Let's roll some dice, watch some movies, or generally just geek out. New posts at 6:30 pm ET but only if I have something to say. Menu at the top. gsllc@chirp.enworld.org on Mastodon and @gsllc on Twitter.
And now for something completely off topic for this blog.
The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) allowed the so-called ban on TikTok to go through. I refer to it as “so-called” because, as the holding states, it’s not a true ban; it’s a conditional ban. Political rhetoric always clouds the truth, so despite this being a unanimous decision of the Court, I still feel the need to preface this discussion with a brief discussion of the role of appellate courts.
Some Pontificating
The reason most of you are so angry at SCOTUS, or particular justices, is at least in part because you don’t understand (or care about) its role. Appellate courts, including SCOTUS, aren’t there to make policy decisions. They don’t make law. That would be a violation of the Separation of Powers principle, a violation of their individual oaths of office, and anti-democratic. In other words, SCOTUS doesn’t ask what the law should be; they ask what it actually is, for better or worse. What the law is, whether statutory or constitutional, is determined by Congress (and state legislatures). All the appellate courts do (that’s relevant to this conversation) is interpret that law, resolving ambiguities in the language or in how it might apply to a particular set of facts. So, you may absolutely be upset that TikTok is banned if you want, but the blame for that doesn’t lie on SCOTUS, and it would be horribly inappropriate if the justices sitting on that bench changed the law because they didn’t like it either. Stop shooting the messenger. That includes me. Much like SCOTUS just tells you what Congress says, I’m just telling you what SCOTUS said.
Enough of that. Let’s talk about what they said.
The Facts and the Law
In the interests of brevity and clarity, I’m just going to get right to the point, simplifying everything and leaving out a lot of fluff (and perhaps some important nuance).
TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”) is an American company, but it’s owned by ByteDance, Ltd. (“ByteDance”), which means, like ByteDance, TikTok is subject to Chinese laws. This means that TikTok must “assist and cooperate” with the Chinese government, granting them “the power to access and control private data.” In other words, not a single piece of information you put on TikTok, even data indirectly coming from other connected social media platforms, is truly private. The Chinese government has access to all of it.
Important: This information includes age, phone number, precise location, internet address, device used, phone contacts, social network connections, the content of private messages, videos watched, and behavioral data (e.g., keystroke patterns and rhythms). Remember this list or come back to review it if necessary.
Trump tried to shut down TikTok, but the appellate courts stopped that, seeing that as outside the scope of executive power. Biden took office and tried to negotiate with ByteDance, but that went nowhere. In the meantime, Congress than passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”). Under the Act, entities may not “distribute, maintain, or update a foreign adversary-controlled application” in the USA. There were some other details, including exceptions, but the point, of course, is that TikTok fit the definition.
I mentioned “conditional ban” above. TikTok could continue to operate under the Act if it underwent a “qualified divestiture.” That means that ByteDance would have to sever its control over TikTok, which would prevent ByteDance, and thus the Chinese government, from accessing your data on TikTok.
Applying the Law to the Facts
This gets complicated for the non-lawyer, so I’m going to leave it up to you to ask questions if you want a more detailed analysis. Here’s the short version. The first issue was whether the First Amendment applied to the Act, and SCOTUS said yes. The second issue was whether the Act’s constitutionality was subject to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. The Court said intermediate scrutiny, which is an easier test to pass, in part because the Act didn’t impose restrictions based on the content of any speech. In fact, the Act doesn’t care what was being said at all. In legalese, it was “content neutral” as opposed to “content based,” so it would be easier for the Court to find the Act constitutional (though not “easy”).
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court asked whether the Act 1) “advances important governmental interests”; that 2) don’t “burden substantially more speech than necessary”; 3) “to further those interests.” In other words, the goal must be important, and there must be a causal connection between the restriction and achieving the goal.
The Entire Point
I’ve been discussing this case with a coworker, and I know what she’s going to want to know. It isn’t going to be all the details on how all the conclusions above were reached. I imagine you want the same thing. Here it is. Congress passed the Act to prevent China from “track[ing] the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build[ing] dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct[ing] corporate espionage.” This isn’t unreasonable. The Free Speech clause could certainly interfere with legislative acts that prevent such employees and contractors from using the TikTok app, so prohibiting the app’s availability is the only way to protect national security.
Or is it? Well, no, there are indeed other ways to do so, but under SCOTUS precedent, Congress is under no obligation to select those other ways. Congress made this choice after extensive hearings and other fact-finding processes and determined that all the evidence suggested that this is the best way, all while doing so in a way that satisfies intermediate scrutiny.
You may also want to know whether other platforms are next. It should be obvious that US companies are clearly outside the scope of this law, so Facebook, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and MeWe are safe. As for other foreign entities, SCOTUS points out that TikTok has “special characteristics” (i.e., foreign control over large amounts of private data) that have always justified a different analysis. This is why SCOTUS chose to “emphasize the inherent narrowness of [the] holding. . . . A law targeting another speaker would by necessity ential a distinct inquiry and separate considerations.” This case won’t immediately affect any other social media platform.
c/o The Babylon Bee
Is This a Good Idea?
As I said, SCOTUS doesn’t ask what the law should be, but we certainly can. I read somewhere (but didn’t verify) that a content creator can make 10 times on TikTok what they can make on Facebook, and YouTube is even less generous than that. This will certainly hurt content creators, but is your profit more important to you than your own privacy? What about the names and phone numbers of your friends that will also be exposed without realizing it? With everyone complaining about Facebook tracking confidential information, you’d think you’d be even more concerned with a foreign adversary doing so. All that considered, and putting aside matters of censorship, is this a good idea?
This is a decision you must make for yourself, and you can let your congressperson know how you feel about it. SCOTUS did not tell Congress it had to keep the Act; it just said it could. There is nothing stopping Congress from repealing or amending the law. That said, please keep in mind that Congress made its decision based on extensive research I’m sure you haven’t done, and arguments without specifics will fall on deaf ears. The nature of a republic is that you elect people you trust to do that research and make those decisions, because you don’t have time for a proper analysis. But they still must answer to you.
Final Note: I’ve left out a lot of details. However, I’ve uploaded a PDF of the decision with highlighted text and commentary from me. If you want to dive into the detail and have all your “Why?” questions answered, download it here. I’m happy to discuss the Court’s reasoning in greater detail. As long as you’re polite. 🙂
There are a ton of movies I’ve never seen, and I try to watch as many of them as possible. This means not watching movies I’ve already seen. Of course, like all of you, there are still some movies I like to rewatch. One of them I’m watched again tonight: The Devil’s Own.
This is the first I’ve seen it since quite some time before everything switched from DVDs to streaming (well over a decade). I saw it was available on Hulu/Disney+, so I figure it was about time to give it another watch. Brad Pitt stars as a member of the IRA beside Harrison Ford’s Irish-American New York City cop. Ford’s wife was played by Margaret Colin just off her breakout role in Independence Day, and his eldest daughter was played by a young Julia Stiles. Treat Williams, Ruben Blades, and (of all people) Rob McElhenney round out the lead cast. I love the movie, and I love the soundtrack even more. James Horner is probably my favorite musical writer of the 90s. His soundtracks are more valuable to me than any of the popular music that came out in that decade.
A Weird Connection
Right before law school, I moved to Westchester County, NY and worked in the Wall Street district of Manhattan. I was intending to attend the New York Law School, but the more prestigious Chicago-Kent College of Law accepted me two weeks before class started. I changed gears and moved to Chicago the day classes started. However, during the four months I was working in Manhattan, there was an area blocked off for the filming of a “new Brad Pitt movie.” I never saw Pitt because I never had the desire to hang out and watch filming, but I saw the set up for the scene when (spoiler alert!) Diaz was killed. It was filmed right outside my office, and whenever I watch the scene, it reminds me of the lead in to what was probably the best time in my life.
I spent a lot of time here.
In any event, it didn’t have very good reviews, but I thought it was great.
On May 15, 2024, I adopted two kittens. The boy is Tezcaatlipoca, and the girl is Ishtaar. (The double a’s in their names are intentional misspellings of their mythological namesakes.) I have tons of Caturday posts, including discussing my preparations leading up to the adoption, yet since adopting them, I haven’t posted about them even once to this blog. In fact, I didn’t even post about them to social media until I was (amusingly) scolded for it. I’ve been a bit busy and at times distracted. More on that in a moment. For now, here they are:
Tezcaatlipoca (“Tez”), born 8/1/2023
Ishtaar, born 6/22/2023
Ishtaar, when feeling good, is remarkably social. She always wants to be near me, and usually wants to be on my lap. She’s also remarkably easygoing, accepting whatever circumstances she’s given. Tez is somewhat antisocial. That doesn’t stop him from crying for attention, especially when he feels Ishtaar gets too much of my attention, but if I acquiesce, he usually runs away. Occasionally, he’ll allow me to pet him, but that quickly devolves into a clawing and biting attack. It’s playful, and he can control the intensity of the bites, but he has no such control over his claws, so I often have cuts on my hands. That’s okay, though, because I like playing with cats, and he’s far more active in that regard. Overall, though, they’re both good kitties, just in very different ways.
The Bad News
Ishtaar got (I guess you’d call it) a cold. Lots of sneezing and an eye that eventually swelled shut. It was time for their first vet visit anyway, so I took them to my local vet. Long story short, Ishtaar is very sick. She was running a fever for which she’s on antibiotics, but that’s not necessarily related to the underlying issue. After several less-invasive tests, she had a surgical biopsy last Monday. The results should have come in no later than yesterday (Friday), but I’m still waiting. So, we know she’s sick, but we haven’t even diagnosed her yet.
It’s images like this that convince me she’s not going to make it regardless of what she has. She’s disturbingly thin. If I ran my fingers down your back, I could feel you spine (right before I was arrested), but I couldn’t feel the sides of your spine. There’s “stuff” in the way. Her spine is almost complete exposed, and I can make out her entire skeletal structure by feel. I know she has two kidneys, two lungs, a heart, a small intestines, etc., but I have no idea where she fits them. They must all be so small that they can’t function properly. She has good days and bad days, but her bad days really suck. I’ve had to isolate her because Tez attacks her. This makes matters difficult considering she’s reluctant to eat unless he’s nearby. She actually likes him.
Though I can’t figure out why.
I’m getting her all the care she needs, but if the worst happens, my next question is whether to get a replacement cat. Not only would Tez be bored without a companion, but he needs to learn social skills. It might be helpful to get him a cat that could put him in his place but not be aggressive, simply defensive. That’s a tall order, I suspect.
So, this post became a downer, but this is my current mood.
I received my $7,320 tax refund that resulted from my Tesla purchase, and while I’m going to roll most of it back into the car, I had two recreational purchases I knew I was going to be making with those funds. The first was a treadmill, which wound up costing me only $5. The other is a kitten (or maybe two), which I can’t get until early April because of an upcoming vacation this week. While I’m eager to get the cat(s), I want my house cat-proof (to the extent that’s possible) and cat-friendly before then, so I can wait.
Phase 1
Simple enough, right? Well, it’s got a stupid story associated with it. I went into my local PetSmart in South Riding, VA. I need help figuring out what I need. As Carl Sagan would say, I’m facing the unknown unknowns, i.e., I don’t necessarily know what I should ask for. No one was available to help me, and no one seemed to care, so I just bought something that I knew I needed and left. But hey, it was a Sunday. That wouldn’t happen on a weekday, would it? So I went in on a Wednesday.
Crickets.
So, while I’m in the PetSmart, I’m surfing Amazon for information and better pricing, and guess what? I found an automated litter box on Amazon that uses ordinary litter for about 54% the cost of the equivalent model at PetSmart. So, . . .
Phase 2
I bought this via Amazon, and walked out of PetSmart without buying anything. Bad for business, eh? Anyway, the idea is to buy two litter boxes, one for upstairs and the other for downstairs. I’ll need to buy a manual one if my kitten(s) is(are) as young as I want, but that allows me to test this guy to see if it’s any good. If it is, I’ll buy a second one when the cat(s) get(s) older. Otherwise, this will be the secondary one, and I’ll spend the extra 46% for the PetSmart one. But maybe not buy it from PetSmart. They’re very unhelpful.
Phase 3
While I was surfing for automated litter boxes, I also found this.
I define this as a five-level cat tree. By that definition, PetSmart had only two- or three-level cat trees, none of which had scratching posts. Nevertheless, PetSmart‘s trees cost as much as this one did. Granted, you take your chances not being able to verify the integrity of the structure, but this paid off. The “carpeting” is really soft, and the scratching posts seem durable. Moreover, I wouldn’t quite call this “dark grey,” and that works. It’s almost the same color as my carpet, which is a greyish blue, and not particularly dark.
So, I need letter, cat food, and another litter box. I also need to get things off of shelves that are easily knocked over. What am I forgetting?
Here’s a war story from last Thursday night. I was working in Charles Town, WV across the street from the casino. I can see it from my office window. I was commuting back and forth from home (55 minutes each way) all week. I finally broke down, got a hotel room, and spent Thursday evening at the casino. In 3-1/2 hours, I made $465, and the casino paid for my dinner through comps. After work on Friday, I went back, and in 2 hours and 40 minutes, I won another $265 (and had another free dinner). As always, everything worked out for me.
But Not for Everyone
On Thursday night, someone who certainly should not be gambling was at my table. This is hard to describe in writing, but here you go: He was sitting in the first seat with a $15 bet and was dealt two 8s. After everyone’s initial hands were dealt, the dealer is showing a 5 (i.e., absolute crap), and of course he split the 8s (“always split aces and 8s!”) such that he had two $15 hands to play.
So, the guy indicates he wants a hit on the first hand. The dealer accidentally drew two cards at once, a 10 and a 9, and gave him the 10 on the first hand (total 18), then the 9 on the second (total 17). The next card drawn to the next player was a 4, and the one after that was a face card (10).
The dealer winds up getting a 20, which is not at all what you’d expect considering he was showing a 5, so the dealer’s 20 beat both the 18 and the 17. This is the guy’s beef: He claimed that he never indicated “stay” for either hand and therefore should be given a victory on both hands.
Now, if you’re not following the details, here’s the bottom line: You’d have to be incredibly stupid to hit either hand against the dealer’s 5. There’s no way he would have done that. Because he didn’t, he lost. But even if he were daring and had hit on the first hand, his 18 would have become a 27 — a bust — and his second hand would have been a 22 — another bust. No matter how they explained it to him, he couldn’t get it. When we (the players) did, he accused us of working for the house. I finally raised my voice and said “I just want to play, and your attempt to cheat yourself to a win $30 is getting in the way of that.”
Is this me or him?
But hey, if he had hit, the dealer wouldn’t have gotten a 20, so maybe the rest of us would have won, but he would definitely have lost either way. That’s the important part. Nevertheless, the pit boss gave him two options, both of which had the same effect. Either take a win on one hand and a loss on the other (effectively a tie), or take a push on both hands (neither win nor lose, also a tie). That’s the best he could offer, and it was the right thing to do because in fact he wasn’t given the opportunity to wave off his 18. But this guy was stubborn. He demanded they review the video to see what happened.
And here’s the twist. He did wave off the hand to indicate a stay. I saw that and was trying to help him avoid the loss, which is why I lost my temper when he gave me shit. When they reviewed the video, they saw that, so they had legal grounds to take his money on both hands. He stubbornly tried to cheat his way to winning under circumstances in which he couldn’t theoretically win either hand, refused to take the draw as compromise, and as a direct result, lost both hands. Of course, his explanation was that they were liars.
The Point
All of this is to say that there’s a very sad side to gambling. Losing isn’t a bad thing if you’re having fun. There’s no difference between losing $1,000 on the blackjack table and spending $1,000 to go scuba diving. The cost is the same, so if you’re having fun with whichever you choose, neither is a problem. But I’d bet good money 🙂 that this guy lost his phone payment last night, and maybe more. He made an incredible stink over two $15 bets. The table minimum was $15, so you can consider those as “small.” He should not be gambling, and neither should you unless you’re willing and able to lose everything you bring to the table. The first (but not only!) requirement is to assure you’re not playing for the wrong reasons; you must have a legitimate enjoyment of the game. It should never be seen as a source of income unless, like me, your victories far exceed you losses. Put another way, if you’re declaring gambling victories on your tax returns, then it’s (by definition) income, so you can treat it that way. But even I can lose, and I have. I’m prepared for that every time I sit down at the table.
Usually I don’t turn this blog into a shameless shill machine (though maybe I should?), but you really should listen to the House Lights podcast on The Nerd Party.
Yes, yes, I’m a part of it, but I just finished recording our next episode and it’s such a delight. Three people who legitimately agree AND (strongly) disagree and have the sorts of discussions you have with your friends about movies.
I’m proud to be a part of the show, and I want people to listen. If you haven’t tuned in yet, give it a shot. You won’t regret it.
OK, shameless shilling over. Next time, I’ll be talking about something like what would happen if Connor MacLeod committed self-beheading.
Just a random thought that hit me as I celebrated Easter this year.
Obviously, Christianity starts with not just an idea but a specific event centered around a being. Who that being was/is/might be as it relates to your own worldview is not really relevant to this random thought pixelated into blog form. (For a hint where I stand, note again that I celebrate Easter.)
Now stay with me.
As I drove the long way home, the thought came to me about what great story potential there is within Star Wars lore to discover and explore “The First Jedi.” There must have been a person around whom the beliefs first coalesced.
I began to relate it all to the life story of Jesus and the events that are the basis of Easter celebrations and, as my mind continued to wander through the miles, I realized I’ve always wanted…
A roller derby team has sued the team formerly known as the Cleveland Indians.
You may have heard that the Cleveland Indians are no more. The Major League Baseball team’s name has been changed to the Cleveland Guardians, though not on Twitter (what choice do they have?). Unfortunately, there already is a Cleveland Guardians team in Cleveland. They’re a roller derby team (yeah, they own the website address), and they claim to have a trademark in the name, prompting them to sue the baseball team. The roller derby team is also claiming that the baseball team attempted to buy out their rights to the name with an insulting offer. If…
My friend, Kurt, found this site by Merritt K. Word at which “Vin Diesel” takes you through an adventure. I’d be shocked if Vin gave his permission for this site, but stranger things have happened. Besides, he probably wouldn’t object to it if he found out.
All he ever says is, “I am Melkor.”
It’s actually frustratingly simple but could serve as the basis for a rather interesting advertisement for playing RPGs even before you dive into starter sets. I know some ASP.net, so I know it wouldn’t be difficult to expand it beyond what appears here, but I’m not particularly motivated to do so and don’t blame Merritt for not doing so. She planted the seed for those who should actually do things like this.
Some of you may have noticed my recent uptick in the use of profanity in my posts. Well, maybe one or two of you. In any case, there’s a reason for that. I tend to use this blog for silly things, avoiding politics, religion, and other incendiary topics at all costs. This post is a bit serious though. As most of you know, I’m an attorney, and I take the right to free speech very seriously. That’s what this post is about.
Last Friday, I posted the following meme on Facebook.
Almost everyone responded with, “Fuck you,” or the cleverest variation they could muster. It was wonderful. However, as you all know, there’s always one person that spoils the party. Here’s our exchange.
Why the focus on weakness? Because it’s bad for society. It’s not just profanity that scares people. Some people are afraid of applause and jokes on topics they believe should be taboo. Phonophobia is a real thing, but as someone who was diagnosed phobic during college (different phobia), I have first-hand experience distinguishing between fear and a phobia (c.f., depression v. sadness). There aren’t nearly as many phobics out there as your Facebook posts suggest. Some of these fears are merely the result to choose the easy way out and be weak. That doesn’t require professional help to correct; it needs a kick in the ass.
In other words, we all have insecurities and weaknesses, yet the world should be allowed to keep spinning anyway.
Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator of our society (in terms of weakness) is now dictating the terms thanks to their allies that blindly defend them with no appreciation for how it will weaken our culture. The allies claim that our job as the strong is to protect the weak, but that’s an incomplete statement. Of course we shouldn’t be picking on the weak, but we should be encouraging the weak to become stronger, or at least to learn to coexist in a society with the strong and everyone in between those extremes. Coddling (and downright encouraging) them isn’t good for us and isn’t good for them. Other cultures aren’t so weak, and they’ve already started to overtake us in specific ways.
Before I make my next point, I want to note that I hate the passive aggressive nonsense of, “If you don’t agree with my position on [political issue], then please unfollow me now.” Fuck that. Those people are assholes. If I don’t want someone to follow me, I should get up off my lazy ass and block them. The following isn’t meant to say otherwise.
If you don’t like what I’m saying, you have options. You can unfollow the thread, unfollow my blog or other social media platform, unfriend me, or block me. Ultimately, I don’t care if you don’t like the content of my thread regardless of the reason. If you do any of those things because of profanity (and I detect it), I’ll probably think to myself, “Well, that’s sad of them,” but it’ll be a fleeting thought quickly forgotten and never mentioned again. More directly, there’ll be no hard feelings on my end. I actually don’t want anyone to go, because everyone has something to offer in a conversation, but if you can’t handle naughty words, that’s your burden.
Or at least it should be.
So, your personal choice isn’t what concerns me. What concerns me is when you demand I facilitate such weakness, thus attempting to force your choices on me. Whether you complain to Facebook or another private entity (who often bow to the pressure of small minorities of misguided extremists), or even worse to the government, then you’re infringing on my life and possibly my rights. That’s where the line should be drawn, both legally and socially.
The Consequences of Censorship: The New Town Square
In the old days, if you wanted to bitch about an issue, you’d go to town square, prop yourself up on a soapbox, and start talking. Because town square was public land, the government couldn’t easily suppress the speech, and we had a free flow of opposing ideas allowing us to hammer out the details of our own positions. Now, other than major events, the public uses social media as town square. That is, we do the same thing on Facebook. Facebook’s control over their platform is, for all practical purposes, control over our speech, and is almost as dangerous as giving the government such control. Moreover, the government will always find a back door to indirectly influence private companies to restrict speech the government doesn’t want to hear, so it could become the same thing.
Suppressing any speech eventually suppresses all speech. That’s unacceptable because without free speech, none of our other rights have any teeth. This isn’t to say that I want private companies to be forced into certain speech. They have speech rights too, which includes the right not to speak. They also have rights to run their business, but only if it doesn’t harm society. There’s a delicate balance to be struck here, and ultimately the only pushback we can place on private companies is through antitrust law. That’s a completely different discussion that will definitely not be had on this blog. The point, however, is that this is extremely important.
So is shit, fuck, cock, and pussy really so much to ask for?
Play What You Want 