February 2009

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

The said Constitution shall be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

-Samuel Adams

January 26, 2009

Mandela, King, Gandhi... Blagojevich

In an apparent attempt to entertain us, impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich today said the most asinine thing he could think of about his situation:

As he was taken from his home by federal agents on Dec. 9, Blagojevich told NBC, "I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now."

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

August 26, 2008

Women's Lib

Today marks the 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Of course the words “to vote” should not need to be there, because the state and federal governments should not be denying or abridging any rights on account of sex. But such is our history.

88 is a very special number. When turned sideways, it looks like infinity divided by infinity. Any mathematician can tell you that infinity over infinity equals unity. To commemorate this, Hillary Clinton will speak a message of unity (er, among Democrats) at the DNC tonight, on this 88th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. The primary message we can take from her tonight is that in 88 years, women have repeatedly voted for men - i.e., turned the spirit of Women's Lib completely sideways.

Okay, maybe none of this post makes any sense. But then, neither does the roll call vote for Senator Clinton. And neither does all of the focus of Michelle Obama’s wardrobe (on this, the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage!). And neither does it make sense the way Democrats seem driven to keep themselves out of the White House.

It’s just what I’m thinking about over a couple of drinks this evening, that’s all.

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

August 24, 2008

On Barak Obama and Joe Biden

My thoughts on Barak Obama picking Joe Biden as his VP candidate can be summed up pretty nicely with a couple of links.

First this AP article by Ron Fournier:

The candidate of change went with the status quo.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions...

So the question is whether Biden's depth counters Obama's inexperience — or highlights it?

This is exactly what I have been waiting months to say. The Obama buzz has been about youth and change. But for all the talk of "youth and change" and being opposed to Washington insiders, and for all the talk of somebody like Tim Kaine on the short list, I think it was obvious that Obama would play into the criticisms about his inexperience by going to somebody old and experienced (just like Bush did in 2000). This campaign is not actually about "youth and change", it's about power--just like any political campaign. "Youth and change" was a vehicle, and the Obama camp has exited that vehicle like a commuter arriving at the train station.

If Obama had actually believed his own "youth and change" hype, he would have selected some young outside-the-beltway type like Tim Kaine or I don't know who else, and he would have faced head-on the charge that he is too inexperienced to be the President (a charge made not only by the GOP, but also by Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and many Democrats).

By dodging that attack instead of taking it on directly, he admits its validity. Period.

Link #2 is to Dale Franks, who has a few great quotes from Joe Biden that you really have to see. It's possible that Obama thought it was too obvious to have to tell his vetting committee to avoid candidates who love McCain and have criticized Obama's qualifications. Oops.

The bonus link in today's post goes to Patrick Ruffini at the Next Right, who points out that Biden is the longest-serving legislator ever on a national ticket, for any party.

Vehicle for sale: Make: Audacious Hope; Model: 2008 Youth and Change; runs great!

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

August 11, 2008

Who would elect "an unfamiliar and dangerous other"?

There was a great deal of debate on TV and around the media last week regarding the McCain TV ad that compared Barak Obama to Paris Hilton – aren’t they both empty celebrities who are famous for being famous? (My previous)

Even putting aside the ridiculous accusations of racism, some of the reactions from Obama supporters don’t make sense. Consider this question:

How can someone being portrayed as "the biggest celebrity in the world" also be painted as radical and out of the mainstream? Either Obama is like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: a fluffy, substanceless, mass-consumed but empty celebrity-for-celebrity’s sake, or he is an unfamiliar and dangerous other with a hidden anti-American agenda.

Setting aside questions of whether we agree with the assertions themselves, I really don’t understand what is self-contradictory about asserting that Obama is both a celebrity and “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”. Is this guy is asserting that the basis for celebrity is familiarity and normality?

Maybe his family and his neighborhood are a little different from mine, but Paris Hilton is very much an "other" to people like me. I always thought the fascination with celebrities had to do with the various ways in which they are different from us. You know, the athletes who play better than we do, the actors who are better looking, the people who are just bizarre by the standards of the average American Joe. When somebody is famous for being famous (like Paris Hilton, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Kevin Federline and Kato Kaelin), it’s because they are not a part of mainstream America.

Perhaps the article is asserting that by being celebrities, these people become a part of the culture, and thus help to define “mainstream”. After all, we all know who these people are, even if there is no reason to. But I would hardly call that a reason to feel more comfortable with having a president who is mostly famous for being famous. I would much rather have somebody whose political track record is clear.

Again, this just doesn’t in any way negate the charge that Barak Obama is “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”.

By the way, allow me to point out that every presidential candidate tries to paint himself as a Man of the People, and his opponent as inherently unlike the average American Joe. John Kerry was constantly attacked as elitist (remember the Wendy’s episode, or the Teresa Heinz Kerry fortune?), as was Al Gore (policy wonk, elitist, unhumanly robotic). Hillary definitely remembers these episodes.

While Media Matters has complained that George W. Bush avoided charges of elitism, I think it’s clear he didn’t, as there were plenty of allegations of elitism when he ran in 2000. The problem for Democrats wasn’t that the media wouldn’t play along, but rather that it wasn’t a consistent message. Yes, he went to Yale and had a privileged political childhood, but Gore’s background was comparable. While some Democrats were complaining that Bush was elitist in avoiding Vietnam and having a history with drugs and alcohol, others were complaining that he was too much a hick, a huckleberry, and a cowboy—undoing the elitist tag with a partyboy buckaroo tag.

And think back to Bill Clinton’s campaigns. While Republicans tried to focus on how unscrupulous Clinton was in his personal life, he beat George H.W. Bush by being the guy you’d like to have a beer with. He played saxophone and spoke easily while Bush was derided for not knowing the price of a gallon of milk. Clinton managed to be more likeable than Dole, as well, painting Bob Dole as a likeable, respectable old guy who should go on now and retire while Bill had another beer with the country. Which, figuratively, he did.

We can keep going back. Reagan sauntered and joked easily. Kennedy upstaged Nixon on TV. Hell, go back nearly two centuries to when Andrew Jackson harped for four years about the “Stolen Election”, where he had won the popular vote but lost because of “elitist” political intrigue by supporters of John Quincy Adams.

The point is that both campaigns tried to assert that their opponent was an atypical American man - an elitist "other" in some way. Right now, Democrats are busy telling us that McCain is too old and too angry to be reliable. Republicans are telling us that Obama is too new and too slick. Neither narrative strikes me as being dominant yet, but they are both as ever trying to emphasize that the other guy is “an unfamiliar and dangerous other”.

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

August 4, 2008

Olympic reporters in China

Some things speak for themselves:

In 2001, when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 games to China, Wang Wei, the leader of China's bid told reporters: "We will give the media complete freedom to report when they come to China."

But for many reporters there now, it’s still unclear how free they will be able to report or not, as the restrictions and red tape seem almost endless, and they never know whether they've covered all their bases. "We already have to tell the Chinese everywhere we want to be in August, and what time," one TV broadcaster, who preferred to remain anonymous, recently told the Associated Press. "We have to provide a list of the guests who will be interviewed and the content of the interview."

That is, some things speak for themselves where permitted. Which is to say, if you are reading the article I linked, you are probably not doing so in China.

That the Chinese government will frustrate and limit the international press during the Beijing Olympics is a given. What remains to be seen is whether the international press will show itself to be a greater force than the Chinese government in the long run.

It is possible that the Chinese government will make the situation so untenable and intolerable that reporters will never forgive the transgressions, and will draw ever greater worldwide attention to the oppression that the Chinese people have undergone for years.

Or it is possible that the international press will complain a lot during the games and immediately afterward, but then fail to provide any sustained or cohesive effort to bring freedom to the Chinese people, who--unlike the international athletes and press--will still be living in China after the games.

A.J. Liebling once said "People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." That's still true today, though television news has dethroned the newspaper. Blogs are still reactionary, focusing mostly on the "news" that is published by papers or broadcast on TV... by reporters. While they do not decide what is news and what is not to the extent that they once did, the traditional media still has the power to shape narratives and focus the world's attention. I can't think of a cause that should be a greater motivation to them than worldwide freedom of the press.

Let the games begin...

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

April 12, 2008

Know Nothing about Immigration

It's funny how long this same argument has been around:

"The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854-56, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery, most often joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election."

We should have built a fence around Boston and New York. Now look what we've got: Damn Irish Catholics and their Rock and Roll music. Oh, and Bono.

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

OH...My...BAMA, Magnum!*

I sent this email to the Atlantico list on February 20th, 2008:

Barack Obama's website is absolutely immaculate.

I mean, it's perfect: colors, ergonomics, headlines, slogans, font, navigability, easy-to-read, well laid-out, etc.

This guy is unbeatable, in every category. We are going to see a domination in November the likes of which has not been witnessed since the Warren G. Harding landslide of 1920. Race, age, rock-star quality,charisma, speech, demagoguery, background, name, wife, you name it. Barack's got it all. Substance is largely ancillary in this contest, and even there, I think Barack is chock-full of substance. Maybe not good substance, but he's got plenty of substance.

I have to tell you, I admire this man, in much the same way that the android science officer in Alien admired the alien creature for its sheer, evil, perfection. Barack is beautifully perfect.

He will single-handedly deliver America unto a European-style socialism, and there's not a damn thing that anyone can do to stop him.

It's a little ironic that the only way we were given freedom is that it was forced upon us by an elite few. So-called Americans never really asked for it: at least not the majority. We are too willing to exchange individual freedoms for a slight alleviation in mental and physical labor, for self-reliance and self-responsibility. And now, we as a country, are demanding it. The era of the American Rugged Individual is finally at the culmination of its wane, and we're now ready for the cold comfort of the collective.

It's amazing how much can change in just under two months. Between Michelle Obama's frequent gaffes, and now this:

"...It’s not surprising then [that small-town Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Had they kept their mouths shut and stuck to the empty "change" rhetoric, the Obamas would have sailed through to November. A commenter on Malkin's website sums up my exact feelings on the matter: "What an arrogant, condescending jerk."

PA Democrats aren't like Massachusetts or California Democrats. I think he's going to find this out the hard way.

(Headline explained here)

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

February 6, 2008

US Automakers: Rising to the Challenger?

Via Jon Henke at QandO, on the new Dodge Challenger.

A good-looking throwback, to be sure, but I could care less if Dodge, GM, and Ford go out
of business. They deserve to.

I've been saying for years now that they continually fail to deliver on the biggest strength they've got going for them: US history and nostalgia. I mean, Volkswagen practically smacked the U.S. automarket on the head with their success over the re-release of the Beetle, and still no U.S. auto-manufacturer gets it.

Dinosaurs. They are smug Titanics that deserve to sink. You take a 55 Chevy body and put in a modern engine and interior, and you'll see a hit car. Why is Ford going all plasticky with their F-series of trucks? Blech. Where is the innovation in the auto market? Rain-detecting windshield wipers? Give me a freakin' break. That's a gimmick, not an innovation.

At least Dodge is giving it a go here. Although Telemetry on their dashboard is a little goofy. It's not telemetry, for cryin' out loud. In 2008, there's no excuse for a car not to have an LCD display with a built-in GPS. I mean, what's this cost the manufacturer? $50 a car? C'mon.

You have to be careful with cars like this. I love the idea, but it's too easy to try to make something overly manly and cross over into that gay area. (For example, I think the name "Titan" is slightly gay for a truck). The remarkable failure of the Hummer is a clear illustration of this phenomenon. Still, it's refreshing to see that U.S. auto-manufacturers have given up trying to out-honda Honda. Stick to what you know: building behemoth, gas-guzzling cars and trust that Americans will take care of you.

Where is the innovation?

Why isn't there an interface that I can plug into my car that sends me detailed emails of my car's health and status? Why are we still using paint? Where are the interchangeable exterior panels that I can swap out depending on my mood? How come no ones putting USB ports in cars?Why are we paying 30k for a car to subsidize the monstrosity known as the UAW's union? Why do I need 4000 air bags in my car?

Feh. I'll stick to my Nissans until American cars become American again.

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

Yet Another Republican Not Voting for McCain

With the outcome of Super Tuesday last night, I think it's important to revisit Billy Hollis' Open Letter to the Grand Old Party:

So let me say this plainly. If you nominate [...] John McCain, you've lost me. I won't vote for your candidate. Period.

I am but an infrequent author of an infrequently read blog, and as such, just another drop in the ocean. But I think it's worth pointing out that the GOP is on the verge of alienating yet another one of their ranks - a Twenty-year Republican who has voted straight-ticket for the better part of the Nineties and Aughties. John McCain getting the Republican nomination is the biggest indicator yet that the GOP has passed me by, or, maybe it's the other way around. Either way, the pretense of believing in small government, individual rights, and Federalism will finally be exposed.

I understand that the pendulum could swing back someday, so I'm not going to be so melodramatic as to declare that I'll never vote for a Republican again. But there is no way that I am voting for John McCain. Far preferable, to me, to write-in Ron Paul or the Libertarian Party candidate, or even see the Democrats win, as Billy Hollis wrote:

But if it's McCain [...], you'll get no vote or any form of support from me. I'll probably hope for a Democratic victory with a subsequent inept administration that causes the pendulum to swing towards somebody I can support in four years. Because, based on the Clinton vs. Bush comparison, I don't think a Democratic president would be any worse than [McCain], and at least there's an outside chance that the party and the base voters might rediscover their attraction to less government.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and I refuse to do that in 2008.

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

November 12, 2007

A New Law or Smarter Parents?

KARE 11 news in Minneapolis (NBC affiliate) will be airing a segment tonight on how teenagers are "dying at an alarming rate on Minnesota roadways." The previews that aired last night repeatedly during the football game made you believe that they are wanting a law passed to prevent teenagers from being able to drive a car with passengers. You can see one of the previews here. Another preview mentioned how there is a law in 39 other states that have such restrictions, and whether Minnesota should adopt one as well.

How can we as a society keep pushing our own responsibilities onto the government? If you as a parent are concerned about your child driving with other kids in the car, don't allow it. If you catch them, revoke their driving privileges. It is not that difficult. I know the argument of not being able to watch your kids all the time applies, but the police enforcing the law can't be everywhere at the same time either. The responsibility of our children should not fall onto the government. The fact that we are letting kids, yes kids, drive at 16 years old is bad enough. Add a car full of friends with music playing loud and using cellphones or texting while driving, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's hard enough for someone who has been driving for years to handle it, let alone a teenager who just got their license.

So Mom & Dad I challenge you. Start making your children understand that driving is a privilege. They are operating a heavy machine which can be extremely dangerous unless taken seriously. Set a good example by staying off the phone and not eating anything while driving, and pay attention to the road. If you set the rules for the car and follow them yourself, my bet is your kids will do the same and possibly share those rules with their friends as well.

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

August 3, 2007

Who Owns the Treasures of the Sea?

An interesting piece in The Economist regarding the rights of deep-sea treasure hunters…

[Odyssey Marine Exploration]’s business is based on the notion that the ocean floor is littered with valuable old stuff that, thanks to new deep-sea technology, can now be recovered…

Step forward the lawyers for Spain... “The owners of sunken ships have rights. Spain has not abandoned its sunken property and it does not permit unauthorised salvage.” If Odyssey is forced to hand over a large part of its Black Swan haul a cloud will fall over all commercial treasure-hunting. Who, after all, wants to invest large amounts of money looking for something only to see a government then claim full ownership?

My initial reaction is to be torn. On the one hand, the claims of Spain seem plainly to be lame. But as usual, I want to know exactly where the line is drawn.

If the crew has to abandon ship, but it doesn’t sink, the owners don't automatically give up legal rights to the ship or the cargo. To just take it because it is in international waters would be piracy. Even if the ship is left bobbing and unmanned for days, weeks, years – at what point would it not be piracy just to take it?

Wulf: So you are going to take the ship and its cargo?

Phaedrus: Yeah.

Wulf: That's not yours?

Phaedrus: Well it becomes ours.

Wulf: How is that not stealing?

And I also don’t see how the morality or legality of the situation suddenly changes when the ship goes under water. Now I’m no expert on international salvage law, and I’ve only ever perused the Law of the Sea Treaty. I’m not sure it would apply. But I’m hoping somebody reading this knows a thing or two about how this all works, and could try to explain it.

I agree with the conclusions laid out in the Economist article:

If private treasure-hunters do not seek out wrecks, nobody else will. Governments rarely take any initiative. One alternative may be to adopt a British model. The British government has just signed a deal with Odyssey to recover treasure, and then to split the proceeds, from HMS Sussex, which went down off Gibraltar in 1693, carrying a million pounds in coins. The deal also provides archaeological guarantees…

Until treasure-hunters and governments start working together, every find is liable to be followed by complex legal wrangling, in which the only certain winners will be the lawyers.

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

August 1, 2007

Stick a Fork in Him… (updated)

He’s done. In saying that he would be willing to send US troops* into Pakistan to attack al-Qaeda - regardless of how the Pakistani government feels about it – Barak Obama has again exposed his inexperience and naiveté. He might be an extremely charismatic guy, and he might even make a great president… some day. But there’s no possible way it will happen this cycle. The pack has, for the time being, left Hillary Clinton alone in the fore.

I’m curious to know how Senator Obama would have reacted if President Bush had said,

Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

I’m a little curious to know how that would have gone over with those who are today defending Obama’s comments. By which I mean, I know exactly how that would have gone over with them, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

It’s not even a matter of whether it would be right for US troops to invade Pakistan in order to carry out an ~~act of vengeance~~ arrest of Osama bin Laden. It’s a matter of whether Americans are going to be willing to vote for somebody who is making that kind of threat. Specifically, Americans who vote in Democratic primaries. I just can’t see that. Now, I never figured Barak Obama to be experienced enough to pull off the nomination, but as of today I’ll officially write him off as having any possibility this election cycle. No chance at all.

* for those who defend Obama by saying that he never mentioned sending in "troops" and never said the word "invade", get real. Would you accept such semantics from the current administration if Bush ordered an airstrike on a sovereign nation - an ally, mind you? And if the Pakistanis hanged Bush in effigy and burnt American flags in the streets, would you back him up? Or would you say he arrogantly blundered his way into more trouble and spawned a new generation of anti-American terrorists? Answer me if you like, I know exactly how that would have gone over with you, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

Update 8/2 at 10:50:
Hillary Clinton last night on American Urban Radio News Network:

I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America… But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,

It’s being reported as Senator Clinton agreeing with Senator Obama, though I note she made a more ~~political~~ polished comment and specifically noted that the action could be done without even a single US aviator crossing into Pakistan. This isn’t the going-for-the-throat Hillary Clinton we thought we knew, because she certainly could have taken this opportunity to again emphasize Obama’s relative inexperience and naivete. I still think his comment will help keep him in a holding pattern well past the Democratic primaries. Edwards remains the most viable Democratic candidate for the extreme anti-war crowd, and I don’t think Obama has a chance to take the moderates from Clinton. He's done.

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

May 10, 2007

Pesticides and Academic Achievement

I’m not sure what to make of this study that hit the airwaves today suggesting that there is a direct relationship between the date on which a baby is conceived and the child’s future academic achievement.

[Paul Winchester, M.D., Indiana University School of Medicine professor of clinical pediatrics] and colleagues linked the scores of the students in grades 3 through 10 who took the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) examination with the month in which each student had been conceived. The researchers found that ISTEP scores for math and language were distinctly seasonal with the lowest scores received by children who had been conceived in June through August.

Okay, an achievement gap and a correlation. The next question, obviously, is about causation.

"The fetal brain begins developing soon after conception. The pesticides we use to control pests in fields and our homes and the nitrates we use to fertilize crops and even our lawns are at their highest level in the summer," said Dr. Winchester, who also directs Newborn Intensive Care Services at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.

Wait. Let’s start with some skepticism. This is being reported in a very factual manner in headlines and on radio, but Dr. Winchester states very clearly that his group’s findings “do not represent absolute proof that pesticides and nitrates contribute to lower ISTEP scores”. So let’s not jump to conclusions. Dr. .Winchester does feel that the hypothesis is strongly supported and therefore a lot more research should be done, and I can understand that, but is there more reason to believe there is a direct causal relationship between pesticides and this achievement gap? I’d really like to see it. I mean, I don’t particularly want to raise my kids in an area with heavy pesticide use, but neither do I want to see weak conclusions thrown around too readily in our legislative, litigious society. This guy’s Gaia language later in the interview just doesn’t sound as objective as I would like from a scientist.

So, does this achievement gap exist outside of Indiana? Anywhere in the southern hemisphere? I don’t hear that being asked anywhere else, so I’ll ask it here.

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

May 7, 2007

Dissing Ron Paul

Via errant AtlasBlogged author Jib Halyard, I learnt that GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was getting no respect from ABC news after last week’s debate. Jib directs us to Jack Henderson’s blog, where it is noted that

[Paul’s] name wasn’t included in a Web-based check-off “rate the candidates” poll from ABC. And his was the only name left off the list.

This was no accident. Scores of online visitor comments relating to Dr. Paul’s exclusion were deleted, the candidate’s name was still prominently absent hours later, and before long a mini-scandal had made the front page of Digg, Reddit, and other social-networking sites.

(emphasis mine)

As Mr Henderson points out, this was a stupid and pointless thing for ABC to do. It represents exactly why political blogging has become such a big deal, and why talk radio became such a big deal before that. A portion of the American public does care, and we pay attention, which means we will catch this kind of thing and make a fuss about it. And the mainstream media will look biased and inept – exactly as talk radio and blogs have always said they were.

Welcome to the Internet Age, you morons.

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

For our Amusement

I just can't imagine what it must be like to live in the area where this happened:

Residents of the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay) are wondering how long it will take to remove a disused Boeing 737 that has been abandoned in a busy road.

How long would it take? Only a week. What a clusterf*** this would have been where I come from.

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

April 26, 2007

Barbarism and Beheadings

I’m not sure whether you have seen the reports of the Taliban kidnapping and beheading a Pakistani man they accuse of being a US spy. Video of the beheading was posted online this week, and the knife-wielder is, reportedly, a boy of approximately 12 years of age.

The good news is that this action is being condemned by Afghan tribal leaders and (as far as I can tell) average guys on the Muslim street. Pundits sometimes ask why the millions of peaceful Muslims around the world have allowed their religion to be hijacked by extremists and terrorists, so I hope they note this sort of statement:

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

"The Taliban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."

The situation over there is complicated. Of course, it’s easier for many people to think otherwise and paint all of Islam as a faith of hatred and murder. Some even go so far as to have a binary view of the Muslim world – “our Muslims” vs. the terrorists. Well, on some issues, maybe it really should be that cut-and-dry. This is one of them. It’s important to remember the true nature of this conflict, this “Global War on Terror”. It is not about Christianity vs Islam, or religion vs secularism. Before anything else, it’s about civility vs barbarism. Let’s not lose sight of that.

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

April 19, 2007

Great Horny Toads!

Some stories are too bizzarre not to share. For example, this one.

Amorous toads have caused the deaths of scores of fish at a lake near Scarborough. In one incident around 70 carp, worth about £3,000, were lost after male toads tried to mate with them on the Wykeham Estate.

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

April 17, 2007

VT

This is just a quick thank you to a few people who have asked how things are. Yes, many of my former students attend Virginia Tech - some of my favorites, frankly. Yes, they are all safe - I heard from a few yesterday via text messages and Facebook. I do appreciate everybody who has been keeping me in mind.

I really don't have any thoughts that I would feel comfortable sharing with the world on this right now. I'm just spending some time reaching out to some people in need, and being thankful that none of my kids were injured or killed.

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

April 13, 2007

The Official PC Radio Hit List

Who is next, now that Don Imus has been fired?

Keith Olbermann has made a partial list:

Where's the other outrage? Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American.' Michael Savage says the Voting Rights Act means 'a chad in every crack house.' Neal Boortz says Cynthia McKinney looks like a 'ghetto-slut.' Why have none from the racist right been protested, boycotted or fired?

Please note that I do not listen to any of these shows. But how disturbing is it that Olbermann would start calling for his ideological opponents to be taken off the air? How offensive is that mentality? (Offensive enough to call for Olbermann’s dismissal? I’m sure some on the right would miss the irony and do exactly that.) As Glenn Beck noted on air yesterday, Olbermann appears to be unaware that an atmosphere so charged would jeopardize Olbermann’s career, too. Remember: The Frankenstein monster sought to destroy its creator. This is no different, Keith.

As a side note, I do want to point out that the word “ho” clearly isn’t very offensive, as it has been casually repeated and batted around the airwaves, blogosphere, and print media nonstop for over a week. If it were truly offensive, it would be elevated to the level of those special words that go by their first initial – the “N” word, the “B” word, etc. If “ho” is so hurtful, maybe it should be called the “H” word from now on. The furor over this word is reminiscent of the Macaca flap, where commentators, bloggers, and jackasses around the world said over and over, “the use of the word ‘macaca’ is highly offensive! ‘Macaca’ compares ~~blacks~~ Indians to monkeys! The use of the word 'macaca' is enough to bar one from public office! Don’t ever say ‘Macaca’! Macaca, Macaca, Macaca!”

(Actually, this point was also made by the Jon Henke at QandO last December.)

For our amusement, let's imagine the following conversation:

Pundit: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "ho".

Al Sharpton: You're only making it worse for yourself!

Pundit: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Ho! Ho! Nappy-headed hos!

Al Sharpton: I'm warning you! If you say "ho" one more time…

(Sharpton gets suspended from radio show)

Al Sharpton Hey! Who did that?

Media Gaggle: She did! She did! He! He did! He!

Al Sharpton: Was it you?

Media Exec: Yes. Well you did say "ho".

(Media Exec gets barraged with criticism and is fired)

Al Sharpton: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! All right, no one is to fire until Jesse Jackson or I blow this whistle. Even if... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "ho"

(Sharpton gets permanently fired from radio show)

So, is there an official “PC Radio Hit List”? Yes, I believe there is. Media Matters has published it. After our airwaves have been ~~purged~~ ~~cleansed~~ (sound too genocidal?) tidied up, we can next focus on the filthy internet.

I can only hope this site doesn’t attract too much attention with its snappy, threaded prose. Think we will be safe?

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

April 11, 2007

Rabid, Rabid!

No surprise here… Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is upset with her neighbor – some guy by the name of Monty Johnson. She refers to him as a “rabid, rabid Republican”. She once saw him brandishing a gun. She says he keeps his property “slummy” just to spite her. She wouldn’t be nice to him if she ever met him, according to the Charlotte Observer and a host of other news agencies who are pouncing on her hurtful remarks. See also the Raleigh • Durham • Cary • Chapel Hill • Podunk News & Observer, which reports:

Monty Johnson was heading home Monday with a cooler full of catfish when he learned his new neighbor had turned him into a minor celebrity.

I love the imagery.

Nothing about this situation is especially surprising (except that it was carelessly spoken aloud and giving the Edwardses bad press). Nor is it unique to Podunk, NC where these people live. But since it’s been thrown out there into the news, I’d like to highlight the parts of the story that really frame my view of the situation:

Johnson said he has lived his entire life on the property, which he said his family purchased before the Great Depression.

Johnson, who has posted a "Go Rudy Giuliani 2008" sign on a fence just 100 feet from the entrance to the Edwards' driveway, has criticized Edwards for the scale of their nearby home. The property and home, which includes an indoor basketball court, an indoor handball court and an indoor pool, is valued at $5.3 million.

The Edwardses are still putting the final touches on the property, which they purchased in 2003.

It’s a pretty familiar story. It really highlights the difference between the haves and the have-nots. It’s almost like there are two Americas or something.

I don’t say that as somebody who hates Jon Edwards or his family. I don’t hate him for his wealth or his politics – in fact, I don’t hate him at all. I’m just somebody who can’t stand it when people expect their neighbors to “keep up” – especially since Mr. Johnson has lived there for more than half a century longer than the Edwards family. If they wanted to live in an exclusive Democratic haven with covenants against Guliani signs, they should have purchased land in that kind of community. If they wanted to live someplace where you could have your neighbor’s run-down childhood home destroyed, they should have picked New London, CT. If they wanted to live someplace where their neighbors would never be brandishing firearms, they should have purchased in Washington, DC (hahahahahahahaha! Come on, that was funny!)

As Rammage notes via email: “I'm instantly reminded of:

“Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.” ~ Heinlein

Which would you rather have as a neighbor?”

Indeed. Good call, Rammage.

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

March 19, 2007

Truancy Equals Freedom

SCOTUS begins hearing Morse v. Frederick (a/k/a the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case), about which our friend and fellow libertarian Kip asks, “Why is this even a case?” Being both a libertarian and a public school teacher, I’ve paid some attention to this case. I am very concerned about the outcome – which I suspect will go poorly for young Mr. Frederick.

Okay, if you have no idea what case I am talking about, let me bring you up to speed – with some heavy quoting from SCOTUSblog, to which Kip also links.

The core facts that the two sides can agree upon are these: when the Olympic torch was being carried along Glacier Avenue in Juneau, Alaska, on January 24, 2002, 18-year-old Joseph Frederick held up a 14-foot banner with the message, “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” (“Bong hits” is slang for smoking marijuana.) Glacier Avenue runs in front of Juneau-Douglas High School, where Frederick was enrolled as a senior. School Principal Morse crossed the Avenue, and demanded that the sign be taken down; Frederick refused, and the principal grabbed the sign and crumpled it. Later, Morse suspended Frederick for ten days, citing a variety of infractions of school rules. The Ninth Circuit found a violation of Frederick’s First Amendment rights, and found that the law was so clear on this issue in January 2002 that the principal was not entitled to legal immunity to money damages.

But the agreement on the facts largely ends there. The principal and the Juneau School Board insist that Frederick was taking part in a school-sponsored event – the students were let out of school to attend the torch-passing rally, and school cheerleaders and pep band took part; the students were closely supervised; school system money was spent to bus students in from other schools; the event occurred during school hours, and four students were torch-bearers. Frederick with equal fervor insists that this was a public event in a public forum (a sidewalk next to a public street), he was not on school property at the time, he was an 18-year-old adult, and he had not even gone to class that morning so was not among students released to go to the rally.

Now, I’d have to say it’s pretty clear that citizens have the right to unfurl banners with ambiguous religion/drug messages. It’s also pretty clear that the student would not have been allowed to do this in his school cafetorium – his suspension would have stood, and he never would have made it anywhere near the Supreme Court. But he wasn’t on school property, so he’s golden.

Except that the defense will argue convincingly that the torch rally was a school-sponsored event, much like a field trip. I am (annually) a field trip sponsor, and it has been made very clear to me (every damn year) that (to turn a phrase) school officials do not shed their in loco parentis responsibilities at the schoolhouse gate. I am not even allowed to change the rules of dress code or conduct just because I’ve taken the students to an amusement park to study the physics of the rides (not at taxpayer expense, settle down). And incidentally, this does not magically change when the student hits 18, so Joseph Frederick’s being that age at the time of this incident is probably completely irrelevant. The fact that Juneau-Douglas High School brought students to participate in this Olympic rally is enough to sink his case.

Except that Joseph Frederick had not gone to school that day. (dum-dum-dum!)

That was the one fact of the case that I picked up from SCOTUSblog that I had not known this morning, when I emailed the Atlantico list about this case. This morning, I said:

The case is interesting to me because I have seen groups from the right and the left supporting this kid. The ACLU and gay rights groups in particular seem concerned about potential abridging of free speech, no surprise, but several religious groups recognize how a ruling in support of the school could be used against religious expressions at school. But he's so going to lose.

Ah, not so after all. In light of the fact that Joseph Frederick was absent from school, he can’t reasonably be considered to have been participating in the torch rally as a student subject to the school rules. Suddenly, it’s much more like the time that I ran into students at the amusement park who were not on the physics field trip, and in fact weren’t enrolled in a physics class. They were not my problem, from a legal point of view.

Well played, Mr. Frederick. Well played. Bong hits 4 Jesus, indeed.

ps - I personally think the defense is further hurt by the arguments that are being made about schools needing to enforce anti-drug policies. I just can’t see the justices nodding along with that argument. At least, I hope not.

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

March 18, 2007

The Plame Game

Sweetness & Light speculates that it "was almost certainly Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV who first 'outed' his wife as a CIA officer." And they go on to mention that Joe Wilson probably did so "in early May 2003 after meeting with top level Democrats and around the time he began to work for the John Kerry for President campaign."

It intrigues me that I haven't seen anyone take this to the next, logical progression and state that it was Valerie Plame, herself, who inappropriately revealed her Agency status (if any). Last Friday's Washington Post has a fairly good indicator on who first screwed up, which is about 10 people removed from Scooter Libby:

When [Plame] met Wilson at a Washington reception in 1997, "she described herself as an energy executive living in Brussels," he later wrote in his book. Eventually, Plame revealed to Wilson -- who held a security clearance as political adviser to the European Command -- that she was a spy, Wilson wrote. He said his only question was: "Is your real name Valerie?"

(Emphasis mine) Ha ha ha. Amusing anecdote, to be sure. But exactly when did it become appropriate for an operative of Plame's alleged status to reveal the nature of her work to her boyfriend? The red herring of Wilson's nebulous "security clearance" most likely didn't give him the right to know about Plame's alleged status, unless our nation is making it routine policy to inform trench-dwelling political advisers the whereabouts and nature of our most secret non-official cover operatives.

If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wants to bring charges against someone, why not start with the leaky, publicity-seeking source: Valerie Plame?

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

March 4, 2007

Arctic Surge?

The Weather Channel has decided to poke a little fun at the Surge/Reinforcements framing issue. Will a fresh batch of artic air be surging into the Midwest and Northeast? Is that word too hot for this cold air? I see the humor.

Political cracks aside, it’s going to be 60 degrees here in Richmond tomorrow, and no sign of the first snow of the season. Sigh.

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

February 28, 2007

Setting "Eternal Hope" Straight

The poor, misguided blogger who goes by the name “Eternal Hope” has sparked an interesting conversation over at DailyKos. It all starts with Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research noting on her excellent blog (see also our blogroll) the story about Al Gore’s mansion allegedly consuming more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. Says Eternal Hope:

…it turns out that the NCPPR is a 501(c)3 organization, meaning that they can't advocate for or against the election of a candidate. Since they have done so, they have violated the law.
… First of all, I submit that the NCPPR is guilty under the "working against a candidate" clause. The fact that they are promoting a smear against Al Gore means that they are working against his potential candidacy, in violation of 501(c)3.

I find this argument interesting on two grounds.

First, Al Gore is not a candidate for any office. I know you guys have got that big fat “Draft Gore” button up on the screen at Kos, but the law applies to people who are candidates under… the law. Not people who are candidates in your head. I can’t consider Ridenour’s piece to be any kind of advocacy against Gore even if he were running, but we can’t even ask that question because Gore really, really, is not a candidate in the really real world.

Second, as I shared with the Atlantico email list just this morning;

The issue then becomes one of haves and have-nots, and the Left doesn't seem to mind. Gore can jet-set and have his inefficient mansion, because he is wealthy enough and popular enough to get contributions to help pay for carbon offsetting. You got the financial ability to cover yourself, Rammage? No? Wealthy donors to bail you out? No? Then you'd better watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems. Buy a Prius and shut your pie hole, while Gore enjoys the benefits of privilege - because he's EARNED IT.

I don’t know whether Al Gore actually has zero carbon footprint – I’ll grant him the benefit of the doubt that he does, because that isn’t where my complaint lies. My complaint is that the Left’s argument in defense of Gore (dutifully trumpeted by Eternal Hope) is one of environmental inequality – in fact, environmental elitism. The logic is no different from saying that it’s okay to drive one’s Hummer through wetlands and over tortoise eggs, if one is wealthy enough to purchase extinction offsets. It becomes an issue of money-makes-right. Is that what the Left stands for?

I apologize to Amy Ridenour, but I couldn’t bring myself to cast a vote in the Kos poll – or even glance at the results. It would sully the reality of the situation to suggest that a vote means anything. Ridenour’s comments are simply not illegal, and Gore’s defenders have some inconsistencies to ponder.

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

February 27, 2007

Playing Politics with the Iraq Troop Surge

I really like it when the media frames a debate the way I would do. NPR’s Ron Elving was apparently willing to accommodate me for this piece on the Iraq troop surge.

I, unlike most self-described libertarians, recognize that it would be foolish for the Bush administration or military commanders to announce a pull-out date. But that doesn’t mean I am not looking forward to seeing the troops exit Baghdad. And that’s exactly what the troop surge would lead to if all goes well. As Elving notes:

The question now is not whether more U.S. troops will be committed but whether they will accomplish what most Americans want: an expedited disengagement.

While Democrats jockey to get the credit for the eventual troop withdrawal - Senate Democrats are considering legislation that would revoke the 2002 authorization of force that allowed the Iraq invasion, which would probably be followed by legislation revoking the laws of supply and demand so they can ram through some kind of socialist healthcare and attempt to nationalize Big Oil – the fact is that this has been the culmination of US efforts to get Iraq’s government on its feet all along, as I have noted before. The Bush administration has not been able to effectively convince Americans of the progress, partly because it brings up the obvious questions of when our troops will be done and get to leave Iraq – a question that the administration can answer in terms of benchmarks but not in terms of timetables, as Ron Elving and I have already mentioned to you.

In Elvings’ piece from this week (the one I quoted above), he implies that there are some who wish the American troop presence in Iraq could just go on and on – an indefinite pseudo-occupation that would presumably continue to take the lives of good American soldiers. Except that I don’t know anybody who wishes for that. But that’s my only complaint with Elvings’ view of the troop surge. As he ends;

So the surge will go forward. Those who want U.S. involvement to end as soon as possible must now wish for events in Iraq to render a clear verdict, pro or con. If the surge works well, the phased withdrawal so many Democrats demand (and for which so many Republicans wish) can still begin this year. If the surge fails utterly, withdrawal becomes inevitable.

The next task for Democrats and the media, really, is to write the story so that it looks like the troops only came home because the Democrats had the mandate of the people to shut off Bush/Cheney’s blood spigot. Just tell yourselves that otherwise, it never would have ended.

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

February 20, 2007

Virginia General Assembly (Updated)

Try to follow this logic. The Virginia General Assembly is poised to pass legislation allowing youths as young as 14 to make decisions regarding alternative medicine. Though the wording of the current bill reportedly gives judges discretion on the matter, 14 is being referred to as the “age of consent” on the issue. Of course, that same kid is still 2 years too immature to drive, and 4 years too immature to make his own decisions about smoking, dropping out of school, or joining the military. He is also 7 years too young and immature to drink wine with dinner or have a beer at the game. Perhaps if he were to claim any of these were medicinal, it would suddenly be okay - pending judicial review. (Story at Virginian-Pilot on line.)

In other news, the House Finance Committee voted down legislation that would have allowed a 40 percent tax credit on contributions of at least $1,000 toward private schools serving children with disabilities. Which horrific special interest group would discourage donations to schools for disabled kids? The Virginia Education Association, for one. Again, try to follow this logic:

They said money that would pay for the credits would reduce general funds available to public schools.

The lesson? When push comes to shove, those disabled kids had better back off of the ~~taxpayers’~~ VEA’s money.

And lastly, legislators have shot down a bill that would protect homeowners who use legally owned weapons to defend their lives, their families, and their property. The bill would have protected homeowners from wrongful death suits, but not from criminal suits (obviously). One last time, try to follow the logic of those opposing the bill:

But Henry County prosecutor Bob Bushnell, speaking for the Virginia Commonwealth's Attorneys Association, said the legislation would shield someone who opens fire on a mentally ill person who wanders into his home.

It also would provide immunity to a drug dealer who shoots a police officer who enters a home unlawfully because he didn't notice that a magistrate forgot to sign a search warrant, Bushnell said.

(emphasis mine)
So according to Mr. Bushnell, if an officer enters my home unlawfully, and I take him to be a non-police officer who has entered my home unlawfully (the only difference here being his occupation), then I should not be able to defend myself? Keep in mind that during the average unlawful home entry, there isn't a lot of time for asking whether the masked man in fatigues is a police officer or a criminal. Besides which, a criminal might lie.

I guess I’ll just take comfort in the fact that I’m not a drug dealer, and therefore the police would never enter my home unlawfully.

Update: MichaelW of ASecondHandConjecture comments at QandO that Virginia follows the Castle Doctrine; Thus the legislation in question concerned civil liability, but Virginians are already protected from criminal liability if they shoot a violent intruder. It is true that the legislation was about civil liability – the sponsor was concerned with a homeowner facing a wrongful death suit filed by the family of an intruder that had been killed – but my understanding of Virginia Law is that the Castle Doctrine is not spelled out in Virginia. It may be implied or understood, but my understanding is that is as far as it goes.

Of course, I am no lawyer, and the scenario in the QandO story is a bit off of my original point anyway. My point is that the reason given for killing the legislation was that homeowners might take advantage of the freedom to kill trespassers wantonly, or at least inappropriately. And I understand the concern, I guess. But the appeal that one of those trespassers might be a police officer instead of just a citizen is one I find lacking. If the intruder is there illegally, then the homeowner should be explicitly protected under the law. If the intruder is there legally, then the Castle Doctrine does not apply, and the now-dead legislation would not have, either. Whether the intruder is a cop or not shouldn’t matter at all to this discussion. Their lives are not to be held above those of citizens.

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

February 18, 2007

The Moral of the Tale of Marcotte and McEwan

Back on Friday, I read an article at Politico.com claiming liberal bloggers are “impudent, impotent, unreflective and unaccountable.” Not surprising if coming from a Republican, but in case you haven’t heard about this article, it’s coming from Dan Gerstein.

Gerstein calls lefty blogs onto the carpet for hypocrisy and a failure to address the real issues in the recent John Edwards/Marcotte/Whatshername fiasco. Let’s start with the obvious fact that the rightosphere was going to go nuts over these hires. The question isn’t whether or not these bloggers would be attacked – the question is how political allies should to respond to it. This is where Gerstein notes that the ball was dropped.

[Left-wing bloggers] have decided that the best way to fight the “right-wing smear machine” that they so despise is to create an even more venomous, boundary-less, and destructive counterpart and fight ire with more ire.

As Gerstein writes, these tactics are fine if a blogger’s objective is to engage in hate/counterhate with their ideological counterparts, or to drive an echo-chamber and the mutual-visit traffic so many sites enjoy. But neither arguments nor elections are won on the outer fringe. It is important for the serious blogger to read and engage people of opposing views in a serious manner. People simply aren’t persuaded or turned on by mud slinging or flamespraying, and neither party can win without the support of The Middle. You know, The Middle? That part of the electorate that generally claims to vote for the lesser of two evils? Some of those who defended Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte might not give a rip about The Middle. But John Edwards does, and his supporters have to as well – even his bloggers.

I am not saying that Marcotte and McEwan are less than capable writers. And I’m not even bothering to belabor the point that they weren’t well vetted – that’s obvious. I am simply saying that while it’s fine to defend their right to publish the hateful anti-Christian diatribes that sparked all of the controversy, it’s a different matter to defend the content of their writing, or to suggest that the only reason the two were attacked is because they "speak truth to power".

Too many (nearly all) on the e-Left missed the point and tried to defend these writers simply because they were being attacked by the Right. And the Edwards campaign has suffered an early embarrassment. For a candidate who currently makes the “Oh, and him” list after Senators Clinton and Obama, that’s serious.

The main lesson that serious political bloggers might take from all of this mess is that the enemy of your opponent is not necessarily your friend.

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

February 13, 2007

Some Google News

It is being reported that a court has ruled that Google News breaches copyright law by linking to articles on the internet without consent. A group of Belgian newspapers brought the suit, which Google may appeal. Two thoughts:

1. This image is one of the most delicious I have ever seen. There is nothing wrong with irony, my friends.

2. Why bring this suit? I can't see the point. As the Times OnLine notes:

Analysts said they could not understand why the group, which has filed a similar action against Yahoo!, was pursuing the case, and that newspapers benefited from having stories indexed on Google News, which made their sites more prominent and boosted traffic.

“It’s utterly mad what they’re doing,” David Bradshaw, principal analyst with Ovum, said. “Google makes you relevant, it helps people find you. I can’t see how these people think being listed would be damaging.”

[point finger] Exactly. I'd love to be listed on Google News. They can even have free access to the AtlasBlogged cache, with no complaints from me (though technically Rammage owns the site). But the suit really does seem stupid on its face.

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

February 11, 2007

Communists, Fusion, and the Moon

In reading up on the plans China has to go to the moon and mine He-3 for future nuclear fusion reactors (thanks McQ), I found a lot of what I expected. Quick points,

1) No, silly, they don't have fusion reactors in China... yet. As I noted in the comments section at QandO, I would think any mining plans floated today and enacted around 2020 would be in expectation of viable fusion reactors sometime soon afterwards. Plan ahead.

2) Yes, China is serious about fusion power. They have some excellent research scientists and facilities. This isn't a "cold fusion discovered!" story.

3) Isn't this freaking cool? He-3 is literally just lying around up there. I mean, trips to the moon are prohibitively expensive, but that can change. You aren't thinking fourth dimensionally, Marty!

4) :A quote from Lawrence Taylor, a director of the University of Tennessee's Planetary Geosciences Institute in Knoxville

When you have a communist regime in a capitalist network, you have huge amounts of cash and the ability to direct it.

So... how many Americans view that as a good thing? Something we should strive for?

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

February 7, 2007

On Trial for Publishing the Danish Cartoons

Philippe Val, publisher of the French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo went on trial this week for publishing the infamous Danish Cartoons.

The charge is “publicly slandering a group of people because of their religion” (I have seen several variants of this, so I guess the translation is a bit open to interpretation.) The charge carries a possible six-month prison sentence and a fine of up to €26,800. Val was quoted as saying, "In a democracy, we're all shocked by what people say and do. We just have to learn to talk about it.”

The shame is that he even needed to say that. As Rammage so eloquently noted last year, this situation puts the American Left in quite a quandary. Which value is more important – freedom of the press, or respect for the cultural and religious beliefs of those in third world countries? Is it okay to print cartoons that criticize Islamists, or is it not?

But even if Americans answer that question correctly, it may not help Mr. Val in his trial over in Europe. After all, Europeans have criminal bans on swastikas, headscarves, and “hate speech” (potentially on line, as well). I have no faith that justice will prevail.

Of course, maybe I will be surprised. After all, Germany recently announced that it will not push for a EU-wide ban on swastikas and Holocaust denial. There may be some pockets of Europe where dialogue is preferred to prison when dealing with those with whom one disagrees. I sincerely hope Mr. Val is in one of those pockets.

While I am on the subject of Holocaust denial, let me share with you an amusing point by the Brussels Journal:

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

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

February 4, 2007

Bad, Virginia Legislators, Bad!

Thus always to Payday Lenders.

As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the Virginia General Assembly is tackling the "problem" of payday lenders. I use the quotation marks not to imply that there is no problem, but rather to note that my legislators are not limiting themselves to their proper role in this matter. They first considering a repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002, but have since moved toward simply capping the fees lenders can charge for these small short-term loans.

Detractors (and the media) continue to insist on comparing the fee levels to compounded interest, which is not accurate or appropriate. For example,

the House of Delegates [today] advanced legislation that would cap the interest lenders could charge on short-term loans of $500 or less... The rate cap would reduce the interest on a two-week loan from $15 per $100 to $2.77...

As the article notes, the bill is not sure to pass as is. But something will be done, because legislators have decreed that something must be done. They don't even mind that payday lenders may go out of business. In fact, bill supporters are downright flip about it:

"If they can't make money off of 72 percent interest, I think they need to reconsider their business plan," said Helen O'Beirne, a spokeswoman for Virginia Partnership to Encourage Responsible Lending.

At least the General Assembly killed the proposal to outlaw anonymous sperm donation, which I think is a euphamism for one-night stands. I don't know how they planned to enforce that, but I'm sure there are some who would be willing to give it a try.

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

If We Could Just Redeploy...

I still keep hearing the argument from some that the violence in Iraq is caused by our presence. If we could just redeploy out of Iraq, they'd stop killing each other. I can't think of a more naive assessment of what's going on in Iraq. Just yesterday,

132 people were killed and 305 were wounded in the thunderous explosion that sent a column of smoke into the sky on the east bank of the Tigris River.

'It is a tragedy. The terrorists want to punish the Iraqi people. There was no police or American presence in this market yesterday,'

Of course our soldiers are targeted. Of course an argument can be made that our troops should be withdrawn sooner rather than later. But as has been noted repeatedly over the last couple of years, that will certainly escalate the violence, not end it.

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

January 30, 2007

On Benchmarks and Timetables

NPR Supervising Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving on Iraq:

This strategic timeframe, consistent back to the administration's earliest statements after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, does not necessarily require an open-ended military mission in Iraq. In fact, the full picture of administration statements on Iraq this month hints at something quite different: a prelude to disengagement.

Conjecture: President Bush, despite his mistakes, does in fact mean exactly what he says. The Surge is really, seriously, actually supposed to help suppress the insurgency in a vital time and place (now; Baghdad) while the Iraqi government further establishes itself… wait for it… wait for it… after which the US troops will withdraw and go home. They’re starting a withdrawal soon either way, as the Iraqi forces continue to take the lead in security operations and continue to take responsibility for security in the provinces. The exact time and date of the flights home would not be published on line for the same reason that exact troop placements are not posted on line – flexibility and security. That is, they would not be published even if they were inflexible, which would be immensely stupid. But the withdrawal is coming, pending a reasonably stable and capable government in Baghdad.

Call me crazy. Maybe referring to “benchmarks” instead of “timetables” might - just might - be because we are trying to tie our withdrawal to specific security goals (call them “benchmarks”) instead of a specific date.

Why are there people who don’t get this?

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

Constitutional Representation

At the blog On Tap, Marshall Manson wrote last week that the Democrats had turned their back on the Constitution:

Democratic House Leader Steny Hoyer introduced a proposed change to House rules that would allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to vote on the floor of the House.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent U.S. territories and other possessions in the House. There are five: one delegate each from the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and Guam, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
Needless to say, four of the five are Democrats.
Under House rules, delegates and the Resident Commissioner are currently allowed to cast votes in House Committees. (A practice that I believe is also contrary to the Constitution.) At present, they are not allowed to cast votes on the floor.
If the Democrats get their way, that will soon change.

And as you may have guessed, they did get their way on a party-line vote.

Mary Katherine Ham (at Townhall Blog) notes:

Perhaps after "six years of George Bush" the media thinks the "conversation has become a little one-sided," and this is now warranted. After all, the NYT story is headlined, "House restores voting rights to Congressional delegates.
The return of the privileges, first allowed by Democrats in 1993 and rescinded by Republicans in 1995, resulted in Republicans’ pouring out their frustration about their treatment by Democrats in the first weeks of Congress. The sour mood threatened efforts at forging a more cooperative relationship between the parties.

Two years on, twelve years off… the best description for that is a “restoration”, isn’t it? As Manson noted in his post last week, the media wasn’t so thrilled about it back in 1993. So fickle.

But earlier this week I heard something on this issue that really spun me up. Here is NPR’s Farai Chideya interviewing D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty:

The biggest glaring problem is that we don’t have a vote in the national legislature, we don’t have two senators and a congressperson like we should.

Two senators and a congressperson.

Two senators.

[shudder]

The pertinent part of the interview is from 5:24 to 8:57. Don’t feel compelled to listen to the whole interview on my account, but that bit is unbelievable. Chideya repeatedly tries to goad the mayor into saying more, asking him twice whether he is “hamstrung” by the situation and asking whether he will be a “champion” on the issue. I guess I should just be happy that she wears her sympathies so openly, when so many in the media pretend at objectivity.

Two senators. Look, the District of Columbia has 550,000 people. If it were a state, it would be 50th in the nation – barely ahead of Wyoming by less than the seating capacity of Nationals Ballpark. During away games, it might be 51st. It is only the 27th most populous city in the United States, and dropping. It is not a state. It should not be a state. Why does it deserve two senators?

I hope this is the last I ever hear of that proposal. Takers?

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

January 23, 2007

Liveblogging!

No, not the State of the Union. I expect that'll be the same old crap as usual. But I'm a die-hard hockey fan, and I'm watching the NHL All-Star skills competition. I'll update the blog as time permits - because I know you care. And I think it's funny.

The real excitement for tonight's competition and tomorrow night's All-Star Game is supposed to be the young players - particularly Sidney Crosby (the first teen to start in the All-Star Game since Gretzky) and Alexander Ovechkin.

21:09 I didn't realize Brian Campbell would be fast enough to even compete in the Fastest Skater category, but apparently he is. Buffalo Sabres, represent!

21:15 Andy McDonald is the fastest skater, completing a lap of the rink in 14.03. That's crazy fast. Next up is the shootout, which is a team event, West vs. East. The goalie for the West will be Marty Turco, of Dallas. He's on home ice tonight, by the way. The East has Montreal's Cristobal Huet in net.

21:22 Some acrobatic stuff, but nothing compared to the crazy things we've seen in the past. The West wins it, 2-1. Next up, a fan favorite - the hardest shot.

21:26 The commentators are clearly some sort of physics consortium, as they note the puck tends to lose speed if you shoot it higher into the net. "Keep it low to the ice" is their free advice. Cripes, that frozen rubber is flying nearly 100 mph. Zdeno Chara just hit 100.4 as I typed. Ironic that it's in mph, when most players are Canadian and many European. They don't know what hell a mile per hour is.

21:29 Sheldon Souray managed 100 mph as well. But the 6'9" Chara (that's 2.06 metres, mon frere) wins the highest speed and the East has the highest average. Up next, shootout part 2. West Goaltender: Miikka Kiprusoff, Calgary. East Goaltender: Martin Brodeur, New Jersey.

21:38 Brodeur is a beast. The East wins that round. Sheesh, and some people are watching the freaking State of the Union. Unbelievable. I'm sure that's really exciting, Dale.

21:40 Shooting accuracy! My kids and I play that in the cul-de-sac. The three-year-old can't shoot worth a damn, but the six-year-old is getting good.

21:43 Yanic Perreault hit the camera in the back of the net, but they don't give you points for that. Just the painted targets.

21:47 I have to stand for the "In the Zone" goalie event. No liveblogging of it. Sorry.

21:58 Okay, I'm sitting back down for the last round of the shootout. Vancouver's Roberto Luongo in net for the West and my boy Ryan Miller minding for the East. I believe both were perfect "in the Zone".

22:00 Intensity! Miller gave up the points and let the West tie it up. It's down to the final event, a one-on-one shootout.

22:01 Sidney Crosby and Teemu Selanne each score and it goes to another round. And a third round. Luongo finally makes a save and Selanne can finish it - and he does!

Ah... I'm done. Who has ever been excited about the State of the Union going over time? I'm sure I'll read all about the politics-as-usual tomorrow, and hear about it on the radio. But for tonight, I got my hockey fix. Good night.

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

January 21, 2007

Regulating Payday Loans

Doug Mataconis tackles an issue at the Liberty Papers that I've been meaning to write about all week. The Virginia General Assembly is considering a repeal of the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which legalized the short-term, high-interest loans commonly known as Payday Loans.

Last November, the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a panel on the topic (sponsored by Family Resource Clinic, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, and the Federalist Society). An article in the newspaper UVA Today explains the loans as well as any other source:

Payday loans are generally governed by the states, explained moderator Prof. Daniel Nagin, director of the Law School’s Family Resource Clinic. But the federal government recently got involved when Congress passed legislation placing a 36-percent cap on the annual interest rate of loans taken out by active-duty military personnel.

Obtaining a payday loan in Virginia is as simple as writing a check, Nagin said. Anyone who has a checking account is qualified to take out a loan. The payday lender will charge the borrower $15 for every $100 that is loaned. At the end of the loan period, which can be as short as seven or up to 30 days, the borrower must return to the store to repay the loan, or the company can cash the check that was written at the beginning of the transaction. The maximum a borrower can take out under Virginia law is $500...

The payday loan industry in Virginia has grown from a $165 million business in 2002 to more than $1 billion worth of transactions in 2005, Nagin explained. There are approximately 750 authorized payday loan outlets throughout the state.

750? That sounds like there is quite a demand for these places. But Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond, has a different take on that number:

There are over two payday lending stores for every McDonalds in Virginia and three for every Starbucks. This is ridiculous.

I am horrified to learn that this is the standard my lawmakers will use to judge the situation. [shudder] And that's clearly become a talking point. I have no idea where it started, but it's constantly repeated on the Richmond radio and in most news articles. My question: why have we allowed this disparity between the number of McDonalds and the number of Starbucks in the first place? What ever happened to equality in this country? And what is the ratio of payday lenders to Taco Bells? I demand an answer!

As Mataconis points out in the post at The Liberty Papers, we can question the wisdom of borrowers to enter into a payday loan, but what right does the state have to prevent it? Not that legislators give a damn about what they have the right to do, of course.

Since we're here, let's take a look at what proposals are on the table. Again from UVA Today,

The Virginia General Assembly is currently reviewing two bills that would affect the Payday Loan Act of 2002, which authorized payday lending companies to set up shop in Virginia and exempted the industry from the prior 36-percent interest rate cap. The first bill repeals the Act; the second bill introduces an amendment calling for a real-time database that would force payday lenders to report the identity of the borrower and the terms of the loan to the state. Lenders would be able to search the database when a prospective borrower wants to take out a loan. The lender would be prohibited from lending money to patrons who had three or more outstanding loans. Finally, lenders could not loan money to anyone who had terminated a loan contract within the previous 48 hours.

(emphasis mine)

I love the comments by Michele Satterlund, an attorney who represented the payday lending industry at the UVA panel:

There are no viable alternatives being presented and there is a market need. We are a product that serves that market.

When I hear [panel member Jay Speer, executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center] talk, it’s as if he’s saying people who find themselves in financial hardship are not very smart, that’s the message I get. They’re not very smart, they can’t control their money, let’s control their money for them.

Opponents of Payday lenders point to a lot of alternative sources, but when it comes down to it, they are trying to legislate away one of my options because they think they know what's best for me, and I don't. Doesn't that sound familiar?

For those who think the high interest rates warrant government action, consider a point illustrated in Wikipedia:

Payday loan makers also argue that the interest on a payday loan is less than the costs associated with bounced checks or late credit card payments. For example, bouncing a $100 check may inccur an NSF fee from the bank of $28 and a returned check fee of $25 from the merchant.

In comparison, when expressed as APRs for two-week terms:

$100 pawn loan with 20% service fee= 240% APR;
$100 payday advance with $15 fee= 391% APR;
$100 bounced check with $48 NSF/merchant fees = 1,251% APR;
$100 credit card balance with $26 late fee = 678% APR;
$100 utility bill with $50 late/reconnect fees = 1,304% APR.

I await the logical conclusion - a bipartisan proposal to outlaw usury. For the children.

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

January 17, 2007

That's What I Said!

Zalmay Khalilzad (the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), on The Surge:

We can be very patient, and we demonstrated that during the Cold War. But for patience to be sustained domestically, the American people have to believe that we have a strategy for success. I believe the American people know that Iraq is important. They have serious doubts with regard to our strategy.

(From an interview on NPR that aired today.)

Clearly, Khalilzad reads Atlas Blogged, because I think he said what I said.

Update 1/18 at 21:38: While I'll still claim Khalilzad has to be reading Atlas Blogged, I am crushed to learn that lawmakers are not. Of course, that might explain some of the achingly stupid things that roll off of Capitol Hill.

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

Obamamania

The media - and therefore the blogosphere - are absolutely manic over Barak Obama's announcement that he has created an exploratory committee - the obligatory step in his obvious path to a 2008 run for president. From CBSnews.com (links are in the original):

And every front page (except for the Wall Street Journal's, save a brief mention somewhere in the middle of the newsbox) takes note of the momentous occasion. The Washington Post, for its part, actually squeezes two front-page articles out of the news.

The teaser on this "Investigative Report" from the Chicago ABC affiliate:

In this Intelligence Report: how to protect the man who would be America's first black president.

That kind of reporting certainly suggests a lot of political weight for this political n00b. I imagine that a black presidential candidate who appeared to have even a remote chance of being elected would be the target of an extra part of society's violent fringe. And I don't mean to be dismissive of that when I say that the language of this report absolutely stopped me short. Is Barak Obama close enough to the presidency that murderous racists would attack him? I doubt he is in any more danger than any other senator, frankly. But I don't doubt in the least that he will be protected in many ways during his political career. He's just got that something that makes foreign papers refer to him as a rock star. He is vitally important, for some reason, to the Democratic Party.

And I think that's a weakness.

I spoke with a coworker about Obama this morning who articulated that weakness pretty well. This woman is active in the Democratic Party, and cares very deeply about the party's success. Her take?

He's a gimmick. He's a good enough orator that his dark skin doesn't resign him to "black politician" status, but right now, he's just a gimmick. Maybe he doesn't even deserve to be, but he is, because he's nobody, and the party is going nuts over him. It will be a long two years, and he is already stepping into that spotlight. Something will sink him, and race will get blamed. And how does that help America move forward?

If Barak Obama were white (what's that? He is as white as he is black, and raised by white people in a non-black community?), would he be anybody? If not, then have we bothered to judge him by the content of his character? How ironic that Obama's announcement of the exploratory committee came on the day after Martin Luther King Jr Day.

If it's simply time for America to have a black president in order to show how grown-up and enlightened we are, then you'd better bring me a black candidate I can vote for. I have nothing at all against Barak Obama, but I have nothing for him, either. And maybe someday he would have the vision and experience to win my vote, but right now I haven't seen anything. I can't vote for him simply on account of his having dark skin and a great smile. And shame on anybody who could.

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

January 15, 2007

The Surge - Continuing Bush's Inability to Spell Anything Out for the Public

Does the American public have any idea what progress has been made by the Iraqi government in the last year? As the map above shows, progress has been made in training the Iraqi forces and in turning over some authority to the Iraqi government - clearly positive steps and a prelude to the eventual American withdrawl. Iraq might yet more closely resemble post-war Germany or Korea than Vietnam. (We can't really hope for another Japan, of course.)

But how aware is the American public whose opinion is solicited so carefully and frequently? Do they see more than the body count on TV? Is the message getting through?

By now we all know that President Bush has ordered a "surge" of 20,000 more troops to Iraq, and Congress is debating exactly how impotent it will be in protest. Polls show the American people are unhappy. But it matters whether this is an unhappiness borne of ignorance, or an informed decision that they disapprove of Bush's new strategery and the surge of troops to Baghdad.

I just read an instructive editorial in the Yakima-Herald:

Ever since America invaded Iraq nearly four years ago, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies, insufficient military strength to fulfill an occupation role and misjudging the depth of the sectarian violence that would follow the departure of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

We've heard about the need to allow time for Iraqi security forces and the fledgling new government to get up to speed. We heard it again Wednesday evening from Bush.

Now it rings hollow.

Of course it does. This administration has made several big mistakes in foreign policy, especially in Iraq. They are not unforgivable, unfixable mistakes - except that the president has never attempted to really come clean about making them. This editorial is instructive because it highlights that the administration has never explained itself very well – it’s been a PR nightmare even when good is accomplished. Conservatives seem willing to chalk up the problem to a liberal media, but the buck has to stop on Mr. Bush’s desk, and the fact is that he’s been a terrible salesman all along.

Salesman?!? Oh, Wulf, you demean the War on Terror if you say that the president has to sell it like a can of beans.

Come on. This is politics. You can eradicate disease and still look like a villain if you are incapable of controlling your own image. As the editorial noted, the public has heard about the lack of exit strategies over and over and over again. Rather than have an exit strategy or even a clearly articulated goal, this administration has relied on platitudes and bromides. But Americans want more than appeals to patience and patriotism. They want to know when we leave Iraq, even if it isn’t right now. By refusing to talk about timelines, the administration has ceded the debate to those who invoke Vietnam. By refusing to focus on the progress of the fledgling new government – for example, the map above - the administration has ceded the debate to those who simply count casualties.

It's not that America doesn't have the stomach for a war. It's that America doesn't have the stomach for a war that appears open-ended and whose worth is uncertain.

Back to Yakima (I can’t believe I just said that):

What will come of this new effort? Do we go in with more troops, beat up on the insurgents, declare victory and then leave the country -- expecting things to level out and for the Iraqis to find peace as we define it?

Or do additional troops just make us more of an occupier -- a role history shows is not a good one for any superpower -- while we wait for the situation to improve?

How long must we wait?

Exactly the problem. Most people I’ve talked to just have no idea what the surge will do, or what it is supposed to do. Most of them think it’s pissing down the well to send 20,000 more troops to an area we want to be done with and withdraw from – an area that only ever seems to be on the news when Americans are shot at or blown up. The president has neglected the bully pulpit over the course of our time in Iraq. That he would do so seems unfathomably stupid, given how much the president has at stake here. Military success is very uncertain, and Bush also has a lot of domestic chips riding on this hand. That's a ballsy move for a lame duck whose party just lost both houses.

I don’t agree with the editorial that we should be looking for the U.N. to get involved. And I don’t agree with the main thesis - that it is "too late". But our troops will someday, somehow leave Iraq, and the question since day one has been how that will go down. There is only one person who should be able to give a definitive answer to that question. I consider it his biggest failure that he has not recognized the importance of that question and answered it to an acceptable degree.

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

January 9, 2007

Takes on Somalia

In reading about the US air strikes in Somalia, I tried to hit several sources. I particularly like to check international sources for news like this - for example, the BBC reports:

US air strikes in Somalia are aimed at al-Qaeda leaders in the region, and based on "credible intelligence", a Pentagon spokesman has said.

In its first official comment on the air strikes, the Pentagon said a raid was carried out on Sunday but declined to say if it had hit its target.

The US has long said al-Qaeda suspects linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa took refuge in Somalia.

and another BBC article:

By attacking Islamist fighters in Somalia the United States is trying to achieve two objectives.

It wants to intervene decisively on the side of the transitional government now back in Mogadishu and to get at three al-Qaeda suspects linked to bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and attacks on an Israeli-owned hotel and airliner in Kenya in 2002.

...The US sees the break-up of the Union of Islamic Courts as a good opportunity to try to remove what it regards as a serious threat from al-Qaeda in the region.

But the BBC is just a puppet for Tony Snow, as we all know, so I looked at some other sources for a potential differing point of view. Arab News:

US helicopter gunships attacked suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Somalia yesterday...

US helicopter gunships attacked suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Somalia yesterday, a Somali official said, a day after US Special Operations forces launched at least two air attacks against them in this restive Horn of Africa country. The attack helicopters were trying to kill Islamic extremists, said a Defense Ministry official. Earlier, Somalia’s president, Abdullahi Yusuf, had said the US was hunting suspects in the 1998 bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa and had his support.

Witnesses said 31 civilians, including a newly wed couple, were killed by the two helicopters yesterday. This claim and another of high civilian casualties in attacks on Monday could not be verified.

Okay. Some facts, some unverified claims that the US again blew up a wedding party or something like that. But later in that article is the criticism I was really looking for:

President Yusuf told journalists in Mogadishu that the US “has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.”

But others in the capital said the attacks would only increase anti-American sentiment in the largely Muslim country.
/
...The US airstrikes will not improve the long-term stability of the volatile East African country, the European Commission said yesterday.

“Any incident of this kind is not helpful in the long term,” said Amadeu Altafaj, spokesman for EU Development Commissioner Louis Michel.

In the US, it is reported as killing terrorists. Europeans (except the British puppets) complain that it destabilized the region. Wait, wait... we're destabilizing Somalia. In my mind, a cartoon Frenchman turns to a caricature of a German and says "Ah, I miss ze old, stable Somalia. Stoopit Americawns!"

By far the most amusing anti-American take I could find was at the "progressive" site AlterNet. Follow the link. You know you want to. Your libertarian friends aren't looking, and it's healthy to expose yourself to the fringe. Here, I will give you just a taste:

The Bush administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this oil-rich quarter of the Muslim world.

In all seriousness, I don't want to make light of the violence and bloodshed in eastern Africa. But I do want to point out that there has long been a complaint that the US involvement in Iraq is not a legitimate part of the global War on Terror, since the Iraqi government was not behind 9/11.

I always took that as a challenge to focus more on al-Qaeda, who is known to be heavily connected with the Islamic Courts Union, who have encouraged suicide attacks against Americans in eastern Africa. Osama bin Laden is reported to have encouraged the development of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia - that sounds like a part of the global WoT to me, and pretty likely to involve people directly connected to 9/11.

Um... what more could a reasonable person ask for?

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

January 1, 2007

Quiet and Dignified

There's a bit of complaint from some regarding the manner in which Saddam Hussein was executed. For just one example, BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson:

Far from being a quiet and dignified business, the new video shows that several of the witnesses taunted Saddam during the last seconds of his life, chanted the name of one of his many enemies, and told him he was going to hell.

An incredible complaint, in my view. A quiet and dignified death is usually earned through a quiet and dignified life - not through the dictatorial genocide practiced by this deposed tyrant.

And if I believed in hell, it is exactly where I would want Saddam to go. He hasn't done anything to earn the peace of not having to hear that sort of opinion. That anybody would think otherwise absolutely boggles my mind. Come on, say it with me: To hell with Saddam Hussein!

Mr. Simpson continues:

Altogether, the execution as we now see it is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which is more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice.

Mr. Simpson could not sound more out of touch. Neither could he sound much more sympathetic of the Butcher of Baghdad:

Saddam is not intimidated by any of this, and repeats Moqtada Sadr's name disdainfully, as if to say he doesn't count for very much.

Then his gruff, rasping voice can be heard saying to the onlookers "Is this manly behaviour?"...

Saddam Hussein scarcely has an instant to collect his thoughts. He starts to mutter a prayer, but just as he speaks the name Muhammad, the chief hangman pulls the lever and the trapdoor opens.

With terrible, shocking force, Saddam's body plunges into the drop.

He deserved a terrible and shocking force. He deserved to be cut off in mid-prayer. Mr. Simpson seem not to understand the principle that how a man lives is more important than how a man dies. Rather than focus on the people being rude as they string up one of the worst mass murderers on Earth, we could focus on how much better it is for Iraq that he has been executed. Rather than fret that Sunni Arabs might be offended at the treatment Saddam received, we might ask ourselves whether those Sunnis who would defend Saddam are worth working with.

There was no behavior that was too rude for Saddam, Mr. Simpson. Again, to hell with Saddam Hussein.

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

December 17, 2006

Turkey, the Kurds, and the E.U.

So I was reading the Economist last night, and two articles in particular caught my attention. They describe the likely coming military conflict between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan - a situation the U.S.A. does not want to see turning more violent. It turns out that my fellow Inactivist Alex wrote about those same two Economist articles yesterday. He summed up the situation thus:

A group of Kurdish militants/terrorists/freedom fighters/(insert preferred term here) called the PKK (Kurdish abbreviation for Kurdistan Workers' Party) is fighting the Turks but hiding in Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds have, at times, helped the Turks crack down on the PKK. Lately, however, the Iraqi Kurds have decided not to fight the PKK. The attacks continue, and Turkey now talks of invading northern Iraq to go after PKK strongholds.

So how can we encourage Turkey not to invade Iraq to strike the PKK strongholds? It's hard to argue that they shouldn't do it - though Inactivist regular Sam Franklin tries, in the comment section. (I couldn't resist poking him.) What we can argue is that there might be something Turkey wants more than it wants to invade Iraqi Kurdistan - especially if we can influence Iraqi Kurdistan to stop incursions into Turkey in the first place. In fact, I feel that the best answer to the situation is as clear as adding two and two - except that it doesn't hinge on the U.S.A. It hinges on the E.U.

As I said at Inactivist:

If only there were something Turkey really wanted, that might be used as leverage in negotiations. Something even Turkey's historical enemies might support. Something that would actually benefit the West in the perceived global culture war - secularism and materialism over religious and ethnic considerations.

The problem, of course, is that the E.U. doesn't seem to particularly want to admit Turkey. From the Economist article I linked above:

This week things went much as expected. The European Commission proposed suspending part of Turkey's membership talks, to punish it for failing to open its ports and airports to Cyprus... Yet the mood has turned unusually bad. The Turks are angry, the Europeans unbending, and it is hard to see how the talks can ever be unfrozen. For the row is not really over Cyprus but over growing doubts about whether Europe really wants Turkey to join the club.

Why wouldn't the E.U. want Turkey? People point to a lot of reasons, including poverty and a record of human rights abuses. But it seems like an obvious strategic move to admit Turkey anyway. Again from the Economist:

Its strategic significance is obvious. It abuts Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Caucasus; it has a big army (the second-biggest in NATO); in an era of energy insecurity its network of oil and gas pipelines is increasingly important. Above all, it is a rare example of a mainly Muslim country with a thriving, secular democracy and a liberal, free-market economy. The West's failure to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East makes it all the more pressing to support the only democratic Muslim country in the neighbourhood.

So what's the problem? I don't want to believe that it is as simple as some suggest - ethnic prejudice, or perhaps religious. Could it really be that Europe (much like America) seems to be comfortable with secularism only when it is Christian secularism? I'd like to think not, but couldn't it come across that way to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide who have a lot of input on how peaceful our future will be? When people add two and two, the U.S.A. does have some influence on the math. The Turks will be adding two of what, and two of what?

Unfortunately, noting that smart moves on the part of the E.U. can keep this situation from blowing up is a far cry from expecting it.

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

November 30, 2006

Why I Oughta...

George Will is taking Senator-elect Jim Webb to task for his behavior at the White House this week. Reports on the exchange have been sharply divided. Either Jim Webb is a boorish redneck thug who disrespected the entire republic when he got into a pissing contest in the face of diplomacy... or he is a straight-shooting maverick with deep convictions - Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Perhaps I am glad for his election after all! A loose cannon is always entertaining. The fact that he's my loose cannon means I get to enjoy every minute of it on the Richmond airwaves over the afternoon commute. Oh, he's no libertarian, and he's got some dangerous plans for how best to govern me, damn him, but George Allen never expressed a desire to slug anybody, to my knowledge. Mock the cowboy boots and noose if you like, but he's got nothing on Jim Webb. This man has shaken me back to posting!

[slaps Rammage]

Montgomery County, Maryland? Pshaw! Hoist the taxes! Conscript the wealthy! Slug the President! For Virginia!

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

November 16, 2006

Take that, Wulf!

I don't need you to share with me anymore. I got my own 1,000,000 Euros coming my way!

REFERENCE NUMBER: LSLUK/2031/8161/04 BATCH NUMBER: 14/011/IPD

FINAL NOTIFICATION!!!!

Dear Winner,

We are happy to inform you that you have emerged a winner under the
First Category, which is part of our promotional draws. The draws are
being officially announced today 16th of November,2006. Participants
were selected through acomputer ballot system drawn from 2,500,000
email addresses of individuals and companies from Africa,America
Asia,Australia,Europe,Middle East,and Oceania as part of our
International Promotions Program.Your e-mail address,attached to
ticket number QZ-316-NL, with serial number 8222-66 drew the lucky
numbers 9-17-5-73-8-11 and consequently won in the First Category.You
have therefore been awarded alump sum pay out of 1,000,000(One
Million Euros), which is the winning payout for Category A winners.

NOTE: For easy reference and identification,find below your Reference
and Batch numbers. Remember to quote these
numbers in yourcorrespondence with your claims Department.
REFERENCE NUMBER: LSLUK/2031/8161/04
BATCH NUMBER: 14/011/IPD
Please contact microsoftclaim department immediately for due
processing and remittance of your prize money to a designated account
of your choice:

**********************************************************************

Dr Peter Hans
Tel.:+31-644749864
Email: microclaim20@aim.com
microclaim@mail.wowmail.com
***************************************************************
N.B: Any breach of confidentiality on the part of the winners will
result to disqualification. Contact your claim department immediately.
Sincerely Yours,
Mrs Betty Rice
PROMOTION CORDINATOR

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 5, 2006

Why didn't the Supreme Court play in this year's ads?

Back in January, during the Samuel Alito confirmation process, I noted the following:

If the Democrats had any confidence in their ability to win the Senate in the 2006 elections, they would have filibustered Alito and forced the Republican hand. But it seems they are wisely saving the filibuster issue for the next nominee - the one to replace John Paul Stevens. We speculate the elderly Justice Stevens will retire (or be poisoned) before the end of Bush's term. And you thought we had heard the end of the "nuclear option" vs "constitutional option" debate, and the (un)importance of Roe vs Wade.

I am very surprised that this has not been a prominent part of the Get Out The Vote efforts. I mean for the Democrats, and for the Republicans. The process is so contentious that it seems like a great strategy for both parties to rally the base. Stop the ACLU posted an article on it last night, linking to this ~~story~~ rumor about Justice Stevens’ health. But the guy is four hundred thirty six years old, according to Ace. He doesn’t have to be in poor health right now in order for SCOTUS appointments to be a GOTV issue. It’s just really surprising to me that so little noise has been made about this, what with control of both houses having been called into question this cycle. If it doesn’t get mentioned in the ads, it won’t be on people’s minds. SCOTUS: Out of sight, out of mind.

I am a little curious to know what Justice Stevens will have to say about the confirmation hearings for whoever is nominated to be Stevens’ successor (assuming he lives through the confirmation process, that is). After all, he didn’t seem to have any problem discussing John Roberts during his confirmation. I wasn’t sure how I felt about that, but commenting on your own successor might be even more bizarre.

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

November 2, 2006

QOTD

Today's Quote of the Day goes to Tom Firey at Cato-at-Liberty:

Like a Rorschach test, we can look at Senator Obama’s not-yet-established political profile and see the outlines of our own beliefs — whatever those beliefs may be.

What a great analogy.

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

October 29, 2006

Waterboarding

What does waterboarding actually look like? If you don't know, take a look:

In order to say you are for it or against it, or someplace in between, you really ought to know what it is.

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

October 28, 2006

The Silent, Ignored, Divided Twenty Percent

Earlier this year, the Burlington Free Press printed a letter to the editor that stated, in part,

The Gallup Poll's annual survey on government found that 20 percent of the population is libertarian. Many libertarians can be found in the Democratic and Republican parties trying unsuccessfully to change these behemoths. Trying to hold the Republicans to their small-government rhetoric, and the Democrats to their promises of social tolerance and opposition to the war.

Libertarians make up the sensible center. We are socially tolerant and fiscally frugal. Libertarians are building a third party to put freedom of choice and responsibility back into your hands.

The letter was written by Hardy Machia, the chairman of the Vermont Libertarian Party.

It may not be immediately obvious, but Mr. Machia is in the minority of politically active libertarians in that he eschews the two major parties. Most people who seek policies of greater freedom do so from within the two big parties. And they generally lose that fight to those who seek to regulate, regulate, regulate. This is true with the Democrats (regulate business, regulate firearms, regulate hate-speech, etc) and Republicans (regulate relationships, regulate substances, and secretly monitor that which cannot be regulated). Libertarians who fight from within either of these two parties are on a fool’s errand.

Our plight was recently highlighted by an article in The Economist:

America may be the land of the free, but Americans who favour both economic and social freedom have no political home. The Republican Party espouses economic freedom—ie, low taxes and minimal regulation—but is less keen on sexual liberation. The Democratic Party champions the right of homosexuals to do their thing without government interference, but not businesspeople. Libertarian voters have an unhappy choice. Assuming they opt for one of the two main parties, they can vote to kick the state out of the bedroom, or the boardroom, but not both.

But the situation is even worse than this, as the two main parties repeatedly fail to deliver what they are advertising.

Democrats actually oppose gay marriage and even civil unions. Remember the way Bill Clinton burned the gay community with “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”? Why do Democrats have the support of the gay community?

Democrats are the self-styled party of inclusiveness and diversity, but they have no problem violating those principles for partisan mud-slinging based on race, creed, etc. And it’s not hard to make the argument that they have long taken the black vote for granted.

Meanwhile, Republicans are not giving us smaller government. They are fat on pork, and are so different from the 1994 GOP that even Dick Armey says they have compromised their agenda and will lose their majority in the House.

Again, why would any lover of freedom vote for either of these two parties? The only answer is pragmatism, though we know that is a formula for failure in the long run.

The Economist article concluded with an ironic, painful note that the situation is, of all things, market-driven:

Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money.

Libertarians have been hoping that the internet will be the place to find and organize like-minded, anti-government Americans. According to polls, there is a large, silent minority of us in this country - enough to control the outcome of any election, if we could only be organized toward a common goal. But we instead concentrate on our differences - some fight primarily for social freedom, while others concentrate on economic liberties. So long as that is the case, we will only get lip service from the two parties of power and big government.

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

October 26, 2006

George Allen and Porkbusters

We all know that Senator George Allen is in a tight race for re-election. The race has been receiving a lot of press - though not for substantive reasons, of course. And there is a place for that kind of thing - people do want to know the dirt on the candidates, after all. But as I have said before, the issues matter most to me.

That's why I am so glad to see Senator Allen's article at RedState: "Spending Is The Problem, Not Revenue". Allen credits the blogosphere - specifically Porkbusters - for forcing greater transparency in government spending. Says Allen:

Porkbusters represents citizens demanding accountability from their government. That is grassroots activism at its very best, and I share their goal. Congress doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Toward that end, I have supported a “Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights”...

I am also a sponsor of the “Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act”...

I also support passage of the “Stop Over Spending Act of 2006,” which I have sponsored...

Whether you agree or disagree with such efforts, it is nice to see them laid out like that. It would be helpful if more politicians would put together some articles like this, documenting their positions and the legislation they have/will sponsor. We could start with Jim Webb, frankly.

And after the election, I'll judge Allen's performance by this article. Considering that he is widely assumed to have presidential aspirations, it should be a great opportunity to demonstrate that he says what he means and he means what he says. Or that he doesn't.

Again, would that more politicians in both parties would author some articles with some specifics. At least, I would personally appreciate it.

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

October 25, 2006

Firefox 2.0 Released

Just wanted to get a plug in for the new and improved version of my favorite browser, Firefox, released yesterday.

I was a Netscape user from the time it was created until the time AOL bought Netscape and things went seriously downhill.

It took a while for Mozilla to shape up into Firefox, but now that it has, I very rarely have to fire up Internet Explorer.

I've been using Firefox 2 beta, and now Firefox 2, for quite a while now, and think it's the best browser around. (No, I haven't tried Safari. But I have tried Opera.)

My plug wouldn't be complete without a link, so if you're not already using Firefox 2, get it here.

(The photo shows the congratulatory chocolate rum cake sent to the Firefox team from the Internet Explorer development team. It was reportedly not only completely non-toxic, but quite tasty. One Firefox developer did report crashing on the way home, however. [Okay, so I made up that last bit.] )

Image credit: Firefox

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

September 17, 2006

Once More on Jim Webb and George Allen

A couple of last thoughts tonight on the Webb v Allen exchange on Meet the Press.

First, a quote from Webb that I found very interesting:

We didn’t go into Iraq because of terrorism. We have terrorists in Iraq because we went in there.

That line reminds me of the Bush Administration’s assertion that

We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.

(October 2004, link)

No?

Next, MTP host Tim Russert asked both men whether the US needs to send more troops to Iraq – a position taken by William Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of the National Review.

Allen: We’re going to need to do what it takes to succeed...

Webb: I know what it’s like to fight a war like this. And there are limits to what the military can do. Eventually, this is going to have to move into a diplomatic environment. Now, that’s where this administration seems to have blinders. They’re not talking to Syria, they’re not talking to Iran.

These answers both leave a bad taste in my mouth. I am guessing that when Allen said we may have to send more American troops to Iraq, every Liberal in the nation had a mild aneurism. And then when Webb suggested that the solution to quelling the Iraqi insurgency is to bring in the Iranians and Syrians, every Conservative in the nation had a mild aneurism. This part of the show was like watching a duel where each participant shoots himself and dies. But Allen has to have won this episode, because Webb promptly rose from the dead and shot himself a second time:

Russert: When you were last on this program in 1985, you said that conscription, the draft, was good for the military, the country, and the individual. Would you vote to reinstate the draft?

Webb: I don’t believe that right now, this country needs a draft.

That was the best Webb could do on that question? Call me needy, but I want my senator to be the kind of guy who scoffs at the question, rolls his eyes, and says that conscription isn’t even debatable in this day and age.

Okay, we’re up to a third topic. Tim asks whether the $300 billion that has been spent on Iraq could have been spent better in the war on terrorism, port security, homeland security, etc.

Allen kinda evaded that question, essentially falling back on the “it happened, let’s not second guess, let’s look forward’. That would be fair for him to say if he had been in the opposition, but he wasn’t. It happened because this administration and this Congress made it happen. We didn’t slip on our tea and fall into Iraq; we went in on purpose and we spent $300 billion on it, ostensibly to make this nation safer from terrorism. I want to know whether Senator Allen, who was a part of that, thinks that it was money well spent. I want to know if he is looking to spend that kind of money again over the next few years. But he didn’t want to say.

For his part, Jim Webb says there was a better way, but hasn’t said how. I don’t think I buy that. Look, I’m a very non-interventionist kind of guy. I don’t like America invading other nations. But we can’t take a punch in the nose and then curl up into a ball. If between 9/11 and now we had spent that $300 billion building walls on the Mexican and Canadian borders, and beefing up port security and airport security, we would not be safe from terrorism. I would not be comfortable with that response at all. This was Mr. Webb’s chance to convince me, and he passed on the opportunity.

My fourth topic for tonight is that Webb continually implied that George Allen and anybody else who hasn’t served in the military is ignorant on how to use the military. We heard a similar theme from the Kerry campaign in the 2004 elections. This is a point that many on the Left like to use to zing the current administration, as neither the president nor the vice president served in the United States military. In fact, the only cabinet members to have served were the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, and of course the Secretary for Veterans Affairs. For a presidency that will be defined by armed conflict, they run very light on personal experience.

This is, of course, irrelevant to the question of whether Jim Webb is better qualified than George Allen to be my senator. But furthermore, I think this is a very dangerous line of argument for the Democrats to keep embracing. For example, how will it play with those Democrats who run for president in 2008? Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich… none of these have military experience, to my knowledge. This point will still sit at the same level of irrelevance to me in 2008, but it still strikes me as a dangerous tune for this party.

The last topic that caught my eye from either candidate was near the end of the interview, when Jim Webb said
African Americans are the only ethnic group in this country that have suffered from deliberate discrimination and exclusion by the government over generations

I’ll be sure to let my American Indian friends know. It’s a shame that this ridiculous comment distracted me from whatever it was Webb was talking about, because I believe it was something about affirmative action being off track from its original, lawful purpose. I might have liked to have heard that, but my brain stopped short at the comment I shared above.

I’m not sure whether I will be able to catch the upcoming debate between these two, but if I do, I’ll share my thoughts here.

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

Webb on Women in the Military

This speaks for itself...

...but I'll make a few comments anyway. Jim Webb’s comments about women in 1976 were wrong, and he doesn’t seem to recognize this even today. Russert gives him the perfect opportunity to say that he was wrong, and it should be easy, because time (and some courageous women) have proven him wrong. Everybody is wrong from time to time. But he just won’t say it. Why?

The comments were not only wrong, they were irresponsible, as they were made while women were in the military academies. He says that he doesn’t think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time, but the fact is that his participation was harmful to those women, and therefore the military itself. It was a stance that was unhelpful, combative, and inflexible. I understand his statement about 4:18 on this clip regarding using the military for social experimentation. But neither can the military be allowed to violate legal standards of equality simply for the sake of a slow transition in warrior mindset.

I won’t refuse to vote for Webb on this one issue, of course, but it just doesn’t instill confidence. I prefer to see a politician admit when something they said was wrong, which Webb’s comments were. This brings up another part of the interview, however.

Right after this clip, Russert asked George Allen about some comments he made regarding whether women should be allowed into Virginia Military Institute. Quoting Allen:
Russert: From American Enterprise magazine, “If Virginia Military Institute admitted women, it wouldn’t be the VMI that we’ve known for 154 years. You just don’t treat women the way you treat fellow cadets. If you did, it would be ungentlemanly, it would be improper.” Men and women shouldn’t be treated the same at a military institution?

Allen: The regiment at VMI and the way that it was… the curriculum, the training, would be ungentlemanly to treat women the way that they were doing it.

Without defining what Allen meant at the time by the word “gentlemanly”, I have to point out that this is completely accurate. Now that VMI admits women, it is not the VMI that it used to be. For better or worse, it’s not the same. The curriculum and training have been changed, and there is no point in denying this. But Allen backed away from saying so:
Russert: But has women at VMI worked?

Allen: Yes, it has.

Russert: So you were wrong?

Allen: Well, we were wrong. But here’s the point, here’s the difference: the Supreme Court said we were wrong, [and] we complied with that decision.

No, Senator. SCOTUS said that the practice of not allowing women into VMI was wrong. They did not say that the women should be subjected to the curriculum and training that were in place for 154 years. They said that women had to be admitted, and had to be given access to the same curriculum, training, and opportunities as the men. Senator Allen should have stepped up and said that VMI has done an excellent job of adapting to this new environment (and he probably could take some of the credit there, too). But he let Russert give the impression that it is the same VMI as it ever was, and the same ungentlemanly environment that used to exist.

I said that I prefer to see a politician admit when something they said was wrong, but Allen admitted to being wrong when I don't feel he actually was.

I will likely put out some more thoughts on today's Meet the Press. Perhaps after the kids are in bed...
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Webb v Allen

I really need to put some of my thoughts down on this race for the Senate seat from Virginia – you know, the one currently held by former Virginia governor George Allen. I should be sharing my thoughts because
1) I live in Virginia,
2) George Allen is thought to have presidential aspirations, and the outcome of this race could set that stage or damage it severely,
3) There is some ridiculous poo-flinging that ought to be squelched by any reasonable observer,
4) This race really highlights the untenable position of the American libertarian.

Allow me to expand on that last one. There is no libertarian candidate in this race, even for those of us who do not feel that such candidates are a wasted vote. The only candidates are the Republican (incumbent George Allen), the Democrat (James Webb), and the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which is not to be confused with the Green Party of the United States (i.e. the real Green Party).

Now, I have outlined more than once before the reasons why I support the growth of “Third Parties”, including those who do not represent my point of view. I think it would be very good for this nation to have several viable parties instead of just two. But even given that, I don’t think I can vote for the candidate from the Independent Green Party of Virginia: Gail “For Rail” Parker, whose motto is “More trains, less traffic”. I mean, I have to be able to take the fledgling third party seriously on some level.

So I’m left with the two major parties as options. I start with the Republican, George Allen. I start with him because he is my known factor. Specifically, he is an incumbent, which means he has probably done something to piss me off during his term. That goes without saying. And he’s a Republican – a party I am especially angry with, as they trick liberty-loving people into voting for them with promises of smaller government and cowboy bravado, but then they grow government, partly through pork-barrel spending. So out he goes, right? Well, that’s what the Democrats are hoping. And I’ve thought about it. But the Republicans are the lesser of the two evils, and the Democrats are the evil of two lessers, as discussed previously.

Okay, how about the two men as individuals? The following really caught my eye in an article on Jim Webb in the June 15th edition of The Economist:
Mr Webb is not much good with people, and has no patience for such campaign chores as fund-raising. He knows little about the issues, save one: the war in Iraq, which he passionately opposes.

Great. A one-issue candidate. And it’s not exactly an issue on which I find Allen particularly out of line. I’ll be writing more on this race between now and the election, partly in order to make sure I’ve got my thoughts as straight as possible on it. And I will definitely be watching Allen and Webb tomorrow morning on Meet the Press. What, no Gail Parker? I have to say that early on, I am leaning hard away from the Webb campaign, because I haven’t seen his camp demonstrate that he would do anything better than Allen has. It’s all been about macaca and race-baiting. I demand substance.

Full disclosure: Jon Henke has been hired asNetroots Coordinator with the George Allen Senate Campaign. He is blogging the campaign at GeorgeAllen.com. And he is a personal friend of mine. But what I say is what I think, and I have no qualms about telling a friend when I think they are wrong, or even just overstating their case. Anybody who doubts this will be directed to my friends who co-blog with me on this site, who will be happy to tell you that I don’t let friendship get in the way of hashing out a good disagreement.

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

September 13, 2006

Top Ten Headlines You Won't Read Today

10. Absolutely no one was killed or even hurt yesterday in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Israel, or anywhere else in the Middle East.

9. Beautiful 22 year old woman marries 92 year old man. Man is completely
broke and has no will.

8. Las Vegas sports books delcare that absolutely no money was bet on any
of the NFL games over the weekend.

7. Small boy falls into pool and was about to get out on his own but
family dogs grabs him and drags him back into pool, thus helping him
drown.

6. Category 5 Tornado rips through trailer park in Oklahoma and after it
has passed through left the trailers in a state of being cleaner and
having shiny new curtains.

5. Single male, age 40, wins $350 million in lottery and passes by and
ignores 6 strip clubs on his way to a local church to donate the full
amount.

4. LaGuardia Airport makes an announcement that, in order to cut down on
travel time, they are removing all airport security and people can board
planes in mere minutes without now waiting in long lines.

3. Catholic Priest takes 15 eight year old boys on a weekend camping trip
into the deep woods...and absolutely nothing happens.

2. President Bush gives a 2 hour speech of thanks after completing the
clean sweep by winning the Pulitzer Prize for economics, humanity, arts,
and sciences.

and the #1 headline you will not be reading in the news today:

1. Hey Bob, this is Pete, the newsprint guy. I know we were supposed to
run a headline about the War on Terror, but just wanted to say instead
that I am banging your wife. Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

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

August 27, 2006

Bob Smither, Netroots, and Name Recognition

Netroots activism has had a few impressive showings, including the recent victory by Ned Lamont over incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s primary elections. The Nation magazine summed it up thusly :
Ned Lamont's victory was driven by two triggers: First, the war elicited a primary opponent; then Internet activists convinced voters that he was a viable alternative.

In other words, there was a demand for change. There was somebody willing to supply that change. Internet activism simply got the message out.

Now, I don’t want to overstate the effect of the blogosphere on a campaign, but clearly blogs are able to get the message out and generate a lot of attention. If a politician has a message that resonates with voters, then a netroots campaign is exactly what he or she needs in this day and age. Name recognition, media coverage, and the buzz of the old-fashioned grassroots movements can help to bring down unpopular incumbents, or draw attention to a candidate who might not otherwise be seen as viable.

Can you see where I am going with this?

In an excellent post at WatchBlog, Richard Rhodes wrote:
The fact is whether many people want to admit it or not is that name recognition does matter. And this is the one thing that third parties lack.

Richard is correct that this problem will certainly burn “third party” candidates in the next presidential election. Congressional elections, however, are a different matter. Name recognition is easier to achieve in a single congressional district. But even in a congressional race, third party candidates generally lack name recognition because most people just don’t care. The real race is between the Democrat and the Republican… if there is both a Democrat and a Republican. I would like to suggest that in any race where there is not already both a Democrat and a Republican, there is a potential for a third party candidate to make a very strong showing and possibly even win a seat. Of course, trying this against a popular incumbent, this would present quite a challenge for even the most savvy and enthusiastic netroots activists. But what if the incumbent is unpopular… or what if there is no incumbent?

A netroots movement may be trying to build up around Libertarian Party candidate Bob Smither for Tom DeLay’s old congressional seat (District 22 in Texas). With Republicans unable to field a candidate, voters face a choice between the Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither. Will Republicans vote for a Libertarian just to spite the Democrats? Well, considering Smither’s promise to caucus with House Republicans if elected, and considering that Republican voters tend toward fiscal conservativism similar to that of Libertarians, they might be persuaded.

Jon Henke at QandO calls it the the Ron Paul option.

Other bloggers picking up the cause include Stephen VanDyke at Hammer of Truth, James at Swing State Project, and they’re arguing about it at Daily Kos.

A full read of the article by Lance at Inactivist.Org may spell out the best argument for pushing a netroots campaign. He asks for help in getting Bob Smither elected:
First, we have one more vote against big spending…
Second, we have the opportunity to send a message; most importantly Republicans have the chance to send a message that we as a citizenry are unhappy with the course our representatives have taken.

Hey, Lance, I'm on board. I can't vote for Bob Smither, but I can support his candidacy. I will direct people to his website. I will encourage netroots activism, not only among Libertarians but among all "third party" supporters, and independents. If you are reading this, please look into Bob Smither and see if you can support him and/or his candidacy.

Let's get the word out. Bob Smither for Congress.

(This article was originally posted at WatchBlog)

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2006

Book Tag Meme - Rammage

Okay, since everyone's doing it:

One Book That Changed My Life: Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. This was my gateway drug into reading science books for pleasure.

A book I have read more than once: If we're counting “books on iPod” then I've 'read' Bernard Goldberg’s Bias, Ann Coulter’s Godless and How to Talk to a Liberal, and Peter Schweizer's Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy hundreds of times while mowing the lawn. If we're talking strictly meatspace, then the only book that I've read more than once as an adult is William Gibson’s Neuromancer (can anyone understand this book in only one reading?) As an aside, the only book I had ever read more than once pre-adulthood was Vonda McIntyre's The Entropy Effect, but I would never openly admit that in a public forum such as this.

One Book I would want on a desert island: The Great Mussel and Clam Cookbook (okay, okay, point taken. I’d have to go with Tolkien for its escapism.)

One Book that made me laugh: Now this is a toughie. I suppose anything by PJ O’Rourke. Or maybe Rex Pickett's Sideways? I don't know if this would count, but if I had to list the book that has elicited the most laughs from me, then I'd have to go with The Onion's Our Dumb Century. Read the fine print.

One Book that made me cry: Timothy Zahn’s Star Wars, Heir to the Empire Trilogy, The Last Command. Grand Admiral Thrawn died too young. Stupid Noghri.

One Book I wish I had written: Andrew Chaikin’s A Man on the Moon, the bible of early U.S. space flight. How much fun would it be researching and interviewing the historic figures from the birth of space exploration?

One Book you wish had never been written: 2061, Arthur C. Clarke. Bleh. Runner-up: Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. I chose this book as the topic of a high school book report for the sole purpose of being a smart-ass. It was a decision I regretted.

One Book I am currently reading: One? I have the unusual habit of being in the middle of reading many different books at the same time, choosing which one to continue reading based on the whim of the moment, much like flipping through the channels with a remote control. Currently I am halfway through Edward Rutherfurd's Sarum, Patrick O'Brian's Post Captain, and Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks And White Liberals.

One Book I have been meaning to read: Atlas Shrugged (Shhhhh – yes, it’s the great, dark secret of Atlas Blogged to my eternal shame. I do, however, place Anthem and Fountainhead as runners-up to books that have changed my life.)

Now Tag Others: I tag Atlas Blogged's Jib Halyard, Boon, R*ck, and G-Dawg.

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

August 17, 2006

Federal Judge Rules NSA's Domestic Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional

Today, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program (that’s the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” to the Fox News audience) is unconstitutional, and ordered that the program be halted immediately.

Of course, the White House disagrees. The U.S. Justice Department has appealed the ruling, issuing the following statement:

In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaida and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people.

The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties.

The same old rhetoric we’ve been hearing for months…

My question to the supporters of this program is: Where does this presidential power end?

Warrantless wiretapping is the legal equivalent of unlawful search and seizure, which is clearly prohibited by the 4th Amendment. If the administration’s argument affirms that, because we’re at war, it can contravene the 4th Amendment, then why doesn’t that same argument have the capacity to circumvent the entire Bill of Rights?

What, then, keeps a wartime executive from disrupting our freedom of speech? Our right to bear arms? Our right to assemble?

Of course, this must be a tough question because the Attorney General of the United States, Antonio Gonzales, had some trouble answering that basic line of questioning himself during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on wartime executive power:

SPECTER: Well, then, let me ask you this: Under your interpretation of this, can you go in and do mail searches? Can you go into e-mails? Can you open mail? Can you do black-bag jobs?

And under the idea that you don't have much time to go through what you described as a cumbersome procedure, what most people think is a pretty easy procedure, to get a FISA warrant, can you go and do that of Americans?

GONZALES: Sir, I've tried to outline for you and the Committee what the President has authorized, and that is all that he has authorized.

LEAHY: Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens? That you can answer yes or no.

GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation about...

LEAHY: Did it authorize it?

SPECTER: Let him finish.

GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the President has authorized and what we're actually doing. And I'm not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about...

LEAHY: Mr. Attorney General, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you what the President authorized.

Does this law -- you're the chief law enforcement officer of the country -- does this law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens, yes or no, under your interpretation?

GONZALES: Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here.

We're only focused on international communications where one part of the communication is al-Qaida. That's what this program is all about.

LEAHY: You haven't answered my question.
And he never did.

Posted by Jib.Halyard | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

August 16, 2006

AOL Goes Stark Ravin' Mad

Avast, ye hearties!

AOL finally cracks; plans to dig for alleged buried treasure on private property (not their own).

AOL believes a renegade Internet spammer buried gold and platinum on his parents' property in Massachusetts and wants to bring in bulldozers to search for the treasure and satisfy a $12.8 million judgment it won in federal court.

The family says it knows nothing about any buried treasure and will fight AOL's gold-digging plans.

Wow.

Read the whole story here.
Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2006

The Direction of the Democrats

I like this Henry Payne cartoon because it is a reminder that each party has its left wing and its right wing keeping it aloft. Libertarians and others in the United States are dissatisfied with the current two-party system. But the LP will never get off the ground with the narrow orthodoxy it currently espouses. I sometimes wish for system of proportional representation, with a smörgåsbord of political parties. Of course, to some degree we already have that, since the two viable parties are themselves coalitions of narrow interests. And it is healthy to keep in mind that those interests will jump party if it serves their interests - most voters care for their pet issues much more than loyalty to a particular party, especially if they do not see that the party is loyal to them.

Any thoughts on the future of the Democratic Party without Joe Lieberman? What level of loyalty will he have to the DNC if he is elected this fall as an independent? What is his future if he does not win the election?

10:20 Update: Ironically, McQ is also discussing libertarian orthodoxy today.
As with most purges, the attempt isn't to make the tent bigger, but instead smaller. Any indication of impurity is grounds for ouster, even though, as you'll see, a claim of "tolerance" will be made at a later point. In reality, those who possess "the truth" have little patience or tolerance with others who don't toe their line.

I would agree with McQ completely, if I didn't follow his link to this article and actually read what it says. But I did, and Mona does have a point, which is that calling oneself "libertarian" does not make it so. I mean, I guess xrlq is free to call himself neolibertarian, but from what I have seen of him, he is a small-government Republican. His calling himself otherwise doesn't change my judgment. The same for Noam Chomsky, who is a socialist... not a "socialist libertarian".

Unfortunately, Mona is one of the most divisive regulars at QandO, and she probably couldn't call the sky blue without many of the regular commenters jumping her case - and they are true to form today.

It reminds me a little bit of an old friend who was a member of the Gay Republicans. Most Republicans felt that he wasn't really a Republican, since he was openly gay and atheist. But the fact is, there are two simple GOP litmus tests; one formal and one informal but no less real. He passes the formal test - he was in fact a Republican, as evidenced by his voter registration card. He would not, however, pass the informal test of getting support from other Republicans if he ran for office. He was not a real Republican in that sense.

The libertarians are such a politically disorganized group that we do not have any effective litmus test, though we have some strong indicator issues.

Is Mona wrong to ask the questions;
1. Should any of these be ostracized and shunned from the libertarian ranks?

2. On the basis of what litmus test(s)?

How ironic that she should be ostracized for even asking. My answer is that there are some self-identified libertarians who should be called out. Maybe not ostracized from discourse, but I certainly won't claim them all as my ideological brethren. And daring to ask questions is not my litmus test.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

July 30, 2006

I Can't Live on this Salary!

I find that most editorial cartoons are really good at communicating a really bad point. Usually, it is that so-and-so is stupid. I am not sure that this one by Etta Hulme is any different in that respect, but I find it very interesting. I hope it can spark some conversation - I'd like to hear some opinions on it. Is there a fair point being made? Talk to me.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

July 9, 2006

The Deb Frisch Debacle

(Updated)

I'm coming up on this Debbie Frisch story late, true to the "Rammage's Law of Blogosphere Inactivity" that states that the most interesting stories always break when I'm away from the computer for more than 24 hours. I have nothing much to add to this story that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseam (start here, here, and here), but I did find one morsel that I'd like to share.

This snippet, entitled "quacks@Oregon" is from Ms. Frisch's blog, written on January 22, 2005:

I used to work in the psychology department at the University of Oregon. When [they] denied me tenure, the only way I could fight it was to allege discrimination on the basis of sex and/or sexual orientation.

Well, of course. I think that goes without saying. What else could it be?

With such artful prose as this:

Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind! Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro.

...It's difficult to imagine why she hasn't achieved tenure yet. The ironic part of Ms. Frisch crying she-wolf at the University of Oregon is that her comment above was made to Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein, and his two-year-old son. She should be so lucky that the law will not take her threats as seriously as if they had originated from a man made towards someone else's two-year-old daughter.

More here: "Frisched:" Unhinged Academic of the Year

Update: In retrospect, I probably should have taken the Don Boudreaux-approach in dealing with Deb Frisch -

I received today this trackback to an earlier post of mine. It’s quite hostile. And its author – one Deb Frisch – commits several mistakes.

I began to write a reply, treating her comments seriously. But after getting a few paragraphs into my reply, I decided to learn more about Ms. Frisch. So I googled her name. A few minutes of exploration convince me that any response would be futile, a waste of time.

Exactly.

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

July 3, 2006

Teachers-vs-Unions

What a sign. It is displayed on the side of a truck that is parked out front of the NEA convention in Orlando this weekend. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation had the truck done up with three different billboards that cycle over time (see the other two images here - No Means No and here - a beautiful pie chart).

The National Education Association is a pretty powerful lobbying group. That's actually how they explained to me that I should be a member. I've spoken with them every spring since I started teaching. I was very impressed this year with the ability of the NEA rep to look me in the eye and keep a straight face when answering questions like "Why is the average salary of an NEA employee roughly twice that of the average teacher salary?" (It's because they work so hard, by the way.)

The website Teachers-vs-Union appears to be advocating simply that teachers be given the choice of whether to join the NEA. Since I work in a Right-to-Work state, they aren't talking about me. People sometimes forget (or never knew) that membership in the NEA is not forced on teachers in every state – though they are in most cases. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research (here);

Roughly two-thirds of K-12 public school teachers nationwide, including union members and nonmembers alike, are forced to accept an "exclusive" teacher union agent as their spokesman in contract negotiations.

And in many union-stronghold school districts, either the mammoth, 2.6 million-member National Education Association (NEA) union or the equally power-crazed, 1.2 million-member, AFL-CIO-backed American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union wields monopoly control not just over teachers, but also over other school employees, including teaching aides, nurses, guidance counselors, librarians, bus drivers, and even principals.

I love the language - nothing says objective and non-partisan like the use of the phrase "power-crazed". But when they're opposing the NEA, they're still going to be the good guys. Consider:

Union officers attending the NEA's summer 2000 convention passed a resolution acknowledging that union policy "opposes providing additional compensation" for hard-to-fill teaching positions in critical subject areas like math and science. The NEA brass also snubbed talented, hard-working teachers in all subject areas by declaring their categorical opposition to "any . . . system of compensation based on an evaluation of the education employee's performance."

Of course we should pay more to fill positions that are hard to fill. Supply and demand! Why do brain surgeons make more than grocery baggers? The same reason that hard-to-fill teaching positions should be paid more than those positions that are easy to fill.

(Oh, Wulf, you’re just saying that because you teach in a hard-to-fill position! Um, no… if my goal here was to make more money, I’d be leaving teaching for private industry. I mean, I’d love a raise – who wouldn’t? I am just saying that my argument here is not based on having a dog in the fight. If I were that type, I wouldn’t be a teacher to begin with.)

Personally, I don’t like national unions of any kind. When the NEA advocates federal policy, it is highly unlikely to represent most of its members accurately. Despite the lefty stereotype, teachers are pretty evenly split along party lines, as much as the rest of America (see that beautiful pie chart again). The NEA buys itself trouble by advocating positions that are not directly related to education and teacher contracts. How representative of NEA members was it really, when the union took a stand to support gay marriage? I mean, I’m all for it, but there is no reason to believe that most teachers are, or that they want their union dues to go toward any advocacy either way on the issue.

The farther afield the NEA strays, the more they look to be partisan hacks whose time is spent making excuses for their own existence and expansion – wasting money and clout that could be benefiting children instead of the NEA staff. I highly doubt I am the only teacher to make the connection – especially with that billboard truck parked right outside the national convention.

Thanks to Cato@Liberty for sharing the initial story.

For more on Right to Work laws, see here.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court to visit EPA Rules on CO2

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case involving the federal regulation of greenhouse gas pollutants.

In 1999, various environmental groups filed an administrative petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for greenhouse gases. The EPA denied that petition in August 2003, saying that it had no statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. At that time, EPA also said it would not regulate greenhouse gas emissions even if it had the authority to do so under the Clean Air Act.

In October 2003, [Massachusetts] and 29 other parties challenged that ruling in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit [and lost].

This March, Massachusetts and 28 other parties filed a petition for certiorari requesting Supreme Court review. Today, the Supreme Court agreed to review the federal appeals court case.

(story here)

As the Tacoma Tribune notes, the decision could determine how the nation addresses global warming.

I expect many on the right to stick with arguments that the Earth is not warming (false) or that it is only warming because of non-human activities (false) like the fact that the sun is shining brighter (true) and that this ruling could make it illegal to exhale (false and only mildy humorous even the first time, after which the comment has no humor value unless followed by a blast of secondhand cigarette smoke), but that doesn't help the debate. The question is, Has Congress already mandated that the EPA regulate the emissions of CO2? If so, then the EPA seems to be in the wrong in deciding not to do so.

And that does appear to be the case, says the National Resources Defense Council. As reported here, they note the wording of the Clean Air Act:

As evidence, the council cites Section 103, subsection (g) of the act, which states, in part, that federal officials should develop nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or reducing "multiple air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, PM-10 (particulate matter), carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, from stationary sources, including fossil fuel power plants."

But the EPA says that the word "nonregulatory" in the above passage is the key to the whole issue. If Congress has not given them the power to regulate these emissions, it doesn't matter how detrimental anybody believes them to be. That seems pretty clear to me, but the split decisions in the lower courts make me wonder how exactly this will play out, both when this case is heard in October and over the next several years. I'll be holding my breath. [rimshot]

The other states involved in the case are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

June 13, 2006

KFC Sued for Frying Chicken

Unbelievable. (Well, sadly, not...)

The Center for Science in the Public Interest sued the parent company of KFC on Tuesday to try and stop it from frying foods in an artery-clogging fat.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, in a suit filed against Yum! Brands, Inc. in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, said some KFC meals were "startlingly" high in artery-clogging trans fat from the partially hydrogenated oils used for frying.

Well cry me a river. How about taking some personal responsibility for what you shovel into your face? Fast food should be a treat, not a staple.

Is cheesecake illegal yet? 'Cuz I've got a craving.

Source: Reuters
Posted by Rick | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 8, 2006

Berg Watching

Reuters and CNN rushed to Michael Berg, parent of slain Nicholas Berg, for his absolute moral authority-laden opinion on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, thus reinforcing the point of this week's Ann Coulter brouhaha. This interview will undoubtedly be dissected by many who are far more qualified writers than I, covering such points as:

Nick Berg was a grown man and a civilian, in Iraq voluntarily for non-military purposes
Nick Berg was, in fact, not killed by George W. Bush
Michael Berg is running for Congress, and doing a splendid job of using his son's death to launch his political career
Papa Berg is the MSM exploitation-of-the-week

And so on. So I won't bother getting into all of that. But there's something else in the Berg interview that rang in the back of my mind. He said:

As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

[...] I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people.

This reminded me of an essay Carl Sagan once wrote called "The Rules of the Game." In it, he asks if there might be a scientific way of measuring the moral codes that have regulated the behavior of man "since the dawn of civilization."

He begins with, but dismisses, the Golden Rule as being too forgiving:

"The most admired standard of behavior, in the West, at least, is the Golden Rule, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Everyone knows its formulation in the first-century Gospel of St. Matthew: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Almost no one follows it. When the Chinese philosopher Kung-Tzu (known as Confucius in the West) was asked in the fifth century B.C. his opinion of the Golden Rule, of repaying evil with kindness, he replied, "Then with what will you repay kindness?" Shall the poor woman who envies her neighbor's wealth give what little she has to the rich? Shall the masochist inflict pain on his neighbor? The Golden Rule takes no account of human differences. Are we really capable, after our cheek has been slapped, of turning the other cheek so it can be slapped? With a heartless adversary, isn't this just a guarantee of more suffering?"

Sagan went on to describe other morality rules, such as the Silver, Brazen, and Iron rules (and Tin, of his own devising). But he also dismisses these as being either too lenient or too unforgiving:

"The Golden and Silver Rules seem too complacent. They systematically fail to punish cruelty and exploitation. They hope to coax people from evil to good by showing that kindness is possible. But there are sociopaths who do not much care about the feelings of others, and it is hard to imagine a Hitler or Stalin being shamed into redemption by good example. Is there a rule between the Golden and Silver on the one hand and the Brazen, Iron and Tin on the other which works better than any of them alone?"

Sagan ends up settling on "The Tit-for-Tat" rule, which is essentially the Brass or Brazen Rule (Do unto others as they do unto you), except this rule always employs an initial, peaceful approach to all others, right up until you are grieved. Indeed, the Tit-for-Tat "involves an interesting mix of proclivities: initial friendliness, willingness to forgive, and fearless retaliation." But this rule loses its effectiveness if everyone playing doesn't fully understand the latter half: Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.

Whether Berg believes his rhetoric or not is a matter of speculation, and largely irrelevant. What does matter is his broadcast that we are somehow in solidarity in our sole employment of the Golden Rule, and no fear of retaliation is warranted if someone should assail us. This endangers us equally if not more so than overt acts of aggression, but the Left chooses to only view a single side of this issue: unmitigated peace, at all costs.

Whatever Berg's personal and political motivations may be behind condemning Iraq, his son was killed by al-Qaeda. The very mentioning of Saddam Hussein is setting up a straw man, one easily devoured by the media and the Left. Kudos to his political savvy, granted, but it's also a clear window into this man's character. While Ann Coulter might be tempted to say that she's never seen a grieving father enjoying his son's death so much, for my part, I'm just wondering: If Michael Berg cannot "be glad that another human being is dead," then how can he not have - at the very minimum - a desire for justice to be served to the murderer of his son?

Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.

On a semi-related note, this man's a socialist.
Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 24, 2006

Partisan Burnout

Look, I don't know what the excuses are for the rest of the writers at Atlas Blogged, but I have been suffereing from partisan burnout. It seems absolutely pointless to even comment on Rep. William Jefferson, illegal immigration (an interesting op-ed, even if your eyes fall out of your head at the phrase How can we encourage those already in this country to send even more to their families in Mexico?), gas prices and gouging, Al Gore and global warming, or the ubiquitous violence in Gaza.

Even the opening of the rebuilt 7WTC - an excellent story that has a lot of potential tie-ins and the bonus of conspiracy theorists - couldn't get a good article out of me.

I am just trying to write my final exams for my students, finish up the school year, and enjoy the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs - my Buffalo Sabres have been doing very well, thank you.

One of the problems with being interested in politics but unwilling to wed myself to either of the filthy major parties is that as issue after issue comes up, personal liberties are eroded. I am frustrated that the tack taken by the various branches of government at all levels never seems to be to get off my ass - to increase personal liberties in any theater is simply not a realistic government action. The argument is never one of liberty versus authoritarianism - it is simply an argument of which flavor of growing statism we would like. There is no party of small government in this country. Thomas Jefferson is dead.

Atlas Blogged has a very small number of regular readers, but they are an appreciated group. I respect and thank each of the people who comes by on a regular basis, and I apologize for the partisan burnout that grips me. In other words, I blame myself. I'm sure all will be right as rain soon - like, when the Sabres finally win it all.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 14, 2006

How to Beat a Taser

If you are not familiar with the effects of an electroshock gun (e.g. Taser), it's pretty easy to find video clips of them in action. For example, a police training video can be seen here.

A consulting firm has created a polyester fabric bonded to a conductor in order short the taser and protect the wearer. Compare the previous video with the one in this story. G2, the company who makes the material, won't be making it available to the public.

G2 sells the material only under nondisclosure agreements to law enforcement agencies and the military. The idea behind the fabric is that it could prevent officers from being hurt by their own weapons...

Still, G2 could spawn imitators, which could create headaches for stun gun manufacturers and police agencies, many of which have said that stun guns reduce the number of incidents in which police officers have to fire bullets.

If that happens, cops might have to go back to lethal force more readily. What an interesting comment on our society - considered so decadent and barbaric by so many in this world - that we should spend so much time and effort trying to put our police officers in a position where they can inflict less suffering. Personally, I just find the Thor Shield fabric fascinating from a techie point of view. But I am sure law enforcement sees it a little differently.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 9, 2006

Croissant of Islam

Ah, the joys of discovery. Allow me to take you through a web-surfing journey:

I read an article today at Little Green Footballs called Belgian Churches Becoming Mosques. A commenter named "Pettifog" responded to a call for Charles Martel:

And to think, it was the Charles the Hammer (born in Belgium) and his Franken armies so long ago that stopped the Moorish armies, thereby saving Western Civilization from the world wide Caliphate. Now the Belgians, with the French and Dutch beside them, are surrendering their culture, religion, society, politics to those who have no concept of "civilization" and without any fight. Charles the Hammer must be turning over in his grave.

I'm not sure how I got from there to here, but Robert W. Martin had this to say about Charles Martel and his famous battle of Tours:

How do you connect a roll with medieval warfare? What does the battle of Tours (732 AD) and a tasty breakfast food have in common? Well, unless you eat your morning meal with a battle axe or you consume your sausage and eggs while clad in Saracen armor, most would say not much. However, there is an edible connection to the Battle of Tours which should make for some very interesting table conversation. When news of the great victory spread throughout the Frankish countryside, bakers began to fashion bread in the form of the Islamic crescent. The croissant was served up as a testament to Charles and a symbol how he devoured the invader on the battlefield. Today, the French croissant still holds a place of respect at most breakfast tables. And yet, many people are unaware that their favorite roll has a direct relationship to an engagement fought over 1200 years ago.

Pretty neat, eh? I was so excited by this Clavenistic Factoid, that I quickly put together the above graphic for an Atlas Blogged article.

Only, it's not true.

According to the editor of the Oxford Companion to Food, "[...] the earliest French reference to a croissant he found was among the fantasy or luxury breads in Payen's Des substances alimentaires, 1853." The croissant, as they say, is a relative newcomer in the pastry world. The myth of it being created as a tribute to Charles Martel is apocryphal, and off by about a millennium.

But I already had the graphic made up...so, I thought I'd share.

The OChef wraps things up nicely:

The sad thing is, the truth in this case is not nearly as interesting as the myth. No one knows when or where the first croissant was baked, but it was definitely in France and certainly not before 1850. The word was first used in a dictionary in 1863. The first croissant recipe was published in 1891, but it wasn't the same kind of croissant we are familiar with today. The first recipe that would produce what we consider to be a croissant wasn't published until 1905, and, again, it was in France.

So there you have it, everything you'd ever want to know about croissants. I take comfort in the fact that - in a thousand years from now - historians will be speculating on how the croissant evolved into the croissan'wich.
Posted by Rammage | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Real Letter from Iran to Pres. Bush

Dear Mr. Bush:

You suk. We gots nuks, and u looz! LOL! Iran FTW!!!

Cincerearly,

"Krazy Kat"

ps. If U luv your kountree so much, why dont U marry it?

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

May 1, 2006

Nuestro Himno

Nuestro Himno is the Spanish-language "interpretation" of the Star Spangled Banner - the National Anthem of the United States of America. It is supposedly getting a lot of radio time on Spanish radio stations and conservative talk radio shows, though I confess I don't listen much to either.

A friend told me that NPR had a piece that pretty well summed up my feelings on the issue. I hadn't caught that story on the air, but it's available here (you can also hear the song there), and my friend was correct. NPR doesn't seem to understand the fuss, and I don't either.

Update Below

But it's supposed to be sung in English!

Um, okay. I grant that it was written in English. In fact, it was written about the English - they were after all the ones who were waging a perilous fight against the United States when Francis Scott Key wrote those beautiful words. Ironic, no?

But for me, personally, the meaning of those words transcends the English language. For this reason, I find Nuestro Himno to be not an iota more (or less) disrespectful or inappropriate than the caterwalling, improvisario, jazzed up and funkadelic versions of this song that I have been subjected to at various sporting events over the years. If it is not worth getting into an uproar every time some country or R&B singer stuffs their performance full of extra notes, repetitions, "yeah yeah yeah"s, etc., or if it is not worth getting upset about every time the National Anthem is played as an instrumental piece, i.e. stripped of all of Francis Scott Key's meaning and left as naked music that predates Key's lyrics and their sentiment, then why get upset about the National Anthem being sung en espanol? Or, to turn it around, if you are going to be purist about the National Anthem, like Josue Sierra (and I respect that), then are you at least consistent? If not, then your hypocrisy will interfere with whatever point you might be trying to make.

Well... perhaps there is a legitimate reason to fuss a little. Consider the infamous Harris poll that showed 61% of American adults do not know the words to their National Anthem (even in English). "As few as 15 percent of American youth can sing the words to the anthem from memory".

The fuss should not be about whether the song has been translated and celebrated in another language. The fuss should be about what that translation and celebration actually mean. The song has become neglected by the citizenry of America, who are only half-joking when they say that the last two words in the National Anthem are "Play ball!"

If you are not one of those people, and you are taking this situation very seriously, then let me give you my two cents: If the people who are singing Nuestro Himno are doing so in celebration of the principles upon which this nation was founded, then you should stand up and observe proper etiquette during our National Anthem, even if you do not understand the language in which it is being sung, and even if you disagree with the person singing. To paraphrase something I was told in boot camp, we show respect to the flag and the principles; not to the singer.

And if you don't think the song was meant to celebrate this nation, then you go ahead and celebrate this nation anyway. Have the courage to observe proper etiquette anyway. Stand up. Make that song mean something.

Says President Bush: "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

I agree - but there should be no obligation to do so. This is, after all, the land of the free.

Update:
The Wikipedia authors (users?) are having a nice little row over this song, see here, including the following:
Below is a REAL translation, not a parody. Read it and compare it to the Nuestra Himno parody.

La bandera estrellada Traducción por Guillermo F. Hall, de Guatemala
Oh, decid: ¿podeis ver, al rayar de la aurora lo Que vimos anoche orgullosos flotar? La estrellada bandera, tremolando altanera, encumbrada en La torre y excitando luchar! Y a la luz de la roja, fulgurante centella, la Bandera ondeaba, ondeaba más bella; Y a través de la densa humareda inflamada, Con qué orgullo miramos la bandera ondear!

¡El pendón de la Patria, la bandera estrellada, Encumbrada en la almena convidando a luchar!

Oh! decid, ¿todavía contemplais la bandera, La estrellada bandera, Sobre suelo de libres que defienden su hogar? A través de la niebla, de la mar a la orilla Iracundo enemigo nos atisba a marchar. ¿Qué es aquello que ondula, que flamea y simula Un enjambre de estrellas refulgiendo en el mar? Ya del alba recoge la primer llamarada; Ya se oculta en la niebla, ya aparece inflamada; Ya ostentando sus glorias se refleja en el río; Ya sus franjas y estrellas nos deslumbran al par.

¡El pendón de la Patria, tremolando bravio Y flamenado en la almena nos incita a luchar!

¡El pendón de la Patria, la estrellada bandera, Tremolando altanera Sobre suelo de libres que defienden su hogar!

¿Dónde está la falange enemiga y aleve Que con vana porfía se atreviera a jurar Que al fragor de la guerra, en la lucha que aterra, Perderíamos patria y familia y hogar? ¡Con su sangre lavara la verguenza inferida De su paso a la hulla por la tierra querida! Encontrar no podría un refugio el taimado, Que en su fuga oprobiosa la pudiera salvar Del terror de esa fuga, del morir angustiado Con el ansia del triunfo que no pudo alcanzar. Mientras tanto tremola la estrellada bandera Y triunfante, altanera, Sobre suelo de libres nos custodia el hogar Siempre así, cuando altivo se levante el patriota Defendiendo su suelo, su familia y su hogar, La radiante victoria lo circunde de gloria, ¡Y bendiga al Eterno que lo hiciera triunfar! Y pues Dios nos asiste y la lucha es tan santa, Y el pendón de la Patria nos alienta y levanta, Conservemos la Patria, el hogar que adoramos, Y adoptamos por lema, sacrosanto y sin par: ¡"Sea Dios nuestro guía; en su apoyo confiamos!"

¡Justiciera es la causa que nos manda a luchar, Y el pendón de la Patria, la estrellada bandera, Tremolando altanera, Sobre suelo de libres nos conserve el hogar!

Notice it says "our guide Is God" and "defend our home"
User:Clydeman

There seems to be some confusion about how much liberty was taken with the lyrics, and that may be because there is more than one "interpretation" of the song. The Washington Post notes:

In the Spanish version, the translation of the first stanza is relatively faithful to the spirit of the original, though Kidron says the producers wanted to avoid references to bombs and rockets. Instead, there is "fierce combat." The translation of the more obscure second stanza is almost a rewrite, with phrases such as "we are equal, we are brothers."

An alternate version to be released next month includes a rap in English that never occurred to Francis Scott Key:
Let's not start a war
With all these hard workers
They can't help where they were born

Also, WaPo paraphrases Michelle Malkin:

Transforming the musical idiom of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is one thing, argue the skeptics, but translating the words sends the opposite message: We are not Americans.

It is all about the language. Is that the message from Malkin and others? We don't care what you look like, or what you eat, or how socialist you are, so long as you speak English.

[shrug]

Some people may consider that important. But it certainly does not represent my point of view.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

April 29, 2006

Let the Market Work

From The Economist:

Alternative fuels will not become common overnight, as one veteran oilman acknowledges: “Given the capital-intensity of manufacturing alternatives, it's now a race between hydrocarbon depletion and making fuel.” But the recent rise in oil prices has given investors confidence. As Peter Robertson, vice-chairman of Chevron, puts it, “Price is our friend here, because it has encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also the alternatives.” Unless the world sees another OPEC-engineered price collapse as it did in 1985 and 1998, GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day (see chart 2).

Sure, it hurts to pay $3.00 per gallon when we remember gas being less than a dollar. The average 2-driver American household now spends well over $4,000 per year on gasoline, driving an average of over 40 miles per day. We have placed ourselves in a very vulnerable position over the last couple of generations, with inefficient vehicles and long commutes. It is our right to choose this lifestyle, and it is our right to have to afford it. The anger at Big Oil is ridiculous. The call for government intervention is dangerous.

Americans are honestly ignorant of how the market works. The obvious solution to higher gasoline prices is to use less gas or adjust your household budget. Alternative fuels will be made available just as soon as businesses can afford to do so - this works without government investigation or interference. It's too bad that our nation's collective ignorance might prevent things from developing of their own accord.

More from that Economist article:
What of the notion that oil scarcity will lead to economic disaster? Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, an American think-tank, insist the key is to avoid the price controls and monetary-policy blunders of the sort that turned the 1970s oil shocks into economic disasters. (article here - Wulf) Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and the former chief economist of the IMF, thinks concerns about peak oil are greatly overblown: “The oil market is highly developed, with worldwide trading and long-dated futures going out five to seven years. As oil production slows, prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil, but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come.”

The other worry of pessimists is that alternatives to oil simply cannot be brought online fast enough to compensate for oil's imminent decline. If the peak were a cliff or if it arrived soon, this would certainly be true, since alternative fuels have only a tiny global market share today (though they are quite big in markets, such as ethanol-mad Brazil, that have favourable policies). But if the peak were to come after 2020 or 2030, as the International Energy Agency and other mainstream forecasters predict, then the rising tide of alternative fuels will help transform it into a plateau and ease the transition to life after oil.

The best reason to think so comes from the radical transformation now taking place among big oil firms. The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from “an exploration business to a manufacturing business”.

And why would that be?
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 26, 2006

The Chair

Take a moment and step into a world that as of today does not exist. A hypothetical world that has created an invention so amazing and so wondrous that its very existence will change the lives of everyone from the moment it is activated. Imagine if you will, a world that creates an invention called "The Chair", and this invention's purpose is to once and for all clean up the world's legal systems.

For far too long legal systems around the world have been bogged down with paperwork and politics. Criminals found 'not guilty' are set free, even though they are not innocent. Innocent people are found guilty and punished accordingly, even though they were not responsible for the crime laid upon them. It is these tenants that force a group of scientists and engineers to create a lie-detection system so strong and so foolproof that it becomes the ultimate in deciding guilt or innocence.

Picture in your mind a chamber, much like a courthouse, with a judge's bench, only there is no jury box. It is not necessary. Instead, there resides the Chair. Resembling a grand throne, only dark in color and with many wires attached to it, it is far from regal indeed. Two, large lights hover above the throne. While not in use the lights are dim, but in use they simply show one of two colors. Red, or green.

Now picture in your mind a trial in session in this room, and the defendant is hooked up to this chair. Prosecution lawyers have their list of approved questions, and the defense attorney's only job is to agree on said questions to be asked, and to make sure that the defendant is treated properly. This particular case involves the murder of a six year old girl, and the man in the chair is accused of the crime. A murder trial, in the real world, would last how long? Weeks? Months? Perhaps years? How much would the trial cost taxpayers? This does not include appeals or suspensions or even mistrials.

This particular trial takes 10 minutes. That's it.

The judge comes in, everyone rises, the bailiff reads the procedures, and the prosecution lawyer begins. To verify that the Chair is working fine, they ask the defendant (Mr. Smith) a series of mundane questions to verify the results. Are you Mr. Smith? Where were you born? What is your middle name? Questions to that effect. To each response a green light glows above his head, indicating truth. After two minutes of this, the dance is over, and the real questions begin.

"Mr. Smith, did you murder (insert victim's name here)". Mr. Smith shifts uncomfortably, visibly sweating, and answers

"No I did not." Red light appears above his head. Red, menacing, and glaring. The crowd in the courtroom murmurs amongst its self. The defense sighs and the prosecution continues.

"Mr. Smith, do you recognize this?" (Shows Mr. Smith a picture of the murder weapon.)

"No I do not." Red light flashes again.

Now, the cynic in us would immediately doubt the accuracy of such a machine. A machine that could detect a lie or truth within humans so accurately, that it would become an official part of the legal proceedings. Lawyers of the defense variety would be fighting each other to keep the Chair from ever, ever being used.

But remember, this is a hypothetical world, a world where the Chair's accuracy was tested and questioned and tested again for years, and never, ever failed a test. Not once. It's usefulness proven beyond a doubt, that its use in the courts now is no longer questioned.

Also keep in mind the flip side of having such a tool. Flash back to Mr. Smith, sitting in the chair, but different circumstances.

"Mr. Smith, did you murder this girl?"

"No I did not." Green light flashes above Mr. Smith's head, and his defense nods knowingly, while the prosecution scratches its head and wonders what its next move will be. The prosecution pauses, and then asks Mr. Smith another question.

"Do you know who did murder her?" The smug smile fades from Mr. Smith's face quickly, and suddenly he is sweating. The defense objects, because that question was not approved, but the damage is already done.

So you see, dear reader, the power of such a machine if used in a courthouse. How much time, how much money, how many lives could be spared by such a gift? Imagine historical moments re-written by such a machine.

"Mr. Simpson, did you murder Nicole Simpson and/or Ron Brown?"

"Mr. Oswald, did you shoot President Kennedy, and if so, did you work alone?"

"Mr. Hussein, do you have weapons of mass destruction?"

Now we all know that a machine does not exist. Variations of it does, but they are not nearly the answer that the Chair represents. We are years, perhaps decades or centuries, from obtaining such an invention. Perhaps it is within our own human nature to never have such an invention exist.

Therein lays the rub. Would humanity accept and assimilate into the very fabric of their society a machine that robs us of what we do best? The truth, as an ideal, is a great concept, but we all know that we are far from obtaining it. Whether lying to others or lying to ourselves, humanity is based upon lies, or half-truths, or distorted facts. Could such a machine truly exist in our world? Sadly, I would submit that it probably could not. Humanity has the capacity for many things, but being able to accept the honest truth is a concept that we cannot accept.

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

April 14, 2006

What Would Spidey Do?

As much as it pains me to link to USA Today, with this story, I just have to.

Shades of the Patriot Act? In what Marvel Comics calls "the most politically charged comic series ever," superheroes must reveal their secret identities and register with the government or resist and be hunted. The seven-issue miniseries, Marvel: Civil War, on sale May 3, finds the government enacting the Super Hero Registration Act, declaring that such folks as the Hulk, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four are "living Weapons of Mass Destruction."

The story "is an allegory for the current American political landscape," says editor in chief Joe Quesada. "Should people sacrifice their civil liberties to create a safer world?"

Strait-laced heroes such as Iron Man are willing to comply, but rebels such as Captain America are ready to resist. Which side will each hero choose? That's part of the sell.

And don't miss Marvel: Civil War #2 in June. Creators promise Spider-Man's decision will be one of the biggest shocks in that character's (gasp!) 44-year history.

I never collected comics. But these, I think I will have to pick up.

Comments from Andrew A. Smith of Scripps Howard News Service:

"Civil War" has been building in titles like "Amazing Spider-Man," "Fantastic Four" and, most importantly, a one-shot called "New Avengers: Illuminati." These books have established that public concern in Marvel books has been building over the burgeoning numbers of masked, super-powered vigilantes during a time of war.

"The end of the series has massive ramifications," [Series writer Mark Millar] said. "This is one of those things that comes along that shapes things for times to come. ... There's very much a pre-Civil War and post-Civil War Marvel Universe coming at you."

"On the one hand you know people are saying there's all this political allegory," Millar said. "But at the other end it's all about these big Marvel fights between these two characters, which is all I read growing up. ... Marvel has always been about who's the biggest and who's the strongest, whether it's the Hulk or the Thing. In many a ways it's a 7-year-old's fantasy."

But a fantasy with teeth. And unlike most comics, no side is presented as completely correct and no facile answers are supplied or suggested.

So this isn't just kid's stuff. And reading around on some different sites, I note that Millar says in interview after interview that he doesn't want this to be a black-and-white issue... or rather, a red-and-blue issue. None of the superheroes comes out as a conservative, apparently, nor do any claim to be liberals. The series promises to tackle complex issues of liberty and security, so for those of us who never owned more than a few comics, or even for those of you who have never read a single one, maybe on this subject you ought to. It could be thought provoking. And if not, then hopefully it will at least be fun.

Comic fans might enjoy this article by Dave Richards at The Comic Wire - check the forum and the Related Articles at the bottom.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

April 13, 2006

Iranian Mines vs US Minesweepers

Juxtaposition:

News story April 4:
Amid concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, analysts are worried it could resort to a wide range of weapons and tactics to disrupt the world's busiest oil shipping lanes if armed conflict erupts with the United States, AFP reported.

Because its shores line the narrow Straits of Hormuz, Iran could quickly hit both military and commercial shipping with missiles launched from land, air or sea as well as cripple maritime traffic with mines or sunken ships, they said.

Despite a technological edge, US and allied navies would have less time to react to such threats in the lanes between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean than in, say, neighboring Iraq, Washington-based analyst Andrew Koch said.

"Absolutely, they have the ability to do that (block shipping) today," he said.

Now, blogger Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money, April 13:
Interesting article in the latest Defense News about the Navy's decision to fold its minesweeping assets into the Anti-Submarine Warfare Command. The move obviously doesn't make sense to the minesweeping community, and doesn't make much sense to me, either. The Navy has been quiet about the move, but the article suggests that the decision was made by officers without much interest and experience in mine warfare. The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet. Some of the material gap will be covered by the minesweeping module of the new Littoral Combat Ship, but the folding of mine warfare into ASW has some officers concerned that minesweeping will get the short end of the budgetary stick in a Command dominated by ASW.

Why is this a problem? Mine and submarine warfare are both naval equivalents of asymmetric warfare. They are weapons of the weak, designed to offset an enemy surface or air advantage. Of the two, mine warfare is less expensive and potentially more dangerous, especially as the USN's focus has moved toward littoral areas where mines will likely be most effective. Anti-submarine warfare is more expensive, more interesting, and higher tech, which is probably why the Navy seems more interested in it than minesweeping. While this isn't the most serious crisis facing the Republic, it is evocative of a Pentagon culture that continues to focus on expensive, high tech solutions to problems and ignore low tech, asymmetric threats.

Pop quiz: Does Iran have a lot of high-tech submarines, or a lot of smalll, hard-to-find, quick-to-deploy mines?

I commented on the dangers of Iran's low-tech naval tactics a couple of weeks ago in the discussion thread of a story at QandO. Iran's plans for shutting down the Straits of Hormuz in the event of a major conflict are for real. I find this latest USN fleet development very distrubing. I keep re-reading the part about The move will also result in the retirement of half the USN minesweeper fleet.

If you were shocked by the sight of a gaping hole in the side of the USS Cole, consider the fact that Since World War II, 14 U.S. ships have been sunk or damaged by mines, while only two have been sunk by enemy fire. See this NPR story from three years ago for more about mines in the Persian Gulf. And ask yourself what other disturbing developments might come from failing to take Iran seriously in the Straits of Hormuz.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

April 8, 2006

San Francisco, City of Refuge and Solution to Illegal Immigration

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting:

A cross-section of elected officials, religious leaders and immigrant-rights advocates in San Francisco is vowing not to comply with proposed legislation that would criminalize living in the United States illegally and make helping undocumented immigrants a felony. Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will not cooperate with any federal attempt to criminalize illegal immigration. "This is a city of refuge," Newsom said at a press conference Thursday.

This got me thinking about my own ideas for illegal immigration reform.

Charles Krauthammer says that we should:

Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

I agree, but for one difference. Instead of building this double-barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, as Krauthammer believes, I think it should follow the border from Texas to California. At the California border, the wall should turn right and encircle the entire state of California, separating it from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California, with San Francisco as the new capital, should open her doors to unlimited illegal immigration, with the city of refuge being the hub for registering for all new immigrant social programs that California will offer.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city, a city of ~~refuse~~ refuge, and we always will be." I couldn't agree more. And what better way to show it than opening the doors to your city to all of the illegal immigrants.

Judging by these photos at Zombie Time, it's clear to me that San Francisco is composed of some of the finest, most compassionate and tolerant people America has to offer. You all are great Americans and will be performing a wonderful service for your country.

In retrospect, though, I guess you must be a little embarrassed about rejecting the USS Iowa now. The retired battleship would have made for fantastic converted housing.
Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 18, 2006

Microsoft bullied by EU

When I heard the reports last month that Microsoft had opened up the source code of its Windows Server OS (hoping to avoid a possible 2 million euro per day fine from a 2004 court decision), my first thought was that Microsoft had been absolutely bullied by the government, and as with any bully, the EU would only be encouraged to go for more.
"We have now come to the conclusion that the only way to be certain of satisfying the Commission's demands is to go beyond the 2004 Decision and offer a license to the source code of the Windows server operating system," said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith. That license to the source code can now be given to any software developer who tells the EU they need it in order to make their software work better with the Windows OS. What about Microsoft's intellectual property rights? Well, screw them, they're a big old mean corporation. Right?

It isn't enough for the bully. Today, Microsoft is in the news again. I did a search of the news nets and found Brussels Journal right at the top, and they have also noted that the EU tactics are familiar to the schoolyard. Over the last six months or so, Brussels Journal has become my favorite for news about Europe, behind only the Economist. From Brussels Journal's article on Microsoft:

The EU Commission swiftly reminded the media and Microsoft that it is the European Commission’s responsibility, and not Microsoft’s, to decide whether it was in compliance. So the EU prosecutor is simultaneously adopting the roles of the judge and jury. In the light of the Commission’s anti-trust and competition policy so far, one can be pretty sure that it will still refuse to acknowledge compliance.
The saddest thing in all this is that European consumers are the real victims of the European Commission’s crusade against companies that serve their customers well.

Well said, Chresten Anderson. And readers, if you think Microsoft is evil, don't use them. It really, really, really is that simple.
Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

June 28, 2005

Supreme Justice

There is justice in the world.

Including the particularly apropos:

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by Rammage | TrackBack (0)

Atlas Blogged
Powered by Movable Type 3.31 · Hosted by LivingDot
Designed and written under heavy influence of Macallans