::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

My name is David Robins: Christian, lead developer (resume), writer, photographer, runner, libertarian (voluntaryist), and student.

This is also my son David Geoffrey Robins' site.

Cases in Constitutional Law #2: we're sorry for the inconvience of doing your job

Law ·Sunday October 11, 2009 @ 19:38 EDT (link)

[✓] Muskrat v. United States (1911): In this case the U.S. government attempted to use the court as a sounding board for distribution of tribal property among the Cherokee Indians, who had recently been admitted to citizenship. Chief Justice Taney ruled that the court could rule on only "cases and controversies", original or appellate as specified in the Constitution, a case being "a suit instituted according to the regular course of judicial procedure" (Marshall), and controversies meaning either the same as cases or referring only to civil suits (Field). There needed to be actual litigants with conflicting interests. The ruling closed the door on "this court… [being] required to give opinions on the nature of advice concerning legislative action,—a function never conferred upon it by the Constitution, and against the exercise of which this could has steadily set its face from the beginning."

[✓] Luther v. Borden (1849): The court correctly refused to interfere in a political matter, that of the charter government of Rhode Island (that restricted the franchise to certain landowners) against Thomas Dorr's popular government, judging it a matter for the state itself, and the executive and legislative branches, if interference from the federal government was necessary at all (in this case, it was not). Admission of the state into the original union, and seating of its congressmen, was held as tacit approval by the legislature of Rhode Island's (and Oregon's, in Pacific States Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. Oregon) "republican form of government".

[✓] Colegrove v. Green (1946): The court again refused to involve itself in a political matter having to do with the apportionment of congressional seats in Illinois: in 1946, rural areas were vastly overrepresented due to continued use of the 1901 apportionment despite much of the state population being now concentrated near Chicago. (Would that a later court had held itself to the same restraint regarding school districts as this court held itself to in regards to voting districts.)

[✗] Baker v. Carr (1962): This case was similar to Colegrove; it took place in Tennessee, which likewise had undergone a population shift but was still using apportionment based on the 1901 census. In this case, however, the court decided to interfere in states' business, under cover of the Fourteenth Amendment—a mess that was rammed through despite rejection by southern states after ousting carpetbagger congresses that had ratified it before passage. To a libertarian, apportionment of voting districts is almost entirely irrelevant since the non-aggression principle denies the state the power to initiate force or take property. However, a state's internal arrangements should remain its business and the Constitution does not allow for federal interference, as emphasized by the Tenth Amendment. While their actions are somewhat understandable—a vote in one county should have comparative weight to one in another—it was not under federal jurisdiction. From Frankfurter's dissent (with Harlan):

The court today reverses a uniform course of decision established by a dozen cases, including one by which the very claim now sustained was unanimously rejected only five years ago. The impressive body of rulings thus cast aside reflected the equally uniform course of our political history regarding the relationship between population and legislative representation—a wholly different matter from denial of the franchise to individuals because of race, color, religion or sex. …

… The Framers carefully and with deliberate forethought refused to so enthrone the judiciary. In this situation, as in others of like nature, appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be to an informed, civilly militant electorate. … In any event there is nothing judicially more unseemly than for this Court to make in terrorem pronouncements….

This begins a "train of usurpations" done under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment, that has continued until this day.

[✘] Frothingham v. Mellon (1923): A chance for the court to "show its quality": the plaintiff brought suit alleging that the effect of certain appropriations would increase her burden of taxation, an unjust taking without due process of law (violating the Fifth Amendment). The court failed here, by affirming the decision of a lower court that dismissed the suit, on the pretext that

[A taxpayer's] interest in the moneys of the Treasury… is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and the effects of future taxation of any payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain that no basis is afforded for an appeal….

The administration of any statute likely to produce additional taxation to be imposed upon a vast number of taxpayers, the extent of whose several liability is indefinite and constantly changing, is essentially a matter of public, and not of individual, concern. If one taxpayer may champion and litigate such a cause, then every other taxpayer may do the same, not only in respect to the statute here under review, but also in respect of every other appropriation act and statute whose administration requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be questioned. The bare suggestion of such a result, with its attendant inconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that a suit of this character cannot be maintained.

So they ruled against taxpayers having remedy for unconstitutional takings and apportionments because doing their job would inconvenience them, although with a few good precedents the envisioned flood is unlikely as lower courts would fall in line and the high court would then not need to hear cases of this nature. An individual can be prosecuted for larceny in any amount; why not the government, especially with the practical effect of the broad application actually stopping millions or billions of dollars of unconstitutional takings.

Cases in Constitutional Law #1: courts should be conservative

Law ·Sunday October 11, 2009 @ 14:39 EDT (link)

These cases are from the 9th edition of Cases in Constitutional Law by Cushman and Koukoutchos. I am not a lawyer, but I have read and understand the United States Constitution (and some related commentaries) and have a reasonable grounding in logic and history. None of these cases are beyond the grasp of the United States citizen, nor should any be reticent to call out unconstitutional pronouncements even if they come from the highest judiciary in the land.

[✓] Hawke v. Smith (1920): The Ohio state constitution had been amended in November 1918 to allow a referendum on (U.S.) Constitutional amendments if it was petitioned for by 6% of the voters within 90 days. When the state legislature ratified the 18th amendment ("Prohibition") on January 27, 1919, the requisite petitions were obtained within 90 days, and subsequently the people voted against ratification, but on January 29, 1919 the U.S. Secretary of State proclaimed the ratification of the amendment.

The case before the court was whether this Ohio law was in conflict with article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which spelled out ratification procedures, in this case, by approval of two thirds of the legislatures of the states. The court found that it did conflict since "legislatures" clearly meant the Ohio general assembly and that it was not subject to review by referendum.

This is a reasonable decision since the state legislatures are granted the power to ratify. If Ohio wanted to allow the people to review a ratification decision, they would have to do it before they communicated the ratification to the U.S. Secretary of State. It's unreasonable to allow reversal after an amendment has been ratified (by the nation), although not unreasonable to allow a state to take back its ratification if the amendment has not yet become law.

[✗] Coleman v. Miller (1939): The court found that despite Kansas' earlier rejection of an amendment, it could still ratify it later, however it gave troubling indications that the reverse would not be true, which, despite historical precedent (the 14th amendment, which was rammed through by force) is patently ridiculous (the ratification process should not be a ratchet that only turns one way until the amendment has actually become law). The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to compel time limits on the ratification of amendments.

[✓] Marbury v. Madison (1803): The case established "judicial review" in the United States, meaning that courts could overturn unconstitutional laws. Marshall gave a splendid defense of the idea, which, while reasonable, opens a rather large and dangerous door for future abuses. In fact in this case admirable restraint was shown when the court found that the law allowing them to issue the requested writ of mandamus, which they felt was justified and could be issued by a lower court, was unconstitutional. This opinion also includes a well-referenced definition of "cases and controversies". It doesn't even introduce a new power, since once a court decides against a law, even without judicial review every subsequent case would be decided similarly, sometimes by lower courts following precedent, so it has the mere effect of saving the court's time, promoting stare decisis, while not completely closing the door for a future court to revisit an issue.

[✓] Eakin v. Raub (1825): This is where the authors begin to run off the rails a bit (which as we know inevitably leads to a train wreck). The particular case is not all that interesting; it is a minority state court opinion arguing against the power of judicial review determined in Marbury on the grounds of separation of powers and that, provided a law is passed according to constitutional procedure, it is not the judiciary's role to invalidate it, but to interpret it, and are not required to agree with it, with any fault due to unconstitutionality remaining with the legislature. I believe judicial review provides a reasonable check on legislative power; like any tool it can be used for good or ill and sometimes its presence is better than its absence, and sometimes not.

Returning to the original point, the liberal bias of the authors begins to show:

Undaunted by the experiences of the Roosevelt era, Attorney General Edwin Meese III, speaking for the administration of Ronald Reagan, in 1985 launched an all-out campaign to effect dramatic changes in constitutional law and underlying doctrine. He announced that in his opinion the only valid interpretation of the Constitution was one that reflected the values of the original framers and established a policy that no person would be nominated for a federal judgeship who did not subscribe to this point of view.

While the "intent of the framers" is one of the earliest techniques of constitutional interpretation, it tends to produce extremely conservative results by today's standards and has largely given way to techniques that more closely reflect the current needs of a modern society. Moreover, assuming it was the intent of the framers to have the document interpreted by the courts at all, it may fairly be argued that they did not intend it to be interpreted with the rigidity of a statue. As Justice Marshall emphasized in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." Also, it is worth noting that even in the opinion that follows, Marshall does not rely on the intent of the framers for support. Pushed far enough, an interpretation based exclusively on "original intent" would virtually emasculate the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and could conceivably result in abandoning judicial review entirely.

The following points may be made in response. Meese's actions were necessary in light of Roosevelt's massive constitutional abuses with his fascistic regulation, government-supported cartels, and redistributive programs. By definition, a court should be conservative, i.e., "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." Its role is to interpret the laws, not to make new ones. Also by definition, the Constitution is a statute; article 6: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." As for Marshall's quoted comment, it is (due to the lack of context, not any fault of his) completely content-free. Finally, appealing to emasculation of laws whose reach has far exceeded their intended purpose is not a sympathetic line of argument.

DVDs finished: Edge, Trick 'r Treat, Orphan, Miss March.

New scope on the Ruger

News ·Friday October 9, 2009 @ 20:02 EDT (link)

Went shooting Wednesday, taking the Ruger 10/22 out for the first time with the scope (Bushnell Banner "Dusk and Dawn" 3-9x40). I was just shooting at fairly close targets in the SVRC pistol put (.22s are allowed; still a lot of fun. Since the scope is set for 50 yards the POI was low.

Found a new site—a kinder, friendlier version of FML (not linked, for language etc.; Google it if you're curious): My Life Is Average is pretty cool; random positive, somewhat banal, but interesting (voted on by readers) events from people's lives.

I got a Nerf N-Strike Maverick gun recently, and a pack of 30 extra darts; it's entertaining to shoot it at my apartment or office walls (or window). Passes time while compiling, or when the symbol servers are slow. I'd bought a different one, a single shot (reload after every shot), but returned it; this is a six-shooter with a rotating cylinder like a revolver, and is spring powered, requiring one pull of the slide per shot, and requiring a reload after the cylinder has been emptied.

I'm reading a Constitutional law book, so I'm going to make a few notes on the cases it covers in coming entries. Some other books I've been reading mention interesting (and fatally flawed) cases; The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask go over several well known bad cases that are clearly political and not really constitutional (e.g. Dredd Scott, which held that slaves and their descendants were not and could not be citizens, which was reversed by the 14th amendment, which, while necessary, was rammed through illegally and is abused these days to claim that children of illegal aliens are United States citizens; but I digress).

Books finished: The Politically Incorrect Guide To the Great Depression and the New Deal, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, Libertarian Nation.

DVDs finished: V for Vendetta, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Season 6.

The cookies of my browser

News, Technical ·Friday October 2, 2009 @ 20:34 EDT (link)

Yesterday I noticed that my BitTorrent downloads were much slower than usual (about 100kb/s) for a comparably-seeded torrent that in the past would have gone much faster (1Mb/s). I connected to Comcast's LiveChat tech support and talked to someone named Juvy. Here's how the conversation went (starting 3am Friday); I entered with the complaint "BitTorrent suddenly slow":

…
Juvy> Let me check on that.
Juvy> Before anything else, can you please provide the complete account holder's name, account number, as well as the account service address?
David> I'll give you the account #. #### ## ### #######
David> The rest you don't need.
Juvy> Sincwe when did you notice this issue, David?
David> Today
Juvy> Okay.
Juvy> One moment please.
Juvy> Is it only BitTorrent that is slow or are you having slow page loading with other websites?
David> No other websites are as big. It wouldn't be noticeable. I hadn't realized yet that he didn't know what BitTorrent was, and was assuming it was a website; I meant most web pages weren't as large as BitTorrent downloads, and so a bandwidth reduction wouldn't be noticeable.
Juvy> Okay.
Juvy> While on the process of addressing your concern, I will now perfom a health check on your system. This is a proximity check on your services to see that they are working correctly. Would that be okay with you?
David> What does it involve?
Juvy> It involves the connection from our server to your computer system and back. It also involves the system check if your computer system (modem, computer, cable wirings, and router (if any)) is in good working condition.
David> OK, go ahead.
Juvy> Please check that all your cable wirings are secured and intact.
David> I'm using the connection to talk to you. I think they're working.
Juvy> I will need to reset your modem on my end. We may be disconnected with this process. However, do not worry since we will be reconnected right after.
Juvy> Would that be okay with you?
David> OK.
Juvy> I will reset your modem now. One moment please.
Juvy> Hello there. How is your internet connection?
David> i can get to websites, but bittorrent is still slow I.e., no worse, but no better either.
Juvy> Okay.
Juvy> Please optimize your browser by clearing your cookies. Close the browser and open another one. Then try to access BitTorrent again. Began to realize he didn't know what BitTorrent was at ths point.
David> bittorrent doesn't use cookies.
Juvy> I am pertaining to the cookies of your browser, David.
David> the cookies of my browser will not slow down bittorrent. trust me on this.
Juvy> David, I would just like to clarify. Are you using the connection of Systems Vortex? The business name for the account was Vortex Systems, since I have the domain, but they entered it incorrectly (not Juvy's fault).
David> yes.
Juvy> Thank you for the confirmation. David, are you using a router?
David> no Although I have a gateway machine that serves a similar purpose.
Juvy> David, is it okay if you do a hard reset of your modem on your end?
The modem can be reset by using the "reset" button located on the back of the unit. Get a pen, paperclip, or other point object and depress the reset button until you see the lights on the front of the unit go off. Release the reset button and wait for the unit to cycle up.
David> OK, will do.
user David_ has left room
analyst Juvy has left room
David> ok, it reset

When I reset it it lost our static IP. Had to drive into Microsoft so I could contact tech support—this time I contacted business class tech support by phone and talked to a much better informed person, Kisha, who was able to quickly fix restore the static IP (couldn't really verify until I got home, though). Then I was back to the baseline—slow BitTorrent. It was a real pain, since I had to reconfigure the modem, using a machine with a GUI (I believe I called it massively braindead in the past).

I was upset enough to take an axe to the old DSL modem at right. I'd optimistically tried selling it on Craigslist for $5, but there was no interest, and I really wanted to hit something, but not something useful or valuable. I still have one more DSL modem if Comcast messes me up again.

Books finished: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed To Ask, Telempath.

Lebensraum

News, Guns ·Monday September 28, 2009 @ 22:36 EDT (link)

Our apartment isn't nearly so cramped—we've moved some things around and actually have "room to live": the couches aren't all against one another, the treadmill is out of the way, books are in bookshelves, and we can watch TV from a reasonable distance.

I feel a bit like an Enron employee as we're shredding a lot of old records unnecessarily kept (medical EOBs, utility bills, outdated financial statements). There's still about a 8" stack remaining. I'm also still going through folders and boxes to find things to sell, give away, throw out, or pack tightly on one of the shelves that go all the way high ceiling that are a great feature of this place.

Recently a car prowler in the Northgate area of Seattle was shot by the car owner (from his balcony) with a Mosin Nagant. Apparently he got jail time, even though the criminal was committing a felony and that's supposed to be a complete defense. Some responses from MSGun with which I wholeheartedly agree:

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that someone who is committing crime has any rights or expectation of protection from society.—JC

Everything the thieves did was WRONG. They intruded on a personÂs home, stole his belongings, and committed multiple felonies in the process. They needed to stay at home and work on their résumés to apply for jobs, not go out and steal another's property. Instead they robbed a guy who had a gun for a stupid stereo. It was flat out dumb.

I donÂt know why we speak of thieves and other criminals as deserving more rights than the people they victimize, but the more I think about it, the less I am able to sympathize with them. They chose to put themselves in a dangerous situation through their occupation, and one got killed due to occupational hazards. It is my opinion the only thing the guy did wrong (presuming the statements he made were true) was to speak to police before his lawyer.—TH

The law sucks, and is complete BS. A thief live in constant fear for their life if they have the balls to invade my home. Period.—SY

Okay, what gets me is the thief continued to carry the speaker after seeing the armed owner. I think any sane person would have dropped the speaker and ran like hell. Right or wrong this punk needed to be removed from society.—SN

More Texas-style laws allowing use of deadly force in defense of property and life are called for. Once someone has decided to invade or steal property, they should feel like a dead man walking with every theft bringing them closer to having some just soul arrange a meeting with their maker.

Honey's aunt Linda was recently diagnosed with cancer—please pray for her.

Oktoberfest at Tim and Katts'

News ·Sunday September 27, 2009 @ 03:33 EDT (link)

On Sunday we were at Tim and Katt's for an Oktoberfest party (1400-1900 although officially it was 1200-2000). They served homemade pretzels, brats, fries (long ones they fried themselves), black forest cake (soaked in brandy), and of course beer. We played Mafia; in the second game I got killed early and went for a 20-minute walk and the game still had about 10 minutes to go when I got back (could have driven home and picked up a book, and then I might have stayed for another game; but I hate to sit around with nothing to do, and the "dead" aren't supposed to talk). Good party. Got to see Tim's new shotgun, too: a used Benelli, in camo colors, very long (too long for Katt to handle comfortably).

DVDs finished: Cujo.

Shooting my new Ruger 10/22

News, Guns ·Saturday September 26, 2009 @ 17:29 EDT (link)

On Friday we got the license (tag) renewal for Honey's car; the Department of Licensing tried to sneak a $5 donation to state parks by us by making it the default (requiring subtracting $5 from the total to not donate). It's a cause I might donate to, when government stops stealing from me for all their other redistributionist projects. But trying to sneak it in: not cool, and almost fraudulent.

I finished cleaning the Mosin Nagant and reassembled it (disassembly, cleaning 1 2).

I took my new (wood stock, blued) Ruger 10/22 out to SVRC for the first time on Saturday; I shot it in the pistol pit (which allows .22s), and had the pit to myself although there were a few people in the rifle bay. It was a lot of fun.

Books finished: House of Cards.

Fremont Oktoberfest

News ·Sunday September 20, 2009 @ 19:06 EDT (link)

Oktoberfest! In Fremont, Seattle, to be precise. We went with Jim, formerly of Microsoft. We picked him up at his place (and paid for the tickets he'd picked up for us) and drove over to Fremont and (parallel) parked in a side street. We got to his place a little before 1400 and got home about 1830 (we sat for a while to make sure I was good to drive).

Moving, ammo, Meghan's visit

News, Guns ·Saturday September 19, 2009 @ 22:48 EDT (link)

From 1000-1500 we helped Amani (PM at work) and her husband Thomas move from Redmond to their first house, in Bothell, repaying the toh (obligation—sorry, Wheel of Time in-joke) owed from them helping us a month ago. Jodie and her husband Nick, and Angus and Kate (fellow Waterloo graduates) were also there helping.

We got there at 1005, and started loading a (16'?) U-Haul truck; we were worried about getting everything on, but we also loaded up several cars too and managed to get it all in one trip. The house is at the end of a cul-de-sac much like ours, but without the short road going off to the side. They got pizza afterward from Canadian-American pizza; the tandoori pizza was quite good although very hot. We got back to our place at 1500.

I went to the Monroe WAC gun show later on (1600-1700) and bought a box (440 rounds) of Russian 7.62x54R and 500 rounds of .22 (the size difference of the boxes is humorous). I looked at scopes, but the selection was poor and they all looked like scary off-brand knockoffs and with my limited experience I can't tell what's good, so I'll wait for another sale at a local place and most likely get a Bushell Banner 3-9x40.

I took apart my Mosin Nagant bolt; the Cosmoline gets everywhere and has to be cleaned out completely. I took the firing pin out via the method of using the connector bar as wrench as shown in these instructions.

Meghan got here at 1800 and we got KFC (instead of pizza as originally planned); she insisted on paying since we had last time. She was here until 2245 and then had to go to work (testing cell phone sites). We played some Guitar Hero, watched the last episode of House from last season, talked a lot (well, Honey and Meghan did most of the talking).

Books finished: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

The state of the eBook

Technical, Media ·Friday September 18, 2009 @ 00:26 EDT (link)

Electronic, or digital book readers are regrettably still in the "stone knives and bearskins" state, and the industry really isn't helping.

What I want is a fairly general purpose device, which means open. The iRex iLiad might fit this description, but it won't read the most common DRM'd books. I want to be able to make full use of it, limited only by the technology, not by the vendor: so if it's physically possible to use it as, for example, a code editor, or to run an open source chess game, or to browse the web using my wireless router, I want to be able to do that. Many of the current devices are too locked down to allow that: complete and utter fail by design, although it's at least possible to "jailbreak" the Kindle.

I also want to be able to obtain eBook versions of the books I own (I don't mind giving up the physical books if necessary). The idea of paying $9.99 per book (the going rate for many Kindle books) for books I already own is insane. It doesn't cost that much for the publisher to make an electronic version available (not for books produced in the last 20 years, anyway), and if, as they claim (most vocally for DVDs and software), I have a "license" for the material, and don't own it, I should be able to buy a copy in a different format for no more than the cost of moving the bits.

While eBooks at $9.99 are touted as cheaper than the paper version, that's still not good enough. Since they don't need all of their paper book presses or delivery channels, the cost should be much lower: pretty much just the cost of operating download severs (almost insignificant when amortized), royalties, and the publisher's share of development costs and profit.

I would like to retain the right of first sale (let the state and its rules actually be of some use for once). DRM in practice only serves to restrict legitimate users (others just pirate the software or item anyway, or obtain it from someone else that has done so). It should be possible to use it to transfer a book from (to start) one Kindle (or Sony Reader) owner to another, later between eBook readers regardless of device.

The top three devices seem to be the Kindle (2 or DX), Sony Reader (PRS-600 or upcoming PRS-2121), or iRex iLiad (the Books Edition looks interesting), although there are plenty of also-rans. They all seem to be satisfactory in terms of readability (they use eInk and claim to be readable in direct sunlight blah blah blah), battery life (days, especially with wireless off), ergonomics, and speed (page turning). So it's not the hardware that's holding back the future—and to be fair it's probably less Amazon or Sony than the content owners.

Amazon's most common format, MobiPocket, has fortunately been cracked (there are some Python scripts floating around that can strip DRM, and there are other scripts that can add it so regular text can be read on the Kindle). That's a good first step, but then they built the better mousetrap: the "Topaz" (.AZW1) format, which apparently is a fairly lousy reading format anyway (used to store low-quality scans) but also a crack hasn't been publicized yet. Give it time: users can get root access to the Kindle, and the decryption software and key are both on the device. Many of us don't want to pay for content that we risk losing access to, or can't shift to another device. Many books can be found online, e.g. on BitTorrent sites, and I have no problem getting books I already own from there. I wish formatting was more consistent, and I hope HTML emerges as the format of choice (easiest to re-flow), and that HTML versions stop with the idiocy of putting <br> tags where the line would end in the book (nobody cares how the book was formatted, except for some scientific works).

I'd also like for libraries to have more eBooks; King County has a pretty good selection, with most books are available in MobiPocket or PDF. I'm not sure that they can actually be read with current eBook readers (I think Sony's can read secure PDF, and Amazon's MobiPocket, but the DRM might only work for PCs).

Duly last is price. Some online studies have shown that critical mass will be reached when the reader price is less than $100. $469 is pretty high for the Kindle DX, and even $299 for the Kindle 2 is fairly steep. But if they did everything I wanted above, I'd buy at current prices.

So while I have been looking at eBook readers as a way to cut down on clutter, they're not yet ready for prime time, and still I wait.

Let's look at it from the other side, and imagine what a great eBook reader experience would be. I'm going to hold my nose about the DRM a bit—I'm morally opposed but let's pretend it can do what it purports to do (stop theft) but still let users do whatever they could do with a paper book with an eBook that they've bought.

In this world, I'm connected to my home wireless network with my eBook web browser (I'm paying for the connection and bandwidth, just as if I was using my laptop) and typing this journal entry on it. In fact, I'm using a version of the open source Firefox browser that I downloaded and installed onto the device.

I've traded in all of my reasonably new books for eBook versions, in some format that can easily be re-flowed to different page sizes so that if I get a larger (or smaller) display in future (or want to zoom in or out), my books will still look good. I've managed to find copies of my old books that are out of copyright online, perhaps at Project Gutenberg (or even scanned and OCR'd them myself), and sold or gave away the physical versions. I only have one bookshelf (the rest were sold when the books went) which has a few sentimental or reference books in it only.

My local library has nearly everything available in electronic form. I can either download eBooks directly to my reader with the wireless browser, or download them with the correct DRM stamp to my PC and transfer them later, and they just work (perhaps with some initial PC setup).

Books generally cost about $5, except older ones are frequently available for much less or even for free. When I'm done with an eBook, I can sell it on eBay or Craigslist for whatever I can get for it.

My current University of Washington PMP Master's course textbook is available electronically, so I also keep it on my reader. I can easily take notes inline, or even work on projects and flip back and forth between my composition windows and several sections of several references.

I can connect a USB cable and backup all of my books, so that in the unhappy event of my reader being lost or stolen, I still have all my books. In fact, books I've bought online are (at my option) recorded with the retailers, so I can re-download them if I need to (but I can expunge the records if I feel paranoid).

I can set up a small perl program on my computer to automatically download and install various blogs or news sites' content to the reader overnight—free sites, or sites to which I already pay for access. I can use its text to speech capabilities to have it read me items of interest on the drive to work, then when I get there I can connect it to the wireless network at work in case I want to do some online reading or browsing over lunch.

There will come a day when all this is possible, and I look forward to that day. And I might not wait for everything to happen: perhaps when I'm happy enough with the state of the world I'll buy a reader and contribute to making things better myself.