In what seems to be a little-discussed decision, a federal judge in Pittsburgh struck down some indecency laws. What’s so remarkable about this case isn’t that the laws were struck down, but the reason for doing it:

the courts have always rebuffed ["Free Speech"-based] attacks - carving out obscenity as an area of law that, anomalously, is thought to be somehow outside the First Amendment’s scope. Now, however, Judge Lancaster has accepted new arguments, grounded in the right of privacy, that other courts may find more persuasive than those that have typically been raised.

It’s certainly a more novel approach than the hammer-and-nail mentality First Amendment advocates are constantly trying to use. And more to the point, it has serious legal merit. I can’t wait to see what the Court of Appeals does with this decision.

“Like any year, the best movies aren’t nominated. What the f*** is better than The Bourne Supremacy and Spider-Man 2? Most Americans would say they were the best movies of the year. An overwhelming majority would take either of them over Finding Neverland.”
– Chris Rock, host of the Oscars, on the Oscars

The folks over at Outside the Beltway are having a fun contest.

It’s time to find out just how literate and witty OTB readers are. The goal is to change one letter of a book title so as to give the story an entirely new meaning. After the altered title, offer a one or two sentence explanation of the new story.

Here are my entries:

Ender’s Fame – In a future world starved for entertainment, the brightest and ablest children are co-opted by the government to go to dance school to learn how to be entertainers. Ender Wiggin is a genius among geniuses, but will he live forever? And will he learn how to fly – HIGH?

Foundation and Umpire – Before the fall of the Galactic Empire, Hari Seldon used his science of psychohistory to make predictions about the future in order to decrease the years of the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, Seldon’s science cannot predict the unique act of individuals, and the Foundation finds that Seldon’s predictions have been thwarted by the Mule, the worst Umpire in the Galaxy. The success of the Foundation was predicated on placing large wagers on the outcomes of several key sporting events. Unfortunately, the Mule’s poor calls changed the outcome of the games, placing the Foundation into severe gambling debts and forcing its leaders to flee Terminus to escape the Galactic Mafia. Will the Galaxy survive?

By the way, I have a comics question for any DC fanboys out there. Namely, what is the deal with Lex Luthor in the current DC continuity? Superman/Batman had him losing the Presidency for basically going nuts, and then the next thing I know I’m reading Rick Veitch’s Question which has Luthor back in charge of LexCorp and knocking down half of Metropolis to build a “Science Spire.” Now, I know that Talia is not longer running LexCorp because she’s working with her sister, the new Demon’s Head (as revealed in Batman: Death and the Maidens). But that doesn’t explain the deal with Luthor. Can I get a little help, here?

Well, now it’s been shown that not one, not two, but three conservative columnists have been shown to be on the dole from the Bush Administration without disclosing it.

One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion,” appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.

[...]

Horn’s move came on the heels of Wednesday’s report in the Washington Post that HHS had paid syndicated columnist and marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher $21,000 to write brochures and essays and to brief government employees on the president’s marriage initiative. Gallagher later wrote in her column that she would have revealed the $21,000 payment to readers had she recalled receiving it.

The Gallagher revelation came just three weeks after USA Today reported that the Education Department, through a contract with the Ketchum public relations firm, paid $240,000 to Armstrong Williams, a conservative African-American print, radio and television pundit, to help promote Bush’s No Child Left Behind program to minority audiences.

This just begs the question–who else is on the dole from the Bush Administration? What commentators out there are pushing their own opinions, as opposed to Administration talking points?

Shoot, maybe we should start a pool or something. Help me out here–let’s see if we can’t get a list of prominent conservative commentators and then run a contest as to which one is going to be found to have been bought and paid for next!

“It is human nature to think wisely and act foolishly.”
– Anatole France

In all the discussion of gay marriage in the last few years, much attention has been given to homosexuals. However, there is a significant subsection of the “gay community” that is also affected by this debate: Transsexuals and transgendered individuals.

For those unfamiliar with the terminology (and I apologize to my trans friends for oversimplifying this), the major difference is this: a homosexual wants to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex. A transsexual (usually– this part we can save for Advanced Transsexualism) wants to be in a relationship with someone of a different sex, but doesn’t believe that they are the sex that their sex chromosomes dictate. For example, a homosexual man believes himself to be male but still wants a sexual relationship with males. This differs from a transsexual person born male but wanting a sexual relationship with men because he is convinced that he in a she.

How is this lifestyle affected by the current debate on gay marriage laws? The AP skims the topic.

Their marriage — once between a man and a woman — is now between a woman and a woman, despite a ban on such unions in 40 states, including [the state this couple lives in].

Their experience highlights a legal Catch-22. While states can either recognize or refuse to recognize someone’s new gender following a sex change, either decision inescapably permits some form of same-sex marriage.

If the gender change is recognized, then existing, heterosexual marriages such as the Howdens’ become same-sex. If recognition is denied, a de facto same-sex marriage emerges since the spouses’ genders differ only on paper, not visibly.

“I have no answer to it,” said state Rep. Dan Itse, a Republican who supports the state’s same-sex marriage ban. “We have ventured where angels fear to tread.”

But the puzzle goes something like this: A man marries a woman and then undergoes sex reassignment surgery. This now results in a legally married couple in which both parties can legitimately claim to be female. If the state recognizes the change in gender legally, this becomes an illegal same-sex marriage. If the state does not recognize the gender change, the marriage stays legitimate. Conversely, if a man undergoes the operation and then (as a woman) marries a man, the legality of the marriage once again hinges on whether a person can legally change genders in their state. If they can, the marriage is valid. If not, it isn’t.

The law on the ground varies by state. New Jersey law states that if the change of sex was known to the other spouse prior to the marriage, or the spouse approved of and encouraged the change during the marriage, then the marriage stands valid. A few years ago, I had a chance to observe a custody fight in Florida, where under the exact same set of cicrumstances, the court ruled that the marriage was illegal from day 1, so the father (who was born a woman) had no custody rights. Maryland case law allows anyone who undergoes sex reassignment surgery to change their legal gender. However, numerous challenges are being raised to both state and Federal rules regarding these marriages.

Considering the same-sex marriage debate will be with us for the foreseeable future, it is important to realize that same-sex marriage isn’t always an issue of homosexuality. Some places, due to quirks with how they define gender and sex, can create same-sex marriages in situations where the parties entering into the marriage don’t intend to. Transsexuals aren’t an often talked about group, but that doesn’t mean that don’t have a valid place in the same-sex marriage debate.

Both Andrew Sullivan and Jim Henley are giving props to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for voting against Alberto Gonzales. I think they’re giving those Senators too much credit. Every single Senator who voted against Gonzales is from a state that went for Kerry. Add that into the fact that Gonzales confirmation by the Republican majority on the Committee was a foregone conclusion, and you end up with Democrats casting a vote that will only bolster their own political fortunes. If a Democratic President had nominated Gonzales, I doubt any of those same Democrats except for Russ Feingold would have thought twice about voting in favor of his nomination.

It’s just a game, kids. Sure, in this vote, the Democrats were doing the right thing. But let’s not pretend that it was for the right reasons, okay?

“Hope, in reality, is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs the torments of man.”
– Friedrich Nietzsche

Jay Caruso reinforces the reasons why he’s one of my daily reads.

Somebody called me a “chicken” because I wouldn’t make a prediction for the Super Bowl, so I will. I’m no chicken.

The New England Patriots will win their third Super Bowl in four years.

Read the whole post to find out why. Especially you, Rick.