UB’s School of Informatics is no more.

Click here for a sort of post-mortem/wake/roundup podcast & linkage.

Renault-Nissan-General Motors Alliance?

Don’t laugh.

If some asshole in Rome wearing purple or red robes wants to excommunicate scientists and researchers who perform stem cell research, that’s all well and good.

But for fairness’ and consistency’s sake, any such cleric should forever be legally prohibited from ever receiving any sort of treatment or cure that might someday be discovered as a result of that research.

“Well, father, we do have a cure for that terminal disease we just diagnosed for you, but it was developed through stem cell research, so I’m prohibited from offering it to you.”

NYCO says:

…just as Eliot Spitzer re-created the office of Attorney General, by virtue of his huge poll lead he has apparently created a whole new office: Governor-PreElect.

She also quotes from the Brennan Center blog:

How virtuous or talented the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority Leader might be is irrelevant; concentrating so much power in the hands of two people in and of itself represents a breakdown of representative democracy. Only by standing up to their leaders and reforming house rules can the rank-and-file legislators begin to correct this power imbalance.

Standing up to the leaders.

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and he’ll be shunned. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may end up with the crappiest offices, and no committee assignments and no one’ll pay attention to them. And if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, telling Shelly and Bruno to stuff it and walking out, they may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in telling Shelly and Bruno to stuff it and walking out. And friends they may think it’s a movement.

NYCO thinks that Spitzer - the prospective governor figure of the “3 men in a room” needs to be a “Great Pumpkin” who can stand up to the legislative leaders. But I think that it’s just as important - if not more so - for the legislators themselves to swallow some pride, grow some balls (or ovaries, as the case may be) and stand up to the junta that runs our state government.

That, and legislators in Albany need to start acting in a bipartisan manner and start getting bills passed that are in the best interests of all New Yorkers regardless of party affiliation or special interest membership. Stranger things have happened.

Please let this be as good as it looks:

From Autoblog:

Will Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, a dominant NASCAR driver “who could only count to number one”. The “big hairy American winning machine” is accustomed to placing first, with his childhood friend Cal (played by Days of Thunder vet John C. Reilly) close behind him. However, things get tough when a leg-shaving French Formula One driver (Sacha Baron Cohen, best known to most of us as Ali G) challenges him for the top spot. The trailer reveals plenty of spoofing on previous racing movies, and we’re betting that the combination of Ferrell and Cohen will produce comedic gold.

Nothing like a tornado to mess up a getaway day afternoon commute.

Doc Type: D1A
Doc Group: DEED
CFN: 2006126606
Date/Time: 06/07/2006 16:42
Book Type: D
Book/Page: 11114/7684
Pages: 2
Consideration: $167000.00
Status: S
TT ID#:
Tax ID#: TT200525173
Legal 1: AMH 56 12/7 S61 C2210

Parties
D CHADWICK GEORGE F
D CHADWICK SHIRLEY B
R GIAMBRA MICHELLE

Long Legal 1 Town Map/Hostel/Parcel Zip Prop Type
AMH 133 PIN OAK DR

Draw your own conclusions.

Like kids on a playground, petulance abounds:

The Court thus properly rejected Justice Thomas’s extraordinary idea that the “structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch” in war-time—aspects of executive power that make that branch the “most dangerous” to individual liberty today—merit a hands-off approach by the courts. (Ironically, Justice Thomas refers to Justice Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”; but Stevens served in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1945, during World War II. Thomas’s official bio, by contrast, contains no experience of military service. Justice Stevens suffers another unwarranted ad hominim [sic] attack from Justice Scalia, who refers to Stevens’ sarcasm). In short, Hamdan follows the wisdom of Justice Souter’s concurrence in Hamdi: “For reasons of inescapable human nature, the branch of government asked to counter a serious threat is not the branch on which to rest the Nation’s reliance in striking the balance between the will to win and the cost in liberty on the way to victory.”

Senate President Joe Bruno (R-Saratoga Springs) is seeking his sixteenth (16th) term in the State Senate.

They should elect this:

Doc Group: DEED
CFN: 2006144557
Date/Time: 06/29/2006 14:06
Book Type: D
Book/Page: 11115/7751
Pages: 2
Consideration: $315000.00
Status: S
TT ID#:
Tax ID#: TT200527062
Legal 1: 2P CTY 75 11/8

Parties
D GIAMBRA JOEL A
D GIAMBRA MICHELLE
R LOVULLO BRYAN

Long Legal 1 Town Map/Hostel/Parcel Zip Prop Type
CTY 4 MIDDLESEX 14216

A roundup from SCOTUSBlog:

it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President’s conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress’s enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict.

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

It is about the rule of law.

It’s not as important as, say, perjuring oneself about receiving oral sex in the context of a civil sexual harassment lawsuit, but important nonetheless.

Let me make something clear:

1. The horrific actions of our enemy does not give the US carte blanche to violate international and domestic law.

2. The actions of the United States should not be compared to the actions of the enemy. They should be compared with the standards set forth by law and the rest of the civilized, western, democratic world.

3. There are ways to combat al Qaeda without resorting to illegal measures.

4. Now I understand why the Bush Administration was so opposed to signing on to the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.

Odien writes about last night’s screenings of Flipped:

First I want to thank all that attended last nights screening of Flipped. The feedback this morning has been overwhelming. One important thing to note. Not one of your elected officals bothered to come and see this important film about what’s happening in your community.

Steve Banko is the Field Office Director in the Buffalo of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. As we were leaving the second screening of the movie last night at the Market Arcade, he was spotted by numerous people coming out of a movie across the lobby.

This is a man whose office sells properties that need to be demolished everyday, destroying parts of our community, refused to return our calls for an interview and has the audacity to sit through ‘Noche Libre’, ‘Cars’ or ‘The Omen’ instead of taking an hour out of his time to see a movie that directy relates to him.

Talk about out of touch with reality…

In fairness, Crystal Peoples, Dave Franczyk and Sam Hoyt did see the movie the first time around. It’s a shame that more electeds and other political types - especially those whose offices are in City Hall - didn’t. The fact that the guy from HUD was in the theater seeing some fluff is simply amazing.

The Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees cannot be tried using the military tribunals that the Bush Administration created for that purpose, because it violates American military law and the Geneva Convention. (Incidentally, the Geneva Convention is also domestic law, because it was signed by the US and ratified by the Senate).

In a 5-to-3 ruling, the justices also rejected an effort by Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

And the court found that the plaintiff in the case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, could not be tried on the conspiracy charge lodged against him because international military law requires that prosecutions focus on specific acts, not broad conspiracy charges.

Majority: written by Stevens, joined in part by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Kennedy concurs.
Dissent: Scalia, Thomas, Alito.
Not Voting: Roberts

Justice Thomas took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 15 years on the court. He said that the ruling would “sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens declared flatly that “the military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedure violate” both the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the American military’s legal system, and the Geneva Convention.

Justice Stevens rejected the administration’s claims that the tribunals were justified both by President Bush’s inherent powers as commander in chief and by the resolution passed by Congress authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11. There is nothing in the resolution’s legislative history “even hinting” that such an expansion of the president’s powers was considered, he wrote.

In response, Bush said:

“The ruling won’t cause killers to be put out on the streets,” he said. “I’m not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people.”

The streets of what? Cuba?

Legal experts agreed that today’s decision had no bearing on the administration’s right to hold detainees at Guantánamo, but focused instead on the conditions under which they might be tried.

Mr. Hamdan was captured by Afghan troops in November 2001 and turned over to American custody, and has been held at the Guantánamo Bay prison since 2002. His case has been seen as crucial to deciding the future of the several hundred detainees held at the camp, which has come under steady and increasing criticism from countries around the world.

In a ruling two years ago written by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court said that powers given to the administration by Congress for the fight against Al Qaeda did not amount to a “blank check,” and said that detainees were entitled to a judicial process that met minimum legal standards. But it did not spell out what those standards entailed, and the military tribunals have essentially been frozen as appeals by detainees worked their way through the legal system.

President Bush said recently that he would like to close the camp, but needed to wait for the Hamdan ruling to see whether the military could proceed with its tribunals or if another form of trial would be have to be found for those detainees the administration wishes to keep in custody.

Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer assigned by the military to represent Mr. Hamdan, said at a televised news conference held outside the Supreme Court that the logical next step would be for Mr. Hamdan to be tried either by a traditional military court martial, as provided for under the Geneva Convention, or by a federal court.

He called today’s ruling “a return to our fundamental values.”

“That return marks a high-water point,” Commander Swift said. “It shows that we can’t be scared out of who we are, and that’s a victory, folks.”

Hallelujah. What do the freedom-haters think?

Richard Stamp, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed briefs supporting the government in the case, called the ruling a “disappointment” and an example of judges “clearly making it up as they go along.”

Mr. Stamp said the court had ignored its own precedents justifying the use of tribunals instead of courts martial, and was substituting its own judgment for the president’s in his role of commander in chief. “For the court to step into the war-making arena, where it has no expertise, is inappropriate,” he said.

Mr. Stamp also said he believed the court “has set itself up against both the Congress and the president” by rejecting a law passed last year that stripped the Supreme Court over jurisdiction over appeals by Guantánamo inmates.

I like to prounounce it “checks and balances”. But “against both the Congress and the president” works, too.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents more than 200 Guantánamo inmates, said he was “thrilled” by the ruling, which he said fully vindicated the views of administration critics.

“What this says to the administration is that you can no longer decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people,” Mr. Ratner said in a telephone briefing for reporters. “It upheld the rule of law in this country and determined that the executive has gone beyond the constitution and international law.”

***

He said the ruling showed that “it’s not enough to repeat the mantra that we’re fighting a war on terror and therefore all power resides in the executive branch.”

You can detain bad people. But you have to detain them pursuant to domestic and any international law to which we’re bound. It’s that simple. Bad people will always try to do bad things. We ought not do bad things in response.

Also, I’m tired of hearing about the President’s ability to combat terror. It’s the country’s duty, and the country can indeed protect itself within the bounds of the law. L’etat n’est pas lui.

You know, I skipped Monday’s column because I couldn’t get through it. I’m no masochist. But the Buzz’s plunge into ever-deeper mediocrity is easier to swallow in its bite-size form. Today’s shorter Buzz:

Catholic Churches recruiting parishioners in a bar. Missing apostrophe in “were”. That’s a home run.

MKG puts the “zz” in “Buzz”.

8.5, because the Catholic Church gets a shout-out.

With the advent of the Erie County Fiscal Stability Authority (the soft county control board), it seems that our state government, in its brilliant munificence, has merely added yet another dysfunctional layer of bureaucracy - and in this case an impotent one - to an already bloated, dysfunctional government bureaucracy.

Excelsior!

Why do we always get the bad rep for weather? Yesterday was sunny and 80 degrees, while pretty much the whole rest of the state was inundated with rain.

A section of I-88 near Sidney, NY washed away, and 2 truckers lost their lives plunging into the water, and the Thruway is closed … CLOSED! … between Schenctady and Syracuse; a stretch of about 130 miles along the Mohawk River:

According to a state police radio transmission, the Thruway is being closed from Exit 25A at Interstate 88 in Schenectady to Exit 34A at Interstate 81 in Syracuse.

All roads in Herkimer County were closed this morning after a state of emergency was declared. In addition, several roads in Oneida County have been shut down due to flooding.

Especially hard hit by flooding are communities in central and eastern Herkimer County.

Giambra’s brother-in-law returning to the county payroll:

7 News has confirmed that Joe Lettieri is going back to work for Erie County. The former chief of custodial services lost his job during the budget crisis in 2005. But now, he will be coming back as the assistant superintendent of cleaning services in a few weeks.

Personnel Commissioner John Greenan tells 7 News no preferential treatment was given to Lettieri, adding ” it’s a matter of law that this position had to be offered to him…to not offer it to him would violate state civil service law”. Greenan says when employees are laid off, they are put on a preferred list for when jobs open up. He says Lettieri had the highest civil service score for this position.

I’d be fascinated to see the civil service exam for what looks to be head janitor. What sort of knot to use when tying up a garbage bag? The bleach:water ratio in the mopping solution?

The job was one of a group approved by the Erie County Legislature, funded by state grants. Lettieri will make $49,000, $18,000 dollar less than he was making.

Nice work if you can get it.

Brilliant performance from a brilliant film.

I want them to catch this asshole just so I never have to see this picture ever again:

Tonight at the Dipson Market Arcade at 7pm and 8:15pm.

Tickets are only $5.00, and the reviews are excellent:

Artvoice:

A must-see for every Buffalo booster and citizen who’s concerned with the city’s future.

BuffaloGeek:

It is an exceptionally powerful documentary

Me:

The Flipped documentary produced by Michele Johnson and directed by Marc Odien is extremely well done and powerful. Many in the audience were almost moved to tears watching the devastation and blight that flipping has wrought.

Courtesy of Julia from “In Java, Literally”, I present to you:

Bob Chautauqua.

(Produced by Jamestown Improv Troupe the “Unexpected Guests“)

Did you know the Niagara Falls Gazette has a blog?

Me, neither.

Doesn’t really matter, since it’s hardly a blog if you update it about once a month. (Last entry dated 5/10/06).

Froomkin nails it:

It’s a monstrous charge for the White House to suggest that the press is essentially aiding and abetting the enemy. But where’s the evidence?

The White House first began leveling this kind of accusation immediately after a New York Times story revealed a massive, secret domestic spying program conducted without congressional or judicial oversight. See, for instance, Bush’s December 17, 2005 radio address , in which he said the disclosure put “our citizens at risk.”

But not once has the White House definitively answered this question: How are any of these disclosures actually impairing the pursuit of terrorists?

Terrorists already knew the government was trying to track them down through their finances, their phone calls and their e-mails. Within days of the Sept. 11 attacks, for instance, Bush publicly declared open season on terrorist financing.

As far as I can tell, all these disclosures do is alert the American public to the fact that all this stuff is going on without the requisite oversight, checks and balances.

How does it possibly matter to a terrorist whether the government got a court order or not? Or whether Congress was able to exercise any oversight? The White House won’t say. In fact, it can’t say.

By contrast, it does matter to us.

This column has documented, again and again , that when faced with a potentially damaging political problem, White House strategist Karl Rove’s response is not to defend, but to attack.

The potentially damaging political problem here is that the evidence continues to grow that the Bush White House’s exercise of unchecked authority in the war on terror poses a serious threat to American civil liberties and privacy rights. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that an American president used the mechanisms of national security to spy on his political enemies.

The sum total of the administration’s defense against this charge appears to be: Trust us. Trust that we’re only spying on terrorists, and not anyone else.

But what if the trust isn’t there? And what if they’re breaking the law?

The balance of powers, checks and balances, and other quaint notions from the 18th century should still be in full effect. While idiot Frist wails about desecration of the flag, the Republican party and its mouthpieces advocate for unfettered executive power.

Which is a bigger threat to our democracy and civil liberties? A burning symbol or a rubber-stamp legislature?

The flag burning amendment to the US Constitution(!) failed by one vote yesterday.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, read, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

des·e·crate (’de-si-”krAt) (v)
1 : to violate the sanctity of : PROFANE
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

That would have been fun to see the statutory provisions defining what, exactly, constitutes “desecration”. What a waste of time.

It represented Congress’ response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

“Countless men and women have died defending that flag,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. “It is but a small hum