I am NOT Going to Talk About Michael Jackson

While a gazillion people wax poetic about how, in some alternate universe, Michael Jackson single-handedly broke down race barriers for entertainers, musicians, sports figures and children, there's some other pretty big shit going-down today:

President Obama visited Russia today. Nobody is apparently going to bomb anybody, and in fact, there will be further nucLEAR disarmament.

While meeting with some guarded success, American and Coalition troops are dying.

1,400 Chinese protestors were arrested this morning, with some Muslim Chinese expressing frustration over being treated as "second-class citizens." The Chinese government "took all the usual steps to enshrine its version of events as received wisdom: it crippled Internet service; blocked Twitter’s micro-blogs; purged search engines of unapproved references to the violence; saturated the Chinese media with the state-sanctioned story."

Mahmoud Ahmadalphabet says that the Iranian elections "were clean, fair and were the start of a new era." Please try to stifle laughter. The opposition is demanding the release of people taken into custody during the protests.

Siciliano's Market, a beer and homebrewing store in Grand Rapids, MI, made a big-time national blog today! I know ATK contributor Sopor is a big Siciliano's patron...

Just, you know, for some perspective that despite certain national days of mourning, Marines and soldiers are getting blown up, Obama is trying to make sure Putin doesn't slip a knife between his shoulder blades, 1,400 people are arrested and a State censors its own populations from the facts, a half-crazed dictator declares himself the winner of an election after beating and arresting anyone who said he wasn't, and a local beer supply shop makes big news!

Huh?

Resigning is no way to pad your resume Governor.





Discuss.

Sotomayor and the Ricci Case

The Supreme Court handed down a major decision a few days ago that pertains to Title VII and racial discrimination. The case, Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al., has been getting a lot of press. The case can be found here. It is a long one, at 93 pages, so I will forgive you if you don't read it. Scotusblog has one of the more objective views of the case and summarizes the main points and holdings. The Court has long held that any kind of race-based selection criteria will not be allowed unless there is a substantial amount of evidence that it is necessary to remedy a past discrimination. In applying this to the Ricci case, they said an employer may not refuse to hire or promote whites unless the criteria is skewed against minorities and they are at risk of being sued. In this case, the Court felt that the fire department did not meet this criteria.

Volokh has some good analyses here and here. The second article is especially interesting, in that it uses this case to refute the notion that the Roberts Court is pro-business. Another factor that has popped up is how this will influence the Sotomayor nomination. She was part of the 2nd Circuit Panel that was overturned by the Supreme Court. One complaint is that panel she was part of initially wanted to dispose of this case with an unpublished, unsigned summary order. Eventually, they settled on a one paragraph opinion. The fact that the Supreme Court had such a difficult time with this issue (in both the majority and dissenting opinions) suggests that it may not have been the no-brainer that Sotomayor's panel thought it was.

That being said, there are plenty of legal scholars that support her position and 4 of the liberal Justices agreed with her. She has not really surprised anyone here. I think her lack of analysis on this issue isn't good, but it doesn't rise to the level of a disqualification. It would be different if this was part of a pattern, but I don't think it is. Obama has the votes in the Senate to get this nomination through. Unless it is discovered that she has been taking trips with Gov. Sanford, I think it is inevitable that she will be on the Court.

27 Bottles of Beer

Local watering hole Crunchy's is committed to beer. Good beer.There was a time (and still sort of is) when you could buy cheap beer by the bucket at Crunchy's. I don't mean a "bucket of beer" like you get at those crappy mega-chain restaurants, which is a small bucket filled with ice and 6 or so bottles. That's not a Crunchy's-style bucket. A Crunchy's, you got a 3 gallon bucket filled with beer, and a couple of pitchers. Their rule was that you had to have at least 2 people in order to get a bucket of beer. A 3 gallon bucket of beer.

It was also only stuff like Busch or Bud Lite, but a bucket of Guinness would be prohibitively expensive. But lately, Crunchy's has lent over some of their taps and fridge space to great craft beer from around the country.

July has been declared Michigan Craft Beer Month in honor of Michigan's 75+ breweries. To celebrate, Crunchy's is doing something special. At 12:01 on July 1, Crunchy's is switching 27 taps over to Michigan beers. Apparently, their list will include:

Bell’s- Lager of the Lakes
Bell’s- Oberon
Bell’s- Pool side
Bell’s- Oarsman
Arcadia- Purple Haze
Arcadia- Hop Rocket
New Holland- Dragon’s Milk
New Holland- Golden Cap
Short’s- Huma-Lupa-Licious
Short’s-Magician
Dark Horse- Boffo Brown
Dark Horse- Double Crooked Tree
Dragon Mead- Final Absolution
Kuhnhenn Bothers- Simco Silly
Arbor-Milestone Porter
King- Mocha Java
Atwater- D-Light
Atwater- Dirty Blonde
Motor City- Ghettoblaster
Founder’s- Cerise
Founder’s- Double Trouble
MBC-
Hideout- Nitro Hazelnut Stout
Mt. Pleasant- Second Wind Wheat
Sherwood- Mistress Jades Hemp Ale
Black Lotus-
The Livery- The Jak
Firkin: The Livery- Double Hopped Maillot Jaune

On top of that, the Bells Poolside Cherry Wheat Ale and Oarsmen Sour Ale listed above are exclusive Bell's releases that were formerly only available at the brewery in Kalamazoo.

It is so vitally important for Michigan pubs to carry Michigan beer; many of these breweries can't compete with shelf space in stores against BudMillerCoors or InBev, and more don't even try. So when popular bars like Crunchy's highlight Michigan beer, a whole new audience gets to experience great craft beer.

On June 30/July 1, I know where I'll be parked.

Nerds Versus Jocks

If you didn't see it, Author/Actor/Humorist John Hodgman gave the keynote address at Friday night’s Radio & Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner. He used it as a forum to discuss the age-old conflict: that between jocks and nerds.

As much as I like to think of myself as a jock...I understood way too many of Hodgman's references. Oh well.

Part 1:
And part 2:I love Hodgman. I think he's one of The Daily Show's funniest commentators. He has also written two of the funniest books I've read: The Areas of My Expertise and More Information Than You Require. He's appeared numerous times on NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me as well as on general interviews. It's unfortunate that most people only know him for his PC/Mac commercials.

And don't be shy. Admit it: you get all his references. Nerd.

A Small 2nd Amendment Victory

A federal court in Utah issued a ruling that is mostly favorable to the 2nd and will hopefully be followed by other courts. The Volokh article gives a good, detailed explanation, but I will try to summarize it. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of any kind of domestic assault from ever possessing a firearm. In this case, the defendant, following a "domestic dispute", was charged with violating this law. It is important to note that, while not a sterling character, he had no history of violence with a gun, nor was there any evidence that he ever even fired his gun.

The court said a few important things:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That right may only be infringed when the restriction is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

Basically, they said that a law that deals with the 2nd triggers strict scrutiny. This has not been the case up until now. They also said:

If you find that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the charge against him, as set forth in Jury Instruction Number ____, regarding Count I, you are instructed that Defendant is presumed to pose a prospective risk of violence. However, Defendant is entitled to offer evidence to rebut that presumption and show that he did not pose a prospective risk of violence. It is the burden of the Defendant to prove to you, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he did not pose a prospective risk of violence.

This is part of what they said would be part of the jury instructions. They will allow the defendant to use this non-risk of violence as an affirmative defense. In other words, if the defendant is able to show that he is not at risk for hariming someone with a gun, then he will be found not guilty of violating the gun possession law. Without this, if he is found (beyond a reasonable doubt) of possessing a gun, he would be guilty.

I think this is a reasonable rule. At first glance, it is hard to argue that domestic abusers should be allowed to have guns, but that rule isn't always far and people should be allowed to challenge it under certain conditions. Let's say that a 19 year old is convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), they would never be allowed to ever legally possess a gun. It doesn't matter what kind of life they have lived or how much time has elapsed. It is a lifetime ban. People should be offered some mechanism to challenge the ban and show that they are no longer dangerous.

Free Iran

Discuss.