While Wisconsin's new laws may be benefiting super-shitty beer-maker MillerCoors in Wisconisn, the State Government shutdown in Minnesota is screwing them.
CNNMoney reports that because the company was not able to renew their brand registration before the state shutdown, they cannot sell their product.
Ahhhh Karma.
Here's another fine example of mockery being the best defense against the idiots.
In Tennessee, state lawmakers want to prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality in the classroom. Somehow, if you don't talk about gay, then nobody will be gay.
As only he can, George Takei has a solution:
It's OK to be Takei.
Sorry I haven't been much of an active participant in recent months, but my first year of law school took up some time (as did my Mahjongg group and book club). Several people have asked me what I've learned thus far, and I can sum it up like this: the law is a clusterf*ck. For a case in point, I offer you the following scenario.
It's a Monday, and you're hung over. You think about going to work... but it's gonna be a slow day in the office, there's a House marathon on cable, and you could really use a haircut. So you call your boss and tell him that you've got the flu, and you tell him you'll be in tomorrow if you're feeling better.
Congratulations, you've just committed wire fraud.
That's right; your actions constitute a federal offense. You are now liable for large fines and a long, long prison term in a Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison. Tell Roger Clemens we said 'hi.'
Under 18 U.S.C. 1343, wire fraud is defined as the use of a phone (or the internet, fax machine, or pretty much any form of communication invented after the Pony Express) to create a scheme to defraud someone of 'stuff'. Section 1346 clarifies that part of 'stuff' includes the "intangible right of honest services." Ipso facto, presto changeo: a federal crime that is defined as being dishonest to someone to whom you shouldn't be dishonest.
It used to be that Honest Services fraud (which can be of the mail or wire variety) was only used to nail elected officials who sold out their constituents. Think Rod Blagojevich. But in the last decade, things have really picked up for honest services fraud in the private sector. You may remember a little company called "Enron" that had some troubles back in the day. Jeff Skilling, former CEO, is in jail for Honest Services fraud. So are at least a half-dozen of other corporate execs, and hundreds of other private-sector individuals.
The problem is that there is no definition of "honest services" in the statute, nor is it clear to whom the duty is owed. In theory, anyone who lies to his employer has committed fraud, even if (a)the employer is not financially harmed, (b) the employer does not find out about it, or (c) the employee does it to help the company. It's gotten so bad that last year, Antonin Scalia issued a blistering dissent to the refusal to grant cert to review an honest services conviction, claiming that the law was out of control.
Last month, the high court agreed to hear the appeal of Conrad Black to review the scope of the law. Conrad Black, though generally an almost Dickensianly dickish character, was thrown in jail for recieving payments (to which he was legally entitled) from one of his companies in a form that allowed him to minimize his Canadian tax liability. This did not violate Canadian tax law, and the payments were upheld as justified. But the fact that he didn't tell the company WHY he wanted the payments to be labeled a certain way sent the guy to jail for three to five years.
For a quick summary, I suggest you read this article on the topic. I'll be working on the issue for a good portion of the summer with a professor here. In the mean time... I suggest you refrain from pissing off your boss.
My six year old's three favorite words seem to be, "that's not fair." This follows some injustice, real or perceived. As tempting as it is to respond with, "life's not fair," I really try to explain why it is fair or why the unfairness is occuring. In some cases, the unfairness sucks and there really isn't a good solution.
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 and existed in various forms up until 1987. Basically, it requires radio and television stations to present both sides of "controversial" issues, but does not specify how this should be done. Prior to the last election, there was some interest in bringing this back in response to conservative dominance of talk-radio. There didn't seem to be a lot of support, but conservatives were up in arms about it and were convinced that Obama would push for it's return.
I thought this was a dead issue, but apparently Debbie Stabenow is working to have it brought back in some form. I have never been a huge fan of Debbie. She has never impressed me as someone that is really interested in working hard for Michigan. If this is the kind of legislation we can expect from her, I prefer she goes back to doing nothing. I should also note that Stabenow's husband (next to her in the picture) is a co-founder of TalkUSA, a left-leaning radio network. The Fairness Doctrine could certainly benefit him financially, so this may be a conflict of interest. I should also note that Obama has stated that he opposes the Fairess Doctrine.
The problems I have with the Fairness Doctrine are many, but I will just throw out a few.
--Who decides what issues are controversial and deserving of an opposing viewpoint?
--Who gets to provide the opposing viewpoint?
--How do they present their view?
--What mechanism will be in place to make decisions and how can someone or some group appeal that decision?
The other big problem is that, under current case law, content based restrictions on speech are generally not going to be allowed. I don't see how this will survive under the Constitution.
This issue begs the question...is this really a problem that Congress (or the FCC) needs to look at? Yes, the media is biased. I think you would be hard pressed to find many places that seriously look at both sides of an issue. Personally, I think people should look at both sides, but most people tend to gravitate towards news and information that they agree with. While conservatives certainly have a strong hold on talk-radio, the same can't be said of all sources of information. Television and the Internet are very well represented of all points of views. This is most true with the Internet, where you can find an outlet for any belief and viewpoint.
Do we really want the gov't regulating what is presented to us by the media?
© Blogger template On The Road by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009
Back to TOP
