Sunday, February 05, 2006
Inkifada and Moral Equivalence
A little editorial in the latest New Scientist contains a reagent-quality sample of moral equivalence at its worst, along with an interesting piece of under-reported good news.
Even as it campaigns against Iran's nuclear programme, the Bush admin seems ready to overturn a 30-year domestic ban on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It also wants to reprocess spent fuel from other countries.
That's the good news. A solid indication that we're finally getting serious about nuclear electricity. A sane pacifist would applaud our effort to beat radioactive swords into plowshares, but of course today's pacifists are not sane:
Many fear that this would send the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korea, and encourage reprocessing in Russia. "This is the worst possible thing to do," says Damon Moglen of the [Soviet front] Union of Concerned Scientists. "It is a classic example of the US telling the world to do as we say, not as we do."
YAAAARRRGGHH!
Unfortunately, Kindler Gentler Georgie abets the Equivalentist mindset by focusing on weapons, not on people.
For the thousandth time: Weapons are just tools. When you remove a tool from an evil person or culture, you are only fooling yourself.
An evil person or culture will always find a way to harm others, because that's his reason for living.
The cure for an evil person is either to separate him from society permanently, or to kill him. Since we can't imprison a nation (culture, religion) effectively, the only cure is to eradicate it.
It's really not hard to determine which entities are evil.
The current Inkifada makes a perfect little litmus test: If a nation or religion treats its own people badly, we can try to reform its behavior but we're not entitled to destroy it. If a nation or religion reaches out and kills foreigners or infidels for drawing pictures or writing books, we need to destroy it. Or at least destroy enough of it to dissuade the few survivors from resuming their evil ways.
Putting it more directly, if you answer a pen with a pen, you're civilized. If you answer a pen with a sword, you're a savage.
Churchill and Roosevelt understood this point, repeated it constantly and coherently, and implemented it fully against the Fascists of that era. I see no evidence that Kindler Gentler Georgie understands this point, and our State Department emphatically takes the equivalentist side. ¶ 11:23 AM
A little editorial in the latest New Scientist contains a reagent-quality sample of moral equivalence at its worst, along with an interesting piece of under-reported good news.
Even as it campaigns against Iran's nuclear programme, the Bush admin seems ready to overturn a 30-year domestic ban on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It also wants to reprocess spent fuel from other countries.
That's the good news. A solid indication that we're finally getting serious about nuclear electricity. A sane pacifist would applaud our effort to beat radioactive swords into plowshares, but of course today's pacifists are not sane:
Many fear that this would send the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korea, and encourage reprocessing in Russia. "This is the worst possible thing to do," says Damon Moglen of the [Soviet front] Union of Concerned Scientists. "It is a classic example of the US telling the world to do as we say, not as we do."
YAAAARRRGGHH!
Unfortunately, Kindler Gentler Georgie abets the Equivalentist mindset by focusing on weapons, not on people.
For the thousandth time: Weapons are just tools. When you remove a tool from an evil person or culture, you are only fooling yourself.
An evil person or culture will always find a way to harm others, because that's his reason for living.
The cure for an evil person is either to separate him from society permanently, or to kill him. Since we can't imprison a nation (culture, religion) effectively, the only cure is to eradicate it.
It's really not hard to determine which entities are evil.
The current Inkifada makes a perfect little litmus test: If a nation or religion treats its own people badly, we can try to reform its behavior but we're not entitled to destroy it. If a nation or religion reaches out and kills foreigners or infidels for drawing pictures or writing books, we need to destroy it. Or at least destroy enough of it to dissuade the few survivors from resuming their evil ways.
Putting it more directly, if you answer a pen with a pen, you're civilized. If you answer a pen with a sword, you're a savage.
Churchill and Roosevelt understood this point, repeated it constantly and coherently, and implemented it fully against the Fascists of that era. I see no evidence that Kindler Gentler Georgie understands this point, and our State Department emphatically takes the equivalentist side. ¶ 11:23 AM
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Ding, dong
The entity described as 'Betty Friedan' stopped breathing today.
Comrade Friedan's legacy is impressive. Millions of divorces, millions of bitter and lonely men and women, many millions of dead babies.
Comrade Stalin would envy his greatest admirer's achievements. For all his brutality and murder, he never managed to destroy Russia's family structure, or to break the essential bond between man and woman.
Unfortunately, Comrade Friedan's minions now infest our government and culture at all levels, so the death of the original entity gives no cause for celebration.
My prayers go out to the innocent worms and bacteria who will unwittingly attempt to consume this unspeakable mass of evil. ¶ 11:11 PM
Comrade Friedan's legacy is impressive. Millions of divorces, millions of bitter and lonely men and women, many millions of dead babies.
Comrade Stalin would envy his greatest admirer's achievements. For all his brutality and murder, he never managed to destroy Russia's family structure, or to break the essential bond between man and woman.
Unfortunately, Comrade Friedan's minions now infest our government and culture at all levels, so the death of the original entity gives no cause for celebration.
My prayers go out to the innocent worms and bacteria who will unwittingly attempt to consume this unspeakable mass of evil. ¶ 11:11 PM
Monday, January 30, 2006
Super-timing?
Consider today's Zawahiri tape, in which he wears the white robe generally believed to signal an impending attack. He also offers a truce, which is part of the Mohammedan requirement before initiating an attack. Consider also the Hinrichs episode at OU in October, which appears to be under heavy investigation despite the usual Nothing-To-See-Here public front. Consider also that Dearborn is a long-time center of Arab population. Have our authorities added up this equation?
Hope and pray. ¶ 9:03 PM
Consider today's Zawahiri tape, in which he wears the white robe generally believed to signal an impending attack. He also offers a truce, which is part of the Mohammedan requirement before initiating an attack. Consider also the Hinrichs episode at OU in October, which appears to be under heavy investigation despite the usual Nothing-To-See-Here public front. Consider also that Dearborn is a long-time center of Arab population. Have our authorities added up this equation?
Hope and pray. ¶ 9:03 PM
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Google suit
Happy to see Google fighting the subpoena from AG Gonzales. The subpoena is a magnificently stupid and self-destructive idea for three separate reasons:
1. It gives easy ammunition to those who claim that Bush is Big Brother, spying on everybody's naughtiness to satisfy his personal jollies. Without this, a[relatively] clear case could be made that we are primarily listening to wartime enemies and their helpers.
2. It runs contrary to the administration's stated desire for strict Constitutionalist judges. The Supreme Court's partial overturning of COPPA was in fact a correct and originalist decision. The government isn't supposed to decide what people can read. Freedom of the press means publishers (including web carriers) can make their own decisions about what to publish, and readers (including parents acting on behalf of their children) are supposed to make their own decisions about what to read.
Gonzales wants to reverse that situation, for obvious political purposes: soccer moms want the government to take over the role of supervising their children. This is a profoundly leftist mentality, and a "conservative" admin should not be pushing it. (Yes, I know the religious constituency also wants to spare parents from the burden of controlling their children's reading; that doesn't make it any less a Leftist viewpoint. The Dobsonites actually agree with the Left in many respects, though you'll never get either side to admit it.)
3. The fact that sex is annoyingly and disturbingly pervasive on the Web does not need documentation. Anyone who has been online for more than one minute has received email invitations from sex sites. But even allowing that the data could be useful, any experienced computer user can gather this set of data, or enough data to serve the same purpose, without issuing a subpoena! Try Googling it, for Christ's sake!!!! ¶ 3:51 PM
Happy to see Google fighting the subpoena from AG Gonzales. The subpoena is a magnificently stupid and self-destructive idea for three separate reasons:
1. It gives easy ammunition to those who claim that Bush is Big Brother, spying on everybody's naughtiness to satisfy his personal jollies. Without this, a[relatively] clear case could be made that we are primarily listening to wartime enemies and their helpers.
2. It runs contrary to the administration's stated desire for strict Constitutionalist judges. The Supreme Court's partial overturning of COPPA was in fact a correct and originalist decision. The government isn't supposed to decide what people can read. Freedom of the press means publishers (including web carriers) can make their own decisions about what to publish, and readers (including parents acting on behalf of their children) are supposed to make their own decisions about what to read.
Gonzales wants to reverse that situation, for obvious political purposes: soccer moms want the government to take over the role of supervising their children. This is a profoundly leftist mentality, and a "conservative" admin should not be pushing it. (Yes, I know the religious constituency also wants to spare parents from the burden of controlling their children's reading; that doesn't make it any less a Leftist viewpoint. The Dobsonites actually agree with the Left in many respects, though you'll never get either side to admit it.)
3. The fact that sex is annoyingly and disturbingly pervasive on the Web does not need documentation. Anyone who has been online for more than one minute has received email invitations from sex sites. But even allowing that the data could be useful, any experienced computer user can gather this set of data, or enough data to serve the same purpose, without issuing a subpoena! Try Googling it, for Christ's sake!!!! ¶ 3:51 PM
KSU speech
Since the Pres was speaking in Polistra's home territory this morning, a few quick observations seem obligatory.
"When the Taliban was running that country with al-Qaeda as a parasite"
Interesting phrase, possibly aimed at veterinary students.
Nice little dig at 'privacy':
"Zawahiri might not have wanted us to read that particular letter, but nevertheless we did."
He's back to 'catch terrorists and bring them to justice', after trying out some firmer and better phrasing like 'hold them to account'. Phooey.
Nice lines:
"Since we're not able to track vast batallions or armadas, we have to have good intelligence, to track these folks in the dark corners of the world..."
"A terrorist network can sometimes burrow into a society and find a safe haven."
After that, he fell into an unfortunate kindergarten-teacher mode that must have been insulting to the students.
Too much emphasis on 'democracy leads to peace'. Dubious and oversimplified, and doesn't apply to the motives of al-Qaeda. Not really worthy of a Landon Lecture.
Discussed the Gorelick Wall, but didn't specify who built it or why. Back to the damned New Tone.
"Grow sawgrass and convert it to energy" Gaaaak!
Great loud comment from Kurdish girl, didn't really need any response.
My comment:
Liberating the Kurds made the Iraq war worthwhile. We need to preserve Kurdistan
as a bastion of civilization, even as the Arabs return to their natural
state of sub-human savagery.
Great discussion on Social Security.
"Will the system be there for you? No."
"I have a duty to confront problems, not just to shuffle them along."
Good defense of privatization, and positive response from the young audience.
Clever response to the nasty comment from the Venezuelan Commie. She seemed to be asking "Why aren't you guaranteeing jobs to every immigrant, legal or illegal?" He simply explained his agenda: strengthen enforcement, guest worker program. Useful answer to the larger audience, undoubtedly unsatisfying to the questioner. ¶ 11:36 AM
"When the Taliban was running that country with al-Qaeda as a parasite"
Interesting phrase, possibly aimed at veterinary students.
Nice little dig at 'privacy':
"Zawahiri might not have wanted us to read that particular letter, but nevertheless we did."
He's back to 'catch terrorists and bring them to justice', after trying out some firmer and better phrasing like 'hold them to account'. Phooey.
Nice lines:
"Since we're not able to track vast batallions or armadas, we have to have good intelligence, to track these folks in the dark corners of the world..."
"A terrorist network can sometimes burrow into a society and find a safe haven."
After that, he fell into an unfortunate kindergarten-teacher mode that must have been insulting to the students.
Too much emphasis on 'democracy leads to peace'. Dubious and oversimplified, and doesn't apply to the motives of al-Qaeda. Not really worthy of a Landon Lecture.
Discussed the Gorelick Wall, but didn't specify who built it or why. Back to the damned New Tone.
"Grow sawgrass and convert it to energy" Gaaaak!
Great loud comment from Kurdish girl, didn't really need any response.
My comment:
Liberating the Kurds made the Iraq war worthwhile. We need to preserve Kurdistan
as a bastion of civilization, even as the Arabs return to their natural
state of sub-human savagery.
Great discussion on Social Security.
"Will the system be there for you? No."
"I have a duty to confront problems, not just to shuffle them along."
Good defense of privatization, and positive response from the young audience.
Clever response to the nasty comment from the Venezuelan Commie. She seemed to be asking "Why aren't you guaranteeing jobs to every immigrant, legal or illegal?" He simply explained his agenda: strengthen enforcement, guest worker program. Useful answer to the larger audience, undoubtedly unsatisfying to the questioner. ¶ 11:36 AM
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The frog king
A few weeks ago, in a sympathetic mood, I decided to consider France as our ally against the Army of Allah. I didn't expect that France would become (at least rhetorically) the leading force in this war!
Jacques Chirac, last Thursday:
The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us,
as well as those who would envisage using … weapons of mass
destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to
a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a
conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.
I've been wishing for something like this ever since WW4 started.
We were able to run WW2 with great efficiency because our Leftists worked zealously for our side. When Russia, the Left's Rodina [motherland], turned against Hitler in 1940, we gained the assistance of a well-organized cultural fighting force, expert in the ways of propaganda, already in control of movies and radio entertainment. (Newspapers were mostly Republican in those days.)
The modern Left is much less unified, but since 1968, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Empire, their ideological fatherland has been France. Will they follow Chirac in this case? Will we gain the assistance of Hollywood and the academic community? Certainly not with the same enthusiasm that, say, Orson Welles and Paul Robeson helped us defeat Hitler. But I'll lay odds that their opposition will be considerably muted from now on. Consider their problem: the Patrie is just itching to nuke the Mohammedans, while Kindler Gentler Georgie is still trying to fight carefully and surgically -- what does a loyal Leftie do? Stick with France, which is now even 'worse' than Amerikkka? Go with Amerikkka as a compromise? Or give full heartfelt allegiance to Osama and the 11th Century?
In such a state of confusion, with no absolute leader available, I think the elite will essentially shut up.
Sidenote: France was already the king of nuclear-generated electricity. Now it becomes the first Euro power to declare that preserving civilization is worth using nuclear weapons. We need to learn from France in both areas. With dramatic illustrations of the dangers of coal power in West Virginia, and dramatic illustrations of Mohammedan insanity in Iran, the time is ripe for a second Manhattan Project.
A competent wartime president would use executive orders to build new atomic power plants immediately, on BRAC'd military bases if necessary. Since we do not currently have a competent wartime President, we'll have to wait for either Hillary or Romney. Can we wait that long? Hope and pray. ¶ 7:46 PM
Jacques Chirac, last Thursday:
The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us,
as well as those who would envisage using … weapons of mass
destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to
a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a
conventional one. It could also be of a different kind.
I've been wishing for something like this ever since WW4 started.
We were able to run WW2 with great efficiency because our Leftists worked zealously for our side. When Russia, the Left's Rodina [motherland], turned against Hitler in 1940, we gained the assistance of a well-organized cultural fighting force, expert in the ways of propaganda, already in control of movies and radio entertainment. (Newspapers were mostly Republican in those days.)
The modern Left is much less unified, but since 1968, and especially since the fall of the Soviet Empire, their ideological fatherland has been France. Will they follow Chirac in this case? Will we gain the assistance of Hollywood and the academic community? Certainly not with the same enthusiasm that, say, Orson Welles and Paul Robeson helped us defeat Hitler. But I'll lay odds that their opposition will be considerably muted from now on. Consider their problem: the Patrie is just itching to nuke the Mohammedans, while Kindler Gentler Georgie is still trying to fight carefully and surgically -- what does a loyal Leftie do? Stick with France, which is now even 'worse' than Amerikkka? Go with Amerikkka as a compromise? Or give full heartfelt allegiance to Osama and the 11th Century?
In such a state of confusion, with no absolute leader available, I think the elite will essentially shut up.
Sidenote: France was already the king of nuclear-generated electricity. Now it becomes the first Euro power to declare that preserving civilization is worth using nuclear weapons. We need to learn from France in both areas. With dramatic illustrations of the dangers of coal power in West Virginia, and dramatic illustrations of Mohammedan insanity in Iran, the time is ripe for a second Manhattan Project.
A competent wartime president would use executive orders to build new atomic power plants immediately, on BRAC'd military bases if necessary. Since we do not currently have a competent wartime President, we'll have to wait for either Hillary or Romney. Can we wait that long? Hope and pray. ¶ 7:46 PM
Monday, January 02, 2006
Oklahoma burning....
Sometimes even the best tools are no good against Nature.
This is personal. I know and love many of the locations that are being menaced or destroyed by these brushfires.
News reports showed the town of Pink being wiped out. Pink isn't really a town; more of a settled area between Norman and Shawnee. Back in the '70s, Pink had one notable and unexpected drawing card: an excellent Mexican restaurant with a live mariachi band. I often enjoyed that place when I lived in Norman. Presumably it's long since closed.
As I've argued before, NASA's new mission should be weather control. Breaking up a persistent jet-stream pattern could save more lives and property than any amount of preparedness and emergency operations. ¶ 9:46 PM
Sometimes even the best tools are no good against Nature.
This is personal. I know and love many of the locations that are being menaced or destroyed by these brushfires.
News reports showed the town of Pink being wiped out. Pink isn't really a town; more of a settled area between Norman and Shawnee. Back in the '70s, Pink had one notable and unexpected drawing card: an excellent Mexican restaurant with a live mariachi band. I often enjoyed that place when I lived in Norman. Presumably it's long since closed.
As I've argued before, NASA's new mission should be weather control. Breaking up a persistent jet-stream pattern could save more lives and property than any amount of preparedness and emergency operations. ¶ 9:46 PM
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Pick one.
Listening to Pres doing a short news conf this morning. He's appropriately angry, but still on the defensive. Still treating the war as a matter of personal opinion: "Some say this is a criminal matter. I strongly disagree. I believe we're at war." No, no, no, no, no. It's NOT a matter of personal opinion, and cannot be treated as such.
A competent wartime President, facing a pack of enemy agents (bizarrely and Orwellianly described as "journalists") would respond to the first question from each enemy agent as follows:
"Are you with us or with the enemy? Pick a side NOW. Tell me which side you're on. But be warned: if you say you're with us, henceforth your questions must be aimed at helping us win this war. None of the questions you have asked in the previous four years have indicated that you want us to win. On the other hand, if you state that you're with the enemy, you will be immediately taken into custody and treated as an enemy saboteur." ¶ 11:09 AM
A competent wartime President, facing a pack of enemy agents (bizarrely and Orwellianly described as "journalists") would respond to the first question from each enemy agent as follows:
"Are you with us or with the enemy? Pick a side NOW. Tell me which side you're on. But be warned: if you say you're with us, henceforth your questions must be aimed at helping us win this war. None of the questions you have asked in the previous four years have indicated that you want us to win. On the other hand, if you state that you're with the enemy, you will be immediately taken into custody and treated as an enemy saboteur." ¶ 11:09 AM
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Nuke monitoring
Latest controversy over 'warrantless' monitoring of gamma rays coming from possible nuclear kamikazes.
The 'privacy' advocates have bitten their own tail on this one.
If you can't detect bad emanations from a piece of property, then ALL pollution laws, noise ordinances, and anti-smoking laws are down the drain. And all FCC regulations against pirate broadcasters. And the rules against using lights and sirens to impersonate police.
All of these laws deal with detecting some form of energy that enters the public sphere from a private origin.
As I mentioned before, there's nothing in the Constitution about eavesdropping or listening, and nothing about privacy. Granted, they didn't have telephones, radios or Geiger counters back then, but they did have ears, noses and eyes, and expected police to use those senses when necessary.
So, unless the 'privacy' freaks can find some 'emanation' that privileges certain segments of the electromagnetic spectrum over others, this whole idea is literally absurd.
Of course, this absurdity will never be exposed or discussed. The media will continue to privilege the emanations of the enemy, which is the sole purpose of the 'privacy' advocates. Just another name for traitors. ¶ 7:03 AM
The 'privacy' advocates have bitten their own tail on this one.
If you can't detect bad emanations from a piece of property, then ALL pollution laws, noise ordinances, and anti-smoking laws are down the drain. And all FCC regulations against pirate broadcasters. And the rules against using lights and sirens to impersonate police.
All of these laws deal with detecting some form of energy that enters the public sphere from a private origin.
As I mentioned before, there's nothing in the Constitution about eavesdropping or listening, and nothing about privacy. Granted, they didn't have telephones, radios or Geiger counters back then, but they did have ears, noses and eyes, and expected police to use those senses when necessary.
So, unless the 'privacy' freaks can find some 'emanation' that privileges certain segments of the electromagnetic spectrum over others, this whole idea is literally absurd.
Of course, this absurdity will never be exposed or discussed. The media will continue to privilege the emanations of the enemy, which is the sole purpose of the 'privacy' advocates. Just another name for traitors. ¶ 7:03 AM
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
... when they pry my hot, crispy fingers ...
Listening to Rush grilling Larry Craig this morning. Craig shoveled out such a pile of Useful Idiocy that Rush couldn't handle all of it in the short time available.
Refreshing to hear one of those Beltway types getting heat from the Right; it's obvious that they rarely hear questions from the pro-American side. Everything they get from the 'press' is explicitly and literally pro-enemy: "Why haven't you surrendered yet? Give us a date for your surrender." So their habits of thought are naturally pulled in that direction, no matter how firm their original intentions.
Polistra is especially irritated by Craig's notion that if we haven't yet used a provision in the Patriot Act, we should get rid of it. Fantastically silly and dangerous. Craig is a big gun in NRA circles, yet he doesn't seem to understand the basic point of weapons.
Whether you're talking about guns, screwdrivers, fire extinguishers, or wiretap systems, the purpose of owning a tool is to have it AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED IT. If you never use it, that's fine; as long as you have it and know how to use it, the tool can save your, um, bacon.
And when you're talking about fighting a human enemy, availability and readiness can make all the difference. The bacon won't avoid burning because I own a fire extinguisher, but an arsonist who knows that I have several extinguishers and a sprinkler system will find a building where he can achieve a more dramatic result.
An available weapon can even be better than a known and used weapon. Before Katrina, a bio-chem terrorist might have been impressed by FEMA. After Katrina, FEMA was exposed as rusty and useless. Or consider Saddam's mighty biological and nuclear arsenal. It caused us to fight far more carefully and slowly than we might have otherwise, and then it turned out to be a well-written myth.
All the more reason to keep a maximal variety of unknown but potentially useful weapons or tools, and to convince the enemy that we are willing to use any and all of these tools.
You can be sure that Zarqawi's American representatives have taken note of Useful Idiot Craig's finicky refusal to go along with our war preparations. Because UI Craig wears the 'Republican' label, his actions will serve as a nice solid wedge to weaken the mental defenses of otherwise loyal Americans. ¶ 2:31 PM
Listening to Rush grilling Larry Craig this morning. Craig shoveled out such a pile of Useful Idiocy that Rush couldn't handle all of it in the short time available.
Refreshing to hear one of those Beltway types getting heat from the Right; it's obvious that they rarely hear questions from the pro-American side. Everything they get from the 'press' is explicitly and literally pro-enemy: "Why haven't you surrendered yet? Give us a date for your surrender." So their habits of thought are naturally pulled in that direction, no matter how firm their original intentions.
Polistra is especially irritated by Craig's notion that if we haven't yet used a provision in the Patriot Act, we should get rid of it. Fantastically silly and dangerous. Craig is a big gun in NRA circles, yet he doesn't seem to understand the basic point of weapons.
Whether you're talking about guns, screwdrivers, fire extinguishers, or wiretap systems, the purpose of owning a tool is to have it AVAILABLE WHEN YOU NEED IT. If you never use it, that's fine; as long as you have it and know how to use it, the tool can save your, um, bacon.
And when you're talking about fighting a human enemy, availability and readiness can make all the difference. The bacon won't avoid burning because I own a fire extinguisher, but an arsonist who knows that I have several extinguishers and a sprinkler system will find a building where he can achieve a more dramatic result.
An available weapon can even be better than a known and used weapon. Before Katrina, a bio-chem terrorist might have been impressed by FEMA. After Katrina, FEMA was exposed as rusty and useless. Or consider Saddam's mighty biological and nuclear arsenal. It caused us to fight far more carefully and slowly than we might have otherwise, and then it turned out to be a well-written myth.
All the more reason to keep a maximal variety of unknown but potentially useful weapons or tools, and to convince the enemy that we are willing to use any and all of these tools.
You can be sure that Zarqawi's American representatives have taken note of Useful Idiot Craig's finicky refusal to go along with our war preparations. Because UI Craig wears the 'Republican' label, his actions will serve as a nice solid wedge to weaken the mental defenses of otherwise loyal Americans. ¶ 2:31 PM
Oh, I see.
After a couple days of yammering about NSA surveillance, the internal enemies have dropped the SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED facade. Everyone who keeps up with politics and technology has known for many years that NSA listens to anything it finds interesting, so nobody in DC is truly shocked by this. The enemy's true complaint now becomes clear. Aside from the overarching fact that they want the terrorists to win, they specifically hate to see authority in the hands of elected officials.
The key point for the enemy is that a JUDGE ought to be controlling everything. No mystery: Judges are trained in Leninist law schools and selected by Leninist Senators with no objections from chickenshit cowardass 'Republican' 'politicians'. Judges thus form the most reliable and powerful division in the anti-civilization army.
When authority leaves the hands of a judge, it falls into the hands of elected officials. And a few elected officials (including Bush, for all his faults) are loyal Americans who want to see civilization win this war.
I notice that a FISA black-robed saboteur, Comrade Robertson, has quit in protest. Excellent development. The only good judge is a retired judge. ¶ 7:21 AM
The key point for the enemy is that a JUDGE ought to be controlling everything. No mystery: Judges are trained in Leninist law schools and selected by Leninist Senators with no objections from chickenshit cowardass 'Republican' 'politicians'. Judges thus form the most reliable and powerful division in the anti-civilization army.
When authority leaves the hands of a judge, it falls into the hands of elected officials. And a few elected officials (including Bush, for all his faults) are loyal Americans who want to see civilization win this war.
I notice that a FISA black-robed saboteur, Comrade Robertson, has quit in protest. Excellent development. The only good judge is a retired judge. ¶ 7:21 AM
Monday, December 19, 2005
Aaaarrggghhh! Why?
Jed Babbin in today's American Spectator online lists the regulation under which NSA's eavesdropping is legal. The reg, written July 27, 1993 (and we know that Bush was not President then!) makes it wonderfully clear that obtaining a warrant from a FISA judge is NOT, REPEAT NOT, REPEAT NOT, the only way such eavesdropping may legally happen.
Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
But if the intelligence involves a 'non-US-person', that is, a suspect who has no kind of resident or citizen status, then the gate is open. No approval needed.
So why in the holy hell didn't Bush just SAY THIS???????? After hearing this law, any sane listener could understand that the objections from internal enemies are false and pointless. Bush DIDN'T say this, but instead mumbled some meaningless junk about checking with legal authorities. So the enemy statements are allowed to take on the flavor of truth, which gives added momentum to enemy sympathizers. And without the text, loyal Americans are forced to argue that legality doesn't matter when millions of lives at stake. This argument is absolutely moral, valid, and true, but we wouldn't even have to make the argument if Bush had simply quoted the law. ¶ 8:32 PM
Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
But if the intelligence involves a 'non-US-person', that is, a suspect who has no kind of resident or citizen status, then the gate is open. No approval needed.
So why in the holy hell didn't Bush just SAY THIS???????? After hearing this law, any sane listener could understand that the objections from internal enemies are false and pointless. Bush DIDN'T say this, but instead mumbled some meaningless junk about checking with legal authorities. So the enemy statements are allowed to take on the flavor of truth, which gives added momentum to enemy sympathizers. And without the text, loyal Americans are forced to argue that legality doesn't matter when millions of lives at stake. This argument is absolutely moral, valid, and true, but we wouldn't even have to make the argument if Bush had simply quoted the law. ¶ 8:32 PM
Expel the Senate!
Bush is finally getting tough on internal enemies, though he's still not tough enough. Talking about how the 'Senator from Las Vegas' should go home and explain his actions to his constituents is moderately tough talk, but still indirect.
I'd rather see him walk into the Senate, take the podium, and put the traitors on show. "Harry Reid, you knew about this eavesdropping and didn't object to it when you were briefed. We have video. If you know something new that causes you to be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED by it now, tell us about it or shut up."
-----
I've hit this before, and I'll hit it again. The Constitution not only allows but REQUIRES traitors to be expelled.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress ... who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
This is section 3 of the 14th amendment, obviously designed to remove Confederate sympathizers. But it hasn't been repealed, and the 'aid or comfort' provision is less strict than the definition of treason. Under this definition, nearly all the Dems plus several Repubs in the Senate, and about half of the Dems in the House, should be expelled. ¶ 10:22 AM
I'd rather see him walk into the Senate, take the podium, and put the traitors on show. "Harry Reid, you knew about this eavesdropping and didn't object to it when you were briefed. We have video. If you know something new that causes you to be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, SHOCKED by it now, tell us about it or shut up."
-----
I've hit this before, and I'll hit it again. The Constitution not only allows but REQUIRES traitors to be expelled.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress ... who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
This is section 3 of the 14th amendment, obviously designed to remove Confederate sympathizers. But it hasn't been repealed, and the 'aid or comfort' provision is less strict than the definition of treason. Under this definition, nearly all the Dems plus several Repubs in the Senate, and about half of the Dems in the House, should be expelled. ¶ 10:22 AM
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Bush's speech tonight
Simply perfect.
Told us what he's been doing and why; told us what he will be doing and why; showed forward movement; and most interestingly, told us what he expects of us.
When you compare Bush's stated expectation to what Americans were expected to do in World War 2, I guess you can understand why so many Americans are discontented nowadays, having to carry this Atlas-style burden on our shoulders.
Let's compare FDR's expectations of Americans with Bush's expectations:
Well, after seeing this long list of sacrifices, you can certainly understand why so many Americans want to pull out of this awful war and let the enemy win. All this infernal patience is just too much for them. ¶ 6:46 PM
Simply perfect.
Told us what he's been doing and why; told us what he will be doing and why; showed forward movement; and most interestingly, told us what he expects of us.
When you compare Bush's stated expectation to what Americans were expected to do in World War 2, I guess you can understand why so many Americans are discontented nowadays, having to carry this Atlas-style burden on our shoulders.
Let's compare FDR's expectations of Americans with Bush's expectations:
Well, after seeing this long list of sacrifices, you can certainly understand why so many Americans want to pull out of this awful war and let the enemy win. All this infernal patience is just too much for them. ¶ 6:46 PM
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Eavesdropping
1. First, the notion that we are entitled to freedom from all eavesdropping is simply nonsense. Harry Blackmun's feelings did not create a constitutional 'right to privacy', no matter how loudly his fellow black-robed saboteurs may insist on it. They didn't really mean to make an overall right anyway; they were just working to maximize the profits of Big Abortion.
The 4th Amendment, though it unfortunately contains that vague word 'reasonable', is talking specifically about searches. In modern terms, it does put limits on searching the contents of your hard disk, but it was never meant to apply to communications made through public channels. If you're using a government-owned channel like the post office, or a government-allocated channel like the radio spectrum ... or if you're talking in a place where anyone could walk in, like a church or mosque ... you have no more expectation of 'privacy' than you would when talking on a sidewalk. Court decisions are quite firm and consistent on this point.
2. Second, the government has always spied internally on suspicious people, whether a law prohibited such activity or not. Nixon happened to get caught because he was an anti-Communist, and thus working against most of the government and media. But he was simply copying the tactics of FDR, JFK and LBJ. Clinton carried on the same tactics, but of course he's a Dem, so nobody needed to investigate or punish him.
Personal example from the Reagan years: In 1982 I was active in the Nuclear Freeze movement, participating in two different groups based in Kansas City and Lawrence. Each group had a spy, who made no particular effort at concealment. In Lawrence, a member named Mark described himself as a 'former CIA agent', and seemed to have no other job. In KC, where the group included several teachers at the DeVry school, a 30-year-old student named Cindy said she worked for the State Department, and claimed to be taking electronics courses to further her career. Fairly transparent, since she didn't live in KC to begin with, and one can assume the gov't has its own MacGyver School of Electronics for secret agents. When we joined a Nuke Freeze march in Washington, Cindy made a point of mentioning that she had 'happened' to be back in DC that day, and had 'happened' to see us marching.
Note that the post-Watergate reforms were fresh in 1982, so the law was quite clear at that time.
I can't speak for the other members, but I have mostly positive feelings about the monitoring. Chilling effect? Yes. It probably kept us from taking some drastic actions. But were there any consequences? No. None of us were arrested or hassled, and as far as I know, none of us had any career problems as a result. The monitoring forced me to realize that we were doing something genuinely wrong -- helping the Soviets, not just working for 'peace' -- and gave me a sort of kickstart on the way toward conservatism.
3. So the NYTimes revealing this particular episode of monitoring may well have a healthy chilling effect on the enemy, despite the Times's traitorous intentions.
Al-Qaeda's skill-set is more spycraft than military, thanks to intensive training by Pakistani and Iraqi intelligence, so we can assume they are already taking all necessary precautions against wiretapping and eavesdropping, including encryption. The Times article doesn't tell them anything they don't already know; it just gives ammunition to internal enemies like McCain, Kennedy, Leahy and McDermott. (Sidenote: Ever wonder why so many internal traitors have Irish names? I truly don't know, but it's an interesting tendency!)
But independent or semi-pro sections of Allah's Army aren't so well-trained. They might now decide to change their methods, and might do it rather clumsily. The gov't can detect those changes by traffic analysis, which may provide useful info.
However, I'm making a dubious assumption here. It's true that no law will prevent a (properly) sneaky gov't agency from watching suspicious people. Like it or not, this task is sometimes necessary. But a law may prevent a gentlemanly executive like Bush Junior from accomplishing his basic duty, which is to protect us from internal and external enemies. Since Bush Junior has declared himself to be a Conscientious Objector when it comes to using mean-spirited tactics against the enemy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he lets the ACLU take over intelligence to satisfy the NYTimes.
---- ADDENDUM!!!!! -----
12:30 PST: Bush has just now made a special speech in which he STRONGLY CRITICIZED the NYTimes (and whoever leaked to it) as damaging the war effort; and DECLARED that the internal spying WILL CONTINUE! I'm shocked in a positive way. He's finally, finally, finally starting to behave less like a Christian pacifist and more like a competent wartime President! Maybe we finally stand a real chance of winning this war. BRAVO. ¶ 10:06 AM
1. First, the notion that we are entitled to freedom from all eavesdropping is simply nonsense. Harry Blackmun's feelings did not create a constitutional 'right to privacy', no matter how loudly his fellow black-robed saboteurs may insist on it. They didn't really mean to make an overall right anyway; they were just working to maximize the profits of Big Abortion.
The 4th Amendment, though it unfortunately contains that vague word 'reasonable', is talking specifically about searches. In modern terms, it does put limits on searching the contents of your hard disk, but it was never meant to apply to communications made through public channels. If you're using a government-owned channel like the post office, or a government-allocated channel like the radio spectrum ... or if you're talking in a place where anyone could walk in, like a church or mosque ... you have no more expectation of 'privacy' than you would when talking on a sidewalk. Court decisions are quite firm and consistent on this point.
2. Second, the government has always spied internally on suspicious people, whether a law prohibited such activity or not. Nixon happened to get caught because he was an anti-Communist, and thus working against most of the government and media. But he was simply copying the tactics of FDR, JFK and LBJ. Clinton carried on the same tactics, but of course he's a Dem, so nobody needed to investigate or punish him.
Personal example from the Reagan years: In 1982 I was active in the Nuclear Freeze movement, participating in two different groups based in Kansas City and Lawrence. Each group had a spy, who made no particular effort at concealment. In Lawrence, a member named Mark described himself as a 'former CIA agent', and seemed to have no other job. In KC, where the group included several teachers at the DeVry school, a 30-year-old student named Cindy said she worked for the State Department, and claimed to be taking electronics courses to further her career. Fairly transparent, since she didn't live in KC to begin with, and one can assume the gov't has its own MacGyver School of Electronics for secret agents. When we joined a Nuke Freeze march in Washington, Cindy made a point of mentioning that she had 'happened' to be back in DC that day, and had 'happened' to see us marching.
Note that the post-Watergate reforms were fresh in 1982, so the law was quite clear at that time.
I can't speak for the other members, but I have mostly positive feelings about the monitoring. Chilling effect? Yes. It probably kept us from taking some drastic actions. But were there any consequences? No. None of us were arrested or hassled, and as far as I know, none of us had any career problems as a result. The monitoring forced me to realize that we were doing something genuinely wrong -- helping the Soviets, not just working for 'peace' -- and gave me a sort of kickstart on the way toward conservatism.
3. So the NYTimes revealing this particular episode of monitoring may well have a healthy chilling effect on the enemy, despite the Times's traitorous intentions.
Al-Qaeda's skill-set is more spycraft than military, thanks to intensive training by Pakistani and Iraqi intelligence, so we can assume they are already taking all necessary precautions against wiretapping and eavesdropping, including encryption. The Times article doesn't tell them anything they don't already know; it just gives ammunition to internal enemies like McCain, Kennedy, Leahy and McDermott. (Sidenote: Ever wonder why so many internal traitors have Irish names? I truly don't know, but it's an interesting tendency!)
But independent or semi-pro sections of Allah's Army aren't so well-trained. They might now decide to change their methods, and might do it rather clumsily. The gov't can detect those changes by traffic analysis, which may provide useful info.
However, I'm making a dubious assumption here. It's true that no law will prevent a (properly) sneaky gov't agency from watching suspicious people. Like it or not, this task is sometimes necessary. But a law may prevent a gentlemanly executive like Bush Junior from accomplishing his basic duty, which is to protect us from internal and external enemies. Since Bush Junior has declared himself to be a Conscientious Objector when it comes to using mean-spirited tactics against the enemy, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he lets the ACLU take over intelligence to satisfy the NYTimes.
---- ADDENDUM!!!!! -----
12:30 PST: Bush has just now made a special speech in which he STRONGLY CRITICIZED the NYTimes (and whoever leaked to it) as damaging the war effort; and DECLARED that the internal spying WILL CONTINUE! I'm shocked in a positive way. He's finally, finally, finally starting to behave less like a Christian pacifist and more like a competent wartime President! Maybe we finally stand a real chance of winning this war. BRAVO. ¶ 10:06 AM
Monday, December 12, 2005
Material Mitt
Watched a Mitt Romney campaign speech on C-span last night. Overall, highly impressive; a good speaker, knows how to teach and sell, knows when to give new information. Especially impressive on health care and education, both totally broken. He seems to have listened to Newt on education. "We need to focus much more on math and science, especially on materials science".... Bingo! All my circuits lit up at that moment. Here's a man who actually understands reality!
Materials science is not a household word; it's not part of our mythology and folklore of science. On the rare occasions when we teach anything of science, we teach Big Ideas and Big Inventions. Darwin and Edison. Materials science is certainly not taught in school, and you'll never hear a youngster say "I want to grow up to do materials science." But most of the technical development in the last century has not been from Big Ideas or Big Inventions. It has been in the realm of materials.
Consider the automobile. Gas engines, electric motors, gas-electric hybrids, front wheel drive, fuel injection, automatic transmissions. All invented and (at least nominally) commercialized by 1910.
Modern cars, light and efficient, result from long and patient development in metals, plastics, glass, and petroleum. New ways of forming, shaping and compositing those materials have made those early ideas practical.
Or the computer. Morse invented the keyboard, punched tape, and printer in the 1850's. Programming, in the sense of setting up a machine to process its inputs in a desired way, has been around since the pipe organ. Logical decisions and counting were well developed by 1890 in telegraph technology, such as annunciators and tabulators. Bring in the Fleming diode and the cathode ray tube, and all the basic inventions are present by 1910.
Modern computers, small and super-powerful, result from long and patient development in semiconductors, composite circuit boards, and magnetic and optical surface coatings. Materials again.
-----
So I've concluded that my father-son analysis was on the mark. Mitt's father, as president of American Motors from 1954-62, did three things: (1) Accurately understood the strong and weak points of his company. (2) Understood economic and consumer trends which blindsided other auto executives. (3) Used his understanding to bring Rambler from 12th place to 3rd in sales. Quite a trick in 6 years.
I can see similar traits in Mitt. (1) Understands America's strong and weak points accurately. (2) Tells us about those strong and weak points in a way that places the blame properly. (i.e., no new tone!) (3) Focuses on trends and offers solutions, aiming to use America's strengths where possible.
Obviously we know in hindsight that George Romney's prophecies and solutions were good in 1962; we can't determine yet whether Mitt's prophecies and solutions will be good in 2009. But I'm placing my bet right now.
¶ 10:46 AM
Materials science is not a household word; it's not part of our mythology and folklore of science. On the rare occasions when we teach anything of science, we teach Big Ideas and Big Inventions. Darwin and Edison. Materials science is certainly not taught in school, and you'll never hear a youngster say "I want to grow up to do materials science." But most of the technical development in the last century has not been from Big Ideas or Big Inventions. It has been in the realm of materials.
Consider the automobile. Gas engines, electric motors, gas-electric hybrids, front wheel drive, fuel injection, automatic transmissions. All invented and (at least nominally) commercialized by 1910.
Modern cars, light and efficient, result from long and patient development in metals, plastics, glass, and petroleum. New ways of forming, shaping and compositing those materials have made those early ideas practical.
Or the computer. Morse invented the keyboard, punched tape, and printer in the 1850's. Programming, in the sense of setting up a machine to process its inputs in a desired way, has been around since the pipe organ. Logical decisions and counting were well developed by 1890 in telegraph technology, such as annunciators and tabulators. Bring in the Fleming diode and the cathode ray tube, and all the basic inventions are present by 1910.
Modern computers, small and super-powerful, result from long and patient development in semiconductors, composite circuit boards, and magnetic and optical surface coatings. Materials again.
-----
So I've concluded that my father-son analysis was on the mark. Mitt's father, as president of American Motors from 1954-62, did three things: (1) Accurately understood the strong and weak points of his company. (2) Understood economic and consumer trends which blindsided other auto executives. (3) Used his understanding to bring Rambler from 12th place to 3rd in sales. Quite a trick in 6 years.
I can see similar traits in Mitt. (1) Understands America's strong and weak points accurately. (2) Tells us about those strong and weak points in a way that places the blame properly. (i.e., no new tone!) (3) Focuses on trends and offers solutions, aiming to use America's strengths where possible.
Obviously we know in hindsight that George Romney's prophecies and solutions were good in 1962; we can't determine yet whether Mitt's prophecies and solutions will be good in 2009. But I'm placing my bet right now.
¶ 10:46 AM
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Luton: 12/11
The good old 'nothing to see' curtain has gone down mighty fast on this event. CNN covered it well at the start, but then ho-hummed it, after hearing a 'definitive' statement from the authorities that it was certainly an accident.
Really? They knew definitively that it was an accident 10 minutes after the boom?
What makes me especially suspicious is that 20 tanks were burning immediately. I've lived near oil refineries in Oklahoma, and I've seen a couple of tank fires. Crude just doesn't burn violently, and it wasn't all that hard for firefighters to keep the flames contained to one tank. If all the tanks in Luton contained liquefied propane, I suppose they would be volatile enough for a chain reaction. Otherwise I'm not going to buy it.
Add in the date, and the suspicion rises significantly. ¶ 9:57 AM
Really? They knew definitively that it was an accident 10 minutes after the boom?
What makes me especially suspicious is that 20 tanks were burning immediately. I've lived near oil refineries in Oklahoma, and I've seen a couple of tank fires. Crude just doesn't burn violently, and it wasn't all that hard for firefighters to keep the flames contained to one tank. If all the tanks in Luton contained liquefied propane, I suppose they would be volatile enough for a chain reaction. Otherwise I'm not going to buy it.
Add in the date, and the suspicion rises significantly. ¶ 9:57 AM
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Elves arrested!
Not Santa's elves, but ELF and ALF members. Six eco-terrorists have been FINALLY arrested for a long series of sabotage incidents, starting in 1998. Millions of dollars in damage to forests, power lines and university facilities.
Is the FBI starting to get serious? Have they begun to realize that strange Christians are not the greatest threat to America? Possibly, but I'll reserve judgment. Seven years is not exactly "the swift sword of justice."
Eco-terrorists are part of Osama's army. Osama himself says so:
[Americans] have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than
any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement
so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.
.... From 'Letter to the Americans', Oct 6, 2002.
Full coverage of the arrests here. ¶ 12:19 PM
Is the FBI starting to get serious? Have they begun to realize that strange Christians are not the greatest threat to America? Possibly, but I'll reserve judgment. Seven years is not exactly "the swift sword of justice."
Eco-terrorists are part of Osama's army. Osama himself says so:
[Americans] have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than
any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement
so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.
.... From 'Letter to the Americans', Oct 6, 2002.
Full coverage of the arrests here. ¶ 12:19 PM
Smoking ban
Another local item: a nearly total smoking ban, passed by initiative in November, went into effect today in the state of Washington. Interestingly, police have made it publicly clear that they do not intend to put any effort into enforcing this law. I wonder if we're finally crossing into Prohibition territory, where nobody wants the law?
What makes the ban "nearly total" is that Indian casinos are exempted. All other restaurants, bars, public buildings are supposed to be smoke-free.
Hmmmmmmmmm.... What do you suppose the real purpose of this initiative might be? Can't begin to guess....
In general, the real purpose of any strict law can be determined by reading the exemptions, and nowadays just about all new state laws have something to do with Indian casinos if you read closely enough. ¶ 8:59 AM
What makes the ban "nearly total" is that Indian casinos are exempted. All other restaurants, bars, public buildings are supposed to be smoke-free.
Hmmmmmmmmm.... What do you suppose the real purpose of this initiative might be? Can't begin to guess....
In general, the real purpose of any strict law can be determined by reading the exemptions, and nowadays just about all new state laws have something to do with Indian casinos if you read closely enough. ¶ 8:59 AM
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Secret prisons in Europe...
Whether accidental or not, I think this will turn out to be a 'good leak' in the end. Even while Jimmy Bush is screeching that we never use torture, Arabs are now inclined to believe that we have a large network of secret prisons in countries where the ACLU is not emperor.
This belief is a good thing. It's even good to have the Euros whining about it.
An Arab who is thinking about joining the Jihad will now have to ask "Who do I believe? The anti-American European press, or Satan Bush?" ¶ 8:45 AM
This belief is a good thing. It's even good to have the Euros whining about it.
An Arab who is thinking about joining the Jihad will now have to ask "Who do I believe? The anti-American European press, or Satan Bush?" ¶ 8:45 AM
Gayor West goes down.
Last night the ballots were counted, and Spokane voted to recall Gayor West, by a margin of 65-35. Turnout was 70%, which is highly unusual for an off-year and off-date election.
This was a genuinely grass-roots effort. The professional politicos wouldn't touch it, so an ordinary citizen named Shannon Sullivan started the ball rolling, and finally some semi-pros who knew how to maneuver through the courts took over.
-----
Seems like a lot of bad politicians are being kicked to the curb lately. Most of them are self-described 'Republicans', but we shouldn't bemoan this. Best to have a party or movement with some degree of purpose and meaning, not a club filled with pure (and rather dumb) power-seekers like Duke Cunningham, Jack Kemp and James West.
My earlier comments here and here.
Full coverage of the election here. ¶ 8:03 AM
This was a genuinely grass-roots effort. The professional politicos wouldn't touch it, so an ordinary citizen named Shannon Sullivan started the ball rolling, and finally some semi-pros who knew how to maneuver through the courts took over.
-----
Seems like a lot of bad politicians are being kicked to the curb lately. Most of them are self-described 'Republicans', but we shouldn't bemoan this. Best to have a party or movement with some degree of purpose and meaning, not a club filled with pure (and rather dumb) power-seekers like Duke Cunningham, Jack Kemp and James West.
My earlier comments here and here.
Full coverage of the election here. ¶ 8:03 AM
Friday, December 02, 2005
What do you call it?
Wilson, Hoover, Carter. All failed because they couldn't distinguish between their personal moral code and the needs of the nation. Granted, there are many other ways to lose a war: Truman and LBJ were feisty and ruthless, not restrained by any Ivy League gentlemanly honor code, yet they still lost Korea and Vietnam for a host of separate reasons. On the other hand, morality can even help. Reagan was ruled by a moral vision, but his morality was unique in that he considered American victory against Communism to be the optimal goal, worth achieving by any and all methods. Reagan's morality was thus perfectly congruent with the job of President.
But when a President declares openly that his morality prevents him from defending the nation, loss is guaranteed.
I've been trying not to put Bush Junior into the Carter category, but yesterday's speech by AG Gonzalez settled the point. Gonzalez was speaking at the CFR, and was being hit with a repeated question by enemy agents (aka "reporters") in the audience. His repeated answer was unequivocal. According to Gonzalez, Bush will not allow any part of his administration to use torture, even in the oft-stated extreme case where only torturing a captured enemy can save the country from total destruction.
Well, what can you say after that? It's not treason, because Bush apparently doesn't intend to be adhering to the enemy. It's not a total surrender, at least not by its explicit wording. I have to call it insubordination for lack of a better word.
The enemy now knows that Bush will defend the ACLU at all costs.
So who's supposed to defend the United States? ¶ 8:08 AM
But when a President declares openly that his morality prevents him from defending the nation, loss is guaranteed.
I've been trying not to put Bush Junior into the Carter category, but yesterday's speech by AG Gonzalez settled the point. Gonzalez was speaking at the CFR, and was being hit with a repeated question by enemy agents (aka "reporters") in the audience. His repeated answer was unequivocal. According to Gonzalez, Bush will not allow any part of his administration to use torture, even in the oft-stated extreme case where only torturing a captured enemy can save the country from total destruction.
Well, what can you say after that? It's not treason, because Bush apparently doesn't intend to be adhering to the enemy. It's not a total surrender, at least not by its explicit wording. I have to call it insubordination for lack of a better word.
The enemy now knows that Bush will defend the ACLU at all costs.
So who's supposed to defend the United States? ¶ 8:08 AM
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Phrenology
A hundred years ago, popular theories claimed that you could distinguish a criminal by the shape of the skull. Those theories were largely wrong, but nevertheless we are finally starting to admit [again] that moral IQ has some genetic connection. I've never understood why otherwise sensible people can acknowledge the innateness of, say, math and music abilities, while violently denying that moral ability is also partly innate. (Actually I do understand; leftist orthodoxy requires us to believe that everyone is equally redeemable if given the appropriate environment.)
These three women form an interesting case study. Left is the Belgian suicide bomber, Muriel DeGauque. Center is the Jordan hotel suicider (unsuccessful) Sajida al-Rishawi. Right is, of course, Squeaky Fromme. All three followed a murderous cult to its extreme conclusion. Their skulls may not be similar, but their faces show a kinship of emotion and soul. ¶ 9:44 AM
A hundred years ago, popular theories claimed that you could distinguish a criminal by the shape of the skull. Those theories were largely wrong, but nevertheless we are finally starting to admit [again] that moral IQ has some genetic connection. I've never understood why otherwise sensible people can acknowledge the innateness of, say, math and music abilities, while violently denying that moral ability is also partly innate. (Actually I do understand; leftist orthodoxy requires us to believe that everyone is equally redeemable if given the appropriate environment.)
These three women form an interesting case study. Left is the Belgian suicide bomber, Muriel DeGauque. Center is the Jordan hotel suicider (unsuccessful) Sajida al-Rishawi. Right is, of course, Squeaky Fromme. All three followed a murderous cult to its extreme conclusion. Their skulls may not be similar, but their faces show a kinship of emotion and soul. ¶ 9:44 AM
Monday, November 28, 2005
Better late....
I notice some of the 'big guns' are finally calling for Bush to emulate FDR's practices ... which are not signs of genius but just normal leadership practices.
Any competent teacher, salesman or leader follows these rules: (1) Tell people what we're going to do for you and why. (2) Explain why this is better than the other product, candidate or alternative. (3) After we've started, tell people what we've done so far and what remains to be done; and encourage them to stay with the course.
For whatever strange reason -- Christianity, aphasia, "methods and sources", incompetence -- Bush has constantly failed to do these basic things. And nobody in his administration has cared enough to fix the problem; or perhaps somebody wanted to do the right thing, but was knocked down by Rove's electoral engineering. I don't know the cause, and I really don't want to know.
In any case, I'm glad the 'big guns' are finally realizing what's wrong. Ahem. Ahem.
-----
Addendum: Bush's speech today on immigration did fulfill those basic principles of leadership and communication, leaving aside questions of the seriousness of the policy change. Maybe someone in the admin has figured out what's needed after all! Unfortunately, it might be too late to pick up the pieces on the Iraq war, given that it's been running for two years with a badly stated initial premise and no proper 'interim reports'. He's allowed the enemy media to define all the terms and win all the arguments. ¶ 7:06 AM
Any competent teacher, salesman or leader follows these rules: (1) Tell people what we're going to do for you and why. (2) Explain why this is better than the other product, candidate or alternative. (3) After we've started, tell people what we've done so far and what remains to be done; and encourage them to stay with the course.
For whatever strange reason -- Christianity, aphasia, "methods and sources", incompetence -- Bush has constantly failed to do these basic things. And nobody in his administration has cared enough to fix the problem; or perhaps somebody wanted to do the right thing, but was knocked down by Rove's electoral engineering. I don't know the cause, and I really don't want to know.
In any case, I'm glad the 'big guns' are finally realizing what's wrong. Ahem. Ahem.
-----
Addendum: Bush's speech today on immigration did fulfill those basic principles of leadership and communication, leaving aside questions of the seriousness of the policy change. Maybe someone in the admin has figured out what's needed after all! Unfortunately, it might be too late to pick up the pieces on the Iraq war, given that it's been running for two years with a badly stated initial premise and no proper 'interim reports'. He's allowed the enemy media to define all the terms and win all the arguments. ¶ 7:06 AM
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Army of one / Congress of one
Most of all I'm thankful today that we have a fantastic, heroic, flexible, intelligent military. A military force that can switch from blasting cities to building water systems to training city councils at the drop of a hat.
Also thankful that we have a tiny handful of loyal members of Congress, who are finally starting to resist the traitors, with no help at all from the rest of the Republican legislature and executive branches. Jean Schmidt, I salute you. J. D. Hayworth, I salute you. Curtis Weldon and Duncan Hunter, I salute you.
The rest of the government is just as flexible as the military: it can switch from raw treason to criminal incompetence and back, at the drop of a hat. ¶ 10:49 PM
Most of all I'm thankful today that we have a fantastic, heroic, flexible, intelligent military. A military force that can switch from blasting cities to building water systems to training city councils at the drop of a hat.
Also thankful that we have a tiny handful of loyal members of Congress, who are finally starting to resist the traitors, with no help at all from the rest of the Republican legislature and executive branches. Jean Schmidt, I salute you. J. D. Hayworth, I salute you. Curtis Weldon and Duncan Hunter, I salute you.
The rest of the government is just as flexible as the military: it can switch from raw treason to criminal incompetence and back, at the drop of a hat. ¶ 10:49 PM
Saturday, November 19, 2005
He's back!
The Pres's speech at Osan, finished just now, was his best. Not Lincoln or Churchill quality, but as good as anything FDR ever gave.
He's finally pulled out of his below-sea-level Katrina malaise.
No brand-new content in the speech, but a distinct difference in tone: a relentless drive that I haven't heard from Bush in a long time. No fumbling, no uuuuuuuhs, very few A's and THEE's. A second semantic change: instead of "bring them to justice", which evokes images of the ACLU and Judge Ito, he's now saying "hold them to account", which has more of a frontier feel.
One important difference: concentrating more on the enemy as agents of an evil religion, instead of a vague unnamed ideology; and concentrating less on the weapons. The most important of all: he's taking the long perspective. This war began in 1979, and Iraq is just one stage in our too-long-delayed response.
Both of these changes answer the perpetual conservative irritation with Bush's New Tone, which belonged to the liberal mindset. Liberals believe that humans will behave properly if you just set them in the proper environment and take away their weapons. Conservatives understand that the tools aren't the problem; the belief system is the problem. We will win by convincing the army of Allah that their belief system will not succeed under any conditions. ¶ 12:02 AM
He's finally pulled out of his below-sea-level Katrina malaise.
No brand-new content in the speech, but a distinct difference in tone: a relentless drive that I haven't heard from Bush in a long time. No fumbling, no uuuuuuuhs, very few A's and THEE's. A second semantic change: instead of "bring them to justice", which evokes images of the ACLU and Judge Ito, he's now saying "hold them to account", which has more of a frontier feel.
One important difference: concentrating more on the enemy as agents of an evil religion, instead of a vague unnamed ideology; and concentrating less on the weapons. The most important of all: he's taking the long perspective. This war began in 1979, and Iraq is just one stage in our too-long-delayed response.
Both of these changes answer the perpetual conservative irritation with Bush's New Tone, which belonged to the liberal mindset. Liberals believe that humans will behave properly if you just set them in the proper environment and take away their weapons. Conservatives understand that the tools aren't the problem; the belief system is the problem. We will win by convincing the army of Allah that their belief system will not succeed under any conditions. ¶ 12:02 AM
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Partaaaaaayyyy!
Since it's become obvious that the establishment section of the Republican, um, association, has surrendered to the enemy, several bloggers think it's time for a third party. Or more cynically, a second party to oppose the Party of Treason.
Well, you can't start a new party or movement in the 21st Century without naming it after a color or a flower. So I humbly and pointlessly propose: The Sunflower Party.
Sunflowers are a distinctly American plant, hardy and tough, self-sustaining, especially common through the Midwest. They symbolize openness and disclosure, always facing the light.
Named or not, this party already has a public face -- at least for C-Span watchers -- in the form of the 'Special Orders Gang' led by Steve King of Iowa and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. King and Blackburn are often joined by Foxx and Wolf of Virginia, Peterson of Pennsylvania, Jindal of Louisiana, and a few other semi-regulars. I don't think they've given themselves a 'Caucus' designation, but they definitely stand for openness, frugality, strong defense, energy independence, and strict border control. ¶ 12:19 PM
Since it's become obvious that the establishment section of the Republican, um, association, has surrendered to the enemy, several bloggers think it's time for a third party. Or more cynically, a second party to oppose the Party of Treason.
Well, you can't start a new party or movement in the 21st Century without naming it after a color or a flower. So I humbly and pointlessly propose: The Sunflower Party.
Sunflowers are a distinctly American plant, hardy and tough, self-sustaining, especially common through the Midwest. They symbolize openness and disclosure, always facing the light.
Named or not, this party already has a public face -- at least for C-Span watchers -- in the form of the 'Special Orders Gang' led by Steve King of Iowa and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. King and Blackburn are often joined by Foxx and Wolf of Virginia, Peterson of Pennsylvania, Jindal of Louisiana, and a few other semi-regulars. I don't think they've given themselves a 'Caucus' designation, but they definitely stand for openness, frugality, strong defense, energy independence, and strict border control. ¶ 12:19 PM
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Following the London model....
The imam of a Somali mosque in Seattle has been arrested on "immigration violations", but the Terrorism Task Force is involved, which indicates that he's suspected of more than overstaying his visa.
Are we beginning to follow the radical English idea of arresting the enemy, instead of the FBI's standard policy of arresting the nearest weird Christian?
More here. ¶ 3:26 PM
Are we beginning to follow the radical English idea of arresting the enemy, instead of the FBI's standard policy of arresting the nearest weird Christian?
More here. ¶ 3:26 PM
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Hall of mirrors, part II
Tonight at the same hour:
CNN presented a painfully powerful anti-Communist documentary that tells the truth about North Korea.
Fox presented a painfully clumsy pro-Communist documentary that tells a pack of lies about science, America, and everything else.
Roger Ailes has sold his soul to the enemy for thirty pieces of Pulitzer.
I will never watch another minute of Fox.
¶ 8:59 PM
CNN presented a painfully powerful anti-Communist documentary that tells the truth about North Korea.
Fox presented a painfully clumsy pro-Communist documentary that tells a pack of lies about science, America, and everything else.
Roger Ailes has sold his soul to the enemy for thirty pieces of Pulitzer.
I will never watch another minute of Fox.
¶ 8:59 PM
Superstitions
Every Halloween or Friday the 13th, TV stations feel obligated to run a feature about 'Our Superstitions'. You know the script: the standard handful of medieval English beliefs, like ladders, black cats, 13's, mirrors. We are supposed to feel brave and modern if we don't believe in those particular superstitions.
Just plain silly. Those old English beliefs have been dead for 200 years, and nobody genuinely holds them now.
In fact each of us owns a large stock of private superstitions. We drive down Chestnut instead of Broadway because we saw a bad accident on Broadway once. We walk an extra block to pass by the First National, because we saw an interesting woman there once. We always add a certain line to each source code module because a program failed once for lack of that line. We make sure a certain folder is cleared before shutting down the computer, because we suspect that last year's system crash had something to do with that folder.
A superstition is nothing more than a crystallized piece of inductive reasoning.
A superstition isn't based on enough data to call it a theory or a statistic, but the odds are still on its side. If a bad accident happened on Broadway, there's probably something about Broadway that favors accidents, no matter how slightly. If we saw a pretty lady in front of the bank, it may indicate something about the bank's choice of employees. If the extra line in the C++ source helped once, it stands a fair chance of helping again.
Personally invented superstitions may be wasteful, but they're essentially healthy.
Operating without superstition can be bad for your career if not your health. For instance, let's say you appointed a friend as head of FEMA, and the friend demonstrably failed. Personal superstition would lead you to step carefully away from friends on your next opportunity to appoint a major official. If you walk under that very same ladder a week later, we are entitled to question your common sense.
However!!! Official superstitions are both wasteful and unhealthy, because they require all of us to sacrifice money and time to serve a false correlation that exists only in the fevered imagination of certain 'experts'.
Two prime examples: Global Warming and Bird Flu. Both of these, like all superstitions, begin with a limited set of valid observations. Global warming starts from the unquestionable fact that the last decade has been warmer -- at least in urban areas -- than most decades in living memory. Bird flu starts from a genuinely fatal disease affecting third-world chicken farmers and butchers. But both of these superstitions proceed boldly into raw fraud and tyranny, based solely on somebody's desire to infect the world with fear.
The global warming superstition tries to claim that increased CO2 is the cause of our relatively warm decade, despite piles of long-term data showing that CO2 is a LAGGING variable, not a LEADING variable. Whatever it is that drives our heat cycles -- most likely solar variation and volcanos -- it increases earth temperature BEFORE it increases CO2.
The bird flu superstition is not quite so bizarrely loony, but it takes an actual disease and carries it through two stages of pure speculation. What if the virus mutates into a form that can be transferred between humans? What if the virus also becomes wildly contagious? Those are not demonstrably wrong, but they are low-probability events, and when you require two low-prob events to happen together, you're betting on a loooooooooooong shot.
Every Halloween or Friday the 13th, TV stations feel obligated to run a feature about 'Our Superstitions'. You know the script: the standard handful of medieval English beliefs, like ladders, black cats, 13's, mirrors. We are supposed to feel brave and modern if we don't believe in those particular superstitions.
Just plain silly. Those old English beliefs have been dead for 200 years, and nobody genuinely holds them now.
In fact each of us owns a large stock of private superstitions. We drive down Chestnut instead of Broadway because we saw a bad accident on Broadway once. We walk an extra block to pass by the First National, because we saw an interesting woman there once. We always add a certain line to each source code module because a program failed once for lack of that line. We make sure a certain folder is cleared before shutting down the computer, because we suspect that last year's system crash had something to do with that folder.
A superstition is nothing more than a crystallized piece of inductive reasoning.
A superstition isn't based on enough data to call it a theory or a statistic, but the odds are still on its side. If a bad accident happened on Broadway, there's probably something about Broadway that favors accidents, no matter how slightly. If we saw a pretty lady in front of the bank, it may indicate something about the bank's choice of employees. If the extra line in the C++ source helped once, it stands a fair chance of helping again.
Personally invented superstitions may be wasteful, but they're essentially healthy.
Operating without superstition can be bad for your career if not your health. For instance, let's say you appointed a friend as head of FEMA, and the friend demonstrably failed. Personal superstition would lead you to step carefully away from friends on your next opportunity to appoint a major official. If you walk under that very same ladder a week later, we are entitled to question your common sense.
However!!! Official superstitions are both wasteful and unhealthy, because they require all of us to sacrifice money and time to serve a false correlation that exists only in the fevered imagination of certain 'experts'.
Two prime examples: Global Warming and Bird Flu. Both of these, like all superstitions, begin with a limited set of valid observations. Global warming starts from the unquestionable fact that the last decade has been warmer -- at least in urban areas -- than most decades in living memory. Bird flu starts from a genuinely fatal disease affecting third-world chicken farmers and butchers. But both of these superstitions proceed boldly into raw fraud and tyranny, based solely on somebody's desire to infect the world with fear.
The global warming superstition tries to claim that increased CO2 is the cause of our relatively warm decade, despite piles of long-term data showing that CO2 is a LAGGING variable, not a LEADING variable. Whatever it is that drives our heat cycles -- most likely solar variation and volcanos -- it increases earth temperature BEFORE it increases CO2.
The bird flu superstition is not quite so bizarrely loony, but it takes an actual disease and carries it through two stages of pure speculation. What if the virus mutates into a form that can be transferred between humans? What if the virus also becomes wildly contagious? Those are not demonstrably wrong, but they are low-probability events, and when you require two low-prob events to happen together, you're betting on a loooooooooooong shot.
Labels: Blinded by Stats
¶ 12:16 PM
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Kafka is smiling
Watching the House of Reps drift in the breeze like autumn leaves.
For what it's worth, the Rep from my district, Cathy McMorris, is holding rock-steady in these tough times. In the past I've called her unimpressive on 'social' matters, but on defense, economics and energy independence she deserves a loud BRAVO! It must be hard to resist the pressures of the eco-tyrants.
Most of the House, though, seems to be completely helpless without a leader. This indicates that most of the members have no principles at all. And where is the leader? He's being ground up by a totally pointless and totally endless court proceeding, based on laws that should never have been made.
Campaign finance laws are, of course, prima facie unconstitutional. Free speech and so on. Beyond that, it occurs to me while watching RonnieKafka Earle run Tom DeLay through the blender, that this process also violates a less famous bit of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 6: ...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The founders were mainly thinking of libel and slander suits, but what Ronnie Earle is doing to Tom DeLay amounts to the same thing. Using the courts to punish political actions. ¶ 7:53 AM
Watching the House of Reps drift in the breeze like autumn leaves.
For what it's worth, the Rep from my district, Cathy McMorris, is holding rock-steady in these tough times. In the past I've called her unimpressive on 'social' matters, but on defense, economics and energy independence she deserves a loud BRAVO! It must be hard to resist the pressures of the eco-tyrants.
Most of the House, though, seems to be completely helpless without a leader. This indicates that most of the members have no principles at all. And where is the leader? He's being ground up by a totally pointless and totally endless court proceeding, based on laws that should never have been made.
Campaign finance laws are, of course, prima facie unconstitutional. Free speech and so on. Beyond that, it occurs to me while watching Ronnie
Article 1, Section 6: ...and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The founders were mainly thinking of libel and slander suits, but what Ronnie Earle is doing to Tom DeLay amounts to the same thing. Using the courts to punish political actions. ¶ 7:53 AM
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Hall of mirrors
This just doesn't make any sense at all. The Senate, which normally works against America, has actually agreed to open up drilling in Alaska. When I commented on that a week ago, I just assumed that the House would go along, because the House has a strong majority of 'Republicans' plus about 30 normally pro-American Dems.
Now the House has decided to keep ANWR closed, and to prevent any expansion of Gulf-area offshore drilling. What in the name of all that is holy, unholy, and otherwise, do they think they are doing?
If the House knew the Senate would knock it down anyway, I could understand the idea of skipping the battle. One of the House 'moderates' seemed to be thinking this way: "They understand this thing won't go anywhere with ANWR in it," said Representative Charlie Bass, a New Hampshire Republican. Bass wrote a letter Nov. 8 that was signed by 25 other Republican lawmakers to House leaders asking that the Alaska provision be stripped. But that makes no sense at all after the Senate has already approved drilling.
Well then, do they believe that Georgie will veto it, to protect Jeb's interests over America's interests? Maybe so. Maybe they understand Georgie better than the rest of us uninformed peasants.
I'm no longer convinced that we have a President at all. Frist is far from ideal, but he is at least mentally competent, and he seems to be taking charge. ¶ 10:08 AM
This just doesn't make any sense at all. The Senate, which normally works against America, has actually agreed to open up drilling in Alaska. When I commented on that a week ago, I just assumed that the House would go along, because the House has a strong majority of 'Republicans' plus about 30 normally pro-American Dems.
Now the House has decided to keep ANWR closed, and to prevent any expansion of Gulf-area offshore drilling. What in the name of all that is holy, unholy, and otherwise, do they think they are doing?
If the House knew the Senate would knock it down anyway, I could understand the idea of skipping the battle. One of the House 'moderates' seemed to be thinking this way: "They understand this thing won't go anywhere with ANWR in it," said Representative Charlie Bass, a New Hampshire Republican. Bass wrote a letter Nov. 8 that was signed by 25 other Republican lawmakers to House leaders asking that the Alaska provision be stripped. But that makes no sense at all after the Senate has already approved drilling.
Well then, do they believe that Georgie will veto it, to protect Jeb's interests over America's interests? Maybe so. Maybe they understand Georgie better than the rest of us uninformed peasants.
I'm no longer convinced that we have a President at all. Frist is far from ideal, but he is at least mentally competent, and he seems to be taking charge. ¶ 10:08 AM
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Fried frogs
I've tried hard to work up a proper Schadenfreude over the French troubles, but I can't. Just can't.
All I can find is sympathy.
It's tempting to think that the French are suffering the natural backwash of their own mistaken policies. That's undoubtedly part of the historical picture, but it's irrelevant.
True enough, the French have been playing cynical games to appease the Mohammedans, even running Traitor Joe Wilson against the Bush Administration. Doesn't matter.
We've also played cynical games, running Iraq against Iran in the '80s, running the Saudis against Russia in Afghanistan, rescuing the Mohammedan part of Yugoslavia from the Orthodox part. Doesn't matter.
What's relevant is that the Great Ramadan Offensive has finally struck France.
We can't be distracted by enemy propaganda. The goal of Jihad is not to improve American policy in the Middle East. The goal of Jihad is not to improve living conditions in Paris housing projects. No, the only goal of Jihad is to enslave the world for Allah.
We should now consider France as an ally in the fight for civilization, even though their efforts will likely be just as ineffectual as they were in WW2. ¶ 10:09 PM
I've tried hard to work up a proper Schadenfreude over the French troubles, but I can't. Just can't.
All I can find is sympathy.
It's tempting to think that the French are suffering the natural backwash of their own mistaken policies. That's undoubtedly part of the historical picture, but it's irrelevant.
True enough, the French have been playing cynical games to appease the Mohammedans, even running Traitor Joe Wilson against the Bush Administration. Doesn't matter.
We've also played cynical games, running Iraq against Iran in the '80s, running the Saudis against Russia in Afghanistan, rescuing the Mohammedan part of Yugoslavia from the Orthodox part. Doesn't matter.
What's relevant is that the Great Ramadan Offensive has finally struck France.
We can't be distracted by enemy propaganda. The goal of Jihad is not to improve American policy in the Middle East. The goal of Jihad is not to improve living conditions in Paris housing projects. No, the only goal of Jihad is to enslave the world for Allah.
We should now consider France as an ally in the fight for civilization, even though their efforts will likely be just as ineffectual as they were in WW2. ¶ 10:09 PM
Singing mice
New research shows that mouse songs are as complex as birdsongs; it's just that we never tuned in because they're ultrasonic.
More here.
And since I've always been good at acoustic processing and such, let's tune in on our own little mouse Georgie:
Georgie-cam
----- ¶ 9:05 PM
More here.
And since I've always been good at acoustic processing and such, let's tune in on our own little mouse Georgie:
Georgie-cam
----- ¶ 9:05 PM
Thursday, November 03, 2005
It's a squeaker! It's a gusher!
The Senate has just narrowly defeated an amendment by Maria Cantwell that would have killed the House's decision to open up ANWR for drilling. This should allow action in ANWR to proceed.
Of course this does nothing for our short-term problems, unless it causes oil future prices to come down; but it will help tremendously in the long run.
Most importantly, it's a Declaration of Energy Independence: a statement that despite all indications to the contrary, our government is just barely on the side of defending America.
¶ 9:53 AM
Of course this does nothing for our short-term problems, unless it causes oil future prices to come down; but it will help tremendously in the long run.
Most importantly, it's a Declaration of Energy Independence: a statement that despite all indications to the contrary, our government is just barely on the side of defending America.
¶ 9:53 AM
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
ID, Dover, Derb
Intelligent design is being argued in a town in Pennsylvania, where the school board has taken a pro-choice position, giving the students a chance to see both sides of the dispute.
The "pro-science" fundamentalists are going wild, insisting that students must never be exposed to alternatives.
I notice that Derbyshire at NRO is taking the same fundy position, and mentions an article in the New Criterion.
New Scientist mag, the house organ for Prince Charles's Gaia-worshiping acolytes, ran a similar "let's all get along" article in the 10/29 issue. Discussing the Dover, PA school board case:
There is also a broader lesson for those who oppose ID... Almost everyone involved in the case against the school board is devoutly Christian, and they see no conflict between natural selection and their religion. Portraying evolution as an alternative to religion does no favours to the Darwinian cause. On the contrary, it hands supporters of ID the opportunity to portray the debate in terms of one religion (Christianity) against another (belief in evolution). It devalues science's claim to be a uniquely objective approach to gathering knowledge, and allows proponents of creationism to scare people of faith by telling them that science poses a threat to their society and their values. Atheists and believers should be able to agree that science stands above dogma. It follows where the evidence leads, something ID can never do.
Just fine until the last sentence.
Let's look at the basic question. ID theorizes that the complexity of life implies an intelligence of some kind. The science-ists theorize that there is no intelligence behind the complexity.
Which of those statements follows directly from the evidence? NEITHER ONE.
Basic logic: If statement P is outside the realm of provability, then Not-P is equally outside the realm of provability.
The science-ists are so blinded by their own religious fervor that they can't even see this basic point. Neither side is falsifiable, unless we find direct evidence of the intelligence. We haven't found such direct evidence yet, but it's not inconceivable that some kind of watermark or signature could be coded into DNA, or into some other pattern. If we deliberately blind ourselves to that possibility, or censor all thinking that could lead in that direction, we are profoundly anti-scientific.
Neither "It's God" nor "It's random" is a theory in the strict sense. Each is merely a mindset or teaching technique, and each may help some students understand reality. ¶ 9:36 AM
The "pro-science" fundamentalists are going wild, insisting that students must never be exposed to alternatives.
I notice that Derbyshire at NRO is taking the same fundy position, and mentions an article in the New Criterion.
New Scientist mag, the house organ for Prince Charles's Gaia-worshiping acolytes, ran a similar "let's all get along" article in the 10/29 issue. Discussing the Dover, PA school board case:
There is also a broader lesson for those who oppose ID... Almost everyone involved in the case against the school board is devoutly Christian, and they see no conflict between natural selection and their religion. Portraying evolution as an alternative to religion does no favours to the Darwinian cause. On the contrary, it hands supporters of ID the opportunity to portray the debate in terms of one religion (Christianity) against another (belief in evolution). It devalues science's claim to be a uniquely objective approach to gathering knowledge, and allows proponents of creationism to scare people of faith by telling them that science poses a threat to their society and their values. Atheists and believers should be able to agree that science stands above dogma. It follows where the evidence leads, something ID can never do.
Just fine until the last sentence.
Let's look at the basic question. ID theorizes that the complexity of life implies an intelligence of some kind. The science-ists theorize that there is no intelligence behind the complexity.
Which of those statements follows directly from the evidence? NEITHER ONE.
Basic logic: If statement P is outside the realm of provability, then Not-P is equally outside the realm of provability.
The science-ists are so blinded by their own religious fervor that they can't even see this basic point. Neither side is falsifiable, unless we find direct evidence of the intelligence. We haven't found such direct evidence yet, but it's not inconceivable that some kind of watermark or signature could be coded into DNA, or into some other pattern. If we deliberately blind ourselves to that possibility, or censor all thinking that could lead in that direction, we are profoundly anti-scientific.
Neither "It's God" nor "It's random" is a theory in the strict sense. Each is merely a mindset or teaching technique, and each may help some students understand reality. ¶ 9:36 AM
Monday, October 31, 2005
Aaaarrrrgggg!
Listening to Comrade Schumer just now, speaking about the Alito appointment. Comrade Schumer is introducing the main theme of the Commie symphony: "We need a judge who will unite, not divide."
Think about that for a minute. In the first place, O'Connor didn't unite America. Loyal Americans didn't trust her, and Communists gave her faint praise while smirking behind her back, hoping (with considerable success) to pull her toward their side.
In the second place, and more importantly, why in the hell should a judge -- or any leader -- unite America with its enemies? What a monstrously peculiar and arrogant notion. Vidkun Quisling would understand it just fine. ¶ 8:11 AM
Think about that for a minute. In the first place, O'Connor didn't unite America. Loyal Americans didn't trust her, and Communists gave her faint praise while smirking behind her back, hoping (with considerable success) to pull her toward their side.
In the second place, and more importantly, why in the hell should a judge -- or any leader -- unite America with its enemies? What a monstrously peculiar and arrogant notion. Vidkun Quisling would understand it just fine. ¶ 8:11 AM
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Li**y
When you're faced with a Prosecutor, and you're a Republican, you're in trouble no matter what you do. But there are two relatively productive courses of action, and one that just won't work.
At one end of the spectrum, you can sing like a bird. This will not please your boss, but it will probably keep you out of jail.
At the other end, you can zip your lips and say absolutely nothing. This shows extreme loyalty, but is guaranteed to put you in jail.
The middle course is the worst of both worlds. If you try to say only what will serve your cause, you'll spoil your loyalty and end up in jail anyway.
I've been pleading for a long time for an end to the New Tone, with its hyperclever attempts to please enemies without enraging friends. This is just another example of what happens when you try to make those 5-corner bank shots.
No more stealth, no more New Tone. Just tell us what you're doing and why. Friends of America will understand perfectly and will be happy; enemies will also understand perfectly and will be unhappy. What the hell is wrong with that? ¶ 10:36 PM
At one end of the spectrum, you can sing like a bird. This will not please your boss, but it will probably keep you out of jail.
At the other end, you can zip your lips and say absolutely nothing. This shows extreme loyalty, but is guaranteed to put you in jail.
The middle course is the worst of both worlds. If you try to say only what will serve your cause, you'll spoil your loyalty and end up in jail anyway.
I've been pleading for a long time for an end to the New Tone, with its hyperclever attempts to please enemies without enraging friends. This is just another example of what happens when you try to make those 5-corner bank shots.
No more stealth, no more New Tone. Just tell us what you're doing and why. Friends of America will understand perfectly and will be happy; enemies will also understand perfectly and will be unhappy. What the hell is wrong with that? ¶ 10:36 PM
Friday, October 28, 2005
ASTONISHINGLY GOOD NEWS. LOSER PAYS!
In the middle of this Orwellian septic tank, in which Traitor Wilson is rewarded for his treason while White House aides are punished for attempting to tell the truth about Traitor Wilson's treason..... The House of Representatives is conducting business even better than usual.
Today the House passed a genuine and solid LOSER PAYS law to slow down frivolous lawsuits!
In detail:
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended--
(1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: `If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the attorney, law firm, or parties that have violated this subdivision or are responsible for the violation, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties for the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, that is the subject of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'
Legal jargon of course, but remarkably straightforward.
-----
Not only does the bill include Loser Pays for federal lawsuits; it also includes a three-strikes provision for incurable thieves.
In detail:
(a) Mandatory Suspension- Whenever a Federal district court determines that an attorney has violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall determine the number of times that the attorney has violated that rule in that Federal district court during that attorney's career. If the court determines that the number is 3 or more, the Federal district court--
(1) shall suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal district court for 1 year; and
(2) may suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal district court for any additional period that the court considers appropriate.
Even more straightforward.
BRAVO, House of Reps!
-----
Now of course the bill will descend into the Black Hole of Traitors, Fools and Chickenshit Mugwumps, where it will disappear forever.
At this desperate point in history, a competent wartime President would declare the Senate to be in a state of insurrection, and would dissolve it for the duration.
-----
Edit: On closer examination, it's not a full-fledged Loser Pays provision; more like a Frivolous Lawyer Pays provision. Still a great step toward sanity, and a strong brake on predatory lawyers! ¶ 8:45 PM
In the middle of this Orwellian septic tank, in which Traitor Wilson is rewarded for his treason while White House aides are punished for attempting to tell the truth about Traitor Wilson's treason..... The House of Representatives is conducting business even better than usual.
Today the House passed a genuine and solid LOSER PAYS law to slow down frivolous lawsuits!
In detail:
Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended--
(1) by amending the first sentence to read as follows: `If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the attorney, law firm, or parties that have violated this subdivision or are responsible for the violation, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties for the reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, that is the subject of the violation, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'
Legal jargon of course, but remarkably straightforward.
-----
Not only does the bill include Loser Pays for federal lawsuits; it also includes a three-strikes provision for incurable thieves.
In detail:
(a) Mandatory Suspension- Whenever a Federal district court determines that an attorney has violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall determine the number of times that the attorney has violated that rule in that Federal district court during that attorney's career. If the court determines that the number is 3 or more, the Federal district court--
(1) shall suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal district court for 1 year; and
(2) may suspend that attorney from the practice of law in that Federal district court for any additional period that the court considers appropriate.
Even more straightforward.
BRAVO, House of Reps!
-----
Now of course the bill will descend into the Black Hole of Traitors, Fools and Chickenshit Mugwumps, where it will disappear forever.
At this desperate point in history, a competent wartime President would declare the Senate to be in a state of insurrection, and would dissolve it for the duration.
-----
Edit: On closer examination, it's not a full-fledged Loser Pays provision; more like a Frivolous Lawyer Pays provision. Still a great step toward sanity, and a strong brake on predatory lawyers! ¶ 8:45 PM
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Apologies for red X's......
Sorry about the missing images. A couple days ago my computer crashed, and I had to log back into my web space provider (Freeservers.com) with a new password. For some reason Freeservers is treating this as a new customer, which requires a special suffix on the address. This 'probation suffix' will go away after a few days, I think... In the meantime, it's not worth editing a whole lot of image tags, because I'd just have to edit them back to the original when the need for the suffix is gone.
UPDATE: Talked to Freeservers. Turns out the domain had expired but I didn't receive any notification. They will be putting it back on line in a day or two.
Saturday morning: Appears to be fixed. Relief!
¶ 7:51 PM
UPDATE: Talked to Freeservers. Turns out the domain had expired but I didn't receive any notification. They will be putting it back on line in a day or two.
Saturday morning: Appears to be fixed. Relief!
¶ 7:51 PM
Miers out
Good.
Firmness of principle is not the same thing as mindless repetition.
Firmness of principle implies that you're acting on a principle, and nominating Miers was not an act of principle. Sticking with a bad choice only makes you look foolish to the folks who desperately want you to make a good choice.
We were told in the early days that Bush was a good poker player, and I forgave a lot of poor communication and poor leadership on the grounds that he was playing close to the chest. The last couple of months have destroyed that illusion. He doesn't know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. He finally tossed this pair of 4's down, but he (and we) have lost considerable ground while he held 'em. ¶ 9:42 AM
Good.
Firmness of principle is not the same thing as mindless repetition.
Firmness of principle implies that you're acting on a principle, and nominating Miers was not an act of principle. Sticking with a bad choice only makes you look foolish to the folks who desperately want you to make a good choice.
We were told in the early days that Bush was a good poker player, and I forgave a lot of poor communication and poor leadership on the grounds that he was playing close to the chest. The last couple of months have destroyed that illusion. He doesn't know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. He finally tossed this pair of 4's down, but he (and we) have lost considerable ground while he held 'em. ¶ 9:42 AM
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
It's all about France
I haven't been trying to follow this whole Plame / Wilson mess, because I don't give a flying fuck about 56th derivatives of speculative futures contracts in epistemological mysteries that get turned into crimes because of insane prosecutors. And my non-flying-fuckness applies equally to the Republican prosecution of Clinton, and in fact to EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where a megalomaniacal prosecutor acts WITHOUT A POLICE REPORT of a CONCRETE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CRIME. We have achieved exactly the kind of "justice" system that the colonists fought a revolution to abolish in 1776.
But in spite of all this septic mess, today we're suddenly getting a view of the bedrock basis of the dispute. It looks like the entire boiling shit-stew originated with a French effort to cover up its OWN sales of weapons to Saddam, and to simultaneously discredit Bush.
See this article in the Telegraph. The Italian agent who supplied documents about the Niger connection, which were later "discovered" to be forged, has turned himself in and described how Paris ordered him to distribute the disinformation.
-----
Later: This bedrock fact illuminates our basic problem with blazing clarity. If the United States had an intelligence agency, that agency would have figured out the French deception quite easily, and we would have gained a PR weapon to use against France. But the CIA acted specifically to serve France and to harm America in the middle of a war for civilization. Therefore, the CIA is not our intelligence agency. It is a mountainous molehill, a nest of traitors. ¶ 8:36 PM
But in spite of all this septic mess, today we're suddenly getting a view of the bedrock basis of the dispute. It looks like the entire boiling shit-stew originated with a French effort to cover up its OWN sales of weapons to Saddam, and to simultaneously discredit Bush.
See this article in the Telegraph. The Italian agent who supplied documents about the Niger connection, which were later "discovered" to be forged, has turned himself in and described how Paris ordered him to distribute the disinformation.
-----
Later: This bedrock fact illuminates our basic problem with blazing clarity. If the United States had an intelligence agency, that agency would have figured out the French deception quite easily, and we would have gained a PR weapon to use against France. But the CIA acted specifically to serve France and to harm America in the middle of a war for civilization. Therefore, the CIA is not our intelligence agency. It is a mountainous molehill, a nest of traitors. ¶ 8:36 PM
Mousey logic
This problem is difficult for rodents to solve. Most cats can handle it, almost all dogs, and all humans with enough IQ to live independently can solve it.
When you appoint an unqualified friend to an important office, and the friend messes up royally, most humans of executive level would learn something from the experience; especially when so many highly qualified people are visible through the open door. When a chief executive continues to jump toward unqualified friends immediately after such an embarrassing experience, we're entitled to wonder.
Not that there's anything essentially wrong with gummint jobs or patronage, when used sensibly. FDR avoided national collapse during the Depression by giving gummint jobs to laborers, writers and artists. Nothing odd about that combination of trades, either. A classic revolution explodes when writers and artists detonate the mass of laborers. Even in ordinary times, patronage can keep political adversaries occupied and [nominally] loyal.
But none of that applies here. Harriet Miers is not a potential revolutionary or opponent, and the alternatives are not chancy or mysterious.
More seriously, I suppose this is an implementation of electoral engineering rather than pure lack of native intelligence. Assuming the base will just lay down and take all sorts of abuse, while trying to win over a few NARAL members with repetitive jabber about "trailblazing womyn". It's still stupid, because this one appointment was the only remaining source of hope and loyalty for the base, and those NARAL members will never vote for anyone who ever knew a Republican. ¶ 9:31 AM
This problem is difficult for rodents to solve. Most cats can handle it, almost all dogs, and all humans with enough IQ to live independently can solve it.
When you appoint an unqualified friend to an important office, and the friend messes up royally, most humans of executive level would learn something from the experience; especially when so many highly qualified people are visible through the open door. When a chief executive continues to jump toward unqualified friends immediately after such an embarrassing experience, we're entitled to wonder.
Not that there's anything essentially wrong with gummint jobs or patronage, when used sensibly. FDR avoided national collapse during the Depression by giving gummint jobs to laborers, writers and artists. Nothing odd about that combination of trades, either. A classic revolution explodes when writers and artists detonate the mass of laborers. Even in ordinary times, patronage can keep political adversaries occupied and [nominally] loyal.
But none of that applies here. Harriet Miers is not a potential revolutionary or opponent, and the alternatives are not chancy or mysterious.
More seriously, I suppose this is an implementation of electoral engineering rather than pure lack of native intelligence. Assuming the base will just lay down and take all sorts of abuse, while trying to win over a few NARAL members with repetitive jabber about "trailblazing womyn". It's still stupid, because this one appointment was the only remaining source of hope and loyalty for the base, and those NARAL members will never vote for anyone who ever knew a Republican. ¶ 9:31 AM
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Alternative transportation, 2009 style?
This is just plain exciting. What's more, the research is not being done in Japan or China, but in Tennessee, and it's not even being done by temporary Chinesespies visitors, unlike 99% of the research that passes for "American"!
Anyone who knows a bit about chemistry knows that iron is combustible. So why not burn it as a fuel? Or aluminum, boron, or other metallic elements? There's no theoretical reason why not, but until now there were huge practical barriers.
At Oak Ridge Labs, Dave Beach is working to perfect a technique using extremely fine iron particles, which can be burned in a gas turbine or even an internal combustion engine. Ideally, iron should give twice as much energy per unit of volume as gasoline; aluminum should give about the same energy per unit of weight.
The critical advantage of 'nanoparticles' is that they burn at 250 C, which is easily handled by ordinary engines; also, they don't vaporize or melt, but simply become same-sized particles of rust. So they can be sucked in and blown out pretty much the same way as carbureted liquid fuel, without melted stuff glomping up the cylinder walls, and with absolutely no emission. Oxygen in, energy out.
The used particles can be scrubbed by a magnet and stored. Filling up would entail exchanging the can of rusty particles for a fresh can of pure metal. There are a number of engineering problems, but the advantages are so great that the engineering is worth the trouble.
Gives a whole new meaning to rustbucket, eh?
-----
Edit for completeness: The ultimate goal of this setup is not to use up all the scrap iron and then be finished. The goal is a recharging system that gives high performance and no emissions. Even after 100 years of development, electric batteries aren't up to the task, and other chemical fuel cell ideas use rare or dangerous components and still emit by-products. For instance, a hydrogen cell throws out lots of water vapor, which could shroud a city in perpetual dense fog. Might not be as smelly as gasoline pollution, but far more dangerous.
With the iron system, you'd trade an oxidized tank for a fresh one, and the recharger or "refinery" would take out the oxygen.
More here. ¶ 12:40 PM
This is just plain exciting. What's more, the research is not being done in Japan or China, but in Tennessee, and it's not even being done by temporary Chinese
Anyone who knows a bit about chemistry knows that iron is combustible. So why not burn it as a fuel? Or aluminum, boron, or other metallic elements? There's no theoretical reason why not, but until now there were huge practical barriers.
At Oak Ridge Labs, Dave Beach is working to perfect a technique using extremely fine iron particles, which can be burned in a gas turbine or even an internal combustion engine. Ideally, iron should give twice as much energy per unit of volume as gasoline; aluminum should give about the same energy per unit of weight.
The critical advantage of 'nanoparticles' is that they burn at 250 C, which is easily handled by ordinary engines; also, they don't vaporize or melt, but simply become same-sized particles of rust. So they can be sucked in and blown out pretty much the same way as carbureted liquid fuel, without melted stuff glomping up the cylinder walls, and with absolutely no emission. Oxygen in, energy out.
The used particles can be scrubbed by a magnet and stored. Filling up would entail exchanging the can of rusty particles for a fresh can of pure metal. There are a number of engineering problems, but the advantages are so great that the engineering is worth the trouble.
Gives a whole new meaning to rustbucket, eh?
-----
Edit for completeness: The ultimate goal of this setup is not to use up all the scrap iron and then be finished. The goal is a recharging system that gives high performance and no emissions. Even after 100 years of development, electric batteries aren't up to the task, and other chemical fuel cell ideas use rare or dangerous components and still emit by-products. For instance, a hydrogen cell throws out lots of water vapor, which could shroud a city in perpetual dense fog. Might not be as smelly as gasoline pollution, but far more dangerous.
With the iron system, you'd trade an oxidized tank for a fresh one, and the recharger or "refinery" would take out the oxygen.
More here. ¶ 12:40 PM
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Hurricane Curt
Rep. Weldon is a good old-fashioned Category 3 political cyclone. Nevertheless, his House floor speech last night continued the saga of Able Danger, with a promise of new information. It appears that he's preparing a more formal revelation in committee, based on a new witness who can pin down times and places more precisely. Most of last night's speech was devoted to the DIA's attempt to silence Col. Shaffer, which is utterly shameful but not quite the big picture. The underlying point is that all of our intelligence agencies failed, and all of our agencies are still devoting more effort to covering their incompetent asses than to gathering new information.
With Weldon and Freeh double-teaming the truth, we may actually get a full description of the real problem. ¶ 9:40 AM
With Weldon and Freeh double-teaming the truth, we may actually get a full description of the real problem. ¶ 9:40 AM
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Faucet's dripping! Call the plumber!
What? Plumber refuses to come? What's wrong with him?
News item: Saddam's trial postponed because witnesses too frightened to testify.
This is, of course, the logical outcome of Bush's hopelessly naive desire to "catch terrorists and bring them to justice".
There is no point in applying the rule of law to fix Iraq while Saddam still has the power to destroy all the mechanisms of law.
We should have killed him in 1991. We should have killed him when we captured him. The price of those two failures is drearily predictable. He will be freed for "lack of evidence", and he will resume power. ¶ 7:38 AM
What? Plumber refuses to come? What's wrong with him?
News item: Saddam's trial postponed because witnesses too frightened to testify.
This is, of course, the logical outcome of Bush's hopelessly naive desire to "catch terrorists and bring them to justice".
There is no point in applying the rule of law to fix Iraq while Saddam still has the power to destroy all the mechanisms of law.
We should have killed him in 1991. We should have killed him when we captured him. The price of those two failures is drearily predictable. He will be freed for "lack of evidence", and he will resume power. ¶ 7:38 AM
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Tax simplification
This guy
was having a galvanic effect on the commission:
and on the audience:
So what was he saying that turned the crowd into such a riotous mob?
..fully refundable in the year they are incurred, mkay. That is an option which our subgroup felt might lead to a risk of some abuse within the system, and might be difficult to police. What we therefore do is propose moving to a more generous structure than the current system which allows essentially loss carryforwards but doesn't credit you any interest on the loss carryforwards, and propose that one moves to a loss carryforward with interest regime, so that a firm which incurs a loss this period will indeed need to carry forward that loss, but the value of this loss will be incremented in future years by an adjustment for interest, given the return that was available in the capital markets, mkay. That has the effect, for at least the firms that don't go out of business and thus lose the loss entirely, of making the loss more valuable. So those in one sense are the key elements that need to be put together on the business side, mkay....
That's as far as I could get before I also succumbed to the wild excitement, and started running around the room barking.
Does anyone on earth believe we'll actually get simplification? ¶ 7:40 PM
was having a galvanic effect on the commission:
and on the audience:
So what was he saying that turned the crowd into such a riotous mob?
..fully refundable in the year they are incurred, mkay. That is an option which our subgroup felt might lead to a risk of some abuse within the system, and might be difficult to police. What we therefore do is propose moving to a more generous structure than the current system which allows essentially loss carryforwards but doesn't credit you any interest on the loss carryforwards, and propose that one moves to a loss carryforward with interest regime, so that a firm which incurs a loss this period will indeed need to carry forward that loss, but the value of this loss will be incremented in future years by an adjustment for interest, given the return that was available in the capital markets, mkay. That has the effect, for at least the firms that don't go out of business and thus lose the loss entirely, of making the loss more valuable. So those in one sense are the key elements that need to be put together on the business side, mkay....
That's as far as I could get before I also succumbed to the wild excitement, and started running around the room barking.
Does anyone on earth believe we'll actually get simplification? ¶ 7:40 PM
Monday, October 17, 2005
'Roberts Court' not so bad maybe....
Breaking on Fox: Supremes turn down effort by the so-called, and I use the term loosely, and I quote, "Justice", end quote, department to steal 280 billion dollars from tobacco companies.
Amazing! Supremes actually agree that theft is illegal! Maybe we're on the road back toward sanity at last?
We DO NOT need a Harriet Miers on this court. We DO NOT need a new occupant of the bench who can "see the fifth argument when four are on the table", as Condi Rice unhelpfully described Miers.
On the big hot-button cases there is exactly one valid argument, the one provided by the Constitution. And that argument always leads to exactly one conclusion: the Federal level has no business getting involved in this law, no matter which side the Feds were trying to take. I'll grant that the majority of the court's cases -- the unexciting stuff about water rights or bankruptcy -- can have several sides, none of which is absolutely required. That's where an experienced judge is needed, regardless of ideology. Miers doesn't meet that test either. ¶ 7:13 AM
Amazing! Supremes actually agree that theft is illegal! Maybe we're on the road back toward sanity at last?
We DO NOT need a Harriet Miers on this court. We DO NOT need a new occupant of the bench who can "see the fifth argument when four are on the table", as Condi Rice unhelpfully described Miers.
On the big hot-button cases there is exactly one valid argument, the one provided by the Constitution. And that argument always leads to exactly one conclusion: the Federal level has no business getting involved in this law, no matter which side the Feds were trying to take. I'll grant that the majority of the court's cases -- the unexciting stuff about water rights or bankruptcy -- can have several sides, none of which is absolutely required. That's where an experienced judge is needed, regardless of ideology. Miers doesn't meet that test either. ¶ 7:13 AM
Saturday, October 15, 2005
OU update
Tapscott is still following the case closely. One of his links leads indirectly to this page, written a couple years ago. The author is pushing a highly dubious theory, but along the way he mentions something distinctly interesting: that David Boren, long-time Okla senator who became pres of OU in 1994, was originally George Tenet's mentor, and has lots of connections in the intelligence community. That would help to explain why the old 'nothing to see here' line came in so quickly and firmly in this case.
Another of those links cites a lot of yanked-out information. Some of it is normal: initial reports of death and injury counts are always wrong, and news organizations properly remove them. But one thing is definitely abnormal: the Wayback Machine (archive.org) has blocked the minutes of the Triangle Engineering Fraternity that gave some insight into Hinrichs's thinking in the last year. Of course, blocking anything on the web is sort of pointless, but this indicates some hard pressure from the Feds.
-----
I'm especially intrigued by Hinrichs's father (Joel II). Something about his vocabulary, his sort of offhand and familiar way of describing violent acts and suicides .... Purely guessing, I'd say he's some species of leftist. He described his son as 'conservative', then changed that to 'apolitical'. Now there are plenty of genuinely apolitical people: ordinary folks who are deeply engaged in work, friends, and family, who barely know the name of the current President. But those folks don't use the word 'apolitical'. In my experience, whenever somebody says that he's 'just not very political', you can bet he's extremely political, and on the left end of the spectrum. It's a good shibboleth.
Think of Nick Berg, Adam Pearlman/Gadahn, and John Walker Lindh. All come from solidly anti-American families, and all got involved with the Jihad in various ways. Berg's role is less clear than the other two, but he was playing both sides at the very least. My guess: if the facts are ever known (that is, if we ever have any non-Commie historians) these family groups will be seen to fit into the same mold. Does Hinrichs fit that mold? Not nearly enough facts yet, but something smells familiar.
Why are family ties important in this context? The federal intelligence agencies may not be very good at analysis, and they're certainly not good at giving out information to authorities who need it. But they've always been VERY good at gathering information. A family that has been active in non-mainstream politics for a while has been in someone's files for a while. When the son of such a family does something dramatic, it's not going to be a huge surprise to the folks who read the files. And when a violent act is unsurprising, questions about prevention will inevitably arise. ¶ 11:53 AM
Another of those links cites a lot of yanked-out information. Some of it is normal: initial reports of death and injury counts are always wrong, and news organizations properly remove them. But one thing is definitely abnormal: the Wayback Machine (archive.org) has blocked the minutes of the Triangle Engineering Fraternity that gave some insight into Hinrichs's thinking in the last year. Of course, blocking anything on the web is sort of pointless, but this indicates some hard pressure from the Feds.
-----
I'm especially intrigued by Hinrichs's father (Joel II). Something about his vocabulary, his sort of offhand and familiar way of describing violent acts and suicides .... Purely guessing, I'd say he's some species of leftist. He described his son as 'conservative', then changed that to 'apolitical'. Now there are plenty of genuinely apolitical people: ordinary folks who are deeply engaged in work, friends, and family, who barely know the name of the current President. But those folks don't use the word 'apolitical'. In my experience, whenever somebody says that he's 'just not very political', you can bet he's extremely political, and on the left end of the spectrum. It's a good shibboleth.
Think of Nick Berg, Adam Pearlman/Gadahn, and John Walker Lindh. All come from solidly anti-American families, and all got involved with the Jihad in various ways. Berg's role is less clear than the other two, but he was playing both sides at the very least. My guess: if the facts are ever known (that is, if we ever have any non-Commie historians) these family groups will be seen to fit into the same mold. Does Hinrichs fit that mold? Not nearly enough facts yet, but something smells familiar.
Why are family ties important in this context? The federal intelligence agencies may not be very good at analysis, and they're certainly not good at giving out information to authorities who need it. But they've always been VERY good at gathering information. A family that has been active in non-mainstream politics for a while has been in someone's files for a while. When the son of such a family does something dramatic, it's not going to be a huge surprise to the folks who read the files. And when a violent act is unsurprising, questions about prevention will inevitably arise. ¶ 11:53 AM
Thursday, October 13, 2005
We still haven't figured this out.....
The latest from Norman is a carefully worded statement that Hinrichs appears to have "no links" to terrorist organizations.
Even if the statement is true, which it probably isn't, why the hell does it matter?
A man who commits violent acts on behalf of the enemy is part of the enemy's force.
Same with the Beltway snipers a few years ago. We were supposed to breathe a sigh of relief because Lee Malvo and John Muhammad were not acting on direct orders from Osama's hierarchy. They still killed 13 non-Mohammedan Americans, and froze the Washington area for several weeks, and they did it FOR Osama. They were therefore part of the enemy's army.
As usual, we understood this point accurately in 1941. We knew that large numbers of Japanese on the West Coast were prepared to commit espionage and sabotage FOR the Rising Sun. So we quite properly kept the suspicious ones out of action, along with similar numbers of Italians and Germans who were believed to be ACTING FOR their nations. We didn't have to establish a direct chain of command and control from Tokyo, Berlin, and Rome to each of these individuals.
Can we learn anything? Maybe after the millionth death we might. I doubt it, though. ¶ 7:51 PM
The latest from Norman is a carefully worded statement that Hinrichs appears to have "no links" to terrorist organizations.
Even if the statement is true, which it probably isn't, why the hell does it matter?
A man who commits violent acts on behalf of the enemy is part of the enemy's force.
Same with the Beltway snipers a few years ago. We were supposed to breathe a sigh of relief because Lee Malvo and John Muhammad were not acting on direct orders from Osama's hierarchy. They still killed 13 non-Mohammedan Americans, and froze the Washington area for several weeks, and they did it FOR Osama. They were therefore part of the enemy's army.
As usual, we understood this point accurately in 1941. We knew that large numbers of Japanese on the West Coast were prepared to commit espionage and sabotage FOR the Rising Sun. So we quite properly kept the suspicious ones out of action, along with similar numbers of Italians and Germans who were believed to be ACTING FOR their nations. We didn't have to establish a direct chain of command and control from Tokyo, Berlin, and Rome to each of these individuals.
Can we learn anything? Maybe after the millionth death we might. I doubt it, though. ¶ 7:51 PM
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Polistra does Miers
Polistra has decided to perform a Predictive Interactive Impression of 'Miers on the Bench'.
This is a 600 KB SWF file, so give it a bit of time to load........
-----
Update 10/20: considering today's revelations about Miers and the Texas Lottery Commission, maybe Polistra's little game was more accurate than funny.... ¶ 2:27 PM
This is a 600 KB SWF file, so give it a bit of time to load........
-----
Update 10/20: considering today's revelations about Miers and the Texas Lottery Commission, maybe Polistra's little game was more accurate than funny.... ¶ 2:27 PM
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Hoax?
OK, so now we get word that the informant who triggered the NYC subway scare was giving false information.
All the news stories describe this as a hoax, which indicates that we still aren't adjusted to a wartime mode of thinking. Deception and disinformation are among the most important weapons in any war. Both sides used them to great advantage in WW2, and Reagan used disinformation to bring down the Soviets. This isn't just a prank; it's an abstract bomb.
The informant should be shot publicly, as an example to others. And if Homeland Security knew in advance that it was a deliberate deception -- not just imperfect information -- they should be punished for not telling us in advance. "What did they know and when did they know it" is a tired and overused question, but this is one of the few cases where it really needs to be asked. ¶ 12:25 PM
All the news stories describe this as a hoax, which indicates that we still aren't adjusted to a wartime mode of thinking. Deception and disinformation are among the most important weapons in any war. Both sides used them to great advantage in WW2, and Reagan used disinformation to bring down the Soviets. This isn't just a prank; it's an abstract bomb.
The informant should be shot publicly, as an example to others. And if Homeland Security knew in advance that it was a deliberate deception -- not just imperfect information -- they should be punished for not telling us in advance. "What did they know and when did they know it" is a tired and overused question, but this is one of the few cases where it really needs to be asked. ¶ 12:25 PM
Monday, October 10, 2005
Bird flu?
Something very strange is going on here. We have what appears to be a flurry of small terrorist acts on campuses (see Tapscott for details) and we have a credible threat to NYC subways, which may have been averted when NY smartly made it public and thus eliminated the surprise. (Homeland Security, always taking the stupid side, wanted to keep the information secret.) It's certainly possible that the latest two small incidents are copycats or even pranks, but there are some distinct similarities to Hinrichs at OU.
The media talked plenty about the NYC threat, which is good and proper. Maximum publicity is good. The media are not talking about the campus events, choosing to focus instead onswine bird flu, which is a purely potential threat. At the moment the actual disease is a fairly ordinary virus: kills some vulnerable folks, doesn't bother most. Some experts believe that it could mutate into a vastly more dangerous form, but there's no evidence that this mutation has happened or will happen.
Seems to be a general problem. Try counting verbs in any national network broadcast these days, and you'll hear about 80% would/could/will/gonna. Formerly, reporters were supposed to tell you about events that actually occurred, but that idea has been replaced by experts and speculators, telling us what might happen if their computer models are valid.
If discussion of epidemics leads to better public health procedures, or if it's a pretext for the gov't to relieve drug companies from litigation and regulation burdens, then it will bear fruit. Just as the Y2K threat never materialized but encouraged many people to prepare for a disaster. But right now the bird stuff just doesn't ring true. Is it a cover for a non-potential threat too scary to discuss openly?
------
Update: Add to the mix a mysterious epidemic of false echoes at several airports. Logan in Boston (hmm, why does that airport sound familiar?) had to cancel flights today, but several other control centers are experiencing the same problem. I hope Mister Oh-God is not in charge of the FAA investigation. And I hope somebody in government remembers that al-Qaeda has more engineers than lawyers among its troops. ¶ 3:33 PM
The media talked plenty about the NYC threat, which is good and proper. Maximum publicity is good. The media are not talking about the campus events, choosing to focus instead on
Seems to be a general problem. Try counting verbs in any national network broadcast these days, and you'll hear about 80% would/could/will/gonna. Formerly, reporters were supposed to tell you about events that actually occurred, but that idea has been replaced by experts and speculators, telling us what might happen if their computer models are valid.
If discussion of epidemics leads to better public health procedures, or if it's a pretext for the gov't to relieve drug companies from litigation and regulation burdens, then it will bear fruit. Just as the Y2K threat never materialized but encouraged many people to prepare for a disaster. But right now the bird stuff just doesn't ring true. Is it a cover for a non-potential threat too scary to discuss openly?
------
Update: Add to the mix a mysterious epidemic of false echoes at several airports. Logan in Boston (hmm, why does that airport sound familiar?) had to cancel flights today, but several other control centers are experiencing the same problem. I hope Mister Oh-God is not in charge of the FAA investigation. And I hope somebody in government remembers that al-Qaeda has more engineers than lawyers among its troops. ¶ 3:33 PM
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Electoral engineering
In any form of engineering or technical work, it's important to find the right output, and then adjust your system to optimize that output.
Here we have several things happening, but Polistra is properly focusing on the effect of the static charge on the cat's fur, not on the motion of the switch handle, her elbow, or the meter needle. All of those actions may be interesting (especially if her joints are aching from constant repetition of the experiment) but she will adjust her setup to produce the desired hair-raising, regardless of the other moving parts.
One big problem with our current political setup is that presidents and their advisors have learned to focus tightly on a handful of votes in two or three states. Dick Morris and Karl Rove are both expert electoral engineers. Rove designed the pointless and counterproductive Medicare Prescription Drug plan to swing the meter needle of a few Palm Beach widows, after determining that they were the critical point in the election. So the rest of us have to spend billions of dollars for a plan that nobody wanted and nobody will actually use. Since Rove had obviously identified those few voters, it would have been far cheaper to simply bribe them.
What would happen if presidents focused on the cat instead of the meter?
How would things be different if they could declare their vision for America, and try to charge up voters in all corners of the nation, not just Palm Beach and Cincinnati? We'll never know in a large sense, because at this point both parties are so devoted to watching those tiny wiggles of the meter that each falsely believes the other will gain the advantage if the system changes. Wrong. Consider 2000. It's true that simply switching to the popular vote at the last moment would have handed the election to Gore. But it's not that simple. If the rules were based on popular vote from the start, parties and candidates would behave differently. There's no way to predict how that election would have come out if both parties had been aiming for a popular majority through the entire campaign.
We may get temporary relief from electoral engineering if Karl Rove is forced out of power.
I'm wondering if Bush's latest speech, in which he finally pulled back the Zen curtain and condescended to feed us a few actual morsels of information, shows the start of a de-engineered presidency. Will this trend continue after Rove leaves? I don't know, but I do think it would be good for the country. At any rate we'll have an interesting experiment..... ¶ 8:49 PM
In any form of engineering or technical work, it's important to find the right output, and then adjust your system to optimize that output.
Here we have several things happening, but Polistra is properly focusing on the effect of the static charge on the cat's fur, not on the motion of the switch handle, her elbow, or the meter needle. All of those actions may be interesting (especially if her joints are aching from constant repetition of the experiment) but she will adjust her setup to produce the desired hair-raising, regardless of the other moving parts.
One big problem with our current political setup is that presidents and their advisors have learned to focus tightly on a handful of votes in two or three states. Dick Morris and Karl Rove are both expert electoral engineers. Rove designed the pointless and counterproductive Medicare Prescription Drug plan to swing the meter needle of a few Palm Beach widows, after determining that they were the critical point in the election. So the rest of us have to spend billions of dollars for a plan that nobody wanted and nobody will actually use. Since Rove had obviously identified those few voters, it would have been far cheaper to simply bribe them.
What would happen if presidents focused on the cat instead of the meter?
How would things be different if they could declare their vision for America, and try to charge up voters in all corners of the nation, not just Palm Beach and Cincinnati? We'll never know in a large sense, because at this point both parties are so devoted to watching those tiny wiggles of the meter that each falsely believes the other will gain the advantage if the system changes. Wrong. Consider 2000. It's true that simply switching to the popular vote at the last moment would have handed the election to Gore. But it's not that simple. If the rules were based on popular vote from the start, parties and candidates would behave differently. There's no way to predict how that election would have come out if both parties had been aiming for a popular majority through the entire campaign.
We may get temporary relief from electoral engineering if Karl Rove is forced out of power.
I'm wondering if Bush's latest speech, in which he finally pulled back the Zen curtain and condescended to feed us a few actual morsels of information, shows the start of a de-engineered presidency. Will this trend continue after Rove leaves? I don't know, but I do think it would be good for the country. At any rate we'll have an interesting experiment..... ¶ 8:49 PM
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Alternative transportation, 1942 style
I've often compared FDR's deft approach to wartime propaganda with Bush's basically nonexistent communication. But even the Office of War Information didn't always hit the right note. In the spring of '42, OWI decided that returning to horses would be a good way to save gas and rubber, and issued a 'suggestion' to the media to push horses. As always, Fibber McGee's writers grabbed the ball and ran with it; Fibber bought a horse named Lillian, who became part of the plot. (The horse was a low-budget character, since she consisted solely of one recorded neigh.)
Returning to horses wasn't as strange in '42 as it would be now, since many farmers and a few businesses still used oat-powered vehicles. Here in Spokane, the Post Office used what Ernie Pyle described as 'chariots' for mail delivery. (I really wanted to include one in this cartoon, but couldn't find any reference pictures!)
Even so, somebody must have realized that the idea wasn't catching on, because Lillian quietly disappeared after a few weeks.
To introduce the idea of substituting horses for cars, the show's musicians came up with a rather nice little song:
Listen. ¶ 8:01 PM
I've often compared FDR's deft approach to wartime propaganda with Bush's basically nonexistent communication. But even the Office of War Information didn't always hit the right note. In the spring of '42, OWI decided that returning to horses would be a good way to save gas and rubber, and issued a 'suggestion' to the media to push horses. As always, Fibber McGee's writers grabbed the ball and ran with it; Fibber bought a horse named Lillian, who became part of the plot. (The horse was a low-budget character, since she consisted solely of one recorded neigh.)
Returning to horses wasn't as strange in '42 as it would be now, since many farmers and a few businesses still used oat-powered vehicles. Here in Spokane, the Post Office used what Ernie Pyle described as 'chariots' for mail delivery. (I really wanted to include one in this cartoon, but couldn't find any reference pictures!)
Even so, somebody must have realized that the idea wasn't catching on, because Lillian quietly disappeared after a few weeks.
To introduce the idea of substituting horses for cars, the show's musicians came up with a rather nice little song:
Listen. ¶ 8:01 PM
Thursday, October 06, 2005
No sir.
Joe Scarborough was interviewing Rep. Tancredo tonight.
Scarborough: "Do you trust the President?"
Rep. Tancredo: "No sir."
Can't say it better.
Let's compare the 10/1 bombing in Norman to the failed 7/21 bomb in London. For whatever reason, both attempts fizzled. In that way the events are similar. But the response of authorities is not similar.
In London, all possible participants were arrested and held, and they were assured that any further attempt would be met with deadly force. It's true that the only recipient of deadly force was (presumably) uninvolved, but the shooting demonstrated to the Mohammedans that the police were perfectly willing to shoot anything that looked suspicious. The English authorities learned quickly.
What happened in Norman? The cops questioned several of Hinrichs's Mohammedan associates and then RELEASED them. His car, apparently containing evidence of chemicals, was left out in public view, unguarded and unimpounded. Hinrichs was blatantly obvious in his preparations, and the feed store clerk did his part in notifying the authorities. The authorities dropped the ball.
Our authorities obviously have not learned a goddamn thing. Unlike the British, they are clearly not ready for the varsity.
No sir, I don't trust the President. He finally gave a half-decent speech today, in which he began to treat Americans as adults for the first time. Too little, too late.
-----
About the picture: Polistra isn't exactly an imposing linebacker. In fact she doesn't like football much. But she loves Oklahoma and Oklahomans fiercely, and for most Okies an assault on OU football is sacrilege and blasphemy; perhaps akin to an Englishman's feelings about an assault on the Queen.
-----
Updates, via Tapscott:
Jayna Davis at WND reports that FBI has sealed the search warrant for Hinrichs's apartment, presumably so they can maintain the Standard Lone Gunman Theory and carefully protect our enemies from public exposure. Glad to see Davis is working this story; she did a good job of covering the possible Mohammedan connections of the Murrah Building bombing. (She was too firmly convinced of her specific pet theory, but at least she reported facts we weren't getting elsewhere.) .... Also at WND is a good account of the Ramadan Offensive, which we are clearly seeing right now. The plan was openly stated by Zawahiri and Zarqawi earlier this year, but our government and major media decided not to tell us about it. ... Fox just interviewed Mark Tapscott. He did a great job of laying down the major points in the few seconds allowed him. Fox fair-n-balanced Tapscott with an 'expert' named Bill Daley who obviously knew nothing at all about the story. I guess total ignorance is a good balance for knowledge. ¶ 9:27 PM
Joe Scarborough was interviewing Rep. Tancredo tonight.
Scarborough: "Do you trust the President?"
Rep. Tancredo: "No sir."
Can't say it better.
Let's compare the 10/1 bombing in Norman to the failed 7/21 bomb in London. For whatever reason, both attempts fizzled. In that way the events are similar. But the response of authorities is not similar.
In London, all possible participants were arrested and held, and they were assured that any further attempt would be met with deadly force. It's true that the only recipient of deadly force was (presumably) uninvolved, but the shooting demonstrated to the Mohammedans that the police were perfectly willing to shoot anything that looked suspicious. The English authorities learned quickly.
What happened in Norman? The cops questioned several of Hinrichs's Mohammedan associates and then RELEASED them. His car, apparently containing evidence of chemicals, was left out in public view, unguarded and unimpounded. Hinrichs was blatantly obvious in his preparations, and the feed store clerk did his part in notifying the authorities. The authorities dropped the ball.
Our authorities obviously have not learned a goddamn thing. Unlike the British, they are clearly not ready for the varsity.
No sir, I don't trust the President. He finally gave a half-decent speech today, in which he began to treat Americans as adults for the first time. Too little, too late.
-----
About the picture: Polistra isn't exactly an imposing linebacker. In fact she doesn't like football much. But she loves Oklahoma and Oklahomans fiercely, and for most Okies an assault on OU football is sacrilege and blasphemy; perhaps akin to an Englishman's feelings about an assault on the Queen.
-----
Updates, via Tapscott:
Jayna Davis at WND reports that FBI has sealed the search warrant for Hinrichs's apartment, presumably so they can maintain the Standard Lone Gunman Theory and carefully protect our enemies from public exposure. Glad to see Davis is working this story; she did a good job of covering the possible Mohammedan connections of the Murrah Building bombing. (She was too firmly convinced of her specific pet theory, but at least she reported facts we weren't getting elsewhere.) .... Also at WND is a good account of the Ramadan Offensive, which we are clearly seeing right now. The plan was openly stated by Zawahiri and Zarqawi earlier this year, but our government and major media decided not to tell us about it. ... Fox just interviewed Mark Tapscott. He did a great job of laying down the major points in the few seconds allowed him. Fox fair-n-balanced Tapscott with an 'expert' named Bill Daley who obviously knew nothing at all about the story. I guess total ignorance is a good balance for knowledge. ¶ 9:27 PM
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Union contest
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has announced a contest for the best way to improve the American economy.
Well, the most correct and simple answer is the one that by definition will never win the contest:
Eliminate unions.
We're getting close to Goedel territory here.... ¶ 12:07 PM
Well, the most correct and simple answer is the one that by definition will never win the contest:
Eliminate unions.
We're getting close to Goedel territory here.... ¶ 12:07 PM
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
OU update
Excellent video from Channel 9 in OKC, here. Pulls together known facts about Joel Hinrichs in a well-organized way. Apparently the bearded picture was earlier, around high school graduation in '02. Should have been a signal to somebody! He dropped out in '03, returned in '04. This summer he began attending the Islamic Society of Norman, and also had a Pakistani roommate who worked for the Athletic department. The last known event was an unsuccessful attempt to buy ammonium nitrate from a Norman feed store. (Homeland security bureaucracy sometimes helps!)
So there's no doubt at all about Hinrichs's intentions. But it seems unlikely that he was acting on orders, just because an organized terrorist group wouldn't pull such a half-baked attempt even as a warning or drill.
The video was sort of chilling, because I recognize all the stores and buildings from the time I worked at OU in the late '70s.... nothing much has changed in Norman. And I recognize the lonely scientific nerd only too well.
Considering that al-Qaeda is run by an engineer and likes to hire engineers, perhaps we need to be paying more attention to our own alienated young engineer types; giving them more respect, social warmth, and hope for the future.
-----
Addendum: Since I'm being autobiographical, I should stipulate for the record -- and in an odd way for the honor of Norman -- that my own Norman years were emphatically not lonely. For some reason I took root and bloomed there, found a wide circle of friends and acquaintances of all types and all genders. Could walk into any joint around Campus Corner and start a conversation. But different folks require different soils, and it's obvious that Hinrichs failed to bloom in Norman, leaving him easy prey for the deadly parasite of Mohammedanism.
-----
Update 10/5: No really fresh info, except that the FBI has issued the expected nothing to see here statement.
A stray thought: I wonder if the FBI is genuinely confused between Mennonites and Mohammedans. Both are long words beginning with M, both require beards on men and extremely modest clothing on women, and both claim to be a Religion of Peace. Maybe that's the problem. ¶ 8:31 PM
So there's no doubt at all about Hinrichs's intentions. But it seems unlikely that he was acting on orders, just because an organized terrorist group wouldn't pull such a half-baked attempt even as a warning or drill.
The video was sort of chilling, because I recognize all the stores and buildings from the time I worked at OU in the late '70s.... nothing much has changed in Norman. And I recognize the lonely scientific nerd only too well.
Considering that al-Qaeda is run by an engineer and likes to hire engineers, perhaps we need to be paying more attention to our own alienated young engineer types; giving them more respect, social warmth, and hope for the future.
-----
Addendum: Since I'm being autobiographical, I should stipulate for the record -- and in an odd way for the honor of Norman -- that my own Norman years were emphatically not lonely. For some reason I took root and bloomed there, found a wide circle of friends and acquaintances of all types and all genders. Could walk into any joint around Campus Corner and start a conversation. But different folks require different soils, and it's obvious that Hinrichs failed to bloom in Norman, leaving him easy prey for the deadly parasite of Mohammedanism.
-----
Update 10/5: No really fresh info, except that the FBI has issued the expected nothing to see here statement.
A stray thought: I wonder if the FBI is genuinely confused between Mennonites and Mohammedans. Both are long words beginning with M, both require beards on men and extremely modest clothing on women, and both claim to be a Religion of Peace. Maybe that's the problem. ¶ 8:31 PM
Itchy
Something about the Bush 'trust me' approach to the Miers nomination has been itching. Finally figured it out.
Relying on personal knowledge is a modern leftist tactic, which should not be used by conservatives or by defenders of Western civilization. It's a primitive, even tribal method of transferring information, and in the end it supports absolute rule, not democracy.
The whole point of the Enlightenment -- science, Luther, Locke, Jefferson, and all that -- is that we should be able to rely on public and universally available facts or documents for our judgments, not on personal or secret transfers of verbal authority and trust. When knowledge is personal, nobody has an honest way of denying or affirming a statement. Common sense disappears.
Of course, the Left doesn't use the tactic honestly or consistently. Most of the time you're not entitled to criticize topic XYZ unless you have personal experience with XYZ. The rule was turned upside down for Clarence Thomas: He was not entitled to criticize affirmative action BECAUSE he had experience with affirmative action.
All the more reason to refuse personal-authority appeals, no matter who is making them. ¶ 1:52 PM
Something about the Bush 'trust me' approach to the Miers nomination has been itching. Finally figured it out.
Relying on personal knowledge is a modern leftist tactic, which should not be used by conservatives or by defenders of Western civilization. It's a primitive, even tribal method of transferring information, and in the end it supports absolute rule, not democracy.
The whole point of the Enlightenment -- science, Luther, Locke, Jefferson, and all that -- is that we should be able to rely on public and universally available facts or documents for our judgments, not on personal or secret transfers of verbal authority and trust. When knowledge is personal, nobody has an honest way of denying or affirming a statement. Common sense disappears.
Of course, the Left doesn't use the tactic honestly or consistently. Most of the time you're not entitled to criticize topic XYZ unless you have personal experience with XYZ. The rule was turned upside down for Clarence Thomas: He was not entitled to criticize affirmative action BECAUSE he had experience with affirmative action.
All the more reason to refuse personal-authority appeals, no matter who is making them. ¶ 1:52 PM
Monday, October 03, 2005
Miers
As I mentioned, Polistra has been resting, but I knew sooner or later she'd have an opinion that needs to be expressed.....
-----
Later:
It's quite possible that Miers will turn out to be Constitutionally literate, and thus quite possible that the initial response of conservatives will turn out to be prejudicial. But why does Bush go through this? Why does he please Schumer and Reid instead of giving his would-be supporters a reason to cheer? It's a terrible tactic.
Going back to cars again:
Joe Frazer was the real heavyweight of American salesmen. He worked for most of the carmakers and left a legacy in each case. Joe named the Plymouth; Joe invented modern car financing in the form of GMAC, which has become the only solvent part of GM. In 1950, Joe was the Frazer in Kaiser-Frazer, a partnership that took over the ruins of Graham to produce a new postwar car. Responding to Nash's Rambler, Kaiser introduced its own compact, but unfortunately Henry J. Kaiser wasn't listening to Joe Frazer's advice. Joe quit in disgust, and the 'Henry J' went nowhere.
Later, speaking to auto historians, Joe diagnosed the problem. Lacking Rambler's puppyish perkiness, the Henry J was just ugly, looking like a big car that had been squished in a vise. Even worse, it didn't have a trunk opening or a glove compartment, and its interior looked austere and uninviting.
Joe said:
"I would have brought her out all dressed up and stripped her down later."
Now I'm not advising -- or even imagining, heaven forbid -- a lap dance by Harriet, but things would have gone so much better if Bush had brought her out all dressed up with citations and quotations to prove her literacy.
-----
On Miers's religion: Apparently she belongs to some variant of the Churches of Christ. Not entirely clear from her home church's website exactly where it falls in the Campbellite spectrum, but looks closer to the Church of Christ category as opposed to the Disciples of Christ category. I'm familiar with both types; for a while in high school, came perilously close to joining the C of C, and my alma mater (Phillips Univ, now sadly defunct) was D of C. Even now, if I should somehow miraculously gain the ability to believe, I'd probably go with C of C. Among all the Protestant groups claiming to be originalist, the C of C feels closest to plain pure New Testament Christianity. The only oddity is their insistence on singing without instruments, which isn't really forced by the Bible. But every denomination needs a 'brand symbol', and this has become the C of C's brand. I think it also tends to keep them humble and simple in the best sense of both words.
The Disciples have gone in a different direction: though they still claim to be fundamentalist, in fact they are much closer to the socially-leftist Mainline churches like Methodists, and even considered merging with Methodists at one time. There is a more recent split within the D of C, with some churches sliding back toward the New Testament, but not adopting a-capella singing. None of the Campbellite churches are remotely charismatic or Pentecostal; all would consider manifestations like healing and tongues to be extraneous at best. ¶ 3:18 PM
As I mentioned, Polistra has been resting, but I knew sooner or later she'd have an opinion that needs to be expressed.....
-----
Later:
It's quite possible that Miers will turn out to be Constitutionally literate, and thus quite possible that the initial response of conservatives will turn out to be prejudicial. But why does Bush go through this? Why does he please Schumer and Reid instead of giving his would-be supporters a reason to cheer? It's a terrible tactic.
Going back to cars again:
Joe Frazer was the real heavyweight of American salesmen. He worked for most of the carmakers and left a legacy in each case. Joe named the Plymouth; Joe invented modern car financing in the form of GMAC, which has become the only solvent part of GM. In 1950, Joe was the Frazer in Kaiser-Frazer, a partnership that took over the ruins of Graham to produce a new postwar car. Responding to Nash's Rambler, Kaiser introduced its own compact, but unfortunately Henry J. Kaiser wasn't listening to Joe Frazer's advice. Joe quit in disgust, and the 'Henry J' went nowhere.
Later, speaking to auto historians, Joe diagnosed the problem. Lacking Rambler's puppyish perkiness, the Henry J was just ugly, looking like a big car that had been squished in a vise. Even worse, it didn't have a trunk opening or a glove compartment, and its interior looked austere and uninviting.
Joe said:
"I would have brought her out all dressed up and stripped her down later."
Now I'm not advising -- or even imagining, heaven forbid -- a lap dance by Harriet, but things would have gone so much better if Bush had brought her out all dressed up with citations and quotations to prove her literacy.
-----
On Miers's religion: Apparently she belongs to some variant of the Churches of Christ. Not entirely clear from her home church's website exactly where it falls in the Campbellite spectrum, but looks closer to the Church of Christ category as opposed to the Disciples of Christ category. I'm familiar with both types; for a while in high school, came perilously close to joining the C of C, and my alma mater (Phillips Univ, now sadly defunct) was D of C. Even now, if I should somehow miraculously gain the ability to believe, I'd probably go with C of C. Among all the Protestant groups claiming to be originalist, the C of C feels closest to plain pure New Testament Christianity. The only oddity is their insistence on singing without instruments, which isn't really forced by the Bible. But every denomination needs a 'brand symbol', and this has become the C of C's brand. I think it also tends to keep them humble and simple in the best sense of both words.
The Disciples have gone in a different direction: though they still claim to be fundamentalist, in fact they are much closer to the socially-leftist Mainline churches like Methodists, and even considered merging with Methodists at one time. There is a more recent split within the D of C, with some churches sliding back toward the New Testament, but not adopting a-capella singing. None of the Campbellite churches are remotely charismatic or Pentecostal; all would consider manifestations like healing and tongues to be extraneous at best. ¶ 3:18 PM
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Eco-freaks getting really serious? ... Update: NO.
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) - One person was killed in an explosion near a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma on Saturday night in what authorities said appeared to be a suicide.
The blast, in a traffic circle about 100 yards from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, could be heard by some in the crowd of 84,000, but university President David Boren said no one inside the stadium was ever in danger.
"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," Boren said in a statement. There was no information about the person who was killed, and no reports of any other injuries.
A police bomb squad detonated explosives found at the site of the blast. The area near the stadium was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs.
Officers cordoned off an area west of the stadium after the explosion and nobody was allowed out of the stadium for about a half-hour after the blast, which occurred shortly before 8 p.m., about halftime of the Sooners' game against Kansas State. The game continued.
Text from Daily Oklahoman [registration]. Video here, more informative.
-----
Norman has been a center of Mohammedan radicalism since the '70s, and has a large Arab and Persian population. However: the bomb was actually closest to the Botany-Microbiology building, which puts a different color on it. Could be the Gaian branch of the 11th Century Axis instead of the Mohammedan branch. The football-game timing could be just for added drama, or it could be semantically significant. Both OU and KSU do considerable research in genetically-modified organisms.
-----
Also, something is happening to water supplies right here in Spokane. Two water towers have been broken into (exactly how is not stated) and E. coli was found in those water supplies. A third suburban system has also issued a boil order for coliform bacteria, though no break-in was known there. It's not unusual for water systems to get contaminated at this time of year, because many people prepare for winter by blowing out their automatic sprinkler systems, which can cause backwash. But the breakins are obviously not accidental.
For what it's worth, Spokane City water was not affected because it is always chlorinated. Why don't those suburban systems maintain chlorine? Stupid.
-----
UPDATE on OU:
Tapscott has some acute observations: Joel Hinrichs had an arsenal in his apartment, and the latest picture of Hinrichs shows a distinctly Mohammedan-looking beard. This isn't your modern hip-hop goatee, nor the simple loss of grooming you might associate with the image of a depressed adolescent we're getting from the media. It's a deliberate style with exactly two known connotations: Amish or Mohammedan. Since the Amish are not currently famous for suicide bombing, we have one guess remaining. Tapscott also points out that OU Pres Boren was remarkably quick with a complete "explanation", perhaps indicating that Hinrichs had been on someone's radar screen for a while. ¶ 9:28 AM
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) - One person was killed in an explosion near a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma on Saturday night in what authorities said appeared to be a suicide.
The blast, in a traffic circle about 100 yards from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, could be heard by some in the crowd of 84,000, but university President David Boren said no one inside the stadium was ever in danger.
"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," Boren said in a statement. There was no information about the person who was killed, and no reports of any other injuries.
A police bomb squad detonated explosives found at the site of the blast. The area near the stadium was searched by bomb-sniffing dogs.
Officers cordoned off an area west of the stadium after the explosion and nobody was allowed out of the stadium for about a half-hour after the blast, which occurred shortly before 8 p.m., about halftime of the Sooners' game against Kansas State. The game continued.
Text from Daily Oklahoman [registration]. Video here, more informative.
-----
Norman has been a center of Mohammedan radicalism since the '70s, and has a large Arab and Persian population. However: the bomb was actually closest to the Botany-Microbiology building, which puts a different color on it. Could be the Gaian branch of the 11th Century Axis instead of the Mohammedan branch. The football-game timing could be just for added drama, or it could be semantically significant. Both OU and KSU do considerable research in genetically-modified organisms.
-----
Also, something is happening to water supplies right here in Spokane. Two water towers have been broken into (exactly how is not stated) and E. coli was found in those water supplies. A third suburban system has also issued a boil order for coliform bacteria, though no break-in was known there. It's not unusual for water systems to get contaminated at this time of year, because many people prepare for winter by blowing out their automatic sprinkler systems, which can cause backwash. But the breakins are obviously not accidental.
For what it's worth, Spokane City water was not affected because it is always chlorinated. Why don't those suburban systems maintain chlorine? Stupid.
-----
UPDATE on OU:
Tapscott has some acute observations: Joel Hinrichs had an arsenal in his apartment, and the latest picture of Hinrichs shows a distinctly Mohammedan-looking beard. This isn't your modern hip-hop goatee, nor the simple loss of grooming you might associate with the image of a depressed adolescent we're getting from the media. It's a deliberate style with exactly two known connotations: Amish or Mohammedan. Since the Amish are not currently famous for suicide bombing, we have one guess remaining. Tapscott also points out that OU Pres Boren was remarkably quick with a complete "explanation", perhaps indicating that Hinrichs had been on someone's radar screen for a while. ¶ 9:28 AM
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Victory, sort of
The House has just passed Rep. Pombo's revised version of the Endangered Species Act. After 30 years of tyranny, Western property owners may finally see an improvement!
Two important changes: restricts the criteria for taking land, and requires the Interior Dept to pay for the land it steals. The bill now falls into the House of Imbeciles and Traitors, formerly known as the Senate, where it will vanish into the infinite gravitation of endless yakkety-yak. But at least the House did something right. Since this happens about twice per lifetime, the House deserves tremendous congratulations! ¶ 2:22 PM
Two important changes: restricts the criteria for taking land, and requires the Interior Dept to pay for the land it steals. The bill now falls into the House of Imbeciles and Traitors, formerly known as the Senate, where it will vanish into the infinite gravitation of endless yakkety-yak. But at least the House did something right. Since this happens about twice per lifetime, the House deserves tremendous congratulations! ¶ 2:22 PM
