perfidy

Microsoft's innovative (if, by innovative, you mean taking ideas that have been kicking around for twenty years and putting them in an overpriced and stunningly unwieldy form factor and calling it "revolutionary") Surface computer was debuted at the D conference a little while ago.

Here's a new take on it.

Several of our Ministers have, on occasion, used this forum to express a rabid, unthinking and vicious hatred of the traditional and sacred art of gerrymandering congressional districts. Now, if they only knew how difficult it is to balance out all those competing interests, they'd make less fun of all the funny shapes. But wait! Now they can know how difficult it is, by playing the magical interweb gerrymandering game! How fun is that? Actually, more fun than you'd think, and rather tricky until you get to the sucker bit at the end where they try to foist redistricting reform on you. That part's easy.

I found this over at the Llamabutchers, after I did my Harry Reid post over at Murdoc's. This is makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Helpful advice for surviving when the zombies come, all in a convenient wearable package:

Get yours today here.

(With a serious nod to the actual creators of the "Quotes entirely relevant..." genre, Long or Short Capital):

"There are some players that have psychologists," Cabrera said. "I smoke."

In the comments of the Pseudo-Linkzookery post, the conversation turned to wargaming - which was a bit of a surprise since if a thread drifts off topic here at Perfidy, the destination is usually zombies. One of the many games mentioned was Axis and Allies, one of my personal favorites, and a game I have not had the opportunity to play (due entirely to Mrs. Buckethead's bullheaded unwillingness to devote several hours to a boardgame.) It turns out that the Maximum Leader is a fan of the game as well, and so I propose that we set aside Bastille day as the first annual Perfidy Axis and Allies day. It seems particularly appropriate given that the French had no part in WWII, and will also have no part in the game.

Anyone who is local to the metro DC area who might be interested in playing a round of A&A, let me know.

Just seen in the Perfidious Advertising section, left:

Beautiful Russian Brides seeking men for marriage and dating. Find your true love now.

Luckily, we're not planning to refurnish the Ministry Bunker and Castratorium from the proceeds of advertising. And, while I hope it goes without saying, we as a group express no opinion on whether any reader will find their true love, from Russia or anywhere else.

Subject? Supreme Court rulings. Found in today's news, a story about the several decisions just handed down by our benign judicial overlords. The first two cases on which they ruled are interesting, but not part of the current exercise.

The case in question, Brendlin v. California, is covered in a Washington Post story entitled "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers". The heart of the case?

The court decided that when police stop a vehicle, passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and -- like drivers -- can dispute the legality of a search.

The ruling overturned a California Supreme Court decision in the case of Bruce Edward Brendlin, who was arrested on parole violation and drug charges after a November 2001 traffic stop in Yuba City, Calif. Brendlin, who subsequently was sentenced to four years in prison, appealed his conviction on the grounds that the drug evidence should have been suppressed because the traffic stop amounted to "an unlawful seizure of his person," according to today's ruling.

Although the state acknowledged that police "had no adequate justification" to stop the car, in which Brendlin was a passenger in the front seat, it argued that he was not "seized" and thus could not challenge the government's action under the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections. Government lawyers also argued that Brendlin could not claim that the evidence against him was tainted by an unconstitutional stop, according to the ruling.

California, in this case, was clearly and deeply wrong, and it's good, if unsurprising, to find the Supremes coming down unanimously in Brendlin's favor.

So, what's wrong with the story, you might ask? Well, not so much the story as the storyline - The WaPo story didn't cover this angle, but in the Wall Street Journal version of the story (subscription), I found this nugget:

The American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP backed Mr. Brendlin, arguing that a ruling in the state's favor would encourage police to conduct arbitrary traffic stops to target passengers, especially minorities, who lack the same rights as drivers.

Left unspoken is the irrelevant fact of Mr Brendlin's minority status, but I'll assume he's black. He could have been chartreuse without having any impact at all on this case, for all it would have mattered.

So Brendlin got the precisely correct result from the Court, for what I think hope are the right reasons, including the prima facie absurdity of California's position on the case. But the underlying theme, when the NAACP's and ACLU's involvement, their raison d'etre in this case, seems to indicate that absent some racial grievance, the alternative result would have occurred.

I have zero concern about the involvement of those two august organizations in providing Brendlin the legal and financial support in his battle, and good for them. Couching this as an issue that only or primarily resonates for minorities? That, I think, is a problem

Here's an interesting thing: a map of the United States with the names of the states replaced with the names of countries that have equivalent GNP's. It seems that my home state of Ohio is, economically, a brother to Australia. Cool. Take a look. Thanks to Rocket Jones for the link.

C'mon....I couldn't let this pass without saying something.

Actually, I think the pic they used for the story is right before the scene when the blades pop out and the thing flies straight into his eyes: