A local school in Indiana has enacted limits on the amount of homework teachers can send home for students. The AP reports:

Starting next year, the handbook at East Side Elementary School in Edinburgh, about 30 miles south of Indianapolis, will state that students should have no more than 10 minutes worth of homework per grade level. So, a first-grader would have 10 minutes worth while a fifth-grader could have up to 50 minutes.

Complaints from parents about homework time prompted Principal Richard Arkanoff to put a policy in writing. . . .

“Homework is something that puts a burden on the entire family,” Arkanoff said. “We’re in the business of helping the family, not burdening the family.”

. . . .

Arkanoff said it is important for students and parents to spend time together that is not stressful.

A nice warm fuzzy vision of local parents spending quality time with their children. This ignores the reality of most kids today.

According to a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, on any given day, 30% of all kids 2-18 will play a video game; those who do play spend an average of just over an hour (1:04) playing. In fact, Kaiser noted in an earlier study: “the average child spends about five and a half hours a day using media (5:29) — more than 38 hours a week. This figure includes electronic media (TV, videos, movies, music, computers and video games), as well as books, magazines and newspapers. It does not include any media used in school or for homework.”

Under the above homework limitations, a fifth grade teacher can give a child 50 minutes per day, or a total of 5 hours and 50 minutes of homework per week. That same child is engaged in non-school work “media” for 38 hours per week? Parents clearly are not worried about their “quality time” with their kids. What they are complaining about is that when the kids are doing homework, they have to bother their parents for help, or need supervision to assure that it gets done. The TV and the video games do not require any parental involvement.

People crave simplicity. We like to know what is going on around us, but we do not want to have to think too much about it. At least, that is the only explanation I have for why complicated issues in society are reduced to one-liners on TV news programs. Even the “in depth” news programs consist of more posturing and dueling personalities than extensive coverage of the issues. The war in Iraq was billed on very simple terms from the outset: Defeat the evil dictator and install a democracy, a fine something that all people need. The real complexity involved in America reformatting a foreign society (installing a stable and well supported government, creating civil institutions, preventing other governments from meddling in the process, etc.), was brushed aside. Clearly, those involved knew what we were getting involved in. I think that those who promoted this war did a disservice to us in selling the war on such simple terms. I think this problem does not depend on which side of debate you fall on. Whether you think that we needed to fix Iraq at this point or not, Americans should have done much more heavy thinking before we started this war. That many of us did not is the fault of the politicians, but also the media.

I will even give you a case in point. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly spoke at Lake Michigan College yesterday. O’Reilly was one of the war’s most popular, and biggest supporter, but now that the difficulty of the assigned task has come to light, he seems ready to cut and run. The South Bend Tribune covered the address:

In Iraq — “a very heartbreaking situation” that was entered into with “very good intentions,” he said — O’Reilly favors stabilizing the country, then leaving. The Iraqi people, who he says had an opportunity to fight for their freedom but have chosen not to do so, “have lost me.”

“I don’t want one soldier dying for them … They don’t appreciate us … The faster we get out of there, the better,” he said. “We gave them a chance like we gave the South Vietnamese people a chance.”

Wow, that is a strange parallel. My question to those who supported going to war, but now want to quit, is “What do we know now that would did not know (or could reasonably guess) before the war?”

Most of us have gone through a time in our lives where we wanted to be someone other than who we were. Most of us, however, do not go to the extremes in an effort to avoid ourselves: The Star Press reports today about a gentleman who found his current identity less than desirable. If you think you might want to one day try to convince the world that you are not who you are, you should avoid tattooing your name on your back:

Three days later, at a hearing before Circuit Court 4 Judge John Feick, the Muncie man again maintained he was Cosby, not Williams.

The judge noted that a tattoo on the defendant’s back contained the name “Williams.”

“I can’t see what’s on my back,” Williams responded. “If there’s some tattoos on my back, somebody’s been bothering me when I’m asleep.”

The Muncie man told Feick that he suffered from a sleeping disorder that at times caused him to remain unconscious for seven consecutive days - long enough, he suggested, for someone to tattoo another man’s name on his back.

Authorities also said the man’s fingerprints matched those taken from Williams after earlier arrests

The Indianapolis Star reports today that a trial court has appointed an attorney to represent the interests of a dog in court. The dog appears to be a wolf, or part wolf, but was kept as a domestic pet. It bit someone, and faces either death or a 10 day quarantine, depending on whether it is classified as a “wild” animal or domestic pet:

However, the 10-day waiting period does not apply to wild animals. Under Indiana law, wolf-dog hybrids are considered wild, said Nicholas Doffin, the county health administrator.

“The incubation periods vary in wild animals so you can’t determine how long it takes for the disease to surface,” Doffin said.

If the judge rules that Cabic is a hybrid, the animal’s head must be removed and sent to the state Health Department laboratory to be tested for rabies.

I have never heard of an attorney being permitted to represent a non-person before. Corporations have attorneys, but they are “legal” people under the law. Under Indiana law, pets, no matter how beloved, are treated as personal property, so it would seem to me that a dog would have no greater right to representation in litigation than a sofa. I have not researched the statutes involved, so maybe there is a provision for legal representation in this context, but I doubt the legislature would go for that.

People tend to have great attachment to their pets. I have run into this issue in divorce cases in the past: the spouses want to fight over who gets the beloved family pet. The universal response of the court to these disputes has been “pets are personal property, put a value on the pet, one party gets the pet, the other the cash.” This seldom resolves the emotional issues involved, but courts have been unwilling to recognize any greater status for pets. It seems to me that some people’s affection for their pets is getting to the point that they will increasingly challenge their treatment by courts as mere property. I continually run into circumstances where people are putting down thousands of dollars for their pet’s medical care. Wouldn’t these same people be willing to spend thousands of dollars to litigate pet custody? We could hire experts (dog trainers, vets, pet psychologists?) to conduct custodial evaluations (bonding, ability, etc.), and have friends and neighbors in to testify as to the spouses diverse level of care and relationship with the pet. Around the corner?

Since 1972, the federal Clean Water Act has prohibited the dredging or filling of “navigable waters in the US, without first obtaining a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Since 1972, the Corps has sought to expand its jurisdiction from “navigable water” (i.e. those of sufficient size to permit commercial boat traffic) to other “wetlands.” It accomplished this in to main ways: First, it expanded coverage to to trenches, spillways, streams and ditches that feed navigable waters. Then, in 1986, the Corps issued the Migratory Bird Rule, that imposed the Corps’ jurisdiction on any body of water that might reasonably be expected to provide habitat for migratory water fowl. This was a significant expansion, and provided a procedural impediment to developers, farmers, and others across the country.

In 2001, the US Supreme Court struck down the Migratory Bird Rule (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, 121 S.Ct. 675 (known as the “SWANCC Case”)). This left many wondering whether which wetlands were still covered under the Clean Water Act. Specifically, many wondered whether the Corps interpretation of the Clean Water Act to give it jurisdiction over the ditches and streams feeding navigable bodies of water would be upheld.

It appears that the answer to this question is “yes.” In April, the Supreme Court turned down three cases challenging this interpretation (meaning the the lower courts’ decision upholding this interpretation were left standing), and now it appears that a Michigan real estate developer is headed to federal prison for his 1995 conviction for filling in a wetland 20 miles from a navigable water without a permit. As usual, the Indiana Law Blog has excellent coverage of the issue here and here.

As I have noted before, I do not use Microsoft’s products to browse the internet or review my email because of the lack of reasonable security features. URL masking is a feature brought to you by Internet Explorer, and opens up IE users to a whole new area of ripoffs:

Until now, it’s been easy to spot a paypal fraud site by the telltale URL. But here’s a Paypal fraud page that uses a Microsoft feature/bug (take your pick) to overwrite the scammer’s URL with a legitimate-looking URL. If you make the page small, you’ll be able to see the fraudster’s URL. (Since I have a Mac, I can’t try this out myself to see what actually happens.) Link (Warning: do NOT enter your paypal information here — unless you want to be swindled)

via boingboing.

Ernie the Attorney points today to a Findlaw article regarding the perils of electronic voting. The security issues are complicated, and a high rate malfunctions is troubling. The big push to electronic voting systems came after the nation’s nailbiting watch over the Florida recount where the presidential election hung over pregnant, dented and detached chads.

Elections, like most of politics, tend to be messy affairs. The punchcard system had the benefit of being well known, tried and tested. Yes it has major flaws, but the system had developed extensive measures to address these flaws. Most elections are not close enough to need to review the voting system. On the few occasions where the race it tight, the recount system works to assure the accuracy of the result. I have personal experience with recounts. Last June I was appointed to a panel charged with conducting a recount of the local primary election. It was the last election in local Wayne County to use punch cards. It was a long and tedious experience, examining every ballot, even though the turnout was light, it took us hours to complete. But through the experience, I saw the genius of the system. Out of the thousands of ballots, issues came up with only a handful. The rules gave us guidance on how to deal with pregnant, dented, and partially detached chads, and we worked through all of the challenged ballots. With us on the recount, we had old election officials, county clerks, and attorneys (like me), and I felt very confident in the outcome of our work.

Now, with electronic voting, all of these experienced folks are out of their depths. 30 years working the polls gives you no understanding of a complicated electronic device like an e-voting machine. Now, I guess, election challenges will involve technology experts and consultants. As none of them probably live around here, the candidates and maybe the county will have to shell out serious cash for these folks to come in and give their opinions (we all got “conscripted” into service (you do not say “no” to a local judge) and paid a statutory rate (like $100 per day)). Technology, as usual, does not completely solve the problems it was brought in to address, it just makes the problems more complicated, sophisticated, and beyond the understanding of most of the people involved.

Indiana, like most states, long ago recognized that people who commit a sex offense have a propensity to do so again. After being convicted, serving his or her sentence, an offender has “paid their debt to society” and feels justified in being free from further limitation on his or her life. Balancing the need to protect citizens, especially children, from future harm posed by sexual predators, and the civil rights of ex-offenders creates serious issues in our society. Indiana, again like most states, requires people convicted of certain sexually related offenses to register with the county where they reside and where they regularly work. This registry is made available to the public, providing the public with the ex-offender’s name, age, physical description, street address, what they were convicted of and maybe even a photo.

The registration requirement generally stops 10 years after release from incarceration. However, in some circumstances, the registration is for life (”traditional” child molesting (the offender was 18 years of age or older against a victim who was less than 12 years old at the time of the crime), offenses where the victim was seriously injured or killed, and 2 time offenders). So for some offenders, the crime becomes a permanent brand they will wear to their graves.

This requirement has been upheld by the courts against challenges that it imposes an additional penalty on an offender (who may have been convicted long before the registry was created) (In re G.B., App.1999, 709 N.E.2d 352, Spencer v. O’Connor, App.1999, 707 N.E.2d 1039), and constitutional challenges that registration impairs the basic constitutional rights granted to every member of society (Anthis v. State, App.2000, 731 N.E.2d 446).

Some feel that the state has gone too far with the registry, that subjecting someone to a lifetime label as a sex offender fails to give them an opportunity for redemption and rehabilitation. Others feel that the registry does not go far enough, and the enforcement of its terms is too lax. Many would like to see sex offenders limited in where they can live and go after their release. While the terms of probation and parole for sex offenders will typically contain such bans, once the period of supervision terminates, those restrictions are gone. Efforts to impose additional restrictions on sex offenders run into constitutional challenges and have netted mixed results.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier carries a story today about an sexual offender who has been banned by the City from being on the premises of public schools or parks. The offender (the story states that the paper decided to leave his name off, so it is not generally know which of the 113 registered sex offenders living in Lafayette the case involves), filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on public parks. The district court upheld the ban as a reasonable protective measure, but a panel of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago reversed this finding, and the City has asked the entire court to review this decision. The judges heard oral argument in January, so a decision should come down soon. The Journal & Courier notes:

The move by city and school officials to ban John Doe from Lafayette parks and school property was prompted by an anonymous tip to law enforcement in 2000.

The source told police about disclosures John Doe made during a sex offender group therapy session. In that session, John Doe admitted he went to Murdock Park, watched some children in their early teens playing ball and had sexual fantasies about them. He left the park without approaching the children or having any contact with them, according to court records and John Doe’s own account given to the Journal and Courier.

In February 2000, the parks department and the Lafayette School Corp. sent separate letters to John Doe informing him he would no longer be allowed in parks or on school property.

John Doe, who once played softball with a group of Lafayette attorneys in the city park softball league and worked for a while at the Shadeland Recreation Center, is a former high school athlete who enjoys basketball, softball and other outdoor recreational activities. He wants to be able to use the parks.

In the lawsuit filed that November, Falk argued that Lafayette’s parks ban violates John Doe’s civil rights by discriminating against him merely because of his thoughts.

He has not challenged the school property ban, according to Falk, because schools are not a place where the public generally is welcome.

Sharp ruled in September 2001 that the city’s order banning John Doe from the parks was justified because of the compelling public interest in protecting children.

On appeal, however, the three-judge 7th Circuit panel found that John Doe had been punished merely because he had considered committing a crime, a violation of the freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Why are the gas prices so high? Why do gas prices fluctuate day by day and city by city? The Indiana Attorney General has moved to give consumers more information about gas prices, and has put together a good web site attempting to answer these questions for consumers.

One thing the AG does is make it clear that the best time to buy gas is Wednesday night: