April 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.

-William Pitt

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 (1) | 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)