"Not McCain" for president

We're now down to two choices, and it's a relief that one of them isn't the candidate whose sole principle is that she should be president. Obama is hardly an attractive choice, to be sure; he's hostile to free trade and Second Amendment rights, and the prospect of Democrats controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives is scary.

But McCain is a completely unacceptable choice for three distinct reasons.

1. He regards legal responsibility as an inconvenience to be pushed aside. Doug Holtz-Eakin, writing on behalf of the McCain campaign, declares: "Senator McCain has never stated, nor does he believe that telecoms should only receive retroactive immunity in exchange for congressional testimony about their actions." He not only wants to give them a free pass for their previous illegal actions, he wants them to be able to keep breaking the law with impunity.

2. McCain is an enemy of free political speech. The law which bears his name and Senator Feingold's makes it illegal for some political ads to refer to politicians by name. So we're going to have to talk about that law as the "M-F Act," I guess.

3. McCain wants to establish Christianity as a state religion. He stated in an interview: "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, 'I only welcome Christians.' We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles." I shudder at the thought of a president who looks down on me as a poor, tired, huddled mass.

Taken together, these establish McCain as unfit for either his present position in the Senate or a position of much greater power as president.

The decline and fall of Verichip?

Verichip, which hoped to find success through RFID implants, is on the skids. Last month it sold off its Canadian subsidiary, Xmark Corp., and its VeriMed Health Link business or the entire company may be up for sale. Its stock has been in a long-term decline.

Verichip became notorious when it used Alzheimer's patients as "volunteers" for a test run of its implants, even though many can't give informed consent. Reports that implants may be associated with cancer have increased people's doubts about "chipping."

Unfortunately, RFID implants have attracted the attention of "mark of the beast" crazies. But the potential for violation of people's rights through mandated or sneaky implants is certainly huge, and Verichip has given just a taste of how bad things could get.

Expelled: Fair use allowed

Intelligence may not be allowed in Ben Stein's film Expelled, but fair use is. Yoko Ono had sued over the use of a fifteen-second clip from John Lennon's song "Imagine." Judge Sidney Stein ruled that the usage fell within the bounds of fair use, since the use of the short excerpt was for purposes of commentary. A lawsuit by EMI, based on copyright of the recording as distinct from the song, is still pending.

Timothy Lee comments approvingly on Ars Technica.

This strikes me as an entirely reasonable ruling. A fifteen-second excerpt in the context of a creationist movie serves to illustrate the viewpoint being criticized, not to make money from the song's entertainment value. The fact that the movie supports an absurd position is irrelevant.

Boston backs away from trumped-up charges

In September of 2007, Suffolk County in Massachusetts brought trumped-up charges against MIT student Star Simpson for wearing a high-tech shirt in Logan Airport. The prosecution has backed off from the felony charges, admitting it doesn't have a case. But instead of apologizing as they should have, the prosecutors are trying to save face by requiring her to apologize and perform community service or face charges of disorderly conduct.

The charge was that her LED-covered shirt was a hoax device. This means that the prosecution claimed she intended the shirt to be taken for a threatening device. There was no basis for this charge. The police had initially claimed she did not answer any questions; according to the Herald article, this is not correct.

Doing anything that attracts attention in an airport today is stupid, but stupidity is not the same as making a threat. By backing off, yet not apologizing, the Suffolk County prosecution showed it values saving face above justice.

Chinese government vs. Zeng Jinyan

From Global Voices Advocacy, we learn of the Chinese government's harassment of Zeng Jinyan, an activist blogger. She and her husband Hu Jia are also mentioned on Reporters Without Borders, PEN American Center has an article on her, and Arianna Huffington mentions her on Time's website.

Zeng Jinyan's blog is available online, though probably not to the average person in China. It's in Chinese and I have no idea what it says.

While the Chinese government has opened the country a little bit in an attempt to get earthquake aid, it's still fundamentally committed to holding power and keeping the Chinese population ignorant of its actions.