There's an interesting case up for review by the Supreme Court this week. I think it's called the "Children's Internet Protection Act" that was signed into law a couple of years ago. (It's always interesting how they name these things, to make it seem completely one-sided. "How can you be against this? Are you against children? Are you against protecting them??")
This law requires that all libraries have software on their computers that filters out "adult" sites, or be denied and federal funding. This doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea on the surface, but I've been reading about it and discovered a few disturbing things.
1) Librarians are nearly unanimously against it. That should say something. And it's not just the splinter group "Librarians for Porn", either. Why are politicians so quick to ignore the people who should be the experts, and have to deal with the ramifications every day?
2) All the filtering software in use is pretty bad. It's just not any easy problem to solve. They use crude methods that end up blocking out a lot of legitimate stuff. This is the basis for the constitutionality appeal.
3) It's an extreme approach. All libraries must have filters, or be denied funding. It's not like they can't already do it if they want to/need to. Why not leave it up to them? What are you risking?
4) Is this really such a huge problem that legislators needed to spend the time and effort it takes to get a bill passed to fix it? Who's exactly is checking out porn at the library? Somehow I have to believe that there are more important issues facing our country.

The whole idea of "one size fits all", and "we know best, you must comply" is really quite galling and incredibly arrogant. It's the same issue with the "English Immersion" ballot question that passed in MA last week. It's not like everyone doesn't have the same goals - all kids in public schools need to learn english - got it, we're all on board, not a problem. However, the idea of strictly mandating exactly how things can be taught is preposterous, especially when it's clear that most experts can't agree what is best. Instead we will now have a law that if you as a teacher speak a word of spanish to a native spanish speaking kid under the age of 11, you can be sued for it. English Immersion isn't necessarily a bad thing - from what I've read it's been reasonably successful in California with kids up to about the 1st grade, and has had mixed sucess with kids older than that. But a rational approach to it would be a nice thing.

I really don't know why this ballot initiative passed so strongly, but I suspect that the opposition was misrepresented. The alternative was certainly not "teach everything in whatever language the kids already know and skip english". Sadly, there was probably some degree of anti-immigrant bias at work here. And also maybe the votes of some thoughtful individuals who's worldview consists of "my grandparents got off the boat from Slokovanopotamia not knowing a word of english, and they didn't get any bilingual education. They had to figure it all out on their own, so that's how everyone else should have it." The argument that "Things were once very hard, so let's not try to do any better" is indisputable.

I was thinking a great business idea for the upcoming tax season would be a combination bar and H&R Block. I'm certain there are lots of people who would enjoy having a few drinks while waiting for their taxes to get done. And it'd be an opportunity to create all these painfully unfunny tax-themed cocktails, the "brain cell exemption", etc. Of course you'd also have to always use preposterous tax jargon that would be so far from funny, it might actually loop back around to really being funny. As the boss, I would just be waiting for the day I could say to one of my employees: "Better grab a mop - Someone filed a schedule V in the men's room."

As timely as the headlines from, errr, umm, earlier in the week - here's my all important "Election Breakdown":
I believe Shannon O'Brien lost the MA governor's race because of two factors 1) She failed to successfully deflect the charges that she would one way or another end up raising taxes, and 2) her somewhat abrasive and annoying personality. Reason number one was just clearly a failing of her campaign. The Mittster successfully labeled her as a tax hike waiting to happen, and she just didn't successfully convince the voters otherwise. Reason number two is perhaps more unfortunate. Yes, she was sometimes difficult to watch in the debates with her irritating smirks, and clearly she is a tough, aggressive woman. However, just because it is possible she isn't the most likeable person on the planet doesn't preclude her from becoming a strong governor. In some way, maybe it'd be a plus. It's a shame that the skills one needs to become elected are probably the opposite of those one needs to govern well. It's clear that her views on most of the issues are far closer to the average voter than those of the Governor-Elect. That should mean something, shouldn't it?


I didn't know anything about my favorite candidate in this election cycle until Tuesday morning when I was doing my final research on for whom to vote. The best candidate this year was Republican for State Treasurer Dan Grabauskas . I am generally not inclined to vote Republican in most cases, and treasurer is not exactly the most thrilling race, but I learned that he was the person responsible for the sweeping reforms at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. He's been the head of that agency since 1999, and implemented the ticket & queuing system that makes it actually a reasonable proposition that you can accomplish something at a Registry Office without being there all day. Fixing the registry should rate some kind of Nobel Prize for openers. He earned the nominations of the leading so-called "left-leaning" publications in town (Globe & Phoenix) over the Democratic candidate, which is certainly unusual and noteworthy. I think fixing the registry should be worthy of a Nobel prize.

His opponent, who unfortunately won, seemed to have as his primary campaigning weapons 1) a D next to his name, and 2) a TV ad highlighted by his overly cute 10 year old daughter spouting his campaign slogan of her own creation - "Tim for Treasurer".

So that's what it takes. Budding politicos, make note.