February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

-Thomas Hobbes

March 30, 2006

Don't Get Drunk in Dallas

You gotta be kidding me.

About two weeks ago in Irving, Texas, patrons were being arrested for public intoxication…*inside the bar.* The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) sent undercover agents into 36 different establishments and arrested about 30 people for public intoxication while they were still inside enjoying their beverages. TABC Captain David Alexander said (From the Dallas NBC station’s website):

"Going to a bar is not an opportunity to go get drunk. It's to have a good time but not to get drunk."

Also from that website:

TABC officials said the sweep concerned saving lives, not individual rights. Agents and officers also said the operation represented an effort to reduce drunken driving.

They even went as far as going into a hotel lobby bar and arresting patrons there, some of which were staying in the hotel and had no intention of leaving before going to bed. The arresting authorities claimed that those patrons were a danger to themselves and others.

I am all about keeping drunk drivers off the streets. But arresting people inside the bars? Huh? If someone who is obviously drunk or appears to be drunk leaves an establishment with keys in hand and about to get into the driver’s seat…fine. Stop them and test them. Even that is an extreme measure but I don’t think I would put up that much of a fight over it. But someone who is not the driver and isn’t bothering anyone, why arrest them? How is a non-driver arrest saving someone’s life?

I guess I don’t understand it. If some person wants to get drunk, and they are not bothering anyone around them, how is that a crime?

So now you are not allowed to smoke or drink in a bar. What’s next? They won’t be allowed to play music either because that is damaging people’s ears? Sheesh!

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

March 26, 2006

Cinderella and Plato

I don't follow college sports much. Not even the NCAA men's basketball tournament. But being a teacher at a competitive high school in Virginia, I can pretty much guarantee that my week will be chaos now that relatively local George Mason has made it to the Final Four. The improbable school is represented by sweatshirts and backpacks at my high school every year, but this year there is a special buzz. Students who don't even like GMU are giddy over their Cinderella run.

It makes me wish I had watched the game - you know, to connect with the students. But hey, I can guarantee that not a one of my students watched the BC v BU game that I was glued to yesterday, in another NCAA men's tournament: hockey. If they want to connect with their teacher, that's the sport on which they should focus.

Sure, there are a lot of things going on in the world that I would like to talk about - things that are more important than college sports. But I've been sick lately, as has the family, and work is encroaching on my blogging time for some reason. So I'll just take a quick moment to address those who resent college athletics. If you look down on the intrusion of jocks to the halls of reason, sweating on the marble steps and being taught to glorify stretching routines more than calculus or grammar, consider this: Plato, an Olympic wrestler, espoused the idea that only those who are fit enough to defend their city in the army should be provided an education by the city. To train either the body or the mind, while neglecting the other, is a disservice to oneself.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 23, 2006

A Slur Mispoken, and a Career in Jeopardy

I was very disturbed to hear this news story about Dave Lenihan, the DJ in St Louis who was fired for using a racial slur against Condi Rice.

Lenihan had been heaping praise on Rice, who has said she aspires to run the National Football League one day but has more recently ruled out seeking to replace retiring NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue.
“She’s been chancellor of Stanford,” Lenihan said on the air. “She’s got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She’s African-American, which would kind of be a big coon. A big coon. Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that.”

He said he had meant to say “coup” instead.

I was accidentally listening to Sean Hannity in the car tonight and I heard the clip for myself. There is no mistaking that the comment was not intentional. Lenihan was so flustered he immediately took a station break. Unfortunately for him, the station managers don't want to hear it - he's gone for accidentally saying "coon", end of story. In addition, the Belleville News Democrat reports that he was suspended Thursday from his job at Logan College of Chiropractic, where he's taught anatomy and neuroanatomy since September 2004.

The station and Logan College should have the right to fire or suspend Lenihan for contract violation at the drop of a hat - though I am not sure what part of his contract with Logan College he might have violated with this word mispoken while at another job. The actions of the station and Logan College reflect an atmosphere of fear bordering on paranoia. As Larry Elder notes in the News Democrat article, black radio hosts have said far worse without reprisals. Double standards are always worrisome, as is an irrational fear of a particular word.

But that isn't why I was disturbed to hear this story. You see, I have a cousin named Dave Lenahan (not Lenihan - note spelling difference) who has been a songwriter and DJ in Ohio for roughly my entire life. I haven't kept up with his radio career over the last five years or so, and it wouldn't have been impossible for him to have recently started a gig in St. Louis without first clearing it with me. I thought it was him being introduced on Sean Hannity's show tonight. It didn't sound quite like my cousin, but with that crappy cell phone it was tough to tell. I imagined the blood draining from the faces of my aunt and uncle as a potential national controversy whipped up around their son.

Thankfully, a little web searching showed that the guy getting screwed is some guy I don't know. That doesn't make what happened to him okay, but I would really just as soon not have it be my cousin sitting there on Hannity and Combs tonight, trying to explain how he called the Secretary of State a "coon". And cousin Dave's parents - my godparents - can sleep easy tonight... unlike the Lenihan family, who has heard Dave called a member KKK on air over this incident, and who are probably wondering how they will replace his two jobs that are now in jeopardy.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 22, 2006

The NPR Blog

There have been times when I wondered if Atlas Blogged was becoming the unofficial NPR Blog. I mean, consider the evidence.

I can't help it. I listen to NPR during my commute - not exclusively, but daily. They cover great topics, usually well. And they make their stories available on line for later listenings. That's a certain recipe for somebody like me to reference them frequently while blogging.

But now NPR has its own blog, called Mixed Signals. It is in my blogroll at left, much to Rammage's pain I am sure. But expect reference to Mixed Signals - for example, author JJ Sutherland's reaction to an article in the Toronto Star about whiny kids was essentially the same as mine, and it would have been useful to quote him if I hadn't felt like putting together a long post on the issue myself.

I worry about the comments section - what trolling will occur there? And I see some other aspects of the blog that I am not sure are as user friendly as they could be. But the content seems good, and I know I will be checking it out often. And Rammage, I have some posts percolating that take shots at NPR stories, so don't fear for my soul just yet.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Obsolescence of Traditional Political Labels

Libertarians often grouse about the traditional political labels of "conservative" and "liberal". These terms don't mean the same thing from one nation to the next, or from one person to the next. Two people who identify with the same term may find that they are diametrically opposed on a multitude of real issues.

Libertarians purport to represent economic conservativism and social liberalism (though I feel the latter is often true only in comparison to self-identified conservatives - some self-styled libertarians are really conservatives who are fairly tolerant, but when push comes to shove, they don't all value personal liberties over social mores). But those Americans who identify as more politically liberal are decidedly illiberal when it comes to economics. Consider Merriam-Webster's definition of liberal as it relates to economics:

2 b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.

Sounds nothing like most Democrats I know.

(In a moment of pointless sniping, allow me to note what happens if you ask Merriam-Webster for a definition of "economic liberalism":

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary... Suggestions for economic liberalism: 1. agammaglobulinemic

While that is amusing, it is probably the opposite of helpful. I digress.)

The inability to categorize political persuasions accurately and easily causes difficulty for people who would like to discuss topics like the recent report that whiny children grow up to be conservatives, while self-reliant children become liberals.

Some news outlets have reported the findings without much comment - implying validity. Washington Post on the other hand dismisses the results of the study as ridiculous and wrong without ever investigating what the words are supposed to mean. Liberal a la Merriam Webster? Or political followers of Michael Dukakis (who was not refering to a then-future lame TV show when he mentioned "The L-Word")?

When I first read about the study in a Toronto Star article by Kurt Kleiner, it became immediately apparent that the research methods were poor. In fact, they sucked. Maybe that's just the hard scientist in me, lashing out at headline pop-psychology. But there is no reason why social science has to be carried out at a near-pseudoscience level of correlation-noting and post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusions.

The study followed 95 people from the Berkeley area over 20 years, whose personalities were measured subjectively by researchers who knew them personally. In fairness, Professor Block admits in his paper that Berkeley is not representative of the United States as a whole. But that isn't enough. Jonah Goldberg at Townhall.com takes a couple of shots at the methods of the study, noting

self-reliance explains seven percent of the variance between kids who bravely became liberal and tykes who supinely embraced conservative politics.

But still, what the hell is a conservative? What is a liberal? Everything else is beside the point if these two terms are not understood.

Our political beliefs are the natural extension of our personal philosophies, the groundwork for which is laid out in our earliest childhood. Do not mistake what I am saying - I would not attempt to predict the future voting patterns of 4-year-olds. But children are molded by their parents and their communities, and their personalities reflect their experiences. That really is not in debate.

It is very possible that children who desire greater structure and stability will grow into adults who value structure and stability. In fact, it is likely. And kids who desire structure and stability at 4 years of age are easy to pick out - and easy to label after subjectively evaluating how annoying you find them (let's face it, whining is a function of the personalities of the child and the interviewer - that could be avoided with better methods, but it wasn't).

Those children who desire greater structure and stability are not necessarily going to be more fiscally conservative. Nor are they necessarily going to vote Republican over Democrat, which is the implication in this study and report. But they are likely to grow into adults who are more cautious, more family and community oriented, and more interested in structured and traditional religion. This is the conservativism that the research points to. But this is not the same as saying that adults who are cautious and structured are voting for candidates we call "conservative". Democrats typically stand for many social programs that a cautious voter would not want to see eliminated. Democrats typically stand for a statist structure and government "social net" that is highly illiberal, but is misidentified as "liberal" on the political spectrum. Would a cautious voter want to see Social Security overhauled? Roe v Wade overturned? The BCS system eliminated?

Is this what you thought "conservative" meant?

From Kleiner's Toronto Star article:

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

This article and this study are describing social conservativism, which is not the same as economic or political conservativism. And both the article and the study are meaningless if they do not spell that out clearly. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are too ambiguous and misleading. Call me conservative, but I want clarity in the language we are using in this conversation.

March 19, 2006

Sierra Club on the Cutting Edge

The Sierra Club is using cutting edge Google Earth technology to stay atop the cutting edge of annoying. Hearing the words "Bush Administration," the folks at the Sierra Club went into panic mode and determined that the proposed 800,000 acres of federal land that would be sold to fund rural schools can't possibly be trusted in the hands of the eco-unfriendly and unwashed private sector.

Fearing the "slippery slope" of power being taken away from the federal government, the Sierra Club has created a Google Earth "kmz" file to depict the parcels of land across the country that are slated for sale.

To sign the petition to keep United States land where it belongs, in the hands of the federal government, go here.

Previous: The Unbridled Hypocrisy of the Sierra Club

Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 18, 2006

Piracy

File this under Stupid.

Two U.S. Navy ships exchanged gunfire with suspected pirates Saturday off the coast of Somalia, and one suspect was killed and five others were wounded, the navy said.

The early morning gunbattle ensued after sailors spotted 30-foot fishing boat towing smaller skiffs and prepared for a routine boarding, said Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown, spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet.

Passengers on the fishing boat then began shooting, and U.S. naval gunners returned fire with mounted machine guns.

Okay, tip for people of all nationalities and intentions: Don't shoot at an American warship. You will lose.

The USS Cape St George is a 570 foot long Ticonderoga class cruiser. Aside from its impressive armament and a pair of SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters, U.S. ships in general are fairly impervious to small arms fire. Shooting at it with your AK-47 is little better than putting rocks in your pockets and jumping overboard.

View image of USS Cape St George.

The USS Gonzalez is a 500 foot long Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Aside from its impressive armament, it is another one of those crazy modern U.S. ships made out of steel, meaning it is also pretty impervious to the weapon you are likely toting.

View image of USS Gonzalez.

So, what was the plan? Sink the two USN ships? I guess that's why these guys are pirates in the Indian Ocean instead of brain surgeons. Of course, I am sure there are a lot of Americans who don't realize piracy still exists. It definitely does, and the Somali coast is only one hotbed of modern piracy - Indonesia and the Malacca Strait are in the news quite a bit. I'm glad to see it getting some attention courtesy of the business end of some U.S. guns - it's like the Barbary Wars all over again!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

March 16, 2006

Bionanotechnology

There are many aspects of science that have delved into the range of the near-atomic in recent years. Nanotechnology is the term for things on the scale of billionth of a meter - literally, only a few atoms across. While my personal exposure to nano-research is surface structures and electrical engineering, I find medical the research fascinating. For example, the BBC reported earlier this week on researchers using a nano-scaffolding of synthetic peptides to bridge the gap in severed nerves - restoring vision to blind hamsters.

Aside from this being good news for the hamsters, it is very promising for humans - repairing nerve damage is a big deal. Said the lead researcher, "Eventually what we would look at is trying to reconnect disconnected parts of the brain during stroke and trauma."

Nanotech is one of the hottest buzzwords in science, and it has moved past the stage of being seen as just hype. The researchers who line up for the government grants are actually producing things left and right, in a field that is too new to appear in textbooks. The graph below was published three years ago (by The Economist), and from what I see, the trends have kept going up.

But there appears to me to be a PR problem with nanotech. It is not a medical field, or a mechanical field, but a study of scale that exists in every aspect of engineering. Researchers vie for funds by field, not by product size - at least, traditionally. Federal funds are authorized according to what subjects are considered valuable, not by how big the results are. Yet anybody who is able to say that they could make something on the nanoscale is eligible for funds, even if that doesn't really make sense, and is not compelling research without the "nano" prefix. I know - I've done it.

This won't matter, however, in the coming blitz of nanoscale. There are two barriers to that blitz, and they are not-so-nano. But once they are breached, the current flow of cash will seem like a trickle, as researchers bathe in money and produce breakthrough after breakthrough.

The first is interfacing carbon to silicon. As The Economist article from three years ago noted,

It does no good to have a fuel cell made of carbon nanotubes if it cannot communicate when it is about to run out of fuel.

The integration of nanotubes into silicon-based computers will be a huge leap for every technology, and it will be almost an afterthought to fuse a wire to a nervous system at that point - with all of the implications that brings, it is a wonder it is not a more protested topic.

The second barrier to the blitz of nanotechnology is the manufacture of nanodevices. It is not just a matter of building small machines to build small machines - the laws of physics are just plain different at that scale, and there is a certain level of uncertainty - literally. This is where the medical field seems to have a distinct advantage over engineering fields. Creating sythetic peptides is just advanced pharmacological engineering, and self-replication is billions of years old for carbon-based structures. Medical advances like the un-blinded hamsters are going to come more quickly than any other nano-field could hope for. Researchers are trying to mimic many of the processes of living organisms - for example, photosynthesis. Surely we could come up with a use for a product that is higly efficient at converting sunlight into electricity. It was suggested in a paper last year that an efficiency of 70% might be attainable with the use of certain nanocrystals.

How about a little cloud on my silver lining? There are naysayers who fear that nanotechnology is just another way for mankind to destroy the planet and play god. They will try to control the federal funding, cutting off researchers in various important fields. After all, there is no such thing as a scientific development that cannot be fought over for political reasons. For example, the EPA just announced today $5 billion in research into the effects of nanoparticles on the environment.

Hopefully, this field will be recognized as too promising to confine to federal funding.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 13, 2006

Claude Allen Innocent, Evil Twin Guilty?

I could not believe what I was hearing on NPR this afternoon.

Michael Fletcher of the Washington Post was talking with Michele Norris about the former Bush domestic policy advisor Claude Allen, shown above with his evil twin. Mr. Allen made news when he was arrested last week for refund fraud. The story did not strike me as very interesting - it's a pretty easy crime to commit, but it's pretty stupid, and this was over a matter of about $5,000. President Bush - loyal to a fault - didn't exactly come out with any support - "If the allegations are true, something went wrong in Claude Allen's life, and that is really sad. When I heard the story last night I was shocked, and my first reaction was one of disappointment, deep disappointment." That sounds to me like Mr. Bush knows Mr. Allen is guilty.

The biggest part of this story seemed to be that Allen is a black Republican - or maybe the story could serve as "yet another example" for people who see this administration as one of the more corrupt and evil in all of history.

But the story may have taken a turn for the bizzare:

Michele Norris: And we should note something, Michael. Apparently Claude Allen has a twin brother?

Michael Fletcher: Yes, he does. He has an identical twin brother who even close friends can't tell them apart when they see them... And close friends say that Mr. Allen has indicated to them that maybe his brother holds the key to this entire puzzling affair.

(Listen to their conversation here.)

An evil twin? What? I would love to see this have legs. Admit it, you would, too. You can't make that kind of stuff up!

Incidentally, Trey Ellis at Huffington Post feels that Mr. Allen's small time criminality is rooted in a deep self-loathing for going around acting white all of the time, as black Republicans are wont to do. Claude Allen stole in an attempt to act black, says Mr. Ellis, which gives Mr. Ellis an opportunity to explain to Mr. Allen that "blackness isn't crime".

I'm really glad Mr. Ellis spelled out that pretzel logic for of us - otherwise, this might just be a story about $5,000 worth of refund fraud by a guy who hangs out with the president of the United States (hopefully because his evil brother set him up - man that would be a great story). I never would have realized that Mr. Allen is a self-loathing black, otherwise.

The only possible explanation for a crime by a black Republican would be self-loathing and internal racial conflict.

Black Republicans should probably be watched carefully when they enter Target, right Mr. Ellis? It was bad enough to see Condeleeza Rice shopping for her Ferragamo shoes during Hurricane Katrina (when she should have been flying rescue missions). But thinking back, she was probably stealing those shoes, let's be honest. You know black Republicans.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Moussaoui Sentencing Trial

A federal judge on Monday put on hold the death penalty case against September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, declaring angrily she found it "very difficult" to proceed since a government lawyer improperly shared information with witnesses.
"In all the years I've been on the bench, I've never seen such an egregious violation of the court's rule on witnesses," U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said.

Apparently this government lawyer (works for TSA) read the transcript of the first day of the trial and discussed the case via e-mail with several witnesses who were due to be called. Hey, I'm no lawyer, but don't they cover that kind of thing in law school? Or on Law and Order?

This isn't a trivial technicality. What the hell is going on? I don't think it's asking too much to have ~~our very best people~~ somebody competent working for the government on a terrorism case. I mean, I don't want to make too much out of a minor matter, but if the government can't prosecute a guy like this without mucking it up royally, what can we expect the government to do well?

Get this straight in your head: He pled guilty, and the government still might have screwed up enough to have the death penalty taken off the table. Also, this is not the first time they have jeopardized the outcome of the trial. Judge Brinkema had previously taken the death penalty off the table in 2003...

...in reply to government defiance of her order to provide access to Moussaoui's witnesses. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Brinkema ruling, holding that the U.S. government could use summaries of interviews/interrogations of these witnesses. On March 21, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied, without comment, Moussaoui's pre-trial appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision, returning the case to Judge Brinkema.

(from Wikipedia)

Part of me says it doesn't really matter. The execution of Zacarias Moussaoui will not return the life of a single person killed in 9/11, nor prevent any future attack. He rots in prison instead of getting a lethal injection - so what?

But what is the reason for seeking the death penalty in the first place? What message of competency does it send if our government is able to botch this prosecution?

That terrorists had better watch out?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 11, 2006

Milosevic Found Dead in Cell

For four years, the U.N. war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic has been dragging on. For four years, he has been on trial in The Hague for genocide in Bosnia and war crimes in Croatia. For at least the last two years, he has been very ill - blood pressure and heart problems. This illness is part of the reason the trial had dragged on so long.

Today, that trial ended without a verdict.

Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell Saturday, abruptly ending his four-year U.N. war crimes trial for orchestrating a decade of conflict that killed 250,000 people and tore the Yugoslav federation asunder. He was 64.

[His death] meant there would be no judicial verdict for the leader accused of ethnic massacres and other atrocities in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo and was sure to increase criticism of the tribunal for what has been a long, expensive and ultimately wasted proceeding.

An autopsy and toxicological examination will be conducted Sunday by Dutch officials. For political reasons, a pathologist from Serbia-Montenegro will be in attendance.

Milosevic's trial and Saddam Hussein's war crimes proceeding in Iraq were widely seen as together constituting the most important legal test for the international community since German and Japanese leaders were tried after World War II.

Both trials drew stiff criticism over frequent interruptions and the ability of the defendants to use the courtroom as a stage to launch vitriolic anti-Western diatribes. Reveling in the spotlight, Milosevic insisted on being his own defense lawyer.

Of course, there was also a significant difference between the two. Milosevic was not on trial in his own country, where he still has some popularity. The historical significance of an international war crimes tribunal is still debated, with many believing that it is best for example to have Saddam Hussein on trial in Iraq, by Iraqis. As a general question, this view does not seem to address the question of who has been wronged by Hussein. But with Milosevic, since his actions exceeded the borders of his own nation, his prosecution could not be brought without an international court, even if he had left the presidency and had been unpopular enough for some Serbian official to try to bring charges. His extradition for trial was the first against a sitting head of state, and it was expected at that time to set a precedent, as had the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.

Walter Cronkite ran a story on NPR a few weeks ago about the significance of having German war criminals tried in a court that was (politically) outside of Germany. I found it interesting and I recommend it.

Speaking of NPR, they also ran a story last fall about the trial of Milosevic and its lack of media coverage, which is a little ironic considering that one of the popular criticisms leveled against the trial has been Milosevic's attempt to use it as a stage to denounce the west. But when was the last time the trial was in the news? It is just as well that he died in prison, because the most severe sentence he could have received would have been to spend the rest of his life behind bars. The lack of political closure for his war crimes may be an issue for many in the Balkans and the Middle East, where any conflict between Muslims with non-Muslims is followed closely. But the fact that the trial was given a serious attempt should be statement enough.

It is possible that the international community will develop a knack for bringing world leaders to trial for genocide and other war crimes. Perhaps, one day, the international community will also consider something more proactive about men like Slobodan Milosevic.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Don Surber: Porkbusting Is Futile

From Don Surber:

What's that, Porkbusters found $23 billion in questionable spending? That is less than 1% of a $2.7 trillion budget.

Cato Institute's Tax & Budget bulletin for February arrived via snail mail. It revealed where the $831.6 billion in new spending went under this President Bush -- a 50 percent spending hike in his first five years.

That, not the tax cuts, spurred the deficit spending.

In fact, if Bush actually budgetted the people's money instead of going on a spending spree, the budget would be balanced. Instead of a 50% increase in five years, a 25% increase (still well above inflation) would have meant $415.8 billion in new spending and a modest federal surplus of $44.8 billion instead of a projected deficit of $371 billion.

So play with the pork all you want. Until we begin holding the line on agency spending, people are just stroking their bacon.

I feel the same way. That is so easy to say, I know, but it is true. We at AtlasBlogged have carried a few articles about pork, and some of them were even referring to pork-barrel spending instead of the other white meat. But as easy as it is to get really worked about that $200 million "Bridge to Nowhere", it is hard to stay worked up about it once some overall budgetary perspective is gained. If they killed that bridge project, the real spending problem would still remain.

We are now over $20 billion per year on the War on Drugs (check this out). Government spending exceeds $20,000 per household. The Heritage Foundation lists billions and billions (and billions) on government waste. The amounts dwarf the pork that is being listed at PorkBusters.

The growth of government - especially by the self-styled party of smaller government - happens in large part because lawmakers can do it, and they think they will suffer at the polls if they do not do it. They think you want more government. If you have not told your representative otherwise, then you are the reason government is growing.

Write your representative.

Write your senators.

Don't just tell them you are angry. Tell them what made you angry on the Heritage Foundation and PorkBusters websites you see linked above. Target your own state pork - they "bring home the bacon" because they think you want it. They expand agencies because they perceive a demand for more government.

I never wanted to be dismissive of PorkBusters. I think what they are doing is great. And it is an issue where you can find common ground with people who do not share your ideological views. But when I saw the tiny, tiny dollar amounts they are flagging, I realized it was a project destined for trivia. Of course it adds up to a lot, and of course it is inappropriate, and of course it should be stopped. But as Surber's article notes, we have bigger fish to fry if we ever expect to see the government spending reined in.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

March 9, 2006

Nuclear Iran

You know those times when you are watching a football game on TV and the halfback takes the hand off and cuts through the defenders and is gone? And you know how, sometimes, the safeties are not in a position to have any chance of catching him, but the cornerback chases him all the way down the field anyway? Just running after the guy, knowing they can't catch him but also knowing that if they just stop, they are giving that halfback an extra moral victory?

Well, we're that cornerback.

The west's confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.
A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands.

Or else we will do what? Face it, we aren't going to do anything that will stop them from getting the bomb. The only thing that can stop Iran now is a catastrophic earthquake or a large meteor that destroys the sites where the technology is being developed.

A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. "By the end of the year is a ... realistic period," said the official. "It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."
Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran's technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Face it! Iran has the technology to build nukes. They may not actually have it today, but there will be no stopping them. They are at the 10-years, the 5, the couple-of-months yard line...

So now what? Are we at all prepared to deal with a nuclear Iran? This is the country we call the most active state sponsor of terrorism - how should we be looking at this, exactly?

Diplomats say that the west is prepared to enact sanctions that will hurt the regime in Tehran, but not the Iranian people. Considering the track record with other nations, I don't believe that for one moment. This is only going to get uglier.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Make the Issue Go Away

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," the firm's top executive, H. Edward Bilkey, said in an announcement that capped weeks of controversy.
"This should make the issue go away," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Good. All I have wanted is for this issue to go away. Who wants to talk about port security, anyway? Isn't there something on TV? And who wants to figure out the good Arabs from the bad Arabs? They all boycott Israel, so it's much easier to write them all off as terrorists - we just won't do any business with any of them.

(I just had a great idea for a T-shirt: Boycott 'em all, let God sort them out. If it can't fit on a T-shirt, it's not a position worth taking.)

Just so long as the port thingy is run by Americans, I can sleep well. Thank you, Senator Frist, for making this whole issue just go away.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

March 7, 2006

Bonds Busted

No, Game of Shadows is not the long-awaited third film in the "Blair Witch Project" series. Though in and of itself it is a very scary thing indeed.

Game of Shadows is a book portraying the extensive use of steroids by a Mr. Barry Bonds. Authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams worked on this story for over two years, and the results they obtained are most impressive.

I choose not to go into the details of the whos and whys and hows, those can be found by reading the book (or any online news service, such as cnn.com or espn.com). Instead, I wish to talk about what this actually means to the rest of us.

Hearing as an official announcement "Barry Bonds using steroids" created the following eloquent phrase in my mind. "Well, duh." I have yet to run into a person that would actually try to say that Barry never used steroids, or that he had no idea what he was injecting into his body. So then, if everyone knew he was doing it, this announcement really shouldn't be a big deal, should it?

But it is. Huge.

It is huge because Bonds has always fought against this perception of him as a 'roid user. He testified as such. He sat there in front of the senate panel and waggled his finger and said "I never in my life have used steroids, and..." wait, that last part was Raphael Palmeiro. Oops. I tend to get these 'roid users all confused at times.

These findings are huge because it will now bring closure to what was so maddenly elusive. Suppose a report came out today that explained, in detail to the letter, who killed JFK. Do you think that would get some press? Probably just a little. While Bonds and steroids are not even in the same category as the JFK conspiracy, you can at least see the parallels of having a great mystery finally be put to rest.

So what now? To me, that is the big question. Will the commissioner himself come down off of Mt. Olympus and cast Barry into Hades with a first class ticket? Wipe all his stats, remove all his awards, and find him a seat next to Pete Rose in the Baseball Hall of Shame?

Boy, wouldn't that be nice, wouldn't it? I also have some prime property to sell you in Florida if you think that is what is going to come down.

Sadly, nothing of the sort will happen. I would wager that Barry will be the villain, and Baseball will do nothing but point fingers and whisper fiercely. But will they actually do anything? Even Pete wouldn't bet on that. I have heard the argument that baseball can't do anything about Bonds because "baseball didn't have a rule against using performance enhancing drugs like that at that time". Now I might be wrong here, but using such drugs, as a whole, is illegal, is it not? I know there are reasons why such uses are legal, but for the most part, illegal. So if something is illegal, does it need to then be laid out in every sports rulebook? Show me in the baseball rulebook the penalty for stealing a car or killing someone. Not in there, are they? What about the penalty for not paying your taxes? Hmmm...don't see that in the baseball rulebook either. If a baseball player were to willingly hurt or kill another player during a game, do you think that they would face legal charges? You can bet on that. Baseball wouldn't fine them because it's not against their rules. Rather silly, isn't it?

Take a moment and step back even further. What about the San Franciso Giants? The reports indicate that they knew Barry was 'roiding all along, and they did nothing. Why would they? Can you imagine how much money they would have lost if they stepped in and prevented Barry from doping all those years?

But shouldn't they be accountable as well? How can a major league baseball team test it's players for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs with one hand while with the other cover their eyes to what Barry does? To me, this is a most heinous crime that should not be lost in this shuffle.

So I will say what many people are probably feeling right now. Vindication, hurt, shocked, remorse, all the many mixed emotions that come from finally proving that one of our greats is a liar and a cheater.

Liar and a cheater. Please remember that. There is no better way to describe Barry at this point.

If I were King of the World, Barry would be removed from the baseball collective from start to finish. Barry Bonds? Never heard of him. Remove his stats and his records and his name from his parking spot. You want to send a message to all those players out there using or thinking of doing so? This will wake them up.

But don't stop there. Once the scourge of the game is gone, go after the Giants themselves. Fine them, and fine them big. Fine them till they bleed nickels out of their eyes.

Not done there, either. Use the money you get from the Giant's fines and pay the reporters who worked on this story to scope out Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa too. In fact, we hire them full time as the pit bulls of Steroids. If we think you are dirty, then you got these two hatchet men to come after you.

Of course it's good to have dreams. I truly hope Barry enjoyed his run while it was going. Didn't sound like he was having much fun to me, but I hope it was all worth it.

Cheater.

Posted by Boon | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

March 6, 2006

Military Wins Important Battle

Update at bottom of extended entry.

A coalition of 36 law schools including Yale, Harvard, and Columbia were defeated by the First Amendment today, despite their best efforts. It is an uncontested fact that universities who wish to ban military recruiters from equal access on campus are free to do so - we have the right to associate freely, after all. But SCOTUS ruled 8-0 that the federal government does not have to continue to fund such institutions if they don't provide recruiters with equal access to students on campus.

The universities sued to challenge the Solomon Amendment on the grounds that military recruiters represent a violation of the campus policies of the schools not to assist employers who discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. The military, of course, does not allow open homosexuality.

The law schools argued that, at a minimum, they shouldn't have to actively help military recruiters by distributing their literature or arranging interviews with students. Chief Justice Roberts responded in the decision;

A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message,

I could have sworn that I had written on this issue in the past, but I can't find it... I must be thinking of comments I posted on another blog. I remember watching the arguments on C-Span back in December, and noting that the justices seemed very clear in their opinion at that time. One noted that it is highly unlikely that any student could mistake the military policy on homosexuals to be a policy endorsed by the universities where recruiters would interview prospective legal officers. The thought of a Columbia law student sitting across the table from a JAG officer and assuming that the recruiter represented the university - well, let's just say I got a kick out of that image.

So now what will these schools do? Can they turn their backs on the money, over the principle of treating gays (but not recruiters) equally? How much money is at stake?
From Bloomberg:

The federal government provides almost $35 billion a year to universities through research grants, government contracts and other sources, according to the American Association of University Professors. The financial stake is one reason almost every law school has agreed to give equal access to the military.

Emphasis mine. That's a big twinkie. The schools will allow recruiters on campus, and will bend over backwards letting students know how they feel about the recruiters and the policies of the military. And that's fine with me - let them tell the students anything they like, provided it is truthful and the recruiters are given the same recruiting opportunities that other employers are.

In fact, that's what the ruling said.

The Solomon Amdendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds.

The ruling quotes the transcript of the Solicitor General, who said in arguments that law schools

could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests,

Also a touch of humor on the quesiton of whether students will construe the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the military as a policy endorsed by the university when the university provides recruiter access:

We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.

I hope not.

More about the case from Bloomberg:

The Defense Department has listed only three schools -- New York Law School, Vermont Law School in South Royalton, Vermont, and William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota -- as being in violation of the Solomon Amendment, according to Joshua Rosenkrantz, the lead lawyer for the challengers. All three schools are independent institutions, so their actions don't jeopardize funding for any other university departments.

At one point, the Solomon Amendment included a threat to withhold student financial aid. That provision was removed in 2000.

By the way, the full text of the Rumsfeld v FAIR ruling can be found here.

Others blogging on the ruling include BizzyBlog, who provides some interesting links at the bottom of the article.

March 7 Update: I knew that I had written about this before. I found my earlier comments on Right on the Left Coast, from Dec 6 (when arguments were heard). Comments then sound a lot like comments now. One quick excerpt:I think the final word goes to Justice Stephen Breyer: "the remedy for speech you don't like is not less speech, but more speech,"

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

March 5, 2006

Randall "Duke" Cunningham

At some point when I was stationed on the USS Enterprise ('95-'99), I noticed a plaque that commemorates the first U.S. flying ace of the Vietnam War. I remember the pilot's name only because it is a name shared by a sports star - Randall Cunningham. I remember being very amused the name sharing, and the fact that Lt. Cunningham's missions had been flow as a part of Operation Linebacker. I guess it wasn't that funny, in retrospect - Cunningham was a quarterback, not a linebacker - but my point is I remember the name of the first Ace of Vietnam.

It wasn't until I read an article at Cafe Hayek today that I realized this flying ace is Randy "Duke" Cunningham, (former R-Calif.) A lot of news articles today are mentioning that he was a Navy fighter pilot, but either that hasn't been in the reports before, or I never noticed it.

The Cafe Hayek entry references a Washington Post article that reported the Cunningham defense team requesting a lesser sentence for the ace-turned-convicted corrupt politician, citing suicidal depression stemming from his Vietnam heroics.

Being "praised and rewarded for his conduct" gave Cunningham "a sense of omnipotence which was an adaptive psychological defense mechanism,"... Thus Cunningham "came to the job of Congressman with the outsized sense of ego and a mantel of invulnerability. . . . The process of rationalizing his behavior blinded him to the corruption it entailed, and led him to behave in ways totally antithetical to his life history," the psychiatrist concluded.

Hey, we give them that power. It is no surprise that our politicians are corrupt - the surprise is how brazen they are, and how many get caught. It has been this way for a very long time - but what's to be done? Term limits? Limits on ~~donations~~ the First Amendment right to advocate for the candidate you support?

Cunningham's defense sounds pretty reasonable (from the AP);

A psychiatric report submitted by the defense said that Cunningham also suffered from depression.
And it referred to his military career in which honor came from "ignoring danger signs and performing perilous and death-defying acts."
There was a different expectation for behavior in Congress, but "the psyche cannot make such a U-turn easily," wrote the psychiatrist, Dr. Saul Faerstein.

Reasonable, but not forgivable. What is to prevent the next Representative Cunningham from the same behavior? You know it is going on right now with others. If they are caught and brought to justice (or at least to the attention of the media), we will again wonder how they thought they could get away with it. Perhaps we should have a better way?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 2, 2006

Redistricting-gate

During the commute this week, I was able to catch a daily dose of radio news stories about the Texas ~~redistricting~~ Gerrymandering case. NPR is as usual one of my first options in the car, and I particularly enjoyed this story - one of several that actually read from the transcripts. Almost all of the commentary (on NPR and elsewhere) has focused on the question of whether the DeLay redistricting is unconstitutional. But where are the questions of how we can be rid of Gerrymandering altogether?

Gerrymandering has been a part of American politics for at least two centuries. It is accepted by voters and politicians. It is not seen as an evil, and the courts have agreed that at least at some level, partisan gerrymandering is okay. But would it not serve our purposes and our principles better to put redistricting behind us altogether, and give ourselves a system of proportional representation?

This would allow the courts to be satisfied that minorities are able to find representation, and it would allow new parties into the mix, which would likely improve voter turnout, which has been at embarassingly low levels for as long as I can rembmer. We could stop burdening our poor, overworked legislators with the trouble of redrawing the whole state every ten years, and SCOTUS could spend its time on items that are more interesting - maybe something Justice Ginsburg will stay awake through (Jon Henke at QandO asks, "I'm not terribly familiar with judicial ethics, but I suspect that consciousness is a necessary pre-condition for ruling on a case. Will Ginsburg have to recuse herself?")

Other than the fact that the power to do this lies in the hands of exactly the people who would be destroyed by it - incumbent Republicans and Democrats - is there a downside to proportional representation? Is it a downside that is anywhere near what we have to go through with this redistricting nonsense?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)