This page includes posts from
August 15-21, 2004 in the usual reverse
order. Each posting on the home page is perma-linked to these
August 19, 2004
Tonight was our first last.
It was younger daughter's last night of band camp, the official start to her senior year of high school.
The weather held off long enough for a crowd-pleasing preview [short video clip] of this year's half-time show, and for the picnic that followed.
The fat check the Band Boosters received for parking cars at this year's State Fair was also very nice.
Looks like a good start to a memorable year.
The Seventh Circuit today issued an opinion that puts it in conflict with First Circuit precedent, but which lines up nicely as a new twist on an old moral.
Frankly, I think Judges Posner, Wood, and Williams were correct to follow the wisdom of the ages instead of their brethren in the Northeast.
The facts were a bit odd, or at least I really hope so.
Antoine Johnson sat with two friends in his parked car. Two police officers came up to the car and ordered all three men out.
There’s nothing wrong with that except for two small problems—the cops had no grounds to arrest the three men at that point, and no reasonable suspicion on which to order them to exit the car.
Undaunted, the police searched the car and found drugs under Johnson’s seat. They searched the two passengers and found both drugs and counterfeit cash. Then the police went through the car trunk and found more counterfeit money, along with a color copier.
Johnson argued that the stuff in the trunk should not have been admitted into evidence against him due to the illegal, nonconsensual search. The trial court disagreed, ruling that once the bad stuff was found on the passengers, the police had probable cause to search Johnson’s car.
As the appellate panel noted, search and seizure rights are particular to the person:
The Circuit panel had just a wee little problem with this approach in this case:
The reversal followed shortly thereafter.
The fundamental principle upheld by this decision should sound familiar to any parent:
You'd think the prosecutors in this case would know that.
A couple days ago I wrote a short piece about the tough play exhibited by the American women in beating an equally aggressive Brazilian team in the Olympic soccer series.
I suggested that it’s perfectly fine if women’s soccer is hard-fought, because the referees can control the intensity with their yellow and red cards.
Based on the WaPo report of the 1-1 tie between the U.S. and Australia, it looks like the folks in stripes in Athens helped prove my point:
I didn’t see the game, but considering Wambaugh’s well-earned reputation as a scorer, it certainly looks like her absence helped pave the way for this game’s outcome.
It will be interesting to see if the American’s hard-hitting approach continues in the next round, where the stakes for losing a player to a ref’s call can only be higher.
Blogging may be a little lighter than usual for a little while, but it’s for a good cause.
Smiley’s People just came out on DVD, and we bought a copy from the folks at Amazon.
The six-hour BBC adaption of John LeCarré’s masterpiece is one of our favorite mini-series. Thanks to the end of the Cold War, it’s also an historic artifact, filled with great characters.
At some point, a good writer will find a way to write a similarly compelling study of current secret services, with the fight against Islamofascism in the background instead of the response to the Soviet threat. This will certainly do until then.
This morning’s NYT included an interesting report on a hard-fought 2-0 first-round victory by the U.S. women’s Olympic soccer team over Brazil.
Apparently the Brazilian coach, a former player with a sterling reputation for a physical style of play, found himself complaining about the degree to which the Americans took a page from his own history:
As Dr. Evil might say, boo-fricking-hoo.
The Brazilian women took the game to the Americans in the first half, and to their credit the American team responded in kind in the second.
My two soccer-playing daughters are talented defensive specialists. I can assure you that this kind of reaction occurs at all levels of women’s soccer. It is a fine sport, but it is not for the timid.
If your team is being pushed around by the other side, it’s perfectly acceptable to push back. The referees can still control the game, thanks to the yellow and red cards they carry along with them.
The real eyebrow-raiser in the piece came from reporter William Rhoden’s choice of phrase in describing the Americans’ attempt to recover from the initial Brazilian onslaught:
Do you think we’d see a not-so-veiled allusion to a cat fight if this story was about the men’s soccer team?
I didn’t think so, either.
Shocking to see this dated, dare I say sexist language in the NYT, isn’t it?
Official small print disclaimer: This is, after all, a personal web site. Any opinions or comments I express here are my own, and don't necessarily reflect the official position of my work as a government attorney or any of my clients.
That fact may become obvious later on, but it needs to be said here anyway.
© Frederick H. Schranck 2002-2004