HoodaThunk?

Time to move along. Did I mention Anconia’s Customer Support Blows?

2006-04-03T12:03:00.000-04:00

As I mentioned previously, I have been examining the possibility of moving the blog elsewhere for a variety of reasons. Blogger’s interface, while OK for basic blogging, lacks a number of features present in other blogging systems. Blogger’s response to their users is glacial, at best, and getting anything more than a “check the FAQ” response is nearly unheard of.

So, I am moving this blog away from Blogger after 2 1/2 years here. The good news is that I’m moving somewhere that allowed me to keep all the content that exists here. The new blog is at http://hoodathunk.wordpress.com. The name’s the same, the author’s the same. The look’s a little different and I’m still getting the pieces in just the right places. I invite you to follow me over there for a (hopefully) improved experience.

The other issue is with this blogging software I also mentioned. This application, Anconia’s RocketPost, has turned into a bug-laden, eternally-crashing piece of crap. The worst part is the absolute silence from the company in response to a paying customer’s request for support I paid for. I’ve sent 4 requests for them to help me out and I have not gotten a. Single. Response. Not even a form-generated receipt of my messages has been forthcoming. So I’m switching over to an application that appears to be working well and crashless. Take a hint, Anconia - an application can have all the bells and whistles in the world and if it won’t run consistently, it’s still a pile of crap. (Interesting note: I’m using RocketPost to publish this note and it’s crashed twice in the process.)

My advice to you bloggers is to stay the hell away from Anconia and all its products. Use them at your own risk.

In closing, please click on the link and follow me to my new home. I look forward to seeing you there.

Nebraska becomes 40th State to permit concealed carry of firearms

2006-04-02T09:17:00.000-04:00

From Instapundit, I find this wonderful write-up by David Kopel over at the Volokh Conspiracy regarding Nebraska's passage of a "shall issue" law for concealed carrying of a firearm permits.

Yesterday the Nebraska legislature defeated a filibuster, and passed a Shall Issue law for licensing the carrying of concealed handguns by adults who pass a background check and a safety class. Nebraska's governor has said he will sign the bill into law.

With Nebraska, there remain 15 States that do not have such laws. 2 of those actually don't require permits at all to carry but will provide one if asked. (Read David's article on that.) 3 more have so-called "Do issue" laws that are like the "Shall issue" laws but allow local cops some discretion. The "shall issue" law basically instructs State government agencies that they must issue the permit if certain qualifications are met. While you might think that's a no-brainer, there are 8 States whose laws are such that the local governments will issue you a permit basically if they feel like it. The laws allow them to issue permits to celebrities while denying low-life scum - such as the common citizen.

Do read up on it if you have any interest in it.

Changes coming soon

2006-04-01T21:09:00.000-05:00

Well, I’ve gotten a bit fed up with my blogging lately. No, I’m not running out of things to comment upon. My experiences here at Blogger are, frankly, leaving me a little flat. I know you get what you pay for, and all, and it is a free service. But they’ve never been really good at actually answering questions. The interface, while servicable, doesn’t offer many of the features other blogging platforms do. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Then there’s the matter of the blog authoring software I’m using. I switched over to Anconia’s RocketPost almost 2 months ago. At first, it was stellar. The company then put out an update to the program and it’s been all downhill since. The program crashes repeatedly. It does so between each and every post I try to publish and, after this morning’s “update” from Anconia, it actually crashes whenever I try to put a hyperlink in the post text on the 1st try. I’ve tried to contact their tech support - reachable only via a web form on their site - and have received no reply after 4 messages. Not the way to keep paying customers, Anconia. In fact, this one’s about ready to take a walk somewhere else.

Bottom line: expect changes here at HoodaThunk? soon. I’ll keep you advised. Assuming I can actually post the notice.

Analysis of daily attack stats in Baghdad show decline in averages

2006-04-01T09:41:00.000-05:00

From Pajamas Media, there’s this link to Soldier’s Dad who provides a map of the districts in Baghdad along with the average daily attacks for the past 2 weeks. There’s an overall decline. Not that you’d know that from the media coverage, but the numbers are the numbers. Have a look.

I note, interestingly, that the once-lethal Sadr City - you know, the area the media held up as the example of how we couldn’t assist the Iraqis in securing their country - had precisely zero (0) attacks last week. Also note that every district but 3 saw declines. One of those 3 was steady - at an average of 1 daily attack - while the other 2 went up by less than 1. All others were lower.

Hardly what a civil war looks like.

Where’s the riot?

2006-04-01T09:15:00.000-05:00

Something interesting happened on my way to work yesterday. As I was driving in DC’s wonderful traffic and listening to the local news station (hoping their traffic reports might guide me around the worst of the traffic snarls), a commercial came on. The very happy-sounding narrator began telling the story of Genesis. You know, the part of the Bible that describes how God made the universe. When the narrator starts up his rendition by stating that, in the beginning, “there was nothing - not even a bagel!”, you just know this isn’t going to turn out well for the story.

As the narrator continues, he pauses in various places to allow another voice-actor, playing the part of God, to speak his lines about how whatever was just created was “pretty good.” This fast-forward retelling of the Bible’s opening story culminates when the narrator tells us that God, after creating man and woman, notes that something’s missing, and it’s not bagels. It’s fun, and that means God needs to create bikes. Yes, you read that correctly: bikes. As in: bicycles. As in: here’s where “God” and the narrator put in their plug for some bike seller’s big sale and ya’ll should just come on down!

Or something to that effect.

As I listened to this commercial spot I realized several points.

Some marketing group somewhere thought that hijacking the story of Genesis was not only not offensive, it was downright clever.
That same group thought that having that story - and God, I might add - depicted as rather goofy was also not only not offensive, it was downright clever.
That the production house, director, and actors clearly had no issue with making the spot.
That the radio station advertising people had no issue with accepting the spot and running it on the air with no disclaimers about how their station respects the beliefs of all its listeners and intends no offense.

And as quickly as I thought of these points I was able to identify why they were so. Because none of those people are, in any way, concerned that their actions would garner death threats, get them killed, or light off a riot that would burn DC for a week. These people feel completely fine with co-opting components of the Christian faiths and broadcasting them. If some Christian has a problem with that, well then they just get to live with it. Freedom of Speech, and all, right?

Can you imagine them performing the same commercial based on the Koran?

I have stated before that our media and the Left in this country have no issue with disrespecting Christianity while loudly thumping their chests and proclaiming their “tolerance” and desire to avoid offending any religion. When I point out to some of these folks that their actions say that every religion is to be respected except mine, they get steamed and tell me I’m imagining things. When the attitude that Chistianity is fair game becomes so ingrained into our media that commercials like this are casually made and aired without a second thought, they prove my point more eloquently than any words I have.

What I am asking is not that they muzzle themselves where Christianity is concerned. Witness the lack of any rioting to give weight to the argument that we Christians are confident in our religion to the point where we can endure people who speak ill of it. What I’m asking is that they treat other religions no differently. If Islam is worthy of the media self-censoring, then so should Christianity. If Christians aren’t worth that level of action, then neither should Muslims be. Equality of consideration is what we’re asking for. I think our tolerance of the treatment we get deserves it.

Virginia muslim gets 30 years for assassination conspiracy

2006-03-30T07:46:00.000-05:00

Next up on the good news list:

Prosecutors had asked for the maximum a life sentence for Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen who was born to a Jordanian father and raised in Falls Church, Va.

"The facts of this case are still astonishing," prosecutor David Laufman said. "Barely a year after Sept. 11 the defendant joined the organization responsible for 3,000 deaths."

But U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said 30 years was sufficient punishment. He compared the Abu Ali case to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who received a 20-year sentence... Prosecutors had asked for the maximum a life sentence for Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen who was born to a Jordanian father and raised in Falls Church, Va.

"The facts of this case are still astonishing," prosecutor David Laufman said. "Barely a year after Sept. 11 the defendant joined the organization responsible for 3,000 deaths."

But U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said 30 years was sufficient punishment. He compared the Abu Ali case to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who received a 20-year sentence. [Link]

Much more information is available here at the Jawa Report. There’s been some commentary about the proper sentence for treason being the death penalty, and I agree. However, that’s not was Ali was charged with. I guess you’d have to take that up with the prosecutors. My reaction to the judge’s comment, comparing Ali to Walker Lindh, isn’t a matter of Ali getting 10 more years than Lindh. It’s that Lindh only got 20 years. That guy tried to light off a bomb in a passenger aircraft and he only got 20 years?

Note this little item near the end of the story:

In February, defense lawyers asked for a review of the conviction in light of the disclosure that the Bush administration had eavesdropped on suspected terrorists' conversations without search warrants. Abu Ali's lawyers said they suspected, but had no firm evidence, that Abu Ali had been a target of the surveillance program.
The government's response was not made public, but the judge decided to go ahead with the sentencing after receiving it.

Thank you, New York Times, for handing the defense a ready-made trial-delaying tool. Unfortunately, this probably backfired on them when the general consensus came out in the judiciary that the surveillance program was legal. The judge in this case likely got to get a brief on the communications Ali had been having with known terror cells abroad and that couldn’t have been too helpful to the defense. Come to think of it, that might have weighed in on the judge’s decision on the length of the sentence.

Hostage Jill Carroll freed (Unconfirmed)

2006-03-30T07:17:00.000-05:00

Just got on-line this morning (and, for the 1st time in a few days, on my own computer instead of a company one working a project from the second I wake up) and noted this bit of good news:

Kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released after nearly three months in captivity, Iraq police and the leader of the Islamic Party said Thursday. Her editor said she was in good condition.

"She was released this morning, she's talked to her father and she's fine," said David Cook, Washington bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor.

Carroll was kidnapped on Jan. 7 in Baghdad's western Adil neighborhood while going to interview Sunni Arab politician Adnan al-Dulaimi. Her translator was killed in the attack about 300 yards from al-Dulaimi's office. [Link]

This has not yet been confirmed by the State Department or the DoD, so I’ll keep looking for more information.

Catch-and-release, again?

2006-03-26T17:32:00.000-05:00

Deja vu, all over again?

When a Colorado state trooper pulled over a van crammed with 15 illegal aliens headed for Iowa City, it looked like their plans to visit the Hawkeye State had come to a screeching halt.

Instead, Trooper John Lopez released the van and its occupants after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent told the Colorado State Patrol that he didn't have the staff to detain the admitted illegal aliens.

Immigration officials now say that the decision Thursday to let them go was based on a miscommunication about the van's location. Even so, the release has fueled frustration over what critics see as the federal agency's inability to handle the unabated flow of undocumented workers. [Link]

The problem is the state troopers don’t have the jurisdiction to do anything about illegals when they find them. The proposed legislation coming up in the Senate would address that. Moreover, we clearly need to prioritize funding and focus into ICE. Of course, if we were serious about our border security, we wouldn’t be having so many calls in Colorado that ICE’s agents can’t respond.

Additional immigration protest views

2006-03-26T17:14:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin has been, for as long as I’ve read her stuff, a strong advocate for immigrations laws enforcement and for a strong border security posture. She writes a wonderful post here on the matter of the immigration laws protests I mentioned below.

Erma Byrd, wife of Senator Robert Byrd, dead at 88

2006-03-26T08:25:00.000-05:00

Noted with saddness:

Erma Ora James Byrd, the wife of U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, has died after battling an illness for five years. She was 88.

Erma Byrd, who met her husband of nearly 69 years when they were in grade school, died Saturday at the couple's home in McLean, Va., according to Byrd's spokesman, Tom Gavin. He would not say what the illness was.

The senator and members of their family were with her when she died. [Link]

Some things transcend the question of Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, right-wing/left-wing. This is one of those, or should be. My sympathies go to Senator Byrd and his family in this time of loss.

“Eternal rest, grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.”

Mass Protests supporting illegal entry

2006-03-26T08:20:00.000-05:00

Over the past few days there have been protests regarding new immigration laws, specifically one that would make it felony to illegally enter this country. Some of those protests have seen support numbering in the thousands. My take on it?

Big deal. So what?

First off, just what are these people protesting? The law at the heart of the protests and demands does not make a new classification of crime. It does not, as is constantly cited by so-called “immigrants rights” groups, “criminalize” immigration. There is nothing in the law that makes something that’s legal today illegal tomorrow. What it does is raise the classification on an existing crime to a felony level, permitting the application of law enforcement assets that currently cannot act upon the crime. And that, really, is what the protests are all about. It’s not that any of those people (who have bothered to educate themselves on the matter) are suggesting that illegal entry isn’t or shouldn’t be a crime. It’s that they understand very well that the current classification allows for a rather anemic law enforcement response. Raising it to a felony would put a more serious law enforcement threat onto their radar screens and they want to re-frame this debate so as to hide that essential fact.

Protests organized to keep our nation from effectively enforcing our laws do not impress me much. My stance on illegal entry and immigration - and those are 2 very separate and distinct concepts - are well documented right here on this blog. I approve of the latter when it’s done legally and I disapprove of the former with no reservations. All the sign-carrying in the world won’t change that. If these thousands of people want to make sure that neither they nor anyone they know run afoul of our immigrations law, then they would be better off putting down the signs and helping themselves and others out in complying with the law.

Stonewalling at Yale

2006-03-24T11:38:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of a link from Power Line, I bring you this wonderful tale of supression of a free press by that bastion of free thought: Yale.

After getting the door literally slammed in his face in the administrative building that houses the office of Yale President Richard Levin, Evan sauntered outside where he interviewed Natalie Healy, a woman who lost her son Dan - a Navy SEAL - in Afghanistan last year. Naturally, Ms. Healy is outraged that a man who was an official of a murderous regime that killed her son has been given a place at Yale while many thousands of better qualified American kids are sent rejection letters every year.

Apparently this was too much for the Yale administrators who sent the police to give Evan and our cameraman the same message that is sent to ROTC and military recruiters every year: Get off campus! [Link]

Wouldn’t want people to think too much about Yale’s actions, now would we? You gotta love a University that cheerfully accepts public funding sending the cops to shut down a journalist doing an interview.

Christians worship rabbits? Say, what?

2006-03-24T11:30:00.000-05:00

I just saw this post over at Power Line wherein they detail the efforts by a St. Paul official in removing a decoration from city hall there:

Sorry we missed this story in our own backyard yesterday: "City hall evicts Easter bunny." As reported in the St. Paul Pioneer Press story: "A toy rabbit decorating the entrance of the St. Paul City Council offices went hop-hop-hoppin' on down the bunny trail Wednesday after the city's human rights director said non-Christians might be offended by it." [Link]

First, a quick nod to a note from Jay Nordlinger over at Impromptus. Since when does an American city have a public official with a title “human-rights director”? Skipping lightly past that one, may I now bring up the screamingly obvious fact that Christians don’t include rabbits in our religious observances? Easter is about the risen Son of God, not some bunny rabbit hopping around with painted eggs. The whole bunny routine is a secular observance, not a Christian one. The ones who should be offended by this spectacle are the Christians who are getting blamed for some tight-assed city official’s too touchy trigger on her “offend-o-meter.”

I guess Santa Claus is going to get the bum’s rush in St. Paul next.

Whiney=Conservative story

2006-03-23T13:44:00.000-05:00

I’ve had a few e-mails from folks about why I’m not writing about the recent story on the study released from Berkeley that concludes that whiney (read that: can’t cope with anything without hysterical fear/crying/generally inferior behavior) children will grow up to be conservatives while kids who aren’t (read that: highly intelligent, deep-thinking, easily adaptive to new situations, generally superior) will grow up to be liberals. The answer is simple: it’s pure, unadulterated bullshit masquerading as an allegedly scientific study. And I don’t need to go very far into the study to find all the proof I need of it.

At first, I didn’t write about it because the story, which appeared in a newspaper, didn’t provide a link back to the source material. Searches for the study on-line proved fruitless. So, this was a giant assertion without any back-up. Why waste my breath? Anyone who reads that story and triumphantly points to it with a big “Ah-HAAAAA” expression on their faces without so much as looking for the source material have already made up their minds. The story is merely something physical for them to point to rather than having to rely on their own expounding to make their points. These people can’t be rationally argued with, so why bother?

Fortunately, there are bloggers who actually do care about the debate in question and will act rationally even in the face of a study asserting that which might be abhorent to them. Thus it is that Michelle Malkin goes to the trouble of not only addressing the argument but also posting the actual study so the source material can be seen. Go have a read for yourself, if you like.

Here’s the basic foundational problem with this study: it is statistically insignificant and it suffers from the lack of solid definitions of terms. It also commits the logical fallacy of assuming causation that does not conclusively explain a result.

The study takes data from 95 individuals from the Berkeley area. 95 people. That’s the sample being used to assess the behavior of a population of millions. Billions, actually, since the study isn’t purporting to explain behavior of only the population of the United States, but of humans in general. Selecting 95 people from a geographically very small area doesn’t even rise to the level of absurdity in terms of a reasonable statistical sample. It would take over 1500 such individuals selected from as wide a geographic area as possible (within the target area) to even rate as a blip on the statistical relevance screen. The fact that these 95 people are all from the Berkeley area would tend to create the expection of similar behaviors and value sets which may or (more likely) may not reflect the value sets held by the majority of the wider population. What’s considered “conservative” in Berkeley might not pass for even moderate in Kansas. That’s the definition problem I spoke of.

Then there’s the logical problem of assuming that whatever makes the kid whine in preschool is going to be the determining factor in his or her politics in college. What is it that makes the kid “whiney” to begin with? Who decided that one kid’s whines met the criteria where another’s did not? This measure is extremely subjective which makes it a poor benchmark. What if the thing that makes a kid whine is a set of parents being consistent in what they allow and disallow as opposed to simply caving in to whatever desire strikes the kid at the moment? If the former set of parents are considered conservative and the latter liberal, then we’ve just proven that the parents’ politics forms the basis for the child’s politics in life, a fact we’ve already known for centuries.

It’s been suggested that the reason child whiners grow up to be conservatives is that they’ve gotten their whining out of the way in preschool instead of making it a lifelong effort like liberals. What, in this study, contradicts this conclusion? Nothing, that’s what. I would imagine the Kos Kids wouldn’t be cheering the study were it to be used to advance that conclusion.

So, it’s all just so much gas vented into the atmosphere and just so much wasted paper. Having seen the study, I am left with exactly the same sense of the situation I had before it was available. It’s a waste of time.

You and your bags: separate itineraries

2006-03-21T14:11:00.000-05:00

If you have the impression that the airlines lose a lot of passengers’ bags, you’re right. How right you are might surprise you, however:

An estimated 30 million bags were temporarily lost by airlines in 2005, and 200,000 of those bags were never reunited with their owners, according to an industry report released Monday.

The report by SITA Inc., a company that provides technology solutions for the air transport industry, also noted that "the problem of mishandled baggage is worsening on both sides of the Atlantic."

The 30 million misdirected bags comprised only 1 percent of the 3 billion bags processed last year by airports, up from 0.7 percent in 2004, said SITA, which is promoting technology it says would reduce the problem.

Last year, mishandled luggage cost world airlines $2.5 billion, compared with $1.6 billion in 2004, SITA said, in a report released before Tuesday's airline and airport passenger services exposition in Paris. The jump partly reflects improvements in data collection, but also the increasing costs resulting from inadequate baggage management. [Link]

When I worked in the airline industry years ago, our goal was a .3% (that’s point-three percent) mishandle rate and we generally hit that. In this age of increased security, it’s a wonder that it would even be that high. I can’t help but wonder how having that $2.5 billion back in their pockets would change the tune the airline industry is singing. Perhaps they need to spend some more time and funds on proper training and procedural review. Sure seems like a better investment than plunking the bucks down for delivery services to get the bags back to their customers.

Hitchens: My Ideal War

2006-03-21T08:59:00.000-05:00

There’s a good article by Christopher Hitchens in Slate titled, “My Ideal War.” Hitchens tosses in his 2 cents for what should have been.

So, now I come at last to my ideal war. Let us start with President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, which I recommend that you read. Contrary to innumerable sneers, he did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam's deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here's what should have happened. The other member states of the United Nations should have said: [Link]

Hitches is no rah-rah for the Right, conservatism, or for the Bush Administration. He doesn’t launch frothing attacks against those entities, either, which has placed him on the Left’s black list for the last few years, which is a shame. This is what real loyal opposition is and it would serve our country well for all of her citizens to learn that.

In any case, the article is a good read for what should have been and I recommend it highly.

Thanks to LGF for the pointer.

Captured Iraqi docs continue to shed new light

2006-03-19T09:45:00.000-05:00

The MSM is studiously avoiding any mention of the release of thousands of captured Iraqi documents into the public domain that began this week. The issue is huge and this is truly harnessing the power of the blogosphere’s “Army of Davids” to analyze the content therein. It’s been said that no one’s going to find any significant new intel in them, but there’s been plenty in the way of clarification and verification. From Captain’s Quarters:

Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard has long pressed for the release of millions of Iraqi intelligence documents captured by the US when Baghdad fell. He argued for years that the trove of correspondence would shed light on critical disputes about the Iraq war and the actual threat presented from Saddam Hussein and his genocidal regime. Hayes gambled that the IIS hid much more than the American media reported -- and it turns out that Hayes has won his bet. [Link]

Captain Ed has quite a bit in that post and I encourage you to read more. You’ve been told time and again that Saddam’s government had no linkage with Al Qaeda or bin Laden. These documents say otherwise. That Iraq didn’t have any linkage to terror groups. Not so, according to these docs. That Iraq was forthcoming to the WMD inspectors before the invasion. The documents show a concerted effort to confound and deceive those inspections. We already know the Oil-for-Food scandals underlying these events.

In any case, go have a read and follow the links.

Riots in France. Again.

2006-03-19T09:16:00.000-05:00

You could be forgiven for not knowing but cities all over France are experiencing riots, car burnings, and large-scale disruptions yet again. Last night was at least the 3rd knight of such riots, but American media didn’t start carrying the news, really, until last night’s broadcasts. Must’ve been too busy trying to find people protesting the Iraq War. In any case, the reason for the riots in France is a proposed rule that would ease the process of hiring and firing of employees in France.

With commerce snarled in some cities, people asked whether Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin would stand firm on implementing the change that he says is needed to encourage hiring. The usually outspoken leader was silent Saturday.

Protest organizers urged President Jacques Chirac on Saturday to prevent the law from taking effect as expected in April.

The group issued an ultimatum, saying it expects an answer by Monday, when leaders will decide whether to continue protests that have paralyzed at least 16 universities and dominated political discourse for weeks.

"We give them two days to see if they understand the message we've sent," said Rene Jouan of CFDT, France's largest union.

The law would allow businesses to fire young workers in the first two years on a job without giving a reason, removing them from protections that restrict layoffs of regular employees.

Companies are often reluctant to add employees because it is hard to let them go if business conditions worsen. Students see a subtext in the new law: make it easier to hire and fire to help France compete in a globalizing world economy.

Youth joblessness stands at 23 percent nationwide, and 50 percent among impoverished young people. The lack of work was blamed in part for the riots that shook France's depressed suburbs during the fall. [Link]

People in the US don’t realize the staggering difference in the ability of an American company to get rid of an unproductive employee as compared to those in Europe. (The same holds true for a good employee “getting rid” of an unproductive company through resigning and hiring on somewhere else.) In France, the standard interval for an employee to “give notice” that he’s leaving is 4 months. That’s right: an employee who gives notice to his boss in Paris today will be expected to continue his current job until mid-July. I recall some of my former (French) co-workers horrified amazement when I told them I’d be gone in 2 weeks.

The real problem is that companies are required to give the same notice when they’re going to let someone go. Literally any reason the company might have to fire someone that doesn’t involve an employee shooting people in the office requires that they carry the employee for 4 months before they can drop him. You can understand how a company might be a bit nervy about hiring someone when they might get stuck for them for a poisonous 4 months trying to let him go. Those companies have to be in a position of near-desperation before they consider hiring, hence the 23% unemployment figure.

Personally, I think the proposed law is going overboard. They’d be better off implementing a “probation period” kind of thing like US companies do, where the window to just fire someone without reason is 3 months or so and then shorten the “notice” period considerably. A month should be plenty, although you could also go with 6 weeks. Whatever they decide to do, it’s clear they need to change something to become more competitive in the market. Getting the people who have become used to a life on the public largesse to agree to this will be the hard part.

MN legislature passes “protest at funeral” law; blogging titans react

2006-03-18T09:37:00.000-05:00

I’ve not written about him before, but well-read denizens of the blogosphere probably know all about Fred Phelps, the egomaniacal nut job who takes his little loudmouthed flock around the country to hold demonstrations at the funerals of US military personnel killed in combat. Phelps, you see, thinks God is killing these soldiers because America isn’t stoning gays and lesbians to death in the public square. Frankly, to call him a nut job is an insult to nut jobs everywhere. I find absolutely nothing redeeming in this man, his stance on the subject, and most definitely not in his chosen method of making his point.

Like most people with an ounce of empathy and respect, I believe firmly that people should be allowed to bury their loved ones in peace. A funeral is no place for political grandstanding in any way. What Fred Phelps is doing by launching his little preening protests at these funerals isn’t sick, ladies & gentlemen, it’s evil. He is no better than the terrorist scum these military folks were fighting and, in my perfect world, he’d suffer the same fate the next time he brought a “God hates fags” sign to a cemetery.

Several communities have either been the victims of Phelps’ parade or decided they don’t want to be and have gone to the step of writing legislation to keep Phelps - or anyone else of like mind - from using funerals to protest things. The form of these laws is to generally prohibit protest or demonstration within a certain range of the funeral. Such is the form of the legislation passed by the MN legislature this week. This doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is the reaction to this law being passed by two of the blogosphere’s titans, both of whom are intimately familiar with MN and the politics thereof: Captain’s Quarters and Power Line. Both of these worthies are firmly against the passage of any such legislation. First up, Ed Morrissey at CQ:

The law carries a ninety-day jail sentence for anyone who intentionally disrupts a memorial service or funeral. It also bars protestors from any demonstrations at the houses of the families. All of these sound reasonable, but it represents a government restriction on speech and organizing that finds no parallel elsewhere in law. The Supreme Court just ruled similar restrictions on abortion clinic protests unconstitutional. As John Hinderaker noted earlier at Power Line, the urge to solve every dispute through legislation only creates a community less free to express itself and more bound by government restrictions. That hardly seems like an appropriate manner in which to honor our fallen heroes.

Hopefully our legislature will heed the words of a Gold Star mother and rethink their reaction to the disgusting provocations of Fred Phelps. In the end, Phelps is a bug, and we shouldn't make him important enough to merit the loss of our speech rights. [Link]

Begging the Captain’s pardon, but the he’s incorrect on the recent Supreme Court ruling. The Court did not rule that restrictions on the abortion protests were unconstitutional. They ruled that the federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban the protests. There’s a significant difference in saying you can’t ban something, period, and saying you can’t ban something by saying “(insert argument here)”. The Court did not rule out banning abortion protests within a certain range of the clinics, only that protesting wasn’t extortion. The MN law does not say that Phelps or whoever may follow cannot protest whatever they want to protest. It just says they can’t do it within a certain range of a funeral. Again, respects to the Captain, but there are plenty of circumstances where my ability to protest something is restricted in certain physical locations. I can’t protest something politically within a certain distance of a polling location, for example. I most certainly can’t demonstrate in favor of a particular candidate. My speech isn’t being denied. My venue is, however, and it’s being restricted in deference to a greater community good as defined by the laws passed by our elected representatives. This MN law is no different.

As for his suggestion on how to handle it.... please. “Just ignore him and he’ll go away”? And who among us bears the cost of that methodology? The grieving families, that’s who. As a community, are we not allowed to draw a line around them and say to everyone - us included - that these people have paid a high enough price for our society today? Demonstrate, if you must, but leave these people in peace for the span of time they need to commemorate the life and passing of their fallen family. I mentioned earlier that I consider Phelps and his ilk no better than the terrorists we’re fighting. Simply ignoring them and hoping they’ll go away isn’t an appropriate response. Neither is it with those who would use someone else’s funeral as a soapbox.

Then there’s this from Power Line:

Now the Minnesota legislature is enacting legislation to limit demonstrations within a certain number of feet of a funeral.

This strikes me as one of many examples of our culture's obsession with legal remedies. As a lawyer, I suppose I shouldn't complain; but as a citizen, I think it's ridiculous. If a bunch of crazies show up waving signs at a funeral, the appropriate course is for an able-bodied man--there should be at least one at any funeral--to take a sign and break it over the ringleader's head. [Link]

Just so I understand this correctly, let’s review: a lawyer is suggesting that the appropriate response to a protester is to manhandle the protester’s property (his sign) from him and then physically assault him with it. I’d pay for a ticket to see him, or any lawyer, argue that case in front of a judge. Personally, I’m all for his suggestion. Seriously! There was a time when that was considered not only appropriate, but the duty of the able-bodied men at such an event and I do, indeed, believe that we’d be better off today if it were still allowed. But the undeniable fact is that anyone performing such this appropriate response would likely be arrested on the spot and have no legal legs to stand on in court. Phelps, in fact, is probably praying constantly that someone does such a thing specifically so he can get into court and highlight his misbegotten hide.

The appropriate actions at a funeral are to not use it as a protest. Phelps doesn’t care to conform to what is clearly our societal norms. (Certain Democrats and Bush-hating factions aside.) Since our legal system has precluded physical confrontation as a response, what recourse is left to the grieving families? What recourse is left to us, as a community, if we are unwilling to simply sit back and let the Phelps’ of the world run roughshod over us?

We debate the issue and then we pass laws. That’s what civilized democracies do. In America we hold the freedom of speech in our highest regard and we should. But just as we don’t condone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater under the auspices of free speech, we have the right and the responsibility to curtail speech in certain places and times when we can’t rely on our citizen’s common courtesy to do it for us. Precisely done, I have no issue with laws like that passed in MN, and I’m surprised that true blogger giants such as these fine folks do.

The Myths of Iraq

2006-03-17T07:20:00.000-05:00

I have been meaning to link to this article by Ralph Peters written in response to the media’s distortions of the situation in Iraq. Peters has been there, seen it with his own eyes, and spoken with the Iraqi citizens most of the MSM’s reporters have not even seen from inside their hotel.

Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror.

But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful.

The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines.

To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. [Link]

Read the whole thing.

Happy St. Patty’s Day

2006-03-17T07:12:00.000-05:00

Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you all. For those of you who can’t/don’t, I’ll hoist one aloft for you later today. That offer extends only as a placeholder to members of our military who are currently deployed - you guys and girls can catch up when you get home, so come home safe. Ad Nykus, folks.

PETA loses covert domestic wiretapping suit

2006-03-16T07:24:00.000-05:00

The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) lost a lawsuit yesterday in which they alleged they were the victims of an illegal domestic spying program. No, this isn’t another NSA story. PETA alleged that the owner of the Ringling Brothers Circus had engaged in illegal wiretapping and spying in the Circus’ dealings with PETA. After 9 hours the jury found for the Circus, confirming that there was, in fact, a load of manure around the joint but that it wasn’t the Circus who was housing it.

The president of the company that owns the Ringling Bros. circus was cleared Wednesday of accusations he ran a spy campaign against animal rights groups.

The decision by a Fairfax County Circuit Court jury is a blow to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which brought the civil suit against Kenneth Feld. Feld is the president of Vienna-based Feld Entertainment, which owns the legendary circus and numerous other high-profile entertainment acts, including Disney on Ice.

The two sides have been at odds for years. PETA filed the suit in 2001. In opening arguments last month, PETA's lawyer claimed Feld was in charge of an espionage campaign and stole items including donor lists. Feld's lawyer said nothing illegal was done, PETA was never harmed by any alleged actions, and that the group was hypocritical because it frequently uses undercover operatives to expose wrongdoing. [Link]

We don’t have all the facts of the case, of course, but PETA seems to be relying on the fact that Ringling Bros. had lots of PETA’s confidential documents in their possession. So what? It proves they had the documents, not how they got them. Disgruntled or careless PETA employees and members might have been equally at fault. And even if the company who had the documents managed to infiltrate PETA and get their hands on their internal documents, PETA’s not exactly a national security agency. Sorry, folks, it’s going to take more than that and you really don’t want to go in front of an appeals court unless you do have more.

Press release out for potential bomb at Dulles Town Center Mall

2006-03-15T23:57:00.000-05:00

In my last post, I spoke about the incident with the “suspicious package” at Dulles Town Center Mall. I have no idea if it had anything to do with the e-mail query I sent but a release was made at the Sheriff’s web site. Here’s the meat of it:

Loudoun County, Virginia- A suspicious package found outside the Dulles Town Center Tuesday night closed a small portion of the mall for several hours.

A shopper at the center found a suitcase outside the JC Penny around 6:45 PM. They notified security with the Dulles Town Center who contacted the Sheriff’s Office. The Loudoun County Bomb Squad responded to the scene and examined the case.

Since it was unclear as to what was in the case the squad decided to render the package safe as a precautionary measure. The scene was cleared shortly before 10 PM. The case did not contain any explosive material. [Link]

I question whether the 200-yard wide perimeter surrounding the bulk of the busiest southside parking lots at the mall constitute a “small portion” but I’m sure the Sheriff’s department is looking to downplay things as much as possible. So, someone left a suitcase outside the mall in a position that made an observer - a shopper - worried enough to notice and bring it to the attention of mall security. Interesting. And while I’m very glad that the suitcase contained no explosives, those aren’t the only dangerous materials in the world.

I would hope that the Sheriff’s Department is purusing the case - pardon the pun - even with no explosives found. Several questions need to be answered:

Who left the suitcase?

How did it get left behind? Did someone simply forget it when they were loading their car and drive off or was this item placed there specifically to get the reaction that it did?

If it was a simply goof-up, will the Sheriff’s department explain that, in full? (Having this be a forgetful person is quite a bit different than the implications that arise by having someone do something like this on purpose.)

What did the case contain? We know it wasn’t explosives, but it tells us very different things if the contents were underwear and t-shirts versus electronics and packets of white powder.

I am also getting annecdotal information that there’s now been 3 incidents requiring the bomb squard in the past couple of months. Perhaps a correlative study is in order.

Updated: Loudoun County mall parking lots locked down due to suspicious package

2006-03-14T22:40:00.000-05:00

Not one of the more enjoyable evenings I’ve spent. The Dulles Town Center mall here in Loudoun County had a “suspicious package” turn up in one of the parking lots. The Sheriff’s department set up a perimeter about 200-250 yards across (presumably centered on the package) and denied all access to the lots within. That’s The particular area is where a major entry point to the mall is - naturally - and so this wound up locking about a third of the mall’s patrons out of their cars.

Me included. And my wife. Both cars and no way home.

It took about 4 hours, I believe, to get things figured out. Neither the local news, who did have a camera crew present, nor the County’s alert system is carrying any news about the incident yet. I have pictures from my camera phone and I’ll post those in the morning. Right now my toddler is way tired and I just want to relax a bit.

Rather can’t take the heat

2006-03-13T23:43:00.000-05:00

This up from Captain’s Quarters, a link to the Courier Post’s Jim Walsh who attended a speech by Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather. Have a look:

Here's the scene: Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather is in Cherry Hill, giving a speech about the need for journalists to do better.

"What's gone out of fashion is the tough question and the follow-up," he tells an admiring audience of about 600 people at Cherry Hill's Star Forum.

So how can I, the guy covering Rather's remarks, just sit there?

When he finishes, I hurry to a floor mike to ask Rather about an issue that will be part of my story.

"Mr. Rather," I say. "Great suggestions. But you left the anchor desk last year after your report questioning President Bush's military service was discredited. Key memos could not be authenticated. Do you think the failure to ask questions then affects your credibility now?"

Rather responds with civility -- if not clarity. He notes, in part, that an independent review "couldn't determine whether the documents were authentic or not."

Eager to please, I follow up: "The Courier-Post won't run something if we're not sure it's authentic. Are you saying it's OK . . ."

But my microphone goes dead -- and the audience stirs to life.

Some people jeer. Others glare and scowl (I can now distinguish between the two). This continues outside as I call in my story.

Gee, Rather's speech never mentioned this. [Link]

Got that? Dan Rather just gave a speech about tough questions and follow ups when the answer’s a non-answer and, when questioned by a supposedly fellow journalist on a matter he’s a bit uncomfy with, his handlers take care of the problem by simply cutting the mike off. Can’t have all that free speech and pointed questioning running around. After all this is Dan Rather, not the President. Sheesh!

Come to think of it, picture that. The President opens the floor up for questions after his press briefing remarks and someone tosses him a question about the “quagmire” in Iraq. The Prez restates his initial remarks and goes to call on someone else. The original questioner, realizing the President didn’t answer his question, begins to clarify the question and sharpen the edges so he can get a real response. Less than 20 words into his follow-up - in the middle of the question - the President’s staff shuts down the microphone.

Care to take a guess at the likely response? You already know what it is: the outrage would peel the paint in the room and every journalist of every stripe would be screaming his lungs out that the press was being trampled upon, free speech was being denied, and that the people had a right to know what the answer to the unfinished question was. They’d be correct to do all that, too, but when it’s them getting the heat applied, they suddenly don’t give a crap about your right to know.

Nicely done, Dan. You’ve proven my points tonite.

Immigrations from the immigrants’ perspective

2006-03-13T23:24:00.000-05:00

My stance on immigrations and illegal aliens hasn’t changed. (In case you’re new here, I think illegal entry into the US is a crime and the criminal guilty of it should be sent back to the country he came in from no questions asked.) One of the principle reasons I cite in why I adamantly oppose any manner of amnesty for illegal aliens is that it is patently, absurdly unfair to the people who are playing it by the book. This article in the Washington Times today shows that the people I’m concerned about agree with me:

Jose Memjivar, 44, is an immigrant from El Salvador, but his conscience leaves no room for illegal immigration, even though he has a tough time criticizing it.

"I feel sorry for the people who have to leave their country and come through the desert, but I don't think it's right," he says. [Link]

That’s just 1 of the folks. You should take a few moments and read the article, it’s not a very long piece. It gives some details into the immigration issue that the so-called “immigrants rights” groups never go into. How it takes between 3 and 5 years to get a green card and then as long as another 4 years to become a citizen. Lawyer’s fees and whatnot can easily add up to thousands of dollar - about the same that illegals pay to get smuggled in. To consider letting these people who cheated their way in stay is a slap in the face of the real immigrants - the kind we really need to have here.

Flogging the Iraq=Vietnam meme... again.

2006-03-13T23:04:00.000-05:00

Gathered together to give a panel discussion on “Vietnam and the Presidency” a group of former high-ranking government officials just couldn’t help themselves. In their very diplomatic speech, they contend that Iraq is just Vietnam without the triple-canopy tree cover. Former Kennedy advisor Theodore Sorenson, LBJ White House staff member Jack Valenti, and former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Alexander Haig were to discuss the history of Vietnam in the context of the actions and decisions of the Presidents who were in office during that war. Unfortunately, they just can’t seem to keep themselves on topic.

The banner on their dais read "Vietnam and the Presidency" -- ostensibly, the subject of a high-powered conference that brought historians and former policymakers to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library for two days ending Saturday.

But, as the speakers talked about anti-American insurgents and faulty U.S. intelligence and the search for an honorable way out in Southeast Asia, nearly all found bitter parallels to the current conflict in Iraq.

"It appears to me we haven't learned very much," said Alexander M. Haig Jr., Kissinger's assistant in the Nixon White House and secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan. [Link]

I’ve been told by some very smart folks that when the only tool you have is a hammer, the world starts to look like a nail. Steeped and stuck in Vietnam as this crowd apparently is, it is little wonder that every conflict will look just like that war. The critical factor is right there in the 2nd paragraph I’ve quoted above. When the end-all and be-all of your involvement in anything is to search for a way out - honorable or not - then you’re involved for the wrong reason. Scarred by Vietnam, that’s all this group was thinking about from the moment we committed troops to something other than handing out water bottles and blankets in some natural disaster. “What’s our exit strategy?”, is the only question of importance to people like this. Victory is immaterial because they simply cannot bring themselves to believe that any such thing is possible anytime, anywhere. That is the critical difference between these people and our enemies. The enemy is still quite convinced he can succeed.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s another quote from the story:

"You cannot win against an insurgency that springs from the population," said Jack Valenti, former special assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson. "There's never been an insurgency that doesn't prevail against a mighty power..." [Link]

Tell that to the Polish citizens who rose up against the Russians in 1830. The November Uprising was supported by a pretty good chunk of Polish society. They got crushed, folks. That’s just 1 example I was able to call immediately to mind. Do you think that some studied research into the matter might come up with others? Vietnam was the first war that was lost as a result of the winning side’s populace becoming convinced they were simply losing and coming to that conclusion in real time. If there’s any parallel to the Vietnam War, then it’s the relentless advocacy journalism pounding out the “we’re losing and we’ve gotta get out of here” drumbeat being pushed by the MSM.

Avoiding the obvious

2006-03-13T22:46:00.000-05:00

If I told you that a man had committed a crime in full view of multiple witnesses and that this man had been quite vocal about his reasons for committing the crime, would you be surprised if the news media omitted this detail in their reporting of the event? I mean, if the guy robbed your local bank and was spewing on about stealing the money because he thought all you rich bastards just had too much money for his liking, wouldn’t you expect your newspaper to carry a family-friendly version of that comment? (Maybe not so family-friendly, either...) Sure you would. The reason for his actions is an important part of the story and a story like that would most surely be news.

So why is it that a man can go out of his way to plan and execute an attempt to mow down as many people as he can with a rented SUV, speak plainly about his reasons and background to the cops and anyone else who’ll listen, and the news media won’t pass those details along? From Mark Steyn’s latest:

This week's Voldemort Award goes to the New York Times for their account of a curious case of road rage in North Carolina:

"The man charged with nine counts of attempted murder for driving a Jeep through a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last Friday told the police that he deliberately rented a four-wheel-drive vehicle so he could 'run over things and keep going.' "

The driver in question was Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar.

Whoa, don't jump to conclusions. The Times certainly didn't. As the report continued:

"According to statements taken by the police, Mr. Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian-born graduate of the university, felt that the United States government had been 'killing his people across the sea' and that his actions reflected 'an eye for an eye.'"

"His people"? And who exactly would that be? Taheri-azar is admirably upfront about his actions. As he told police, he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world."

And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis -- non-Muslims in Muslim society -- seem to have been taken on board by the Western media:

The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . .

Are they teaching that at Columbia Journalism School yet?

A fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students? Just one of those things -- like a gran'ma in my neck of the woods a couple of years back who hit the wrong pedal in the parking lot and ploughed through a McDonald's, leaving the place a hideous tangle of crumbled drywall, splattered patties and incendiary hot apple-pie filling. Yet, according to his own statements, Taheri-azar committed an act of ideological domestic terrorism, which he'd planned for two months. He told police he was more disappointed more students in his path weren't struck and that he'd rented the biggest vehicle the agency had in order to do as much damage to as many people as possible. The Persian car pet may have been flooring it, but the media are idling in neutral, if not actively reversing away from the story as fast as they can. [Link]

Try as they and their supporters might to deny it, the glaringly obvious fact is that they’ve decided to report this terrorist attack as anything but so they can avoid giving any support to the notion that terrorists do, indeed, want to attack Americans here on American soil. If the story gives any credence to that idea or might be construed to offer support to the Administration and/or the concept of recognizing where the greatest threat for terror attacks lies, they’ll scramble for the cover of downplaying or ignoring outright critical details of a story. If they can work in a reference to Abu Ghraib, so much the better.

The fact of this case is a matter of police record now: this guy decided to kill Americans because he felt Muslims were due their lives. And why’s that? Why, because any offense to a Muslim is a terminal offense in his eyes and that’s just the way it goes. Someone thousands of miles away you’ve never heard of gets “wronged” in the eyes of an American muslim who feels that “American” is the lesser part of his citizenship and next thing you know he’s aiming a 4x4 at you and praying to Allah almighty that you go down in a bloody heap under his tires. But CNN, the NY Times, and the Washington Post would prefer you not dwell on the facts and, therefore, they decide you don’t need to read about them.

This isn’t an isolated incident in the media, either. Readers of this blog know that I’ve spoke about this several times before. The sad fact is that I hardly ever need to repeat my examples, there are so many of them. Take this one, for example, covered by Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

More than 8,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have deserted since the Iraq war began, USA Today reported Tuesday.

"Some lawyers who represent deserters say the war in Iraq is driving more soldiers to question their service and that the Pentagon is cracking down on deserters to discourage antiwar sentiment," wrote reporter Bill Nichols.

" 'The last thing (Pentagon officials) want is for people to think ... that this is like Vietnam,' said Tod Ensign, head of Citizen Soldier, an antiwar group that offers legal aid to deserters."

Mr. Ensign is full of horse manure, as Mr. Nichols demonstrates in his story. The data show desertions have plunged since 9/11, and are much lower than during the Vietnam war.

The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in the 2001 fiscal year, but only 3,456 in 2005, Mr. Nichols noted. In 1971, the Army reported 33,094 desertions, 3.4 percent of its total force. In 2005, desertions represented just 0.24 percent of 1.4 million of active service members. [Link]

Daily Pundit mentioned the same item:

Why is this the lede:

At least 8,000 members of the all-volunteer U.S. military have deserted since the Iraq war began, Pentagon records show, although the overall desertion rate has plunged since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Instead of this?

Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11. The Army, Navy and Air Force reported 7,978 desertions in 2001, compared with 3,456 in 2005. The Marine Corps showed 1,603 Marines in desertion status in 2001. That had declined by 148 in 2005.

The desertion rate was much higher during the Vietnam era. The Army saw a high of 33,094 deserters in 1971 - 3.4% of the Army force. But there was a draft and the active-duty force was 2.7 million.

Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.

Probably because the real story sounds too much like good news, so the objective DNC whore who wrote this "news" piece decided to twist the lede graf into something that sounds more damaging. [Link]

Dead on accurate. The real story in that set of statistics is that desertions have gone down significantly, and during a time of war, as opposed to the other way around. If the military were losing heart the way the media’s been trying to pound into your head it is then you’d expect desertions to be rising not falling. It’s way, way down and that’s a sign that our soldiers aren’t losing faith in their mission. There’s simply no other reason to reverse the implication of this story by running the lead paragraph the say it was except that the news, unfiltered, doesn’t match the authors desired narrative.

If the government was caught so blatantly burying critical pieces of their story in an effort to change public opinion and undermine the press, you’d never be able to outrun the coverage. Hell, the media and the Left are still harping on that “Bush lied!” without any proof of such a thing. Imagine the firestorm if they actually could show that he had. The media’s got a “do as I say, not as I do” approach, however, and it’s coloring the coverage of almost every news outlet in the nation.

Here’s the real question: with such examples as these where the media is clearly intentionally distorting the truth in an effort to generate the declining poll numbers (which they then gleefully report as proof of their previous distortions) how are we to trust anything they say? And if we cannot trust them, who do we go to for the real information we need, as citizens, to make the informed decisions we must in a system of governance such as ours? Once upon a time, the media filled that role and they were proud to do so. Ever since Watergate, they’ve been stuck on the notion that the only “good” reporting is the earth-shattering, scandal-uncovering, Administration-killing, blockbuster kind that makes a reporter’s name a household word. And so long as that’s the goal, then truthful reporting of the facts cannot occur. The media need a serious adjustment and I hope they make it before their credibility tanks so badly that they foster the very environment they fear: a citizenry so pessimistic that they’ll never learn the truth that they figure there’s no point in trying.

F-14 Tomcat retires from service

2006-03-11T09:06:00.000-05:00

It’s hard to believe that it was 20 years ago that I and my college friends, accompanied by our dates (and I by the future Mrs. HoodaThunk) sat in a movie theater and watched Tom Cruise light up the sky in what has become the most recognizable of America’s fighter jets, the F-14 Tomcat. Fast, agile, powerful and sexy, the Tomcat was the plane in our arsenal. That movie, “Top Gun”, was one of the few action flicks that was also a great date movie. The cast, the sound track, everything about the movie was enjoyable and memorable and the F-14 was the chariot that carried not only Cruise and company into victorious battle, it carried us all into the sky like many of us will never see in person.

As with any movie star you grew up with, it’s always something of a shock to read about their passing. So it is today as I read that the US Navy has retired the last 2 active squadrons of F-14 Tomcats.

There will be no more dogfights for the Tomcat.

The last two squadrons of the sleek, Cold War fighter jet returned home from their final deployment Friday, two decades after the warplanes were glamorized in the 1986 Tom Cruise movie "Top Gun."

All 22 Tomcats of fighter squadrons VF-213 and VF-31 arrived in style, flying together in a wedge formation over Oceana Naval Air Station as hundreds of sailors and their family and friends cheered. Some wore T-shirts reading "Tomcats Forever" and a banner proclaimed, "Last Fly-In, Baby!"

"We're putting the premier fighter to sleep," said pilot Lt. Jon Jeck, 32, as he held his 3-year-old son Collin. "It's a staple of Americana."

The Navy plans to replace the F-14, a two-seat fighter with moveable swept-back wings, with the F/A-18 Super Hornets. [Link]

The Tomcat was, indeed, a premier fighter. Closely analgous to the F-15 in the Air Force inventory, the F-14 kept our fleets safe and provided a massive air patrol umbrella to operate within. Combined with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile (retired, itself, in 2004), the Tomcat could engage targets well over the horizon from the fleet. While they were in the air, no airborne threat ever approached our carriers with hostile intent and survived the attempt.

She’s been a good warrior and a valiant symbol of America’s readiness in combat for a good portion of my life, and I will miss her.

(Open link by Mudville Gazette. Thanks, Greyhawks!)

Secretary Norton of Dept of Interior to announce resignation today

2006-03-10T13:14:00.000-05:00

I just heard on our local radio station that Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton is going to announce her resignation today. More to come as I get it.

Gitmo Project, set #20

2006-03-10T09:47:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned earlier, I am participating in the Gitmo Project initiated over at Captain’s Quarters. I’ll leave you to read Ed’s post on the project to get the details of what we’re trying to do. My part was to analyze set #20 of the statements given by the detainees brought before the Tribunal at Gitmo. These detainees were all captured as part of operations surrounding the Afghani theatre of the war on terror. These 4 detainees were specifically captured as a result of the battle at Tora Bora.

The instructions given were twofold. First, we were to analyze the testimony given for any significant events or information. Basically we were looking for any “gotchas” that might have surfaced much in the way we did when Hugh Hewitt parcelled out Chief Justice Roberts’ writings prior to his confirmation to the Supreme Court. The second thing was to attempt to determine whether there was sufficient cause for a given detainee to remain detained.

We’ll get to the first part in a moment. The second part requires a caveat up front. The fact of the matter is that the files we are parsing do not contain any of the classified material being used to justify the detention. That information is critical in determining whether continued detention is called for or not. That we can’t access that information makes our decision-making process in this endeavor necessarily flawed. In fact, aside from a listing of the allegations made against the detainees by the military and the government, no information was available in the set I analyzed that provided support for those allegations. The best I can do, then, is to make a very fuzzy judgement on whether the allegations themselves appear to be serious enough or relevant enough to warrant the detention. I can, of course, also make the determination as to whether the detainee, through his answers, raises more questions than he resolves.

The detainees’ statements are identified by an “ISN” number, not by a name. There were instances where, during the questioning, the detainee was called by name, but I can’t see how that information is helpful here. The ISN numbers are significant, I’m sure, in the broad scope but here in this analysis, they’re not of much use, either. So, I’m just going to address these statements one by one as they came to me. There were four detainees detailed in the set I was assigned. So, here we go.

Of all the statements, the first detainee’s was the most intriguing. This man’s story was that he was picked up at a bazaar in Pakistan by Pakistani police. They took him to an undisclosed location and presented him with 3 notebooks containing “extensive” information on weapons systems, counterintelligence tactics and methodology, and - get this - “extensive references to chemistry and explosives.” They then ordered him to hand copy the notebooks. When he refused, they beat him until he complied. When he was finished, he was then taken to a prison called “Khad” where they held him for about a week. They then turned him over to American forces who flew him to Kandahar and then accused him of being a terrorist and producing the 3 notebooks he’d been forced to copy as evidence.

The charges against him are that he participated in military operations against American forces, that he’s a member of a local Islamic terror group (for whom he managed a membership list, complete with weapon serial numbers; he says he was also forced to make that list up), and that he trained rather extensively under the Taliban. The detainee’s only response to all of this is that he’s just a refugee that Pakistani police went to huge efforts to frame. In other words, he says, he was set up. When questioned he came up with a conspiracy theory that the US govenment is paying a bounty on captures turned over to them by the Pakistani police and that the Pakistani are simply doing this for the money. He manages to hit all the hot-button topics - he was tortured, there’s a conspiracy against him, etc. - which has the benefit of being a defense that he doesn’t have to offer any proof for. His answers, frankly, appear to be attempts to misdirect and his explanation of the notebooks found on his person when he was captured is rather flimsy. I have no issue with saying he needs to remain detained.

Detainees 2 and 3, on the other hand, are both Uighurs, an ethnic subset of the Chinese population. Think of native Alaskan Inuit as related to the American population. The Uighurs have a lot of bad feeling toward the Chinese government and there are a number of them who are unhappy enough to both leave the country and seek weapons training for a possible future rebellion. Both of these detainees were captured in Pakistan after feeling Tora Bora when American bombers started putting ordnance on the ground. They both claim that they only worked and trained with other Uighurs there and that, for the most part, they worked on building stuff in the camp, not on weapons training. They were both captured in a larger group of 18 Uighurs who all pretty much have the same story. The charges against them are, basically, that they were at the camp in Tora Bora and that they received training in the use and care of a Kalishnikov (AK-47). I must say that the charges appear pretty weak. They amount to accusing a person of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless the classified information about these 2 men contains something far more moving, I would say that they should be released.

Detainee number 4 is also an Uighur and was also captured along with detainees 2 and 3. His story is very similar but his method of imparting that story was far more aggressive. He seemed quite a bit more familiar with the tactics of answering a Tribunal. He even provided a witness, albiet a poor one. While his tone makes me suspect he’s a lot smarter than he wants people to believe, I have to come to the same conclusion as I have for the previous 2. The charges against him just seem so generic that it would take some pretty significant intel that he was up to something to warrant continued detention. Barring that information in the classified documents, I believe he should be released.

That’s my report. Take it for the unclassified, civilian view from several thousand miles away that it is.

Alabama church fires “a joke that went too far?”

2006-03-09T07:20:00.000-05:00

The 3 unmitigated idiots who were arrested yesterday on charges of arson and conspiracy have had the audacity to claim that the setting on fire of several churches was the result of a joke that went too far. When one of my jokes goes too far, you don’t see me repeating it 4 more times. This explanation - if you can be kind and call it that - merely adds insult to the injury. It wasn’t a joke. It was quite literally a vindictive disregard for their fellow man. As a society we should return the favor in kind.

Patriot Act passes, heads to President

2006-03-07T23:36:00.000-05:00

The Patriot Act renewal passed today and is headed to the President’s desk for his signature. The passage came as a result of an agreement between the White House and Congress on restrictions to the Act.

These restrictions would:

Give recipients of court-approved subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.

Eliminate a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a demand for records issued by investigators.

Clarify that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.

The legislation also takes aim at the distribution and use of methamphetamine by limiting the supply of a key ingredient found in everyday cold and allergy medicines.

Yet another provision is designed to strengthen port security by imposing strict punishments on crew members who impede or mislead law enforcement officers trying to board their ships. [Link]

I’m not sure the Act was the proper place for elevating Nyquil to the controlled substances list, but that’s Congress for you.

Iran arming Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda terrorists

2006-03-07T10:48:00.000-05:00

ABC News has the story out that explosives seized at the Iran-Iraq border have the hallmarks of the Iranian military-arms production industry. Where the insurgents and terrorists had to resort to improvising weapons out of pre-existing explosive ordnance at the start of their attacks, they are now being supplied with made-to-order stuff including highly sophisticated shaped charges. These munitions were simply beyond the ability of the insurgents to produce and, frankly, beyond most terrorists’ ability to even envision beyond whatever wet dreams they have when they think about attacking American troops. The Iranian arms industry, however, is in a completely different position.

Is this an act of war? That depends largely on how you define a war, and that’s not the subjective thing it appears to be on first blush. In WWI and WWII there were various cooperative defense treaties in place. The whole reason WWI became a “world war” was because, like dominos falling, when 1 country declared war on another not only did that country reply in kind, every country that had a mutual defense treaty in place with the “target” of that declaration also declared war on the original declarant. Of course, any country with a similar treaty with the original declarant was required by those treaties to declare war on any country that had done so. And so on, and so on. You can imagine that the tangled web of treaties got everyone involved very quickly. The bottom line, however, is that there were very specific triggers to those declarations. In diplomacy, those triggers are called “causus belli.”

The question to be asked at this point is whether the act of providing sophisticated weapons to our enemies is to be considered a causus belli. Then, is there anything the Iranians can do to mitigate it without American bombs plowing up Iranian soil?

I think it is clearly a causus belli to be caught supplying advanced weaponry to one side of a conflict, especially when you’ve been warned explicitly to not interfere. This is completely different from the Iranians providing medicine or food or any other material that might be used to relieve the hardship of war from the civilian population. The Iranians are providing material that has no other purpose than to attack our troops and our allies. So, then, to question #1 the answer is a resounding “yes.” Can the Iranians make amends?

Aside from halting all aid to our enemies in Iraq, providing every shred of intel on who got what arms, when and where, and providing us verifiable methods of determining they won’t do it again, I can’t see how the Iranians can wiggle out of this one without coming under American fire. I worry that the reaction of dropping bombs on Iran is what the Iranian government is hoping for in their efforts to lie further to their own people. That, however, is an acceptable risk to me. Iran is a very different enemy than Al Qaeda. AQ has no factories to bomb, no power grid to shred, no communications infrastructure to disrupt. Iran has none of these advantages. We know where they are and we know where these weapons are being manufactured. We should make a huge effort to get the word to the Iranian people that we’re responding to their government’s support of our enemies in Iraq. Then, we should mount up attack and bomber strike packages and turn a few factories into parking lots.

SCOTUS upholds Solomon; law schools must now decide

2006-03-07T07:35:00.000-05:00

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Solomon Amendment, saying that Universities who accept public funds must grant campus access to military recruiters. The case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), was centered on law schools who disagree with the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with regard to gays in the ranks. The law schools sought to bar military recruiters from their campuses “as a protest” of the policy.

Never mind that the military had precisely zero with setting the policy these law schools dislike. If they’ve got a problem with it - and nothing else - then they should be protesting Congress, not military recruiters. They now have a choice, of course. Take their principled stance to the next level and continue to deny access to military recruiters at the cost of all their public funding, or take the money and let the recruiters on campus. We’ll see, I suppose, but I’m putting my money on the money.

Participating in the Gitmo Project

2006-03-06T22:18:00.000-05:00

I’m working on the Gitmo Project posted over at Captain’s Quarters. I’ve been assigned set # 20 of the CRST documents which, basically, detail the Tribunal questioning of the detainees brought before it. It’s about 40 pages of material so it’ll take an evening to go through it properly. Expect to see something on it tomorrow night, barring any intervening emergencies.

Thanks to Ed Morrisey over at CQ for firing this project up.

Updated: “Peanut butter kiss” might not have been the cause of death

2006-03-06T10:52:00.000-05:00

I took quick note of the story where the coronor handling the death of a 15-year-old girl has said that she did not die from an alergic reaction to peanut butter. It had been previously reported that she had kissed her boyfriend who had just eaten something with peanuts in it. The resulting alergic reaction killed her. Apparently, however, that wasn’t the case:

A 15-year-old girl with a peanut allergy did not die from kissing her boyfriend following his peanut butter snack, a coroner said Friday, countering reports that drew international attention last year.

Saguenay coroner Michel Miron said Christina Desforges' death had a different cause. But he refused further disclosure, saying he first wanted to report to the provincial coroner and examine more test results.

Miron said he was speaking out now to head off an allergy group's plan to use the case as an example in an awareness effort. [Link]

I understand his reticence in coming clean with the actual cause of death, but the initial report was so widely reported that I think the public is owed the explanation. The Canadian group who is going to use the incident as a lesson isn’t the only group making the claim. I think we all need to know what really happened now that people are repeating it as the truth when it’s not.

Update: Additional details have come out now. The coroner is saying that a lack of oxygen - cerebral anoxia - was the cause of the damage to her brain. She was suffering an asthma attack at the time of her collapse and this might have had something to do with it. His final report hasn’t been filed yet.

US sending AC-130 Spectre-class gunships to Iraq

2006-03-06T10:25:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times has a story up this morning that the US is sending, as the story calls them, “flying gunships” to Iraq. The ships are AC-130H Spectre gunships, a variant of the C-130 Hercules 4-engine tranport aircraft. (Upgraded versions of the Spectre are designated AC-130U “Spooky”.) These are a devastating resource to bring to any battlefield situation. The Spectres can loiter for literally hours and rain down an amount of firepower that would give pause to anyone, military or otherwise. Unprotected troops can be decimated in seconds by this platform and it’s extremely hard to run from them. Their sighting systems are also quite precise allowing a good pilot to engage a single vehicle out of a convoy and not significantly impact any others.

To be honest, I’m surprised that these ships weren’t already in the theatre. Their ability to secure a wide area and provide quick-strike capability using weapons ranging from 25mm and 40mm cannon up to a 105mm “Howitzer” would seem to be tailor-made to interdicting sabotage and the “rat lines” used to smuggle in terrorists and weapons. Of course, I’m not working at the Pentagon, so what do I know? Should be interesting.

High School students continue try Bush over “war crimes”

2006-03-04T08:59:00.000-05:00

As reported at the Drudge Report, a Parsippany, NJ high school is holding a mock court putting President Bush on trial for “war crimes.” The national attention generated by Drudge caused the school district to meet Friday to discuss the appropriateness of the exercise and to re-examine the process.

Top school officials will huddle privately this morning to discuss a classroom war crimes "trial"of President Bush at Parsippany High School that suddenly is drawing national attention.

The school board's president, Robert Perlett, said the 8:30 a.m. meeting was called by mutual agreement on Thursday as the uproar surrounding the mock tribunal escalated on the Internet and talk radio.

Perlett said no decision had been made to halt the trial, which is to enter a fourth day today after classes were canceled Thursday due to the snowstorm. [Link]

That meeting resulted in the district’s approval to proceed, albeit with some changes.

A mock war crimes trial of President George W. Bush at a Parsippany high school continued Friday, despite criticism from people across the nation who heard about the classroom exercise from a prominent Web site and talk-radio programs.

Parsippany-Troy Hills School District interim superintendent James Dwyer said the hearing in the 12th grade politics and government class would continue, but a verdict by a five-teacher "international court of justice" panel would not be rendered as originally planned.

Speaking after a two-hour meeting with school board president, the high school principal and a curriculum superintendent, Dwyer said Friday the project was in keeping with the district's curriculum and had received prior administrative approval.

The class is an advanced placement elective, he said, and the lesson explores current events and foreign policy in an interactive way.

"The focus is on the process itself, not on any outcome," Dwyer said. [Link]

I’m curious about who the 5 teachers are who were originally thought to be qualified to listen to arguments advanced by high school seniors using evidence no doubt gleaned from the pages of the New York Times and produce a legally proper verdict. Dwyer’s comment about it all being about “the process itself, not on any outcome” is the kind of patronizing crap you expect teachers to fling out toward the children under their care when they’re desperately trying to avoid discussing uncomfortable topics. Of course it was about the outcome. There is no reason to choose this particular “case” unless someone has an eye toward the outcome.

Think about it: what evidence can they bring up regarding the crimes they’re “charging” the President with? They allege the President is guilty of "crimes against civilian populations" and "inhumane treatment of prisoners.” To what classified information do these kids have access? How many of them have personally visited Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Camp Anaconda in Afghanistan? How many have been to either Iraq or Afghanistan? How many have left the borders of the US at all? To even suggest that the President has engaged in “crimes against civilian populations” exhibits a bias. How is that charge even being defined?

So, do I think the “trial” should be stopped? Absolutely not. Under no circumstances should this exercise be aborted, delayed, or interfered with in any way. I’m all for reinstating the “verdict” of the “international court of teachers’ justice” as was originally planned. As has been said elsewhere, this is all about freedom of speech, right?

And when they’re done, the transcripts of this “court case” should be published in their entirety. Every statement, every allegation, every argument every refutation, and every single scrap of evidence offered either for or against should be released for public viewing and discussion. As Professor Glenn Reynolds would say, let’s turn loose an Army of Davids on the results of this exercise and determine whether or not it was properly conducted. After all, the school district’s focus is on the process, remember?

The key factor in instruction is the ability to accurately gauge whether the students have produced the correct result to a given exercise. If they add 2 plus 2, we know, emphatically, that they should come up with 4. If they drop sodium into a beaker with water, they’re supposed to see an energetic reaction. If we ask them to calculate how far a 1 kilogram weight will fly given a push of a particular power and vector, we will already know the answer. Instruction, at least at the levels of grades 1 through 12, does not come from asking the students to provide answers we don’t already have. If the students were to be taught the process of rational assessment of evidence and the successful argument of a conclusion based on that evidence, it makes no sense at all to ask them to do that in a case where we don’t have all the evidence and the answer has not already been defined. There are a myriad of court cases where the evidence is completely available and th correct answer already given by trained legal professionals rather than an ad hoc council of high school teachers. That’s what gives this exercise the stench of an anti-Bush witch hunt.

The deed’s done, however. We cannot simply shut this exercise down and, for the good of those students as well as for the rest of us, we shouldn’t try. Let the trial commence and then let us all see the results. Then we can make an assessment - a verdict, if you will - on whether the school’s teachers and administrators were acting appropriately or if they were (once again) teaching their political biases instead of the subjects they’re paid to teach.

(Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the open post.)

Blanco said levees were intact. Will that get some air?

2006-03-03T07:57:00.000-05:00

The media has certainly made sure to sow the AP non-story about the briefing on the New Orleans levees as widely as possible. When the facts of the transcripts were made available the conclusions made by the AP in determining that the President was warned of the levee breaches were shown to be the unsupported Bush-bashing we’ve come to expect from the media these days. The AP’s video hack job is just the latest Memogate. Follow that link to Captain’s Quarters and read all about it.

What’s not unsupported is video now coming to light that shows Louisianna Governor Blanco assuring everyone that the levees were still intact - hours after the National Weather Service had received reports that there were, in fact, breached.

As Hurricane Katrina loomed over the Gulf Coast, federal and state officials agonized over the threat to levees and lives. Hours after the catastrophic storm hit, Louisiana's governor believed New Orleans' crucial floodwalls were still intact.

"We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29 the day the storm hit the Gulf coast.

"We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee," she said on a video of the day's disaster briefing that was obtained Thursday night by The Associated Press. "I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

In fact, the National Weather Service received a report of a levee breach and issued a flash-flood warning as early as 9:12 a.m. that day, according to the White House's formal recounting of events the day Katrina struck.

Not until the day after Katrina roared ashore did the White House confirm that its surge had, in fact, breached the levees a delay that critics charge held up repair efforts and allowed the deadly flooding to worsen. [Link]

I wonder how much air time this video will get?

Comedic news casts

2006-03-02T23:49:00.000-05:00

Its not often that I watch the late-night comedy shows. Tonite Jay Leno is doing his normal schtick bashing the administration. In the span of about 60 seconds he used the bogus AP story about the “Katrina briefing” the President supposedly received, the bogus CBS poll showing the President’s approval rating at 34%, and the “fact” that the Dubai Ports deal was going to transfer full control of US ports to a foreign firm as setups for his jokes. I wonder how many adults actually listen to those set ups and assume those facts are real?

Scary thought.

Where is the condemnation for a teacher who corrupts the education system?

2006-03-02T11:34:00.000-05:00

Can you imagine the earth-shattering howls of indignation that would arise from the Left in this country were a high-school teacher to simply set aside school policies and start expounding in a civics class on the lack of good Christian morals present in politicans today? The merest mention of the term “good Christian morals” in any tone other than sneering sarcasm would be met with demands for the resignation of the teacher, the principal, and very likely any school board member who had a hand in hiring either one. That story would be getting airtime on every major TV network and would likely appear on page 1 of most of the major daily newspapers.

So where are these folks when a high school teacher decides to make use of a geography class to launch a rant about how America is the most violent country on the planet led by a man with “eeire similarities” to Hilter? (Via Michelle Malkin and Slapstick Politics. Michelle’s putting up a transcript for those of us without the time or ability to listen to the podcast of the audio tape taken by a student in the class at the time.) This kind of commentary has absolutely no place in a public high school. Judgments like these are highly subjective - not to mention the “Hitler” crack being fallaciously emotive, in addition - and require a wider array of experience and knowledge to even adequately discuss than is present in the average high school class. As I have said on many, many occasions, high school teachers should be sticking to the facts of their subjects and leave the politics for later in the student’s life.

Given the results from the National Geographic surveys on the topic of geographic literacy , I would think that a geography teacher would have enough to do to actually have students know geography. The last survey, taken in 2002, had some nearly-unbelievable results:

The National GeographicRoper 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey polled more than 3,000 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden and the United States.

Sweden scored highest; Mexico, lowest. The U.S. was next to last.

"The survey demonstrates the geographic illiteracy of the United States," said Robert Pastor, professor of International Relations at American University, in Washington, D.C. "The results are particularly appalling in light of September 11, which traumatized America and revealed that our destiny is connected to the rest of the world."

About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent. [Link]

Think about that: pick any 10 people ages 18-24 and 7 of them won’t be able to pick out Britain on a map. Six won’t know where Japan or France are. Three won’t be able to identify that humongous blank area out west as the Pacific Ocean. One of them will look at you blankly when you ask them to point to their own country.

Here’s an idea, high school teachers. Teach your damn subject well enough that surveys like this one don’t come back with such abyssmal results and then start shooting your mouth off about your politics. Not before.

OK Sooner student “suicide” doubted

2006-03-02T10:27:00.000-05:00

Back in October an Oklahoma college student made fairly big news by dying in a bomb blast on a park bench just outside of the university stadium while a packed-house game was in play. I wrote at the time that the immediate explanation - a suicide - left a lot to be desired as a conclusion to the investigation. Simply put, there was a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence that pointed, instead, to a failed suicide bombing where the explosive went off prematurely. While many folks were asking the same questions I was and some of those people were continuing the investigation as best they could, there has been no major updates to the case since.

Until now. Via Michelle Malkin I was directed to this story which quotes a police bomb expert as saying he believes that Joel Hinrichs didn’t intend to light that bomb off where he did.

A Norman police bomb expert said Tuesday he does not believe University of Oklahoma student Joel Henry Hinrichs III committed suicide by blowing himself up outside a packed football stadium.

"I believe he accidentally blew himself up," Sgt. George Mauldin said.

Mauldin said Hinrichs, 21, an engineering student, had two to three pounds of triacetone triperoxide, commonly known as TATP, in a backpack in his lap when it exploded Oct. 1.

...

"Someone saw him fiddling with it (the backpack) shortly before the explosion occurred. I think he got cocky, and it went off," Mauldin said. [Link]

The FBI remains adamant that this was a lone suicide with no ties to terrorism and says they’re going to release the investigation’s conclusions in a few weeks. When they do, I’ll talk about it here.

Study uncovers a “no duh” moment

2006-03-01T10:55:00.000-05:00

Quick, name all 5 leading characters on the “The Simpsons” animated TV show. Could you do it?

OK, now name all 5 freedoms addressed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. How about that one?

Don’t feel bad if you got Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie but could only say “freedom of speech” or “freedom of religion” regarding the First Amendment. You’re in good company. More than half of those surveyed could name at least 2 of the characters from the TV show but only 25% could actually name more than 1 of the freedoms mentioned in the 1st Amendment. The numbers for people who could successfully answer all 5 items of these 2 questions is even more abyssmal: 22% could name all 5 Simpsons; 1 in 1000 could name all 5 freedoms. This story by the AP paints this as both a shame (it is) and a surprise (to whom?)

The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

Joe Madeira, director of exhibitions at the museum, said he was surprised by the results.

"Part of the survey really shows there are misconceptions, and part of our mission is to clear up these misconceptions," said Madeira, whose museum will be dedicated to helping visitors understand the First Amendment when it opens in April. "It means we have our job cut out for us..." [Link]

So, Mr. Madeira is surprised that Americans treated to a weekly show now running its 17th season would better know the names of 5 characters than would know the language of a historical document taught to them in an elementary school civics class, possibly decades ago, and only given air time in PBS documentaries scattered across the TV schedule? No offense but what planet has he been living on? The Simpsons, as well as all the marketing schtick mentioned later in the article, are designed to be easily remembered and get blasted to Americans in entertaining technicolor. A good chunk of the Left in this country’s political spectrum is actively trying to make sure Americans forget all about the Constitution’s freedom of speech and religion by trying to shout down opposing viewpoint and removing the merest mention of religion from any public view or discourse. If more people understood that their right to practice their religion cannot be legally opposed then they might start wondering why all this effort is being made - and allowed - to suppress their actions.

But, seriously, is it any surprise that people don’t know this, given the lack of commitment to teaching it in our schools? Honestly?

Manifesto on Islamic Totalitarianism

2006-03-01T10:25:00.000-05:00

Also from Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, and many, many others, there’s this: A Manifesto on Islamic Totalitarianism. Linked from Agora and reproduced here in its entirety:

Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
12 signatures
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Presentations:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from somilian origin, is member of Dutch parliement, member of the liberal party VVD. Writter of the film Submission which caused the assasination of Theo Van Gogh by an islamist in november 2004, she lives under police protection.
Chahla Chafiq
Chahla Chafiq, writer from iranian origin, exiled in France is a novelist and an essayist. She’s the author of "Le nouvel homme islamiste , la prison politique en Iran " (2002). She also wrote novels such as "Chemins et brouillard" (2005).
Caroline Fourest
Essayist, editor in chief of Prochoix (a review who defend liberties against dogmatic and integrist ideologies), author of several reference books on « laicité » and fanatism : Tirs Croisés : la laïcité à l’épreuve des intégrismes juif, chrétien et musulman (with Fiammetta Venner), Frère Tariq : discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, et la Tentation obscurantiste (Grasset, 2005). She receieved the National prize of laicité in 2005.
Bernard-Henri Lévy
French philosoph, born in Algeria, engaged against all the XXth century « ism » (Fascism, antisemitism, totalitarism, terrorism), he is the author of La Barbarie à visage humain, L’Idéologie française, La Pureté dangereuse, and more recently American Vertigo.
Irshad Manji
Irshad Manji is a Fellow at Yale University and the internationally best-selling author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith" (en francais: "Musulmane Mais Libre"). She speaks out for free expression based on the Koran itself. Née en Ouganda, elle a fui ce pays avec sa famille musulmane d’origine indienne à l’âge de quatre ans et vit maintenant au Canada, où ses émissions et ses livres connaissent un énorme succès.
Mehdi Mozaffari
Mehdi Mozaffari, professor from iranian origin and exiled in Denmark, is the author of several articles and books on islam and islamism such as : Authority in Islam: From Muhammad to Khomeini, Fatwa: Violence and Discourtesy and Glaobalization and Civilizations.
Maryam Namazie
Writer, TV International English producer; Director of the Worker-communist Party of Iran’s International Relations; and 2005 winner of the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year award.
Taslima Nasreen
Taslima Nasreen is born in Bangladesh. Doctor, her positions defending women and minorities brought her in trouble with a comittee of integrist called « Destroy Taslima » and to be persecuted as « apostate »
Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie is the author of nine novels, including Midnight’s Children, The Satanic Verses and, most recently, Shalimar the Clown. He has received many literary awards, including the Booker Prize, the Whitbread Prize for Best Novel, Germany’s Author of the Year Award, the European Union’s Aristeion Prize, the Budapest Grand Prize for Literature, the Premio Mantova, and the Austrian State Prize for European Literature. He is a Commandeur of the Ordre des Arts et Lettres, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities at M.I.T., and the president of PEN American Center. His books have been translated into over 40 languages.
Philippe Val
Director of publication of Charlie Hebdo (Leftwing french newspaper who have republished the cartoons on the prophet Muhammad by solidarity with the danish citizens targeted by islamists).
Ibn Warraq
Ibn Warraq , author notably of Why I am Not a Muslim ; Leaving Islam : Apostates Speak Out ; and The Origins of the Koran , is at present Research Fellow at a New York Institute conducting philological and historical research into the Origins of Islam and its Holy Book.
Antoine Sfeir
Born in Lebanon, christian, Antoine Sfeir choosed french nationality to live in an universalist and « laïc » (real secular) country. He is the director of Les cahiers de l’Orient and has published several reference books on islamism such as Les réseaux d’Allah (2001) et Liberté, égalité, Islam : la République face au communautarisme (2005).

Dangerous act of public obedience?

2006-03-01T10:14:00.000-05:00

This from Instapundit, a group of Atlanta college students made a tape of their actions in making a 55-mph rolling roadblock on a highway down there. The resulting traffic carnage is completely predictable to those of us living in heavily populated areas with large highways. While I would likely have been staring daggers and Hellfire missiles into these students’ cars and being very, very, very angry over the chaos and delay, their whole point is that the speed limit laws on these roads are the problem.

Best line: "I'm just glad nobody got hurt. It had the potential to be dangerous, which was really, again, the point. We were dangerous because we were obeying the law."

Civil War proponents?

2006-03-01T09:53:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you run into an article that finally forms words to the thoughts in the back of your mind. This morning’s addition over at Captain’s Quarters is just such an article. Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq I was arguing the merits of the move (again) with several folks who were adamantly against the invasion. I asked them if they prefered to have Saddam in power and running things for the Iraqis the way he had been and I received a lot of scathing remarks in return. Of course we don’t prefer him, they’d say with some venom, it’s just not America’s place to do such things. We’re the aggressor state, now. We should just assist the Iraqis in overthrowing Hussein themselves. I never got a reply from them on how we were supposed to assist people who had no weapons and no training to overcome a powerful, modern army already deployed in their midst.

The specifics weren’t forthcoming but one thing was clear: they were proposing that we incite a civil war there between Hussein’s government and whomever we could get to take up arms. This is precisely the point Ed Morrissey is making in this morning’s post:

What I find so fascinating about the liberal hysteria over the civil war is that they argued specifically to start one instead of invading Iraq in 2003. Let's take a look at the history that the Times forgets. In 1998, Congress and Bill Clinton created a foreign policy explicitly stating that the US goal in Iraq was regime change -- that American policy would be created to remove Saddam Hussein from power. At the time that this policy was formulated and made explicit, lawmakers from both parties made a lot of speeches about how dangerous Saddam was to our interests in particular and the world in general. No one labored under the notion that Saddam had been rendered harmless by UN sanctions, already in full application for over five years at that point.

When George Bush (43) decided to press for military action to remove Saddam from power, he cited this official policy as one of the justifications when he went to Congress in October 2002 for authorization. All of a sudden, people started talking about how sanctions had kept Saddam "in his box" despite plenty of evidence that various countries had routinely violated those sanctions. They also claimed that the entire purpose of the policy was for the US to foment a domestic uprising against the Saddam regime, not for America to take any overt action to end his genocidal rule.

In other words, they wanted Bush to start a civil war in Iraq. And not just a gang war that involved a few sectarian militias taking potshots against each other as we see now, but a full-fledged civil war that involved an unarmed and oppressed people taking on the region's fourth-largest army and a dictator who had used chemical warfare against his own people in the past. [Link]

So, it was OK to have a civil war back when a Democrat was in office, but bad now that a Republican’s there? Very telling, indeed.

Supreme Court actions

2006-03-01T08:52:00.000-05:00

The US Supreme Court has had some action in the last day, holding a hearing on campaign finance and handing down a ruling dealing with abortion protesters.

First up, the Court held hearings regarding a Vermont campaign finance law and, from the sounds of it, weren’t inclined to by sympathetic:

For most Americans, the tiny state of Vermont evokes images of maple syrup and flannel-clad environmentalists, not rampant corruption.

And perhaps for that reason many Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared skeptical about the Green Mountain state's claim that its campaign finance law, the strictest in the land, was necessary to keep its officials clear of corruption.

"How many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the state's attorney general, William H. Sorrell.

"None," Sorrell conceded moments after declaring that the state law entitled Act 64 would free politicians from making decisions based on their major campaign contributors. [Link]

The Vermont law was never specifically detailed in the story but it’s supposed to be the most strict in the nation. I hope that the High Court’s skepticism on such matters holds long enough to re-challenge the hideous McCain-Feingold Act and get that damn thing relegated to the junk heap.

The Court also ruled in favor of abortion protesters in saying that their actions cannot be considered criminal under the Rico Act.

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence. [Link]

The opinion can be read here. Frankly I thought there was merit to the idea that a group of organized people seeking to blockade access to a legal business was engaging in racketeering. The extortion was obvious: do as I say or we’ll choke off your business. If this were a local liquor shop or a cigar bar there’d be no question that the actions of these protesters would be considered illegal.

That said, the Court is interpretting the law closely to how it was written. The message that needs to be taken away from all this is that if the people don’t approve of this kind of behavior, they need to smack their legislature around to pass laws specifically addressing it. I have a feeling this is going to be a recurring theme with this court.

Oh, and I would note for the record that Justice Alito did not participate in the voting on this case since it was argued before he arrived on the Court. Just sayin’...

Driver’s training - relearning to blog

2006-02-27T22:36:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned earlier I have grown fed-up with the blogging client I was using to create my posts. The final straw was the loss of a post that had taken me about an hour to put together, all because of both some unresolved performance issues and due to some truly none-too-bright assignment of hotkeys. The specifics don’t matter. The bottom line is that I’m using a new tool to blog.

Getting used to the interface is always a bit of a learning curve. What would make most folks laugh is that the interface I’m having to get used to is a WYSIWYG screen. Being an old code hack from back in the day when “windows” was defined solely as a glass-filled aperture in the side of your house, I blogged literally in raw HTML code. The layout of the posts was completely done using the various tables and tags found in HTML 1.1. Most people don’t even look at the source code their blogs use to render on the screen. For the past 3 years, I’ve never written a blog in anything but.

This new tool is Anconia RocketPost and it’s pretty nice. There are a lot of the features I can’t use but that’s a function of using Blogger as my blog space. One of these days I might pick up and move from there but for now it’s working OK. RocketPost uses a very “MS Word” kind of interface so I would guess most folks would be immediately at home. The only thing that’s very different from the way I used to do things is in how it handles quoting. Previously, I’d provide the link to the source material and then do a quote indented on both sides. RocketPost provides a very fast quoting method whereby you literally copy the source text, then immediately copy the source URL. With both of those on the clipboard, you press “control-q” and the quoted block appears on the screen with the word “Link” following it. The link provides the hyperlink back to the source code. I’ve looked at the effort required to change that and have decided it’s not worth the time. We’re all just going to have to get used to it.

In any case, please bear with me as I get used to this thing and get back up to speed. Thanks!

Fighter Ace Robert L. Scott dead at 97

2006-02-27T22:22:00.000-05:00

Robert L. Scott, WWII fighter ace and author, died today. He was 97. Scott wrote the immortal work “God Is My Co-Pilot” telling the tale of his adventures in the air. He was a member of the famous Flying Tigers, flying a P-40 Warhawk in the China/Burma theater of the war. He is credited with 22 kills and retired from active service as a Brigadier General.

"High Flight"

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

John Gillespie Magee, Jr. [Link]

Godspeed, General Scott.

Thoughts on the ports deal

2006-02-27T06:09:00.000-05:00

With the offer by Dubai Ports to accommodate both a delay for additional review and the addition of what amounts to an American holding company to insulate the operations in the US from the UAE-based company executives, this whole issue has cooled off considerably. I trust this incident will lay to rest any arguments remaining that all Republicans and conservatives are nothing more than “yes-men” for the President?

One of the arguments advanced in defense of the original deal was that anyone standing in opposition to it was only doing so because it was an Arab company. Some came right out and slapped the “racist” label on such folks while others merely left the accusation hanging in the air. To make such an accusation is to belittle the very real concerns based upon the actions and associations of the UAE with regard to terror groups in the past. That’s not to mention the verifiable presence of people there who are - shall we say? - sympathetic with our enemies’ goals and methods. I think it’s quite easy to be more concerned about this transaction than one would be were the company Australian and not be racist.

That said, I have some questions for the people who are opposed to this deal:

What does Dubai Ports have to do to be able to complete this deal, in your eyes? Is there a set of conditions they can meet to win your approval?

Are you advocating that any foreign firm currently under contract at one of our Nation’s ports be subject to the same conditions? If so, and they fail to meet them, are you prepared to lobby as aggressively for their removal?

It would be nice to have a reasoned debate on this topic, given that it’s an important one. I would like to point out, however, that the Bush Administration seemed tone-deaf to the aggitation this deal caused. Were I on the President’s staff, I’d be asking the committee who approved this deal in the first place what they were thinking in doing so without notifying the White House well in advance. It’s just not that hard to see that such a deal would carry with it an emotive content. The deal, properly explained away from the induced hysteria that the initial “they’re selling our ports to Arabs” reports caused, would have been far more easily understood. I think it would have generated less opposition. An explanation in advance of those reports would certainly have avoided the Republican backlash in Congress.

The President himself only made matters worse by stepping up and threatening a veto, the first one of his tenure. How, exactly, did he expect Congress to react? I think they reacted in a completely predictable manner and the President should have seen it coming.

I guess we’ll wait for the completion of the re-review and go from there.

Testing Anconia RocketPost (Updated)

2006-02-25T10:28:00.000-05:00

Testing out this new posting application. Wish us luck.

After spending almost an hour on a post regarding the Dubai Ports deal the application I was using to write it managed to choke and wiped out said article. Printed word cannot convey the machine-murderous thoughts I have spent the last 3 minutes desperately trying to avoid enacting,

Dammit.

2006-02-25T09:36:00.000-05:00

After spending almost an hour on a post regarding the Dubai Ports deal the application I was using to write it managed to choke and wiped out said article. Printed word cannot convey the machine-murderous thoughts I have spent the last 3 minutes desperately trying to avoid enacting, so I'll just say this:

Dammit.

I'll try again later, folks. I'm too pissed off to write. Anyone have a favorite post editor they'd like to recommend?

Still here...

2006-02-23T10:16:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the light posting but I've been in training classes all week. When I get home I'm pretty well spent, so writing has been a low priority. I should be back in the saddle after today's classes. The port operations sale, a variety of gun laws being pressed in the Virginia State legislature, the ongoing efforts by the MN Dems to supress free speech, and many more items have my attention. I'll be posting my thoughts on each in turn.

MN Dems feverishly working to supress speech

2006-02-20T08:37:00.000-05:00

In yet more proof of their "free speech for me but not for thee" attitude, the Democratic Party of Minnesota is actively engaged in open attempts to supress the speech of supporters of American policy regarding the Iraq theater of the war on terror. This includes the bizarre assertion by the chairman of the MN Dems calling a Lt. Colonel in the US Marine Corp "un-American" for supporting that policy.

Power Line has been covering this pretty well, given that it's local politics for them. One wonders what's going through the heads of the Dems up there. Would they support an ad equating our sitting President with Hitler, one of the 20th century's worst nightmares? Sure! Hey, you may not like it or agree, but freedom of speech guarantees the right to speak even when it offends. Would they applaud an ad alleging that same President lied through his teeth to take us to war? Absolutely! Yeah, they may not have proof, but that's just an indicator of how the President is covering things up so well.

But allow some vets and their families to privately pay for an ad to broadcast their perspective, backed up by the fact that they have actual, first-hand experience on the topic? Outrage! Un-American! Untruthful! Lies!

OK, I get it. They're offended somehow. Rather than actually take to debating the issues they've got problems with, however, they're trying to force the television stations who accepted the ads and the payment for transmitting them to pull them from the air. That, ladies and gentlemen, is attempted supression of free speech, no matter how you want to spin it. They claim the ads are lies. Where? What, specifically, is untrue about what was said on those ads? You won't find those answers here, folks, because no answers have been given by the Dems up there. And un-American? How so? (Aside from the monstrous crime of taking a position the Dems oppose.) Again, you won't find an answer to that here because they don't have one up there.

Please, don't take my word for it. Click on this Power Line post and follow the link within to take you to a recorded interview with Lt. Col. Bob Stephenson, one of the "un-American" soldiers involved with the ads. Judge for yourself and then ask what else the Dems would like to supress.

Pressing on past the breakdowns

2006-02-19T12:57:00.000-05:00

Blogging has been light for me the past couple of days. The reasons are work-related (some) and due to my attempting to read a new book. Since reading is one of my lifelong loves, that last statement is a bit of shocker for any who know me. That's going to require a bit of an explanation.

In 1997 I was attending college again. In the last set of classes before getting my degree I was required to take a course titled, "Logic." No real mystery, there: the degree I was seeking was for computer information systems. When I arrived at the class, however, I found that this particular class had nothing to do with programming, circuit design, or anything else attached to the information systems field. This was "Logic" - with a capital 'L' - of the type practiced and refined by the likes of Plato and Socrates. The application of reasoned, rational, and structured thought to a given proposal or argument. I recall very clearly the professor warning us of several items regarding this class.

First, it was going to be difficult. The vast majority of people, he said, make no use of real logic in the bulk of their lives. While they might have common sense and be able to smell a bad argument when they encounter it, actually refuting it with logic is beyond the ability of most people we would run into in our lives. That included the population of our class, he said. What he meant was that many of us in that class would turn out to be unwilling to expend the effort necessary to employ the lessons that would be taught. He made it very clear that he was expecting to lose a third of the class as the quarter progressed. (He was wrong, by the way. We lost slightly more than half by the end, the highest "student mortality rate" I've ever seen in a class I was attending.)

Second, he told us that those of us who finished would be astonished at the poor quality of argumentation that had been surrounding us our whole lives. Family disputes around the dinner table, friendly and not-so-friendly debates at the student union or coffeehouses, and anywhere any discussion of politics was held would illuminate this lack of rational thought process in so much of our conversations.

Finally, he told us that those who completed the class would be unable to actually sit and listen to policitians or political pundits any more without shaking our heads in amazement that anyone bothered to listen to these aforementioned clowns.

He was 100% correct on all counts. I aced that class and it wasn't easy. But it was likely the most valuable class I ever took in college. If I had anything to do with it, I'd make it a required course for every degree in higher education. The lessons learned are difficult to apply, however, in an environment where people are simply unwilling to be rational about the things being discussed. Now, being irrational about religion is to be expected. No one's going to simply prove God's existence - or lack thereof - by debating the issue in front of a whiteboard. You can't make rational assertions about which is better: vanilla or chocolate. That's a matter of taste and personal preference and there's very little logical thought involved in those topics. It almost goes without saying that the matter of love is definitely not in the sphere of logic. It's expected and perfectly OK to not be completely logical about these matters. But about politics and law? There's no wiggle room, there.

All arguments (and by this I mean a proposal submitted for discussion, not a screaming match) consist of premises and conclusions. The premises are statements of fact or previously proven conclusions and conclusions are the points being asserted. Premises are supposed to support their conclusions. The Prime Directive of argumentation and logic is this: If the premises are true and the argument's construction is valid and you intend to be rational, then you must accept the conclusion. That's a very high bar for acceptance, mind you, because if any of the premises used to prove the conclusion are not verifably true, then the argument being pressed is not conclusive and may, therefore, be dismissed. That's not to say what's being alleged is necessarily wrong or untrue, it's just that the argument to the contrary isn't compelling. The allegation is no more than opinion and conjecture. And you know what they say about opinions...

So last week I picked up a copy of the new James Carville / Paul Begala book "Take It Back." The book purports to be a roadmap for Democrats who want to take back the houses of Congress, the White House, the country, the future, and whatever else most of the leftist Democrats are complaining we Republicans have "stolen." I bought the book for the same reason I bought other books by Carville and various left-wing authors: I'm interested in what they have to say. Unlike most of the Democrats I personally know, I take the time and effort to actually listen to and consider the viewpoints of my opponents. Carville might be dead wrong on a lot of what he says - and I have come no where near forgiving his juvenille and ludicrous performance opposite John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Vets in the 2004 campaign - but he's not completely stupid. A lot of people on the left hang on his every word so it's important to know what he's saying. Call it "knowing your enemy" if that makes it easier.

What's not easy is trying to continue reading a book that builds on classically invalid and unproven conclusions beginning on paragraph 8. Without a shred of evidence, Carville and Begala launch right into the tired and useless diatribe of "Bush Lied" and "Bush Stole the 2000 Election." Both of these screeds have been shown to be the unsubstantiated hogwash they are time and time again and yet, right here in a book published in the last couple of months, they make the assertion as though it's graven-in-stone fact. These assertions are used as further premises in proposing further conclusions and calls for action.

Every conclusion or assertion that descends from either of these is equally invalid and equally useless in rational debate. That doesn't stop them. As I mentioned over a year ago, the crowd that buys into this crap knows full well that they have no proof of any of this but they don't care. They don't need proof because they've become so insulated from opposing thought that their echo chamber is all they hear. And when repeated baseless assertion is all they hear, it becomes unnecessary for them to even think about proof. Carville and Begala are just 2 of the higher-profile enablers that keeps the Democrats from engaging in rational thought and discussion. So long as that's true, rational thinkers may continue to dismiss any assertion they make and their reaction to that is what marginalizes them with the majority of voters. (Yes, the majority. Check out the results from the 2004 election.) Their continued reliance on what amounts to calls of "You're a liar! You're a creepy liar!" makes reading their book a real chore. I am attempting to press on, but they're making it a real fight.

I intend to blog on the actual content of the book when I finish it. Under normal circumstances, with a reasonably written book, this would be over in a couple of day. Slogging through this irrational quagmire of a book is going to take longer. Hang in there, folks. I'll make it as soon as I can.

Navy suspends flight ops on USS Kennedy

2006-02-18T09:35:00.000-05:00

The US Navy has suspended operations on the USS Kennedy citing concerns over faulty equipment on the 38-year-old ship. The move drew immediate fire from the likely sources: the representatives of the State where she's based:

::::::::

U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw said he was told by Navy Secretary Donald Winter that the carrier was being taken out of operation because faulty equipment could endanger pilots attempting to land on it.

"I greeted that information with surprise and skepticism in terms of the timing," said Crenshaw, whose district includes the carrier's base at Mayport Naval Station near Jacksonville.

Florida's two U.S. senators also weighed in.

"We need to repair the JFK as soon as possible, so we're not reducing our carrier fleet from 12 to 11 in a time of war," Sen. Bill Nelson said in a statement.

In the meantime, Nelson said another carrier should be moved from Norfolk, Va., to Mayport "so all our other carriers aren't sitting ducks in one port."

::::::::

And so all those employees and contractors sitting on their hands in Mayport will have something to keep them employed, perhaps? That's just a wee bit too transparent, Senator. So, wanna call up Senator Warner of Virginia and ask him to figure out which Virginia employees and contractors will lose their jobs since the carrier they're servicing is being moved to Florida?

My gut instinct, however, tells me Nelson's right about simply dropping the number of carriers in the fleet. Senator Warner, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, has introduced legislation to repeal the mandate Congress passed pegging the number of carriers at 12. A study performed by the Navy concludes they can do with 11. My thought on the matter, however, is that it takes a very, very long time to build one of these guys. If the US gets into a shooting war with an enemy possessed of nukes and the ability to deploy them tactically over water the first thing they're going to aim at is the nearest carrier group. Those ships are strong and well defended but they're not strong enough to sail out the other side of a nuke strike. And while simply taking out several of our carriers won't completely cripple our capabilties it would certainly put on hurt on us. We'd have to ramp up building carriers quickly and, with the slide in shipbuilding capacity that's been going on over the past 40 years, that's not something that's going to come up quickly, either.

The Kennedy is one of the two remaining carriers that operate on conventional power as opposed to nuclear, the other being CV 64 Kitty Hawk. Kitty Hawk is to be replaced by CVN 77 George H. W. Bush. (A ship designation I'm sure will cause much frothing at the mouth over at Kos and other parts of the fever swamp. Of course, we can always just drop the "H. W." and allow the ship to stand for the current President Bush as well, if they'd like that one.) Kennedy is not slated for replacement until the build of CVX 79 which isn't scheduled to be commissioned until 2017. That's a long time...

I recommend caution in arbitrarily removing this capability from our arsenal. Let's be sure we can sustain the loss.

Liberal bias in academia all in the numbers at UMTC

2006-02-18T08:37:00.000-05:00

I direct you now to this post at Captain's Quarters where the funding approval and denial results at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities speaks volumes. Check out the table reproduced from one of the conservative students' groups:

(After several attempts that produced a mangled table, I suggest you just click the link for CQ and view it there. It's way too early for me to be stressing about HTML code, here...)

The sheer drop in the funding for the conservative groups coupled with the surge in those of a liberal persuasion strongly suggests there's more than just random forces at work. Captain Ed says it best and you should read it all there.

If hindsight is 20/20, why are some still so blind?

2006-02-14T14:48:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago (today, as a matter of fact) we here in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties held a special election to fill the vacated State Senate seat for the 33rd District. The results, as I mentioned after the election, were not good for Republican Mick Staton. My comments at the time that he won the primary amounted to concerns that he'd have trouble going head-to-head with the Democratic contender. I was right. I've already stated my opinions (as linked) as to what went wrong and where I think the GOP here in northern VA needs to go. 'Nuff said.

Or so I thought.

Today I received a letter from the Staton campaign sent out to all the supporters thanking them for their work. I posted a Staton sign in my yard which was enough for me to get on the mailing list. I appreciate the thanks but the letter has some troubling spots in it. Here's how it starts:

::::::::

Thank you for the support you have given me in my run for the 33rd District Senate Seat. While we did not win the race, it does not mean that our run was not successful.

::::::::

At the risk of sounding mean, I'm afraid the fact that the GOP candidate did not win does, in fact, mean that the campaign was unsuccessful.

Think about this: The only way for the campaign to have been successful in light of the candidate not winning is for the object of the campaign to have been something other than getting the candidate elected. If the campaign wasn't about getting elected, then it was a waste of time, energy, resources, and - oh, yes - a seat on the Virgina Senate. If the campaign wasn't about winning the election, then why did we run it? Why did we not run a campaign with a candidate whose goal was to get elected.

Unless Staton did intend to get elected, in which case his campaign was a staggering failure, the efforts of all the volunteers being beside the point. More troubling, however, is this:

::::::::

We ran a strong campaign with a positive message, and had I the opportunity to do things over; I would not have changed a thing.

::::::::

Allow me to get this one straight. With the foreknowledge that he was going to walk into that special election and get his political ass kicked completely around the perimeter of the 33rd District and then carved off and handed to him on a stick, he would have continued to run the campaign in exactly the same way that resulted in one of the worst blow-outs the northern VA GOP has ever seen?

I can hear his core supporters now, raising a chorus of, "Damn Right! We run on Republican principles!" to the rafters. And there's exactly the point I was trying make in my last post on the subject. Knowing what we know now - that the voters here in Loudoun County are far, far more concerned with the day-to-day issues of growth, transportation, and development control than they are on the social agenda espoused by the Republican Party as embodied by Staton's supporters - many in the GOP think we don't need to change. We do. We need to address the issues of the voters squarely and loudly. We need to take control of the debate and we do that by articulating our ideas to handle those issues ourselves rather than let the Dems do that for us. It's far easier to set the tone of your own argument yourself from the word go than it is to convince people that those other guys just misrepresented you.

Mick Staton: I'm glad you're on the Board of Supervisors and I hope you can do some real good there. But we've all got to realize that campaigns such as yours don't win and we've got to make the adjustments to change that outcome.

Saddam's on a hunger strike.

2006-02-14T10:00:00.000-05:00

In his latest bid to misdirect attention from the crimes he commanded while he was top dog in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is engaging in a hunger strike to protest the judge, the trial, the court, and anything else that keeps him from the throne where he could continue to kill thousands of his countrymen and threaten the safety of all surrounding nations.

Good. Let him. And just to be sure the various crybaby "human rights" groups don't accuse us of the horrific abuse of keeping someone from starving to death, I recommend that Hussein be allowed to carry this strike as far as it will go. My personal recommendation is that when he finally cracks and asks for food that the Iraqi government take an additional 24 hours to respond to the request. Perhaps a little taste of what he put others through for so many years would be a valuable lesson.

People. It was a hunting accident.

2006-02-14T09:48:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know Dick Cheney shot a fellow hunter this weekend. That guy, according to the investigation by the local police, moved ahead of the hunting line without advising Cheney or the other hunters. He was standing where he wasn't supposed to be and moved there without warning anyone else. Cheney swung the muzzle of his weapon in that direction following a game bird and fired, striking the man with birdshot.

It was an accident, folks. An accident. Not an assassination attempt, not a government plot, not an indicator of senility, not an indictment of the war on terror, not proof positive that all guns should be banned from civilian hands, etc, etc, etc. It was a hunting accident. Nothing more. Should the White House Press Corp have been advised within seconds of the incident? Hell, no. The first priority was to the health of the man shot. The second was to investigate what happened. This wasn't an act of State and it wasn't some official event sponsored by the US Government. It was a hunting trip that just so happened to include the Vice President.

The media's oh-so-offended attitude is translating into a frenzy of reporting to attempt to find some way - some angle - to make this a scandal for the Bush Administration. Nonsense! There is no requirement that the VP's office should have called up every reporter in Washington and told them about this accident at all, let alone within some media-dictated timeframe. Since when is it their responsibility to do the investigative part of investigative reporting? If the Press Corp wants to report on something then let them get off their padded asses and do the work necessary to find out about the story.

Maybe then they'd have realized that this was just an accident and nothing more.

We've got a lot of important things to worry about, people. This isn't one of them. Let's try to keep our focus, shall we?

ABA mandates racial admissions policies in law schools even when it breaks the law.

2006-02-13T07:46:00.000-05:00

Via Prof.Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit, we have this lovely little bit:

::::::::

Interesting op-ed in the weekend Wall Street Journal, Affirmative Blackmail, by David E. Bernstein (George Mason):

"According to its mission statement, a primary goal of the American Bar Association is to 'promote respect for the law.' In the interest of mandating racial preferences in admissions, however, the ABA is about to order law schools to do just the opposite -- in fact, to violate the law -- and is resorting to blackmail to achieve its end.

"Meeting in Chicago today, the ABA's Council of the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar will vote on new 'equal opportunity and diversity' standards. If they are approved, any law school that seeks to maintain or acquire ABA accreditation will be required to engage in racial preferences in hiring and admissions, regardless of any federal, state or local laws that prohibit of such policies.....

::::::::

So, the association that defines the ethics practices of lawyers is telling the schools that train said lawyers that they are required to engage in racial preferences in admissions and hiring if they want to keep that "Approved by the ABA" sticker on their doors, even where such practice is illegal. I can't wait to hear their explanation for this one.

Gore encourages more anti-US sentiment. Again.

2006-02-13T07:22:00.000-05:00

Seems former VP and perennial sore loser Al Gore just can't restrain himself from gleefully pointing out what an evil empire America is.

::::::::

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into Al Qaeda's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

::::::::

Of course, Gore doesn't bother telling us anything about those "terrible abuses" or point out when and where Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up" here. That's immaterial to Gore's "America's To Blame&trade " campaign. That would require that either of those things actually occurred, unless Gore considers denying visas to be "terrible abuses." Pathetic.

A little while later he provides what some are calling details:

::::::::

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

::::::::

So, it's "indiscrimate" but only if you're guilty of failing to abide by our immigrations and legal entry laws. Gore is apparently suggesting that we issue someone a visa that expires on a given date but that we never enforce it. Good plan for terrorist, Al, but not so good for the "majority of the citizens of [your] country."

Every time some high-profile leftist gets out there and wildly exaggerates a situation, playing the "abuse" card, it hurts us. It hurts us because there are people in Saudi Arabia today who listened to Gore's remarks - and those like him - and conclude that America really is engaging in a pattern of abuse against Saudi's and Arabs in general. After all, a man who was their Vice President says so, and he would know right? And another citizen of a Muslim country decides America really is the enemy of humanity after all. He tells his friend who tells his brother who tells his sons and so on, and so on, and so on.

All because a man grown small out of his loss of stature can't bear to be responsible for his words. Well, I've got a message to the Saudi's: Al Gore does not speak for a majority of the citizens of our country. You want to know what the stance of the majority is? Listen to the people we elected, not the people we declined to.

In the Left's crosshairs

2006-02-12T11:10:00.000-05:00

There was quite a bit of commentary running around a few weeks ago when the Washinton Post got a first-hand experience in what it's like to be the target of the Left's ire. Seems the Post's Deborah Howell made a bit of an error in being a little overly inclusive when she wrote about the Abramoff scandal currently ongoing. At the time, she said that Abramoff had given money to members of both parties, albeit more to Republicans (which makes sense, as I'll explain in a moment.) The Left side of the blogosphere went barking moonbat on her and started filling up the Post's blog comments with one vulgar ad hominem attack after another. The torrent of abuse became too much for the Post's people to clear from the comments section and, in an effort to keep the paper's blog from turning into the Democratic Underground, editor Jim Brady made the decision to shut down the comments section. This merely enraged the already lunatic Left and they responded as they always do: they heaped invective on Brady by the bucketload.

Such... (ahem) discourse is nothing new to those of us on the Right. Michelle Malkin puts up with a stream of commentary and behavior from the Left so unhinged that she wrote a book on the subject. The Post didn't exactly sit back and flip these people the bird, either, as they should have. They listened to the complaint, which amounted to a vehement denial that Abramoff had ever given a dime to a Democrat. You'll hear that fact touted loud and clear by the Dems in Congress and Howard Dean if you listen for about 30 seconds. It's hair-splitting at its finest - the scandal doesn't involve Abramoff's personal donations, it's the donations he directed his clients to give which did go to both parties, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid - but the complaint is, in fact, correct. When the phrase is interpretted narrowly, it is absolute fact that Abramoff never donated a dime of his own money to a Democrat. The Left hopes that by saying that loudly, often, and quickly enough to not let you get a word in edgewise, it will become the only part of the scandal discussed.

Brady noted that Howell's language could have been more clear and, in good journalistic behavior, issued a correction. Brady apparently thought that should have been the end of it, but if he did then he's not paying attention to whom he is dealing with. His correction actually increased the rate and vitrol in the comments and that's when he closed it down.

Today, Brady is talking about the topic in an opinion piece in the Outlook section of the paper. It opens with a pretty catchy summation of the comments directed his way:

::::::::

I am a twit without a functioning brain.

I also do not have any [ censored ].

Despite 10 years spent in online media, I really don't understand the Internet.

I am a dangerous ideologue , an enemy of democracy .

At least, that's what I've been told -- in much stronger language -- by dozens of people who have never met me.

::::::::

Welcome to our world, Jim. Now, we need to get something up front and understood perfectly well, here. This is an opinion piece, not a news story. Brady is under no obligation to be 100% objective here, or to refrain from injecting his personal perspectives into the story as he should be with a news item. I recognize these facts.

I'm a bit perplexed, however, that in all of this he declined to identify even one of the bloggers (he says it was a "handfull" so it should have been easy enough) who put out the rallying cry to go spit vulgarities out all over one of the Post's people, not to mention Brady himself. He doesn't articulate from which side of the political spectrum the hate mail was streaming from, although its reasonable to assume the Left given the particulars of the story. Were this a news story, I would call that lapse journalistic bias given that it's an important part of the story especially for those WaPo readers who don't delve into the blogs themselves. This is an opinion piece, however, so Brady's not required to be fully informative. It would have been a good touch but I definitely sense the attempt on his part to avoid naming names for whatever reason.

Brief aside for Brady: if you avoided telling us who were the spiteful morons behind this incident out of a sense of decorum I commend you, even if the effort is utterly wasted on the aforementioned morons. If you did so to avoid getting another barrage from these clowns then I must ask you if that's not a surrender out of fear? You know they won't respect that and they will do it again anyway, right?

Being a blogger, I don't think I'm surprising anyone when I disagree with his contention that there's no such thing as the blogosphere as a separate entity. He lumps bloggers in with mainstream media and contends there's no distinction there worth noting. The blogs stand opposed to each other sometimes and, he says, the media's exactly the same way. Here's where I have to part company with Brady. I would like to ask him - or any other member of the media - to point out a story in the last 6 months where 1 media agency, whether it's a paper or a TV station, did an investigative report on another media agency to show that agency had hidden facts or argued fallaciously. I can count on my 2 hands the number of stories covered in the media where another media agency's activities were the story. I run out of fingers in about 10 minutes when we're talking about the blogosphere.

The blogs and the media are symbiotic (or perhaps parasitic, as he says) but they are not the same. The rules of etiquette the media has been used to dealing with for decades are not followed in the blogosphere and they need to understand that when they venture into this space. Brady made the right call and he took heat over it from people who don't buy the concept that reasonable people can disagree and admitting a mistake clears the air.

Steele apologizes for stem-cell remark

2006-02-11T09:09:00.000-05:00

Actually, the title of the story was "Pol Apologizes for Stem Cell-Nazi Remark", which is a headline that usually manages to grab the attention of American news junkies. The immediate thoughts going through my head as I clicked on the link were 1) who managed to not avoid invoking the Nazis this time, and 2) what did this "pol" actually say? Underlying all that was the fervent wish that politicians on both sides of the aisle would learn to discuss issues without demonizing the other side with Nazi references but that's an old wish for me.

This time the politician is MD Lt. Gov. Steele speaking to the Baltimore Jewish Council. Someone asked him for his stance on stem-cell research. Now, the headline makes you think Steele pounded the desktop and spat out his disdain for his opponents, who must be the reincarnation of the 3rd Reich. Let's see what actually happened:

::::::::

Steele had made the remark to the Baltimore Jewish Council on Thursday after speaking about a recent trip to Israel. One of the audience members had asked for his thoughts on stem cell research.

"You, of all folks, know what happens when people decide to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool," Steele said in remarks reported by The (Baltimore) Sun.

"I know that as well in my community, out of our experience with slavery," added Steele, who is black. "And so I'm very cautious when people say this is the best new thing, this is going to save lives."

::::::::

I happen to disagree with Steele about stem-cell research. There's a lot of research to be done that does not involve the "experiment[ing] on human beings" he references. It's highly likely that the comments reproduced in this story aren't the whole thing, of course, so I'm going to be cautious myself. But I can't believe that anyone being serious on the subject could look at these comments and conclude in any way that Steele was calling anyone a Nazi. He clearly feels strongly on the subject and made use of a reference to a common body of understanding in his audience to illustrate his fears of where stem-cell research could go.

The comments also do not belittle the Holocaust in any way. The concern is in crossing the line that the Nazis did those many years ago in deciding to use human subjects in some very, very unsavory and evil experiments. This is also a crux in my parting ways with Mr. Steele - I do not believe that stem-cell research represents such a crossing of that line. Steele apparently does and, therefore, is concerned about how far it will go. In his own words, he's cautious about calling it a good thing.

His apology over the remark was directed at the director of the Council, Art Abramson. After hearing from Steele, Abramson commented:

::::::::

"The Holocaust was a unique event in the history of mankind, and the kinds of experiments that were conducted on human beings by Nazis and their henchmen ... are beyond comparison, and I think the lieutenant governor would agree with that," Abramson said.

::::::::

Abramson apparently feels OK with Steele's apology. Personally, I don't buy the argument that anything is totally "beyond comparison" but that's a post for another day. I think, this time, the facts of the matter don't support the contention of the headline and I'm pleased that those involved came to an understanding.

Specter wants FISA to judge constitutionality of NSA program.

2006-02-09T09:22:00.000-05:00

I note in a radio report and then again in this link that Senator Arlen Specter is drafting legislation to address the constitutionality of the NSA wiretapping program.

::::::::

The shift came as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced he was drafting legislation that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the constitutionality of the administration's monitoring of terror-related international communications when one party to the call is in the United States.

It also came as Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., chairwoman of a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the NSA's program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

::::::::

The shift they're talking about is the White House's provision of more details on the program and to the full Intelligence committees of both the House and the Senate. Previously, the White House briefed the leaders of those committees and not the full group.

I must question why the White House is to blame for the full Intel committees' not getting all the facts that were imparted to the leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress. Is it unreasonable to provide information to the chairmen and vice-chairmen of a committee and think that, perhaps, those leaders will brief the full committee, if they deem it necessary, at a time and place of their choosing? Perhaps, for example, when said committee meets in session? Aside from the perceived slight on the part of those committee members who didn't get to sit in on the briefing, where's the issue here? Were I a member of that committee, and I found out that my chairmen were briefed on a topic that I felt should have been granted to the full committee, I'd be directing my first ire at the chairmen of the committee who failed to pass it along. The question arises whether the chairmen of the committee were explicitly told by the White House to not inform the rest of the committee. Were I one of those chairmen, I'd politely tell the briefers who made such a request to stuff it, unless they had specific evidence that one or more members of the committee couldn't be trusted.

Speaking of trust, these members of these committees are reportedly upset that the White House obviously feels they can't keep secrets. Are you kidding me? Can you say "Jay Rockefeller?" And that's just the most recent and egregious example. Congress leaks confidential matters like my kitchen collander leaks water, which is to say: very effectively. Still, these committee members hold security clearances and are, I believe, entitled to the information. My complaint is that their complaint seems to lie completely on the White House. They should look a little closer to home.

I actually feel that checking into the constitutionality of the NSA program is a fine idea, but I think Specter is aiming too low when it comes to the court he wants to make that decision. Let's skip all the preliminaries, shall we? Take the issue to the Supreme Court, whose job it is (or should be) to determine whether a given application of law is permissible with regards to the Constitution. Send it over there and argue the case once and for all, rather than several times through long appeals.

And, finally, I agree with Hugh Hewitt on the matter of putting the program to a vote in Congress. Let the members of Congress step up and state whether they are for the program or against so that we, the people, know both where they stand and where we should put our votes next time.

Nerve agent alarm a false one

2006-02-09T00:00:00.000-05:00

A security sensor in the Russell Senate Office Building issued a detection warning for a nerve agent on Wednesday night prompting a fast evac and quarantine of about 200 people, including 9 Senators. The alarm has been determined to have been a false one:

::::::::

At least nine senators were among 200 people herded into a Capitol parking garage Wednesday night after a security sensor indicated the presence of a nerve agent in their office building. Later tests proved negative.

"Test results have been cleared and all test results are negative, so that's very good news," said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

The all-clear came three hours after an air-monitoring sensor indicated a suspicious substance in the attic of the Russell Senate Office Building. It initially tested positive as a nerve agent.

Lawmakers, aides and other personnel were evacuated to the West Legislative Garage shortly after 6:45 p.m. EST as police conducted several other tests before concluding that it was a false alarm.

::::::::

Thank God.

Egyptian paper published Danish Mohammed cartoons months ago

2006-02-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

Linked by such worthies as Little Green Footballs and Instapundit, Sandmonkey has the nail in the proverbial coffin of the "outrage" the Muslim community is showing over the publications of those 12 Mohammed cartoons. Listen to this:

::::::::

Freedom For Egyptians reminded me why the cartoons looked so familiar to me: they were actually printed in the Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005. I repeat, October 2005, during Ramadan, for all the egyptian muslim population to see, and not a single squeak of outrage was present.

::::::::

He's got the scans of the paper as it was published that clearly show the cartoons. The entire "outrage" crap is just that: crap. It's Islamofascist theater performed as a propaganda ploy.

With this revelation, every American media outlet should immediately report on the previous publication and display these cartoons for all the American public to see so they can judge for themselves if they were worth the lives they've cost. If the cartoons were OK for a major Egyptian newspaper to publish in Cairo, then everyone on the planet has the right to do exactly that. In keeping with this viewpoint, I present this link to Michelle Malkin's site where you can view those images in their entirety. Alternatively, click this gallery below and go to Human Events Online.

If the "Muslim Street" isn't responsible for the violence...

2006-02-08T16:13:00.000-05:00

...as Amir Taheri (linked by Instapundit) says, then what is the acceptable response to the violence from the "Muslim Street's" perspective? Taheri writes:

::::::::

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. . . .

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

::::::::

All of which is a wonderful sentiment well familiar to those of us who live with the rhetoric of multiculturalism daily. The problem is that those of us "horrified by the spectacle" of the attacks and firebombings and kidnappings and shootings aren't doing any of those things as a reaction to our horror. The issue isn't what to do about those Muslims who realize that not all Westerners have the "poor taste" of the cartoonists in question. The issue is what to do about the raging, murderous mob who do not realize this and who lack the civilized spirit to not burn down buildings and shoot priests. While it's an interesting question to ask just how representative of the Muslim world this attitude is - do those rioting display the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of Muslims or a minority? - it's irrelevant in both the short and long run. Those Muslims who think burning and killing aren't the proper response aren't providing any resistance to those who do and they provide no protection to the Westerners who must now bear the brunt of the rioters' indiscriminate rage.

So what's the appropriate response here? Frankly, if the "Muslim Street" is unable or unwilling to help, then what response do they consider OK? If we start cracking down on the rioters - arresting them, deporting them, and outright killing them, if necessary to protect life and property - would they be accepting of that as a necessary response to protect ourselves? If not, then what - aside from capitulation and conversion to Islam - do they suggest that will stop this violence and continue to allow us to enjoy the freedoms our society allows?

Liberals disrespect the dead to score cheap shots (Updated for link)

2006-02-07T23:51:00.000-05:00

I listened while in the car today to the news reports about the memorial service for Coretta Scott King, noting that former Presidents Bush (senior), Clinton, and Carter were there along with President George W. Bush. As he was during the SOTU, President Bush spoke highly of King praising her life and accomplishments. His father did the same and, while speaking in a very different style, so did Clinton.

Carter and a number of others simply couldn't pass up the chance to take their partisan sniping with them to the podium and make use of a dead woman's funeral to take some cheap shots where they knew decorum from the President would protect their worthless hides.

::::::::

The day was not without politically charged references, most notably by former President Jimmy Carter — who has been a staunch critic of Bush administration policies.

Carter invoked the issue of the current wiretapping probe involving Bush by remembering that for the Kings "it was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." Later, he said that Hurricane Katrina showed all are not yet equal in America, and made a veiled reference to the war in Iraq and the existing government's international strategies.

"We do not have a monopoly on the hunger for democracy and freedom," Carter told the congregation. "[The Kings] overcame one of the greatest challenges of life, to wage a fierce struggle for freedom and justice and to do it peacefully."

The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., spoke directly to the current administration's foreign and domestic policies.

"Our marvelous presidents and governors come to mourn and praise ... but in the morning will words become deeds that meet need?" Lowery asked.

"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor," he said, in a take-off of a lyric from Stevie Wonder's song "A Time to Love," which drew a roaring standing ovation. The comments drew head shakes from President Bush and his father as they sat behind the pulpit.

::::::::

Classy, folks. Very classy. Lovely of you to remember the occasion for which you were gathered and make the event a celebration of the life of the deceased. I'm sure your Moms would all be very proud. I am confident that both current and former President Bush were having a hard time believing that anyone who would profess to respect the person who had passed on would be gulity of trying to advance their political position while speaking at that person's funeral. Common courtesy is clearly beyond the scope of these individual's capacity. It's low and its inexcusable.

The story I've linked doesn't even do the good Reverend Lowry's comments justice. His full quote:

::::::::

Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which King helped found in 1957, gave a playful reading of a poem in eulogy of Mrs. King.

"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war / She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," he said.

"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there / But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here / Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor."

::::::::

That's what passes for "playful" on the planet this Reuters reporter comes from? My ass. It was nothing short of a sneak attack and a vile desecration of a memorial service. Perhaps one day the clueless fools who stood and applauded will see their actions today in support of small, bitter men and women and have a small glimmer of shame and regret. I'm not betting on it, but hey... I have a dream.

Update: I note that Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters feels much the same way.

Army resolves situation with Yon

2006-02-05T11:17:00.000-05:00

I mentioned recently the Army's row with Micheal Yon over the unattributed use of one of Yon's photographs taken while he was embedded with the Army's Deuce-Four. Seems the Army got it together: they've resolved the situation. From Pundit Review:

::::::::

What we have here is the ability to communicate! Picking up on a couple of MSM stories, bloggers rallied behind Michael Yon in his copyright battle with the US Army in a major way over the past 24 hours.

Michael was in a stalemate for seven months, getting nowhere, until Boston Herald reporter and fellow blogger Jay Fitzgerald as well as the Southtown Free Press’ Dan Lavoie, covered the story. Their MSM reporting brought this to the attention of the blogosphere. From there, blogs like this one and those listed below picked up the story and started a blog swarm, sending hundreds of emails to those in a position to make the right decision on Michael’s behalf.

::::::::

From Micheal himself:

::::::::

Thousands of readers might have learned about it from Jay Fitzgerald’s piece in Tuesday’s Boston Herald. Maybe it was the article Dan Lavoie wrote for last Sunday’s Southtown Free Press, or the press release issued by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Or when Kevin Whalen at Pundit Review called for blogger arms in an intransigent dispute with the Army over intellectual property rights. The growing volume of these voices gained the attention of people who could resolve the conflict.

The dispute over the unattributed and unauthorized distribution of my photographs has been resolved in principle to the satisfaction of the involved parties. The dispute had been exacerbated by Army lawyers, but once the matter was brought forefront and examined by Brigadier General Brooks, Chief of Public Affairs, it was resolved by another more senior Army attorney. At the end of the day, the Army did the right thing. I greatly appreciate the efforts of those involved, including the blogosphere and Brigadier General Brooks, whose determined attention and immediate action removed the obstacle.

::::::::

Well done, General Brooks. I applaud the Army's action in this regard.

VDH proposes 3 pillars of foreign policy

2006-02-04T08:53:00.000-05:00

Victor Davis Hanson writes another great article speaking of the cold realities of the world that has come to be and what should be our course through it. During the President's State of the Union address, George Bush baldly asserted that America is addicted to oil. (I could have sworn I heard thousands of environmentalist voices shouting, in unison, "No Shit!") Indeed, our demand for energy has advanced almost, if not actually, in a geometric progression. That demand has consequences, both the environmental and political. Each of those are important and neither completely supercedes the other.

Hanson argues that it is this addiction to oil that places us in the dubious position of funding and supporting the failed societies of the Middle East, many of whom are openly hostile to America and her citizens.

::::::::

So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.

The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.

::::::::

This is common sense. The President said as much during the SOTU and, I was pleased to hear, proposed funding significant research into alternative energy sources in an effort to get us out from under the easy blackmail that importing so much oil allows.

But this isn't enough. Holding us over the oil barrel isn't the only leverage used by and sought by hostile governments. Developing nukes is the Holy Grail for many of these and, as Hanson says far more eloquently, it is in the West's best interest to make sure they don't get them.

::::::::

Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.

The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.

::::::::

I do suggest you read the whole article. There's detail there that lays a far better groundwork.

I know there are those who claim America shouldn't have nukes, either and that to contend that the Middle Eastern countries shouldn't have them is hypocrisy and elitism. I stand by my contention, however, and offer the history of those countries versus ours as justification. As I mentioned in my previous post these countries have no sense of what is a reasonable response to offense. Is there anyone who seriously doubts that if Hamas had a nuke that Tel Aviv would be on fire right now? That whole swaths of Sudan - those occupied by non-muslims - would be vast, uninhabitable nuclear wastelands? We already know Saddam had no issue gassing Kurdish villages. If he'd had a nuke in his arsenal, is there really any question at all that he'd have used it up north?

America has dropped 2 nukes in the 60 years since our scientists developed the technology and both of those were in a declared war that began with an unprovoked attack on our soil. We stood our nuclear arsenal against that of a sworn enemy of liberty for a significant chunk of those 60 years and did so in the cause of keeping ourselves and our allies free and safe from attack. It came very, very close on 2 occasions, but America has always sought other responses to offense than killing, particularly on a mass scale. No one can reasonably make that claim about the Middle Eastern autocracies.

The US State Department would do better to listen to the likes of Hanson and become part of those 3 pillars.

What offends and the reaction to being offended

2006-02-03T16:56:00.000-05:00

I've said for years that in any field of human discussion you can find someone, somewhere offended by the stance you take on it. Perhaps you're too broad or too narrow or too literal or too abstract. Whatever your stance, someone's going to think you've said (or not said) something that offends their sense on the topic in question. The reverse of that is equally true: regardless of how many people think a given thing is offensive, there will be some who wonder what the big deal is and view those offended as just a bunch of whiners who need to get a life. The pertinent questions, in my view, are:

Is it considered reasonable by the society in which you live to find such a thing offensive?

What is the acceptable range of response to the offense?

I recall very clearly as a boy that my sister got hugely on my nerves and made all manner of comment to me that was rude, mean, and - yes - offensive. When her taunts got to be too much to bear on one occasion I remember, I took a swing at her. This was an action she immediately protested to my mother who called me to explain. I did. I was confident that what my sister had said was so offensive my mother would agree. She did, but not to the extent of excusing my action in response. In fact, although my sister got told to knock it off, I was the one in the greater amount of trouble. I didn't think that was fair and said so. Mom told me that even though my sister had been offensive, that was no excuse for what I had done.

Even though what had happened was offensive to me and even though my mother agreed that I was justified in feeling that way, being offended didn't justify the level of response.

The Muslim world is - once again - inflamed to the point of mass demonstrations, burning flags and effigies, and generally displaying ill will toward anyone not Muslim over the publication of a dozen or so drawings in a Danish newspaper depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed. For details on the matter, I'd like to direct you to LGF (multiple posts), Michelle Malkin, or any of the sites they link to. Bottom line, it's against the Muslim religion to portray Mohammed in any way. No drawings, no sculptures, no needlepoint, etc. Anyone doing so immediately draws the effusive ire of Muslims everywhere. Muslims get offended by this kind of action.

The first question I've asked is regarding how reasonable is it to be offended by cartoons depicting Mohammed. Religion is, by its nature, not completely rational or reasonable, so to ask whether it's reasonable to get offended over a violation of religious dogma is a bit of a foregone conclusion. There are a lot of muslims in the world and a lot of them appear offended. This isn't a "gotcha" moment since anyone who's been fairly educated in the precepts of the religion would know this is one of their touchy points. Add to that the expressed reasoning for the paper to publish these cartoons being that the cartoonists believed the threats against them for considering drawing them were, themselves, offensive to the artists and you can't claim that the artists didn't know they were about to do something the Muslim faith found objectionable. So, it's reasonable to conclude that Muslims would be offended by the drawings and the mass of them who feel that way is sufficiently large to preclude blowing them off as just a few fringe people. The only purpose you could have in drawing these cartoons was to purposely poke at the line of offense of those of Muslim faith.

Going out of my way to be offensive is generally not considered a good behavior. I certainly don't like it when people of other faiths and the media purposely express themselves about Catholics in a manner they know is likely to be offensive simply because they feel their freedom of speech allows it. A person's religious faith can be disagreed with but I don't subscribe to the notion that it's completely OK to purposely shove stuff in a person's face when it's highly likely to offend them and simply expect that they have to sit there and take it.

The Muslim world reacts to such offense in a completely predictable manner. They threaten. They terrorize. They seek to use the laws of the societies they condemn in an effort to achieve a status for themselves that they would deny others. They kidnap. They behead. They blow up. Are these reactions within the acceptable range of responses to a non-believer committing an act that a believer considers offensive or sinful?

No. They are not. And like my behavior toward my sister who had offended me, reacting in the fashion they do completely negates their claim to victimhood. In civilized societies when one is offended, one first announces the offense and seeks to resolve that offense with the offending party in a manner consistent with civilized behavior and the law. In the case of a newspaper, that means you write the editor. You call the editor. You write a blog or call in to a radio show or any of the methods used to articulate your point without engaging in violent and unlawful behavior or threat. That is the first move and that is precisely the move the Muslim world didn't make. It's the move they never make. Any offense, no matter how small or how isolated is answered with threats of death and destruction. Such threats are the last thing before actually pulling the trigger on a gun and there are plenty of things to try before one gets there. Bringing suit in a court of law, for one thing. Boycotting and peaceful protest others.

The Muslim world is acting, frankly, like a petulant child in a daycare facility. They want everything, they don't feel the need for restraint or manners, and they have no empathy with the rest of the room's residents. The room in this case is the world and the Muslims need to start getting it throught their increasingly thick skulls that they aren't alone in it. The rest of us live here, too, and we're not going to start doing things the way they want things done simply because they're bullies and violent jerks.

Yon prepping lawsuit against the Army

2006-02-02T14:13:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you run into people who resolutely refuse to acknowledge that the military has improved since Vietnam. They still think they're the bumbling morons who get stuck in their rut attempting to justify this or that stupid move and won't adjust regardless of the circumstances. You try to convince them by showing them today's military as it really is today.

Then you run into something like this.

Bar no one, save possibly Bill Roggio, Michael Yon has been the Army's greatest scribe and herald in this war on terror. His embed with the Deuce-Four in Mosul produced some literally Pulitzer-class material. By far, however, Yon is noted for a photograph he took showing a G.I. cradling a dying Iraqi girl after terrorists had blown up a car bomb near a group of children. The image saw worldwide publication and was carried on so many blogs I can't count them all. Time magazine included the shot in thier "Best of" spread for the year. Yon has apparently been trying to get compensated for the shot after the picture had been published and attributed to "Army/AP", neither of whom actually took the shot.

Up to that point, you're looking at a matter of whether Yon could reasonably have been considered on the Army's payroll. The Army lawyer, however, makes one of the most ludicrous claims I've seen yet. He asserts that since Yon signed a waiver of injuries sustained during his embed, and since the Army's failure to compensate him for the photo constitutes "an injury", then the liability waiver means Yon can't sue.

As I saw written in one of the comments over on Mudville Gazette, does this (ahem) lawyer suggest that a landlord could get you to sign a liability waiver for injuries on his property and then punch you in the face with impunity? I'm thinking not. The Army needs to recognize that 1) this lawyer's giving them bad advice and 2) Yon's been the conduit for a huge chunk of the confidence and goodwill the American people have toward them. They need to do the right thing, here, and they need to yank this lawyer's leash. He clearly needs it.

Hat Tip: Mudville Gazette, Pundit Review.

Democrat Mark Herring wins special Senate election in VA's 33rd District

2006-02-01T08:21:00.000-05:00

The special election to fill former State Senator Bill Mims' seat in the Virginia 33rd district was held yesterday and the winner was Democrat Mark Herring. It wasn't even close. First things first: congratulations, Senator Herring.

I mentioned just after the Republican primary that I had concerns about Republican Mick Staton's chances and it's obvious I was right to be concerned. Staton had 2 large steamer trunks' worth of baggage perched on his shoulders in this race. The first was a perception that he was more concerned with making things easy on developers here than he was about the quality of life for the residents of Loudoun County. I think that's unfair - Staton has worked very hard as a Supervisor on the Board to get developers to pay for the infrastructure improvements made necessary by their intended developments. In the past, developers might have been required to make the improvements but there was no requirement to make them before they built the new subdivision. Often times the new houses would go up and then the residents of that new neighborhood got to deal with months of road construction getting to and from their new homes. In some cases, the developer would even weasel out of the required improvements completely. Staton's worked to make sure they build the roads and lay the sewer pipes first.

All well and good, but if the voters don't hear that message loudly enough to counter the "he's in the developers' pockets" slogan then it makes no difference.

The second bit of baggage came from being the son-in-law of Dick Black, the former Republican Delegate to the General Assembly who lost his bid for re-election this past November. Dick Black might have worked hard down in Richmond to get badly needed road improvements going up here in the north, but that's not what he's known for. A social conservative that defines that label, Black seemed to be far more concerned with requiring filter software on library computers, pushing the State Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (and any other status that might confer similar benefit) and aggressively pushing the agenda of the hard-right of the Pro-Life movement. He's the clown who thought it was a ripping good idea to send out plastic fetus replicas to his fellow Delegates just ahead of a vote on an abortion ban bill. Oh, and that library computer filtering software? The only confirmed incident where a library patron ever pulled up porn on one of the library's computers was when Dick Black brought in a camera crew and pulled it up himself. Hadn't happened before and hasn't happened since.

All of this, added to a sense that our situation of sending $1 in taxes to Richmond and only getting 19 cents back wasn't going to improve, came home to roost last November and Black's butt hit the street. That he purposely used a juvenile technique in an open debate with his opponent, Dave Poisson, and deliberately mispronounced his name didn't help. Bottom line: the voters here had had it up to their eyebrows with Dick Black. Anyone claiming kinship to him philosophically was just dreaming if he thought that would be considered a positive by the voters. Exhibit A for that sentiment is Staton's loss to Herring by a 62-38% margin. (Did I remember to say, "ouch"?)

The question for Republicans to answer at this point is, "What now?" When a member of the current Board can't use that visibility to get past the 38% mark in an election, then there's a problem that needs fixing. It's my opinion that the problem is the heavy-handed reliance on the social conservative agenda to win over the voters. In more than 1 letter to the editor in more than 1 local newspaper residents here complained about Mick Staton being "Dick Black Lite" in terms of his platform. They complained that the issues they wanted fixed were the transportation problems and the disparity in the amount of services they get from the State vs. the money they pay into those services in taxes. The message Mick Staton sent was that he'd go to Richmond and get abortion outlawed while banning gay marriage. Is it any wonder he lost?

Republicans do not have to give up their values but they do need to strongly address the concerns of the people they intend to represent. They need to make certain that voters understand that they're serious about dealing with those issues first. With that understanding in place, then they can address the secondary issues of a social platform. The Republicans in Loudoun County don't do that. One of the reasons I fell out of active participation with the local Committee was the "social conservative issues club" atmosphere infusing everything they did, said, discussed, or proposed. And if you aren't one of them, then you're "one of them." And those folks don't welcome "one of them" in the slightest.

Republicans need to get back to the Party's roots of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, and pro-business attitude. They need to make sure that the public sees these qualities as being the defining characteristics of Republican philosophy, not afterthoughts. Then there's the harder task - the local Committee needs to open the doors to the social moderate side of the Party again. The candidates of the hard-right membership are failing here. Recognition of this fact is crucial and the Committee's strategy must correct for this reality. The rigid social conservatives will not like that, I'm sure. They'll like being locked out of the General Assembly for decades less.

Iraq situation report

2006-01-31T14:51:00.000-05:00

...by American Enterprise editor Karl Zinsmeister. Thanks to Jack Kelly over at Irish Pennants for the link.

::::::::

Your editor has just returned from another month in Iraq—my fourth extended tour in the last two and a half years. During November and December I joined numerous American combat operations, including the largest air assault since the beginning of the war, walked miles of streets and roads, entered scores of homes, listened to hundreds of Iraqis, observed voting at a dozen different polling sites, and endured my third roadside ambush. With this latest firsthand experience, here are answers to some common queries about how the war is faring.

::::::::

A good read if you're interested in some first hand reporting.

Fox News is reporting Alito Confirmed by Senate - Updated, Twice

2006-01-31T11:22:00.000-05:00

Fox's site still shows the story as a "likely" confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court but they've also got a breaking-news banner that says the vote's in. Alito appears to have been confirmed by the Senate.

Update: Our local news radio station, WTOP, has the story. Alito was confirmed 58-42 by the Senate. I would imagine this will be a largely party-line vote. We'll see when the results get posted.

Update again: Here's the roll coll for the voting. I note that 1 Republican voted "no" as did all but 4 Democrats. Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line speaks about the era this vote has just introduced and says it best:

::::::::

This was basically a straight party line vote -- 90 percent of the Democrats voted no. The vote changes the "rules" for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president's party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president's party doesn't control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.

::::::::

Indeed. Alito's record of ruling by the laws passed by the legislature was never the issue. His rate of being overturned by appeals wasn't the issue. The issue - fully, completely - was 1) whether Alito would die before voting to overturn Roe v. Wade and 2) whether he'd side with Congress against the President when any question of who had the authority in a given matter was raised. The Dems and leftish Republican Lincoln Chafee thought the answer to both those questions was "no" and, therefore, voted no. Experience and a 15-year record on the bench be damned, Alito's politics were just the wrong flavor.

And this, thanks to the Democrats and Mr. Chafee, is now the playing field all subsequent nominees will get to play on. All their work, all their learning, all their striving to be good jurists are useless wastes of time. Only their stance on the more divisive issues of the day in question will matter. Paul's right: from here on out, no President will be able to select the best, most talented members of the legal profession to sit on the High Court unless his party controls the Senate. If they don't, only the most bland ones will do.

Who do you think gets hurt by that most? The President, whoever that is? Hardly. Eight years and they're gone. Congress? What do they care? They've made sure most laws they pass don't apply to them anyway. No, my fellow Americans, it's us. We citizens who get to live with the results of their petty squabbling will pay the price of having people at the highest level of the judicial system making boneheaded decisions due to a lack of experience, insight, and just plain good jurisprudence. The Republicans had, during the Clinton years of 1994 to 2000, opportunities to play this politics game with the membership of the Supreme Court. They recognized that a difference in idealogy was insufficient reason to vote down a qualified candidate for the post. That the idealogy wasn't the point of the nomination at all. They had the chance to do exactly what the Democrats have done here today - and they controlled the Senate so it would have stuck - and they didn't. They placed the respect for the will of the people as embodied in their choice for President above their idealogical differences with the man and focused on the judicial qualifications of the nominee. The Democrats have not and do not. What benefit could possibly accrue to the Republicans and their supporters to not follow this example?

This new era into which we are being carried along with all the nominees to come is entirely of the Democrats' making. I hope they enjoy the change to the world they've wrought.

Tell me again about not being gouged?

2006-01-31T11:15:00.000-05:00

"Exxon's quarterly profit of $10.7 billion a record"

::::::::

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported a record quarterly profit of $10.7 billion yesterday, capping the most profitable year in U.S. corporate history.

The results pushed up Exxon's profit for the year to a record $36.13 billion -- bigger than the economies of 125 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank.

::::::::

Tell me again how a company making 10 billion dollars in 90 days is only doing so-so. Or that they're really only making a reasonable profit. I'm still paying close to $2.50 a gallon for gas and these guys are pulling down $10 billion a quarter. What's wrong with this picture?

Don't get me wrong. I believe strongly in capitalism. What I don't believe in is gouging people unfairly. Decent profits I have no issue with. Profits as significant as those being posted by the oil companies recently aren't just the random fluctuations of market supply and demand. It's from charging a hell of a lot more per gallon of gas than it cost to produce it and, once you get past all the biz-speak smokescreen being put into the air over it, that's the reality of the situation. I'm not prepared to endorse a windfall profit tax - yet - but this isn't a situation where the market will simply adjust around. If we were talking about blue jeans and the price started spiking up, people would simply not buy them. There are alternatives to it, one of which is to simply do without for a while. Our mobile society has made it impossible to simply get by without buying gas. Even out here in Northern Virginia where we've made large investments in recent years in our public transit systems, the neighborhoods in which we live just don't allow people to get what they need without getting into a car. Checking out the price at the pump and saying, "forget it, I'll just walk" isn't an option here. It's not an option in a lot of the country.

That's why this situation requires more oversight than watching the price of blue jeans. I remain unconvinced that the prices aren't being "agreed to" by the refining companies nor am I confident that the refining capacity in this country isn't as low as it is due to some decision to make sure it stays that way. If someone wants an investigation on something, try starting there.

More biased reporting. (This post's not what you think.)

2006-01-31T10:28:00.000-05:00

As any of my longer-time readers know, I'm not a fan of the MSM's "opinion-masquerading-as-news" approach to writing stories. Editorials and opinion columns are fine for that sort of thing but when you're purporting to report the news, you need to leave dripping bias out of it. I aim that criticism at the liberal media quite often. The Washington Times isn't one of them, but they're going to get my criticism today.

The story I wrote my last post referencing (the Liberal activists who plan to try to suppress the President's speech) literally screams "bias" and it's bias against the protesters, not the administration. It's so bloody obvious it's embarrassing. You get the first part of it right there in the quote I posted. Why is it necessary to point out that some of the activists are "graying leftovers" from the Vietnam era? It doesn't end there, either. Check out this bit of prose:

::::::::

Attending yesterday's private lunch were about 100 anti-war activists, many of them silver-haired, bespectacled veterans of the 1960s in linty sweaters and Naturalizers, nibbling on vegan pizza and bean sprouts. On the wall was a painted collage of slogans ("Make Love Not War") and nostalgic faces such as Joan Baez, Bella Abzug and a younger, thinner Ralph Nader.

::::::::

Now, what in the world does their attire have to do with the message they're putting out? "Linty sweaters?" Judgemental, much?

The author of this story couldn't have been more blatant without spelling it out: The protesters are old, out of touch, old, icky liberals. Did I mention they're old? She takes up valuable inches relating how 1 of the aging, ancient protesters recalls an article written in 1974. (Oh my God. People from 1974 are still alive??? The horror!) Between that and trying to portray Ramsey Clark as a doddering old man she's just doing her best to convince her readers that these people can be dismissed owing to their age.

It's that action - trying to convince her readers of something rather than informing them of what's going on - that crosses the line between reporting and advocacy. It's not acceptable when the liberals at the New York Times do it and it's not acceptable at the Washington Times, either.

Liberals plan suppression of free speech

2006-01-31T10:08:00.000-05:00

In their classic "Free speech for me but not for thee" stance, a liberal activist group seeking the ouster of President Bush will attempt to suppress the President's speech tonight.

::::::::

Liberal activists -- among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam-era antiwar movement -- plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush's State of the Union address.

::::::::

The only safe bet to make is that their plan is likely to be highly ineffective. One has to wonder what message they're trying to get across, except that they don't want the President to be heard. A strange stance to take for people who claim their viewpoints are being systematically suppressed. I have no issue with people protesting - so long as they obey the laws - but I have no sympathy for a group of people who think their viewpoint deserves widespread coverage while working to drown out an opposing view. If you can't argue the opposition's points, that's your problem. It's not an excuse to suppress them.

Ohio Sheriff fed up with illegal aliens

2006-01-31T09:05:00.000-05:00

Butler County, Ohio Sheriff Richard K. Jones has decided to get the attention of Congress and the President on the matter of illegal aliens by sending them a bill for the upkeep on keeping the illegals in jail. He's got about 900 illegal aliens in his jail system and he's fed up with the situation.

::::::::

He said 900 foreign-born inmates have been booked into the crowded Butler County jail in the past year.

"Why should Butler County taxpayers have to pay for jail costs associated with people we don't believe should ever have been in this country, let alone this state or county, to begin with?" Sheriff Jones said. "They are in my jail because they have committed crimes here.

"It's time the federal government should at least pay for the criminals they let stay here," he said. "If they don't want to pay for them, then they can deport them."

::::::::

To their credit, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have been involved in the matter and have done what the laws allow them to do. These illegals are all in jail - every one of them - because they committed crimes in Butler County. ICE has put an "immigrations detainer" status on the illegal aliens who are subject to removal and will initiate that process when their criminal proceedings are done. That's all very good, but it begs the question, "what do you mean, 'who are subject to removal'?" That implies that there are illegals in there who aren't so subject. The story doesn't say, but it sounds like a helluva good subject for a investigative report, doesn't it?

The Sheriff acknowledges the help from ICE but he puts the blame for this situation squarely on Congress and the Bush administration for failing to secure the borders. The story also mentions his holding the Mexican government at fault, so I can only assume his primary illegal alien population is Mexican or entered the country from that direction. I happen to agree with the Sheriff: the Bush administration and Congress are at fault here. I've spoken repeatedly about the measures they could enact to secure that border and to handle the issue of illegal aliens already here in the States. Illegals who commit crimes (and I mean other crimes, besides illegal entry) should be a no-brainer. They get photographed, fingerprinted, ID'd in any manner we so chose and then they get booted out of the country for life. Sayonara and good fortune in your endeavors but you ain't gonna do it here again.

I hope the Sheriff's protest by demand-for-payment works out.

Techie Post: Up and running for 1452 days

2006-01-31T08:33:00.000-05:00

One of our clients finally called last week to get an upgrade on a piece of equipment they've had for a while. I say "for a while" because, frankly, none of us on this particular engineering staff had been on the team that did the initial install, so we weren't quite sure what the deployment date was. When we got the call, the engineer in charge asked them how long this switch had been running for them. Servers and other pieces of equipment usually run into scenarios where they need to be reset, in some cases as often as every couple of days. (I have horror stories about some Microsoft servers...)

The client checked the status display and told us: the switch has been running continuously for 1452 days. That's 8 days shy of 4 years. And that's in a fully utilized production environment, not some low-usage lab somewhere.

Now that's good engineering.

Putin touts Russian missile systems

2006-01-31T08:13:00.000-05:00

In a statement that sounded more like the Cold War than anything else, Russian President Putin spoke glowingly about his country's latest missile technology which, he says, is "immune" to missile defense systems.

::::::::

"Russia ... has tested missile systems that no one in the world has," the ITAR-Tass, Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies quoted him as saying at a news conference. "These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path."

Putin said the new missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He wouldn't say whether the Russian military already had commissioned any such missiles.

...

Putin said that the new missiles were capable of changing both the altitude and the direction of their flight, making it impossible for an enemy to intercept them.

"A missile defense system is designed to counter missiles moving along a ballistic trajectory," Putin was quoted as saying.

Putin and other Russian officials have boasted of the new missiles in similar comments in recent years, but they haven't identified them or given any further details other than about their ability to change their flight path on approach to a target.

Most analysts viewed the earlier announcements about "hypersonic" missile systems as Moscow's response to U.S. missile defense plans.

::::::::

Well, isn't that nice? Considering that no other country on earth has come anywhere close to deploying an anti-missile system of the type Putin speaks of you don't have to wonder too long for whom these missiles are supposed to be deployed against. Gee, Vlad, are you saying you don't like us? And is this move supposed to frighten the US into cowering before the colossal might of the Russian Federation? I'd like to point out that the Soviet Union tried just such tactics and the US did not respond as the Soviets thought they would. We responded by putting even better arms in our arsenal and coming up with new countermeasures. Turns out we came up with countermeasures for weapons that didn't really exist. Think we can do that again?

I'm thinking: yes.

All of which, frankly, is unnecessary although I think I can understand why Putin is doing this. It's just a reminder, though, that not all threats to the US are emanating from a cave in Pakistan.

Alito's confirmation vote scheduled for today.

2006-01-31T08:03:00.000-05:00

It's yet another election Tuesday here in Northern Virginia, this time a special election to fill the vacant seat of our State Senator. As is usual with events like this, it's raining, cold, and dreary outside. While the weather has never once been sufficient to deter me from getting to the poles - today will be no different - it appears to be a big deal to some.

It won't be to the Senate today, I'm guessing. After voting convincingly for cloture yesterday, the Senate will take up the motion to confirm Judge Alito as the newest member of the Supreme Court. All indications are that he's going to get the votes. Expect to hear about it in the State of the Union address tonight. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. I'll have more to post when those results are known. Until then...

Coretta Scott King dies

2006-01-31T07:52:00.000-05:00

Coretta Scott King, window of Martin Luther King, Jr., has died. She was 78.

Eternal rest give unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. Amen.

Filibuster on Alito busted

2006-01-30T18:04:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note here that the Senate has voted for cloture on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 72-25. This means the vote will take place tomorrow at 11:30 am as scheduled on the matter to actually confirm him. He's expected to garner the necessary 51 votes easily. Looks like the Gang of 14 all decided not to support the filibuster. Nice try, Kerry. Go hit the slopes again.

Accidental shot talk misses the mark

2006-01-29T11:30:00.000-05:00

So, I'm catching up on my blog reading this morning and I caught up on the Virginia issues with Commonwealth Conservative. One of his posts linked to Commonwealth Watch. When I finished reading that particular story I decided to check out the rest of the Watch's site to see what I'd been missing. That's when I saw this post.

::::::::

The shot by Del. Jack Reid reported everywhere in major media and covered thoroughly in the blogosphere has potentially created one casaulty. Reid is rumored to be the #1 targeted recruit for some conservatives to make a run at unseating Sen. Walter Stosch in 2007. Unfortunately, I have not heard what Reid's interest level is (was), but one can only imagine this latest episode did not do much to increase his chance of running.

::::::::

Clearly I've not been keeping up with the goings-on in Richmond because I didn't have a clue what they were talking about. A quick search fixed that issue and brought me to this article in yesterday's Washington Post.

::::::::

Virginia's General Assembly is a well-guarded place. Toss a snowball at a Confederate hero's statue on the capitol grounds and a vigilant Capitol Police officer is likely to reproach you, hand on holster. But the policing is apparently inadequate for John S. "Jack" Reid, a Republican member of the state House of Delegates who is in the habit of carrying a handgun as he carries out the people's work. On Thursday Mr. Reid accidentally fired his pistol in his office, miraculously hitting only a bulletproof vest hanging on the wall.

::::::::

This paragraph is a wealth of information, and not just about Delegate Reid and his "shot heard 'round Richmond." But about the "shot" specifically, let's get up-to-date. Seems Delegate Reid carries a firearm. According to this editorial in the Post, it's a ".380-caliber automatic". Sounds like a new way to say "38 caliber" to me, but that's how the editorial is written. Delegate Reid managed to discharge the weapon in his office and, miracle of miracles, managed to hit a bulletproof vest that was hanging on his wall.

Personally, I think there's more to it than is being reported and I strongly suspect that a little inattention to trigger discipline is involved. That's a matter for the investigation into the incident to uncover and if Delegate Reid was simply being careless with his weapon he should be called to account for that. But this isn't the "classic case" the gun-ban advocates are claiming it is. These folks - and this editor is clearly one of them - would have you believe that the merest act of carrying a weapon is a significant danger to everyone in the area. Don't take my word for it:

::::::::

Mr. Reid says his .380-caliber automatic affords him the protection he needs to carry out his legislative responsibilities; occasionally, he notes, he receives irate phone calls. By that standard, customer service reps, lost-baggage agents and, yes, not a few journalists would come to work packing heat. But they don't -- at least we hope they don't -- because it's unnecessary and dangerous. Accidents happen.

::::::::

Emphasis mine. "Unnecessary and dangerous?" Unnecessary by whose definition. I personally think its unnecessary to have editors at major newspapers write opinions chock full of unsupported assertions like this one and be able to do so without signing their names. But that's my opinion, not a fact. That this editor, whoever he is, thinks it's unnecessary to carry a gun is his opinion and it's blissfully unencumbered with any facts to support it. He tries to give this impression weight by referring to the prodigious amount of armed protection available at the General Assembly - along with the added cheap shot about how racist we Virginians must be that we send armed guards to pull weapons on people who toss snowballs at our hallowed Confederate Heroes. The obvious question that this editor's mind is apparently incapable of forming is: what about when the Delegate isn't on the grounds of the General Assembly? When he's - for example - on his way there? Or home? Or headed to the grocery? Is the editor alleging that these Capitol Police officers are patrolling those areas, too?

Must be a whole lot of Confederate Hero statues around.

As for "dangerous," the simple act of carrying a firearm is no more dangerous than sitting in a car. You're in contact with a machine and, if you operate the machine properly, it's safe. He says that accidents happen. I say it's far from a proven that this was an accident. If the Delegate pulled his weapon out of his pocket and failed to maintain sufficient trigger discipline while doing it while also failing to keep the barrel of the weapon pointed somewhere safe, then that's not an accident. (Although I had the thought cross my mind as I was writing that that pointing the weapon at the bulletproof vest might, in fact, be the safest place to point it when you're on the 7th floor of a crowded office building.)

All of which misses the mark about carrying a firearm in the United States. As much as the gun-banning crowd might dislike it, the Founding Fathers knew full well that enshrining the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was important precisely because they had direct experience with people who banned the ownership of firearms "for the good of the people." The right to keep and bear arms is a right of every law-abiding citizen in the country. It's not a right if someone else thinks it's "necessary," it's not a right if someone else agrees it's not "dangerous," it's a right, period. Plain, simple, and finally. That Delegate Reid carries a firearm because he feels he needs the protection is a nice datapoint, but the fact is that he is allowed to carry a firearm because the Constitution specifically says he's got the right. People who don't like that can try to amend the Constitution, if they like, but the law today is that the Delegate can carry the gun.

Times up for Humuhumunukunukuapua'a

2006-01-29T00:29:00.000-05:00

Poor little guy probably didn't even get the notice to re-file. Seems the State Fish of Hawaii (you knew they had a state fish, right?) ran out of time for holding his office recently. The rectangular triggerfish was given the job back in 1984 but the title grant had an expiration date. That date apparently passed without anyone doing anything about it.

::::::::

In 1984 the state Legislature asked the University of Hawaii and the Waikiki Aquarium to survey the public and come up with a candidate for the state fish. The humuhumu was swept into the spot in part through the support of school children who learned of the campaign through classroom projects.

Although the issue of the state fish would seem to come with little controversy, the method used to poll the public was questioned and lawmakers limited the designation to five years.

No one told the public that the humuhumu's reign was over, so few knew anything had changed.

::::::::

The Mrs. and I have been to Hawaii a few times and the humuhumu was still touted as the State Fish. My ability to actually correctly pronounce the Hawaiian name for the fish got our table a round of drinks and free dessert at a restaurant in LaHaina. Yeah, I know it's silly but I really hope they do something about restoring the old boy to his status.

NTSB suggests banning specific landing procedure

2006-01-28T10:20:00.000-05:00

When a Southwest Airlines flight overran the runway at Chicago Midway I cautioned that everyone should wait for the NTSB to finish its investigation before concluding what happened. In the meantime, the investigation began to focus on the thrust reversers of the aircraft and whether they had deployed as expected. Today, we have a report that offers more detail and a suggestion from the NTSB.

::::::::

The National Transportation Safety Board said the pilots should not have factored in the plane's thrust reversers _ which help slow the plane _ when they estimated how long it would take to stop during a December snowstorm at Chicago's Midway Airport.

The agency said the Southwest Airlines jet touched down with about 4,500 feet of runway remaining, but snowy conditions and other factors meant the plane needed about 5,300 feet of runway to stop.

According to flight recorder data, the thrust reversers did not deploy until 18 seconds after landing, the report also said. That's more than 10 seconds beyond normal deployment, according to aviation experts.

::::::::

Calculating in the effect of the thrust reversers is actually not a common procedure. Many aircraft manufacturers simply don't allow it when they publish the performance tables for their planes. There are some models, however, that do still permit it and this specific model of the Boeing 737 was one of those. The critical factor here is in the time it took the reversers to deploy. If you've read my other posts, you know that the speed the plane was moving at touchdown would have allowed roughly 30 seconds to get the plane to a halt. If the reversers didn't deploy until 18 seconds into the landing, then you've got 12 seconds of reverse thrust available to bring the plane to a stop. That clearly wasn't enough. So what kept them from deploying?

::::::::

Thrust reversers typically deploy automatically _ six seconds or less after a plane's wheels touch the runway, said Paul Czysz, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering at Saint Louis University.

In this case, a computer used to calculate landing specifications "assumed they would go on immediately," he said.

Investigators haven't determined whether the pilots tried to deploy the thrust reversers manually, NTSB spokesman Keith Holloway said.

The flight's captain told investigators he did try immediately upon landing but could not. The first officer said he deployed the reverse thrusters after he noticed they weren't working, the report said.

::::::::

So the system designed to drop the reversers on landing failed to fire automatically. The question of "why?" is the one that needs to be answered and there's still nothing to say what the reason was one way or another. OK, next comes the question of what the crew did in response to that failure and was it appropriate? The captain says he tried to deploy them manually immediately upon landing. I assume he actually meant "immediately upon seeing they didn't pop automatically." So, that's about 6 seconds into landing. Figure it takes a second or two to 1) realize they aren't coming down on their own and 2) actuate the reverser control. We're up to 8 seconds or so, which leaves about 10 seconds between that attempt and the first officer's successful deployment. So, the question there is, first, did the captain actually attempt to deploy them? Did he hit the control and it didn't work? Did he mistakenly actuate a different control? Was there something going on in the system that failed to respond to the captain's attempt but corrected in time for the first officers? Are there 2 separate controls for the reversers (1 for the captain, 1 for the F/O) and the captain's fail? If so, why?

You see that an investigation is a complicated thing and you need to answer all these questions before you can conclude what caused the accident. Recall that your conclusions are going to guide the actions of pilots everywhere from this point forward, so you need to be right the first time. To say nothing of what a finding of pilot error will do to the careers of the pilots of that plane. And for what it will do for the souls of the family of that child who died.

Tread carefully, boys. As always I'll pass along more when I know more.

Lynn Swann: rich white guy?

2006-01-28T09:59:00.000-05:00

Even as much of a sports-clueless guy as I am knows who Lynn Swann is. Some sports heroes simply transcend the fan base and make it into the lexicon of the public as a whole whether the particular person is a sports nut or not. Tiger Woods. Michael Jordan. Wayne Gretzky. And, yes, Lynn Swann.

The other thing I've become well acquainted with over the past couple of years is that the left side of our political spectrum has no issue making racially biting comments and busting on a person's race so long as that person is a conservative or a Republican. The Michael Steele situation in Maryland is a prime example and it's not the only one.

When a Republican makes a similar attack on a fellow Republican, that's a whole other matter. And it's worse. From Michelle Malkin:

::::::::

On a local TV call-in show, Seif and Swann campaign aide Ray Zaborney were debating when Seif casually unloaded a disgraceful race-based slur against Swann:

Transcript:

SEIF: The--uh, uh--Bill Scranton has--and I've known him for 30 years now--as much integrity as any person I've ever known. And that means intellectual integrity as well. His decision on the primary was made after a great deal of thought, a great deal of anger that one of the candidates had been captured by Senate leadership, by the party, by others, and directed into pretending he had the victory sewn up and pretending that he was the outsider. In fact, the rich white guy in this campaign is Lynn Swann. He's the one that hangs around the, uh.

ZABORNEY: That's one of the most ridiculous and insulting things that I think I've heard in politics. You're two-for-two tonight -- two of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard in politics.

::::::::

That's putting it mildly. When one of the callers into the show took issue with Seif about it, this miserable excuse for a campaign manager took the Durbin&trade approach and apologized that someone might be offended rather than simply apologize for making a stupid remark. The good news is that Bill Scranton took the high road:

::::::::

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Scranton fired his campaign manager and apologized for a racially charged remark the manager made about former Steelers star Lynn Swann, Scranton's rival for the GOP nomination.

On a televised call-in show Wednesday night, James Seif said "the rich white guy in this campaign is Lynn Swann."

Scranton, in a statement released from his campaign, said he was trying to reach Swann last night to apologize.

"I want to apologize to Lynn Swann, his family, supporters and campaign," Scranton said. He expressed "deep personal regret and anger" and said Seif's comment "in no way whatsoever reflect my views or those of my campaign."

::::::::

This kind of race attack isn't acceptable on the Republican side of the debate and shouldn't be tolerated from anyone. I'm glad Scranton did what he did - it was the right thing to do - but I'm unsure it'll help him get out of the hole Seif put him in. I would recommend any Republican considering running in an election look elsewhere for campaign managment, however, and leave Seif in retirement.

Mexico denies its soldiers involved in border dispute

2006-01-28T08:49:00.000-05:00

The reported presence of Mexican military units in illegal border crossing (the highest-profile one being a matter of 3 SUV's carrying drugs) has raised the tension already mounting between Mexico and the US. Mexican officials deny their troops are involved. Law enforcement and Border Patrol agents here are equally adamant that the gear being used is clearly military. In the tapes and photographs I've seen I find it hard to disagree. These alleged Mexican troops aren't riding in the bed of a Toyota pickup truck or in a surlus Soviet-era Zil. They're in a military-variant Humvee and it's got a .50 cal mounted up top.

The upcoming hearings on the matter will bring more to light, I hope, but one thing's for certain. If Mexico reported seeing illegal crossings where men in American military uniforms were seen riding American military vehicles, you can bet our military would be wanting to flood the zone to catch them. I wonder why Mexico's isn't?

The worst of biases: statements of unsupported facts

2006-01-27T09:17:00.000-05:00

As most of my readers are aware, I don't hold the so-called "mainstream media", or MSM, in high regard. I feel they have abandoned their role of keeping the public actually informed and are, instead, interested only in pressing their agenda. That agenda happens to be squarely on the liberal side of the spectrum. They bias their reporting in the language they use, the questions they ask (or don't ask), the stories they run with great frequency and those they ignore, and in the act of reporting opinions and theories as facts. This last is probably the worst of the bunch because it's the most subtle. They toss in a reference to something by way of discussing a completely separate topic and do so in such a way as to avoid allowing any dialog on their referent facts. I ran into another one of those today.

Seems the PM-elect up in Canada, Stephen Harper, decided to make it clear nice and early that he's no puppet of the US and is making noises about Canada's territorial claims to regions in the Arctic Circle. Specifically, he's claiming a section of seawater that we routinely use to transit our subs up in to the polar areas. We say it's international waters and Harpers says it's Canadian. That's news and it's important that we know the issue has risen.

Get this comment, however, buried in the story:

::::::::

Canadian media reported last month that a U.S. nuclear submarine traveled secretly through Canadian Arctic waters in November on its way to the North Pole.

The Northwest Passage runs from the Atlantic through the Arctic to the Pacific.

Global warming is melting the passage — which is only navigable during a slim window in the summer — and exposing unexplored fishing stocks and an attractive shipping route. Commercial ships can shave off some 2,480 miles off the trip from Europe to Asia compared with the current routes through the Panama Canal.

::::::::

Emphasis mine. Global warming is a theory. While there is data to fuel the discussion, there's plenty of data that suggests that no such phenomenon is actually happening. Bottom line is this: no one's proven that global warming exists, let alone that it's responsible for melting the passage. Assuming that the passage is even melting, in fact as opposed to in theory.

But there it is, tossed out there in an unrelated story as if it were as solid a fact as the existence of the moon, plainly visible to all. It is this kind of casual bias that causes the serious damage to people's ability to discuss the issue clearly. That's what I find so galling about the MSM these days.

Google true to its word

2006-01-27T08:54:00.000-05:00

Well, it's true to its word to the Chinese government, in any case, when it said it would filter out material deemed "unapproved" by that government. The word to the rest of us where Google said it would "do no evil" appears to have less weight to it. Exhibit A: from LGF.

And you thought those secret handshakes were silly

2006-01-27T08:51:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting blurb over on Fox. (It's at the bottom of the page.)

::::::::

A charter-school principal in Cleveland has resigned, after failing to recognize a secret handshake.

That's what tipped off the head of the school's advisory board that the principal might have lied about his background.

The advisory board leader, Tim Goler, had been a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. The principal, Lewis Thomas, claimed to have been a member as well.

But when Goler offered Thomas the fraternity's secret handshake, Thomas didn't recognize it.

::::::::

This apparently made Goler suspicious enough to check out the rest of Thomas' resume and it appears much of it was false. Thomas says he resigned for "personal reasons" rather than over the fact that he got caught.

Brush up on those handshakes, you fraternity alumni. You never know when it's gonna come in handy. So to speak.

White House on Mexican border maps: Knock it off!

2006-01-26T14:56:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration finally came out and said the obvious in the situation where the Mexican government is printing and distributing maps detailing the best areas to illegally cross the US border.

::::::::

The Bush administration yesterday accused the Mexican government of facilitating illegal entry into the United States after Mexican officials said they would distribute maps of dangerous border areas and posters with safety instructions and other tips.

Mexico's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said the maps, which would provide details of the terrain, cell-phone coverage and water stations set up by the U.S. charity Humane Borders, would help to save lives.

"We oppose in the strongest terms the publication of maps to aid those who wish to enter the United States illegally," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "It is a bad idea to encourage migrants to undertake this highly dangerous and ultimately futile effort.

"This effort will entice more people to cross, leading to more migrant deaths and the further enrichment of the criminal human trafficking rings that prey on the suffering of others," he said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would "take whatever steps it deems necessary to protect its own borders."

"No government, including the government of Mexico, should facilitate or encourage its citizens to try to enter the United States outside established legal procedures," he said.

::::::::

It's about damn time. Can you imagine the crap we'd take if America started printing up detailed instructions on how to avoid Russian border guards or the best areas to penetrate Chinese territory? It'd be a lot, trust me.

I had high hopes for Vincente Fox, I really did. But his government is actively working to see Mexican nationals - and anyone else who mosey's into his country - can get across our borders in violation of our laws. He could stop that activity immediately if he chose, but he doesn't. It's pretty clear why not. This is just another reason why we need to make real enforcement of our immigrations laws a priority and why we need to plug the holes in the border right now.

When you toss in the incursion by armed men dressed in Mexican military uniforms to the mix, this is a situation where the government of Mexico is dangerously provoking a neighboring sovereign power. He needs to explain himself fully and swiftly. He also needs to move, immediately, to bring these actions to a halt. That or he needs to be ready to receive some of his former citizens in body bags.

BB&T refuses to fund eminent domain for private use

2006-01-26T14:45:00.000-05:00

One of the methods used by legislative bodies to curtail behaviors they don't like and are unable to outlaw outright is to refuse to fund the activity. You see this all the time. One of the most broad-reaching of these was when Congress decided that 18-year-olds are perfectly capable of voting for the next president, are perfectly responsible for their own actions legally, and are perfectly required to die in combat, but can't be trusted to tip a brew. The federal government did not pass a law saying that 21 was the new legal drinking age. They passed a law saying they wouldn't fund the highway projects in states that didn't adopt a 21 age limit for drinking. See the difference?

Apparently a bank has learned that tactic well. BB&T, a fairly large presence here in the DC area, has decided that they will not loan money to outfits who intend to develop on land taken by eminent domain for private usage.

::::::::

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact, it's just plain wrong," said John Allison, the bank's chairman and chief executive officer.

BB&T Chief Credit Officer Ken Chalk said the North Carolina bank expects to lose only a tiny amount of business, but thinks it is obligated to take a stand on the issue.

"It's not even a fraction of a percent," he said. "The dollar amount is insignificant." But, he added, "We do business with a large number of consumers and small businesses in our footprint. We are hearing from clients that this is an important philosophical issue."

Mr. Chalk said he knows of no other large U.S. bank with a similar policy.

::::::::

I approve and applaud. Well done, folks.

My stance on eminent domain in cases where the land is being taken for private commercial development hasn't changed at all: I think it's dead wrong. Getting the Congresscritters to step up and do the right thing legislatively might be tough but it's nice to see private entities doing what they can.

I'm a Lamborghini?

2006-01-25T09:55:00.000-05:00

Oooookay... When I saw this on Instapundit I figured I'd give it a shot. A quick dozen questions and here's the result:

I'm a Lamborghini Murcielago!

You're not subtle, but you don't want to be. Fast, loud, and dramatic, you want people to notice you, and then get out of the way. In a world full of sheep, you're a raging bull.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

---

I'm unsure how you get from my answers to this description, but there you go. So, what kind of sports care are you?

Virginia pols introduce bills to handle illegal aliens

2006-01-25T09:46:00.000-05:00

This AP article talks about the increasing effort in Virginia to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants. Like most AP articles, however, it's got the normal lean to the leftward perspective on the matter.

First, let me say that it's a good thing that this issue is getting some press. It is a major problem and it's feeding into our gang problem as well. The MS-13 gang draws its strength from illegals in this country and evidence is there that they're actually taking an active role in getting more illegals into this country specifically to join their ranks. So it's not just an annoyance as some would paint the issue. By the same token, it's important that any actions we take be justified, well researched, and consistent. Virginians need to be well informed and need to understand the directions being taken in the effort to correct the situation that illegal entry into the country has created. We can't have such citizens if we don't talk about it and that means focusing on it more in the media that people use to stay informed.

I do have an issue with the way the debate is being framed. Part of that is best demonstrated with this paragraph from the story I've linked:

::::::::

Dozens of Herndon and Loudoun County residents, frightened and frustrated by a heavy immigrant influx in their communities and day-laborer centers established to help them find work, fanned out across Capitol Square Tuesday vouching for the bills.

::::::::

This is the typical method of over-inclusion used by the so-called "immigrants rights" groups. The residents of Loudoun County and Fairfax aren't "frightened and frustrated" by immigrants coming here legally. Anyone who has entered this country in accordance with our immigrations laws and who commits to living by our laws is welcome here. Yes, that includes day-laborers and those people who immigrate here legally will have no problems with the residents here in using the kind of center opened in Herndon for finding work. My problem with the preceding paragraph is the use of the term "immigrant" to include illegal aliens. This blurring of a very significant difference is the factor in making discussion of immigration and border security so fractious.

The bills being introduced are attempts to allow some common-sense efforts at actually enforcing our exist law. I've written before about the problem local law enforcement has in dealing with immigrations. The sad fact is that the law often does not allow them to even arrest someone they know for certain is here illegally unless that person has also committed some other crime. One of the bills being introduced would correct that oversight. Another one required juvenile officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a juvie who turns out to be an illegal alien. Again, you'd think that was already the case, but it's not. That's a hole in our enforcement that needs to be plugged.

One of the bills requires employers to verify the legal residency of a person seeking employment. Forgive me on this one, but do we not already require that? The US Citizen and Immigrations Services Form I-9 is a requirement that, I personally, have had to comply with for every job I've held for the past several years. That form is supposed to verify that I'm here legally. Can I spoof that form by providing fake documentation? Sure. That's a problem with our documentation, not with the law. If employers are already doing this, why do we need another bill?

The short answer is that this is a State statute where the I-9 is federal. I've not actually read the bill, yet, but perhaps there's a good reason for us to have both. It could be an enforcement jurisdiction issue that's being clarified and, if so, that's good. In any case, requiring employers to verify eligibility is a positive step.

The last bill discussed in the story is one that addresses a situation arroused by the opening of a day-laborer center in Herndon, VA. This site is designed to be a focus point for day-laborers to come to look for work. Employers needing day laborers can also avoid trolling several unofficial sites - a 7-11 in Herndon was one of them - and simply go to the Center to pick up laborers. As a general idea, this is fine. In fact, I support such initiatives. Where this particular center is falling down is in their steadfast refusal to require laborers using their services to verify their legal status. The bill being introduced would prohibit the use of public funds in any such center that doesn't do this kind of verification. While I'm sure the people running this center and the so-called "immigrants rights" groups don't like this bill, I can't see their justification that they shouldn't do the verification and yet local citizens still have to pay for their operations. The bill's not a requirement that they do the verification. It's just setting that as a condition of getting public money. This, of course, leads to accusations of racism.

Which leads us to the other part of the framing of this discussion that ticks me off. The story quotes Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, a lobbyist and advocate for Hispanic and immigrant groups. She says:

::::::::

"You can't talk about this problem without realizing there is a racial or ethnic issue here."

::::::::

Oh, no? Where in any of this discussion did reference get made to anyone's race or ethnicity? At no time did I or anyone involved in submitting these bills narrow the focus from "illegal aliens" to "illegal Hispanic aliens." In fact, the only group of people who seem unable to talk about this problem without making it a racism issue are the lobbyists and advocates for specific "immigrant" groups. The laws being proposed would apply to any illegal alien and any user of a day-laborers center. That, by definition, removes race as a consideration. Unless, of course, someone's suggesting that a given race or ethnicity offers an insight into who might have a greater probability of being an illegal alien? These laws certainly don't. How about you lobbyists and advocates?

There is 1 bit of new material in this story and that's the suggestion that illegal aliens wouldn't have come here illegally if our government had been more responsive.

::::::::

Opponents of the bills say they unfairly target many earnest immigrants in Virginia who have tried to abide by the law only fall victim to an unresponsive federal immigration bureaucracy.

::::::::

Again, I must say it: if they're here illegally, they are not "earnest immigrants." They are illegal aliens. Period. Whether they would like to be legal immigrants or not is beside the point. When decision time came to answer the question of whether to follow the law or break it, they went with "break it." Not a very good position of authority on being law-abiding, I'm afraid.

Now, it's possible that people have been caught in the glacial pace of federal bureacracy. That's happened in plenty of other federal agencies, so it's no stretch to think that it might be happening here. There's going to have to be a lot more information on that to rise above the level of "anecdote" and, if some lobbyist or advocate has more, they should tell the tale. Regardless, it's not a justification to stop enforcement of our immigrations laws as a whole. Problems with the bureacracy should be handled, no question, but the fact that there are problems doesn't make every illegal alien a victim.

(Thanks to Mudville Gazette for the open link.)

That which does not kill us...

2006-01-24T09:03:00.000-05:00

...makes us strong, so the saying goes. Or at the very least, it is hoped, a bit wiser. Read ye now of the painful lesson of temperance acquired by one worthy knight of the skies and do be sure to swallow any beverages you might, perchance, be enjoying before you do.

Oaths

2006-01-24T07:50:00.000-05:00

Funny no matter what branch you've enlisted in. (And even if you never have...)