Political Lomcevak (Tumbling the Liberal Mindset)

2003-11-02T21:12:00.000-08:00

Until further notice, I will be a contributor over at Blaster's blog.

2003-09-05T11:52:00.000-07:00

This is very interesting.

Apparently the Diebold Electronic Voting systems are as secure as Windows XP, which means the opposite of robust.

The full story is here, as told by Jim March

2003-09-04T21:11:00.000-07:00

From the Sign on San Diego

August 30, 2003

For those without relatives in the military, war news can become a blur of daily press briefings and TV news reports. For Teri Merickel, the conflict got up close and personal during a flight from Chicago. She walked aboard her United plane to San Diego behind a Marine captain who was with a young woman. The officer was carrying what appeared to Merickel to be a beautiful trophy in his arms. The two passengers were seated directly across the aisle from her. Merickel admired the "trophy" but didn't have a chance to ask what it was because another passenger quickly came back from the first-class cabin and invited them to come up to that section. After they moved, the passenger returned and took one of the empty seats. He started sobbing.

After a few moments he composed himself, apologized to Merickel and explained: He, too, was a Marine en route home from Iraq. He informed her that the beautiful "trophy" she had seen was actually carrying the remains of a fallen Marine. The wife of the deceased and the urn were being escorted home by the officer.

The story doesn't end there. Merickel soon learned that the fellow who had done this good deed was returning home to San Diego on a brief 26-hour turnaround for the first time in nearly a year.

His 9-year-old daughter had saved all her money to help buy a first-class ticket for her dad. But when he saw the grief-stricken widow and her Marine escort sitting in coach seats, he asked a flight attendant if he could give his seat to the woman, and if the captain could take the empty seat next to it.

When the plane touched down, the pilot announced that a fallen Marine was aboard. Everyone was silent and the passengers remained in their places while the widow and her escort disembarked. As Merickel said goodbye, she asked the Marine passenger next to her if he was going to tell his daughter he gave up his first-class seat.

He thought and then softly replied, "Maybe someday."

Words escape me.

2003-09-04T21:02:00.000-07:00

School is back in session.

You know, they told me that:

The first year they scare you to death, the second year they work you to death, and the third year they bore you to death.

I am in my third year of law school, and they are killing me with work.

So bloggin will be intermittent, sorry.

2003-08-21T11:54:00.000-07:00

Haven't fisked in a while, so here goes.

And this turd is on the homepage over at MSN, or worm central. (Fixed that hole yet, Bill?)

"Israel assassinates Hamas leader
MSNBC News Services

The Mideast's fragile truce all but shattered on Thursday, after Israel assassinated a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip and the main Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad declared a 7-week-old cease-fire dead. The violence dealt a blow to the U.S.-backed "road map" to peace in the region, prompting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to warn that both sides were heading for "a cliff" if they abandon the plan.

The assassination by Israel dealt a blow? Israel's action dealth a blow? Israel's violence dealt a blow? No, you morons, it may have been the fact that a whole bunch of children got blown up by a Hamas animal on that bus returning from a religious camp that dealt a death blow to the "road map."

PALESTINIAN PRIME Minister Mahmoud Abbas called the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab "an ugly crime" and warned that it would make it harder to crack down on militant groups. Under pressure from Washington and Israel, the Palestinian leadership had decided on a clampdown just hours before Abu Shanab's killing.
Abu Shanab was riding with two bodyguards in his gold-colored station wagon Thursday in Gaza City when four or five missiles fired from an Israeli helicopter hit the vehicle. The car burst into flames and three bodies were pulled from the wreckage. Fifteen bystanders were hurt.

How come the Israelis knew where this guy was, and you did nothing for 36 hours? Was that bus bombing an ugly crime? And yes, once again, just hours before the PA had decided on a "clampdown." Even after the Israelis had been threatening for 36 hours to do something. And as far as making it harder to crack down on militant groups, please provide a progress report. Don't have one? Yeah didn't think so

Dozens of Hamas supporters at the scene dunked their fists in blood, raised their hands and vowed revenge, chanting "God is great."

Anyone see such a scene at the bus bombing? See any Isrealis dipping their fists in blood and chanting religious slogan, while swearing revenge? Nope, I saw despairing and weeping fathers and mothers, while ambulance workers frantically tried to save the injured.

Israel has routinely targeted members of Hamas' military wing but rarely gone after the group's political leaders. Abu Shanab, a U.S.-educated professor of engineering, was the third member of Hamas' political wing to be killed in the past two years. Israel says the distinction between political and military leaders is insignificant, because both are involved in planning attacks.

We educated this guy? In engineering? Does this scare the crap out of anyone but myself? Hamas is a terrorist organization. To me it makes little difference is you put up posters, speak for an organization, or act on orders, you are part of an organization that deliberately targets children, and women.

"There's no question that there is a direct link between the heads of Hamas and the terrorists on the ground," said Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir, though he would not say explicitly that Israel killed Abu Shanab in response to Tuesday's deadly bus bombing in Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned that if the Palestinian Authority "does not take all the necessary steps in the war against terror, real and substantial steps, it will not be possible to advance on the diplomatic track."

Good luck Ariel, I think you are back to square one.

MILITANTS SAY TRUCE IS OVER
Hamas formally called off a three-month truce it declared June 29. "We consider ourselves no longer bound by this cease-fire," said a Hamas leader, Ismail Hanieh, after identifying Abu Shanab's decapitated body at a Gaza City morgue.

In a separate statement, Khaled al-Batesh, an Islamic Jihad official, said Sharon "ended the truce and announced its death."

Hamas had carried out two suicide bombings despite the cease-fire, including the Jerusalem bus attack Tuesday that killed 20 people. The group had insisted these were limited retaliations for deadly Israeli raids and not violations of the truce.

And here is the goddamned point, the one that should have been at the top of the article. Hamas and fellow bastards never felt that they were "formally" bound by the ceasefire. To them, a ceasefire is a time of respite for rebuilding. A time to slow, not stop the killing of Jews, whilst avoiding large hits themselves.

Abbas warned the missile strike would hamper the planned crackdown, saying, "This for sure will affect the whole process and the decision taken by the Palestinian Authority." Earlier Thursday, he met with a U.S. envoy, John Wolf, to discuss the authority's next moves.

The planned crackdown? Tell you what folks. Why don't you go and google the phrase "planned crackdown" and Palestinian Authority, and see how far that goes back?

There's the planned crackdown by Arafat in December of 2001

And another in 1999

And another in 1998

So I can understand why the Israelis were slightly hesitant to believe that this time was the time. But that doesn't stop the breathless reporters.

At the United Nations, meanwhile, Powell warned that the so-called "road map" to peace was in jeopardy and called on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to assist in the clampdown on the militant groups.

I really don't get Powell. Why even mention Arafat? That bastard has caused so much of the current problem. We have managed to do a decent job of marginalizing him, so why the hell mention his name?

"(I) call on Chairman Arafat to work with Prime Minister Abbas and to make available to [him] those security elements that are under his control so that they can allow progress to be made on the 'road map' --end terror, end this violence," Powell told reporters. "The end of the road map is a cliff that both sides will fall off of."

Sorry Powell, but the Road Map already had an inbuilt cliff.

Israel had suspended what it calls targeted killings and what the Palestinians call assassinations during the cease-fire. But the Israeli security Cabinet decided late Wednesday to renew the practice, in response to the Jerusalem bombing, the deadliest since the launch of a U.S.-backed peace plan three months ago. More than 100 people were wounded in the blast, including about 40 children.

Again, buried in the story. From the lead you would have thought that the Israelis decided to nail a Hamas leader for thier jollies.

After taking office in April, Abbas had shied away from confrontation with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and armed renegades in his own Fatah movement, saying he feared civil war.

Abbas. You have one job, and one job only. To reign in your extreme elements. If you cannot, we have to find someone who can. Why should the Israelis talk to you if you can offer nothing.

Oh, and you already have a civil war on your hands. Trouble is, you are not even fighting it. Forget losing, you simply are not fighting.

U.S. PRESSURE
Pressure mounted after the Jerusalem bombing, however, with the United States demanding an immediate crackdown. "There's funding, there's support, there's munitions, there's organization, and all that needs to be taken apart," said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

In a first step, Abbas ordered the arrest of all those directly involved in the bombing, and then asked his Cabinet for proposals on a wider clampdown. The ideas raised in the Cabinet meeting, including arrests, a gag order on Hamas and Islamic Jihad spokesmen, and the freezing of assets of militant groups, were taken to Arafat and top PLO officials for approval late Wednesday.

Don't buy it. Show me. Stop dithering.

The meeting, which lasted until early Thursday, was at times stormy. Abbas had told his ministers earlier that he would resign if he did not get Arafat's full support for taking action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but it was not clear whether he made the threat in Arafat's presence.

In the end, Abbas and Arafat agreed on a joint statement which said the Palestinian Authority would enforce the rule of law, take control of illegal weapons and end "military displays" by the militants, a reference to marches led by gunmen.

Ummmm, I don't think it's the displays that bother the Israelis. Its those fucking bombings that are bothersome.

The Palestinian leadership statement did not refer to arrests, which would appear to be a cornerstone of any crackdown, but Palestinian officials had promised there would be detentions.

"It's a campaign that even in the worst nightmares Hamas and Islamic Jihad never imagined," said Elias Zananiri, a spokesman for Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan, speaking before the missile strike. "There's a list of people to be arrested.".

See my previous point. I will believe this crap when I see action. The PA has been promising this stuff before Google even existed.

After Thursday's attack, a Hamas leader in Beirut told Reuters that the group was hopeful that the Palestianian authorities would rethink the crackdown.

"We hope that the Palestinian Authority...learns the lesson that the Zionist enemy wants to use it to realise its aims in oppressing the Palestinian people," Osama Hamdan told Reuters. "We consider that it is up to the Authority government to stop its threats to the resistance and return to the Palestinian people in the framework of a national dialogue based on protecting them."

Jesus, we have found the Palestinian Sidney Blumenthal. Spin, baby, spin.

WEST BANK RAIDS
The Israelis moved back into Palestinian areas after the bus bombing. Since the spring of 2002, when Israel reoccupied most of the West Bank, troops have been moving in and out of Palestinian towns repeatedly to arrested wanted men.

The biggest operation was in the old city of Nablus, a militant stronghold where troops were looking for Hamas militants and Fatah renegades responsible for two bombings that killed two Israelis earlier this month.

Troops sealed off the old city with armored vehicles and barbed wire and ordered residents out of homes to search buildings. They arrested 14 Palestinians, including a Hamas member caught with a large quantity of explosives, the army and witnesses said.

In the town of Tulkarem, Israeli undercover troops chasing two Fatah gunmen raided a pool hall, but the fugitives escaped. The soldiers opened fire during the chase, killing a 16-year-old bystander and wounding four, all under the age of 20, Palestinian security officials said. The Israeli military said there was a gunbattle.

And the last final job by the journalists, how nice.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

2003-08-21T11:05:00.000-07:00

The first words out of Kofi Annan's mouth after the attack on the UN building in Baghdad was the fault of the United States and the Coalition. We hadn't provided security. It was the "occupying forces" responsibility to provide security, and so on.

And then all of a sudden, whoooops, we find out that the UN rebuffed offers of security. Oh dear. So instead of apologizing, Kofi now feels that it is all of our faults. The UN, and the Coalition.

Anyone notice the intitial knee-jerk reaction? I did, and it matched my prediction exactly.

2003-08-19T21:03:00.000-07:00

They are sure keeping us busy at work.

Anyhow, so was today a good or bad day for the War on Terrorism? Both the UN and Israel got hit today by homicide attacks.

Looked at purely objectively, both of these events may have played into Bush's hand, and once again demonstrate that lack of strategic and tactical judgment on the part of the terrorist organizations.

For instance, it conclusively demonstrates that the terrorists are alive and well in Iraq. This has all the earmarks of a Hizbollah/Hamas/Al Queda attack to it. However, it also demonstrates that American forces are not that vunerable, since the terrorists would much rather have hit an American site. By hitting the UN, a clearly neutral party, they have made a big mistake. The UN was here on a solely humanitarian mission, and this strike has ensured that there will be no sympathy from them from the blue helmeters. However, it is possible that typical UN psychosis may still allow them to blame us. However, I think it will force the Un to have to rely on us, bringing us closer.

In Israel it is becoming harder and harder for detractors of Israel worldwide to substantiate the myth that the Israelis are the aggressors. It is clear that Israel is attempting to negotiate in good faith, and it is becoming clear that the Palestinians are not capable of reciprocating.

The world remains an interesting and scary place.

And we all seem to have forgotten N. Korea.

2003-08-15T09:44:00.000-07:00

Although I am by no means a technical person, I seem to have no trouble making friends with those that are. As a result I have quite a few friends in the tech industries, including ones who run power grids.

They tell me that this situation in the Northeast could not be caused by what Bloomberg and others say caused it. In fact, they think it is an attack on the SCADA system.

A check seemed to confirm that there are vunerabilities in the system, as this Washington Post story seems to confirm.

One of the salient quotes.

"What they do know is that "Red Teams" of mock intruders from the Energy Department's four national laboratories have devised what one government document listed as "eight scenarios for SCADA attack on an electrical power grid" -- and all of them work. Eighteen such exercises have been conducted to date against large regional utilities, and Richard A. Clarke, Bush's cyber-security adviser, said the intruders "have always, always succeeded."

Ummmmmm, that's not good.

2003-08-13T13:11:00.000-07:00

Remember a previous post about the surface to air missile problem? It can be found here. Here is the story of the people trying to pull this off.

Amazingly enough, it is even the same missile I spoke of in my post, the SA-18.

2003-08-13T13:06:00.000-07:00

Yes, those peaceful loving Gray Davis Supporters (Workers Against the Recall). Apparently not.

I initially heard about this via a source in the Davis Campus Republican (DCR), a number of who were in the group attacked. Then instapundit linked to it.

The worst part is that the event was tax payer funded, directly from Gray.

It is becoming apparent that the public sector workers unions, many of who I have personal dealing with, are becoming a serious problem. It is apparent that they consider the public money theirs and they have not figured out that they are killing their particular golden goose.

2003-08-12T21:30:00.000-07:00

Blaster is over at his place, wondering why California Conservatives are not supporting Arnold. For me it is very simple.

If you are anti-gun, you do not get my vote, period, end of story, fegettahbowdit.

Oh, he is only partially anti-gun, you say.

Then I read something like this article

Highlights?

"The sky was funereal, gunmetal grey you might say, a reflection of the sad faces from the line of men trying to shelter from rain sweeping along the Geelong foreshore.

Shane (who didn't want to give his surname) was holding back sobs. "I feel terrible, I feel like shit," he said.

Yesterday was the first day for the Victorian public to participate in the national handgun buy-back program. While some states had decided to undertake it by setting up permanent centres, Victoria's police have decided to conduct a statewide travelling roadshow spending its first three days in Geelong.

Shane delicately placed on the folding tables in front of him a huge American revolver, its barrel about 30 centimetres long called a Silhouette 45/70. It seemed an awesome piece of firepower, its barrel the colour of the sky.

He said he believed it would be worth $3500 but he had an even more valuable firearm of .50 calibre which he hoped would earn him $4800."

And

"All guns surrendered are taped with a barcode and crushed by a special press before being taken back to Melbourne and melted for scrap. If they want, people surrendering the guns could watch the crushing process, but that was not an option for Shane. "I just can't bear to watch," he said."

I will do everything I can to ensure that this does not happen here. The least I can do is refuse to vote, or support, an anti-gun candidate. They may as well be anti-free speech, or anti-free market.

2003-08-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

If you are like me, then you will frequently feel insulted by your government. Not only that, but you can be reminded that in trying to level the playing field, you can completely screw up the turf for everyone.

What the hell am I talking about?

This idea to randomize the names in this recall

On the one hand, it tells the people that our leadership feels that we are so dumb that we cannot deal with an alphabetised list, and on the other, by screwing up the ballot this way, it ensures that a whole segment of dummies will screw up the ballot. So why do this? In the mythical search for complete fairness, everyone gets screwed equally.

Just do the ballot alphabetically, and leave it at that.

Boy, the Court Case is going to make Florida look like a cake walk.

2003-08-11T22:04:00.000-07:00

Thank God, the pain has finally passed.

I did not feel like writing anything, and merely sat around, under the influence of Vicadan. Yech, hate that stuff.

In any event, the blogging will resume tomorrow.

2003-08-07T11:00:00.000-07:00

Want to know how I feel?

That's how I feel.

2003-08-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

Sorry for not posting.

I went to the CART race in Elkhart lake this weekend. Upon return my tooth which underwent the root canal went ballistic.

It's all I can think about right now. And that makes for very boring reading.

2003-07-30T12:47:00.000-07:00

Today I had a root canal, and so do not feel like doing anything else.

What a shit way to blow $900 I could not afford. I would rather have bought a gun.

Tomorrow, I will have more.

2003-07-29T14:14:00.000-07:00

Update on Recall issue

A federal judge has ruled that voters may vote for the candidates on the recall, regardless of their vote, or non-vote on the recall itself. [SOURCE]

You know the logic of the decision leads to weird analytical processes such as these.

"Well, I don't want to vote for the recall, but I would like this cute girl as my governor"

Or

"I don't want governor Davis recalled, but just in case, I will vote for XXXX"

It is going to be utter pandemonium.

2003-07-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

As much as this may kill me to say, I have to say that Susan Estrich has a point.

Here is the operative language

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer
and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the
Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from
the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

Her reading of the phrase "if appropriate" is fairly plain, and seems to me valid up to a point. However I am not sure that having a successor is the sole metric for determining the appropriateness of a successor, and Estrich never provides a reason why it should be.

This, of course, gets to the nub of the matter. What does that "if appropriate" mean? Who gets to decide? The Section is silent on that matter, and I cannot find language that helps, apart from this:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL

SEC. 17. If recall of the Governor or Secretary of State is
initiated, the recall duties of that office shall be performed by the
Lieutenant Governor or Controller, respectively."

Herein we have the problem with feel good legislation written to instill the voters with more power. Fairly obvious problems in the legislation are not thought through. It would seem obvious to me that the Lieutenant Governor should recuse himself from making this decision. The conflict of interest is immense, and no person would be able to make the decision objectively. And even if they could, they could never be able to argue that they ruled objectively. The motivation towards self-interest is too apparent.

Furthermore, this leaves Bustamante in a bad spot. His future relations with the Governor are on the line, as well his political career if he punts. Imagine if he punts, and a Republican is elected.

So who should decide what is appropriate? The Courts? I am not sure that they should inject themselves into this political fray, although the California Supreme Court would seem to be a natural objective reader of the language. Courts are also good forums for resolving obvious problems with statutory language when there is no ability to change the language prior to an event occuring, like this recall.

Some have argued, such as Rick Hasen that the law should be read so that the meaning of "if appropriate" means whether the recalled candidate is an elected official or not. An interesting point as well.

There is also the Here is another interesting take. (Full Disclosure. Brownstein was my torts professor)

In any event, this should be fascinating to watch.

2003-07-28T15:37:00.000-07:00

Rand Simberg has an awesome post

"President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office."

Go read it all.

2003-07-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

To the disappointment of thousands, the nude Bambi hunting story was bogus.

And yes, I am kidding.

2003-07-24T10:43:00.000-07:00

DenBeste has an interesting viewpoint on the war, one that I have agreed with for some time.

However I do differ from him in this manner

I actually think that most of the nation understands the point DenBeste are trying to make anyway. Do you remember the various polls that had most Americans believing that Iraq was in part responsible for 9/11. When this fact was presented to me, in order to demonstrate that Americans were idiots, I had a problem believing that take on the polls.

I think that most Americans have simply conflated the problem with Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the countries over there. While they may be ignorant of the specifics, they are well aware that there is a problem over there. And the supposed fact that there may not be weapons of mass destruction over there now (I still think we will find them) will not perturb them much. They understand that a bunch of folks from over there flew aircraft into our buildings. They understand that we never want to have that happen again. The Americans want to have safety, and never want to experience that again. I think they intuitively understand that we needed to do this, and they understand that we cannot stop now.

There are times when I shake my head at the population, but at this time it seems that they are holding steady. Look at these numbers from Polling Report. People like Bill O'Reilly and the rest yelled and screamed about how badly the Bush Administration argued the case. To a degree this was true, since Bush could not state the real reasons. But then again, he never had to. The country had already decided that the situation in the Middle East was unacceptable, and that something needed to be done. Iraq was as good as any other place to start.

In addition, do you notice that the polls never properly break down Bush's handling of the war. There is approve, and disapprove. Well, does disapprove mean that he is not being tough enough and not moving fast enough, or does it mean that they never supported the war in the first place, and they want us out. These two types are markedly different from each other, and would reveal more about how the country really feels.

I think the American people are well aware at an intuitive level of what is transpiring in the Middle East. They fluctations in the polls are minimal, and there appear to be very rational periods of nerves, but on the whole, a substantial majority agrees with what we are doing.

Update: A few sites had flash movies up about 9/11. I still think a significant majority of people still think about 9/11, and don't ever want that to happen again, regardless of cost. (The videos are here and and here.)

2003-07-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

Professor Randy Barnett has written a fascinating piece on the apparent liberal fixation on current and past issues

My response to his questions?

"I think the problem is quite simple. In my experience, those on the left (generally) have no historical sense. By historical sense, I mean that they have no feeling (for lack of a better word) of where we as Americans have come from, and where we are going. Leftists being very emotionally driven are very present focused. Since history is not particularly relevant, it is something not to be paid attention too.

That's how they can argue things that make you or I drop our jaws in awe at the ability of someone to state such a thing without blushing. As far as getting the leftists to see it, I think there is little or no chance. The ones who are aware, gain to much power from this amnesia, and the one who are in the delusion cannot break it without fearful internal repercussions. What concerns me is what effect this will have on discourse in this country.

2003-07-23T13:46:00.000-07:00

The thing that I admire about this Administration, and America in general, is its ability to change tactics when the current strategy appears not to be working. It's the sign of a healthy, motivated, and effective force. This Washington Post piece is an excellent example. Apparently our attempt at stemming the guerilla attacks had not been effective. Operation Scorpion and others had yielded some results, but were not satisfactory. So something new was tried, and the results were fast and effective. We got Uday and Qusay.

This is very good news. (As a sidenote, it is apparent that the Dems are falling off the deep end even further. To state that this is not good news in any way, as some have done, is political madness)

Once again the people of this country are reminded that this Administration have embarked on a course that they will not falter from. And they cannot, the stakes are far too high. It does not mean that we will not make mistakes, but it does mean that we will attack the problems, and keep attacking them until they are defeated.

2003-07-21T16:32:00.000-07:00

And as a continuation from my previous post.

Hugh Hewitt believes that it might be likely that Bill Clinton would enter the recall fray as a Democratic contender.

I cannot frame how awful that would be.

2003-07-21T16:26:00.000-07:00

There were days when I felt bad about how much I detested President Clinton. It is not healthy to hate. And I don't think I hated him, but I surely detested him. My distaste was predominately fueled by my impression of him as an untrustworthy, self-serving cad, and impression that was borne out by his Presidency.

However, my dislike never became irrational, outside of the fact that I found I could not watch the man on TV. And my dislike never became like the apparent all consuming, ever present, blinding hatred by those on the left. Not all, mind you, I work with some lefties, and although they are not fans, they do not have this hate I see in other locations.

The best place to see this is on bulletin boards on the Internet. People are free to voice any opinion they desire without the usual repercussions of polite society. The din of "Bush Lied" is merely the latest example of this. What is amazing is the complete lack of reason, logic, or consistency in this doomed takedown attempt. I have actually given up on attempting to talk to quite a few people that I regularly debate with. I have given up until they come off their blood lust, and return to their senses.

But even when they return, they will be diminished, perhaps fatally, in my eyes. You see, prior to this event, I could believe that the left in this country really wanted the best for the nation. It is possible to debate with someone only when they have decent intentions. To argue with a person that has ill intent is a waste of time. I find the more I debate with those on the left, the of them I find to respect. And I don't want a society where people of a different ideology are people that I cannot respect. It's bad for society, and it is bad for our system.

So to any leftists who read this blog. Snap out of it.

2003-07-18T13:47:00.000-07:00

Victor Davis Hanson. Sally forth and feel refreshed by the calm logic

2003-07-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair is not someone I agree with on 99% of political issues. About the current world situation he is 100% correct. We cannot get back to our argument about the direction of our free societies until we have quelled the danger to them.

His speech is magnificent. Go and read. At times it brought tears to my eyes.

2003-07-17T16:45:00.000-07:00

Mark Steyn has weighed in on the Bush lied silliness. I usually don't link to his articles because I naturally assume that if you like to read politics, you read Steyn. If for some reason you don't, off you go then.

2003-07-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

Here is another viewpoint of the situation in Iraq.

"THE REAL IRAQ

By AMIR TAHERI
July 17, 2003 -- Open up almost any American or European publication these days, and you'll be bombarded with grim news about "horrific" conditions in Iraq - and America's "poor handling" of the post-war reconstruction effort. All of which, it is claimed, is made all the more tragic - because President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maliciously exaggerated the threat from Iraq. They may have won the war, but they're losing they peace.
Author and Middle East expert Amir Taheri spent several days on the ground in Iraq last week and found reality to be starkly different from what is so ubiquitously reported.

Here is a first-hand account of an Iraq that is rapidly moving forward in nearly every aspect of life - political, economic and cultural. And a people that, while understandably skeptical after decades of tyranny, is nonetheless hopeful - and grateful for their liberation.

- THE EDITORS

BAGHDAD, IRAQ

'THE Iraqi Intifada!" This is the cover story offered by Al- Watan Al-Arabi, a pro- Saddam Hussein weekly published in Paris. It finds an echo in the latest issue of America's Time magazine, which paints a bleak prospect for the newly liberated country. The daily Al Quds, another pro-Saddam paper, quotes from The Washington Post in support of its claim that "a popular war of resistance" is growing in Iraq. Some newspapers in the United States, Britain and "old Europe" go further by claiming that Iraq has become a "quagmire" or "another Vietnam." The Parisian daily Le Monde prefers the term "engrenage," which is both more chic and French.

This chorus wants us to believe that most Iraqis regret the ancien regime, and are ready to kill and die to expel their liberators.

Sorry, guys, this is not the case.

Neither the wishful thinking of part of the Arab media, long in the pay of Saddam, nor the visceral dislike of part of the Western media for George W. Bush and Tony Blair changes the facts on the ground in Iraq.

ONE fact is that a visitor to Iraq these days never finds anyone who wants Saddam back.

There are many complaints, mostly in Baghdad, about lack of security and power cuts. There is anxiety about the future at a time that middle-class unemployment is estimated at 40 percent. Iraqis also wonder why it is that the coalition does not communicate with them more effectively. That does not mean that there is popular support for violent action against the coalition.

Another fact is that the violence we have witnessed, especially against American troops, in the past six weeks is limited to less than 1 percent of the Iraqi territory, in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," which includes parts of Baghdad.

Elsewhere, the coalition presence is either accepted as a fact of life or welcomed. On the 4th of July some shops and private homes in various parts of Iraq, including the Kurdish areas and cities in the Shiite heartland, put up the star-spangled flag as a show of gratitude to the United States.

"We see our liberation as the start of a friendship with the U.S. and the U.K. that should last a thousand years," says Khalid Kishtaini, one of Iraq's leading novelists. "The U.S. and the U.K. showed that a friend in need is a friend indeed. Nothing can change that."

In the early days of the liberation, some mosque preachers tested the waters by speaking against "occupation." They soon realized that their congregations had a different idea. Today, the main theme in sermons at the mosques is about a partnership between the Iraqi people and the coalition to rebuild the war-shattered country and put it on the path of democracy.

Even the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr now says that "some good" could come out of the coalition's presence in Iraq. "The coalition must help us stabilize the situation," he says. "The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone."

Yet another fact is that all 67 of Iraq's cities and 85 percent of the smaller towns now have fully functioning municipalities. Several ministries, including that of health and education, have also managed to get parts of their operations going again. The petroleum industry, too, is being revived with plans to produce up to 2.8 million barrels of crude oil a day before the year is out.

To be sure, life in Iraq today is no bed of roses. But don't forget that this is an immediate post-war situation. There is no famine - in fact, the bazaars are more replenished with food than ever since the late 1970s - while food prices, having jumped in the first weeks after liberation, are now lower than they were in the last years of Saddam's rule.

MOST hospitals are functioning again with essential medical supplies trickling in for the first time since 1999. Also, some 85 percent of primary and secondary schools and all but two of the nation's universities have reopened with a full turnout of pupils and teachers.

The difference is that there no longer are any mukahebrat (secret police) agents roaming the campuses and sitting at the back of classrooms to make sure lecturers and students do not discuss forbidden topics. Nor are the students required to start every day with a solemn oath of allegiance to the dictator.

There has been no mass exodus anywhere in Iraq. On the contrary, many Iraqis, driven out of their homes by Saddam, are returning to their towns and villages.

Their return has given the building industry, moribund in the last years of Saddam, a boost. Iraqi exiles and refugees abroad are also coming home, many from Iran and Turkey. Last month alone the Iranian Red Crescent recorded the repatriation of more than 10,000 Iraqis, mostly Kurds and Shiites.

In Iraq today there are no "displaced persons," no uprooted communities and no long lines of war victims in search of a safe haven.

FOR the first time in almost 50 years there are also no political prisoners, no executions, no torture and no limit on freedom of expression. Iraq today is the only Muslim country where all shades of opinion - from the extremist Islamists of the Hezbollah to Stalinists, and passing by liberals, socialists, Arab nationalists and moderate Islamists - have full freedom to compete in an open market of ideas. Better still, all are now represented in the newly created Governing Assembly (Majlis al-Hukum). Iraq is also the only Muslim country where more than 100 newspapers and weeklies, representing all shades of opinion, appear without a police permit and are subjected to no censorship.

Much is made of power cuts, especially in Baghdad. But this is partly due to a 30 percent seasonal increase in demand because of air-conditioning use in temperatures that reach 115 degrees. In other cities - for example, Basra - the country's second-most populous urban center, more electricity is used than at any time under Saddam Hussein.

A stroll in the open-air book markets of the Rashid Street reveals that thousands of books, blacklisted and banned under Saddam Hussein, are now available for sale. Among the banned authors were almost all of Iraq's best writers and poets, whom many young Iraqis discover for the first time. Stalls, offering video and audiotapes for sale, are appearing in Baghdad and other major cities, again giving Iraqis access to a forbidden cultural universe.

The flower stalls along the Tigris are also making a comeback.

"Business is good," says Hashem Yassin, one florist. "In the past, we sold a lot of flowers for funerals and placement on tombs. Now we sell for weddings, birthday parties and gifts of friendship."

The free-market economy is making its first inroads into Iraq's socialistic system in a number of small ways. Hundreds of hawkers are offering a variety of imported goods and making brisk business by selling soft drinks, often bottled in Iran, and biscuits and chewing gums from Turkey.

Some teahouses, in competition to attract clients, offer satellite television as an additional attraction. Every evening people pack the teahouses to watch, and zap and discuss, what they have seen in an atmosphere of freedom unknown under Saddam. It may be hard for Westerners to understand the Iraqis' exhilaration at being able to watch television of their choice.

But this is a country where, under Saddam, people could be condemned as spies and hanged for owning a satellite dish.

Another symbol of newly won freedom is the multiplication of cellular and satellite phones. Most belong to returning exiles. But their appearance is reassuring to many Iraqis. Under Saddam, their illegal possession could carry the death penalty.

The portrayal of Baghdad as an oriental version of the Far West in Hollywood Westerns misses the point. It ignores the fact that life is creeping back to normal, that weddings, always popular in summer, are being celebrated again, often with traditional tribal ostentation. The first rock concert since the war, offered by a boys' band, has already taken place, and Iraq's National Football (soccer) Squad has resumed training under a German coach.

THERE are two Iraqs today: One as portrayed by those in America and Europe who wish to use it as a means of damaging Bush and Blair, and the other as it really exists, home to 24 million people with many hopes and aspirations and, naturally, some anxiety about the future.

"After we have aired our grievances we remember the essential point: Saddam is gone," says Mohsen Saleh, a geologist in Baghdad. "A man who is cured of cancer does not complain about a common cold." [Source]

Interesting, no?

2003-07-16T17:06:00.000-07:00

The flap about the State of the Union Speech once more confirms that in any partisan argument, truth is the first casualty. If you are one of those that is arguing this case, the way I see people like Chris Matthews and others argue it, then I no longer have any regard for your opinions.

The problem, after impeachment, the election, the Iraq war, and now this, is that there is hardly anyone on the left that I can truly respect anymore. Possibly the Daily Howler (yuck) and the Washington Post.

Other then that and a few others, could anyone give me one reason why we should trust you? You are the ideological equivalents of the North Korean Government, prone to seizing on anything that will damage your enemy, regardless of collateral damage. That makes you dangerous.

2003-07-16T16:59:00.000-07:00

You would think that no budget would create a sense of urgency?

Nope, not here.

I honestly don't know what to think anymore about California. The workman's compensation insurance structure is an utter disaster, unemployment insurance woes loom large, and the electorate seems sanguine.

2003-07-09T20:45:00.000-07:00

I am out of town until the 15th, off to a Convention to meet folks who will hopefully be looking for an aviation attorney in the near future. Until then, keep your fingers crossed for the Iranian people. You know the ones being prosecuted and oppressed by a fanatical religious government. Sort of what the left complains about in this country. Except in this case, the media is stone cold silent on this issue.

2003-07-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

Since everyone else is doing it, and I want to fit in. I too will answer the questions.

1. Do you have a personal hero? If so, who is it?

Hmmmm. My father is possibly my personal hero at this point.

2. What is your favorite book of all time and what made it so fucking good?

I have more then one favorite book. "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom is a favorite, as is "The History of the American Speaking People" by Churchill. In the end, it's tough to think of a favorite book, since each contains differing elements that make it enjoyable

3. What does “diversity” mean to you?

It is a codeword used mostly by Liberals to justify the continued use of Affirmative Action.

4. What is the wildest thing you’ve ever done?

Caught a 70Lb Roosterfish off a beach in Mexico. Tumbled an aircraft. Flat Spun an Aircraft.

5. Do you regret doing it?

Nope

6. Can you drive a stick shift?

Dad wouldn't teach me in an automatic

7. What’s the highest speed you ever traveled in a car?

Shhhhhh. 138mph at 3am. I don't know if my speedo was correct, but it felt fast. I have gone faster on a bike

8. Were you driving, or riding at the time?

Driving

9. Which is better: snakes or spiders?

Both are cool, but snakes may have the edge. Not furry

10. What is the most disgusting thing you ever ate?

Mompani Worms. Don't ask.

11. Have you ever shit your pants? Be HONEST!

Once, must have been 8.

12. Was losing your virginity an enjoyable experience?

Yes, although it was a short experience.

13. Should oral sex be outlawed or encouraged?

Inside or outside of marriage?

14. Name one man with a fine ass.

Mel Gibson. I am secure enough to say that.

15. Do you watch golf on television? If not, will you iron my shirts?

Only the Masters, sometimes.

16. Who is Martha Burk?

The supposed feminist who tried to rally the country to boycott Augusta (Where the Masters is held) because they do not allow female members.

17. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

Nothing really, I am quite happy with who I am.

18. Do you eat raw oysters?

I have at one point.

19. Are you claustrophobic?

Not severely, but have been in very tight situations and felt the sensation.

20. If you rode a motorcycle, would you wear a helmet even if the law said you didn‘t have to?

90% of the time I would. There are a few times when I would not. For instance, there are times when it is fun just to cruise the beaches with your wind in your hair.

21. Name five great Presidents.

Reagan, Washington, Lincoln, Coolidge, Eisenhower.

22. Name three shitty Presidents.

Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Clinton. (Can't I have more?)

23. Now call me fanny and slap my ass. Just kidding.

Fanny! No slapping though.

24. This is the 4th of July. Did you set off any fireworks?

Hah. I live in a little Liberal town in California where all types of fun is outlawed. Expressly verboten are fireworks.

25. If you could have dinner and conversation with anyone in the history of the planet, who would you choose?

Winston Spencer Churchill. No doubt about it.

2003-07-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

The UN, once again, provides us with a little comic relief. The UN, that bunch of social experimenters, the group that wants every nation on earth to respect the right of the workers to unionize (too many examples of this to list), does not want its workers to do the same.

I love this line.

"The union, in existence for more than 50 years, has a history of confrontation with U.N. management."

Unions are a pain in the ass? You don't say? How come the enlightened UN management has a problem with their Union? Don't you think they would get along? Amazing.

And this is glorious too.

" The union believes that the U.N. move is an attempt to save money because with the union office closed, it will be easier to hire more temporary and contract employees as the world body proceeds with a $1 billion plan to renovate the headquarters complex."

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaheheheh.

That's just rich. The UN is breaking the Union to save money. Possibly United and American airlines should take notes. Possibly the State of California should take notes. Actually there are many industries that would like to do this. However, the UN, and the media would have a conniption fit, the likes of which you will never see here.

2003-07-04T15:04:00.000-07:00

Happy Fourth of July. Happy Birthday America.

2003-07-03T20:41:00.000-07:00

AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) is telling the TSA, " I told you so."

Apparently, a pilot ran out of gas, waiting for his flight plan, and crashed 4 miles short of the runway.

ATC (Air Traffic Control) held this guy for one hour while they searched, in vain, for this guy's flight plan.

Now, I agree with Phil Boyer that fuel management is the pilots responsibility. It is of primary concern at all times, and the second a pilot cuts into minimums,(30 minute day/ 45 minute night) the time has come to declare an emergency. In addition, I doubt I would have waited the hour. Instead, I would have flown somewhere else and landed, and then taken care of the situation over the phone. Then again, I bet they strung this guy along, and once you have half an hour invested in waiting it gets tough to leave.

However, this is what really gets me. The utter lack of common sense exhibited by the entire ATC facility. They hold up this flight plan as the sacred security talisman. Do you think that each flight plan is closely scrutinized by the TSA before admission to the secured airspace? No. I think it is compared with a database of suspicious numbers, and then passed. Possibly the name is checked, possibly. I consider that remote.

I also know that there is no one checking ID's upon entry of a flight plan. (They are phoned in, or entered into a computer) Therefore, a prospective terrorist could easily fake a flight plan. And that terrorist would not spend an hour circling waiting for his errant flight plan to be found. Is this reasoning hard? I am not a genius. However, it is obvious that the controllers were not also.

2003-07-02T22:21:00.000-07:00

Nope, no inconsistency here

This line is the best

"Dean argued his position on the use of force is not out of line with his opposition to the war in Iraq."

Why, you may ask.

""The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."

So Iraq was a workers paradise, and had no imminent threat of human catastrophe.

Hullo, Mr Dean. Iraq was an ongoing human catastrophe. And the world community asked us to help in numerous resolutions.

I know, let the UN pass a resolution, so we can argue about the meaning.

Why this man is considered a serious contender escapes me.

2003-07-02T22:14:00.000-07:00

Maybe that's why it make you paranoid?

"Regular cannabis users 'at greater risk of mental illness'

Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life, according to research.

One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London.

Speaking at the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual conference in Edinburgh, he said: "In the last 18 months a number of studies have confirmed that cannabis consumption acts to increase later risk of schizophrenia. This research must not be ignored."

The findings come as the Government prepares to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to Class C drug next year.

Most people caught in possession of a small amount will have the drugs confiscated and receive a reprimand or warning, the Home Office has said.

According to a Government fact sheet, cannabis "can cause psychotic reactions amongst individuals with mental health problems", but it does not suggest use of the drug can prompt those problems.

For his study, Professor Murray reviewed research in Sweden, Holland and New Zealand.

A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later.

Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years.

Professor Murray said these findings had been largely ignored.

One of the things that always gets me is that the same people who hate smoking, are usually the same who want to legalize pot.

"Why do you hate smoking?"

"Oh, the smell."

"But Pot smells"

"and the addictiveness"

"Pot is not addictive?"

"and people who smoke pot are slobs"

"Yeah, but aren't pot smokers also?"

Hmmmmmm. And now they go insane. This could explain a lot of things though. Bill Clinton (maybe he did inhale), Al Gore, almost all the mental health problems of most liberals. Heh

2003-07-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

If Sharon is going to trust this guy, then I guess I will have to also. After all, there are few in the world who are as intimately aware of the duplicitous nature of the Palestinian leadership then him. And no force on earth would have convinced him differently.

We shall see.

2003-07-01T20:21:00.000-07:00

My father taught me a lesson early on in life. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

We have the gold, so they must follow the rule.

Okay, maybe that is callous. But still, if the country is not interested in heeding our wishes, we are just as free not to give them aid. There have already been proceeding brought against Tommy Franks in Belgium, expressing exactly why we should be leery of this court.

2003-07-01T20:07:00.000-07:00

Need a good laugh

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

'CBS Evening News' Hits Ratings Low

There you go, Dan. People are just enthralled with your intense journalism. Bad news buddy. Rush slays you.

2003-07-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

Want to know why I am leaving the (formerly) great state of California. This story is an example

Love some of these quotes.

"We still have an opportunity to find common ground. Failure to do so would be irresponsible and dangerous," Davis said. "Critical funding for hospitals, nursing homes, community colleges and small businesses is at stake."

Yes, Gray. You wouldn't cut one, not one, staff member, but you sure as hell would cut off the old people. It drives me crazy that people would put up with this crap. And why does small business depend on the budget? How come they never say something like, "well, if the budget doesn't get passed, we will have to curtail our legislative staffs." But no, they threaten to shut down the police, fire stations, education, hospitals and every other necessity, like it is the only thing the state does. Give me a break.

"But Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said the Republican plan provided no common ground. "I think it's a compromise from within the Republican caucus but what we're really looking at is a compromise with the Democrats and everyone else in California," said Laird."

I love how we go to a comment from the Assembly member from Santa Cruz. Why not pick the Assemblyperson from Berkeley? I am sure he/she is just as balanced. And moron, who do you think elects those minority of the Republicans? They don't just wonder off the street in the chamber.

And it appears that the Californiana blissfully go along with this shit. That's why I am leaving. This state is turning into Massachusetts, and I don't feel up for the ride.

2003-06-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

And the experiment continues

The only thing I can think of is that the Israeli's (and Bush) have decided to give the Palestinians one more chance. I think that there will be violence coming, and the re-starting of the homicide bombings. However, this time no one can blame the Israeli's and they will have carte blanche to do what they must.

This must be the guarantee that Bush is making to Sharon.

2003-06-29T21:35:00.000-07:00

I guess the Israeli's did not take my pop quiz

What the hell are they thinking?

Look at the headline of the article. "Palestinian militants unify for truce." That doesn't sound good to me. That sounds very bad. I preferred it when the militants were at each others throats.

On the other hand, this could be one of Bush's devious ideas.

2003-06-29T11:11:00.000-07:00

Look. Over to the left side of my blog is a bulletin board, with one pathetic comment from me. I only ask that you leave a small message. Possibly only a hi? If one will start, others will follow. Be a leader then, make a comment.

Yes, I know pathetic, isn't it?

2003-06-28T12:38:00.000-07:00

Pop Quiz

Hamas is agreeing to a cease fire because:

a) A moment of clarity has convinced them that killing every man, woman and child in Israel is immoral?
b) That peace would benefit the Palestinians, and go a long way towards ensuring a two state solution?
c) The new Palestinian Prime Minister is exercising his muscles?
d) Hamas is on the ropes after a severe mauling by the Israeli's and realizes that its only hope of survival is a period of respite to allow reorganization and rebuilding?

I know what I think.

2003-06-28T12:23:00.000-07:00

The Spin has begun. The decision contorted itself mightily in order not to find a fundamenal right, but that is not the way it will be spun. In some way, this is poetic justice, since the media doesn't seem interested in correctly reporting the dissenting opinions either.

And the door that has been opened a crack, is now being kicked open much further.

This is actually a good article

Debate on marriage and more looms

Ruling directly points to another clash in nation’s culture war

ANALYSIS
By David Von Drehle
THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON, June 27 — The Supreme Court ruling to strike down the nation’s anti-sodomy laws combined two of the most contentious issues on the political landscape by grounding the liberty of gays in the same legal turf that sustains the right to abortion — and it directly points to yet another clash in the culture war: a fight over gay marriage.
THE DECISION did not spell out what this could mean for laws banning gay marriage, gay adoption and related controversies. But dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warned from the bench that the constitutional grounds for maintaining those prohibitions are now gone.
“It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war,” Scalia declared, taking the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench. He savaged the passing statement by the majority that the sodomy law decision had nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. “Do not believe it,” he warned.

NEW VIEW OF MORALITY
Lawrence v. Texas could have implications far beyond the closed doors of private homes. In an unexpectedly large step, the court said traditional morality is no justification for making legal distinctions among sexual behaviors of consenting adults. “The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, quoting approvingly from his colleague Justice John Paul Stevens.
And in at least one earlier precedent, the realm of private, intimate life has been defined by the Supreme Court to include “marriage ... family relationships [and] child rearing.”
At the same time, marriage and adoption are more public matters than the intimacies the court was dealing with in the Texas case. Other grounds, beyond morals alone, might be found to justify continuing those prohibitions if states choose to do so.
That’s the next fight.
It could come quickly. Gay rights lawyers recently filed suit in federal court challenging new wording in Nebraska’s constitution banning gay marriage; yesterday’s decision should strengthen their case. According to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the decision “begins an entirely new chapter” in the campaign for gay rights, including the right to marry. Executive Director Kevin M. Cathcart stressed the broader impacts of the decision, saying, “This historic civil rights ruling promises real equality to gay people in our relationships, our families and our everyday lives.
Cathcart’s organization plans to take the weekend to hatch strategy and will announce on Monday “its aggressive plan for turning this landmark ruling into a reality.”
Across the cultural divide, Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s vice president of public policy, predicted that “if the people have no right to regulate sexuality then ultimately the institution of marriage is in peril, and with it, the welfare of the coming generations of children.”

SURPRISING SCOPE OF OPINION
Many observers had predicted that the court would find very narrow grounds to throw out a Texas law that criminalized sodomy for homosexuals only. After all, with a few notable exceptions, the high court has been reluctant over the past 25 years to write controversial decisions in broad strokes.
The court of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s — an era shaped by Chief Justice Earl Warren and that legendary builder of liberal majorities, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. — painted with a bold brush on issues ranging from civil rights to school prayer, from capital punishment to abortion. The justices became heroes to many and infuriated many others.
Marriage and adoption are more public matters than the intimacies the court was dealing with in the Texas case.

The court of the 1980s, ’90s and today — an era shaped by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the increasingly dominant builder of centrist majorities, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — has rolled back some of those decisions and shored up others. But the court has generally preferred to hunt for fresh controversies in abstract realms such as federalism and original intent where any outrage stirred up is registered in law review articles, not on billboards.
But the majority opinion in Lawrence went back to the earlier era for its inspiration. Drawing on the 1965 case that found a right to contraception and the 1973 case that found a right to abortion, Kennedy said that the “right to privacy” also applies to homosexuals. “Adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons,” he wrote. “The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”
With that, the court overturned a 1986 decision that had rejected the right-to-privacy argument for same-sex relationships. O’Connor voted with the 1986 majority, and she declined to repudiate that position yesterday. But she added a separate, sixth, vote for the new rule that legal distinctions between heterosexual relations and homosexual relations cannot be made on purely moral grounds.
“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause,” she wrote.
The high court has been reluctant over the past 25 years to write controversial decisions in broad strokes.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, in their dissents, said the step, if it was going to be taken, should have been left to the state legislatures. “Were I a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal” the sodomy law, Thomas wrote.
Legislatures “unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion,” Scalia noted. They can legalize “private homosexual acts” while continuing to prohibit gay marriage if they wish. “The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom.”
Soon enough, America will find out.

Curiously enough this is not a bad thing for Bush, and the Republicans, I think. If the left wants to make the issue gay rights for the next year, it may be making a huge tactical error.

2003-06-26T20:15:00.000-07:00

Strom Thurmond has just died. I am saddened. We will hear the shouts of glee from some on the left. Just remember that Strom lived as few have. He was a great American.

Update Blaster has some good stories. I like the Reagan joke

2003-06-26T20:13:00.000-07:00

Justice Scalia can never be accused of writing obliquely. Yet, the major news media seems intent on getting what he has said wrong.

In this Texas sodomy case for example.

This is the piece on Scalia's opinion

"Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Scalia, who wrote the dissenting opinion, took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
Stressing that he has “nothing against homosexuals,” Scalia wrote: “The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda. The court has taken sides in the culture war.”
Although the majority opinion said the case did not “involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter,” Scalia said the ruling invited laws allowing gay marriage.
“This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky grounds, state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Scalia wrote.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the most prominent gay member of Congress, denounced Scalia’s dissent in harsh terms, noting that in one passage, Scalia began a reference to Kennedy’s opinion with the phrase “The majority coos ... .”

This is Scalia's complete Dissent

Here is the quote in its entirety

"Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,"

and earlier

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change."

The whole point of Scalia's dissent is to note that there is a thorny and complicated argument about the propiety of homosexual behavior in this country, and that it is wrong for the Court to inject itself as the final arbitrator of the dispute on either side. His point that the Court has taken the side of pro-homosexual debate is perfectly valid.

The other part pf his dissent is focused on the reasoning of the majority. This is also valid. I do not want to get into the technicalities, as I do not possess the requisite talents. However, in discussing this decision with a few non-legal people today, I am reminded of one of the severe defects in the current debate. The fact that any debate about the bill of rights, or rights in general, as they are dealt with by the Courts, require a technical knowledge of Constitutional that is quite rigorous and difficult to possess. This ensures that not everyone can participate in the debate, only a select few. A dangerous step for us to take. Soon right discussion will lose any roots they had in laymans terms, and will become a legalistic abstraction.

2003-06-24T21:42:00.000-07:00

Do you think that Israel is killing Hamas with subtle and tacit approval from both the USA and Abu Mazen? Hmmmmm. An interesting thought I have heard elsewhere.

2003-06-24T21:40:00.000-07:00

Arguing with someone of the leftist persuasion is frequently useless. Especially when that individual makes statements like "W is a moron." This type of statement indicates one of two things.

1) The opponent thinks you are stupid enough to buy this.
2) The opponent is stupid enough to buy this.

Look, W is many things, and I can see how a leftist could think he is the spawn of Satan and the epitome of evil ('cept I thought you guys did't believe in evil), but stupid he is not. I am very certain that the nine Democratic runners for the losing spot don't think he is stupid. I don't think Tommy Daschle thinks W is dumb, nor do I think that Terry McCauliffe does as well. At least, if they do, it might explain the utter uselessness with which the Democrats are playing the political game.

I have never thought Liberals are dumb, but they have apparently lost their marbles over this guy, and he keeps handing them their asses. And to make it worse, he does so politely.

2003-06-23T21:14:00.000-07:00

From Cox and Forkum

2003-06-23T20:58:00.000-07:00

I'm back.

And I apparently lost all my readers. Oh well, time to start again. That is all the fun.

Firstly to all the legal professors out there. Your grading system is arbitrary and unreflective of a students' knowledge. My grades fluctuate for no apparent rhyme or reason. My understanding of the material is irrelevant. The size of the class is irrelevant. The rigor and aptitude of the class is irrelevant. My enjoyment of the material is irrelevant. My attendance in class is irrelevant. The time I put into studying is irrelevant. My fondness, or the lack thereof, of the professor is irrelevant. There is no apparent pattern that I can detect. Even if I felt I did well, sometimes I will not, and sometimes I will. If I felt I bombed the exam, sometimes I have and sometimes I have not. There is no way to tell. Oh well, if you are not in the top ten percent, then it is irrelevant anyway. Still, knowing that my efforts will result in what seems to be an arbitrary grade has more then a slight demotivationary effect on me.

Next. Signature gatherers. There is not a high burden to meet to obtain this job,is there? If you are going to debate about the issue you wish me to sign, at least have a minimal understanding of the legislation you wish me to look at. Example?

Signature Gatherer "Please sign this petition to raise the cigarette tax by $1.50 a pack for XXXX program, and .20 cents will go to the American Cancer Society, and various other groups"

Me "Let me ask you a question? When you intitially allocate the funds to the programs outlined in this petition, are you calculating the revenue stream from the tax revenue from current sales of tobacco, or have you accounted for the likely dropoff in demand for tobacco that this additional tax burden would impose?"

"What do you mean?"

"When you begin your program you will be allocated funds that will be recouped through the tax revenue generated by the sales of tobacco. However, the initial funding will have to be an estimation of revenues. If the program assumes that sales of tobacco will remain static even after the imposition of the tax, then there will be shortfall that may have to be covered by the state general fund. That fund (California) already has far to much expenditure"

"You are just assuming that sales will drop. They won't?"

"Ummmmm, the fact that sales will drop in the face of appreciating price is not an assumption, it is sort of an economic principle"

"Since you brought this up, why don't you find out?"

"I would think that since you brought up this subject, the burden is on you to understand the legislation, not me. Furthermore, you understand that this is a very regressive tax, in that it punishes smokers, a predominately lower income group?"

"Well, I don't care since I hate smokers."

"Well, okay, good night then"

Lastly, I couldn't go into work today since there were filthy hippies (literally) protesting genetic food. Look, I do not know the slightest thing about genetic foods, but yelling, screaming, and demonstrating while not taking a bath is not a means to convince people. If you are a dirty hippy (literally) then I automatically dismiss you. And I believe I am not alone.

2003-06-03T20:18:00.000-07:00

I have been so uninspired for the last few days. The news has been one big blah.

Laci Peterson

Is this the preliminary preliminary hearing? Who cares? Nobody, except Greta van and a couple of other people. Please, if there is a God, please, no cameras in the courtroom.

WMD's?

Can you believe these people? I haven't even wanted to argue this with any of the liberals I know, since it is obvious that all they want to do is nail Bush desperately. The idea that WMD's were a figment of Carl Rove's political imagination is breathtaking in its audacity. EVERYBODY knew Saddam had WMD's. EVERYBODY. The French, the Russians, the Iranians (Remember, he gassed them) the UN, EVERYBODY. In fact, one the the "smoking guns" eluded to by every liberal that flapped their gums before the war was the apparent indiscretion of the Reagan Administration giving Saddam pre-cursors to WMD.

There is one interesting theory being advanced

"Where Are the WMDs?
Why we may not find them.

By Jim Lacey

After over a month of looking, Coalition forces have not come up with the WMD
smoking gun yet. There are many possible reasons why. Saddam, after 20 years
of practice, has become a master of disbursing and hiding things and it will
take some time to root his WMD program out. Alternatively, it is possible
that just before we invaded, large portions of Iraq's WMD program were sent
to Syria for safekeeping. The nightmare scenario though, particularly for
those who justified the war in terms of finding WMDs, is that WMDs do not
exist and have not since the end of Gulf War I. Unfortunately, with every
day that passes, that possibility looms larger.

It is likely that if Saddam no longer had a WMD program he did not know it.
Why else would he endure over a decade of crippling sanctions? If Saddam had
ended his quest for WMDs, it would have been in his best interest to open
the doors wide and let the world see. By playing as the model citizen he
would have regained control of his oil wealth and quickly been able to make
Iraq a regional superpower again.

Instead, his henchmen did everything possible to obfuscate the true WMD
picture and to thwart any inspection teams. If they had nothing to hide,
they sure worked hard at trying to hide it. What if they were not just
hiding a possible WMD program from inspectors, but also hiding from Saddam
the fact that no such program existed?

Outlandish? Maybe not. Consider, for instance, that a WMD program is
expensive. It has already been proven that the Saddam regime was siphoning
off billions of dollars through black-market oil deals and other
under-the-table methods. However, there were numerous claims on these funds.
Buying the loyalty of the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard did
not come cheap. Just trying to keep the military in good enough order to
crush internal revolts was already prohibitively expensive. Throw in the
cost of presidential palaces, reconstructing Babylon, paying off Bath-party
loyalists, and it is not long before you would be scraping for nickels. Iraq
was not even able to find money and parts to maintain oil-production levels.
The golden goose was dying.

There are already reports that Saddam's family members had drawn down on the
dictator's overseas wealth to the tune of $6 billion in order to finance
palace construction - they would not have done this if there were other
alternatives available. Consider, too, the system-wide corruption in Iraq.
Saddam and his family may have been the biggest looters of Iraqi wealth, but
they were not alone. At every level there were people with their hands out,
siphoning off funds for their own private use.

On top of all of this, Saddam was making demands, probably on his sons, that
a WMD program remain a top priority. If they loyally followed daddy's wishes
they would have had to overcome a number of serious impediments. First off,
they would have had to rebuild the program almost from scratch, after it was
destroyed or mostly dismantled after Gulf War I. That would have required
overcoming stringent import bans and dealing with a brain drain that
witnessed five million of Iraq's best-educated citizens heading overseas.
All of this would have to be done under the watchful eye of the U.S.

What was in it for Saddam's minions, including his sons, if they were to
scrape up the billions of dollars needed to start and maintain a WMD
program? All such a program did, from their perspective, is drain off funds
they needed for other projects, and draw the unwanted attention of bombers
and cruise missiles. In their corrupt minds, a new "love palace" would
always be a priority over a WMD site that was likely to be turned into dust
as soon as it was discovered. If they shortchanged Saddam on a palace or his
Babylon reconstruction there was a strong chance he might notice. However,
it would be easy enough to hide that he did not have a WMD program.

Saddam was unlikely to be able to tell the difference between nuclear-grade
graphite and pencil lead. What are the chances that the uneducated dictator
could tell a centrifuge from a cow-milking machine? By claiming that the
program was disbursed at hundreds of different sites, it would ensure that
Saddam was never able to visit more then a handful and therefore would not
be able to uncover the fraud.

This would explain both why U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted orders
from the top, possibly Saddam himself, authorizing local commanders to use
chemical weapons and also why they were not used. Saddam ordered their use
because he was convinced he had them to use. However, commanders never fired
any because they were not really available.

The recent discovery of two possible mobile bio-labs may be the exception
that proves the rule. Of all the WMD programs possible, bio-weapons are by
far the cheapest, and it does not come any cheaper than loading a few petri
dishes into a trailer and driving them around the desert. Such a lab would
have given Saddam's henchmen something to show their leader that was far
above his ability to understand. By being mobile, the labs were unlikely to
be targeted and turned into molten steel. But mobility would also allow
people to tell Saddam the program was more extensive then it actually was.
For all we know Saddam could have thought he had hundreds of such labs. He
was unlikely to be able to differentiate one from another, and therefore
easy to fool. Mostly though, creating a small stock of biological weapons
would not have cost much more than the gold trim in one palace bathroom.

In the event that we do not find the WMD smoking gun this is the only
explanation that would make any sense. Saddam wanted the program and was
willing to endure crippling sanctions to have it. However, his henchmen were
unable to deliver and, unwilling to be on the receiving end of Saddam's
zero-defects program, they faked it. In the process of making Saddam believe
he had a functioning program they could easily have sucked U.S. intelligence
into the deception. In fact, deceiving U.S. intelligence in this way would
have been important to them. It would not have been conducive to a long life
if the United States had come to Saddam and told him they had discovered he
had no WMD program and all of his most trusted advisers were lying.

- Jim Lacey, a New York-based writer, was a war correspondent for Time
magazine embedded with the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Iraqi
Freedom."

Seems plausible.

The Detainees (BTW, how goes the SARS*?)

So lets get this straight. Pre-9/11 there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country, allowed in by a system that was, and remains, a total disaster. Then 9/11 happened, and the Fed's are forced to move rapidly to ensure that mass terrorism doesn't happen. They only grab 762 of these guys, and the major complaint is that we kept them too long. And for this we have maltreated these illegal aliens? And now the media is blasting the Feds? One word for you guys. Blair.

See why I am uninspired?

*Standard Canadian Insult.

2003-05-29T19:25:00.000-07:00

Ummmmmmmmm.

"Clinton calls for third term
Former US President Bill Clinton has called for a change to the constitution's 22nd Amendment which prevents a person from being elected president more than twice.
"I think since people are living much longer... the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," he said.

Speaking at the John F Kennedy Library and Museum in Boston, the former president said such a change probably would not apply to him but would benefit future generations.

The amendment was passed after Franklin D Roosevelt was elected to a record fourth presidential term in office.

"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before," said Mr Clinton.

"People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so."

Mr Clinton who left office in 2001, said he had "loved" his time as president but was also enjoying life outside the White House.

"I was surprised at how happy I was to have my life back," he said during a question-and-answer session.

He said he was writing his memoirs, which are due to be published in the autumn of 2004, although he said they may be on sale before then."

Not just NO, HELL NO. Forget it Billy. No way. Eight years of you is all I can take.

And for reference, and this is directed at Alan Colmes, Bill Clinton did not "create" 22 million jobs. The Government doesn't create jobs. In fact, the way I see it they get in the way of a whole bunch of them. George Bush doesn't have a create jobs button that he is too evil/stupid/moronic to find. And the recession proceeded Bush's Presidency.

Honestly, you must really think people are too stupid to know this. I don't think you are that stupid, why are you insulting me? Presidents can only screw up the economy, they really can't fix it. It's a very basic economic principle.

And that applies to you also, Ms. Ferraro.

2003-05-28T21:50:00.000-07:00

Well, this is shocking, just shocking I tell you.

"Palestinian President Yasser Arafat stepped in to assert yesterday that he -- not his prime minister -- is in charge of the Palestinian side in negotiations with Israel, throwing plans for an Israeli-Palestinian summit into confusion." Source

Any State department employee who did not see this coming should have been shot. Why the apparent surprise?

"U.S. State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said he had been told the Sharon-Abbas meeting was postponed "for technical reasons."

Well, there's my answer. Boucher is involved. You know, if I ask for a reason why something important is delayed or put off that I may be personally involved in, I am not placated by "technical reasons." "Technical reasons" is a term of art for bullshit. You try that with your boss.

"Why is your report delayed?"

"Oh, technical reasons"

"Your fired"

Now we find out, and there is nothing technical about it. It's Arafat. or bullshit, whichever you prefer.

"The PLO executive member said that with the jockeying over the summit, Arafat was sending a message to the United States, Israel and Abbas that Arafat makes the decisions over negotiations."

Fine, if this is true, then the "roadmap" is finished. We have already negotiated with Arafat. Many, many, many, many, times. And I am quite sure that Sharon has no interest in negotiating with Arafat again. Can't say I blame him, since negotiating with Arafat is a waste of time. And if that is not self evident to you, you have rationality problems.

"Israel and the United States have been seeking to sideline Arafat, charging that he is tainted by terrorism and has led his Palestinian Authority into corruption and inefficiency."

Ahhhh, yes, the usual press fairness. We have charged him with corruption and terrorism. Merely a charge, sine one could not find a scintilla of proof that Arafat is a terrorist, right? Idiots. And stop awarding Arafat presidential status. Back in the 80's it was Chairman Arafat, which was a little better. It doesn't indicate electoral legitimacy like President Arafat

""Arafat is the elected president of the Palestinian Authority and should not be isolated," he said, calling on Israel to release Arafat from a virtual house arrest in his West Bank headquarters."

Abbas, shut up. Are you going to be helpful or not. This is not helpful.

"Meanwhile, officials are arranging a three-way summit with U.S. President George W. Bush, Sharon and Abbas early next month."

I cannot for the life of me think why this is a good idea. I understand why we want peace in that region. But before that can happen we have to get rid of Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and the rest, and that means Syria and Iran have to go down, quickly followed Saudi. Only when the Palestinians see that they are completely isolated will they become reasonable. I agree that there needs to be a Palestinian state at some point, but I am unconvinced that this is the way to go about it. Every attempt to force the Palestinians and the Israeli's to talk has ended badly, and resulted in worse violence.

2003-05-28T21:21:00.000-07:00

Apparently, I am wrong about Al Queda in Iran

"Iran captures Al-Qaeda's No. 3 leader
11 terrorists have been arrested since Tuesday

TEHERAN - At least 11 extremists linked to Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah extremists have been arrested in the Middle East and Asia since Tuesday.

But the biggest catch this month is Al-Qaeda's third-ranked leader - the alleged mastermind of this month's bombings in Riyadh - who was seized in Iran, according to intelligence sources quoted in Melbourne's The Age newspaper.

Saudi Arabia also announced yesterday the arrest of a key man behind the Riyadh suicide attacks as well as several other Al-Qaeda terror suspects.

Al-Qaeda's No. 3, Saif al-Adel, once Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguard, approved the bombing of residential compounds in Riyadh before his capture by Iranian security forces at the start of the month, nine days before the attack, said the Age report.

The United States has identified him as the most senior Al-Qaeda member linked to the attacks that killed 34 people.

The US government has offered a US$25 million (S$43 million) reward for his capture, but Saif would probably be deported first to Egypt, his place of birth.

In the Saudi raids, security forces 'detained a number of people a few days ago', Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz said.

No more details were released but the Okaz newspaper quoted sources as saying the arrests, including that of suspected ringleader Ali Abdulrahman Ghamdi, were made in the holy city of Medina on Tuesday.

The Al-Watan newspaper reported at least eight suspects were arrested in the raids.

Ghamdi is wanted as a member of the cell of 19 alleged terrorists whose names and pictures were released by the Interior Ministry only a few days before the May 12 Riyadh attacks that left 34 people dead, including nine bombers.

Saudi Arabia said the 19 were members of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network who had planned major attacks on the kingdom.

Searches of the gunmen's hideout and their getaway car netted a huge cache of arms, including 55 hand grenades, 377kg of explosive and 2,545 bullets of different calibres, as well as cash and disguises.

Ghamdi and two others were arrested at an Internet cafe while the five others were apprehended at a house used by the men, Al-Watan quoted unnamed security sources as saying.

Meanwhile, Cambodia has smashed an alleged branch of the Jemaah Islamiah network.

Three men - who allegedly plotted to carry out attacks in Cambodia using Al-Qaeda funds - were charged yesterday under the Terrorism Act.

Officials said Esam Mohamid Khidr Ali, a 40-year-old Egyptian, Hajichiming Abdul Azi, 36, and Muhammadyalludin Mading, 41, were detained at a mosque just north of Phnom Penh on Tuesday. -- AFP, Reuters" Source

Very interesting. What is also interesting is that the Iranians grabbed this person. Could they be cooperating with us slightly? I think we will see.

2003-05-27T18:45:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the Administration has decided that Al Queda is being harbored by the Iranian government. Now any one who has read my blog knows that I am an unapologetic Bush fan. However, I don’t buy this.

Before the war in Iraq, I had upped my reading on Islam in order to have a conversant knowledge of the religion. I did not want to believe that the entire religion was bad, since that would be too terrible to contemplate. Thus far, I am still not completely convinced one way or the other. Those that state that Islam is the religion of peace are in error, since that is far too pat and simplistic of an answer. Those that think that every member of the religion are out to get us, are also overstating the case. Thus far, it seems that the religion, at its most fundamental level, is very susceptible to hijacking by extremists. Since this is a fundamental flaw, it is very difficult to fix, and may doom the religion entirely without a complete overhaul. This is a long and complicated process, which I have not even begun to get my mind around how it would happen.

However, I do know that the Iranian Shia sect of Islam, and the Wahhabism of Al Queda are virulent enemies. Many authors have made this clear, from Stephen Swartz to Bernard Lewis, even to Edward Said. The Wahhabi sect are a fundamentalist Sunni group. From Palestine to the Balkans, the Wahhabi’s and the Shia’s have been at each others throats.

So given this, why would Iran hide Osama or any other Al Queda member? Is this the Administration brand naming terrorism? Is this Iran deciding that they would rather band with Al Queda and other Wahhabi terrorists then face us alone? I find that hard to believe. I find it very difficult to believe that the Iranian clergy would be willing to accept the risk of letting Wahhabi followers into their country to spread the Wahhabi form of Islam. It would be almost as bad as letting in Christians to preach.

2003-05-27T17:34:00.000-07:00

The Law Student Finally Rises

Well, thank God, that is done. One of my worse sets of finals to come down the pike. While I was down, I saw that the various law professors (Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Cooper ) took it upon themselves to whine about the work product they get from law students. Here's a thought. If you want clear prose, why don't you give the students time to put their thoughts down? A horse race, which is what most law school exams are, is a terrible indicator of actual knowledge. I think a much better test would be a take home (one night), open book exam, wherein the student has to produce a legal memo on the fact pattern, or question that the professor has. This would be much more analogous to what lawyers do. There would be time pressure, but not ridiculous time pressure. The question could be complicated enough that the student couldn’t hope to put in a great answer without prior preparation, and the final product would be much easier to read. Can you believe many of us have to handwrite our exams still?

2003-05-12T11:02:00.000-07:00

Larry Solum has a fascinating look at confirmation wars. I wonder if Schumer does know what he is doing. Losing the institutional safeguards of the Senate would not be a positive development.

2003-05-05T19:34:00.000-07:00

This tore me away for a minute and is important.

Can we rely on John Lott, and specifically the "more guns less crime" thesis anymore?

Mark Kleinman doesn't think so, and provides a very compelling case.

2003-05-04T12:01:00.000-07:00

Once more into the breach for me.

Well, thus begins spring semester finals, a point in time where I must ignore my family, my guns, the news, and unfortunately, this blog, for my studies. Therefore, any posting will be extremely sporadic. If no events happen, then no posting. Please go and visit my linked folks, they will all provide interesting reading.

I should be back around May 22 or there abouts. Yes, finals are a long and painful process at law school.

2003-05-02T20:55:00.000-07:00

Looked at from a purely objective viewpoint, the idea to do the carrier speech was a political masterpiece, and the Democrats know it. The media knows it too.

If Bush had the gift of gab, and came off like Reagan, the Democrats would be completely dead. Bush shares one thing with Reagan that Democrats do not seem to comprehend. The fact that the Presidency has more then a slight touch of theatre about it. Reagan understood this perfectly. Bush apparently does as well.

2003-05-02T20:34:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong. I like Bill Bennett. But this story is very troubling. You cannot write a book of virtues and lose a few million at Casinos.

It would be one thing to drop a few hundred every once in a while, but the story reports that Bennett has "total losses over the past decade at more than $8 million."

And it appears that Bennett was "worried about news of his habit leaking out. His customer profile at one casino lists an address that corresponds to Empower.org, the Web site of Empower America, the group Bennett cochairs. But typed across the form are the words: NO CONTACT AT RES OR BIZ!!!"

I just hate it when Conservatives that I like make mistakes in this fashion. If you are going to stake out the moral high ground, you better live it.

2003-05-02T20:26:00.000-07:00

And in the legal "no shit" of the day, a 3 judge panel strikes down major portions of McCain-Feingold.

2003-05-02T20:21:00.000-07:00

And the weekly media SARS update. (SARS being a term I stole from a Mark Steyn article)

"Rumsfeld's soundbites take a back seat as he lashes out at waiting journalists
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent

From the Independent

The Donald Rumsfeld soundbite has become something of an institution since America began banging the diplomatic drum for war on Iraq. The tortured syntax, the rolling eyes and the faintly incomprehensible, slightly menacing utterances. Perhaps this explained why, when he arrived at Heathrow to meet the British press yesterday, there was a mood of heightened expectation, almost sport, among the waiting hacks.

We were not to be disappointed. The US Secretary of Defence treated the national press to a one-man display of verbal shock and awe at the end of a whirlwind tour taking in Baghdad, Afghanistan and America's allies in the Gulf.

Although he may be a diminutive figure who is mocked on the British airwaves – notably BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, which created a Rumsfeld Soundbite of the Week feature – the former Navy pilot who once served as the youngest head of the US Defence Department left commentators in no doubt about who is the only superpower in the world.

Mr Rumsfeld had earlier met Tony Blair in the heart of old "new" Europe – the Prime Minister's country seat in Berkshire. This was followed by a one-sided encounter with Geoff Hoon, closeted away for more than half an hour with the British Defence Secretary in the tiny reception room at the airport's Royal Suite. Senior military officers in full dress uniform gave the order "shush" to quieten the chatting reporters waiting just feet away as the two men, or rather Mr Rumsfeld, plotted the future military path of the coalition of the willing.

Through a crack in the wall we could see Mr Hoon, head bowed, a virtual statue as the man behind the world's most powerful military machine let rip. "Someone should tell Rummy to shut up," said one of the US press corps. "He won't let anyone get a word in."

Minutes later the two men emerged, but it was clear that Mr Hoon was not to be the only one on the receiving end of Mr Rumsfeld's unique verbal style.

Step forward Jon Snow, the veteran Channel 4 presenter. "Given the intimacy you had with planning for this war, what role did you have in the decisions to protect the oil ministry and the museum in Baghdad, and could I ... " Mr Rumsfeld cut him dead. "Just one at a time."

He tried again: "Mr Secretary, it does seem curious then that the oil ministry was so successfully protected and the hospital so unsuccessfully ..." Mr Rumsfeld snapped back: "Your questions have about eight or ten opinions in them, I notice."

Another reporter dared to challenge both defence secretaries. Mr Rumsfeld replied bafflingly: "Why don't you ask questions to one or the other and not multiple questions to each and let everyone go back?" Blank looks. Was this the soundbite we had been waiting for?

And then it happened – the Donald Rumsfeld Soundbite of the Week. Short, concise and perfectly bizarre. The questioner wanted to know how long US troops would be in Iraq, now that war was over. "I don't know – and it's not knowable," he declared to admiring glances."

BTW, SARS means snotty anti-Rumsfeld Statement

2003-05-02T20:12:00.000-07:00

The gratutious aircraft picture

The specs?

IO-540 powered Pitts S-1 "TERMINATOR"
1087 lb. Empty weight. ( includes oil )
3 blade M - T prop
Delmar Benjamin cowl
Spring steel gear ( 16" wider stance )
325 H.P. Demars Lyc.
Wing mounted oil cooler
Larger ailerons
Slave struts mounted behind "I" struts and faired in.
Enlarged vert. Fin.
Larger counterbalanced rudder
smoke
wing tip smoke on all tips
camera mounts.

This little bird will ring your bell. Anything with 325 horse and 1100 lbs, will just scream.

2003-04-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

Sean Penn update.

Thanks to Jim March for the information. He served the town of Ross with a Public Records Request, and this was the information they supplied.

The Town of Ross has apparently issued 2 concealed weapons permits, one to Sean Penn, and one to an attorney.

Sean Penn's good cause is apparently for threats issuing from a stalker. Sean apparently hired Gavin De Becker as a security consultant. De Becker's group then studied the threat, and produced reports for Ross PD Chief Ridgway.

The Ross PD chief seems to have spent significant time ensuring that Penn complied with the statutory hurdles. Penn apparently cleared the CA-DOJ background check. Ridgeway also attempted to contact Los Angeles County Sheriff with no satisfactory result, and then tried Los Angeles Police Department, with smilar result. There has been an open letter sent to the Ross PD chief in an attempt to clear up exactly what Penn's criminal record is. The letter says the following.

An open letter to Mr. Michael J. Ridgway, Director of the Ross Department of Public Safety.

Mr. Ridgway,

First, let me thank you for your candid response to my Public Records Act request. It’s clear you’ve made a good-faith effort to comply with the PRA, far more so than most other agencies.

The ability to access CCW records under the PRA is a matter of some controversy and in some cases, documented illegality. You might find the following material of interest regarding that issue, although the problems noted to NOT apply to how you responded to my request:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=19889

As you’re aware, the Sean Penn permit issuance has triggered quite a bit of controversy. I would assume you’re aware that the Marin County Sheriff’s Office has been particularly “stingy” with permits, including at least some reported denials of currently sitting Marin County Superior Court judges. So when news hit that Penn had CCW, it provided a “stark contrast”, as it was initially assumed he was issued out of the sheriff’s office until later media reports pegged Ross PD as the issuing agency.

My first concern with the information in your PRA response is that there are no denials to report. Is it that nobody else asked, or is it that denials weren’t documented? We know that at the state level, the California DOJ has been ignoring a mandate to document denials statewide since 1/1/99 (see URL above) so there seems to be “something to hide” in denial records?

But clearly, I can’t prove anything one way or the other with your case so I’ll simply note that as an interesting data point.

Part of the controversy with Penn’s permit is that, well, he has a history of violence. That and the apparent trend where the wealthy get access to CCW has stirred serious discussion online. Examples you might find interesting include:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=17763

In particular, some of the alleged quotes by Penn on his violent past are enough to give one pause:

"I hate journalists. Or better. I hate paparazzi. Yeah, I punched them out and I'll do it again if it's necessary. I think a fist in their face is the only way to protect my private life. I demand my freedom. And I must have it."
Source:

"Family makes me feel there's a reason I'm alive... I'm feeling my life, which I didn't always do partly because I'd be drunk a lot."
Source:

Of even more concern is an alleged timeline of Penn’s criminal past, as compiled via public sources online:

In 1985, Sean Penn was arrested in Nashville for assault and battery for attacking two photographers with a rock. He plead guilty, paid a fine and was given a suspended sentence.

In 1986, Penn slugged a man he accused of trying to kiss his wife. Again he plead guilty and was placed on parole.

In 1997, while on parole for his previous conviction, he punched an extra working on his film "Colors" who tried to take a picture of him. He served half of a 60-day jail sentence for parole violation.

In 1998, Penn was accused of hitting a photographer with a rock. Penn claimed the photographer attacked the rock in Penn's hand with his head and injured himself. No arrest was made.

Mr. Ridgeway, in your PRA response, you list a traffic incident (minor speeding) in 2001, a lawsuit which Penn was involved in (business dispute resolved in Penn’s favor) in 1998/9, and the assault conviction of 1987 for the 1986 incident. The Nashville incident (assuming the above was correct) wasn’t mentioned, neither was the 1997 assault. Did you and/or the California DOJ “miss these”? Or are these reputed incidents in error somehow?

Any clarifications on these issues you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please be aware that CCW issuance in general is subject to equal protection principles per the US 9th Circuit in Guillory vs. Gates (1983)

By that standard, the legions of people out there who feel we have been unfairly denied access to permits have a legitimate interest in asking about how permit issuance is handled across the state. Which is exactly why the California Supreme Court threw open the permit records in CBS vs. Block:

This letter and any follow-up public comments to it will be posted at:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=20292

Thank you for any light you’re able to shed on these questions,

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.equalccw.com

My understanding is that the movie "Colors" was released in 1987, and so was probably filmed in 1986. This would mean that Penn did not serve time in 1997, and that possibly his time was served in 1987 or 1988. This means that Penn was barred from owning a handgun for 10 years after this event. In any event, I think it is becoming clear that Penn was legally entitled to a CCW. However, this case is a perfect example of the problem with discretionary or may-issue CCW's. While Sean Penn may be legally allowed a CCW, in a state were the vast majority of Police Chiefs simply say no, why should Penn get one? Penn is surely not the most threatened person in the state. It is a clear example of the corruption in the system. Please don't get me wrong. If someone has cleared the procedural hurdles for a CCW, they should receive one. Which is why I favor a system of must or shall-issue, instead of discretionary issue. Think that's outlandish? Minnesota obviously doesn't, and I would not consider Minnesota to be a bastion of conservative thought.

2003-04-28T19:04:00.000-07:00

I am still sick as a dog.

I have finals in two weeks, so I must get better.

Only one thing.

I think it is time to resurrect a term that has fallen from regular usage. That term is "collaborator." It is to be reserved as an epithet when referring to the French.

Why? Well, if you do not know now, try this.

"French Helped Iraq to Stifle Dissent

By Alex Spillius and Andrew Sparrow
Daily Telegraph

France colluded with the Iraqi secret service to undermine a Paris conference held by the prominent human rights group Indict, according to documents found in the foreign ministry in Baghdad.

Various documents state that the Iraqis believed the French were doing their utmost to prevent the meeting from going ahead.

Ann Clwyd, the Labour MP who chairs Indict, said last night that she would be demanding an apology from the French government for its behaviour, which she described as "atrocious".

The files, retrieved from the looted and burned foreign ministry by The Telegraph last week, detail the warmth and strength of Iraqi-French ties.

They include a six-page letter dated February 1998 from Saddam Hussein to Jacques Chirac, welcoming the French president's support in the campaign against sanctions and assuring him that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
The documents regarding Indict show that pro-Saddam elements, "Iraqi and Arab brothers", gained access to the conference, which opened on April 14, 2000, at the Hotel La Concorde Lafayette.

Indict's attempt to mount a protest outside the Iraqi ambassador's residence was foiled by the authorities.

A month after the meeting, a letter headed "Role of Southern France" (sic) from Saddam's office authorised the finance ministry to pay $383,439 to undisclosed beneficiaries.

Perhaps the most damning document is from the Iraqi intelligence service, Iris. The service, known as the Mukhabarat in Iraq, operated as the domestic secret police and as an external intelligence agency.

Its role abroad was to collect intelligence, murder opponents and maintain relations with friendly groups. The document, dated March 28, 2000, is from the head of Iris to Saddam's office.

At the time the organisation was run by Tahir Jalil al-Habbush, number 14 on America's wanted list. The letter appears to be written by a different hand from one revealed last week purporting to record that George Galloway benefited from contracts under the oil for food programme. But it carries the same signature.

It states that "one of our sources" met the "deputy spokesman" of the French foreign ministry, "with whom he has good relations".

It claims that the spokesman from the justice and interior ministries had sought to find a legal way of preventing the Indict meeting.

The paper said it had been agreed that no Iraqi opposition leaders would be granted visas for France to attend the conference. It is not clear if Iraqis living outside the country were granted visas.

Although the conference went ahead, the Iraqis regarded moves to undermine it as a striking success.

A memo dated April 18, 2000, was sent to Saddam's office by the then foreign minister, Mohammad Said al-Sahaf, who later became the information minister nicknamed "Comical Ali". It is headed "The Failed Enemy Conference in Paris" and says that the French media ignored the event.

Miss Clwyd, MP for Cynon Valley, recalled various attempts at disruption.

Saddam supporters staged a protest outside before it started, she said, and at one point a bomb scare led to the hall having to be evacuated.

Victims of Saddam's regime gave evidence at the conference and filming was strictly forbidden because they feared being identified.

But someone smuggled in a camera and started filming, Miss Clwyd said.

"The police were called. But they could not take the film from the man because he was an Iraqi accredited to the Moroccan embassy."
The French foreign ministry denied collusion.

A Quai d'Orsay source said it should not come as a surprise that French officials met Iraqi intelligence officers in Baghdad. But he denied accusations of specific collaboration to disrupt the conference."

AND this

"De Villepin's visit speaks a thousand words: daily

Tehran, April 26, IRNA -- `Iran News' on Saturday focused on
Thursday's visit to Iran of French Minister of Foreign Affairs
Dominique de Villepin, the outspoken critic in the trio that oppposed
the US-led war on Iraq.
The swift conclusion of the war and the obvious defeat of the
anti-war collision, speaks much of the motives behind the French
foreign minister's visit.
"One of the objectives of the de Villepin visit to the region
is gaining support of Iran, Turkey and Jordan for future regional
cooperation in the face of U.S. hegemony," pointed out the daily.
"Following the U.S. military success in Iraq and the opposition of
French officials to the U.S. operations in that country, the French
know that they will have to be resigned to the loss of their interests
in Baghdad," the editorial said.
De Villepin arrived in Tehran Thursday at the end of a
three-nation regional tour which took him first to Turkey and then
to Jordan.
"Iran fully knows the crucial role of France in the European
Union, just as the French officials fully know the important role of
Iran, both in the region and among its immediate neighbors," the
editorial further said.
France, which opposed the war, and Iran, which stayed neutral,
have one thing in common: both oppose US hegemony and will not
simply look on as Americans continue to take unilateral measures
against other nations such as its latest decision not to allow UN
weapons inspectors back into Iraq to independently verify Iraq's
alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Notwithstanding the US military success in ousting the Iraqi
dictator, French officials continue to insist that the United
Nations should have the leading role in post-war Iraq and are
insisting Iraq should be made to honor its pre-war contracts,
including its debts to a number of countries including France.
France may now be in danger of losing its investments in the
oilfields in Kurd-populated cities of Iraq, the editorial suggested.
Hence, France is now considering strengthening its ties with other
friendly countries in the region, including Iran, in order to put up
a united opposition against US plans to take over control of Iraq's
oil wells, it said.
Undoubtedly, Iran welcomes the expansion of its ties with France.
But, it said, France as well as other European nations must know that
Iran cannot forget their assistance to Baghdad during the 8-year
imposed war on Iran, it highlighted.
Iran will also never forget that Paris, until recently, supported
Iranian opposition groups, it pointed out.
Iran has welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime
but will continue to watch events in neighboring Iraq to make sure
the rights of all Iraqis--the Kurds, Shias and Sunnis--are protected
and that Iraqis get a truly democratic regime they deserve, it said.
"Accepting the will of the majority and working to restore their
rights is among the Iraqi people's demands for the realization of a
democratic government in Iraq," it stressed.
De Villepin would do well to have this in mind as he reports to
his government on the results of his trip to the region and as he
pursues his battle to assert Franco interests in the region, the daily
concluded.

AND lastly, this

"
France Betrayed U.S. to Saddam, Stifled Iraqis Opposing Saddam
NewsMax.com and NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, April 28, 2003
LONDON – France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, and it colluded with the Iraqi secret service to undermine a Paris conference, British newspapers report.
Documents unearthed in the wreckage of the foreign ministry in Baghdad are the first Iraqi files to emerge documenting French help for the dictatorship, the Sunday Times reported. Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private trans-Atlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington, the documents reveal.

The Times reported:

The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry, kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war. One report warned of an American "attempt to involve Iraq with terrorism" as "cover for an attack on Iraq."
Another, dated September 25, 2001, from Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W Bush.

Chirac was said to have been told that America was "100% certain Usama bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks and that the answer of the United States would be decisive."

The report also gave a detailed account of American attitudes towards Saddam amid anxiety in Iraq that the country might soon become a target of American reprisals.

The newspaper found a document in folders marked France 2001 that said, "Information available to the French embassy in Washington suggests that there is no intention on the part of the Americans to attack Iraq, but that matters might change quickly.

"According to French information, a discussion about Iraq is going on in Washington between Colin Powell and the Zionist [Paul] Wolfowitz [the deputy defense secretary]. Powell was against a military attack on Iraq whereas Wolfowitz was in favor of a strong military operation against Iraq."

The report said "the Israelis have informed the French ambassador in Washington that they have no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks."

Also noted: an account of a meeting between Hubert Vedrine, former Socialist foreign minister of France, and Powell after 9/11. Powell reportedly revealed that he would discuss with Moscow its alliance with Baghdad.

Powell, the report said, "is going to ask the Russian foreign minister how Russia could co-operate with a country that had expressed satisfaction at America being subjected to such attacks. He is going to ask for a new draft resolution from the United Nations security council on Iraq."

Bernard Jenkin, British shadow defense secretary, said the briefings showed France's "duplicitousness."

We have a new enemy, and it is Gallic.

2003-04-24T19:18:00.000-07:00

I am sick as a dog, so no posting tonight.

Except to celebarete the fact that we have captured Tariq Aziz. Maybe the pope will give him clemency.

2003-04-23T20:50:00.000-07:00

The Cato institute has an released its handbook for the 108th Congress (Credit Instapundit)

Some good stuff in there. We will see if the Republicans make any move to change the trend of the conversation.

2003-04-23T18:09:00.000-07:00

As one who appreciates Monty Python.

Apparently I am the bunny, with nasty sharp pointy teeth.

Mean lil fellow, arn't you?

What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

2003-04-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

An excellent article by William Harwood that someone e-mailed me regarding the refinement of the NASA scenario for loss of Columbia and crew.

"Investigators probing the Columbia disaster are developing an increasingly detailed scenario that explains the sequence of events that led to Columbia's destruction, a scenario that matches up with telemetry and recorded data as well as the damage seen in recovered debris. Only two out of 10 initial scenarios are still being actively developed by NASA investigators, officials say, but one of them, which assumes a breach in the left wing at or near leading edge panel No. 8, has emerged as the leading contender.

This scenario, No. 2 on the original list of 10 being assessed by agency managers and engineers, matches the telemetry downlinked from the shuttle before its breakup as well as data recorded on board by Columbia's payload experiment support recorder, or OEX, which was recovered near Hemphill, Texas, March 19. It also explains unusual communications dropouts and unexplained flashes seen in the wake of the shuttle as it descended across the southwest United States.

The scenario matches up well with the known point of impact where foam debris from Columbia's external fuel tank slammed into the left wing at 450 mph just 82 seconds after liftoff. In fact, OEX data from thermocouple V07T9895, located on the left wing spar just aft of reinforced carbon carbon panel No. 9, shows a slight temperature increase after the strike that may be indicative - this is not yet confirmed - of leading edge damage.

OEX data recorded during re-entry also is consistent with the severe heat damage seen in recovered debris, which strongly suggests a breach at or very near the underside of RCC panel 8, one of 22 such carbon composite panels making up the leading edge of the left wing.

The U-shaped panels, held in place by so-called T-seals that are bolted to the front face of the wing spar with inconel fittings, are designed to protect the wing from 3,000-degree re-entry temperatures and to handle aerodynamic loads as the shuttle falls into the thickening atmosphere.

"Independent teams examining the recovered debris are finding that the most likely location of (the) initial breach into the vehicle was into the left hand wing RCC panel 8/9 area," according to a summary of the scenario. Scott Hubbard, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, said much the same thing during a news conference last Tuesday.

The only other scenario still under active consideration by NASA engineers involves a breach in RCC panels closer to the shuttle's fuselage. But it does not fit the facts as closely as scenario No. 2.

NASA's development of failure scenarios is in support of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which is responsible for determining the root cause of the disaster. All such scenarios must be confirmed by the accident board and readers are cautioned that the scenario presented below is preliminary and subject to change. That said, here is how scenario No. 2 currently plays out.

Columbia fell into the discernible atmosphere 400,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean northwest of Hawaii - entry interface, or EI - at 8:44:09 a.m. on Feb. 1. Scenario No. 2 assumes the shuttle began its descent with significant damage to the underside of RCC panel No. 8. The scenario assumes spar insulation behind the RCC panels was directly exposed to re-entry heating.

During a news conference Tuesday, members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board said investigators were focusing on the possibility a lost "T-seal" between RCC panels 8 and 9 might have left a gap an inch wide or greater between the adjacent panels, providing a direct path into the leading edge.

What caused the damage has not yet been pinned down, although most investigators believe it likely was caused by a piece of foam insulation that broke off Columbia's external fuel tank 81 seconds after liftoff and slammed into the left wing's leading edge one second later at some 450 mph. That impact may have cracked or penetrated an RCC panel or damaged a T-seal enough to result in failure.

The day after launch, military radars detected debris floating away from Columbia after a routine maneuver. The debris has not yet been identified, but radar tests are underway at Wright Patterson Air Force Base to determine whether a T-seal or a piece of an RCC panel could explain the sightings.

Regardless of the exact location of the breach - RCC panel 8 or an adjacent T-seal - it did not take long for hot gas to penetrate Columbia's left wing during re-entry. At 8:48:39 a.m., 270 seconds after entry interface, a strain gauge (V12G9921) in the leading edge near RCC panel 9 first showed an unusual increase.

"Thermal stresses build due to the breach in the wing and hot gas impingement on the spar," the scenario reads. "Pressure also starts to build in the RCC wing cavity adding to the load on the spar. The damaged wing causes a change in the load path that increases the wing spar strain. All these loads combine and put an off nominal strain on the spar."

Twenty seconds later, at 8:48:59 a.m., heat entering the RCC cavity through the presumed breach in panel 8 is first registered by a temperature sensor on a fitting between RCC panels 9 and 10 (V09T9910). Almost simultaneously, insulation on the forward face of the spar was compromised, allowing super-heated air to begin eroding the spar structure itself.

As the leading edge heating continued, temperature sensors on Columbia's left-side orbital maneuvering system rocket pod began sensing cooler temperatures than usual. This trend began developing at 8:49:49 a.m., or 340 seconds after entry interface. Computational fluid dynamics calculations indicate this was due to leading edge RCC panel damage affecting the flow of air over the wing.

At 8:50:00 a.m., the first in a series of brief communications drop outs were observed. Engineers now believe these interruptions were caused by the release of molten metals from the eroding wing spar and spar insulators into the hot air surrounding the space shuttle. The effect was similar to that of "chaff" released from military aircraft to foil weapons sensors.

At 8:50:09 a.m., the disrupted airflow over the leading edge of the left wing resulted in a cooling trend on the left side of Columbia's fuselage. Ten seconds later, at 8:50:19 a.m., increasing damage to the leading edge caused a thermocouple on the lower side of the wing near RCC panel 9 to begin sensing an off-nominal increase.

The inside surface of the left wing spar then began showing an unusual temperature rise (sensor V09T9895) at 8:51:14 a.m. This reading, following the RCC interface temperature increase noted at 8:48:59 a.m., confirms hot gas penetrated the cavity behind the RCC panels before entering the interior of the wing itself.

At 8:52:05 a.m., telemetry from the shuttle showed the start of an unusual yawing motion pulling the nose of the orbiter to the left. This was due to the growing damage to the leading edge affecting the aerodynamic behavior of the spacecraft. Computational fluid dynamics confirms this unbalanced force would continue to increase as the damage worsened.

Just four seconds later, at 8:52:09 a.m., the plume of super heated air in the RCC cavity finally burned through the wing spar itself, allowing hot gas to flow into the wing's interior. The plume of hot air impinged on the main landing gear wheel well box, about halfway down its outboard side, and began burning through cable bundles, cutting off data from scores of left wing sensors.

Based on the order of the cable bundle burn throughs, it is possible the hot gas plume impacted the upper skin of the wing and then was deflected along the skin to the wire bundles running along the upper part of the wheel well box. The top two cable bundles were damaged first, followed 30 seconds later by a third bundle lower down the side of the wheel well.

Analysis of the timing of the cable burn throughs appears to confirm the general location of where the burn throughs are believed to have occurred and they are consistent with a breach at RCC panels 8/9.

The hot gas quickly spread throughout the interior of the unpressurized wing, triggering a sharp rise in the temperature being recorded by sensor V09T9895 - the same interior sensor that first detected higher spar temperatures a minute earlier - at 8:52:10 a.m. Seven seconds later, hot gas in the wing was first registered by a brake line sensor in the left main landing gear wheel well.

"As heat enters wing, thermal stresses are created and structural failures start to occur," reads a scenario entry for 8:52:19 a.m. "Hot gas continues to flow into wing, with pressure and temperatures building in the wheel well cavity." At 8:52:41 a.m., a second wheel well temperature sensor begins indicating an unusual increase.

In the meantime, the leading edge continued to deteriorate, affecting the flow of air over the wing. At 8:53:29 a.m., OEX data indicated the left fuselage began heating up as a vortex of disturbed air began moving forward along the side of the orbiter. The movement of this shock wave occurred at the same time as a sudden increase in yaw motion, which appears to confirm increasing leading edge damage.

It was at roughly this point, beginning at 8:53:44 a.m., that observers along Columbia's ground track began noticing debris falling away from the shuttle. At 8:54:20 a.m., the shuttle's "roll moment" changed sign, going from negative to positive. One explanation is an unexplained increase in lift on the left wing, presumably due to increasing structural damage. Another explanation, however, is damage to the upper surface of the wing.

"Hot gas continues to progress down the RCC and may burn through top of wing shedding skin and creating a hole," the scenario reads. "Damage pushes shock wave/vortex onto vertical tail leading to large increase in rolling moment."

Ground controllers at the Johnson space Center in Houston did not notice anything unusual until 8:54:24 a.m. when mechanical systems officer Jeff Kling informed flight director Leroy Cain "I've just lost four separate temperature transducers on the left side of the vehicle, hydraulic return temperatures. Two of them on system one and one in each of systems two and three."

Nine seconds later, at 8:54:33 a.m., a bright flash was noted by ground observers. This is now believed to be the result of maneuvering jet firings and interactions with debris falling away from the shuttle.

Then, at 8:56:16 a.m., the super-heated air entering the wing from the breach in the leading edge finally burned through the outboard wall of the left landing gear wheel well, triggering dramatic temperature increases in sensors located inside the wheel well. The plume is believed to have impinged directly on the left main landing gear strut. One such strut has been recovered and while engineers have not yet determined whether it was from the right or left landing gear, it shows severe melting consistent with a direct plume impingement.

Forty-four seconds after the wheel well was breached - at 8:57:00 a.m. - the plume burned through the forward inboard corner of the main landing gear door, providing an exit path for the hot gas in the wing. As a point of reference, the famous Kirtland Air Force Base telephoto view of Columbia, a photograph showing obvious signs of distress at the leading edge, was taken at 8:57:14 a.m.

At 8:58:03 a.m., a sharp aileron trim change was noted, an indication large pieces of the wing's overheated skin were blowing off and falling away. At the same time, the wheel well continued to heat up. All tire pressure and temperature data were lost during a 20-second period beginning at 8:58:38 a.m.

Ten seconds later, commander Rick Husband radioed, "And, uh, Hou(ston)..." The transmission was garbled. Thirty seconds later, Kling told Cain "We just lost tire pressure on the left outboard and left inboard, both tires."

"And Columbia, Houston, we see your tire pressure messages and we did not copy your last," astronaut Charles Hobaugh called form mission control.

"Roger, uh, buh..." Husband replied at 8:59:32 a.m., interrupted again by a comm drop out. It was the final transmission from the crew.

"The aerodynamic forces and the aero heating become more intense leading to further structural degradation of the vehicle," the scenario concludes. Columbia ultimately became aerodynamically unstable and broke up around 9:00:21 a.m.

Evidence supporting scenario No. 2 includes:

Heavy slag-like deposits on the interior of RCC panel 8 fragments. The slag presumably is the result of molten aluminum spraying away from the point where hot gas impinged the wing spar.

Severe heat damage on a tile carrier panel located between the lower edge of RCC panel 9 and the heat shield tiles permanently bonded to the lower side of the wing; erosion and slumping of the heat-resistant tiles indicate prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures.

Severe heat damage to a tile carrier panel located just behind the upper edge of RCC panel 8.

"Knife-edge" erosion of pieces from RCC panels 8 and 9; RCC erosion requires temperatures in excess of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit; the knife-edge pattern, only seen on debris from panels 8 and 9, is indicative of such extreme heating.

Recovery of an upper wing tile farther west than any other confirmed shuttle debris; the tile, originally mounted on the upper surface behind RCC panel 9, presumably fell off earlier than others because of the disturbed airflow and heating caused by the breach.
"Data is emerging that shows very significant and unusual damage at the interface between (RCC) panels 8 and 9," Hubbard said Tuesday. "For example, the splattered metal on panel 8 is much heavier than elsewhere and there is erosion of the reinforced carbon carbon elements, the ribs, what's called the lug where the attachment occurs.

"What we see is something that's not seen thus far anywhere else on the wing leading edge or indeed in the orbiter debris, which is pieces of a very tough material, this reinforced carbon carbon, eroded to knife edges. Where a normal piece is a half an inch (thick), it's been eroded to about the thickness of a dime. This kind of heating event indicates long duration, very extreme heating.

"We don't know quite what to make of this yet, other than what I said, a very severe heating event in the intersection between panels 8 and 9," Hubbard said. "The carrier panel, that is, the piece of material that goes between the reinforced carbon carbon and all the tiles on the bottom of the orbiter, that carrier panel also shows severe heating. It's slumped, like you overheated Styrofoam. That's another indication of some very severe heating events."

2003-04-22T19:37:00.000-07:00

A friend asked me a question, and the answer seemed interesting, so I will post it. The question concerned the effectiveness of the current airspace restrictions mandated by the FAA.

My thoughts on the ADIZ (Air Defense Interdiction Zone) and TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) are fairly simple. They don't work, and only serve to foul up the system.

Here is the status of the ADIZ and other effected areas.

You also notice that there is only the requirement for communication, and most of the airspace is only restricted below 3000 AGL. (Above Ground Level) You notice this is different then MSL (Mean Sea Level), which is what the pilot reads on the altimeter.

In any event, what no one bothers to question is a very simple fact. If I were to load up aircraft, even a very slow one like a Cessna 172, and get close to the TFR or fly in the ADIZ, and then get close to an location, how are you going to stop me from carrying out an attack?

A Cessna 172 moves at about 120 miles an hour, and can move much faster in a dive, up to 160 miles an hour if the dive is sustained. Notice that all the TFR's and ADIZ keep you high. The TFR's keep you 3 miles away, and I don't know how far they keep you away from possible targets in the ADIZ. I assume that depends where you want to go. Lets be generous and say they keep you 10 miles away from your target. At your moment of attack, ATC would have to determine that there is a problem, summon help and then the help would have to get there and interdict you, all before you could strike. At 120 miles an hour, the pilot can cover 1 mile every 30 seconds. 10 miles takes 5 minutes, while 3 miles is done in a 1(1/2) minutes. At 180 MPH (Not all that fast in an aircraft) 10 miles is up in 3 minutes 33 seconds. And if we get to high performance turbo props and jets, it gets much worse. 300 mph is nothing for those guys, which means that you cover 10 miles in 2 minutes.

So you are telling me that ATC will spot a problem in two minutes, and be able to interdict the aircraft? I maintain that it is not possible.

ATC's (Air Traffic Control) first response when the pilot goes off the air, is to wonder what is wrong. They will eat up at least a minute trying to raise the pilot. (This, of course, assumes that a busy and harried controller will notice a flight deviation immediately, and immediately contact the pilot) After this, the controller may think that the aircraft has a problem. By the time he determines that there is a threat, it will be far too late.

Therefore, the only way to combat this is to inspect every aircraft before it is flown. HAHAHAHAH. Good frikken luck. There are hundreds of thousands, possible millions of General, Cargo and Business operations a day, many in locations that are remote. That is also not possible.

To my mind, this method of securing the system is whistling by the graveyard. We are wide open.

A situation that would be analogous would be if there was a spate of car bombings in this country. What would we do? The problem would be almost insurmountable. We live in a free society with millions of cars driven by millions of dispirit people. We are intensely vunerable.

Which, of course, is why I support the President in removing the problem at its source.

2003-04-21T22:06:00.000-07:00

Blaster has some thoughts on Bill Clinton, the NeoCon. Yes, you heard right.

2003-04-21T21:49:00.000-07:00

Oh, and in todays SARS (Snotty Anti-Rumsfeld Statement: Credit Mark Steyn) report, I have the Arab News, in Saudi Arabia.They're allies, right?

"The Dumbest of the Dumb
Abdullah Al-Fawzan/Al-Watan

A survey conducted in the United States named pop superstar Michael Jackson as the dumbest man on earth. Partly because he put his son’s life at risk when he dangled him out of the window from the 20th floor of a hotel in Germany, and partly because he canceled two concerts, which cost him $5 million. This kind of behavior, of course, is dumb.

But there are some people even dumber than Michael Jackson. One is US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Since the beginning of the war on Iraq he has committed a series of dumb acts that do not even serve the interests of America.

He knows perfectly well that his soldiers have no field experience. They lived their life more as citizens than as soldiers, and they were sent to the desert to meet a tough Iraqi Army with long experience of the terrain. Iraq has been fighting land wars for 30 years.

The American soldiers are fighting a war without a cause, in an environment they are not used to. The Iraqi soldiers are defending their country, which they know inside out. If Rumsfeld favored this war over all other options, he must be the dumbest man alive.

I do not mean that the US Army will lose the war. It might win in the end, but not before paying a heavy price which Rumsfeld never gambled on. Rumsfeld will rely heavily on his air power. He will bomb Iraqi cities and kill thousands on innocent civilians. The American planes and missiles will massacre more people, who will be shown daily on our television screens. There will be growing anti-war sentiment around the world. More people everywhere will be angry at America and everything American. In addition, more American soldiers will fall in the battlefield. The street war in big Iraqi cities will be a living hell for American soldiers. The American media will be angrier with Rumsfeld. He may have to resign and share the fate of other dumb people.

When Michael Jackson does something dumb, it affects only him. When Rumsfeld does something dumb, it affects the whole world, including the American people. Doesn’t that prove he is the dumbest of the dumb?

2003-04-21T21:08:00.000-07:00

On the latest Sean Penn update, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, calls out the Hollywood Elite to hold Sean Penn responsible for any damage his firearms cause.

I am not sure that I go along with that. Leaving a loaded gun in a car is not a truly responsible act, but holding someone liable for the actions after the guns are stolen seems to relieve the truly responsible party, the robber, of any responsibility. It is one thing to leave a gun out where anyone can find it, but it is quite another to leave it in a locked vehicle. I have frequently left unloaded firearms, with ammunition nearby, in my locked car, if I needed to stop somewhere. I understand the point the group is trying to make. However, no one seems to have picked up the salient point here. How does one justify Sean Penn's CCW is a state where they are very difficult to get for an ordinary citizen, let alone one with a history, and criminal record of violence?

In another story, the Armed Females of America, and Carma Lewis, have thoughts on this issue. She basically has all the information that I have, save for the interesting fact that Sean once fired a gun at an aircraft. I wonder why he was never charged in that incident. I do believe that under the law I quoted before that action would have disqualified him for life from firearms ownership. An illegal discharge is highly problematic.

BTW, here is a Guardian story that seems to confirm it. CAUTION, the story has a high gag factor.

Oh, and one other little jewel.

"[SEAN PENN] REALLY scared me. You can see it on the screen, because he did it very quickly. In the middle of the take, he ran off the set and I heard him say to the propman, 'Give me the other gun.' When he came back I was concerned that this wasn't the gun he had left with. Who knows? He's acting like some crazy actor and pointing it at my face, and it really scared me. It was near my eye. It was an empty gun - he knew exactly what he was doing. He just wanted to scare me, which is what he did. I got mad afterward and yelled at him, then I said thank you. it's great when actors do that for each other. It's very generous."

Walken to Lawrence Grobel in "Playboy Interview: Christopher Walken", Playboy magazine, 1997.

Yep, this sure is a nice stable personality to issue a CCW too. Don't you feel safer?

2003-04-21T21:00:00.000-07:00

Firstly, for Blaster. A gratuitous airplane picture. Concept lifted from Kim Du Toit.

That aircraft is known as the Extra 300. It has 300HP, full span ailerons, with a 400 degree per second roll rate, composite propellor, wings and stabilizers, with a tubular frame, wrapped in fabric. The aircraft is rated for +/- 10 G's, and it can get there. I have about 300 hours in the type. When introduced, it was the premier monoplane, but has since been somewhat outclassed. However, as a trainer, it is the highest performing certified two seater on the market. And trust me, it is only outclassed at the very highest levels.

2003-04-18T22:54:00.000-07:00

I thought I would go with the airline stuff today.

First off, what the hell is the problem with the American Airlines Executives. I am a libertarian leaning conservative, but crap like this gets my goat. You don't go and ask your employees for large cuts in pay, while threatening imminent bankruptcy, and then sign off on a bonus, just after the employees had a vote. And also protecting your pension, while not protecting your employees' pension is disgraceful. I believe that most corporate officers are decent folk who actually feel for their employees, but this is ludicrious. And the argument (look in the comments section) that the impact of executive salary bonus is not the same as the employee salary diminishment does not wash with me. To act that way is in very poor form. It creates an us versus them relationship that is corrosive to the airline, and to further negotiation. AMR is far from out of the woods, and when they go hat in hand to their employees again, I doubt they are going to get shit. Of course, that doesn't matter since if the airline goes bankrupt, the executives get to stay on as debtors in possession and cram down any plan on their employees. Actually this action does not surprise me. I have a number of friends that work for AMR and they have always complained about their treatment at the hands of management. For instance, AMR will not hire from their regional subsidiaries into the main line. Why? No one knows, but it creates intensely bad feelings amongst the crews. Especially when they know they are getting badly paid.

However, that may change, since Delta is also bleeding red ink..

You have to understand one aspect of the airline industry before you can understand its problems. The industry is heavily unionized. I personally think that this hurts the industry, and it hurts the employees. Almost all the employees, or at least the well paid ones are unionized. This basically means the pilots, mechanics, and the flight attendants. To compound the problem, all these employees run on a seniority system. When you get hired, you get a number. This lets you bid on locations that you want to work, aircraft you want to fly, and routes you want to work. This has two very bad effects.

The first one, curiously, is one that is adverse to the employees. Because you cannot lateral over to another airline, since you would have to go to the back of the seniority line, you are tied to your airline. Everything about your job is tied to your seniority; your pay, your level of management, your location, and your hours of work. The longer the employees are there, the more they have invested in the airline. And the airline is basically stuck with the employees, since it cannot really fire them. I believe that a workforce that was able to transition would work far better. It is curious that the seniority system has created an environment where the airline can treat its employees like dirt, since where else are they going to go? And the employees can't really come down terribly hard on the airline, since if they kill it, where else are the going to go? See the ugly merry go round?

The second is that it creates a very inefficient workforce. You do not get your best and brightest rising to the top. You get the most senior. Not only that, the airlines can get people switching aircraft at very inopportune times. At any time that a pilot reaches a specific level, he can transition to a new position. It is very expensive to train people on new equipment, especially aircraft captains. It would be much better to pay them to stay in the equipment they initially trained in. However, with the seniority system you do not have that much control over it.

What makes me say all this? Before I went to school, I worked in the industry for a while. It had become time for me to either make my move for the major airlines, or move on and do something else. I sat down, and took a close look at the industry, and decided that it was a financial disaster. Thus far I have been correct in that belief.

So, if anyone has an idea on how to run a large airline, with many different route lengths, including international, (This boots out Southwest) let me know. We could make a fortune.

In other news, could someone explain to me why anyone listens to Chuck Schumer. He apparently wants to require all airliners to put anti-missile technology on EVERY aircraft in the fleet. The article also talks about the airports fortifying the areas about their airports. Both ideas are a waste of time, and a huge waste of money.

Firstly, take a missile like the Russian SA-18. The thing has a range of 5200 (15,600 feet) meters, and a ceiling of 3500 (10,500 feet) meters. The Stinger is about the same. This is a massive amount of terrain that you would have to cover in order to forestall a launch. And commercial aircraft can be below 10,000 feet for an extended period of time. Therefore, in a city like Los Angeles you would have to defend the whole of the Los Angeles Basin area, including the hills, against someone pulling one of these out of a truck, and firing it. The task is definitionally impossible.

Secondly, anti-missile defenses could cost 3 million a pop. There are approximately 4652 mainline aircraft in the US commercial fleet. This does not include the regional carriers, or other national carriers. In addition, the 3 million does not count maintenance cost, training costs, and other related costs. These costs include loss of revenue due to additional weight, and the extra fuel cost of flying the extra weight. In addition, we are not at all certain that the thing would work. Military doctrine requires a swift change in direction and hard manuevering when deploying these devices, something a commercial airliner cannot do at approach speeds. The article also makes note that airliners have two engines and therefore may survive a rocket hit. This is something I doubt. The engineers never designed redundancy in this fashion. Every airliner I have ever heard of absorbing exterior missile damage has fared very badly.

Therefore, we are going to have to face the fact that the airline industry in this country is absolutely vunerable to this type of attack. There is nothing we could do.

However, as you can see reality has no bearing on the mind of Chuck Schumer. He wants to fit one of these exorbitantly priced, unknown efficacy devices on to every aircraft in the fleet. Can you imagine the cabin announcement? "Ladies and gentleman, if the ECM sensor in our cockpit lights up, we will be forced to Split S, as trained, to avoid the problem (Please look to the seatback in front of you for an explanation of a Split S). Whilst doing that manuever, please feel free to reach for your airsickness bag, you will need it." I don't mean to make light of the problem, but it is fundamental to our society. On open free society will be vunerable. This is just one of the ways.

2003-04-17T21:21:00.000-07:00

LGF has one of the worst things I have ever seen. (This picture will make you angry beyond belief. It is also graphic)

2003-04-17T21:18:00.000-07:00

Heh

(Cox and Forkum)

2003-04-17T20:59:00.000-07:00

Blaster has gratuitous airplane pictures too

So the Russians go from a "liberal" reading of 1441, to strict constructionists on the sanctions on Iraq.

I personally love this line from Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov

"This decision cannot be automatic, it demands that conditions laid out in corresponding U.N. Security Council resolutions be fulfilled."

I am not sure you have been paying attention bud, but the "serious consequences" that the Iraqi's were threatened with for not complying with all the resolutions happened. Saddam has gone bye-bye. He is an ex-parrot. Lets try some logic. If I threaten you with serious consequences. If you do not comply with the stated conditions and bring the serious consequences about, doesn't that invalidate the conditions? But then again, this was never about the WMD's, was it? I am also slightly nervous, since it sounds like the Russians might possibly have had the opportunity to transfer Iraq's WMD, and know we can't find them. It sounds far-fetched, but why would they play this game otherwise. They must kow that if the WMD's are there to find, it is only a matter of time before we find them.

"For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not."

And Igor, we are working on it. What we have made sure of is that any weapons are not a threat.

Also, the French are in on this also. For any nation that supports the UN to not understand that the French and Russians seem intent on completely destroying the UN, is rank idiocy. The Bush Administration is not going to stand for this. And in case you are in need of refresher, the French and Russians tried to end sanctions for years before this military action. Now remember that the media, and every liberal will argue that this is not true. You will go out of your mind pointing out the discontinuity between their position now, and their position then. You will be wasting your breath, don't bother.

2003-04-16T21:54:00.000-07:00

Oh, last thing. All your base are belong to us. (Click on the movie)

2003-04-16T21:33:00.000-07:00

If you have never had the chance to read Orsen Scott Card's political writings, go here, and prepare to enjoy.

I also found that I had been linked by The American Scene, one of the best blogs out on the web. Go and check it out.

Jared, over at PolitiBlog has had about enough of Billy Bentpecker to last a lifetime. I try to stay away from reading about our past President. It's bad for the blood pressure.

RealPolitik has an interesting angle on the Democrats problems. Looking at recent polling data suggests that the Dems are in for a hard time if GW keeps up the good work. What do you do if you are a Dem facing a President who has 55% approval amongst your constituency, and 78% approval amongst Independents.

Now if this were the aforementioned Billy Bentpecker, then he would hoard his approval, but not this President. Gw appears to be immediately employing his political capital in order to get his tax cuts.. Notice that the Newspaper can't resist a crack about public support.

"Bush also faces a skeptical public. Six in 10 Americans say this is not the time for more tax cuts, an Associated Press poll found."

It's funny how the media see an impediment, and Bush sees people he needs to convince.

Meanwhile my "goobernor," Gray Davis, sets records for lowest approval rating ever. Thats great, I can't wait to leave the state. To help me escape, please hit the tip jar.

Want to know how democracy is progressing in South Africa? Not too well. These two parties have been at each others throats long before the first Voortrekker showed up. If they start a power struggle, things could get ugly, very fast. Oh, and by the way, the African Union has no opinion on the Zimbabwe situation.

In news of interest to a hopeful aviation attorney, it seems that American may have staved off bankruptcy for now. This is fortunate, and I am surprised that we made it through the war without the loss of an airline. However, we are far from the other shore in this stormy sea and we may lose a mjor or two before we get to the other side.

Lastly, if you do not read Mark Steyn, then please go and sally forth to enjoy his stuff. However, I bet 99% of you do. I actually want to use on of his lines that I thought was brilliant, and something that should be spread far and wide. I think I will make it a regular feature.

If the media's version of SARS -- Snotty Anti-Rumsfeld Syndrome -- has any merit, it ought surely to be of universal application.

I love that. I am an unabashed Rumsfeld fan, and will look for symptoms, and post them whenever I find them. If you find an example, please send it too me. Not every one, just the blindlingly obvious symptoms.

For today's SARS watch

The NY Times

The Quote

"We will kill them all one day, Rumsfeld and every one of them," she said, referring to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "Look at what they have done to my library."

I am sure they loved that quote.

2003-04-15T20:23:00.000-07:00

Looking at some of the news of today

1) Peter Collins has an excellent piece in the Washington Times, about the ongoing debacle that is CNN. Some incredible quotes

"In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.

How will you ever trust CNN again. I always thought they were biased, but this is ridiculous. Tony Blair wouldn't get this, and neither would any other world leader. I understand wanting to get the story out, but you have to be careful about selling your soul.

"The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

So the reporters would see stuff like this. However, when they reported it, people like the brave and brainless (I am sorry, but that drive into Tikrit violated many standards of intelligence that I subscribe too) Brent Sadler would reprimand them.

" On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.
The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

I don't think that Mr. Jordan is aware of the damage that has been done. He seems to be blissfully unaware.

""Withholding information that would get innocent people killed was the right thing to do, not a journalistic sin," Jordan said in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by The TV Column.

"Some critics say if I had told my Iraq horror stories sooner, I would have saved thousands of lives," he wrote in his message to staffers. "How they come to that conclusion I don't know. Iraq's human rights record and the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime were well known before I wrote my op-ed piece. The only sure thing that would have happened if I told those stories sooner is the regime would have tracked down and killed the innocent people who told me those stories."

Okay, Mr. Jordan, lets run down this again. The problem I have, and the problem I am sure many others have is fairly simple. We understand that you wanted to defend your folks, and we can have some sympathy for that. The problem is your coverage seemed to suggest on numerous occassions, that the Administration was overblowing the case that Iraq was treating its citizens like animals. You pretended that this was not true. At first we thought you were dolts who were trying to cling to journalistic objectivity. This we can forgive. However, now we find that you knew and yet still you carried the coverage the way you did. You have no journalistic objectivity, you are media whores for dictaters. And in this country, Mr. Jordan, that is considered a problem.

Lastly, it appears that we are putting the screws to Syria. It is now time to see how much credibility we have gained in the region. SDB as some excellent thoughts. I hope that Assad, who is an amateur, and apparently not as bright as his father, will respond in the correct way.

David Warren always has a clear look at the situation

2003-04-14T21:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the time off, but finals are coming, and so begins the 18 hour days (yech)

Quite a bit happening in the real world, unfortunately no time tonight. Here is a little stuff though.

SDB has a great article on the N. Korea situation. I think he is quite correct about the Chinese being worried about us doing the Rumsfeld two step through N. Korea.

A number of people correspond with me, something I enjoy. Some send me great pictures. Like this one.

Paris.bmp

Possibly it should now say Damascus.

Lastly, most of you know that I go to Law School. Some if you know it is driving me nuts. Why? Well, crap like this. Disability Pride Week. Yes, you heard me right.

Now if you are a right thinking person, the statement Disability Pride Week should take you aback. How is one proud to be disabled?

Look, I know there will be some people who will react with indignant rage at my amusement at this event. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that disability is something amusing, but people are. Disabilities can be awful things. Should one be proud of being blind? I don't think so. It is one of those unfortunate things in life that happens to people, irregardless of their inherent positive or negative traits. It is something for the person to deal with. It is definitely not something for someone to be ashamed of.

I am all in favor of helping people out, but telling them to have pride in their disability seems to be a misplaced effort.

2003-04-12T16:26:00.000-07:00

My concentration in my undergraduate Political Science work was in polling. I find this to be one of the best sites for gathering polling information.

A look at some of the numbers is illuminating

For instance this LA Times poll

The Los Angeles Times Poll. April 2-3, 2003.

"There is evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Do you think the U.S. should or should not take military action against Iran if they continue to develop these weapons?"

50% of all polled thought that we should take military action, which included 52% of Democrats favorable. The Independents were evenly split with 45 in support, and 44 not in support. Even more telling are the opposition numbers, which were only 36% total, with Democrats being 38% not in favor.

There are a a significant segment of people on the fence, but even if they split 50-50, it shows that a majority of people favor military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This would make me very nervous if I was a leader in Iran. It would also make me very nervous if I was governing Syria, even if you are a UNSC voting member at this point. These numbers seem to suggest the the American people have agreed with the President that we cannot allow rogue nations to acquire nuclear weapons.

It may also explain why Russia and China have begun to turn the screws on N. Korea Possibly China and Russia really do not want to see the USA "liberate" the N. Koreans with the minimum of delay and casualties as we have seen in Iraq. We may not think that far along. I guarantee that they have.

All this seems to suggest that we have enhanced our political leverage in the world. At this point I do not favor military action in Iran, Syria, or N. Korea, but I do not rule it out. I don't believe that White House has either.

2003-04-12T11:43:00.000-07:00

It looks like Sean Penn has retrieved his car. No word on the Guns.

It is also remarkable how a Google search on the story will bring nary a comment about the guns. Could you imagine if this were Charlton Heston?

2003-04-12T10:17:00.000-07:00

David Warren always has something interesting to say. His thought on the situation in Iraq are interesting, but his thoughts on the rest of the Islamic world are profound. I hope he is correct that the collective shock of the events of the past week will move the populace against extremism. However, I am not sure, nor am I that hopeful. Until we confront the problem that is Wahabbism, the collective retreat into a culture of death will continue.

2003-04-11T17:33:00.000-07:00

I have not yet had the oppurtunity to properly think about this story from the NY Times, however Blaster asks that we flood the zone with this story. I agree, and offer my services. Please spread this story far and wide. (I reprint in entirety, since NY Times requires log in)

"The News We Kept to Ourselves
By EASON JORDAN

ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

Quite a few people were discussing it today. It certainly does create the impression that CNN was hiding something. I wonder what Wolf and Christine have to say. I am also surprised that Jordon came out with it all all.

Okay, before having an opinion, I suggest that you read Frank Foer's piece in TNR, and then decide if you will ever trust CNN ever again. (Credit Tech Central Station) I would also read Glassman's thoughts, but then you already knew that.

2003-04-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

It may seem that I have focused on this Seann Penn thing, but everytime I want to quit, things come up.

Firstly, let me introduce the person who probably does more for pro-CCW work then anyone in the state of California, Jim March. This is his site. He and I are in communication.

Some items he has shown me.

1) The inherent bias in Marin County CCW issuance, especially towards Government employees. However, Penn did not get his permit from the County Sheriff. He got it from the Town Sheriff in the town of Ross, where he resides.

2) Apparently Penn was outside the 10 year period. At least that is what the Sheriff of Ross, a small town in Marin says.

Ummmmm, better and better.

2003-04-10T22:19:00.000-07:00

Okay, an update on the Sean Penn CCW thing.

1) Sean is apparently from Marin County. He lives there with his wife Robin.

2) Sean apparently has a fairly rich history of assaulting people, including when he was on parole. Penn served 32 days of a 60 day term for violating parole when he punched an extra on the scene of a movie.

3) A CCW shall not be issued "(d) A license shall not be issued if the Department of Justice determines that the person is within a prohibited class described in Section 12021..."Penal Code Section 1250(a)(3)(d)

Penal Code section 12021 provides "(a)(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.
(2) Any person who has two or more convictions for violating paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 417 and who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony....
(c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Section...240...242, 243...245...and who, within 10 years of the conviction, owns, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. The court, on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice, shall notify the department of persons subject to this subdivision. However, the prohibition in this paragraph may be reduced, eliminated, or conditioned as provided in paragraph (2) or (3)."

Penal Code Section 240 is Assault defined "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."
Penal Code Section 242 is Battery Defined "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another."
Penal Code Section 245.is "Assault with deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury
(a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment."

4) Sean Penn was accussed of an assault in 1998, and served 30 days in 1988. One wonders when how long Sean has had his CCW,

5) Sean moved to Marin County in 1996, according to real estate records, obtained from lexis

Well, you do the math?

2003-04-10T20:52:00.000-07:00

80% of Americans support the war

Sick of telemarketers, then sign up for the National Do Not Call List.

More news on the Chicago Daley Meigs front.

It's truly an amazing story.

"Daley Drops Security Story...
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Wednesday told The Chicago Sun-Times that Daley "dropped all pretenses" and admitted it was not security concerns that drove him destroy Meigs field but his intent to turn the airport into a waterfront park. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed Daley had not consulted his department. At the same time, National Air Transportation Association President James K. Coyne told the House Subcommittee on Aviation strongly and directly that "Congress must act by condemning the action" taken by Daley at Meigs. Coyne warned directly that Meigs "could well be the first in a long line of state and local government actions designed only to meet personal agendas while ignoring the aviation infrastructure needs of the nation as a whole." If anything, Daley's change of script will add more fuel to the considerable fire that's burning over his decision to send excavators to tear large Xs in the airport's only runway 10 days ago. AOPA launched a federal suit against the city claiming the runway was closed illegally, because the FAA wasn't notified and there was no "emergency" to justify its immediate closure. AOPA also paid for newspaper ads generally vilifying Daley and his actions at Meigs. Criticism is even coming from other countries, with the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association sending a letter and advising members to do likewise.

...Senior Politicians Turn Up Heat
And how has the mayor been holding up under this political storm? Daley appears to relish the adversity, at least according to one observer. Chicago columnist Greg Hinz noted that Daley "has been in full strut" since the bulldozers went in. Hinz notes that Daley is no stranger to controversy and suggests the threats of boycotts and the enmity of the aviation community will bounce off. But even Daley must answer to someone and it's suggested the reaction by some powerful federal and state politicians might take some spring out of his step. Since Daley broke his promise to keep Meigs open, Hinz says state and federal politicians -- who have the ability to make life difficult indeed for the mayor's legislative agenda -- are openly speculating on whether the assurances they've received from Daley on a variety of issues are worth anything. After all, he had agreed to keep Meigs open at least until 2006. Among the legislators was a senior aide to U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) who wondered whether Daley's promise to provide a western road access to O'Hare International, as part of its expansion, was still on the table. "I wouldn't have thought to ask [before the Meigs destruction]," said Hastert aide Mike Stokke. "The mayor gave his word." Might want to get that in writing, Mike."

On to Iraq

There is this story about weapons grade plutonium being found.. I treat the story as slightly suspect. The only thing Saddam needed for a nuclear weapon was weapons grade plutonium, or enriched uranium. The Saddam had the capability to produce a weapon weighing 600 kilograms, small enough to fit on a scud.

By the way, if there is weapons grade plutonium, it will be very interesting to see how Iraq got it. And if they had produced an fair amount, thank God ,we made it in on time. However, as of now, I remain skeptical.

2003-04-09T20:54:00.000-07:00

Check this out. (This will be the link where I place all updates, in addition to placing the chronologically)

Sean Penn's car and gun's, yes, his guns, were stolen. And this is absolutely breathtaking.

"Penn, 42, told police he had a loaded 9 mm Glock handgun inside his car in addition to an unloaded .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in the trunk.
It was legal for Penn to have the guns in his car because he has a state concealed weapons permit, Kusmiss said.

Let me get this straight. This joker, who went to Iraq, assaulted a camera man, is known for his temper, has a freakin California Concealed Weapons Permit. I cannot believe it. Obtaining a CCW in California usually requires a mandate from God. And if he obtained it in Los Angeles, he required more then a mandate from God.

Oh yes, oh yes, who wants to help me obtain his cause statement? It is a public record. I can hardly wait. Updates to follow.

Update. Since Sean lives in Marin County, I would assume that it where he obtained his CCW.

Further update on the Sean Penn CCW thing.

1) Sean is apparently from Marin County. He lives there with his wife Robin.

2) Sean apparently has a fairly rich history of assaulting people, including when he was on parole. Penn served 32 days of a 60 day term for violating parole when he punched an extra on the scene of a movie.

3) A CCW shall not be issued "(d) A license shall not be issued if the Department of Justice determines that the person is within a prohibited class described in Section 12021..."Penal Code Section 1250(a)(3)(d)

Penal Code section 12021 provides "(a)(1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, of the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in subdivision (a), (b), or (d) of Section 12001.6, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony.
(2) Any person who has two or more convictions for violating paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 417 and who owns or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony....
(c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) or paragraph (2) of this subdivision, any person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor violation of Section...240...242, 243...245...and who, within 10 years of the conviction, owns, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. The court, on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice, shall notify the department of persons subject to this subdivision. However, the prohibition in this paragraph may be reduced, eliminated, or conditioned as provided in paragraph (2) or (3)."

Penal Code Section 240 is Assault defined "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."
Penal Code Section 242 is Battery Defined "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another."
Penal Code Section 245.is "Assault with deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury
(a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment."

4) Sean Penn was accussed of an assault in 1998, and served 30 days in 1988. One wonders when how long Sean has had his CCW,

5) Sean moved to Marin County in 1996, according to real estate records, obtained from lexis

Well, you do the math?

Another Update

It may seem that I have focused on this Seann Penn thing, but everytime I want to quit, things come up.

Firstly, let me introduce the person who probably does more for pro-CCW work then anyone in the state of California, Jim March. This is his site. He and I are in communication.

Some items he has shown me.

1) The inherent bias in Marin County CCW issuance, especially towards Government employees. However, Penn did not get his permit from the County Sheriff. He got it from the Town Sheriff in the town of Ross, where he resides.

2) Apparently Penn was outside the 10 year period. At least that is what the Sheriff of Ross, a small town in Marin says.

Ummmmm, better and better.

Further update

It looks like Sean Penn has retrieved his car. No word on the Guns.

It is also remarkable how a Google search on the story will bring nary a comment about the guns. Could you imagine if this were Charlton Heston?

2003-04-09T18:34:00.000-07:00

One Beautiful thing

And one thing that may be profound

Marines hold nuclear site (Credit LGF)

2003-04-09T12:27:00.000-07:00

May I direct your attention to this poll

Look at these numbers.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 2-6, 2003.
"Do you support or oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq?"

Support 77%
Oppose 16%
Don't Know 7%

That is bad news for any Democrat. You want worse news for them. Scroll down.

The Los Angeles Times Poll. Latest: April 2-3, 2003.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Saddam Hussein in Iraq?"

Support overall 74%
Oppose overall 24%
Don't Know Overall 2%

Support Democrats 68%
Oppose Democrats 29%
Don't Know 3%

Support Independents 71%
Oppose Independents 28%
Don't Know 1%

Look at those Democrat numbers. That is a higher approval amongst Democrats then Bush had overall amongst the nation just prior to the war. Those numbers are terrible for the Democrats. And the Independents. Thos are the folks who drive elections. If you have that high approval numbers, a challenge will look hopeless. You know the Democratic Party leadership has seen this. How do you know? Because without blinking the Democrats are now attempting to change their focus from Iraq to the economy. And for them, the sooner the better.

Now, I know the election is a long way away, but this war did not go the way the Democrats wanted it too. And by trying suddenly to change the focus to the economy, I think that they will be seen as sour pusses. There is also the risk that the impending action was the brake on the economy, and the Democrats might just have focused attention at the moment that the economy rebounds. Ouch.

I am not sure that the war was the brake on the economy, and so it is something that Bush will have to look at. I understand that the President has little sway on the economy, but I think Bush will use his political capital to get through the tax cuts. He will not fall into the same trap as his father.

2003-04-08T20:18:00.000-07:00

The British Navy is no longer using BBC broadcast for news on the Ark Royal. Instead, they have switched to sky news.

Why?

"The BBC always takes the Iraqis' side" complained one sailor.

This is great, and yes I know it is The Sun

Also, there is news of Iraqi children being held in jail for not serving Saddam

Hullo, Mr. Peace Protestor. Never mind. Remember, no moral imperatives.(Credit LGF)

2003-04-08T20:06:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder why arguing with Liberals is almost impossible? I have my theory.

Whenever you attempt to engage most young people of liberal persuasion in political debate, you will find that they do not believe in moral absolutes. Liberals will frequently point out that morals are a complex continium with alternating shades of gray. Nothing is truly bad. (except for Conservatives, sorry, sorry, couldn't resist) Conservatives generally believe that there are moral absolutes. Except absolute is not the best word for it, possibly moral imperatives. Liberals will frequently accuse you of being judgmental for believing in moral imperatives. Here is where I think the confusion comes in.

I believe that Liberals believe that morals are complex, while situations are simple. My Conservative belief system is guided by the following proposition. Morals are fairly easy, but their application is frequently not. For instance: I believe that it is immoral to abort a fetus, since we do not know when that child is actually alive. However, I also believe that government should also not tell people what to do, especially in tough instances like abortion. So, on the issue of abortion, I am in a quandry. I have not decided which moral rule should govern. This creates problems when discussing things with a Liberal, and frequently assures that we have a valley that there is no way to bridge.

The other problem is the Liberals almost pathological inability to tolerate generalization. The current discourse and its rejection of generalization due to the belief that it is synonomous with prejudice, defies common sense. We have to generalize. Grouping like phenemona is an inherent trait. If you could only think in specifics, you would go mad. However, it is useful to recognize that for every generality there is an exception. Everyone know this, at least I would think so. However, generalize with a Liberal, and they will immediately jump to the exception regardless of how low percentage that exception is. Any attempt to point out that the exception is of extremely infrequent occurrence is met with the assertion that the exception nullifies the generalization. Again there is a valley that is impossible to bridge.

So if you can think how we can bridge that gap, then send me an e-mail, because the solution defies me.

2003-04-08T18:04:00.000-07:00

Everytime I worry about Bush going a little soft, he proves that when he makes up his mind, it is set.

The French get nothing. Good. They deserve nothing, and they should be made to pay for their actions proir to the war. To allow them to regain any power over the situation is to demonstrate that we can be screwed at any turn with no repercussion. That would be an error.

2003-04-07T20:52:00.000-07:00

The new map of France

Unfortunately the picture link got broken, (Credit: John)