posts to days old
of topics
with text


m (8 Feb 2006 15:25): Linked from Lessig, this is a pretty great read.
Paul (1 Apr 2006 7:04): If you haven't already heard of the massive pro-immigrant rallies slated for April 10, please learn about them and tell all your friends. The media reported over 500k present at rallies in LA last week, and this seems to be the hour for the cause.
Paul (10 Apr 2006 14:01): Protests well underway...
Paul (12 Apr 2006 7:28): I'd never seen a good example of begging the question until I read wingnut answers to the question: Should more immigration be legal?
"Most immigration today is illegal," they explain, "and illegal things are usually bad. Therefore most immigration today is bad, and should be outlawed."
m (6 May 2006 10:26): wait -- was that 'wall across four states' thing the House wanted for real?
Paul (8 May 2006 6:10): Yes (sec. 1002), but nobody was paying attention to it, because a spooky wall seems benign in comparison with suddenly making 10M felons. When the Senate almost passed a generally more merciful bill, they kept the wall, but then the bill didn't pass anyway. It's pretty dumb, right, like, *I* didn't have to do anything special to get citizenship, so why should someone else? We will see...
Paul (26 May 2006 6:01): I saw this picture on nytimes front page, and I thought, "hey, maybe they're defying Bush and showing dead soldiers," until I read the caption, indicating they're Iraqi civilians. However, to people who care more about dead Americans, I would point out that this is very much what dead American soldiers look like. Just imagine 409 copies of this image, with coffins draped in US flags. For people who care about dead Iraqis, imagine 5000 to 15000+ copies of this image.
m (23 Jun 2006 13:32): Haditha. Whoah.
R (17 Jun 2007 20:53): Single-link Youtube, but... Incarcerex. Reminds me a bit of the old .mov I had of a robot arrested for possession of LSD-laced lug nuts. Filename, plz?
G (18 Jun 2007 1:08): You mean LITTLE BROTHER GETS BUSTED?
(18 Jun 2007 1:09): Er, and the link:
G (21 Jun 2007 9:02): So, Nanking. :/
m (25 Jun 2007 17:10): I feel the need to periodically link Larry Lessig. He's good.
Paul (26 Jun 2007 5:26): (working version of link)
DK (28 Jun 2007 1:06): Paul,

Are you in mexico now?

Paul (21 Aug 2008 12:10): Can a convenience store refuse to serve children in general, on the basis that their parents might come back to dispute sales or prices? The best answer I've found is inconclusive...
G (21 Aug 2008 18:10): My guess is that the answer is "Effectively Yes," or maybe "Probably."

Effectively Yes, because they do not have to tell you why they do not want to serve you. They can simply say that they do not want to, or do not feel comfortable doing so. At that point, if you believe that it is discrimination, you will have to prove why they chose not to serve you in court. Good luck with that.

Probably, because of this section that you linked to: "It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents or members of the clergy, in order to attract their business."

But not definitely, because other laws and local laws might apply.
G (21 Aug 2008 18:11): Oh, man, I didn't even read that section I quoted. Haha. So, uh, let me change my answer to "Effectively Yes" and "Maybe Not Technically."
G (21 Aug 2008 18:18): I just got my alcohol-serving permit thing, and had to sit through a two-hour talk on stuff like this, although obviously the age thing didn't come up. A potentially similar case was, however: serving alcohol to pregnant women. It's probably illegal to not serve them because they're pregnant. It's potentially a liability if they claim they didn't know that alcohol is harmful to developing children (wtf). Double points because it can be very awkward to ask a woman if she is pregnant and because I guess no court case involving it has reached completion in the state of Washington, so there's no actual precedent. He said that for legal cover-your-ass-itude, your best bet is always to just refuse service and never give a real reason. Airtight.
G (21 Aug 2008 18:24): But I guess that doesn't work if you don't ever sell to minors, or if you want to keep them from coming in, or want to post your policy.

I don't know.
m (22 Aug 2008 19:42): This is a great list: "Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals or Republicans, solely because of who they were."
Paul (22 May 2010 12:49): Before my birth, I worked long and hard to become a natural-born US citizen. Clearly my effort and sacrifices to be born here deserve to be rewarded. Now we see people who carelessly went and got born somewhere else, and they make some slapdash trip moseying across a desert. They don't deserve any human treatment; they haven't worked hard for it like I did.
m (1 Jul 2010 8:25): "It's perfectly fine to use the name of your pet or child as a password. However, for the sake of security, make sure the names of all your pets and children contain several non-alphanumeric characters."
G (2 Jul 2010 10:10): American People Ruled Unfit To Govern
Paul (7 May 2011 12:40): Retweet: EFF says Why we need an open wireless movement
G (7 May 2011 14:06): wats a tweet
m (10 Oct 2011 10:51): What?! No way!
R (3 Jul 2016 6:54): Happy (early) 4th of July!
Paul (11 Jul 2016 3:58): Worth reading: on "whiteness" ... also, why police are or aren't accorded authority in different racial contexts
Paul (12 Jul 2016 21:33): Also: tears and the audacity of disrespect
Paul (13 Jul 2016 15:30): Also, a law professor's response to anonymous student(s)' complaint about his Black Lives Matter shirt
m (4 Aug 2016 18:29): Dex is this your doing?

In view of the City's commitment to public health, safety and basic common sense, we will not issue permits for block party dumpster pools.
m (26 Sep 2016 11:06): Oh, Julian Assange
"The American liberal press, in falling over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton, are erecting a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone's necks as soon as she wins the election, which is almost certainly what she's going to do,"