Observations of the SuperCAT!

Thoughts about (object) cloning

2010-10-15T20:12:00.004-05:00

One commonly-useful method for objects to support is cloning. Unfortunately, cloning tends to pose many difficulties in object-oriented languages, since the type of object returned by the clone method will vary depending upon the type of object performing it, and since base types may be used to derive some types that allow cloning and some that do not.

As I see it, there are four types of classes when it comes to cloning:

Those that simply cannot be cloned
Those that are perfectly happy if MemberwiseClone'd, but don't promise that their descendant classes will support cloning.
Those that can be meaningfully cloned, but they require more than MemberwiseClone, and they don't promise that their descendants will support cloning.
Those that can be cloned, and promise such ability on behalf of themselves and any descendant classes.

Unfortunately, the .net framework really doesn't do much to indicate which types fall in which category. My proposed pattern would make things much clearer, and would look something like this:


Class SampleSemicloneableBase
    Enum DontTryThis
        NoReallyDont = 0
    End Enum

    Public SampleArray1(0) As Integer

    Protected Overridable Function CloneBase() As Object
        Dim Result As SampleSemicloneableBase
        Result = CType(MyBase.MemberwiseClone(), SampleSemicloneableBase)
        Result.SampleArray1 = Result.SampleArray1.Clone
        Return Result
    End Function

    Protected Shadows WriteOnly Property MemberwiseClone As DontTryThis
        Set(ByVal value As DontTryThis)
            Throw New NotSupportedException()
        End Set
    End Property
End Class

Class CloneableDerived
    Inherits SampleSemicloneableBase
    Public SampleArray2(0) As Integer

    Public Shadows Function Clone() As CloneableDerived
        Return CType(Me.CloneBase, CloneableDerived)
    End Function

    Protected Overrides Function CloneBase() As Object
        Dim Result As CloneableDerived
        Result = CType(MyBase.CloneBase(), CloneableDerived)
        Result.SampleArray2 = Result.SampleArray2.Clone
        Return Result
    End Function

    Public Overrides Function ToString() As String
        Return SampleArray1(0).ToString & "." & SampleArray2(0).ToString
    End Function
End Class

Class NonCloneableDerived
    Inherits SampleSemicloneableBase
    Protected Shadows WriteOnly Property CloneBase As DontTryThis
        Set(ByVal value As DontTryThis)
            Throw New NotSupportedException()
        End Set
    End Property
End Class

Class cloningTest
    Shared Sub test()
        Dim thing1 As New CloneableDerived
        thing1.SampleArray1(0) = 1
        thing1.SampleArray2(0) = 2
        Dim thing2 As CloneableDerived = thing1.Clone
        Debug.Print(thing1.ToString & "/" & thing2.ToString)
        thing2.SampleArray1(0) = 3
        thing2.SampleArray2(0) = 4
        Debug.Print(thing1.ToString & "/" & thing2.ToString)
    End Sub
End Class

For this example, the base class has one field which needs to be cloned, and the cloneable derived class adds another. Each cloneable derived class should declare a "Public Shadows Function Clone()" of its own type, which should call the overridable "CloneBase()" and typecast the result as appropriate. Each cloneable class which needs to do anything when cloned other than call its parent's cloning method should add an override to CloneBase, and that override should start by calling it's parent's CloneBase method.

Classes which aren't going to support cloning-related methods of their parents (e.g. MemberwiseClone in the case of SampleSemicloneableBase, or CloneBase in the case of NonCloneableDerived) should seal off those methods from protected classes; the implementation here is perhaps a little cutesy, but should be pretty good (Intellisense should set people straight if they try it).

Classes which follow my pattern can be readily classified into types #1, #3, and #4. Type #2 is a bit dodgy; classes which follow my pattern would not be type #2 (they'd be #3 even if all they do is call Object.MemberwiseClone) but there's no way of knowing whether a type which supports MemberwiseClone really supports it, or simply hasn't disabled it. But for types which follow the pattern, the cloning status would be readily apparent.

X08 banking specification

2009-01-12T21:31:00.006-06:00

The X08 banking system is a new method of banking which nominally allows 32K of ROM and 8K of RAM. Because the cartridge must contain an operating system in addition to the user code, not all of the ROM and RAM will be available.

From a hardware standpoint, ROM is stored at addresses $00000000-$00007FFF and RAM is stored from $40000000-$400001FFF. As noted above, the first part of RAM and ROM will be used by the operating system. The emulator wouldn't have to worry about the OS RAM and ROM requirements, though it may be helpful to provide a 'trap' if a RAM address is written illegally. I'm not sure the best way to indicate what RAM areas should be considered legal and illegal, though.

Because the X08 controller is microprocessor based, it allows some features in addition to its rather generous RAM allocation. Most notably:

It allows the 6502 address space to be subdivided into four 1K zones which can be moved on byte boundaries anywhere within RAM or ROM address space.
It provides high-speed block copy operations; future versions of the specification may allow other special operatons as well. The cartridge will clock out NOPs while such an operation is in progress, and then clock out a JMP to the instruction following the instruction that triggered it; thus, while such an operation will take time, the user need not worry about waiting for it to complete.

The X08 banking specification is in some regards trickier than others, because the main controller is itself another microcontroller which can be in a number of different states at the start of each memory cycle. Much of this will usually be transparent to the person writing code for it, but to minimize the likelihood that code will work beautifully in emulation and then fail in weird and bizarre ways on actual hardware, an emulator should try to mimic these behaviors as closely as possible.

The following is a list of cartridge states. Note that at the end of each cycle, the cartridge may be outputting a byte of data or may be floating the bus. If the processor attempts a read while the bus is floating, the data bus contents should be randomized (on real hardware they may be unpredictable). If the processor attempts a write while the bus is being driven, that should probably cause a fatal error except in "inject" state. Note also that except when the processor is in busy state, any bus cycle which uses the same data as the previous one will be ignored.

Normal State

This is the most common state of the system. Each address is categorized into a 1K block, and then processed appropriately. A more detailed description appears below. This state may progress into many of the other states, based upon the address accessed.

Simple-Fetch State

If an access is not in cartridge space, it will be ignored. Otherwise the system will assume that the address is a normal read with the same memory-bank offset as the previous read. This has two main consequences:

The first byte of the instruction which follows a bank switch will be fetched from the page that was selected before the bank switch occurred.
If an instruction which triggers a bank-switch appears as the last byte of a bank, the first byte of the following instruction will be accessed from the byte following the end of the bank from which the instruction had been fetched. If the banks point to consecutive regions of memory, this will be as expected. If not, it may cause weird behavior.

In any case, the system will revert to Normal State following a Simple-Fetch access.

Simple-fetch-and-handle-write State

Because certain write operation trigger actions which cannot be undone by simply writing new data, the system will latch the address and data bus on each cycle until it sees a change in the address bus other than at bits 8 and 9. The system will then process a simple read, and then process the write. Note that indexed writes may safely cross page boundaries, but not bank boundaries. This state reverts to Normal State.

Enter-Busy-State State

The system will wait for a change in the address bus other than at bits 8-9, and then examine bit 12. If bit 12 is set, the system will drive $EA (NOP) onto the bus and queue up $4Cxxxx for injection state (where xxxx is the fetched address). The system will then perform a function based upon the previous access (said function will probably set busy_cycles, since the purpose of this state is to handle operations that will take multiple 6507 cycles to complete).

Busy State

The cartridge will keep floating the bus or driving it with a constant value until a specified number of cycles have elapsed. This state takes priority over all others, and it is recommended that an emulator use a "busy_cycles" counter; if it's non-zero, decrement the counter and perhaps check for bus contention (an attempted write while the cartridge is driving the bus) but otherwise do nothing. Busy State may progress to either Normal State or Injection State.

Injection State

Each time the address bus changes and the new address is in cartridge space, output a byte from the "injection queue". The injection queue allows up to four bytes to be loaded provided the last is not zero. The suggested implementation is to store all the bytes in a 32-bit unsigned integer. After each address change, if the address is in cartridge space, output the least significant byte and shift the integer 8 bits to the right. Once all data are shifted, the system will progress to Normal State.

As noted above, the system address space is divided into eight 1K blocks. The functions of each block are as follows:

ADDRESS	Function
$0000-$03FF	Some key registers at $007x, $02xx, and $03xx, as described below.
$0400-$07FF	One page for each bank--Select mode for a bank based upon LSB of address
$0800-$0BFF	One page for each bank--Add LSB of address to bank pointer
$0C00-$0FFF	One page for each bank--Subtract LSB of address from bank pointer
$1000-$13FF	User Bank 0
$1000-$13FF	user Bank 1
$1000-$13FF	User Bank 2
$1000-$13FF	User Bank 3

Each of the three User Banks may be independently programmed to use any of the following modes:

RAM/ROM read: Read a specified address from RAM or ROM, in typical ordinary fashion
RAM write: Writes a specified address to RAM. Note that indexed writes are acceptable, even if they cross page boundaries within a bank. Reads will return arbitrary data, and a read which is followed by any address other than a page wrap will "accidentally" store arbitrary data. RAM writes will use the Simple-Fetch-and-Handle-Write state.
Tethered read: Like a normal read, except that the base address of bank 0 is added to the address for the current bank.
Tethered write: Like a normal write, except that the base address of bank 0 is added to the address for the current bank.
Set Function Pointer: Performs a RAM/ROM read, but also sets the 'Function Pointer' to the address accessed (in RAM or ROM).
Byte Copy: Storing a byte to a bank in Byte Copy mode will perform a block copy from the Function Pointer to the destination address. The number of bytes copied will be the value stored, plus one. This will use the Enter-Busy-State state; the system will be busy for approximately 2+(bytes/8) cycles. Reading a byte in a copy-mode bank may cause unpredictable behavior.
Word Copy: Word Copy mode is similar to Byte Copy mode, except that (1) the specified value is the number of 16-bit words to copy, minus one (instead of bytes), and (2) both source and destination addresses must be even. Words are copied at the same loop rate as bytes (so 2+(words/8) cycles).
Longword Copy: Longword Copy mode is similar to Byte Copy mode, except that (1) the specified value is the number of 32-bit longwords to copy, minus one (instead of bytes), and (2) both source and destination addresses must be multiples of four. Words are copied at the same loop rate as bytes (so 2+(longwords/8) cycles).
Indirect Read: A byte is read from RAM at the specified address, and the upper 7 bits are used to select an entry in a table of 128 16-bit addresses pointed to by the Function Pointer. The value at that address in RAM is then fetched and given to the 6507. If the original byte read was odd, the address in the table will be incremented. Code may be executed from a bank in this mode (indeed, that's the whole purpose!) provided that it does not perform any writes to the cartridge nor perform any bank switches.

Key bank-switch addresses:

$0070 -- Set LSB of Function Pointer
$0071 -- Set MSB of Function Pointer
$007x -- (x>=4) Writing 'dd' acts like an access of $0xdd.
$040x-$071x -- Set bank 0-3 to point to page 0-31 of RAM without affecting mode
$042x-$073x -- Select specified mode for bank 0-3:
1. Read
2. Write
3. Tethered read
4. Tethered write
5. Set Function Pointer
6. Byte copy
7. Word copy
8. Longword copy
9. Indirect read
$044x-$075x -- Set bank 0-3 to point to specified RAM address and select read mode
$0460-$076x -- Set bank 0-3 to point to specified RAM address and select write mode
$0480-$07FF -- Set bank 0-3 to point to specified ROM address.

Note that any access to a bank-switch address will cause the following cart-space address to be performed in Simple-Fetch state.

Silly poker odds trivia

2009-01-06T17:43:00.009-06:00

A few interesting (though not terribly useful) observations about poker odds; I believe these are correct, though I might have missed something.

A player holding pocket aces always has the best of it pre-flop when playing against three opponents, no matter what the opponents hold. Against four opponents, it's possible for the player not to have the best of it, but he can't be a very big dog (I think the worst-case is AcAd vs AhAs KcKd Tc9c 7d6d, with all the non-ace opponents holding the player's suits; that yields a pot equity of over 18.118%). If there are opponents who fold pre-flop, the cards they render dead may shift the odds. If there are six people in a hand to start, two of whom have pocket aces, and three of the players fold pre-flop, it's possible for the player who doesn't have pocket aces to be the only one to have over 33.3% pot equity.
A player holding pocket aces could theoretically be almost totally dominated (less than 0.8% pot equity) when playing against nine opponents, but I believe there are only one arrangement of cards (given player's suits) which would push pot equity below 1%. If player holds AcAd, opponents hold AsAh and 6c6d-KcKd. The player has zero chance for an outright win, and less than 1.6% chance for a chop (most chops are 2-way). Changing any opponent's card adds many outs. For example, changing the 6's to 5's would allow 2345x (x > 6) as a winning out, with 126 suit combinations and 14 possibilities for x, in addition to adding some full-house outs. Without the change, the player's only chances for an out would be two-way chop with a four-of-a-kind 2-5 (remaining card anything) or else a hand with all cards in the range 2-5 (roughly 4,368 out of 201,376, though some of those double-count four-of-a-kinds or else lose outright), or a six-way chop with a straight flush (6-Q high in hearts or spades),

It's interesting to note that even the opponent with the worst hand equity (the 7's) dominates the player by a factor of over 7.5 despite having six open overpairs; it's also interesting to note that the opponent with pocket aces has the best of it, with slightly over 10% hand equity.
A player holding pocket kings against seven opponents could be drawing stone cold dead (e.g. against KK AA AA TT TT 55 55) but I don't know if there's any scenario with six opponents where the player wouldn't have any chance for even a chop. Note that the player would be drawing dead even if six of the opponents fold (any only the player with dominating aces stays in). The permutation of cards among those six players would be completely arbitrary.
Against four opponents, pocket kings may have a hand equity well below 0.1%. Player holds KcKd; opponents hold AcAd, AhKh, AsKs, 8c7c. The player can win outright only with 9TJQx in clubs or diamonds (76/850,668 possible boards); the only other outs, for a five-way chop, are straight flushes (6-J high, in hearts, spades, or diamonds) or straights (8-J high, in suits that don't give opponents a flush).

Most of these observations should not be even remotely considered in actual play (it would be foolish to fold pocket aces on a ten-person table for fear that one might be totally dominated) but I find them all interesting from a mathematical perspective.

The crash is inevitable, necessary, and not to be feared

2008-09-26T18:28:00.003-05:00

In examining the various plans to deal with the financial crisis, there seems to be a common element: a desire to avoid at all cost the collapse of an interlocked collection of derivative securities which could be called the House of CarDS (credit default swaps). The fear is that the massively tangled web of credit default swaps and other derivative securities will explode like a powderkeg that will destroy the economy if things go sour; because of this fear, the collapse must be prevented at all costs.

That attitude is fundamentally wrong and dangerous. First of all, it allows Americans to be held hostage to any demands financial institutions might make. Fail to do as they say, and they'll drop a match. Secondly, the costs of keeping the House of CarDS from collapsing are going to increase exponentially until it does collapse. Since the collapse is inevitable, it would be foolish to spend trillions of dollars postponing it. Thirdly, a collapse of the House of CarDS would not cause a major loss of value in the assets therein; since the loss has already occurred and has simply not been realized, the collapse would simply represent the acknowledgment of the already-existing loss. Fourthly, the biggest factor in today's credit lockup is that nobody knows what any of the paper assets are worth. If the paper assets in one's account are only worth $0.05 on the dollar, it's better to liquidate them and have $0.05 on the dollar of real assets, than to keep pretending the assets are worth face value when everyone knows they're probably worth less but nobody knows how much.

The first point should be self-explanatory. The second point is not so self-explanatory, but it is both observable empirically and explainable theoretically. I'll return to it later. As for the third third point, consider the following analogy: Joe Banker opens up a bank. Individual account holders are limited to depositing $100,000. The first $10,000,000 that people deposit in are shown on display. Any money that's put in after that goes to the vault in the back. What Joe doesn't tell anyone is that he actually pockets 80% of deposits and send them to secret offshore accounts in Fredonia. Each individual account holders can see that the bank has over $10,000,000 in assets, which is clearly enough to pay him off. What the account holders don't see is that the same assets are being used to back many times their worth in deposits, so even though people have deposited a total of $1,000,000,000 in the bank, there are only about $210,000,000 worth of assets backing them up.

Would a run on the bank cause the people to lose money? Not really. A run on the bank would cause the later depositors to lose everything, but the major loss came when Joe pocketed 80% of the deposits and sent them off to Fredonia. While a bank run would arbitrarily redistribute the losses (so those who withdraw early pass their losses off to latecomers), depositors on average will have lost $0.79 on the dollar before the run even started. The only effect of the run will be a fight over the last $0.21.

Returning to the original second point (exponential cost to prop things up), assume that Joe's Bank hasn't crashed yet, but the reserves are getting low (people who deposit money sometimes have the audacity to withdraw it). So Joe decides he needs to get more depositors. Easy solution: offer higher interest rates. In response to the higher rates, more people deposit the money, and Joe keeps getting more and more money to put in his pocket. Each dollar that Joe takes in and then pays out must be replaced by more than $1. Even if Joe weren't pocketing anything, the payment of interest would require an increase in the rate of deposits. If Joe starts pocketing money for himself as well, that will cause things to escalate rapidly.

On to point number four. Suppose that Acme Plastics has recently borrowed a lot of money to purchase another company which, as it happens, had lots of assets of dubious worth. If those assets are worth $0.10 on the dollar, Acme Plastics is solvent. If they're worth less, it's not. Acme Plastics has an assembly line all set up to produce Tickle Me Paulson dolls, and stores are waiting to receive them. All Mr. Acme has to do is get $100,000 of raw plastic on credit and he'll soon have $1,000,000 worth of merchandise. Unfortunately, since potential creditors have no way of knowing whether Acme Plastics is solvent, they have little desire to lend money and risk having to fight other creditors for its return.

If the crash of the House of CarDS revealed the real value of Mr. Acme's dubious assets to be $0.15 on the dollar, the crash would help Acme Plastics get credit, since he could show that his business was solvent. Even if it showed the value of those dubious assets to be only $0.01 on the dollar, though, it could still be a good thing for the Acme Factory. Markets love gains, but they tolerate losses. What they don't like is question marks. If the assets are shown to be worth $0.01 on the dollar, and that is insufficient to meet obligations to existing creditors, there are many ways to keep the factory open. Creditors may accept a debt-for-equity exchange. Or the business could be liquidated with the factory, intact, bought out by someone who could then supply the raw plastics needed to begin production. Even if none of those desirable things happened and Acme Plastics was disbanded, that wouldn't be much worse than having the company go broke because it couldn't get the credit needed to produce products.

So what do all these points mean? The fundamental danger in today's marketplace is not that there will be a crash, but rather people will act irrationally in an effort to avoid one. Nobody is going to want to see his portfolio drop by $0.50 on the dollar overnight, but throwing in good money after bad in an effort to deny reality is no solution. A lot of the money put into the markets by investors is gone. No amount of hope or optimism will change that. The only way to restore confidence in the markets is to find how much money is gone and how much remains, and then move forward.

The Jellybean Counter

2008-07-26T23:39:00.003-05:00

Suppose a town decides to have a contest for people to guess the numbers of jellybeans in various jars. To produce an official count, they appoint an official Jellybean Counter. His job is to determine what the whole number of jellybeans in each jar is.

The first jar contains 427 perfect jellybeans and nothing else. The Jellybean Counter's job is easy. His job is to report the number 427. His job is not to report 426, or 428, or for that matter 5,591 or 57. His job is to report 427.

The second jar contains 503 perfect jellybeans, along with half a cherry jellybean and half a licorice jellybean. What's is the Counter supposed to do here? His job is not to produce a description of the jar's contents, but a whole number. If the rules don't say how half-jellybeans should count, what number should he report? He could do his job by reporting 503, 504, or 505. He would not be doing his job if he reported any larger or smaller number.

In the interest of fairness, the Jellybean Counter should try to make clear what rules he intends to follow in cases that are not addressed by official rules. He must also, however, not allow his own efforts at rulemaking to take priority over any official rules, nor over common sense. For any jar of beans, it will be obvious that any number of beans outside a certain range is just plain wrong. The Jellybean Counter might have formulated a wonderful rationale for a count value outside that range, but no matter how beautiful his logic, such a value would be wrong.

Today's courts are like an overly-creative Jellybean Counter. If they don't like the result that's mandated by the law and the case before them, they formulate some rationale to justify a different answer. Their usurpations are then used to justify further usurpations.

I wish some judges would be more willing to put their foot down on such dangerous nonsense. In ambiguous situations, it is often right and proper to rely upon precedent to select among alternative judgments. In such cases, however, the precedent isn't necessary to justify a judgment, but merely to explain why it was chosen in preference to other equally-justifiable judgments. If a judgment cannot be justified without reference to precedent, I would suggest that it is not legitimate. I can think of no exceptions.

Flash drives

2007-11-02T00:02:00.001-05:00

Who came up with the idea of making flash drives emulate sector-based disks? Blah.

Back to the Classics

2007-08-04T18:16:00.000-05:00

Well, I got out my Commodore 128 and VIC-20. The left shift key on the C-128 doesn't seem to work, which is disappointing. I think I've had that problem before, though, and solved it by swapping around the squishy things among different keys. Since there are some keys I never use (e.g. "Line feed") I could borrow the squishy things from those.

Run Fred Run!

2007-05-01T23:56:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson seems likely to run. I don't know everything I'd like to know about him, but the only negative I'm aware of is that he once supported Campaign Finance Reform. Since he has since recanted on that, and I believe in forgiving repentant sinners, I don't particularly hold that against him. Otherwise he seems way better than Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, and at this point I trust him more than Mitt Romney.

I think perhaps he doesn't want the presidency for himself as much as the other candidates; other people may see that as a bad thing, but I see it as a good one. If he runs, it will be because he wants the country to have a good President. I think he'd probably be happier if the country had a good President that wasn't him, but I doubt he thinks that's possible.

Are there no good Republican candidates?

2007-03-22T21:33:00.000-05:00

It's discouraging, being more than 18 months away from an election and knowing it's almost certainly going to be a disaster. Maybe Mitt Romney will win, and maybe he'll turn out to be a good candidate, but I'm not holding my breath.

Winning as a Republican requires articulating a vision. Unfortunately, most "Republicans" seem to have no real vision. They're just Democrat lite--the least rational position of all.

Conservatives and capitalism

2007-01-05T21:16:00.000-06:00

Many conservatives fail to acknowledge the various ways in which liberal policies may, superficially, "work". Liberals are in many cases behaving quite sensibly in deriding their "Ivory Tower" arguments, since they completely fail to acknowledge (and seemingly contradict) readily-observable phenomena.

One analogy I like to use is to imagine a store that comes changes management; the new manager decides that purchasing inventory is a waste of money, so for every ten units of merchandise he sells, he'll buy five to replace them. This allows him to cut prices by 25% while increasing his worker's wages by 50%. Who would have thought it possible to cut prices so much while still giving such a nice raise to employees?

Perhaps that example may seem over-simplistic, but many liberal policies operate on the same principle as that store. Conventional arguments against them would be akin to arguing that the store couldn't possibly raise wages without raising prices, nor cut prices without cutting wages.

A key to resolving many such conundrums is to consider capitalisation and policies' effects thereon. Consider the electricity industry. Generators cost money, and periodically need to be replaced. Left to its own devices, a power plant will make a significant nominal profit, but will from time to time spend a large chunk of that overhauling or replacing equipment. If the power plant is prevented from making such a profit, it may continue to operate at nominal profit as long as the equipment holds out, but then hit a snag. It won't have enough money on hand to buy the needed equipment, and it will be hard to attract people to invest much money without prospects for significant profit. The only way the plant will be able to stay in business will be to impose a very large rate increase (which must be large enough either to collect the money for a new generator fairly quickly, or else to reduce demand to the point that the generator that needed replacement is no longer required). Of course, the fact that customers had been receiving cheap electricity for so many years will only aplify their outrage when it ends. Of course, nobody will consider that the sudden rate increase became necessary because of the earlier lower prices.

Cory Maye is off death row

2006-09-30T23:14:00.000-05:00

...at least for now. I don't know what all I can say beyond what's covered at www.theagitator.com, but at least Maye got a day in court with some good legal representation.

There are some things I find deeply disturbing about the case. The only fact supporting reasonable cause for the initial search warrant that was actually supported by oath or affirmation was Officer Jones' observation that there was an unusual amount of traffic to Cory Maye's neighbor's side of the duplex. Anything Officer Jones said regarding his informant should have been deemed hearsay and irrelevant, since the informant was not under oath.

Also, I'd like to see someone opposed to Maye's acquittal answer a couple of questions for me:

How can someone distinguish between a police officer and a home-invasion robber who yells "police"?
Is a person more likely to have his door broken down in the night by a police officer or by a home-invasion robber?

If someone bashing down a door in the night is more likely to be a home invasion robber than a cop, that would suggest that it would not be unreasonable to believe that someone bashing down one's door was a robber. If it's more likely to be a cop, that would suggest that the police endanger the public more than the criminals from which they're supposed to provide protection.

Do I think Officer Jones was a bad person? Not too bad, anyway. But did were all his actions in the raid proper? I think not. Should his mistake have been fatal? It's unfortunate. But it would be more unfortunate for if Cory Maye were also to die or have his life destroyed for Officer Jones' mistake.

I want my Kodachrome

2006-07-08T14:05:00.000-05:00

Kodak has discontinued Kodachrome 40 in Super 8 format, but they continue to offer it in other formats, and they introduce new films like Ektachrome 64 in Super 8. Kodachrome offered fine grain and colors that could last for decades. By contrast, a the dyes in a lot of Ektachrome film go wonky after awhile.

What was wrong with good old-fashioned Kodachrome?

The joys of virtual peripherals, 1977-style

2006-03-06T00:03:00.000-06:00

The Atari 2600, a video game system which debuted in 1977, is a rather interesting machine. The specs are really not much to speak of. 128 bytes of RAM, 4K of free address space on the cartridge port, a 6507 running 1.19MHz, and a video system that can barely manage to output a line of display without help from the CPU. And yet this system is in many ways more powerful than its contemporaries.

The key to its power lies in the fact that the CPU is responsible for most of the video generation. Although this means that generating a display takes a lot more work (for both the CPU and the programmer) than on other systems, it also allows for extreme flexibility.

The key to producing a practical working display is to come up with some virtual display routines. Arrange the display kernel so that things will be displayed according to what's in certain parts of RAM. Want a bitmap and have room to store it? Make the kernel regard part of memory (RAM or ROM) as a bitmap. Want a character display? Do that.

It's really quite remarkable that a system which was designed to save cost by forcing the CPU do everything turned out to be so versatile because the CPU could do everything. Amazing how much power can be held in a CPU that--even in 1977--would have only cost a few dollars.

What will it take...

2006-01-11T21:30:00.000-06:00

...before people decide the current direction of closed-source operating systems is unacceptable?

The most recent Windows security weakness is actually not a result of its closed-source nature, but the fact that a third party beat Microsoft to the punch in offering a patch is interesting.

Newer Microsoft operating systems may be more resistant to some attacks, but they'll probably be much more resistant to any third-party fixes. There is definitely something to be said for setting things up so that applications can't willy-nilly change the operating system, but Microsoft's designs go beyond that.

Fundamentally, Microsoft et al. want to make it impossible for the owner of a computer to really know or control what it's actually doing. In theory, it should be possible for any malware to break through the OS security barriers. Unfortunately, if any malware does so, it will be impossible to remove or possibly even detect.

Some very dangerous possiblities there...

Sony Delenda Est

2005-11-17T00:56:00.000-06:00

One day, Joseph Johnson, a movie buff saw an ad for Acme Postal Movies, a company that promised easy and convenient DVD rentals by mail. Interested, he wait to their web site, read their agreement, and signed up. His movies came, and when he returned them, more came, and he was happy with the service.

Awhile after he signed up, though, he found himself questioning his sanity. Not that there was anything wrong with APM, or the service he got from them. But he thought he heard strange noises, and some objects in his home seemed to rearrange themselves from time to time. He thought there might be a burglar, but a search of his house revealed nothing.

One day, however, he found a little man trying to retreat into a recently-dug crawlspace. When confronted, the guy said he wasn't a burglar, and was in fact there with Mr. Jones' permission. He handed Mr. Jones a couple sheets of paper. The first was a copy of the APM membership agreement with the following text highlighted:

APM will not hold the member liable if a movie is lost in the mail. APM reserves the right, however, to take such actions as it deems appropriate to prevent abuse of this policy including, but not limited to, revoking the accounts of users if too many of their rentals are reported lost.

The second was a statement by APM:

We at APM recognize that some people will try to cheat us by keeping our disks and then reporting them lost in the mail. We think it appropriate, therefore, to use field agents to inspect our members' houses and ensure that they do not have any disks that have been reported "lost". Because some members might report a disk lost and then try to deny our agents entry, we think it appropriate to place agents in advance in the homes of anyone who might conceivably report a lost disk....

Joseph Johnson was furious. "Fine. Here are all the disks I currently have rented. I quit my membership--now get out of my house!"

"Sorry, said the inspector, APM doesn't want me to leave. And you didn't finish reading that second page."

We at APM recognize that some people may wish to terminate their memberships and later rejoin. Therefore, we think it reasonable to keep agents in the homes of even those who have quit membership, to ensure that if they rejoin we will have an agent present.

"So you see," said the agent, "you have no right to kick me out. You gave your consent to my presence, so here I will stay."

Some companies claim that End User License Agreements give them cart blanche to install whatever spywhere they please. But what does "consent" really mean?

Precedent and Nonsense

2005-10-13T21:34:00.000-05:00

One of the issues that comes up when evaluating prospective judges for the Supreme Court is how they will regard precedent. Although this is often code for "will you overturn Roe v. Wade", I think some serious reconsideration needs to be given to how precedent is handled in the courts and it would be refreshing to hear a nominee say so.

Under today's practice, precedent is often given just as much weight as statutory law or even the Constitution itself. If the court says a statute means something, even if the plain language of the statute clearly means something else, and sometimes even if the legislature passes legislation explicitly stating that it meant what it said the first time, the first court's interpretation will be regarded as gospel. As future courts refuse to declare that the first one was wrong, the decisions will become entrenched to the point that none dare challenge them.

Frankly, I find this notion abhorrent. The Supreme Court's job in a case should be to consider the following factors, in order of priority

The Constitution of the United States
Treaties that were legitimately ratified thereunder
Federal statutes that were legitimately passed thereunder
Any state constitution which is applicable to the present case
Any state statutes that are applicable to the present case
Justice
Precedent

At times, justice may be given a slightly higher priority than statutes, if such treatment is necessary to present a profound injustice not intended by the authors of those statutes. Precedent should be considered when it's necessary to select among several possible reasonable decisions, but seldom otherwise; the main reason for consulting precedent even then is to avoid the injustices that would result from courts deciding cases willy-nilly.

Lower courts pose a different challenge: they must rely upon precedent from higher courts. They should not blindly accept precedents which are clearly abhorrent to the Constitution and statutes (after all, their fealty is the Constitution and not the courts above them), but they should generally assume that higher courts are correct unless they have very solid knowledge that they're wrong.

Of course, for lower courts to follow the rules established in the higher courts' rulings, they have to understand them. This, unfortunately, is easier said than done. In an effort to avoid charges of "legislating from the bench", higher-court justices often dont's spell out real rules for deciding cases, but instead say how certain cases are decided and leave it to lower-court judges to infer the rules from that. The result of this can be worse than "legislating from the bench" because while the court makes rules, nobody really knows what they are; people have to live in fear of rules they can't possibly understand.

One remedy to many of the problems with precedent would be to codify a new rule: people should not be punished for acting according to a reasonable understanding of the de jure and de facto rules they were supposed to live by. If the court finds that a person's understanding of the law (de jure or de facto) was incorrect, but that a reasonable person could have shared that person's understanding, the court should be able to a decision which excuses that person for interpreting the law that way, and also excuses anyone else who has previously done likewise, but simultaneously estalishes that such an interpretation of the law is incorrect, and that it will not be excusable in future.

Although care must be taken to avoid letting the courts use such powers to offer corrupt advantage to favored people, allowing and encouraging the courts to issue such decisions could do a lot to minimize some of the problems with precedent.

Compromise: A lose-lose proposition

2005-04-10T23:22:00.000-05:00

Suppose the Democrats are trying to create some new $10B program. The Republicans have two choices: agree to a $5B "compromise" program, or let the program pass for the full $10B over their objections. Which course of action is better?

I would posit that the first course of action is pure folly. If the program works at all, the Democrats will take all the credit and the Republicans will be blamed for not having let it work even better. If the program doesn't work, the Republicans will be blamed for not having allowed it the necessary funding. In either case, the inevitable result will be that the program will get at least $10B/year forevermore.

By contrast, if the Republicans say the program is a completely horrible idea but the Democrats nonetheless give it full funding, then if the program fails to live up to its promises, the Republicans will be well positioned to argue that it failed because it was a bad idea and it should be cut entirely. The Democrats will not be able to deflect any blame for the program's failure, since they will have gotten exactly what they asked for. The Republicans, having been consistent in their uncompromising opposition to the program, will be vindicated. And while the program's first-year appropriation will have been $10B instead of $5B, the future appropriations will be $0/year instead of $10B/year. So the sacrifice of the initial "extra" $5B will repay itself double in the second year, and will pay off 200% every year thenceforth.

Forced to give up the ghost

2005-03-31T12:49:00.000-06:00

Theresa Marie Schindler (Schivo) put up a good fight. A better fight than anyone else in this case, perhaps. But without water, even the strongest will to live can only go so far.

No mere mortal can withstand the full onslaught of the forces of Hell. That Terri held out as well as she could is a testament to amazing strength of will. My strongest hope now is that the evil ones have been drawn forth so far that the Red Sea can come crashing down upon them. Though I wished that it could happen in Terri's lifetime, Terri's life will not be in vain if her killers are exposed and rent asunder.

I am reminded of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Although I was well aware of the crucifixion story long before seeing the movie, I had always perceived Christ's active participation as ending at Gethsemene: from that point forth, I had thought, he was simply carried along by the maelstrom into which he had thrown himself. What The Passion drove home was that Christ's role during his passion was not that of a passive victim. Rather, he was an active participant who by force of will refused to die until he could reach Golgatha and there be crucified. Though it would have been much easier for him to simply give up his spirit under the Romans' whips, such a surrender would not have fulfilled the prophesies and would not have bought mankind's ressurection.

Likewise with Terri's refusal to give up the ghost until it was positively and forcefully dragged out of her. It would have been much easier for her to simply give up years ago during Michael's earlier efforts to kill her through neglect. If she had, however, none of the evil in this case would ever have come to light. Terri deserves enormous gratitude for her willingness to endure the tortures of Hell so as to expose them for all the world to see. Though it may not seem like she 'did' much, her refusal to die shows more strength, determination, and virtue than most people display in a lifetime.

May she never be forgotten.

Theresa Marie Schindler (Schiavo)
Born December 3, 1963
Executed starting March 18, 2005
Forced to give up the ghost March 31, 2005

Exodus 14:15 - 15:1

2005-03-22T19:40:00.000-06:00

A common reading this time of year, but somehow especially applicable this year.

CHAPTER 14
15 The LORD said to Moses, "Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. 16 Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go on dry ground through the sea. 17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen. 18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten glory over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen." 19 Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them, 20 coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness; and the night passed without one coming near the other all night. 21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 23 The Egyptians pursued, and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. 24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians, 25 clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily; and the Egyptians said, "Let us flee from before Israel; for the LORD fights for them against the Egyptians." 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen." 27 So Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its wonted flow when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled into it, and the LORD routed the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. 28 The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. 29 But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. 30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore. 31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.

CHAPTER 15
1 Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, "I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea.

Chapter 14:17 is getting hard to take. I hope Chapter 15 comes soon.

Constitutional showdown is nigh

2005-03-18T16:57:00.000-06:00

A little too mad/uptight to write much, but the last four lines of 'Bird in a Barren cage' certainly seem apropos:

The future right now is hard to see
Though a showdown is coming nigh.
Will the forces of life trump the judge who says,
"The law of the case is that she must die"?

Both sides seem to be building up their forces. At present glance, it would seem Greer has the upper hand, but since I wouldn't necessarily expect any rescue to be telegraphed beforehand, it's hard to tell. It'll take a miracle, but the time seems to be approaching for one.

Blood is boiling; new song page

2005-03-16T23:00:00.000-06:00

I've put up a page with material for the song "Bird in a Barren Cage". My blood has been boiling so much it's been hard for me to come back here and write anything, but the page may be found at http://www.casperkitty.com/barrencage if you'd like to take a look. New recordings at various bit rates are available there along with sheet music, etc. Give it a look.

I continue to have faith that things will turn out, but the road does appear to be a bit bumpier than expected. Greer looks dirtier than I thought, and so can't afford to cut and run. I am reminded of the saying "May you live in interesting times". Well, these times certainly are "interesting".

Bird in a Barren Cage -- recording available

2005-03-09T18:29:00.000-06:00

A low-bandwidth recording of "Bird in a Barren Cage" is available at http://www.casperkitty.com/pol/bcage.wma. Feel free to spread the word; as holder of copyright and master, I hereby grant permission for its free distribution, but retain derivative-works rights.

Higher-quality recordings will be coming soon.

Bird in a Barren Cage

2005-03-04T23:19:00.000-06:00

[based on "A Bird in a Gilded Cage" by Lamb/von Tilzer; melody altered somewhat from original]
[last revised March 6]

VERSE 1:
Theresa Marie was a beautiful girl.
with a smile that could light up the room.
But now the plans of three evil men
are rushing her towards her doom.
Her cruel faithless husband now wants her dead--
Wants to marry another wife.
Why can't he just see, Terri ought to be free.
She and he could get on with life.

CHORUS:
She's kept like a bird in a barren cage.
'Cos her husband keeps it bare.
No pictures, no music, no pets, no TV.
Her life is so lonely there.
But Terri is loved by her family
and by thousands from coast to coast.
Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold
she refuses to give up the ghost.

VERSE 2:
The more one looks into this sordid case,
The clearer the evil plot.
They're not trying to starve her because she's dying,
but rather because she's not.
In this quest Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer
Are fighting with all their might
Not because Terri won't speak up,
But rather because she might.

REPEAT CHORUS

VERSE 3:
So what shall become of Michael's bird?
Will he starve her as he intends?
Or will she be rescued by those far and wide,
who'd be honored to be called her friends?
The future right now, is hard to see.
Though a showdown is coming nigh.
Will the forces of life trump the judge who says:
"The law of the case is that she must die"?

REPEAT CHORUS

Midi available here

Lyrics copyright 2005 -- They may be freely distributed for the purpose of publicizing the Schiavo case, but recording rights are retained; free licenses will likely be granted for those supporting the Schindlers' case, but permission must be obtained first.

The entrenchment of evil

2005-03-03T22:07:00.000-06:00

When I was a liberal, I used to believe many things that today seem absurd. One very dangerous belief could be expressed as

The more people do a wrong thing, the less wrong it becomes

To any reasonable person, such a statement is absurd on its face, but the principles embodied therein underly a liberal's belief system.

This tendency manifests itself in the way people react when they do discover, after doing something, that it was wrong. Liberals have an inherent belief that they can alleviate their guilt by convincing themselves and others that what they did was somehow okay. They believe that if they can convince enough people that what they did was morally okay, that will somehow make it so. This provides some short-term relief, but the guilt returns with a vengeance, compelling people to go further and further in their efforts to pretend that what they did was okay, even though they know it wasn't.

The irony, of course, is that sinners can be forgiven of their sins if, and only if, they admit that what they did was wrong. Unfortunately, this is the exact opposite of what liberalism compels them to do. Rather than trying to prevent others from making the same mistakes, liberals try to encourage them to do so. Liberals believe that if enough people make the same mistake, the punishment will be lessened. They also believe that one who says "Do as I say, not as I did" is a hypocrite, even though the true hypocrite is someone who tells others to do as he did while declining to inform them of the consequences.

I am reminded of a scene from The Adventures of Hucklyberry Finn. I don't remember the details perfectly, but Huck FInn et al. staged a play that was, to put it bluntly, a scam. Before the audience could attack him, however, he suggested that if the audience attacked him everyone in the audience would have to admit to their neighbors that they were dumb enough to get scammed. Better to instead rave about the show, so the neighbors will get scammed too. That way nobody will be able to laugh at anyone else (excluding Finn et al. who could laugh at everyone).

People need to realize that almost any sin committed out of naïveté--even murder--can be forgiven if one is sufficiently contrite and seeks atonement. The greater the sin, and the greater the degree of knowledge when the sin was committed, the greater the required level of contrition. To achieve forgiveness, whether from God or from oneself, however, one must not try to convince others that what one did was right, but one must admit instead that it was wrong.

If people could grasp that simple fact--that forgiveness comes through contrition and repentence--many of the evils of the world would fade away. Unfortunately, many people's eyes are still counted to the truth.

Light at the end of the tunnel

2005-02-23T23:26:00.000-06:00

It's important for people to keep working and praying to save Terri Schiavo, but victory may be in sight. Enough people are starting to learn enough about the case that the media can no longer lie about it with plausible deniability. Judge Greer has issued a stay until Friday, supposedly so he can evaluate Michael's fitness as guardian, but more likely to find a way to cut his losses.

There is still much to be done--the avalanche of support for Terri must continue to build--but I think I am starting to see and appreciate God's plan.

Although, on the immediate horizon, the case is about saving the life of Terri Marie Schiavo (née Schindler), in reality the case goes much deeper. Terri is not the first person to suffer starvation and dehydration at the hands of judges. She is the first whose ability to endure the agony inflicted upon her while refusing to die has prevented her would-be killers from escaping public notice.

It would have been much easier for Terri had the efforts to kill her been stopped sooner. But had that occurred, the revelations that will appear over the next few days or weeks would never have happened.

I am reminded of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The biggest point that movie drove home was that Christ's most heroic feet was not giving himself up at Gethsemene, but enduring the agonies that brought him to the cross. It would have been much easier for him to simply give up his spirit beneath the lash or upon the road. He endured, however, because to die prematurely would be to fail his mission.

Terri Schiavo should be hailed as a hero (and I pray not a martyr). It may not seem like a woman who can barely move and hardly speak can do much, but her refusal to die may save more lives than most able-bodied people could ever dream of. Would that all good people could have that level of courage and determination.

Why remove a feeding tube anyway

2005-02-21T19:26:00.000-06:00

If a patient is on a ventilator and it is desired to discontinue artificial ventilation, there are reasons to physically remove the ventilator. It's bulky, useless (once its function is discontinued), and its continued presence could interfere with natural breathing.

A gastrostomic tube, however, is not a piece of external equipment to which a patient is connected. Nor does it interfere with "normal" eating. Instead, a g-tube is just a small tube that connects the stomach to the abdominal wall. A second mouth, basically. A funnel or food bag can be connected to it at feeding time, but otherwise it just sits there. Unlike a big bulky ventilator, or even an IV, a gastrosomic tube does not interfere with patient mobility nor with anything else a patient might want to do.

Even if a patient is in end-stage cancer and doesn't want to be fed, a gastrostomic tube cannot not by itself force unwanted food into the patient. If it's necessary to stop feeding a patient, a caregiver can simply decline to put any more food through the tube.

To be sure, there are sometimes good reasons to remove a g-tube:

The tube becomes clogged or infected; in this case, normal protocol would be to remove the old one and install a new one.
The patient regains sufficient ability to take food by mouth that there is no anticipated future need for the feeding tube and its continued presence would do naught but create a risk of future infection.

Discontinuing food and water for a terminal hydration for a terminal patient, however, is not a good reason for removing a g-tube. The tube's continued presence doesn't hurt the patient, and removing the feeding tube represents an unnecessary surgery with no therapeutic benefit.

Why, then, are feeding tubes removed from terminal or supposedly-terminal patients?

Because, to the uninitiated, "removing a feeding tube" sounds much more like letting nature take its course than does "stopping feeding the patient".

To live and "let die"

2005-02-20T22:20:00.000-06:00

In the Middle Ages, respect for human life was lower than it has generally been in modern times. Parents who could not afford children would abandon them in a public square. Sometimes the children would be taken in by someone. Oftentimes they wouldn't. Even with respect for life as low as it was, however, nobody would prevent someone who wanted to take in an abandoned child from doing so.

Michael Schiavo doesn't want to "let Terri die". He wants to ensure that nobody is allowed to take her in and care for her. That is not "passive euthenasia". That is active killing. And unless one believes the word of a man who contradicts himself whenever convenient(*), it is nothing less than murder.

(*) Just a few examples: Michael claimed that he was restricting video/audio of Terri to "protect her privacy", but he had no trouble discussing indelicate aspects of her gynecological exams on national television. He has claimed to want Terri to get better, while refusing to allow her any therapy that might accomplish that. He claims to want to honor his wedding vows and yet he as openly moved in with another woman, fathered children by her, and pledged to marry her. In 2003, he claimed that it was because of the court's will, not his, that Terri's feeding was withheld even though he was the person who sought the order. Is the word of a man such as that credible?

Open letter to Attorney General Charlie Christ and State's Attorney Bernie McCabe

2005-02-19T15:30:00.000-06:00

Your job as Attorney General is to protect the people of Florida from being victimized by criminals.

Michael Schiavo is criminally victimizing his ward Terri, and has been doing so for years. It is your job to stop him.

Perhaps you are embarassed at your failure to have stopped Michael earlier. You are afraid that if you intervene now, facts will come to light that will leave you and your colleagues with egg on your faces; you think that if Terri can just 'disappear', you'll come out untainted.

A few years ago that might have been true.

No longer.

People know that Terri is not a vegetable. People know that her husband Michael has been deliberately and criminally trying to worsen her incapacity so as to justify putting her to death. People know that you have the authority and duty to act. And if you fail to do so, people will know you have innocent blood on your hands.

To be sure, it may be difficult to act now and admit you've been neglectful in the past, but if you become the hero who saves Terri, people will forgive your mistakes. You may find yourself with a little egg on your face, but if you do what's right it won't stick.

Almost two thousand years ago, a Roman governor thought he could wash his hands of an innocent man's blood when he handed him over to a mob for execution. That blood never came clean, and it never will. You have the power and duty to act to save an innocent woman from a cruel and barbaric execution. Don't be a Pontius Pilate.

The essence of liberalism

2005-02-19T15:13:00.000-06:00

"Everything is relative"

Destroying beauty will make everything else less ugly. Destroying goodness will make everything else less bad. Destroying light will make the darkness less dark.

Liberals understand those things. Conservatives refuse to accept them.

Who do you believe?

2005-02-18T21:38:00.000-06:00

Suppose a person claims to have a Rembrandt painting. A published snapshot of the painting reveals that it looks amazingly like an iMac®, complete with the Apple® logo. Three experts hired by the person claim the painting is genuine; two other experts not hired by the owner claim it is fake, as do a dozen other experts who have not examined the painting but have seen the photo.

Whose judgement of the painting's veracity should be considered more credible--the majority of those who examined the painting itself (who, by a 3-2 margin, claim it genuine), or those who merely saw the photograph (and who say that the photograph, while blurry, is sufficient to show that the painting is clearly a fake).

A photograph of a painting can never provide sufficient evidence to prove its veracity, but can provide plenty of evidence to prove its falsehood.

Michael Schiavo claims that his doctors provide clear and unambiguous evidence that his wife is in a permanent vegetative state. He claims that other doctors who merely examined video of Terri (he's only allowed two doctors not hired by him to examine Terri personally) are in no position to accurately diagnose her. If, however, the video clearly shows behavior which is inconsistent with Florida's definition of "persistent vegetative state", which is more credible: the doctors who say that, or the doctors who pretend the videos don't show what they clearly do?

More on Terri Schiavo

2005-02-18T17:38:00.000-06:00

I just added the Terri blogroll at the left. I pray that enough people will find out about Terri over the next few days that politicians and officials in Florida will overcome resistance and act to save Terri. Michael Schiavo and his lawyer George Felos claim it's disgraceful that this has gone on for so long. I agree, but not for the same reason. What is disgraceful is that Michael, Felos, and Judge George Greer were not removed from Terri's life ages ago, since all three people want nothing more than to see her put to death.

Others have posted in various places various statutes relating to protective custody and various other options Jeb Bush might have. I, unfortunately, lack the legal expertise to know which of these options are in fact allowable under uncontradicted statutes, and which ones are legally feasible, but I would hope some of them would be possible and effective.

To my mind, though, one option which should be valid even if others fail would be to send in someone to ensure that bona fide efforts are made to give Terri food and water orally, by a doctor not affiliated with Michael Schiavo. If Terri can take food and water orally, all legal pretense for her starvation vanishes. Further, even if the means by which she was given food and water was proven to be illegal, it would be rather difficult for a court to argue that the state should not accept the proof obtained thereby that she was able to accept it. Indeed, an argument could probably be made under the necessity statutes that the action wasn't illegal. If someone who was capable of receiving food and water orally would have been fatally starved to death in the absense of such action, the necessity of saving that person's life would justify the action taken to do so.

Finally, another thing I would like to see would be if Jeb Bush could have the appropriate people suggest that Terri's condition is sufficiently suspicious that, if she were killed, it would mandate an autopsy. Michael certainly does not want an autopsy, but one might hope that suggesting that he wouldn't be able to avoid one might change his plans. If Michael would run the risk of an autopsy leading to murder charges, he might decide that he'd rather face attempted murder charges instead.

Open letter to Governor Jeb Bush of Florida

2005-02-17T20:25:00.000-06:00

Dear Governor Bush,

As you are well aware, Michael Schiavo, his lawyer George Felos, and Judge George Greer are planning to fatally starve Terri Schindler Schiavo starting Tuesady February 22. I would hope that in addition to using your powers as executive to intervene, you could address the legislature and the public and make clear a few things that need to be said.

There are a number of politicians and government officials for whom it would be very embarassing if Terri were ever found not to be in a genuinely vegetative state. Having previously supported her death by starvation, they don't feel that they could justify themselves if it were discovered they'd tried to sentence an innocent woman to death. It would be most convenient for those politicians if Terri could simply disappear.

A few year ago, they might have gotten their wish.

Not anymore.

With the advent of blogs and other 'alternative media', too many people know the truth about Terri's case for it to ever be swept under the rug. Those who refuse to help Terri for fear of getting egg on their face will end up with blood on their hands, and it won't wash off.

Some politicians will try to justify their actions on the basis that they're doing "what Terri wants", or that they don't want to come between a husband and his wife. It stretches credulity, however, to suggest that anyone would want to be denied such basic care as having their teeth cleaned, or having their muscles exercised to prevent contracture. And suggesting that a man who has openly professed his desire to marry another woman should have any authority over his wife is to make a mockery of marriage.

If Terri is handed over to her parents, and if her condition improves under her care, those who earlier tried to kill her may end up with egg on their face, but it won't stick too badly. After all, the goal of Terri's supporters isn't to punish people who naively supported her starvation, but rather to save her life. But if Greer et al. are allowed to kill Terri, those who supported their efforts will bear forever the stain of her innocent blood.

Musings on the Terri Schiavo case

2005-01-30T14:58:00.000-06:00

As I read about the goings on in the case of Terri Schiavo, I find myself increasingly discouraged by this country's legal system. There is so much wrong with the case that it's hard to know where to begin, but I find myself perhaps most amazed at the media's willful blindness to some of the real issues of this case.

But shouldn't a husband's statement of his wife's wishes have significant weight?

Michael Schiavo lives in an openly-adulterous relationship with Jodi Centonze, by whom he has fathered at least two children. He has openly stated his desire and intention to marry Jodi as soon as his wife is dead. To suggest that a man who has openly stated his intentions to marry another woman should have any authority whatsoever over his wife is to make a mockery out of marriage.

Why should Michael have to stay married to some vegetable? Why shouldn't he be able to find happiness with another woman?

He is free to find happiness with another woman. All he has to do is divorce Terri. Or, if he were to release guardianship, a new guardian would seek divorce on Terri's behalf (and almost certainly receive it). Terri's supporters aren't complaining that Michael is starting a new family. What they're complaining about is that he has, to date, refused to release the old one.

Why are Terri's parents spreading rumors about Michael rather than presenting their issues in court?

Terri's parents don't have full legal standing in most court cases; they may petition as friends of the court, but their authority is limitted. In nearly all cases involving Terri, there are no principle parties who don't want Terri dead.

Terri's parents would have full legal standing in a case to challenge Michael's guardianship. They filed such a challenge in November of 2002--more than two years ago. Unfortunately, Judge George Greer has granted perpetual continuances to Michael Schiavo. Further, when Michael has refused to appear for required depositions, George Greer simply cancelled them without charging Michael with contempt or doing anything else of consequence.

If Michael would like to put the "rumors" about him to rest by actually appearing for a deposition, he is more than free to do so. Given that he refuses to do so, however, I see no reason why his behavior should be given a free pass.

But isn't Terri just a vegetable anyway?

It's unclear what Terri's exact condition is. Doctors who have been hired by Michael Schiavo or Judge George Greer seem to think she's in a persistent vegetative state, but other doctors who have examined her or seen videos of her state that there is no way she is in a persistent vegetative state; people in PVS don't act like Terri does on the videos.

As to those who would question whether videos are adequate for diagnosis, I would offer the following analogy: suppose someone showed you a somewhat fuzzy Polaroid of a painting that was supposedly by Rembrandt; the painting clearly depicts an IMac, complete with the Apple logo. Suppose further that a few experts hired by the painting's owner confirmed, after examining the painting, that it was a genuine Rembrandt, and a dozen experts who examined the blurry Polaroid declared it was a fake. Whose opinion would be more credible--the people who examined the actual picture, or the ones who merely examined the blurry Polaroid?

Further, it should be noted that until Michael Schiavo received a malpractice award (which gave $300,000 to him for loss of consortium and $750,000 to Terri for her continued care) he gave Terri treatment and therapy which appeared to have some degree of success; such treatments and therapy were stopped as soon as the malpractice award was issued. Any decline in Terri's condition since then is almost certainly a result of Michael's willful mistreatment of her.

Yes, but didn't Terri say she didn't want to be 'hooked up to tubes'?

According to Michael, Terri's remark was made after Terri watched a movie about Karen Ann Quinlan. At the time of the legal battle over her treatment, Ms. Quinlan was on a respirator. After a judge ordered that life support be discontinued, Karen An Quinlan started breathing on her own; she lived for years after that.

If anything, Terri's desire not to be hooked up to tubes would seem to be a desire to be weaned off them. Not by death, but by useful therapy. Unfortunately, for many years, Michael has forbidden anyone from making any effort to give Terri food or water by mouth, or from giving her any sort of therapy whatsoever. If Terri had been on a ventilator, rather than on a feeding tube, Michael's interpretation of her remarks would not be to remove the ventilator and see if she can start breathing on her own, but rather to remove the ventilator and smother her to ensure that she couldn't start breathing on her own.

Further, a feeding tube isn't something one is "hooked up to" in the same way one would be a ventilator, heart-lung machine, or other life support apparatus. A feeding tube is an implanted device that allows food to be put into the stomach without going through the esophagus. When one is fed (about 3 times/day), a container of food is attached for a few minutes. Otherwise, there's nothing external attached.

But haven't dozens of judges agreed with everything Michael has said?

There has only been one trial-court judge who has agreed with what Michael has been saying and doing: Judge George Greer. All of the other judges who have agreed with Michael have been appeals court judges. Although it is commonly perceived that appeals court judges are "more powerful" than trial court judges, this is often not the case. If a trial court judge fails to accept a piece of evidence that contradicts his findings, an appeals court can order him to consider it. If, however, the trial court judge claims that he looked at the piece of evidence but found it unconvincing, the appeals court can do nothing.

What right did Jeb Bush have to butt into things?

Jeb Bush saw that a woman was about to be killed by Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and George Greer in a manner contrary to the laws and constitution of the state of Florida. Jeb Bush's job (and sworn duty) is to uphold the constitution and laws. Whether or not he's the person who should have been responsible for protecting Terri, the task fell to him as a matter of default: somebody had to do it, and nobody else did.

So what happens now?

Who knows? Perhaps some officials can try to investigate what is really going on in this case. So many aspects of it stink that somebody should notice something.

[update: Edited date of parent's court filing to 2002--had erroneously said 2003]

Hello Everyone!

2005-01-26T17:54:00.000-06:00

This is my new corner of the web, to express my opinions on politics, current events, or whatever.