Firefighters who want to live in high-priced cities can work two jobs, said W. Michael Cox, chief economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “I think it’s great,” he said. “It gives you portfolio diversification in your income.”
[NYT 7/23] Words fail me. Actually, polite words fail me.
Despite being firmly warned to not post on blogs this week but to focus on my deadline, I found this too delicious to not post:
On July 13, 2006, Kent Hovind was arrested and indicted in federal court on 58 charges. Of the charges filed, there is one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws, including falsifying bankruptcy documents, filing a false and frivolous lawsuit and complaints against the IRS, destroying records, and threatening to harm IRS investigators. 12 of the charges are for failing to pay employee-related taxes, totaling $473,818, and 45 charges of evading reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (smurfing). The withdrawals, totaling $430,500, were placed in 2001 and 2002.
Hovind has maintained his innocence. “I still don’t understand what I’m being charged for and who is charging me,” he said.  Magistrate Miles Davis asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded “To some degree”. Davis replied that the government adequately explained the allegations and the defendant understands the charges “whether you want to admit it or not.” A September 5 trial date has been set for Kent Hovind and his co-defendant wife, Jo, who faces 44 charges. Hovind stated that he did not recognize the government’s right to try him on tax-fraud charges and entered a not guilty plea “under duress” when the judge offered to enter a plea for him.
Alas it’s a forward of a forward so I don’t have the original cite. (update: apparently it’s from the latest updates to the wikipedia entry on Hovind)
[editorial summary: Copyright infringement is bad, intellectual property is good, yadda yadda.] But what the entertainment industry is seeking in this year’s proposals isn’t merely protection from piracy; it’s after increased leverage to protect its business models.
That’s why lawmakers must bear in mind the balance needed between copyright holders’ interests and the public’s, something Congress has not done well lately. In 1998, it gave copyright holders broad power to block legitimate uses of works, even those in the public domain, through the use of electronic locks that impede copying of digital products. And that same year, it prolonged the public domain’s starvation diet by extending copyrights an additional 20 years, to 70 years beyond the death of the creator.
As they weigh the entertainment industry’s pleas, lawmakers shouldn’t assume all consumers are bootleggers and every digital device is a hand grenade aimed at Hollywood.
I really ought to read the LAT more often, because this seems pretty sensible.
I’ll be cross-posting my derivative work material to Sivacracy now. I feel particularly honored to be blogging along with Siva & Ann Bartow, who have both been out on the front lines for a long while, pointing out injustices, stupidities, and wrong directions.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m an information activist: a former librarian and media activist who was driven to become a lawyer by the craziness of copyright law, particularly, and IP, privacy, telecomm, and speech broadly. I’m working this year at the NYU Brennan Center for Justice with Marjorie Heins, developing a fair use network. I’m passionate about individual autonomy and assessing/fighting the forces that impact it: economic injustice, state coercion, & cultural practices like religion, sexism, and racism. That sounds dorky enough, but I’ll up the ante by adding that I’m also an old-school geek of the science fiction, books, & computer type, so occasionally I burst forth with fannish squees over, for instance, a new Joss Whedon or pirate movie. Followed immediately by sober analyses of its racialized dynamics and inappropriate uses of the terms “piracy”, “theft”, “stealing” and stolen-lawnmower analogies, I promise.
NY’s Court of Appeals just handed down its no-same-sex-marriage decision, holding that denying marriage licenses on the basis of gender to same-sex partners does not violate New York’s Constitution. In my opinion, this is a big setback for equal protection and individual autonomy. We had a certain momentum going forward in terms of courts accepting the logic, and this decision slows that down. The decision is also remarkably retrograde in some of its reasoning.