waider

Seen recently on Patrick's Street in Dublin: a bicycle cop (not motorcycle) weaving through traffic, then running a red light at a pedestrian crossing, pausing to give abuse to a cyclist who had stopped in front of him to obey the red light, before cycling the wrong way up a one-way street.

Leading by example, I guess.

Officer Ryan told me in a very straightforward manner that he did not wish to allow me the opportunity to assert my constitutional rights in court.

Waitasec. Surely that constitutes prior restraint by itself?

So. The minister for health introduces the smoking ban. After some months, the official figures show a 97% compliance rate, but there are widely divergent views on whether pub business is affected or not. So, owners of a pub in Galway decides to take matters into their own hands and allow smoking in the pub once more. For some reason, the legal process for prosecuting them for this breach seems to involve more press releases than anything else; the publicans, the Western Health Board, and the Minister for Health have all had several lengthy conversations with various bits of the media despite this being, to simple old me, a pretty clear case of "you broke the law, you pay the price".

However, it doesn't stop there.

Apparently some people figured that if the pub said it was okay to smoke, then it was okay to smoke. I'm struggling with the logic here. If the pub says it's okay to drive while drunk, that doesn't make it any more legal. And so these people will be prosecuted. Smart kids. Bet you wish you'd checked out some alternative means of registering your disagreement with the law.

May Day assault Garda trial opens.

I can't decide if cheap MLB for Windows Users is a monopoly abuse or simply Marketing Department A not talking to Marketing Department B. The fact that Microsoft is aware of the, er, abuse would suggest that at this point it's the former, even if it started out as the latter.

Not to be picky or anything, but

"...Rumsfeld said the United States would abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of him."

... except that bit about televising him undergoing a medical inspection while in captivity, which some commentators had no hesitation in describing as showing him in a humiliating light. But, shrug. Well done, guys, you got your man.

"This is meant to be inclusive and potentially expansive, not punitive"

Yeeeeahright.

MA supports gay marriage. Bush responded by saying the ruling violated the concept of marriage as a sacred institution and vowed to work with Congress to defend it. Tell me again about the three branches of the US government and what they're intended for?

...but the potential CIA-requested investigation into the Plame affair is now front-page news on the BBC website.

US accused of blocking protection for aid workers. Because it's based on the International Crimial Court. Which the US doesn't recognise, because the ICC will not grant immunity to US military from prosecution for war crimes. But hey, if you're not guilty, you've no fear of a court of justice, right? Isn't that what the apologists for the Patriot Act keep saying?