December 2009

You are browsing the site archives for December 2009.

I like to end each year with a review of some of the things I’ve been posting about. I don’t know if any of you care, but it’s always interesting to me to see where I’ve been. This year I expected the pickings to be pretty slim because of all the turmoil surrounding and following my parents’ passing, but it turns out I wrote quite a bit.

In fact, here at Windypundit, 2009 was the year in which

See you all in the new year!

I’ve decided to steal an idea from Gideon and write a quick list of things I learned in the last decade:

  • I learned to ignore people who say the decade/century/millenium has one more year to go because there was no year zero.
  • I learned that terrorism in the United States is a more real threat than I thought it was.
  • I learned that just because the people opposing the president are idiots doesn’t make them completely wrong about him.
  • I learned that occupying a country to change its form of government is a very long-term project.
  • I learned how to start and run a one-man corporation.
  • I learned that working from home makes me gain weight.
  • I learned that some take my blogging seriously and appreciate what I’m saying.
  • I learned how to take a pretty good photograph.
  • I learned that taking road trips with cell phones, a mapping GPS system, and wireless internet is a whole different experience from when I was a kid.
  • I learned that it pays to buy an insulated delivery bag so the pizza stays hot when you bring it home.
  • I learned that a DVR and multiple sources of downloadable video make television in to a completely different experience.
  • I learned to program with
  • The .NET Framework
  • Windows Forms
  • Windows Communication Foundation
  • PHP
  • CSS
  • JavaScript
  • AJAX
  • YUI
  • Procedural SQL
  • Movable Type
  • Drupal
  • TikiWiki
  • NUnit
  • I learned the incredible value of having medical and financial powers of attorney for my parents.
  • Back in 2007, author Mark Helprin wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he bemoaned the lack of a permanent copyright. I responded to it, as did rather a lot of other people. In my response, I called part of his argument “pure nonsense, bordering on outright lies.”

    Apparently, many other people used far harsher language, because Helprin later wrote a book (Digital Barbarism: A Writer’s Manifesto) in which he spent some of the second chapter complaining about the response:

    It is not merely training that has unleashed this keypeck ferocity, but also changes in certain fundamental conditions. In the electronic media’s dissolution of barriers—time, space, isolation—and in the vast expansion of received (or, at least, receivable) information, we have become in proportion infinitely smaller. Were you to have lived next door to Ethan Frome in Starkfield, Massachusetts, at the turn of the last century you would have been one of only a few hundred… You would not have felt as if you were merely one in six-and-a-half or seven billion. Now, as mere atoms amidst this mass, the damage we can do is by comparison so much less that rage counts for nothing but a cry to be heard—even if the from a protective and cowardly anonymity. Were anyone to have behaved in such a way…on the real commons of a New England village even as it existed in my youth and young-manhood, he would have been immediately brought up short, if not committed or jailed. In the new “commons,” brutishness and barbarism are accepted…

    More recently, Scott Greenfield writes:

    I recently had an email exchange with a lawprof who felt deeply hurt by things that were written about his ideas.  He informed me that they were too harsh, too rough, too disrespectful.  Ironically, he wasn’t referring to things I had written.  He was on the verge of giving up blawging, finding it too vulgar for his sensibilities.

    These are not the first and second times I’ve heard this sort of complaint about the blogosphere. The pattern is pretty common: A person with some degree of fame or authority—an author, an politician, a movie star, or even a law professor—checks what the folks on the internet are saying about them and is shocked to discover that people are saying terrible things.

    Sometimes, like Helprin, they try to come up with an explanation as to why people are being so rude. Often this is tied up in their personal agenda so, for example, some feminists conclude that the blogosphere is a boys club that resents women. Similarly, a lot of professional journalists and pundits have concluded that the blogosphere is filled with amateurs that have no standards.

    I have a simple explanation of my own for the authors and politicians and pundits who are shocked by the style of the blogosphere: The people you’re hearing from have always been out here, and we’ve always talked that way. The difference—the only difference, I think—is that now you know about it.

    People have been discussing Mark Helprin’s books for as long as he’s been writing, but they’ve been discussing them in private, in coffee houses and classrooms and book clubs, so he’s never heard what they sound like. They sound like the blogosphere.

    The same goes for you pundits and politicians out there: Sometimes we think you’re stupid, and we say so. We use harsh language and violent imagery. This is how people have always talked about you around the water cooler at work, over dinner at home, and in the barrooms afterward.

    The point is, the blogosphere isn’t some new rude horror. People have always been this way. All that’s changed is that those of you who hold the stage can now hear the hecklers a little better. The heckling itself is no worse than before.

    I saw Avatar yesterday, and it was a pretty darned good movie. If you think you might like this kind of thing, just go see it.

    As with James Cameron’s earlier film Titanic, the star of this film is the magnificent setting and the way it is presented. The lush world of Pandora is beautiful, the CGI that creates the aliens is every bit as good as everyone else says, and the 3D unobtrusively helps you understand the the complex action in the forest scenery.

    The characters and the plot are simple and relatively straightforward. For some reason, this bothers some people. They point to the thin characterization and simple plot as if it were some kind of terrible failing, and they’re proud of themselves for having seen past the special effects, which is a silly attitude. Seeing past the special effects in Avatar is like seeing past the songs in Rent.

    Another thing that bothers some people about Avatar is the politics of it all. For example, here’s Peter Suderman at Reason’s Hit & Run blog:

    And the Na’vi, the movie’s marble-skinned alien natives, are easily the most convincing humanoids ever to leap forth from a Hollywood effects house’s CGI server-farm — that is, at least in terms of the way they look and move. The realism stops, however, every time they open their mouths and reveal themselves to be crude, one-dimensional native stereotypes: instinctive and animalistic purveyors of cheap mysticism and nature worship. 

    So despite its genuinely impressive technical innovations, Avatar isn’t much a movie: Instead, Cameron’s cooked up a derivative, overlong pastiche of anti-corporate clichés and quasi-mystical eco-nonsense. It’s not that the film’s politics make it bad, it’s that even if you agree, the nearly three-hour onslaught of simplistic moralizing leaves no room for interesting twists or ambiguity in the story or characters: corporations are bad, scientists are good, natives are pure, harmony with nature is the ultimate ideal…

    Good grief. A “three-hour onslaught of simplistic moralizing”? There’s maybe three minutes of political content scattered throughout the whole movie. Admittedly, some of it is pretty clunky—references to pre-emptive strikes, shock and awe, and fighting terror with terror—but it all goes by in a few seconds. Maybe James Cameron was trying to send me a message, but so what? I was busy enjoying the rest of the movie.

    I think Suderman must have gone into this movie with an attitude, because he sure missed a lot. For one thing, the native people’s connection to nature isn’t just some kind of “cheap mysticism” or “quasi-mystical eco-nonsense.” The Na’vi are connected to nature for a reason. Anybody who’s familiar with science fiction literature will see it coming, but it’s also spelled out quite clearly in the movie.

    Also, Suderman and other right-wing critics seem to miss the rather important fact that the bad guys are stealing from the natives and destroying the places where they live, just like any corporation using eminent domain to take someone’s land. A libertarian shouldn’t have any problem with the natives trying to prevent that.

    On the other hand, Roger Ebert says it has an anti-war message, apparently missing the fact that the Na’vi good guys have plenty of weapons and don’t mind fighting back.

    I’m not saying Avatar is pro-war and pro-property rights, but neither is it about anti-corporate mystical eco-nonsense. It’s about these people on this planet, and some of them are human and some of them are alien, and…really, it’s a big special effects movie. Just go see it and have fun.

    In the spirit of a holiday named after a wise Jew from the (middle) east, I think it’s only fair to direct you to Simple Justice, where Scott Greenfield has posted a heartfelt thanks for all his fellow blawgers:

    Blawgers give of their time, their thoughts, their talents to write.  In return, they are told how ignorant and stupid they are by people they don’t know.  They are stalked and threatened with physical harm by actual psychotics with keyboards.  Why would anyone put up with such abuse?  Yet they do, and continue to write.

    Aw, Scott, it’s not that bad. I’ve never met most of the people I blog about, and I call them ignorant and stupid all the time. It’s only fair that people say the same thing about me.

    Besides, it’s not like they’re going to get a way with it. I’m making a list and checking it twice, if you know what I mean. Someday, everyone’s gonna get theirs who’s got it coming.

    But not today, because, you know,


    Peace On Earth, Good Will Toward Men.


    The vitriol and derision will return tomorrow.

    I’ve been reading How to Stop a Stalker by Mike Proctor, a former detective in Westminster, California.

    I’m fascinated by some aspects of forensic psychology, so I was hoping the book would discuss the psychology of stalkers and how to discourage them. However, Proctor’s book is more about how stalking is defined as a crime and how police handle it. There are several chapters on personal safety and security gear, but none of that is specific to stalking. This book just wasn’t about what I thought it would be about.

    Some of Proctor’s policework is a little disconcerting. It’s not that he’s doing anything illegal or even unethical, but I’m used to thinking about police activity in the context of victimless crimes, where pretty much everything police do is wrong. So when proctor describes searching a stalker’s house, I feel uncomfortable, even though I know that stalkers are real criminals.

    Actually, I should clarify: The stalkers Proctor talks about are all clearly criminals, but I’m a bit less certain that everyone prosecuted under the anti-stalking laws was as bad as these guys. I mean, human behavior didn’t suddenly change in 1990, so why did we suddenly have all these laws against stalking? It has the smell of a moral panic, like satanic ritual abuse or sexting, and nothing good ever comes from that.

    Part of what worries me is that anti-stalking laws seem like an attempt to punish stalkers for the implied threat of their conduct rather that for their actual conduct. As long as the implied threat is an intended threat (i.e. the threat does not exist only in the minds of the victim and the police) that seems like a legitimate reason for punishment, but I suspect there’s room for abuse.

    Proctor tells the stories of several terrible stalking incidents. Actually, “incident” is the wrong word. Being pursued by a serious stalker is like being in a low-intensity war. It drags on for years, and you never know when something bad is going to happen.

    What’s amazing to me is how ineffective the police seem to be. Here you have a guy harassing someone, making threats, breaking into their house, vandalizing their car, and it goes on for years without the stalker receiving any punishment. Yet somehow the police find the time to arrest a guy for being naked in his own home.

    Although I didn’t get what I was looking for from this book, I did find a few passages in Proctor’s description of how a stalking trial works that will amuse or infuriate some of my readers:

    Once the defense counsel has gathered up the entire discovery information and has made at least a brief review, she may go to the presiding judge and ask for what she feels is a reasonable disposition to resolve the case—in other words, what it will take to close out the case. The judge then reviews the facts of the case and gives the defense attorney an ideas as to whether probation will be appropriate in the case, or, if a jail sentence is warranted, the approximate length of the sentence. The defense counsel then discusses this information with the defendant, who can either accept or deny the offered sentence. (That is, what the district attorney and the defense have agreed is a reasonable sentence.) Sometimes, though not often, the defense attorney may push for his client to plead guilty to the charges, but his client may fail to cooperate. This is known in the trade as a “lack of client control.” In this situation, the defense counsel is forced to go to trial.

    Yes, because the client’s stubborn insistence is the only reason a defense lawyer would ever go to trial. Maybe Proctor is just so good that he’s never given a D.A. a weak case.

    After the prosecuting attorney is finished with his questions, the defense counsel gets a turn. It is the defense counsel’s job to make sure none of his client’s rights are violated, and to defened the client against the charges, if possible. Unfortunately, it is our opinion that too many defense attorneys attempt to liberate their clients by clouding the issues. This is accomplished by trying to put words in your mouth, back you into a corner, or make you look confused and unsure of yourself. This is usually done in an effort to sway the jury into wonderin whether you are sure of the facts of the case. It may not be right, but perception planse a definite rols in a trial setting. If the jury thinks you are lying or confused, it will cause problems for the prosecution. In all fairness, we do know defense attorneys who actually do what they are supposed to do, that is, defend their client in a true and just manner, but it has been our experience that these individuals individuals are few and far between.

     I sure hope that’s true if I ever need a defense lawyer.

    Radley Balko bids farewell to Kern County California D.A. Ed Jagels:

    You’d be hard pressed to find a law enforcement official anywhere in the country who better embodies the worst excesses of America’s sharp turn toward law-and-order crime policy over last 30 years. From expanding the death penalty to eroding the rights of the accused to jacking up prison populations to formulating crime policy around sports metaphors, Jagels created a high-profile position by backing just about every bad crime policy in a generation.

    But if history dispenses justice more honorably than Ed Jagels ever did, the boyish-looking D.A. will be most remembered for his role ruining countless lives in perhaps the most shameful of the Reagan-era “tough on crime” debacles: the coast-to-coast sex abuse panic of the 1980s.

    It’s because of prosecutors like Jagels—and while few are as successful as Jagels, many are trying—that I don’t automatically assume the prosecutors are the good guys. From Radley’s account, Jagels was a cancer on the California justice system. Yet unlike cancer, he was encouraged to thrive and grow by other people in the system.

    Nobody ever held him responsible. Kern county residents paid out millions in settlements for his errors, but Jagels himself escaped scott free. He’s advising one of next year’s candidates for governor.

    South Carolina criminal defense lawyer Bobby Frederick has an excellent example today of the scourge of profitable punishment:

    Law enforcement agencies receive grants based on the number of DUI arrests they make – if the number of arrests goes down, they are in danger of losing that money. Law enforcement officers are given awards for the number of DUI arrests they make (arrests – not convictions), which encourages them to make as many DUI arrests as they can in order to gain recognition.

    He also refers us to a great explanation from Lawrence Taylor of what MADD is really all about.

    At some point, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio decided that the rules no longer applied to him. He and his deputies had all the guns, so why couldn’t they do whatever they want? If those guys in Somalia and Afganistan could become warlords, why couldn’t he do it right here in America?

    I think it must have started years ago, back when I first heard about Apaio. He was billing himself as “the toughest sheriff in America.” If you don’t already know, try to imagine what he must have done to claim that. Did he break up a bank robbery single-handed? Infiltrate a drug gang? Clean out corruption in his own department? Bust an organize crime syndicate?

    No, nothing like that. He’s tough on the prisoners in his jail. They don’t get goodies like coffee or cigarettes or porno mags, they have very limited television viewing, and they spend a lot of time in chain gangs. And they eat very cheap food. Also, he makes them all wear pink underwear. Basically, he makes things very hard on a bunch of people who are powerless.

    That’s not tough. That’s being a bully. A sadistic, hateful bully. (And one of the few Americans ever investigated by Amnesty International.)

    I’d forgotten about Arpaio, but it appears that his hunger to control people has continued to grow. I noticed him again a few years ago when he arrested the owners of a Phoenix newspaper for publishing a story he didn’t like, and tried to force them to reveal information about their readers.

    That’s almost unheard of in this country. Thanks to the First Amendment, journalists have a lot of legal protection. They routinely investigate and publish personal scandals, corporate trade secrets, and national security information without repercussions. The few exceptions are so rare that they have become the subjects of books and movies. Arresting journalists is the kind of crap they pull in third-world dictatorships.

    Which is, I think, what Sheriff Joe Arpaio is trying to build for himself. He’s spent many years as absolute ruler over the people in his prisons, and he now thinks that’s a fine model for his relationship to the rest of the county as well. His deputies are his own personal army, and he’s the Warlord of Maricopa County.

    Arpaio’s latest trick is right out of the dictator play book: He’s trying to arrest a judge who ruled against him. The county attorney filing the charges, Andrew Thomas, was also involved in arresting the reporters.

    Somehow all of this is escaping the attention of the national media. Do they not realize that Maricopa County is having a constitutional crisis? Do they not understand? Are they too busy covering Tiger Woods’ personal life? It boggles the mind that all this is going on and it’s not front page news.

    If any of you are interested, however, Mark Bennett has collected a lot more information about this story.

    The good news is that Joe Arpaio will probably not be Sheriff of Maricopa County for much longer. The bad news is that’s because he’s currently leading the polls for the Arizona Governor’s race.

    What are the chances he will try to arrest the other candidates?

    Update: Via Josh King in the comments at Simple Justice, here’s a new summary of what Arpaio’s been up to.

    Yet another reason to get rid if the INS:

    When Jordan Peimer booked an Argentine band that fuses Jewish Klezmer music with tango, he thought he had the perfect act to headline his “Fiesta Hanukkah” concert.

    That was before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services weighed in with some cultural commentary of its own. The band couldn’t travel to the U.S., the agency ruled, because it didn’t satisfy a “culturally unique” requirement for a performer visa called P-3.

    Yeah, government bureaucrats deciding which forms of art we should enjoy. That’s what every great country needs.

    It’s time to make the INS into a small agency that just processes the immigration paperwork.

    For those who were wondering, yes, I did notice that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has changed its name, just like a criminal hoping not to be connected to prior crimes. I wasn’t fooled.

    (Hat tip: Jesse Walker)


     I am a big fan of Bonnie’s and have met her on two occasions and she couldn’t be nicer.  I’ve had a huge crush on her since I met her in Woolworth’s in 1991.   I just read that The Bonnie Hunt Show “is not expected to continue” for a third season.

    Bonnie Hunt!”isThen it dawned on me – “Hey! This   She turned and I thought, “Wow, she even looks like Bonnie Hunt!”  I saw a woman from behind and thought, “That woman has gorgeous blond hair just like Bonnie Hunt.

    Bonnie’s back was to me as she was going through a stack of welcome mats.  I waited for the woman to leave and came around the corner.  I don’t work here.”  I’m sorry.  Or so I thought. I slipped into the next aisle and overheard Bonnie say to the woman very apologetically, “I don’t know.  I thought I had missed my chance when this woman recognized her, too.  She went down an aisle and as I tried to get up the courage to speak to her, an elderly woman beat me to it.

      “Excuse me,” I said.

    Without looking up, she replied, “No, I’m sorry, I don’t work here.”

    She was very gracious, never making me feel as if I was intruding on her time or bothering her in any way (which was my fear).  for the chance to work with her idol, Jonathan Winters.Davis Rules to take a job on Home Improvement and how she turned down the role of the wife on GrandWe talked for about 5 minutes or so about her recently cancelled series   I chuckled nervously and said, “I know who you are.” And I proceeded to list her recent credits in an effort to prove it.

    That being said, if I have to be honest, I’m not surprised her talk show will likely be coming to an end. If she was only half as engaging and funny hosting her own show as she is when she is a guest on other talk shows, she’d be renewed in a heartbeat.

    . I would tape and repeatedly watch these appearances with Tom and Dave and laugh harder each time. I don’t know why that didn’t translate into her own show.  I imagine it’s very difficult hosting a show, and to her credit, she always seems to treat her guests well, making them feel at home.  But it seems that the pressures of being a good hostess and producing, writing and starring on a daily talk show have squelched her wonderful talent.David Letterman.) She’s always a hilarious joy to watch when she’s on Return to Me with the late Tom Snyder.  They had a fantastic ease and a chemistry together. (I got to tell her this the second time I met her at a screening of Late, Late ShowTelevision was never better than when she was a guest on the

    Until then, I’ll watch for her on Dave.   I wish her the best and I’d love for her to finally get the breakout sitcom or movie roll along with the audience she deserves.  It’s pleasant and often amusing, but not enough to turn me into a regular viewer.  I really wanted to love her show, but I’ve only caught it a handful of times.

    I hate it when movie theaters put a message on the screen where they threaten to prosecute us for using a recording device. I understand they want to prevent people from copying movies, and I don’t plan on any bootlegging, but I don’t like doing business with places that treat me like a criminal.

    Since a taping incident doesn’t hurt a theater directly very much, I wondered if the message was just a requirement passed along from the distributor. Or were they really serious?

    At the Muvico theater in Rosemont, Illinois, they’re apparently serious about it. Viciously and stupidly serious, as 22-year old Samantha Tumpach found out last weekend:

    Taping three minutes of “Twilight: New Moon” during a visit to a Rosemont movie theater landed Samantha Tumpach in a jail cell for two nights.

    Now, the 22-year-old Chicago woman faces up to three years in prison after being charged with a rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.

    But Tumpach insisted Wednesday that’s not what she was doing — she was actually taping parts of her sister’s surprise birthday party celebrated at the Muvico Theater in Rosemont.

    Managers contacted police, who examined the small digital camera, which also records video segments, Cmdr. Frank Siciliano said. Officers found that Tumpach had taped “two very short segments” of the movie — no more than four minutes total, he said.

    Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges, he said.

    I understand the need to protect intellectual property, but this is ridiculous. Copyright is usually a matter of civil law, so taking it to the level of felony criminal charges should only be necessary to punish blatant piracy of intellectual property such as a DVD forgery operation.

    It’s also pretty asinine of the theater management to press charges in a case like this. I’m guessing that Ms Tumpach and her friends won’t spending any more money at Muvico in Rosemont. Neither will lots of other people If this story gets around.

    FYI, here’s the Muvico contact page.

    (Hat tip: Consumerist via Balko)

    Update: Here’s my email to Muvico:

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I’ve always been disturbed by the now-common warnings against using a recording device in theaters. I understand why recording is wrong, but I don’t appreciate spending good money in your establishment for tickets and snacks, and then being treated like a potential criminal.

    Now I read in the Chicago Sun-Times that the Muvico I go to in Rosemont is pressing charges against a young lady for recording  a few minutes of the latest Twilight movie while playing around with a cheap little camera. That’s just crazy. Your theater manager has no sense of proportion—What’s next? Prosecuting customers for littering if they don’t throw away their empty popcorn buckets?

    I guess he (or she) also has no sense of the value of customers to the theater business. There are lots of other theater choices in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. I don’t have to go to Muvico, and I don’t think I will.

    — Mark Draughn