TODAY'S READING (OR, NEW TO ME)

Catching up here a bit after the last bit of moving:

Thomas Nephew criticizes Bush for his "administration's inability to face up to the crimes and disgraces on its watch" and engages in a kind of internal critique of his use of the word "symbolism" on Monday.

Dave Fried has some useful thoughts on web design.

The Sassy Lawyer writes on the "hazards of bigger bra size."

Michael Froomkin discusses Ashcroft's political "spear-carrying" in recent matters terroristic.

Steven Taylor notes that problems with the appearance (only appearance?) of impropriety in electronic voting matters are surfacing in Venezuela.

And Mr. Poon has some good advice for folks looking to spruce up their yard ornamentation this summer. Don't say he didn't warn you.

PACKING

Wow. Packing up your things is really time-consuming and not much fun.

MORE ON FUKUOKA FORCED LABOR DECISION

See this article in the Asahi Shimbun, the this article in the Daily Yomuiri, and see these articles from Xinhua.

FORM OVER SUBSTANCE

From the Straits-Times: "Japan court overturns order to pay forced labourers."

TOKYO - A Japanese court yesterday overturned a decision ordering a mining firm to pay a total of US$1.46 million (S$2.5 million) in damages to 15 Chinese men who worked as forced labourers during World War II.


Presiding judge Takayuki Minoda of the Fukuoka High Court recognised that the government and Mitsui Mining Co Ltd conspired to bring the Chinese nationals to Japan and used them as forced labourers.


But the judge dismissed the plaintiffs' demand for compensation, saying that the statute of limitations had expired.

Some relaxation of statutes of limitations should be made in cases arising out of wartime damage suits. I don't know enough about Japanese law and politics to say whether courts or the legislature should relax these rules, but massive war crimes sometimes take a generation or more to seep into national discussions -- consider Germany, for example -- and, thus, a twenty year statute of limitation is too restrictive.

CRAPPY POLLS 101

Take a look at two of the ways that Fox News wrote its recent poll to get the results that it wanted (link via No Left Turns). Consider the following questions:

19. Generally speaking, do you think news reports about U.S. military operations in Iraq have been:
SCALE: 1. More likely to focus on the negative things happening in Iraq and leave out the positive things, or 2. More likely to focus on the positive things happening in Iraq and leave out the negative things? 3. (Neither) 4. (Depends) 5. (Not sure)

20. On the situation in Iraq today, where do you think most of the problems are being created?
1. In Iraq
2. In Washington, DC, or
3. In the news media
4. (Combination)
5. (All)
6. (None)
7. (Not sure)

Now consider two rules of polling:

1) people are likely to pick the first response, i.e., put "more likely to focus on the positive things" first in question 19 and you'll get more answers along those lines (and the folks at Fox know this, which is why they rotate answers to the candidate questions)

and 2) people are also likely to be influenced by the context of a particular question (here, question 20 is preceded by a question on the news media, so one can expect some people to be prompted by question 19).

Poll consumers, beware!

VOTE CANVASSING AND THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

The Sassy Lawyer and Dean Jorge Bocobo have some interesting commentary on the canvassing of presidential votes in the Philippines here and here. And as the federal election commission informed the media (unofficially) that Arroyo is the likely winner in the presidential race, some have raised complaints that the commission has undermined congress's constitutional authority to announce the official election results. See here.

PS: Via this article at Minda News, note also the role of the Supreme Court in electoral disputes, as outlined by the Philippine Constitution:

But under Article VII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, “the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.”

The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions were silent on what body has jurisdiction to judge presidential and vice presidential election contests. The 1987 Constitution specifically mandates the Supreme Court to be “the sole judge.”

Ah, the virtues of clarity. I don't want to overstate the case, but from the perspectives of the losers in a presidential dispute decided by the Supreme Court, it's probably better to have a clear constitutional mandate for Supreme Court intervention than to have murky, traditional, or ad hoc Supreme Court authority.

NEWNESS

Trying to keep it simple, here. Ditched the old name, switched to the cleanest template I could find, and reorganized the blog roll.

PS: Also trying out comments. Not sure about the name change yet, but thought I'd give it a shot anyway. "Marstonalia" seemed a little stale to me. . .