Deadly Choking Game

Ack! News today of a deadly "choking game" the kiddies are playing. At least 82 young ones have died according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention count of fatalities from the cataclysmic fad.

The game involves intentionally choking oneself thus blocking blood flow to the brain. Once the stranglehold is released, blood rushes back to the brain in an attempt to create a brief buzz.

The CDC provides some telltale signs of the players:

CDC officials urged parents to be aware the fad exists, and to watch for possible warning signs like bloodshot eyes, marks on the neck, frequent and severe headaches, disorientation after spending time alone, and ropes, scarves or belts tied to bedroom furniture or doorknobs or found knotted on the floor.

Why is this politically relevant? If enough kids keep croaking from this fad -- and it's believed the number of deaths are underreported -- politicians will most certainly try terminating the practice. But how does one abate something like this? Do you ban the bungee cords and dog leashes used for choking? Certainly you must try awareness and education. . . Not sure exactly what it could entail, but if this fad is not a passing one, some sort of law is on the horizon.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

House Passes Federal Journalist Shield Bill

The House passed the Free Flow of Information Act by a wide margin on Tuesday, but the President has vowed to veto it. The Act is essentially a shield law backing the right of reporters -- and possibly some bloggers -- to protect the confidentiality of sources at the federal level.

Under the legislation, reporters would still be required to disclose information on sources if that information could be used to prevent a terrorist attack, apprehend an attacker of a past act of terrorism, or if information could be used to harm national security.

The bill, as it is currently written, protects "a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism," which involves the "gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public."

So does this include bloggers? Jacqueline Zenn of Chasing the Southern Cross weighs in on the topic:

Do I think this bill is a good idea? Of course, and I’m happy to see bloggers included in its protection.*

However, I’m starting to wish there was another word for blogger. Seriously, when someone posting a daily diary online and say, the Huffington Post’s writers are placed in the same category, something is a little off. I don’t want to discount the efforts of personal bloggers, but there’s a certain disparity here. While some bloggers certainly qualify as journalists in my opinion (albeit journalists whose work is colored by their opinions, but I believe we’d be hard-pressed to find a journalist whose work was 100% objective), there are plenty more that are more like hobbyists.

Yes, there should be laws in place protecting the rights of bloggers, but I’m not sure if they belong under the journalistic shield. But perhaps I’m just a little bit mired in the old ways of thinking - after all, if the web, the ultimate free press, has allowed us all to be publishers, why can’t blogging fall under the umbrella of journalism? It’s not as if everything committed to print media is completely serious, objective, and/or perfect (from where I sit, the informality or frivolity of the web as opposed to print seems to the underlying tone of many “blogging vs. journalism” discussions). It’s plain that there needs to be more conversation on this issue.

*Just because it has been passed doesn’t mean that Bush won’t veto it; the Senate is also considering a similar bill.

Since the House version of the bill differs from the Senate one, Brad Friedman of The Brad Blog says bloggers may not be covered:

Under the law, if the compromise version of both houses is passed using the House definition, it could potentially mean that we would not be "covered person" and thus not protected from being required by law to disclose our sources.

Such a statue could be a devastating blow to the ability of folks like us, not on a regular salaried contract with a major metropolitan newspapers or broadcast network, to guarantee privacy to our sources.

For mainstream, traditional journalists however, advocacy for a federal shield law is strong. Over 50 news outlets support the bill, citing reports on Abu Ghraib, clandestine CIA prisons and cruddy conditions at Walter Reed as examples where source confidentiality was essential.

Opponents cite several flaws behind the bill. Besides the President, Masson of Blue Indiana.net has a few concerns:

I have mixed feelings on these sorts of laws. Being part of the legal system, I'm probably biased in favor of its prerogatives. When I judge tells someone to cough up information, generally I think the person ought to have to cough it up. However, I recognize that the First Amendment and the free flow of information it protects can benefit if sources feel like they can go to reporters and not get in trouble for doing so. And, I am inclined to protect the little guy fighting corruption that happens to have the full force of the government behind it. I want to protect Deep Throat and the types of folks who told Sy Hersch about Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, I don't have any inclination at all to protect guys like Scooter Libby or the administration sources who leaked information to Judith Miller about the Iraq war. The other thing I am a little iffy about is the idea of giving journalists First Amendment rights that are not available to the rest of the citizenry.

. . . I have two main problems with this legislation - First it makes coverage contingent on a person receiving significant financial gain for one's reporting. Second, it contains amorphous and potentially broad exceptions where national security concerns or disclosures of classified information are alleged.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that under the Constitution, journalist-client relationships are not protected. Furthermore, journalists currently have no rights to refuse to appear and testify in federal legal proceedings.

Most states, however, already have some type of shield law on the books. 33 states tout media shield statutes with 16 others having judicial precedents protecting reporters.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Laws Require Flags be Made in the USA

Several states are acting to ensure that the flags they fly are made in the USA. Minnesota has passed the strictest measure, requiring all US Flags sold in states stores be made American by year's end.

Arizona's public colleges and schools require US made Old Glory's be outfitted to every classroom from Junior High on up. Tennessee must buy all state contracted flags from the United States. There are similar bills progressing in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

$5.3 million worth of U.S. flags were imported in 2006 from other countries, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. That figure has held steady the past few years except for 2001 when $51.7 million worth of flags were imported mostly after the terrorist attacks of that year.

Douglas N. Jacobson of International Trade Law News blogs about how a consumer will know if a flag qualifies for the "Certified Made in the USA" label and the fact that US exports don't need to disclose the country of origin:

The article also mentions the Flag Manufacturers Association of America's (FMAA) “Certified Made in the USA” certification program. Under the FMAA's program, American flags carrying the FMAA-approved certification "have been made in the USA of materials that are domestic in origin and that all processes in every step of its manufacture were completed in USA facilities with USA labor." To date, FMAA has certified the following five flag manufacturers as “Certified Made in the U.S.A.”: Annin & Co., C.F. Flag, J.C. Schultz Enterprises, Inc., The Flag Source and Valley Forge Flag.

While all goods imported into the U.S. must be marked with the country of origin, there is no affirmative requirement for American made products to be labeled with the country of origin. However, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires that any product advertised or labeled as "Made in USA" must be "all or virtually all" produced in the U.S. The FTC has stated that the "all or virtually all" standard means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin and the product should contain no or negligible amounts of foreign content.

Andrew Davis of the LP Blog doesn't believe the laws are as patriotic as they are intended:

Evidently your American flag only represents freedom if it has the "Made in the USA" logo proudly stamped on it. So, be sure to hide all your foreign-made American flags, lest you have the Minnesota Flag Police storming into your yard with torches blazing.

I just wonder how Mr. Rukavina is going to feel about his victory once he realizes his 1,000 little flags were probably made by Mexican immigrants working in the manufacturing plants.

Oops.

And Kvatch at Blognonymous doesn't like it either:

Where I live, there aren't many people who fly the flag on Independence Day, or any other day for that matter. In fact, I suspect that displaying Old Glory is getting more rare by the year. So doesn't a law designed to punish merchants for selling flags made overseas seem just a little bit cuckoo? We're trying to encourage flag sales, right?

In Minnesota, violators of the law will be charged by default with a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Seven Bucks for a Used Kenny Loggins Record?

From the movie Half Baked:

Brian: Lady, seven bucks for a used Kenny Loggins record? I'll give you five.
Record Store Customer: Ugh-huh, he autographed it himself.
Brian: All right, I'll give you four.


If you are trying to unload those used Kenny Loggins records you many soon have more to worry about than a record store clerk poking fun at your musical tastes. Some new laws -- specifically in Florida and Utah and coming soon to Wisconsin and Rhode Island -- are placing strict limits on retailers who buy used CDs.

The Florida legislation requires second-hand CD dealers to post a $10,000 bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and apply for a permit before they can resell CDs. They must also obtain a photocopy of state-approved ID and get a thumb-print from those selling the CDs. Additionally, stores could only offer sellers in-store credit and are required to hold any purchased second-hand merchandise for 90 days before reselling it.

These second-hand goods laws, also known as "pawn shop laws", would obviously make the buying and selling of used CDs unprofitable for stores and extremely inconvenient for consumers trying offload music they no longer want.

In Florida, used videos and video games are partially exempt from the law -- they don't need a permit and must wait only 15 days before reselling.

Most states already have pawn shop laws but until recently have not been enforced against outlets that sell CDs, videos and recordings. These second-hand goods laws seem to be spreading.

One aim of the laws is to combat counterfeiting. But, as Christopher Null of Yahoo Tech notes, who would go to all the trouble of making a fake CD:

With the relative ease of Internet piracy, I guess I'm just not understanding why it would make any sense at all to counterfeit CDs in America. Would someone actually go to the trouble of copying a disc, creating a label and liner notes for it, then driving to a record store in the hopes of selling it there for a dollar? I guess I just don't see the economics of how that would work. Fake DVDs seem like a more lucrative niche for crooks, but they aren't mentioned in the legislation... yet.

Theft prevention is another reason the measures. Ron of Gaming Today disagrees:

I'm sure someone in Florida feels this a good piece of legislation, but my question is why? Have thefts of CD's gone sky-high? Are victimized people filed suit to receive their lost CD's? Just what, if any, rationale exists behind this. Selling used CD's and games has always been a side endeavor for many specialty shops. With this new law, I bet many of them cease to offer this service, as $10,000 is a lot of money to lay down so you can continue to pick up used copies of Double Dribble for $3.

Some believe this new legislation even goes against previous laws. Frank Pasquale of Madisonian.net:

Anirvan of Bookfinder notes the new legislation “make[s] a mockery of the American right of first sale, which allows consumers to freely resell copies of copyrighted materials [they bought rather than licensed].” But don’t expect the Copyright Office to stand up for the first sale doctrine. . . .it hasn’t exactly been a friend in the past.

I leave you with these final thoughts from the blog Infinite Onion:

Treated like criminals for wanting to exchange your old, well-loved and listened music for a newer, eclectic collection? Or maybe you came into a bunch of music you just don’t care for, and want to turn some junk into some treasure. There seems to be something wrong with that to me. I guess the problem they’re trying to address is the problem of illegal copying.

You see, you can easily buy a CD (used or new), take it home and burn it, and return it to the store as used- Sometimes even getting cash for it. It is currently against federal law to refund a person’s money if they return a newly purchased CD- they can only be exchanged for an copy of the exact same CD. This is to prevent the theft of music from vendors and distributors.

And that I understand, for those CDs come directly from an inventory. But when a person brings in used CDs, they are adding to a store’s inventory, creating something that wasn’t there before. Something that’s already been sold, accounted for, and made profit. If a store decides to take in a used CD (as they DO have discretion, remember), they do so because they think they can make a turn-around on it. Sell it for cheaper, yes, but also for a second time.

It simply looks to me like the government wants a piece of this action. It already has it’s hands buried deep in the profits made the first time around the CD is sold, so why not the second? I wouldn’t be surprised if the RIAA was behind this somehow.

These laws aren’t about illegal music distribution at all, they’re about taxing what was not before taxed. For good reason. It’s pawn.

I’m not sure I fully understand it all, but I do know it’s a bit ridiculous.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Crack Sentencing Law and Policy

The U.S. Sentencing Commission said Tuesday that Congress should appeal a law that puts first-time offenders in prison for a minimum of five years for possessing a small amount of crack cocaine.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, enacted during the 1980s crack epidemic, sends distributors of five grams of crack -- the equivalent weight of five paper clips* -- to federal prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to result in the same sentence as the five grams of crack, the commission said. It urged Congress to deal with the 100:1 disparity by raising the amount of crack required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence so focus can be shifted to major traffickers.

The Commission concluded that there is "almost universal criticism" concerning federal cocaine sentencing policy from community interest groups, the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners and academics.

The ACLU said in a press release that the "sentencing disparity has devastated African-American and low-income communities, targeting low-level offenders while failing to address the larger problem of the drug trade."

Bean at Feministe.us with the ACLU's summary of proposals in the Commission's report and disagrees with the third:

· Increase the amount of crack cocaine required to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence, as current law subjects low-level drug offenders to the same or harsher sentences as major dealers.

· Repeal the mandatory minimum penalty for simple crack cocaine possession.

· Reject proposals to lower the amount of powder cocaine required to trigger the five- and ten-year mandatory minimums, as the Commission finds “no evidence to justify such an increase.”

Ok. I’m with them on the first two. Increasing the level of crack required to trigger a harsh five year minimum sentence is an important step to reducing the impact of the misguided “War on Drugs” on low level dealers and - worse — people who possess for their own use. Repealing the mandatory minimum for possession is clearly ancillary to that. But it’s that third recommendation that really stings, and that reduces the positive impact of the other two. In the third bullet point, the commission rejects the idea of getting rid of the 100-to-1 disparity by saying that there’s no need to bring the level of powder cocaine needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence down to be more in line with that of crack cocaine.

Now, in a vacuum I agree with that third recommendation. I don’t think we should be punishing cocaine use more harshly. We should be punishing crack and cocaine use less harshly. But U.S. drug policy does not exist in a vacuum. By refusing to address the disparity here, the commission condones its continuation.

In fairness, not nearly all of the blame can be placed at the feet of the sentencing commission. This is the fourth time in twenty years that the commission has urged Congress to act to change drug sentencing laws. But Congress has remained inactive. Unsurprisingly. There’s some hope though: Recently, a bipartisan coalition has been pushing the Drug Sentencing Reform Act, which would reduce – but not equalize — the disparity. And there is a general push toward more humane prison policy from some conservative senators.

But by ignoring the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity — or at the very least, refusing to recognize its impact in its recommendations — the sentencing commission has enabled Congress’s inaction and allowed a racist policy to continue.

-Dippold

*Here is a Frequently Asked Questions List about crack, including the typical dosage.

Political Online Reputation

Court Says Current Currency Not Fair for Blind

A federal judge ruled yesterday that keeping all U.S. paper currency the same size and feel discriminates against blind people.

Judge James Robertson ordered the Treasury Department to come up with a way to tell the bills apart.

Robertson said the Rehabilitation Act -- a law prohibiting discrimination of people with disabilities in government programs -- is being violated.

He didn't say how to rectify the issue only that they begin working on the problem within 10 days. The American Council of the Blind -- bringers of the lawsuit -- have suggested using foil, holes, raised dots or ink, or printing different sized bills.

Scatablog would put up with the bill for the sake of the blind:

Every other country in the world has different sizes for different denominations. When I travel, I find that a bit of a pain, since I have a wallet that's just fine for U.S. bills but won't hold the larger foreign bills unless I fold them various ways. While I would be perfectly happy to put up with the inconvenience if it helps the blind, I suspect there will be a lot of guys (Rush Limbaugh comes to mind) who will object.

Anthony at Oh, the Humanity believes no changes ought be made:

Ok, I'm all for fairness, but really. C'mon. Do we really need to reprint, redesign, and reconfigure all of our monetary notes to favor the blind? I can understand if your the Republic of Totowannabee and have never had money before, so it's easy to design and print currency that is favorable to all social groups. Sure, you can create meat-free vegan style bills with braille bumps that are printed with organic hemp ink and quietly murmur the value of the bill. But, if you already have trillions of dollars in currency out in the public hands, it becomes a bit more of a hassle.Has anyone, including the idiot judge, considered how much it would cost to do this? Of course not. He handed down some arbitrary verdict based on a PC culture epidemic.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation