Supreme Court Round-Up

OK, OK. . . Elena Kagan's been on my ass for the last three hours, desperate to hear the Solipsist's take on the latest round of Supreme Court rulings.  OK, Associate Justice Kagan, here we go.

First, the case the Court got unambiguously right: Riley v. California.  In this and an associated case, United States v. Wurie, the Court held that law enforcement authorities needed to obtain a warrant before searching through someone's cell phone.  Police often looked through cell phones after arresting someone, searching for evidence of criminal activity--which, given today's smartphone technology, could include not only call histories but also photographs, internet searches, journal entries--even, dare we say it, blog posts.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the pervasiveness of cell phones (and, by extension, in all likelihood, tablets, personal computers, etc.) made them subject to the same protections against "general warrants" enshrined in the Constitution.  In other words, police may no more freely rummage through one's personal data contained on an iPhone than they could barge into one's bedroom and rifle through the underwear drawer, unless they first obtain a warrant.

More interesting than the verdict, however, was the acknowledgment by the Court that changing technological standards merited changing interpretations of constitutional actions.  Law enforcement officials, for example, equated searching a cellphone with other, more permissible searches of things like wallets or purses.  "That," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon."  In other words, as technology changes we must revisit the actions of the Founding Fathers, who codified civic norms in a time vastly different from our own.  Just as a cell phone is vastly different from a wallet or an appointment book--and so calls for a different understanding of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches--so, too, is an AK-47 vastly different from a flintlock--and calls for a similar reassessment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Two other unanimous decisions were also decided correctly.  I say this begrudgingly, as I am totally sympathetic to the "losing" side in both cases.  First, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court basically said that President Obama had no right to make recess appointments to Executive Branch positions while the US Senate was "in session"--even though these "sessions" were merely pro forma meetings where no business was conducted--and, indeed, whose only purpose was to ensure that President Obama could not make recess appointments.  While I abhor the obstructionist tactics of Congressional Republicans, I recognize that a certain amount of political gamesmanship is a fact of American life.  And while I generally support President Obama--at least as far as his political appointments go--I am not keen to see any congressional tactic hurriedly eliminated, lest it be useful in the future when, say, someone like Ted Cruz occupies the Oval Office.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

(And lest you accuse me of hypocrisy, I had similar qualms when the Democratic Senate leadership effectively eliminated the use of filibusters last year.)

The other correct if unsatisfying decision concerned the ability of legislatures to establish "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.  The aim is laudable: to protect women who seek abortions (or, indeed, any services from clinics such as those run by Planned Parenthood) from harassment by pro-life protesters, legislators have declared that protesters must maintain certain minimum distances from entrances to such facilities.  In its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court declared unconstitutional a Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.  The law, the justices found, infringed on First Amendment rights to free speech.  And while I sympathize with the desire of women not to be accosted by right-wing zealots as they seek to exercise their right to control their own bodies, I think that placing arbitrary (35 feet?  Why not 30?  Why not 40?  Why not 6.5?) restrictions on speech is not the solution.  As the Court pointed out, existing laws that prevent harassment and other antisocial behavior can effectively serve the same purpose as the disputed law.

Finally, the case that I just don't understand: ABC v. Aereo.  The Court declared that what Aereo was doing was bad and wrong and must be stopped.  Now, I had never heard of Aereo before yesterday.  Apparently, it's a service that allows people to "pick up" the broadcast signals of the major television networks through a series of antennas.  The networks were upset that Aereo was allowing people to do this.  But unless I'm mistaken, this is how television always used to work!  You turned on the TV, you fiddled with your antennas as needed, and you were able to watch "The Incredible Hulk" at grandma's house.  When did this become illegal?

Anyway, Justice Kagan, there you have it.  On the whole, you guys did a good--if somewhat unsatisfying--job.  Now, if you'll excuse me, "Judge Judy" is on, and I need to fiddle with the ol' rabbit ears. . . .

Somebody's Been Watching Too Many Movies

A couple of weeks ago, a woman had her iPhone snatched out of her hand on a busy street corner in Flushing, New York (not far from where the Solipsist used to live, in fact--coincidence?  You decide).  Not a particularly newsworthy event, to be sure: Cellphone theft--particularly smartphone theft--has become ubiquitous.  A front-page article in Thursday's paper focused on this ever-growing trend and implicitly blamed phone manufacturers for not taking all reasonable measures to make phones less attractive to thieves.  But this particular theft did not unfold in the usual manner.

The woman whose phone was stolen quickly found a police officer who happened to have an iPhone of his own.  He accessed the "Find my iPhone" app and discovered that the thief was still in the immediate vicinity.  He jumped into his car and raced to the supposed location of the thief.  The thief was no longer there, but he was still close--and up.  See, he had apparently jumped onto the number 7, the elevated train that runs between Flushing and Times Square.  So the policeman jumped back in his car and proceeded--sirens blaring--to do his best Popeye Doyle imitation, screaming down Roosevelt Avenue in pursuit of the suspect riding the rails above. Ultimately, the police contacted the train's conductor, who kept the doors closed while the police went through the cars, looking for the fleeing suspect.  He was found and arrested and the woman got her phone back.

I can't help but wonder if this is the sort of thing we should be celebrating.  I mean, I'm sure the woman is happy that she doesn't have to go through all the trouble of re-loading Angry Birds, but do we really want policemen tearing down crowded city streets--and trust me, Roosevelt Avenue is a VERY crowded city street--in pursuit of stolen consumer electronics?  Is it really worth the risk to human life?  Sure, we've accepted the concept that iPhones are worth more than the lives of, say, a few thousand Chinese laborers, but we're talking about American citizens here--even if they do live in Queens!

Thursday Trendwatch (Friday Edition)

So, let's see what people are talking, texting, and twittering about today:

10. DOGSHAMING
Why it's trending: Either harmless fun or a "sick online trend," depending on which website you link to, dogshaming is--well, pretty obviously, it's the "shaming" of man's best friend: The shaming in question takes the form of photographs shared on social websites--pictures capturing family pets caught in the act of inappropriate behavior.  I'm not sure how effective this would be in most households, because most people I know don't let their dogs surf the web--oh, and also because, THEY'RE DOGS!  How much shame can reasonably be felt by creatures whose preferred mode of introduction is butt-sniffing?

9. AMAZON SMARTPHONE
Why it's trending: I guess because people are basically pathetic sheep ever always to fall prey to savvy marketers who will convince them they simply must have the latest upgrade to replace the perfectly fine piece of technology they already own (and probably just bought).  Amazon's entry to the smartphone market is rumored to be launching in early September.

8. CLINICAL TRIALS
Why it's trending: In November, the city of Atlanta will host the first "Clinical Trials in Georgia" conference.  With any luck, this conference will prove more successful than last year's "Clinical Trials in Wisconsin" conference.  Milwaukee authorities say they are still not close to containing the mutant-squid outbreak.

7. SERENA WILLIAMS
Why she's trending: The other night, she appeared on Letterman wearing a skintight red dress.

Yowza!  She can double-fault me any time she likes!  (I have no idea what that means.)

6. CELINE DION PHOTO SHOOT
Why it's trending: I think the headline says it all, "Celine Dion Photo Shoot Involves Nudity, Stuffed Animals."  I don't think I can improve on that.

5. MAYAN COLLAPSE
Why it's trending: Scientists have determined that drought and deforestation most likely led to the collapse of Mayan civilization.  Personally, I think the fact that they insisted on stitching teddy bears to their pants probably had more to do with it.

4. KHLOE KARDASHIAN
Why she's trending: Having recently completed a tour of sub-Saharan Africa, where she met with local leaders to discuss ways of modernizing the region's water delivery systems, Kardashian held a press conference today to draw attention to public-health infrastructure problems here in the United States.  "We can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the growing threats posed by substandard infection-control processes at our nation's hospitals, doctor's offices, and nursing homes," Kardashian said.  She then introduced Bill and Melinda Gates, with whom she will partner to establish a non-profit organization to--

Nah, I'm just messing with you: She went to Rite-Aid without wearing make-up.  No, really, that's why she's trending.

3. TERRELL OWENS
Why he's trending: The Kardashian of the NFL, Owens may have already worn out his welcome with the Seattle Seahawks, his 18th professional football team.  In fairness, he's been with the team for nearly a week, thus confounding the expectations of his doubters by a good seven days.

2. TEEN SUES BURGER KING
Why it's trending: Ashanti McShan is suing Burger King for religious discrimination.  When she came to her orientation wearing a long skirt--as required by her Pentecostal religion--instead of black pants--as required by the high holy men of the fast-food franchise--the manager told her to leave.  I'm not entirely certain about the law here: Burger King is a private corporation and would seem able to hire whomever it wants, but at the same time, McShan claims she was told at her interview that her religiously mandated attire would be no problem.

Ultimately, I hope the restaurant prevails.  After all, when I go to Burger King, I'm not just going for the "food"!  I'm going for the complete experience!  Plastic chairs!  Flourescent lighting! And, by God!, ebon-slacked employees!

1. VIVIENNE JOLIE-PITT
Why she's trending: The 4-year-old daughter of Brangelina will make her acting debut opposite her mom in "Maleficent," a live-action version of Sleeping Beauty.  I guess Honey Boo Boo was unavailable.

Sunday in the Parking Lot with Gorge (Rising)

Among the many things I hate--the Tea Party, country music, Brussels sprouts--parking vultures figure right up there.  These are folks who hover around a car when the owner (or thief) has just gotten in and then wait for the car to leave so that they can swoop into the space.  While I sympathize with the desire to grab a choice parking spot, I resent the disruptions caused to the flow of traffic, of which I am inevitably a part.

The worst parking vultures scavenge in parking garages: While waiting for a space, they completely block anyone behind them.  At my doctor's office, there is one such parking garage, and I have literally been made late for appointments--for which I would otherwise have been on time--because someone was waiting for a parking space, rather than just continuing up the ramp to find another spot just slightly farther away from the entrance.  It takes great will-power to resist the urge to get out of my car, walk up to the vulture, and cough up a lungful of whatever has brought me TO the doctor into his inconsiderate face.

It has honestly never occurred to me to blame the person occupying the parking space.  Apparently, that was short-sighted.  According to an article in today's Times, cases of "parking rage" are on the rise in parking-scarce areas, as vultures find themselves forced to wait for parking spaces when, instead of pulling out immediately, drivers sit in parked cars to make phone calls, check or send e-mail, or update Facebook statuses.  As much as I hate to agree with the vultures, I understand their frustration.

Those occupying the parking spaces respond that they are actually doing the responsible thing: conducting conversations while safely parked rather than endangering others by texting while driving.  Since only a churl would point out that their communications are probably not THAT important, I will say that they make a sound argument--and then point out that their communications are probably not THAT important.  I would also point out that, rather than make the vultures think they are about to leave their parking spots, these parkers could actually conduct their cell-phone enabled communiques before they get into their cars.  After all, that's what Starbucks is for.

Fun with Lawsuits

"At the heart of the disputes are the kind of small but convenient features that would cause many people to complain if they were not in their smartphones. For example, the case decided Monday involves the technology that lets you tap your finger once on the touch screen to call a phone number that is written inside an e-mail or text message. It also involves the technology that allows you to schedule a calendar appointment, again with a single tap of the finger, for a date mentioned in an e-mail."
                                      --"U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google"

In response to the ruling, makers of android phones have promised to alter the technology so that it requires one and one half finger-taps.  Meanwhile, in a countersuit, android manufacturers are suing Apple over the appearance of the word "android" in online dictionaries included as free apps for iPhones.  Washington is also suing Apple over the company's use without permission of the state's iconic fruit as both its corporate name and, by implication, as the nickname of downloadable features.  The Seattle tribe of Native Americans is in turn suing Washington State, but, as usual, no one is paying any attention.

Meanwhile, back in the mobile-phone-and-app arena, a group of ornithologists is suing Zynga for defamation on behalf of birds everywhere, who insist they are not angry, merely anti-pig.  Last year, the National Association of Pig Farmers settled with Zynga for an undisclosed amount.  The Solipsist will file a suit against Google next week for its continuous snubbing of this column as a "Blog of Note."

The Arab League is also suing mobile phone manufacturers for their unlicensed use of the numerals 1 through 9 on keypads.

Thursday Trendwatch

Among the things the Solipsist is thankful for today, I am thankful that I am not in Maryland.  Not only because, you know, it's in Maryland, but also because, if I were there, I might have significant trouble getting my Social Security DISABILITY BENEFITS (10).  Marylanders are reporting long delays in receiving approval for these vital payments, and, with disability claims soaring by about 30%, there is no relief in sight.  And if the rate of disability among Marylanders has gone up by 30%, that suggests yet another reason to be thankful I am far, far away.

I am also thankful for the GIFT BASKETS (9) I am sure to receive from my adoring fans.  Godiva Chocolates, Hickory Farms meats and cheese, Beers of the world--really, anything is fine.  In fact, to save yourselves some trouble, you could always send me a gift basket filled with gift baskets.

If you're shopping for a teenager, though, you should consider buying a gift basket filled with SMARTPHONES (8) and "minutes."  A new report finds that teens would rather receive a smartphone than a new car.  This suggests something that I have long suspected: Teenagers are idiots.

Speaking of idiots, if you believed that the ALIEN SKULL (7) unearthed in Peru belonged to an actual, um, alien, you were wrong.  (Sorry.  Here, have a smartphone.)

The headline on this article reads "Alien Skull in Peru Almost Definitely a Hoax of Some Description."  Love the "almost."

Maybe the alien skull is actually just an aborted Muppet.  We could always ask AMY ADAMS (6) who co-stars in this weekend's big release, "Yet Another Muppet Movie" (that may not be the actual title).  She plays "the human."

Thanksgiving is a day when we give thanks and look back to a simpler time before we cared about such things as electricity or the rights of native peoples.  So it stands to reason that today's trendwatch should contain a feature on CLEAN ENERGY (5).  Turns out that using renewable energy resources like wind and solar may not only be good policy but good politics--and better for the planet.  There must be a catch.

Next on the trendwatch, NATALIE WOOD (4) is still dead.  The captain of the ship she was sailing on when she drowned has come forward to say that he suspects her husband, Robert Wagner, had something to do with her death.  I didn't know that she was on the ship with Wagner and Christopher Walken.  This makes me think that maybe her death wasn't accidental: Lord knows, I'd consider jumping into open water to escape whatever those two might have thought up.

Natalie Wood's obvious heir, of course, is MILEY CYRUS (3), who spent Tuesday night partying like she was 19--which she was.  Happy birthday, Hannah Montana!  Stay away from Robert Wagner's yacht!

KARINA SMIRNOFF (2) has a lot to be thankful for today, too.  The vodka heiress won the celebrity competition "Dancing with the Stars" the other night, and--  What?  She's not related to the vodka?  Oh, so. . . what makes her a "Star"?  Oooh, she's the PROFESSIONAL DANCER part of the couple.  Her "Star" is J. R. Martinez.  I get it.

Now, who the hell is J. R. Martinez?

Finally, SARAH PALIN (1) and family are no doubt thankful today for the efforts of Knoxville, TN, prosecutors, who gained a conviction against David Kernell for hacking into Caribou Barbie's e-mail.  But thinking about Sarah Palin should make us all thankful for a couple of other things, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Happy holidays, everybody!

Great Moments in Common Sense

I am aghast.  According to a front-page article in today's Times:

"Users of cellphones and other wireless devices who are nearing their monthly limit for voice, text or data services will receive alerts when they are in danger of being charged extra, under an agreement reached by carriers and the Federal Communications Commission."

This blew my mind: a simple, common-sense solution to a somewhat pervasive problem: unexpected and exorbitant cellphone charges.  Wow: A governmental regulation that costs corporations very little while at the same time offering some basic protections to the average consumer.

Just how reasonable is this?  Consider the fact that, while the Obama Administration was in favor of it, so was the largest trade group of wireless carriers, whose president, Steve Largent, is a former NFL player (back when the Seahawks were an NFL team) and Republican congressman, who is about as true-believing a right-winger as there is!  If THESE two groups can agree on something, then. . . . Well, actually, then there must be something wrong with the rule.  Let's see. . . .

Ah, here we go: Now, if people go over their allotted minutes, their phones will send massive electric shocks into their groinal areas.  OK.  I feel much better now.

Reach Out and Tap Someone

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.
"Officials Push to Bolster Law on Wiretapping"

Nobody knows who invented the telephone, but whoever did probably didn't worry about whether the government would be able to listen in on phone calls.

When we read news like the article quoted above, we start to sympathize with the Tea Party. Don't get us wrong: We want the government to have the ability to spy on. . .well, spies. We just find something slightly Stalinist in the fact that governments require any advancements in communication technology to be "tappable." If untappable phone lines are outlawed, then only outlaws will have untappable phone lines. And that's the point, isn't it? We sincerely doubt that Osama bin Laden subscribes to a "Friends and Family" plan (although we suspect Mullah Omar would be in his "Five"). We assume sophisticated terrorists know how to avoid most electronic surveillance anyway; and since the Mossad has proven adept at rigging cellphones to explode when answered, we suspect al-Qaeda and its ilk often opt to avoid the devices altogether.

We find it ironic that our government seeks to stifle an innovation that it would presumably applaud in the hands of, say, North Korean dissidents. We hate to think that Verizon engineers, when trying to improve telecommunication services, are hobbling themselves out of fear that whatever they come up with will prove resistant to government surveillance. Frankly, we wish they would just focus on eliminating dropped calls.

Sad Dogs and Subsidized Cellphones

There's an anti-depressant called Cymbalta.  Perhaps you've seen its commercials.  Soft minor-key piano music plays under images of depressed people.  A female voice-over asks, "Where does depression hurt?  Everywhere.  Who does depression hurt?  Everyone."

(Digression: It's interesting that the grammatically proper phrasing--"WHOM does depression hurt"--is not used.  We'd be willing to bet that it's a very intentional non-use, as "whom" would draw too much attention to itself.  When did good grammar become ostentatious?  EOD)

As a semi-depressive person himself, the Solipsist sympathizes with the condition, and we certainly don't begrudge people whatever relief Cymbalta brings them.

What struck us was a slight variation on this commercial, one that focuses more on the "Who does depression hurt?" question.  Same voice-over actress, similar imagery.  But this particular ad's visuals focus on the people who are being hurt--not just the depressed people but the people around them.  We see images of what we can assume are significant others.  We see images of children worried about their parents.

And then we get a visual of a depressed dog.

Seriously.  A black lab or doberman is shown forlornly gazing up at its presumably depressed owner.

What are we supposed to make of this?  Who is the target audience?  Sure, a depressed person might see this and be inspired to take action.  We think, however, that the main target of this ad is the people around the depressed person.  Someone sees this ad and recognizes him- or herself in the image of the long-suffering friend/spouse/parent and resolves to broach the subject with the depressed person.  Perhaps this viewer intercedes on behalf of a child.  But are we meant to be motivated by the sight of a sad dog?  The Solipsist is as much of an animal lover as the next guy (as long as the next guy isn't, say, Michael Vick), but we think there are greater issues in the world, and greater reasons to intervene in a depressed person's illness--than a sad doberman.

Sheesh, if the dog really cared, he'd be trying to cheer up his owner so he or she wouldn't need Cymbalta!

The Solipsist is NOT going out of his way to entertain a lazy doberman!

*************************************

The Mr. Irrelevant News Story of the Day

"Providing Cellphones for the Poor"

Apparently, the Lakers' don't merit front-page coverage, even when they win a championship.  Just goes to prove our theory: Nobody cares about the Lakers.  But this other story is actually kind of interesting.

The federal government operates a program called "Lifeline," which mandates that everyone be able to receive telephone service, regardless of income.  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened competition for this service to cellphone providers.  A basic package provides a free phone and about 68 minutes of "talk time" per month.  The government subsidizes the program.

All well and good, but check this detail: The government subsidizes the carriers to the tune of about $10 a month per client; the approximate cost of the services provided?  About $3.

Now, we are not, like our FFB "Math Mama," math experts.  We can, however, do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and conclude that this amounts to a 233% profit.

The Solipsist, of course, is a firm believer in capitalism, especially when it comes to making scads of cash from his sponsors (we're sure the scads will come rolling in any day now).  But in these days of financial austerity, this strikes us a bit unreasonable.  A mere 200% profit would seem sufficient.

Undrafted Articles

"Pakistan to Strike at Leader of Taliban" (A4)

"Insurance Giant A.I.G. Takes Ex-Chief to Court" (B1)

And, of course, "Bryant, Jackson and the Lakers Add to Trophies" (D1)

(Image from "Drop That Sock")