Marriage Equality

The US is at a historic crossroads that will separate the bigots from those who truly believe:
1) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..." and
2) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I will be ashamed of the US Supreme Court and our nation if we do not unequivocally support equality.

No one is harmed by marriage equality, but millions will benefit from it.

Making the Best Better on the 4th

Holidays, especially the 4^th of July, are great opportunities to reflect on where we have been, where we are, and where we are going. Our great nation has accomplished much, yet still has far to go.

Here are the most important areas where I think we, as the United States of America, can improve so that our children and children’s children will have a better future.

Education – All should be able to get a good education regardless of their economic situation. Well-educated citizens are critical for a successful democracy. Education helps our nation make the most of its human resources. Public education and libraries helped build the foundation that made our country great.

To improve our educational system we should greatly increase teacher salaries, reward teachers based on performance, measure performance in ways beyond just standardized tests, and remove tenure for elementary, middle school, and high school teachers.

Prisons – We should minimize the number of people that must go to prison by ensuring they are educated and prepared to get whatever job they are best suited to do. Prisons should work on reforming and educating criminals to become productive citizens rather than be warehouses for punishment that foster criminals teaching crime to other criminals.

Housing large numbers of prisoners is expensive and a drain on society when those people could be productive citizens. The prison system should be rewarded based on reducing criminals and maximizing good citizens rather than locking them up indefinitely. We cannot afford this. Some resort to crime because there are no other good alternatives.  Better education is a good place to prevent criminal behavior. Reform and education must be emphasized for those who slip thru while indefinite lockup is reserved for those that cannot be reformed. The death penalty should be abolished because it is far too expensive as well as error prone with no recourse.

Health Care – Everyone should be covered by basic healthcare so valuable human resources are kept healthier (in better working condition) and are treated through less expensive preventative or timely curative treatments rather than expensive and last ditch emergency care. A stitch in time saves nine.

The Affordable Health Care Act was a step in the right direction. Encouraging Health Maintenance Organizations over traditional health insurance is even more cost effective and efficient.

Taxation – Taxes are not evil. They are investments in our government and our shared infrastructure so we can enjoy a more stable, safe, and productive community and society. We must embrace reasonable taxes and not keep dodging them at all costs. Endless tax cutting ends up hurting all of us. The wealthy have automatic advantages over the poor and also benefit immensely from a stable society that consumes their goods and services. It is a good thing for the wealthy to pay proportionately more in taxes than the poor.

To better use tax revenue, we need to balance our budget and put performance metrics in place so our government is naturally rewarded for effectiveness and efficiency. Legislation should focus more on outcomes rather than the hows. Let government professionals figure out how to maximize results just as we let the free market economy figure out how to best satisfy demand.  The City of Sunnyvale is a good example of performance metrics as well as a balanced budget in action. Please also note that the vast majority of government workers are middle class and few if any are wealthy. Tax dollars directly employ a larger number of people in government than concentrating wealth in the hands of a few.

Civil Rights – Everyone is entitled to equal rights and equal protection under the law. We are close to achieving this beautiful vision as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Yes, any two consenting adults should be entitled to marry and enjoy the economic, legal, family, and child rearing benefits of such a union.

Democracy – This is the most sustainable form of government yet invented. A “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is the only practical way to govern people as they do it through their own choices rather than being told what to do by others.

We need to have positive policies to foster democracy abroad as well as encourage our populace to participate actively in our own democracy. The legal system that supports our democracy is the best defense we have against corruption.

Sustainability – Our resources are not unlimited. Resources include energy, materials, space, and time. We all must strive to budget ourselves so we make the best use of the limited resources we have and hold ourselves accountable before nature itself forces us to be accountable.  Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Our government is in the best position to put checks and balances in place to ensure we do not overly abuse our environment. Protecting our environment is extremely important yet too long term an objective to be otherwise factored into our free market economy.

Poverty – This is really the bottom line. Better managing all of the above will help reduce poverty and the inequitable distribution of wealth. When none of us want for basic needs, there will be less war and less crime. Having wealth widely distributed benefits us all. It only stands to reason. No one should want for adequate food, clothing, shelter, or health care.

Crystal Cox, yes she's a scammer...

The proof is in the pudding and people tend to hoist themselves by their own petard.

Crystal Cox, who claimed to be a blogger-journalist, has shown through her own actions that she is not one, but really a scammer and extortionist.

Please see the smear campaign she is attempting against the 3 year old daughter of a friend of mine:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/04/02/ugly-new-reputation-smearing-tactic-going-after-a-toddlers-internet-footprint/

Please also read:

http://phillylawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/crystal-cox-investigative-blogger-no-more-like-a-scammer-and-extortionist/

and:

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/judge-clarifies-that-bloggers-can-be-journalists-just-not-one-in-particular/

Even if she were a journalist, that does not protect false speech:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/155809/debate-about-crystal-cox-blogging-case-misses-a-key-legal-point/

Despite the online harassment, Marc Randazza is a man of principal and noted today on Facebook:

“It is extortion. But... ...I am trying to "Walk the walk" when it comes to the First Amendment. The typical response would be criminal charges or civil complaints. I want to show that we can cure bad speech with good speech. Let lies and smears fade in the sunlight of truth. I've preached it my whole life. I need to stay on the path now more than ever.”

Thankfully the light of truth and justice is shining very brightly on Crystal Cox now.

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

This is a tragedy for all sides that highlights many current issues.

1) Racial prejudices are not just black and white. Minorities are not automatically immune from prejudice. Race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance and even what you say may result in unjust prejudice.

2) Guns kill. Easily. If neither George nor Trayvon had a gun, someone may have gotten bruised but likely no one would have been killed. Our current society has evolved beyond everyone needing a gun. Do we all really need guns for our own personal version of mutually assured destruction? The US Constitution needs to be updated to match current needs, not ones from 200 years ago. We are no longer the wild west. However, many are blinded by their irrational fears, leading to irrational consequences.

3) Florida has a law that allows you to commit murder legally. In Florida, get a gun, pick your target, follow them, challenge them so they "threaten" you, then stand your ground and shoot to kill so you can claim self defense. The Stand Your Ground law, while it sounds good in theory, is a pretty bad one in practice.

4) If you see a possible crime, report it to the police and follow their advice! Don't take matters into your own hands unless there is clear imminent danger to someone and there is no time to wait for professionals. It takes considerable presence of mind to do the right thing at the right time.

From what I know of this case, I think perhaps George had good intentions but his prejudices overly influenced him. Plus having a gun lead to the disastrous result of an innocent young boy losing his life. This is likely a case of a do-gooder getting carried away and doing evil instead.

It can be difficult and costly to get to the truth of a situation. Science as well as our legal system may move slowly and be expensive, but generally they result in the best truth we are capable of in their respective domains -- if not corrupted by money or power. Yes that is a big IF.

"Perhaps it is better to be un-sane and happy, than sane and un-happy. But it is the best of all to be sane and happy. Whether our descendants can achieve that goal will be the greatest challenge of the future. Indeed, it may well decide whether we have any future."
- Arthur C. Clarke

Sincerely,
Tim

Employers requiring your Facebook password?

That's just plain wrong.

It's like asking you in a job interview if your are married, who you are married to, do you have kids, what is your sexual orientation, how is your sex life, do you have any medical issues, may I look up your skirt, etc. These are all no-no's to ask in an interview -- part of Management 101 in the United States. Here are some more illegal questions to ask:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/steer-clear-of-these-10-illegal-job-interview-questions/229

Asking for your password requires you to break a contract -- notably Facebook's terms of service. Should employers ask you to deliberately violate someone else's contract? Does that mean it is ok to violate their's?

Finally it is a major invasion of privacy and a security breach.

Work is work and what we do outside of work is entitled to be kept private if we choose to keep it private.

For more, please see:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/20/BUAG1NNHQ2.DTL&type=business

http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/expert-says-policy-requiring-employee-to-give-employer-facebook-password-is-bad-idea/

http://news.yahoo.com/employers-wrong-demanding-facebook-passwords-220500743.html

http://fox8.com/2012/03/20/companies-requiring-facebook-password-during-interview/

Expelling a third-grader for having a pocketknife?

Do you think zero tolerance often goes too far? For real firearms, fine, I think that is a good thing and was the original intent of the federal law. But for water pistols, pictures of guns on paper, and pocket knives, I think zero tolerance is carried too far and is, frankly, stupid. Our society has become far too intolerant and nitpicking.

See below for a case in point.

-----------------

From: http://www.mercurynews.com/sunnyvale/ci_20032777 -- Letters to Sunnyvale Sun 2/24/2012

Standing up for expelled third-grader

I thought you'd like to know how zero tolerance is being applied in our local schools. My daughter's third-grade friend brought his pocket knife to school on accident. It was just in his pants pocket from the weekend.

An hour after school was dismissed, he and his friends were still playing on campus and he showed his knife to them. One of them was a girl and because the blade was pointing in her direction, she decided he was "brandishing it" and went to tell her mom, who told the office, who told the district, who told the cops, one of whom said if he saw him with a knife again he could shoot him. That's right: preserve and protect; bully the 8-year-old.

He's being expelled from Cumberland Elementary because California's zero tolerance rule requires that the principal issue a mandatory recommendation for expulsion with complete disregard for age, circumstance or intent.

The California penal code defines brandishing very clearly. According to Penal Code 417, simply drawing or exhibiting a weapon isn't enough to justify a conviction. In order for prosecutors to convict you of brandishing a weapon or firearm, you must do so in a rude, angry or threatening manner.

This means that if you are merely joking, "showing off" or even educating another person about your weapon, you aren't guilty of brandishing a weapon.

Our principal requested that the family not discuss this incident with anyone. This is alarming, because it takes away the only recourse the family has to exonerate their child--raising awareness and drawing support. It also puts all power squarely in the hands of the administrators and district officials.

I am shocked and saddened that there are few other parents rising in his defense. I think we are all too scared that our own kids' education will be sabotaged if we speak up against current policy.

I am hopeful that by raising awareness, parents will be less fearful of applying pressure to our lawmakers to amend the zero tolerance rule. Even adults in our criminal justice system are not punished with the same heavy-handed blind sentencing that zero tolerance mandates for kids.

Julie Colwell

Sunnyvale

-----------------

Here is some further recommended reading:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp

-- note that automatic expulsion does not seem to be required, a principal can use their own discretion. Personal observation: unfortunately many principals lack the ability to use reasonable discretion.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48900-48927

-- this is the actual CA Educational Code that applies

-- see 48915 in particular where it states:

"Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (e), the principal or the superintendent of schools shall recommend the expulsion of a pupil for any of the following acts committed at school or at a school activity off school grounds, unless the principal or superintendent finds that expulsion is inappropriate, due to the particular circumstance:..."

and

"(g) As used in this section, "knife" means any dirk, dagger, or other weapon with a fixed, sharpened blade fitted primarily for stabbing, a weapon with a blade fitted primarily for stabbing, a weapon with a blade longer than 3 1/2 inches, a folding knife with a blade that locks into place, or a razor with an unguarded blade."

Note that most pocket knife blades are 3" or shorter and do not lock into place.

http://www.sesd.org/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=10119&fileitem=3858&catfilter=858

-- this is the Sunnyvale School District Parent-Student Handbook that is referenced from the Cumberland one (see "Looking for the Parent Handbook?" at the bottom of http://www.sesd.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=965&)

-- see page 12 where it says

"Stress that pocketknives on school campuses are considered weapons, not tools."

I think that classifying pocketknives as weapons instead of tools is silly. I've always carried a pocket knife since I was in second grade. I grew up in the country and use my pocket knife to open packages, cut fruit, whittle wood, sharpen pencils, cut string, cut paper to make origami, etc. It has always been an essential tool for me. We should teach our kids to use tools properly, not be scared silly of everyday things.

Finally if a kid forgot a pocket knife in their pocket after a weekend activity? That is a trifling offense.

BTW, If people really wanted to save lives, they would ban private automobiles as they have killed 30 to 40 thousand people every year since 1946 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year )

-----------------

So what do you all think?

To discuss you may wish to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SunnyvalePolitics/message/2231

Copyright & Email Replies

It's interesting that freecycling has ended up becoming quite a learning adventure into the proper application of intellectual property laws and rights.

Many get easily confused about what trademarks vs patents vs copyrights are really about. Used properly these are all good things that allow our economy and society to function better. That's why they were invented. But misused or misunderstood, they can lead to much pain and abuse and injustice.

In general trademarks, patents, and copyright are all intended to protect "profits" in use in commerce and should never be used to control free speech -- although some misguided corporations and individuals keep trying to do this.

On the trademark front we've proven this a couple of times thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See http://freecycleforever.org/history/ to read more on the trademark front.

On the copyright front we have not had any lawsuits (and I hope we won't), but here is an important point for all:

When replying to an email it is OK (in terms of copyright) to include the entire previous email (and even email chain) that is relevant to your reply.

It may not be good etiquette because this may make the email rather large and clog the digest version of an email list. It may also confuse your audience because people may not know exactly what point you are replying to. However from a legal standpoint it should be just fine because you are engaged in free speech -- debate with give and take. The discussion is enabled by including prior emails for reference.

I know that others have raised "copyright" as a reason that entire emails should not be included in reply emails, but this is not correct in so far as I've been able to determine as long as the intent is to enable discussion and not to reproduce a work to deny someone else from getting compensation for that work.

Including entire previous emails in replies is:
1) common -- billions of people do it daily.
2) easy -- most email programs do this automatically and it takes work to prevent.
3) appropriate -- so that the points and counter points can all be read in context to see if they are really logical or not.
4) expected -- so that debates are not just one sided, you need multiple points of view to understand the different points -- there are multiple sides to every discussion.

This is all protected by the "fair use" doctrine in addition to not being commercial speech but rather free speech. By commercial speech I mean communication that is intended to earn money in some direct way -- like in advertising or publishing. Even in commercial speech "fair use" can protect someone that is quoting another.

In contrast, if you use someone else's material in a way that harms the commercial value of the work -- for instance republishing large sections of material that someone would otherwise have to buy. This is most likely a copyright violation that is not protected by the "fair use" doctrine. The original author was generally paid money to create the work and thus it is in turn sold to recoup this cost as well as make a profit on it so the author and others involved can make a living.

Law can be a tricky and complicated area but hopefully this explanation makes sense to most people.

Please note that I am not a lawyer and I'm not giving you professional legal advice. However this does not block me from discussing such situations or you from coming to reasonable conclusions based on the information presented.

For references, please see:
1) "My posting was just fair use!" at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
2) http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
3) http://randazza.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/perfect-10-thinks-that-dmca-takedown-demands-should-be-protected-by-copyright/

TSA - Terribly Stupid Agency

The TSA is developing a reputation as the Terribly Stupid Agency (Touching Sensitive Areas, etc). It is wasting billions on expensive, time consuming, annoying, invasive, and ineffective security measures that assume everyone is a terrorist when almost no one is. The terrorists have won if we all suspect everyone and each other.

Where is the check and balance on this 1984ish bureaucracy? Some rational and intelligent people need to step in and reduce the waste in this prime example of out-of-control government spending. These dollars could be greatly reduced and more effectively spent.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin