then you have Arizona
and Kansas. … Ultimately, you go down line by line, and collectively
our opinion was that we wouldn’t take anybody off those first three
lines to put anybody from line four in there.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Bob. Louisville 93, Washington 79.
For the record, these are the 12 teams deemed better by Mr. Bowlsby’s committee than the Cards:
- Illinois
- North Carolina
WashingtonDukeOklahoma StateWake ForestConnecticutKentuckyArizonaGonzagaKansasOklahoma
After the end of the Arizona-OSU game, it’ll be 7 down, 5 to go.
UPDATE: 10 down, 2 to go. Both of them #1 seeds. If UofL beats UNC to win it all, they’ll be the second champion to beat three #1s to do it. When 4 seed Arizona beat UK in overtime in 1997 they were the first, having beaten Kansas, North Carolina and Kentucky.
Louisville’s march to Saint Louis has a bit in common with Arizona’s. Each faced the champion of the Sun Belt Conference in the first round (South Alabama in 1997, Louisiana-Lafayette in 2005). Each was spared a battle with a two seed from the ACC thanks to a lower-seeded team from the Big East - 1997 #2 seed Duke lost to 10 seed Providence in Round 2; 2005 #2 seed Wake Forest lost to #6 seed Wake Forest in Round 2. And each faces a battle with #1 seed North Carolina (Arizona’s was in the Final Four, while Louisville’s would be in the Championship Game).
There have been a lot of stories lately (like this one in Engadget) about PyMusique, an attempt to get around the Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions placed on tracks purchased from the iTunes Music Store. As I understand it, the key is that the iTMS DRM is applied at the client machine level, not the server, so a third-party interface to the Music Store can grab the file but not apply the DRM layer upon download. Apple blocked the original release of PyMusique by restricting access to the Music Store to thise using iTunes 4.7 and above. PyMusique then issued a new release getting around the Apple modifications. For now it appears, not being willing to use the “service” myself, that PyMusique works again.
I’m on record as not liking DRM. I won’t buy a DRM’d CD. I wish iTMS tracks were either not restricted or that the specifications of the DRM were publicly released, so as to allow music streamers, etc. to access iTMS tracks. But products like PyMusique and Hymn (which strips DRM from tracks already purchased) don’t do anyone any favors. iTMS only exists because the record studios are willing to license content to it, and you’re a Pollyanna if you believe there will ever be a DRM-free service approved by the major labels. Buying tracks from a DRM-enabled provider and then stripping off the DRM doesn’t do anything but make it likely that those of us who are willing to abide by the Terms of Service will have no place to go for legal downloads. I wish they’d just stop it.
The Cards go for their first trip to the Elite Eight since 1997 tonight, and it’s one of the strangest matchups that you’re likely to see. When was the last time a 4 seed was actually favored over a 1 seed? Dick Vitale and Len Elmore (no link, check the ESPN site for ESPN Motion video) both think the Cards will win. Bob Valvano, on his radio show this morning, said his "magic number" calculation — a team’s average points scored + average points allowed, divided by 2 — gave the Cards a slight 2 point edge. The Whatifsports.com simulation predicts Louisville 84, Washington 80. Only Fran Fraschilla and Page 2’s Dan Shanoff seem willing to go on record with the higher-seeded team.
I’ve been wrong about the Cards every step of the way so far. I thought they’d win in a walk against UL-Lafayette, and the game was a squeaker. I thought they’d lose to Georgia Tech, and they ran away with the game. I suspect that the run will end tonight, which should be good news for Cardinal fans. Washington has quicker guards than Georgia Tech, who was hampered a bit by injury. And the Cards have a demonstrated weakness to dribble penetration. Also, how likely is it that UofL will shoot from the outside the way they did against GT? Can a team without a true point guard match up against a team as quick on defense as Washington? Can Pitino employ the 2-2-1 zone trap to slow the game down, or will this just lead to open baskets for the Huskies? Is there a good answer to that 2-3 zone? Too many unanswered questions. I suspect that if the game is in the 8s or higher, Washington wins by a bunch. If the winning score stays in the 70s, Louisville has a good shot.
I had intended to abstain entirely from the Schiavofest that has been raging among the blogs. After all, I’m not a neurologist and I haven’t observed her directly, I’m not a medical ethicist, I’m not privy to any conversations between Ms. Schiavo and any of the persons relied upon by Judge Greer in the original state trial(s) that attempted to determine what Ms. Schiavo would have wanted to do in this instance. I generally try to avoid commentary on issues I can’t speak to with any authority (except sports, of course). Others have done that both well and poorly. But now that we’re well down the road to establishing some first principles that will affect me personally, I decided that I had a couple of cents to chip in.
It really should go without saying that this is a terrible situation for everyone involved. It’s terrible for Terri Schiavo, who has been suffering (in the sense of comparing how she is now to how she was fifteen years ago, not in the “does she feel pain” sense, of which I am not qualified to speak) for a decade and a half. It’s terrible for Michael Schiavo, who is either a craven, greedy, murderous wretch or a long-suffering and grieving spouse or something somewhere in between. It’s terrible for the Schindlers, who will either finally see their daughter shuffle off this mortal coil or take care of a barely-functioning severely brain damaged child until she dies of other causes at some point in the future. It’s terrible for the judges who, in my opinion, have attempted to fairly apply the law as it exists to horrible facts. No matter the outcome, Judge Greer entered an emotion-wrecked situation upon being called to determine whether Terri Schiavo would want to die under the circumstances. I feel for all of them in various degrees, and really, truly have no considered opinion about what should or should not happen to Terri Schiavo. With all that said, I am concerned about what we appear to be enshrining in law or at least in societal principles through this situation:
- The Culture of Life or Always Err On the Side of Life. Many have argued that a Culture of Life that we as a society should uphold dictates that so long as someone is willing to care for Ms. Schiavo, that we should allow them to do so. Call it the Always Err on the Side of Life Rule. In this case, there is some evidence that Terri would not have wanted to live this way (coming from Mr. Schiavo, but also from others), and there is some doubt about that conclusion. Applying the Rule, so it is said, suggests that if there is doubt, we should keep the patient alive.
This sounds reasonable as a moral principle — after all, if Terri would want to live and we allow her to die, she is harmed, but if she would want to be allowed to die and we keep her alive for a while, is there any real harm? The hazard of this view is that there is always doubt. Assume, for example, that Terri actually is in a PVS and she told not three or four but twenty people that she would not want to be kept alive in a PVS via feeding tube. Assume also that her parents don’t, for whatever reason, want to believe this. Any statements of intent would have been made decades ago, so could not her parents argue that it may have been true at the time, but medicine advances and people change, so she wouldn’t feel that way now? Strict application of erring on the side of life would allow recalcitrant relatives to overrule what would appear to be a clear expression of intent.
- Impact on Living Wills. One possible “benefit” of this case is that it has forced many people to consider Advance Directives and Living Wills. This is a good thing. Presumably, had Ms. Schiavo written such a document and had the document covered artificial hydration and nutrition, we wouldn’t be arguing now about intent. Unfortunately, another outgrowth of the Err On the Side of Life Rule is that it provides support for attacking rather than supporting such directives. If Terri Schiavo had written a living will fifteen years ago, her parents could still argue that circumstances change, people change, medicine changes. Many appear to agree with this sentiment. See, for example, this post at Chicago Boyz:
I might also accept her premature death if she had made a living will that declared her wish to die if she became incapacitated — though I would be hesitant due to the possibility that she had changed her mind in the meantime.
Perversely, then, this case may make living wills harder to enforce, by providing cover for those who would argue that the patient didn’t really mean it or may have meant it then but wouldn’t mean it now or may have meant it even now, but who knows what medical miracles are right around the corner? What you end up doing then is giving a veto right over medical decisions to any family member who disagrees, and take the decision-making power away from the patient and those she has empowered to act on her behalf. I, personally, would not want to be kept alive by artificial means, would not want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo’s case by feeding tube (whether Mr. Schiavo or Mr. and Mrs. Schindler are correct about her current condition), and have expressed this desire to my loved ones. I should be able to make those choices and expect that they would be carried out if I am in a position where I can’t express my desires on my own. And neither my family, nor the state legislature, nor the state courts nor the federal government should be able to overrule my stated preference in service of the Culture of Life.
- Equating removal of artificial nutrition and hydration with murder. This argument usually takes the form of “we couldn’t do to a dog or condemned killer what they’re doing to Terri!” And it doesn’t make much sense. There are any number of conditions that can leave one in a state where artificial hydration and/or nutrition is all that keeps one alive but where recovery is of a probability approaching zero. The thousands of patients who are in a PVS (whether or not Ms. Schiavo is among that number), for example. It is not murder to remove the feeding tubes from such patients, if it is done in response to their decision or that of the person to whom they have entrusted medical decision-making authority. We do a profound disservice to those suffering from such conditions and those suffering to make decisions on their behalf if we establish a principle that removal of a feeding tube is murder.
- The assault on federalism and separation of powers. I am quite uncomfortable that the Florida legislature, the Florida Governor, the United States Congress and the President have all intervened to attempt to overturn a state court decision applying state law. Whether Judge Greer was right or wrong, whether Michael Schiavo should be disqualified because he stands to “benefit” from Terri’s death, the fact remains that Florida law provides for a petition to state court to determine whether an incapacitated patient would want to continue a course of treatment. The fact remains that the Florida courts held at least two inquiries into this matter, hearing from witnesses on both sides and from medical experts on both sides. And the fact remains that Florida appellate courts have determined that there was no manifest error that would support overturning the lower courts. The Federal District Court determined (even prior to the emergency legislation granting it additional authority) that there were no constitutional or federal due process grounds to support injunctive relief. Despite all that, other branches of the state and federal governments have passed laws attempting to overturn a state court decision applying state law that they disagree with.
Private laws such as this, thankfully, have no precedential value. Nevertheless, once we establish a principle that legislators and executives can use legislation to attack judicial decisions, what have we wrought? Can Congress order federal de novo review of a state capital case because it disagrees with the state findings of fact? Could Congress direct federal review of a finding of state tort liability? The Middle District and Eleventh Circuit have avoided this type of effect by applying only federal law to the Schiavo case, rather than engaging in the sort of de novo factual review some members of Congress assumed would take place, but the principle established is a scary one, even if entirely permissible under the Constitution.
- Legislative Overreaction. If bad facts make bad law, bad facts combined with emotion are likely to make really bad law. Florida’s statute under which the original decision was made serves a legitimate purpose in attempting to determine by clear and convincing evidence the intentions of an incapacitated patient. One can expect it to be eviscerated to prevent Another Terri. No matter that such rash action may well create more victims than it prevents. Some have called for a requirement that every American have a living will, an unprecedented extension of government power. Charles Krauthammer, in an otherwise very good column about this case, proposes codifying the Err on the Side of Life Rule:
There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently — by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri’s law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.
As I’ve said above, this law would go too far, and would require doctors to refuse to comply with the wishes of a patient if a single relative is not yet ready to let go.
The Schiavo case is incredibly sad and clearly raises strong emotions on all sides. The real tragedy, however, would be if we, in an attempt to Do Something in response to emotion, create a regime that thwarts the right of every person to refuse treatment, even if doing so causes pain to those they leave behind.
Thanks to Bill at INDC Journal for the Krauthammer link. And please, while I love comments and emails, don’t try to enlist me in the Save Terri! campaign or convince me that Michael’s right. I don’t know who is right, and I’m not in a position to ever be able to know.
As the FEC prepares to initiate a rulemaking in response to the federal court order invalidating its per se exemption of internet activity from the BCRA, the four sponsors of that legislation have weighed in with a letter to the Commission (Word document on ElectionLawBlog, PDF here).
We are confident that the Commission can find a way in its rulemaking to allow unregulated and robust political debate on the Internet, such as that seen on independent blogs, to continue, without creating loopholes for soft money to once again flow into federal campaigns. We look forward to working with you to achieve this goal.
As with anything from this crew, the language used is loaded. What is an "independent" blog? Official campaign blogs are obviously out. Also, one would assume, are official party and committee blogs. What about blogs that take money from candidates or parties, like Kos and DaschlevThune? What about advocacy group blogs at places like MoveOn? Is a blog that links to campaign websites or reproduces campaign literature independent? Just who decides what makes one independent and what are the criteria?
And how do the Congressmen define "soft money" in the context of the internet? Is this just the cash decried during the McCain-Feingold debate, like money from party committees, or does it go further? Does it include in-kind contributions?
Nothing I have heard makes me feel better, but of course the FEC still has time to do the right thing. Harry Reid’s bill that would exempt "internet communications" from the BCRA would help, but I suspect that it has zero chance of passing and if it did, it would be amended so as to make things worse.
{Via Declan McCullagh’s Politics Blog]
Now that I officially have a 0% chance (thanks, Syracuse and Wake Forest) of winning the Bloggers Bracket, I thought I’d try to find some flicker of hope in my pre-tourney prognostication. In this post dedicated mostly to whining about Louisville’s 4 seed, I called the UW-Milwaukee upsets, and even put them in my official bracket. Too bad Kansas couldn’t manage to beat a team with only five scholarship players.
In response to the official NCAA "[w]ell, if you give Louisville higher than a four seed, who would you displace?" excuse for the Cardinals seeding, I suggested three overseeded (IMO) teams: 2 seed Connecticut, and 3 seeds Gonzaga and Oklahoma. Given that Louisville will be in Albuquerque whilst those three squads are in Storrs, CT, Spokane, WA and Norman, OK respectively, I feel vindicated.
Ah, March. The time of year when every baseball team thinks it can beat the Yankees and basketball fans with Bad Brackets look for any glimmer of hope to earn back their Armchair Commentator license.
18
Mar
In a suprising turn of events, I appear to be leading the Bloggers Bracket after 20 games, hitting 19 of 20 so far. In the next batch, I’m likely to suffer, unless St. Mary’s turns things around.
Other thoughts on the tournament so far:
- The SEC has not acquitted itself well, showing the paper tiger that conference has truly been all year. LSU and Alabama were embarrassed (luckily, I saw those upsets coming), Kentucky looked weak against EKU and Florida blew a big lead against Ohio.
- Kentucky fans should be a little scared. UK was outrebounded by an undersized EKU squad, and was able to win primarily because UK had a relatively easy time scoring in the paint. Cincinnati isn’t the offensive threat EKU was, but they rebound better and defend the paint better. I suspect UK will still win, but it’s going to be a mid 50s-low 60s point slugfest.
- Gonzaga demonstrated that it’s a weak three seed at best. Stop Adam Morrison and you’ll stop the Zags. Morrison scored more than a third of Gonzaga’s points, and without him Gonzaga shot 38% from the field and 20% from 3-point range. They need to find another scorer.
- Illinois continued its disheartening trend of winning despite cold shooting in the first half. They were outrebounded overall by 12, and won only because they started the second half on a 22-8 run. They’ll need to do better if they are to make the Sweet 16, much less win it all.
- Wisconsin-Milwaukee seems primed for Cinderella’s slipper, especially if Illinois can’t improve its play.
