Nervous Rodent's Views from the Bottom

Just a thought.

2007-07-06T20:24:00.000-04:00

I am sitting here thinking about this LIVE EARTH thing this weekend. Something I heard on the television keeps popping up when I hear or think about it. One of the members of the British band Arctic Monkeys pointed out the hypocrisy of this concert. These performers are going to show up with their entourage, by coming on their private airplanes, drive to the show in big posh gas guzzling limos, and then use huge amounts of energy to power the amps, lights, and all the amenities in their dressing rooms just to keep them satisfied. That doesn’t even take into account the band that is going to Antarctica to play. I mean how much fuel are they going to use? By the way it is winter down in that part of the world now, so if they fly the plane will not be able to turn off the engines or they will freeze up. Now, I’m no brain genius but it seems to me that is another HUGE waste of energy there. However maybe the plane will just drop them off, and come back when they are done. Does this whole thing seem a bit self defeating? What good is having a concert to save the world from carbon emissions if you are going to be putting tons of carbon into the atmosphere? Further is the Goreacle going to be at all the concerts or just one? If he goes to all how will he get there, obviously in a private plane, so that means he will be the biggest polluter on the planet that day.

Now I don’t know if any of you have ever worked a big rock concert, but I have, and I can tell you these people make all kinds of strange demands about what is to be in their dressing rooms. Van Halen for instance wanted K-Y Jelly in gallon jars, don’t ask, not tubes; at least that is what I heard from one of the owners of the company that catered their show. Others have demanded no brown M&M’s, I heard one band, at a show I worked, complaining about laminates, the plastic badges that hang around their necks so they are identified, and can go where they want, they were upset about the plastic. They wanted something other then plastic, said it was in their contract, but since they had to have them to eat they shut up and put them on. Then there is the meal, usually that is fairly straight forward but sometimes it can get outrageous only cooked with a certain brand of oil, or in certain type pots and pans. You may think I am making this up, but I assure you I am not, I worked a couple of shows with a friend who ran a catering company that did shows at Painters Mill, the Civic Center, Capitol Center, and the Lyric, and I heard the horror stories from her. Some were funny but other were just what are these people thinking. Anyway, back to my original subject, what are these rock stars going to demand and what kind of a “carbon foot print” will it leave. Hell, I am sure it will be more then I leave in a year, and that is just them getting there in their planes and limos.

So, as I pen this missive I have decided to not worry about my carbon output as the people telling me to conserve and live a carbon neutral lifestyle are hypocrites. Well, there is another rant by the Swamp Fox, hope you got a little bit to think about the next time you hear Sheryl Crow, or the Goreacle telling you how to behave and live, just remember they are living a lifestyle most of us will never attain, and have luxuries we can only dream of for the most part. Any thoughts about this yourselves?

Two quotes again this time, both I think are in keeping with the rant above.

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” —Samuel Adams

"A man may conduct himself well in both adversity and good fortune, but if you want to test his character, give him power." —Abraham Lincoln

Question?

2007-06-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

Hey folks how are you all doing? First, to the Rodent, Welcome back brother, sorry I didn't hold up my end as well as I should have. But as with you work conspired to keep me busy and unable to get a good rant or post going. This is just a stream of consciousness; I hope it makes a little sense.I was reading the paper last week, and looking at the picture of the hamas thugs in Palestine occupying the Presidents Office, and I was curious. Does it strike anyone else as a bit cowardly, that these PUNKS who call themselves freedom fighters, and are so proud of what they do, wear masks? If they are so proud why are they wearing the FREAKIN’ MASK? Are they afraid of something, or what, are they embarrassed, and don't want their mama to see them acting the fool? I have always thought the same about the klan, and those gang bangers one sees posturing on TV, and in the paper. They are so proud of being racists, crimanals, and terrorists, but yet, they wear hoods. Does anyone else see the dichotomy of this; proud of what they are but won't show their face, that doesn't make sense. Does it? As I thought more about this, and the fight that brought about this turn of events, the hamas thugs in the Presidents Office and them taking over the Gaza Strip, I knew I was going to be called a racist or islamaphobe or whatever. Well you know what, I don't care because this is America and I can have, and voice an opinion, be it wrong or not. Besides, I don't make things the way they are, I just calls 'em like I sees it. But, anyway, here are my thoughts, first the Palestinians can't have or aren't ready for self rule, not if it is a Democratic form of government. They need someone who can rule with an iron fist. If that were not true then why is their economy and infrastructure in such disarray? Why are the conditions so dire when the European Union and America gives the Palestinian Authority millions of dollars yearly? Answer, because the government is nothing but a bunch of corrupt, thieving bastards. Second, why since they haven't been able to get an honest government going, one that could control the terrorists from hamas and fatah, are they still saying it is Israel's fault? How can it be Israel’s fault if they can’t build a country with such largess from the world over? Further, I heard that thousands of Palestinians are fleeing to Israel to escape the fighting in the Gaza strip. Does anyone see the irony in this, I know the Palestinians don't. First they wanted to have their own home land and self rule; now that they have it they want back into Israel where it is safe. The next thing that came to mind was that Israel should tell them NO, You can't come in; they don’t want Israeli settlements in Gaza, then No, settlements in Israel. Another thing was why Lebanon is the only country in the Middle East that has any semblance of Democracy, even though it has very tenuous hold on it. What with Hezbollah being funded by Iran, and doing everything in its power at Iran’s behest to topple it. What is it about the Middle East that none of these people want to be free? Are they all masochist or what. Well, as I said back with my first post I will sometimes rant, sometimes make sense and others not. I hope I didn't sound like some wingnut, but sometime you just got the get things off your chest.

Hide From The Secret Police

2007-06-13T01:43:00.000-04:00

Does anybody remember Rodney King? If you forgot, click the link to see Rodney King getting brutally beaten after a high-speed chase, eventually leading to the 1992 race riots in LA. What most people don't know is that thirteen seconds of footage, edited out and not aired on television, showed Rodney King getting up and charging at a police officer. Perhaps that video, if aired, could have prevented the deaths of fifty-three people.

My point is this -- information is power, and video is the most powerful form of information. It influences in a way that the written word cannot. Seeing is believing, and controlling what people see is a sure why to control them. Which leads me to my big question of the day -- do the police control people, or do people control the police?

Brian Kelly, an eighteen year old in Carlisle, PA, was riding in the passenger seat of a friend's pickup when the truck was pulled over by police for speeding. When the officer began yelling at his friend, Brian started recording the incident on his camcorder. He was arrested, and is currently facing up to seven years for violating Pennsylvania's wiretapping statute. (more info)

Wiretapping? Pennsylvania has a law prohibiting the recording of any conversations of any persons without their knowledge. The video wasn't the problem, but recording the police officer speaking was against the law. Ironically, the law has an explicit exception to allow police officers to record traffic stops themselves.

So let's review. The police are allowed to film you, but you cannot film them. The police are the only ones who can have footage of an incident. Maybe Pennsylvania learned from Rodney King. If you control the video, you can control what to release. Right now, the police can show their side, but nobody can (legally) record video to show the other side of the story.

Any regular reader of the Rodent is going to agree with me here: A police officer is a public servant. Everything he does in the line of duty is, by definition, public information. Yes, there are undercover policemen who need to have information, including their identity, concealed temporarily. However, at the end of the day, all police must be accountable for their actions.

I've personally been the subject of illegal and unwarranted searches by overzealous police. The attitude is simple -- if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about. Let's turn that around. If you're acting properly, you have nothing to fear from being filmed.

Pennsylvanians -- PLEASE contact your state legislator and let them know this law must be changed to allow the recording of all state employees in the line of duty.

RIAA Lapdogs

2007-06-04T12:49:00.000-04:00

Sorry for being gone so long; sometimes things come up. I'm back!

I love our country. Every now and then I hear someone talking about how corrupt our government is, and how they wished they lived somewhere else. I've lived in a great many different countries, and I have to say America is unique in it's government's transparency. Sure, sometimes a politician is caught with ninety thousand dollars in a freezer, but that's the point, isn't it? He was caught.

I bring this up because America lets us watch over our politicians and see what they're up to, and who they're accepting money from. And I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of readers realize the RIAA is evil, whether for suing widows for their departed's prior downloads, support for DRM, or for extortion and computer fraud. Most recently I've been upset at their claims they must be paid royalties for all Internet radio transmissions, regardless if the artists played are members of RIAA.

So without further ado, click here for the names and addresses of politicians who accepted money from RIAA in the last election cycle. Write your local politician, change your vote, or just let Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both on the list, know exactly how you feel.

The Real Cost of Daylight Savings Time

2007-04-18T10:22:00.000-04:00

I've always felt Daylight Saving Time was a waste
of time and productivity. Moving DST around is an
even greater waste of money. To be honest, I'm not
a big fan of time zones in general. What's so magic
about 6AM that it has to be the correct waking time?
I've heard that people want noon to be mid-day (why?),
but noon isn't mid-day anyway. Personally, I tend
to wake up about 5:30AM and go to bed at 11:0PM,
making my "mid-day" around 2:15PM. Today the sun
will be halfway to sunset in Washington DC at
12:40PM. Whatever.

The entire idea is centered around the concept that
people are too stupid to deal with problems themselves.
In a survey, the government found that people liked
DST because it gave them more time to do things in
the evenings before sunset. Duh. Go to work earlier,
get off work earlier. Do you really need the
government to tell you that? If you aren't able to
set your own hours, talk to your boss. Apparently
the majority of the country wants to wake up sooner
and get off work earlier, so what's the issue?

Oh, and it saves money, too. Or at least that's
what the DOE tells us. In a frequently-touted report,
California found DST saves money by shifting power
usage from expensive "peak" periods into cheaper
morning hours.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=P400-01-013

Okay, this may sound like a stupid question, but if
the power usage shifts from the "peak" period into
the cheaper morning hours, don't the morning hours
become peak? If everyone gets up an hours earlier,
then they'll turn on all their lights an hour
earlier, and the peak period will start at hour
earlier. What the hell?

The fact is there were no energy savings from moving
DST. Frankly put, DST has no real effect on energy
at all.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070403-the-daylight-savings-change-no-savings-no-point.html

But that's not to say it doesn't have any effect.
Besides lots of computers getting hosed up, and
people showing up to meetings an hour off, DST
actually kept an innocent 12 year old boy in jail
for twelve days. Yep. Next time someone tells you
that we can all just live with the temporary
confusion that moving the clocks causes, tell them
about Cody Webb, a Pennsylvania student who was
arrested for making a prank bomb threat. He had
called the school exactly one hour before the threat
was called in, and well, you can guess the rest.
The best part of the story was the Catch-22 attitude
of his principal, who refused to let him argue in his
defense, stating 'Well, why should we believe you?
You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'
http://www.passablynews.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1175830780

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these folks really do need
the government to tell them when to wake up and
when to go to bed. They don't appear intelligent
enough to decide on their own.

The Swamp Fox Rants.

2007-04-12T19:08:00.000-04:00

I am ticked off, and I know I said I will keep a civil tongue in my head, but I got a question. What in the hell has happened to this freakin' country? Can somebody tell me? Anybody? Please? Now, you may ask what has my panties in a bunch. Well, it is this carp called political correctness.

There is in Littleton CO a group of parents mostly if not all women who are having a fit over a statue. The statue hasn’t even been erected yet, but these people have deemed it in appropriate, because it is, they think too close to three Elementary schools, and two parks. Why, is it inappropriate, you may ask? Good question. Well, it seems the statue depicts a man in uniform holding a gun.

So, how did this all start? Let’s go back to the very beginning. Years ago there was a young boy named Danny Deitz Jr., who like most boys was fascinated by all things military. However young Danny, who grew up in Littleton CO, lived out his soldierly dreams, he became a Navy SEAL. From what I have been able to glean from different sources Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL(BUD/S) Training is one of, if not the toughest, most challenging, and grueling training regimes in the Armed Forces. This is not meant to minimize the training to become a Green Beret, Army Ranger, Marine Force Recon, Air Force Special Air Police(if I am wrong about this units name or anything else, I apologize the all those in the Air Force), or Delta Force. Although, I do believe it is the longest training process, after six months of BUD/S there is another eighteen months of specialized training.

Jump forward to 27, 28 June, 2005 the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar province Afghanistan. His Special Reconnaissance element was to locate high level anti- Coalition militia leader, in support of a follow on direct action mission to disrupt enemy activity. They are spotted by militia sympathizers who reveal their position to the militia. They were as a result confronted directly by the enemy, with a much larger force, and a tactically superior position. In this attack Petty Officer Danny P. Deitz Jr. is wounded. Also wounded is a Team Mate Petty Officer Matthew Axelson. These men though mortally wounded continued to fight on, for forty five minutes by the accounts I have seen, while urging, and allowing their wounded Team Mate to escape. They stood their ground, and continued to fight even after a rescue helicopter crashed due to enemy fire, killing eight other SEALS, and they fought until they succumbed to their wounds. They were, a year later, Posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor( also known as the Congressional Medal of Honor), for their bravery, and valor.

Now, as a statue is being readied to be dedicated to this brave man, who gave his last full measure for his nation and his Team Mates, some people are offended by the statue. This is where the political correctness comes in. This statue shows P.O. Deitz crouched in full combat gear, including his M-16 with grenade launcher attached resting on his knee. It seems it is the weapon that is offensive to the good people of Littleton. Some of them say he should be holding a child, or a bouquet of flowers, can you believe that one, or nothing. There is even the idea of one moonbat who thinks that a better statue to honor P.O. Dietz by having a statue of a peace dove. A FREAKIN’ PEACE DOVE!! When was the last time a peace dove kept you safe Lady? Geez, where do they find these people. It has been said that one of the reasons they don’t like the statue of P.O. Dietz is because of those two pieces of human detritus that massacred their school mates at Columbine. But as P.O. Dietz’s widow, who is sympathetic to the message that guns and school don’t mix, puts it "It's a parent's job, including these parents who are protesting, to teach their children the difference between two thugs who murder their classmates and a soldier who died fighting for their freedom," she said. "Danny represents every soldier and sailor who has fallen, and for them to take this stand, well, that's offensive to me." She also said comparing the guns used at Columbine to her husband’s M-16, “one is used to take lives,” she said. “And the other is used to save them.” They want to change a monument a man who gave his life for the very right they are exercising to stop his monument, I wonder if they even realize the irony of it. Here is the link to Danny’s Navy Cross Citation. Navy Cross Citation for Danny P. Dietz

I have two quotes for this post.

The first, and I forget who said it, but I vowed to remember it when I heard I, is.
We sleep safe in our beds at night, because rough men stand ready to do violence in our name.
The second is
"It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world." --Theodore Roosevelt

Bestiality, Urination, Defecation, as well as Sadistic and Masochistic Behavior

2007-04-06T21:54:00.000-04:00

I must open by apologizing for not having my regular images and nice
formatting, but I'm away on the previously-mentioned business and unable to
log into Blogger. This is my test of a backwards method of bringing a post to
the Internet.<P>

<a
href="http://nervous-rodent.blogspot.com/2005/09/big-brother-or-nanny.html">I
posted</a> about the government's unhealthy obsession with pornography back in
September 2005. That story, like most sick and unhealthy obsessions, hasn't
died. In that article, entitled "Big Brother or Nanny?", I argued that by
making pornography between consenting adults a "focus area" for prosecution,
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was not only wasting valuable tax
dollars, but encouraging prosecutions that the government would ultimately
lose. It turns out that the eight fired prosecutors had one thing in common:
<a
href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/porn_and_the_doj.php">refusing
to prosecute these cases.</a><P>

I'm not going to suggest, as others have, that the failure to prosecute these
pornography cases was the underlying reason behind the firing of the
attorneys. That would be ludicrous, even if it does appeal somewhat to my
sense of conspiracy. In the case of Paul Charlton, the reason for the firing
was obvious: Charlton had <a
href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal">just initiated an
investigation</a> into the corruption of a Republican candidate and Bush
loyal: Rick Renzi. It doesn't take a genius to know why Charlton was fired --
but it takes a spinster to come up with an excuse that doesn't taste bad for
TV.<P>

So the White House released e-mails that showed evidence the eight attorneys
were ineffective and needed to be fired. In Charlton's case, he had been
reluctant to prosecute pornographers for distributing content between
consenting adults. It's time to sigh, and reaffirm our understanding that the
government, regardless of party, is infesting with self-serving politicians
who do not hold your best interests at heart. The need for transparency is
obvious.

I'll Wager On This

2007-04-03T10:54:00.000-04:00

Is online gambling illegal in the United States? The Justice Department says so, citing the Wire Act from 1961. Notably, the Wire Act only prohibits those "in the business of betting or wagering" from doing so, which has been interpreted to mean casual bettors were beyond the reach of the law, while gambling professionals and companies were not. So what happens when offshore gambling establishments allow Americans to log in and play casually over the Net?

Only 21 states have explicit prohibitions against social gambling, and only eight states specifically prohibit Internet gambling. What's an overzealous Congress to do? Pass a new law, of course! The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes it illegal to transfer funds to or from an online gambling site, while not actually banning gambling itself. Predictably, this law has killed the Internet gambling industry -- Antigua's gambling industry went from $1 billion per year in revenue to only $30 million, resulting in a loss of 4,000 jobs in a country with only 68,000 people.

Even before that bill was passed, however, the Justice Department had been publicly stating that they felt Internet gambling was illegal, and would prosecute those who engaged in it. How many more people would have wagered online if they didn't have the spectre of
law enforcement hanging overhead? We may never know.

Here's the part that's interesting. Including indian lands, there are 1,657 casinos 46 states. Yes, that means a lot of states that make gambling illegal have an exception either for indian lands or specific establishments. So the question Antigua raised is, "Does Congress have the right to stop Americans from playing in offshore casinos when the majority of Americans can legally wager near home?" Funny thing is that's not just an ethical question; it's really a matter of protectionism and restraint of trade. Congress has stated that an American wishing to gamble must do it at an American brick & mortar casino, not with a foreign company.

So Antigua took the United States to the World Trade Organization, which whom we have signed treaties promising not to engage in protectionism or restraint of trade. America frequently petitions the WTO when foreign countries make it hard for American companies to compete overseas -- this is the first time any nation under 100,000 people has ever filed a complaint in the WTO. In 2004, Antigua won: the United States was unfairly engaged in illegal restraint of trade.

The United States blatantly ignored the ruling, and passing the aforementioned law against online gambling two years later.

This week the WTO compliance board found the United States, not surprisingly, to continue to violate international law: "The Panel concludes that the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the [Dispute Settlement Body] in this dispute."

So what does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Don't think for a second our politicians are afraid online gambling will create social ills and injure children, as they claim. Many of the states with explicit online gambling bans are those states with the largest gambling industries, including Nevada (373 casinos), Washington (143 casinos), and Montana (136 casinos). This is a clear-cut case of big business, namely the American gambling industry, pushing politicians to restrict American's freedoms for the sole purpose of reducing competition and ensuring higher profits. The largest sponsors of the 2006 gambling ban? Casinos, with $28.5 million dollars spent in 2006 alone, or $53,271 for every Congressman in the House and Senate.

What should you do? Tell your congressmen to give Americans the freedom of choice. Support the Poker Players Alliance, the strongest group lobbying for the legalization of online gambling, with 319,307 dues-paying members, and headed by former Congressman Alfonse D'Amato. And always remember it's not the job of our government to hand money to special interest groups on a silver platter.

John Doe

2007-04-02T19:22:00.000-04:00

John Doe is being sued by the Imams, who after acting in an extremely suspicious manner were removed from the US Airways flight form Minneapolis to Phoenix. Now, I see on Michelle Malkins blog that a few bloggers, Uncle Jimbo of youtube.com/unclejimbomadcity, Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.com, Erick Stakleback of cbn.com/blogs/erick_stakleback/index.aspx, and Brian Preston of hotair.com, have stepped up with the John Doe Manifesto, the manifesto lets it be known to all who would enslave us, or work to bring down America that John Doe will not be intimidated. He will not be silenced, and he will not give a rat’s pa-toot what they think. He is vigilant, he is aware or his surroundings, he is watching. But, who is John Doe, really? He is the guy looking over from the next car at the stop light. He is the woman who watched you pump gas into the gallon can for your lawn mower. John Doe is bagging your groceries. He is the cashier at the store where you stop on the way home from work. He is the person who collects your garbage. He is the woman pushing the stroller, who smiled pleasantly as you passed. He is the jogger in the park. John Doe is us. He is every American who watched television on 11 September, 2001 with purple faced, white fisted rage as the Twin Towers fell. He howled in frustration at his feelings of impotence, because there was nothing he could do, when learning about the Pentagon. He wept, unashamed, at the bravery of the passengers on flight 93. He wants to do some thing, anything, to protect his country, and to defend her. John Doe does not care when told he is a bigot because he is on alert for the enemies of his country. He will become more vigilant. He is more suspicious, he is taking a harder look at those who are trying to make his vigilance falter. He will not back down. John Doe will tell the flight attendants when he sees something, or someone that isn’t quite right. He will call the Police when he sees something disturbing, he doesn't care if he is wrong. He will err on the side of caution. We are John Doe. I am John Doe. Are you John Doe?
Below is the John Doe Manifesto as taken from Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I am John Doe.
I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”
I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.
I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.
I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.
I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.
I am John Doe.
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.
I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.
I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.
I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.
I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”
I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.
I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.
I am John Doe.

Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened. — Billy Graham
The Swamp Fox

Illegal Immigrants Get Preference Over US Citizens

2007-03-28T17:06:00.000-04:00

There's a Federal law that governs educational rights for illegal immigrants. Specifically, public elementary and secondary schools must allow illegal immigrants to enroll, presumably because educated illegal immigrants are better than uneducated illegal immigrants. The same law also prohibits states from providing illegal immigrants any tuition breaks that are not available to all U.S. citizens. South Dakota, in effect, couldn't charge more money to a North Dakota resident then they do to an illegal immigrant.

The law makes sense, except it never would have occurred to be to provide lower tuition to illegal immigrants than to American citizens.

It turns out that four states have found a way to bypass the law. These states offer in-state tuition not based on state of residence, as is common custom, but rather by the state the student attended high school. Since by Federal law a state cannot prohibit an illegal immigrant from attending high school in the state, the student automatically qualifies for in-state tuition regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The four states are California, New York, Texas, and Utah, which rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th respectively for illegal immigrant populations (GAO report).

Why bring this up? Aren't we all sick of hearing what California is doing anyway? Because Maryland just passed a bill to do the same thing, and the Governor has already stated he would sign it.

In-state tuition has always been problematic for young adults heading off to college. If you move to a new state, you're automatically charged out of state tuition. Even switching your driver's license and becoming a legal resident of your new state won't grant you the benefits that long-time residents enjoy. This can be particularly frustrating as most teenagers have no ability to choose where they live prior to college.

The comments button is below. I promise I won't delete comments... I just want one, honest good answer from anyone who has it. Why on Earth should a person who sneaks their family across the border illegally get lower tuition than a legal resident who chooses to move into Maryland to attend college? Someone, please, explain it to me.

The Swamp Fox

2007-03-27T17:00:00.000-04:00

Hi, folks, just thought I would introduce myself, I was asked by the Nervous Rodent to give him a hand while he is occupied with other commitments. I am a guest blogger from The Commons at Paulieworld (paulieworld.com/commons), and have known the Rodent and Mrs. Rodent for about 3 years. I posted a few articles at The Commons in its previous form, three of them were on the Second Amendment, they were Lawsuits against Firearm Manufacturers for the Criminal or Negligent Misuse, Militias and the Second Amendment, Concealed Carry and the Right to Self Defense. I also posted a few things I found around the web on various subjects, some political and some humorous. I will post on occasion when I have something to say, and probably even when I don’t. At The Commons I am the resident Second Amendment expert, not that I am an expert in the sense that some are, Chris Cox of NRA comes to mind, but I guess I am the expert over there. My nom de plume is The Swamp Fox; I didn’t take this name it was given to me by the web master over at The Commons, some of us who post to The Commons live rather public lives or have other reasons for needing a nom de plume. If you go to The Commons you will see that all of our nom de plumes have a Revolutionary War theme. But, why don’t I let you read what he (Paulie) said of me instead of trying to tell you. The Swamp Fox = Namesake is Col Francis Marion, led a guerilla war against the British in the South. Our resident Second Amendment expert and perhaps the only true libertarian on our masthead. Some of my posts will be by someone who wishes to remain anonymous; I will come up with an alias for them when the time comes. I will sometimes post because of an outrage committed by some politician, or some other thing I find outrageous, other times I will be amazed at some nit wittery, or just feel like venting my spleen, if for no other reason then I can. I will try to keep a civil tongue in my head, as I have no wish to offend, and think that if you must curse to get your point across then you don’t have much of a point in the first place. I hope you will read what I have to say and if you agree, give me some feed back, and if not take me to task for it, but I only ask that either way you are polite. I hope to help the Rodent keep you entertained and make you think a little, and maybe once in a while get a laugh out of you. You can even curse me, but, hey, please, just don’t do that on the Rodents pages. I always try to end with a quote, they may or may not be germane to the issue at hand, but I like to sometimes change things up. I never know which quote is going to strike my fancy, so it could be anyone from Saltus to Ted Nugent to Samuel Clements to the Dali Lama to Joseph Goebbles. Thank you for reading what I have to say, now and in the future. Enjoy.
"Illegitimus non carborundum" (don't let the bastards grind you down)
The Swamp Fox

Iranian Mentality

2007-03-26T19:14:00.000-04:00

As I'm sure you have all heard by now, last week Iran captured two British RHIBs with fifteen Sailors and Marines aboard. You may or may not have heard that this isn't at all unprecedented; Iran has aggressively claimed waters it doesn't own for many years, and has "captured" British and Iraqi servicemembers it claims were in its territory. In some cases, they have even crossed into Iraq and fired on American troops, thankfully without hurting any. This particular incident, however, is unique in that Iran doesn't seem inclined to return the Brits any time soon. There's reporting that Iran has moved them to Tehran, and is preparing for long-scale negotiations.

The question each of us should be asking ourselves is "What does Iran think it has to gain?" There was a lot of speculation that the capture was meant to influence the sanctions vote last week. That's ridiculous -- the capture was only a day before the vote, and previous captures have resulted in a release within two or three days. Britain, at the time of the vote, had no reason to believe Iran wouldn't release the servicemembers by Monday.

A lot of Iranian press has talked about various Iranian "diplomats" kidnapped by Americans, and a possible prisoner exchange. The Iranian Majles has been considering adopting a bill requiring that the Brits only be released when these Iranians are released (although it's doubtful the Council of Guardians would allow such a bill). The "kidnapped" Iranians include a defector whom the West would never force to return to Iran, and a number of imprisoned Iranians caught red-handed providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq. I don't see either President Bush nor PM Tony Blair as being willing to release them at this point, especially with Iran continuing to defy the UNSC.

So what's Iran's problem? The first problem is that this wasn't a pre-planned capture, as many have speculated. The timing was awful, and the choice of British over Americans was careless. The erratic response shows a lack of coordination, and various branches of the convoluted Iranian government are still trying to sort each other out and come to a consensus on what to do.

The next problem is that this crises couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Engaged in a game of brinkmanship with the West, Iran would view a release of the Brits as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leadership has an attitude not too different from inner-city gangs -- it's all about appearance. They instruct the IRGC to harass multi-national forces and occasionally "capture" foreign forces, because they think it makes them look "tough." This time, however, the nuclear crises has left them without a nice out. No exit strategy, as it were.

So what will Iran do next? It's hard to predict such an irrational beast. The most likely scenario is they will hold onto the prisoners until the nuclear crises defuses, try them for made-up crimes in a kangaroo court, and sentence them to some long incarceration -- then quietly commute it to time served and let them go without any attention.

What if the crises doesn't defuse? We all remember the Iranian hostage crises; Iran's played this game before. Iran won the last crises by waiting for the next election and releasing them as a sign of goodwill to Ronald Reagan. But unlike Reagan, who saw no problem in treating enemies like friends just to stab the Soviet Union in the eye, I don't see any of the contenders for the White House or 10 Downing Street as being willing to work with Iran. And frankly, I don't see either Bush or Blair as being willing to tolerate a hostage situation lasting into elections.

So if Iran doesn't quietly let these fifteen Brits go, what happens next? The Nervous Rodent predicts a series of strikes against IRGC, leadership, and nuclear facilities to continue until the Brits are released. The problem is Iran isn't very good at giving up when it's outmatched... When you believe God is on your side, you tend to think you'll survive any fight. Iran is likely to retaliate outside its own borders, which is a sure trigger for war.

The ball is in Iran's court. They've kicked out the inspectors, and they've captured the Brits. You'd think they would have seen what happened to their neighbors when they refused the demands of the civilized world, but this isn't a rational country. It's a country powered by emotion and prestige, and they aren't going to back down. Whatever Iran does, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

In other news, events are conspiring to keep me off blogging. I'll be unable to blog for the most part over the next few months. Rather than leave the blog idle as before, I've invited a friend (The Swamp Fox) to make some guest posts. Please give him a warm welcome!

RIP COPA

2007-03-25T10:06:00.000-04:00

In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was passed, making it illegal to make obscene or indecent material available on the Internet where a minor could access it. The nascent Internet community reacted, with an estimated five to ten percent of online websites switching to black backgrounds (including Yahoo!) for 48 hours, and a massive "blue ribbon campaign" that saw blue ribbons on thousands of homepages for several months.

The law was never enforced, as a federal panel of judges enacted an injunction against it, and by the next year it had been overturned completely. A horrible law that died a quick clean death.

So, given Congress's penchant for attempting to pass an unconstitutional law by ramming it down the public's throat, the measure was pushed through Congress the following year (1998) under a new name, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA limited the restrictions to commercial enterprises, but clarified the obscenity requirements to include all nudity, including female breasts. Medical health sites were among the many outraged by the new law, which would have required a credit card or other proof of age to access information on how to perform cancer self-exams.

The law was, once again, subject to an immediate injunction. The following year, the law was struck down. However, unlike the CDA, it was not quickly killed. The Attorney General chose to appeal the ruling, and by 2004 the Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the unjunction, but referred the case to a lower court for trial.

The Department of Justice then issued subpeonas to various Internet search engines for search records. All search engines complied except for Google, which successfully fought the subpeona as illegal. The trial finally commenced, and this Thursday, a verdict was reached. COPA is finally dead, having been found to facially violate both the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. said in his ruling "[P]erhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

I have only two worries. The first is the inevitable third try Congress will attempt now that COPA is dead. The second is that this judge appears to think that you have to be eighteen to have free speech.

Global Online Freedom Act of 2007

2007-02-05T18:02:00.000-05:00

Some bills are good ideas, and a great many are colossally bad ideas. Every now and then you get a bill that does a good thing the wrong way, and that's what the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 is. Introduced by Rep Christopher Smith (R-NJ) as a rework of the failed 2006 version, the bill is currently sitting in the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

So what's all this about then? Here's a short history on the why of this bill:

In 2005, Yahoo! provided information on a Chinese journalist who released an internal Communist Party message anonymously via the Internet, leading to his arrest and 10 year prison sentence.
On Dec 31st of the same year, Microsoft removed a blog of a Chinese journalist. Microsoft had earlier that year admitted to censoring words like "freedom" and "democracy" from its Internet portal.
Early last year, Google admitted that it censored search results for users in China.

What do all three events have in common? In all three cases, the companies stated they were simply complying with Chinese law, and had no choice.

In February 2006, the House held a hearing in with Representative Tom Lantos said "Your abhorrent activities in China are a disgrace. I simply do not understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I abhor the thought of China censoring the Internet, and it sickens me that American companies are profiting from helping China through pro-democracy activists in the Gulag. But about this bill? Does the ends justify the means? Is the cost worth the result? I don't see a problem with Congress regulating international commerce, that is, prohibiting U.S. corporations from performing certain acts on behalf of foreign governments. There are three basic elements of the bill that bother me:

The price tag of $50 million per year. What the heck is going to cost fifty million dollars per year? How hard is it to tell which countries are censoring the Internet?
The massive reporting requirements. Anyone who removes any content from any server on behalf of a foreign government is basically required to describe the circumstances behind the removal to the State Department. Perhaps the $50 million is to pay for federal workers to read all these reports, but who's going to pay for the guys who waste time writing them?
Export license restrictions. The bill tasks the Secretary of State to perform a feasibility study on restricting export licenses for products that facilitate restrictions on Internet freedom. Almost all networking technology can censor in some fashion, whether operating system, firewall, or router. Could this snowball into a situation like we had in the 90's where all decent cryptology was prohibited from export, holding computer security back for years?

My mind isn't made up quite yet. I offer this post primarily as food for thought. Chew deeply, unless you're in China, in which case you won't be able to find this blog that talks about democracy and freedom.

Ironically, China denies censoring the Internet at all. Not that anyone believes them. Maybe the Chinese do. After all, if you search Google News from within China, I bet you won't find any evidence of censorship.

New source of news in Iraq

2007-01-27T09:17:00.000-05:00

Thanks to AubreyJ for these links...

I know some of you are going to say that you wouldn't trust the Pentagon's media with a ten foot pole. But the fact is the U.S. military is forbidden from intentionally lying to Americans. I've seen a lot of Armed Forces Network news reports over the years, and I have to say they aren't glossed over propaganda, but good honest news reports, from the viewpoint of soldiers.

What about the news reports planted by the U.S. government in Iraq? What about them, I ask? They were truthful stories. Iraqi papers were doing the same thing as the MSM; printing lots of bad news, some untrue, while refusing to print any good news. The U.S. simply balanced news coverage by paying papers to print both sides of the story. Heck, I think that the Pentagon should be allowed the do the same thing in America.

Anyhoot, on to the goodies:

Freedom Journal Iraq is a daily program produced by American Forces Network Iraq. This program focuses on military missions, operations and U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Click here for daily reports. Also try this recent interesting report (or here for low-bandwidth version).

The People have spoken.... But I don't care!

2007-01-23T19:19:00.000-05:00

Let me start by saying I hate blue laws. They are unconstitutional by any measure, as they specifically honor the preferences of a certain sects of a single religion over all others. When someone tells me they support blue laws, I generally ask if Christians should be banned from purchasing alcohol in Muslim-majority towns, because they are coming to America fast. As Christians represent an ever-shrinking percentage of America, they will quickly look to the Constitution to defend them from other religious beliefs.So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely, Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.

It's hard to be against that, isn't it? It allows each town and/or county to decide for themselves if they want to limit blue laws to hard liquor. It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the current law.

As Crazy for Liberty points out, there is widespread support among both the population and representatives in the government. Somehow the Governor, Sonny Perdue, is against it (sound clip, AJC link):

I think it’s going to have a tough time, actually. When you ask people generally if they want the right to vote on anything — what kind of toilet tissue the state ought to use, or anything like that — they’ll typically say yes.

Although they like representative government, they like to have their voices heard. And that’s why we have representative government, where people elect their own legislators to come and make these kinds of decisions.

Some things rise to the level of referendums — such as, I felt, the symbol, the flag that represented Georgia, which I felt rose to that level. But you can’t do government really by referendum. And so, I don’t support that, and I don’t know whether it will pass the Legislature or not, but it’ll have a pretty tough time getting the last vote….

You have to always be attuned to where public opinion is, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to follow that. A good leader always leads in a way they think is the right direction for Georgia on significant issues. …

What? Yeah, the people want more freedom and less government intrusion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to them? Remember Georgians, you voted for him!

I have to credit Sonny Perdue with one thing, however. He is the first person I've ever heard come up with a valid justification for blue laws that doesn't mention religion -- the government's responsibility to educate the populace:

Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's only sell gasoline on odd days, milk on even days. Condoms should only be sold on prime-numbered days. We'll make everyone plan their entire week around a couple of random proclamations with no justification other than making people's lives harder so they can learn to deal. After all, that's why government exists.

Bipartisan Support For Making College Unaffordable

2007-01-22T20:03:00.000-05:00

Let's face it. College is expensive. Unless you join the military or happen to come from a family that owns a bunch of oil wells in Texas, chances are you're going to leave college deep in debt. Many Americans don't dig out from under that debt for many years; many never do. The reason is quite obvious -- skyrocketing college tuition is making attendance virtually impossible without resorting to massive student loans.

Our Congress has decided to help out the little guy and make a college education a little easier to reach. HR 5, College Student Relief Act of 2007, reduces interest rates for new federal student loans. It has passed the House, 356-71, with bipartisan support. It now moves on to the Senate.

This sounds like a great idea. It really helps the young American get an education, lift himself up, and improve the economy, right? There's no way this bill could possibly increase student loan defaults, since it reduces the size of the payment, right?

Actually, HR.5 will increase the pool of applicants who want to attend college, without increasing the number of students the college system can accept. The law of supply and demand dictates that college tuition must then rise and demand outstrips supply. Student loan sizes increase, thus resulting in higher student loan payments for those lucky enough to get them.

Student interest rates are currently tied to the average one year constant maturity Treasury yield (CMT), and thus follow the flow and ebb of the economy. Since 1998, Stafford interest rates have dropped from 7.94% to 6.80%. The low rates (and high defaults) mean these loans incur significant cost to the average American in the form of higher taxes.

How low does HR.5 drop interest rates? Applied only to new students, HR.5 will lower rates each year until it bottoms out at 3.40%. That's right, less than half current rates, which are already low by any standards. What's more, HR.5 breaks the relationship between interest rates and the economy by making 3.40% permanent, no matter where the economy goes.

This is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. Not only does it not achieve the desired effect of making college affordable, it potentially reduces the income of college graduates, depressing the economy. The fact is that too many Americans are going to college. Half of all Americans are below average intelligence, and no amount of education can change that. The economy requires doctors and lawyers, but it also needs waitresses, janitors, and bus drivers. How many college graduates do we really need? Currently 45% of all high school graduates enroll in a four year college!

The net effect of unreasonable high college attendance rates are multiple:

Higher tuition, driven by supply and demand. Eventually, the market will respond by increasing capacity and accepting more students, leading to
Lower wages for college graduates, based on the same principle. The increased number of college graduates and lower wages for graduates combine to produce
Higher job qualification requirements. After all, if you have an excess of college graduates, which don't cost significantly more than non-graduates to hire, most employers will prefer the college graduate. Eventually a college degree becomes a requirement for jobs that previously were done by high school graduates. This further increases the demand for college education, leading to
Lowered educational standards. As every American realizes that a college education is the only way to survive, the market responds by creating an educational system that allows every American to graduate.

This vicious cycle is already in place. Nobody will contest that tuition has risen, attendance is up, more Americans hold degrees, a degree is more important than it was in the past when it comes to job hunting, and our universities are failing to maintain high standards. This isn't a what-if theory about the future, it's an observation of the present.

As a culture it's time to drop the notion that everybody deserves the same. Every man is created equal, but what we achieve in life separates us. Only the students who excel in high school and prove the ability to perform at a higher level should be afforded the chance to attend college. To do otherwise demeans our entire educational system, and produces a nation of idiots with degrees.

Scappleface has a story on this issue as well. Check it out.

Fatah honors Saddam Hussein

2007-01-16T21:48:00.000-05:00

The main square in the Jenin refugee camp has been renamed by Fatah after Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator who engaged in genocide against various ethnic groups, invaded two of his neighbors, and routinely had innocent people ritually killed for his own pleasure. Yeah, that Saddam Hussein.

Yet Fatah is an ally of the United States. An ally to the tune of an additional $86 million dollars of your tax dollars spent on improving Fatah's military force. The money is granted to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," according to a U.S. government document.

That's okay, though, because Fatah is fighting against Hamas, and is therefore against terrorism, against violence, and just generally a friend of the American way of life. This renaming of the main square is obviously a clerical error, a mistake, a political gaffe. Heck, just read the American media accounts of Abbas's latest speech:

AP - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told a large rally of his Fatah movement Thursday that he won't allow fighting with their Hamas rivals to continue and called on opposing factions to respect each other.

AFP - Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas assured tens of thousands of supporters that he was determined to prevent further factional clashes with rival Hamas after weeks of internecine bloodshed.

While both of these articles contain quotes from Abbas's speech, neither contain any of the following language, also from the same speech:

When Fatah was established, it was accused of treason and we were chased in every place. But with the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation. It is forbidden to use these guns against Palestinians. The occupation has perpetrated brutal attacks in Jenin, Beit Hanun and Ramallah.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you want to really see the news in Israel, read an Israeli paper. If you read American news stories written by Americans, you're going to hear what Americans want you to hear. You can't be educated if you don't read both sides of every story.

The fact is Abbas did call for Palestinian restraint, as the American media claims. He just wants Palestinians to stop fighting each other, so they can use the $86 million dollars the U.S. just gave him to go fight the Israelis.

Thanks to No More Spin for the heads-up on this story.

Iraq news ... from Iraq!

2007-01-15T21:14:00.000-05:00

Lately, it seems that all discussions of Iraq are really discussions of Bush, and how the Democrats want to change our strategy. What is the best course for America? Bush's plan to increase troop strength, or the Democrat's plan to concede defeat? I've already posted my opinions on how we need to change the way we're fighting the war, and I think that Bush's plan incorporates some, but not all, of my opinions. But that's not what this post is about.

This post is a reminder that not all Iraqi news is made in Washington, DC. This post is a reminder that things are really happening in Baghdad, and if you want to know what they are, you should talk to those in Baghdad. Not a reporter from DC who flew over for a week to write a few articles, but someone who has lived there their entire life.

Specifically, I recommend Omar and Mohammed, whose blog Iraq the Model has been linked as the first link on my "Good Blogs" sidebar for a very long time. The last three posts have covered an ongoing security operation, which while widely publicized in Iraq, has escaped Western media coverage. It'd be a shame if our media put out any GOOD news for a change.

The first post discussed what Mohammad thought was the beginning of the operation:

The battles left more than 50 militants killed and more than a dozen captured, seven of whom are Syrians and this supports what we reported in our last post that eyewitnesses said. Meanwhile there have been more clashes in Al-Aamil district in western Baghdad yesterday and we learned that all roads and bridges leading to that area are now closed, with helicopters hovering above.

The second post discusses the raids in more detail, and includes some imagery on what life is like in the most insurgent-ridden parts of Baghdad. It also includes some interesting reactions to Bush's plan, including discussion in the Iraqi Parliament:

A few hours later a flood of comments from Iraqi politicians filled the media here and maybe the earliest and most interesting argument was the one that took place between Abdul Kareem Al-Inizi of the UIA (from a branch of the Dawa party that split from the original Dawa of Jafari and Maliki) and Mithal al-Alusi during yesterday's session of the parliament.

Al-Inizi said "Iraq is not an American state and Bush must consult with us before making such decisions about sending troops…" to which al-Alusi responded by saying "We have an elected prime minister and he was consulted…you and others like yourself wouldn't be sitting here had America not helped us. They are trying to protect this democracy and they possess what they can offer to help us with the security situation, but what do you have?? Cut the nonsense, ok? Do you think the parliament wants to vote about this? Fine, let's ask everybody if they want such voting…"

There was only silence in the hall after this and no one said another word about voting.

The final post covers an Al-Sabaah story that neighboring provinces are already finding insurgents flooding in from Baghdad in fear of combined U.S./Iraqi forces. What the article doesn't mention is that the operation is still in the very early phases. Still, the effect of the latest campaign is starting to show. Check out today's top three stories on Al-Sabaah, none of which were covered by CNN:

[Iraqi] MPs Optimist[sic] of Achieving Stability Soon
Numbers of police volunteers in Ramadi increased
16 Wanted Arrested

CNN's top story?

A journalist who saw videotape of the hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated. John F. Burns, from the New York Times, told CNN that Barzan Hassan al-Tikriti's head "just snapped off." He said both men looked "deeply frightened" in the execution chamber.

Which brings me full-circle. If you want to know what's important to the Iraqi people, ask the Iraqi people. Read Iraqi newspapers. Read Iraqi blogs. Don't ask the opinion of some Atlanta-based tourist with a media visa and a video camera.

It's Different on the Internet...

2007-01-14T18:32:00.000-05:00

The RIAA is at it again, and this year they've got Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) backing them up. Specifically, those are the sponsors of the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act" (PERFORM), which was introduced (and failed) in 2006 and re-introduced Thursday. (Last year it was only sponsored by Feinstein and Graham)

In a nutshell, the law requires satellite, cable music, and Internet broadcasters to "use reasonably available and economically reasonable technology to prevent music theft." It also would have the government responsible for determining the royalties paid to music companies for the use of music libraries over these media. It also requires all Internet, satellite, and cable broadcasters to incorporate DRM (digital rights management), that same technology that prevents some CDs from working in computers, lots of MP3s from working in certain MP3 players, and generally making it hard to put music in the form you want it. Note that Live365, Shoutcast, iTunes streaming, and the majority of small webcasters use MP3 or other non-DRM'ed technology to broadcast, meaning the majority of webcasters would have to develop new technology to comply with this bill.

Under current law, broadcasters cannot actively assist listeners in pirating music. They are required to use DRM, but only if the format they are using has DRM features. The changes put the FCC in the role of forcing broadcasters of digital music to adopt technologies that prevent consumers from copying (or time-shifting) broadcasted music.

Yes, it's illegal to pirate music, whether you do it via FM radio, satellite, or the Internet. However, under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Subchapter D, you can legally make analog or digital copies of broadcasts (time-shifting, or recording for later playback, has consistently been upheld as fair use by the Supreme Court). This bill changes that by making it illegal to copy digitally transmitted music, while still allowing analog music. Check out the EFF article about last year's version for more information.

Ironically, Senator Sununu (R-NH) has announced that he intends to introduce a bill that will prohibit the FCC from enacting technology mandates, such as the broadcast flag and other DRM-like technologies. Should such a bill pass, it would prevent the FCC from enforcing S.256.

It's really simple folks. Fair use is fair use, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about copying a broadcast to listen to it at a later date. There is something wrong about copying your favorite songs off the radio and creating a mix tape. Unfortunately there's no way to build a technology that allows one but prevents the other, because the intrinsic difference is intent of the end user. The government should not restrict freedoms of broadcasters to use the technologies they want, nor restrict the freedoms of individuals to exercise fair use rights, in an effort to prevent illegal pirating of music. And I'm sure everyone except the RIAA will agree the government has no business setting the royalty rates for music.

Write your Senator to complain about this one. Also, register at govtrack.us, an excellent website that allows you to research virtually any action by Congress. You can have daily updates sent to your inbox, showing all activities by certain representatives, on certain issues, or on certain bills. Or just see everything (but prepare for lengthy e-mails).

How to Get Free Airfare

2007-01-10T18:20:00.000-05:00

You're going to love this one. I hate to even write about it -- I want to tell you to just read the Washington Post article, then come back.

Okay, I know you didn't click on the link, so here goes:

Tommie Rice was arrested in Nashville for driving on a suspended license. When he was taken in, Tennessee police ran his name and saw that he was wanted for murder in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Although he insisted he'd never even been to Maryland, he was flown to Maryland to face trial.

Tommie Rice spent three weeks in jail, including Christmas and New Years, before anyone checked his fingerprints. Guess what? There's more than one person named Tommy Rice in America, and this wasn't the right guy.

Let's hear it for police that fly a suspect halfway across the country without even checking his story. Or even his fingerprints. Let's hear it for a three week imprisonment without evidence. And most importantly, let's here it for what Maryland finally did when they realized their mistake:

They drove him to a homeless shelter.

Since his release, Tommie Rice has been calling relatives trying to get them to lend him money for a flight home. In the meantime, Montgomery County Sheriff Kight has said he would "try" to get him home. "We definitely owe him a ride back to Tennessee and an apology," he said. Kind words for a man you held without evidence for three weeks, then dumped in an out-of-state homeless shelter.

You owe him more than an apology and a ride home. What's three weeks of your life worth to you? What would you do if you were imprisoned for three weeks because you shared a name with a murderer?

In any case, it's obvious what Tommie needs to do. Just wait until someone by the same name, living in Tennessee, commits a crime.

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide

2007-01-09T18:46:00.000-05:00

The U.S. government was derided for producing decks of cards with terrorists and wanted criminals, but those decks are long forgotten today. Why? Because most of the cards have big X's through them now. Strike another one up, possibly two.

Yesterday an AC-130 gunship rained fire and death down on terrorists fleeing from Somali and Ethiopian forces in Hayi and on an island training camp.

Today helicopters killed an estimated 30 terrorists hiding under foilage near Afmadow, about 30 miles from Hayi. There were reports the helicopters were American, but the military has denied operating the helicopters, which witnesses did not see any markings on.

Today's strike was aimed at Tariq Abdullah, aka Abu Talha al-Sudani, known as an explosive expert, Al Qaeda trainer, and planner for at least one terrorist attack against U.S. forces. Fazul Abdullah Mohammad, one of the two major planners of the twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was also reported to be killed. Both fatalities have yet to be confirmed, and will be difficult to confirm in the near future.

Who owned those helicopters? I don't know. It doesn't really matter, when you get down to it. Somalia and Ethiopia have both stated that they believe the best way to stablize the region is to eliminate terrorists as they find them. As a result, they are allowing U.S. forces the right to attack when and where we find them. America, Somalia, and Ethiopia are freely sharing intelligence on the location of terrorists, and whoever is best positioned to take advantage of the intelligence is doing so. Thus, the USS Eisenhower stationed off the Somalia coast.

The bottom line? Nevermind what the Democrats and Peacemongers are saying. America has not given up on chasing down terrorists and killing them. We're no longer in a target-rich environment, but key Al Qaeda leaders are continuing to die across the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia... everywhere they hide, they find enemies. Period.

Take My Children ... PLEASE!

2007-01-08T18:06:00.000-05:00

Sorry, no link for this, but this morning on the radio I heard some rather disturbing news. Legislators are planning to reintroduce a bill to help police stop underage drinking in Frederick County. Under current law, a police officer witnessing a minor in possession of an alcoholic beverage may arrest the minor for underage possession of alcohol. Additionally, an officer who witnesses a driving minor who appears to be under the influence of alcohol may arrest the same. The new law would allow an officer to detain a minor who simply appears to be acting as if under the influence of alcohol on suspicion of underage drinking. He could also force a breathalyzer test.

This bill was introduced last year and failed, as some opponents feared that this would grant too much power to the police. Well, of course it does! Most importantly, you're giving police the power to harass minors without evidence. Remember when Washington DC allowed DUI arrests based solely on the officer's judgement of intoxication? Before that law was finally changed, we saw numerous arrests and convictions for DUI of drivers with a BAC under 0.04, and one arrest of a driver who blew a 0.00 BAC at the scene. Give Maryland troopers the same authority, and you'll get the same results.

No standards exist to define at what point an officer can stop a minor and force a breathalyzer test. If an eighteen year old is jogging through the park and sees an attractive young lady, he may weave slightly as he is distracted. Can he now be tested for his erratic jogging? This law would give police the authority to perform an unreasonable search and seizure on a minor without justification or evidence except the officer's judgement.

I'm also curious as to what the minor would be charged with. In the vast majority of states, including Maryland, the consumption of alcohol while under the age of 21 is not a crime. Purchase, possession, and consumption prior to driving are, but consumption is not. Why? Because the law specifically allows immediate family members to provide alcohol to minors within their own homes. If you can convince your parents that you're mature enough to drink, you are home free. And yes, I know a great number of parents that do purchase beer and wine for their children in Maryland.

So, in a nutshell, Bob the 18 year old kid is going to prom. He's hired a limo, so he isn't driving. His libertarian parents split a bottle of champagne with him first, to celebrate his "growing up." Walking into the prom, a police officer decides to perform a breathalyzer on him, and finds he blows a 0.02. What's the charge? Drunk and disorderly? I don't get it.

You've all heard the argument that if you're old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to drink. Ironically, the majority of people I meet who agree with that statement feel that anyone in the military should be allowed to drink, while civilians should have to wait until they are twenty-one. You could do three full tours in Iraq before your twenty-first birthday. If you were mature enough to make that decision at eighteen, you were sure as hell mature enough to make a decision on a glass of beer. Even if you decided the military wasn't for you, surely you've now reach the point in life where you're responsible for your own actions?

Look, folks, don't any of you remember being twenty? Try to remember the first time you drank alcohol. How old were you? Did you do it in your own house with your parents? In college, maybe in a frat house?

The absolute best place to learn about alcohol is from your own parents. Your parents are there to teach you about life. This is why most states allow parents to provide alcohol to their children. If you do not teach your children about drinking, someone else will. Chances are that person will be a peer with no more experience that your kid. They're probably be influenced by movies showing severe intoxication. They'll probably purchase cheap flavorless beer and liquor, and consume it in great quantities.

I thank my parents for wisely introducing me to alcohol at an early age. Twelve, if you're counting. Of course, they closely monitored how much I drank, and I didn't even get a buzz on until I was sixteen. I was eighteen when I finally got drunk. Imagine that -- six years of experience appreciating alcohol before I first managed to get drunk.

The neo-prohibitionists want to outlaw responsible parenting. They think by delaying the consumption of alcohol as long as possible, they can remove it entirely from our culture. It's simply not true. What we're getting is a nation of closet drinking youth, afraid of any supervision while they explore adulthood.

My message to America is "Teach your children well." My message to the government is "Get out of our way. We're better than you at this."

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

2007-01-07T10:22:00.000-05:00

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

I'm back....

2007-01-06T13:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I've been missing for a few months. Nine, I think. I'm working full-time, and until recently, attending college as well, and it's been sucking up my free time. But I'm back now, hopefully for a good while.

The first thing I want to tell you about is a story I saw today on Reuters. This Tuesday, Wesley Autrey, 50, was waiting for a subway in NYC, just trying to get to work. He watched Cameron Hollopeter suffer from a seizure and fall onto the subway tracks, while a train was coming. Knowing that the convulsing man would be killed, Wesley jumped onto the tracks and held Cameron down so the train would pass safely overhead.

Safely overhead may be an exaggeration. Wesley was brushed by the train, getting grease and dirt on his clothes, yet he was unharmed. Cameron's life was saved by the extraordinary act of bravery Wesley committed. It's a great feel-good story, true. I was surprised to hear this happened in Harlem, of all places. I was amused to learn that Wesley's boss didn't believe his excuse for being late to work. But there is something else that Wesley did that caught my attention.

Mayor Michael Bloomburg gave Wesley the Bronze Medallion for exceptional citizenship and outstanding achievement, the first time it was been awarded since 2005. Bloomburg called Wesley a "real hero." Wesley Audrey responded by saying the real heroes were U.S. troops in Iraq.

Wesley, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean Mayor Bloomburg was wrong. Wesley Audrey is a hero, because he selflessly and knowingly risked his life to save another's. He's got a lot more in common with the U.S. troops than he realizes.

The Nanny State Has Arrived!

2006-04-04T20:00:00.000-04:00

Yes, we all already know Massachusetts is a bleeding liberal state. Some of you may already refer to it as the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Others, like me, just call it "Mass" because it's damn hard to pronounce.

This news article about mandatory health care, however, has me quivering with fear. Why? The Massachusetts legislature has overwhelmingly passed a bill that makes it mandatory to have health insurance. Mandatory. Yep, that's right, MANDATORY.

Hey, but health insurance is a good idea, right? I've got it. Chances are, you do too. Why would this be a bad thing? The law even provides for free insurance for the poor, with a sliding scale as people become more affluent. What could be more progressive than that?

How about protecting our freedoms, for a start? How can people be free, if they aren't free to make mistakes?

What's more, have you considered the wealthy? Bill Gates moves to Massachusetts, and he has to buy health insurance. Does anyone really believe Bill Gates can't afford his annual physical? No problem, says the law. Good ol' Bill won't rot in jail for refusing to buy health insurance. Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance. Say what? You're going to pay either way, but you get to decide if the money goes to a giant corporation, or the government. But I repeat myself.

There are two things that really bother me. The first is that the Senate passed this bill unanimously, and the House had only two dissenting votes. The second is that Massachusetts wants me to pay for it. The cost of this law, estimated at a billion dollars a year, is expected to be paid for primarily through federal funding....

Mothers Against Drinking

2006-03-24T17:21:00.000-05:00

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is out of control. Think they're only out there to stop drunk drivers? Not at all. Want to know MADD's official position on taxes?

MADD supports a prevention component to health care reform and supports a substantial increase in taxation on alcoholic beverages as a means of covering the cost to society caused by misuse of alcohol and as a means of supporting prevention programs including countermeasures to alcohol-impaired driving.

Okay, so they're tax & spend types, but other than that, they're OK, right? Hardly. Did you realize that MADD is lobbying for states to make Happy Hour illegal? Earlier closing hours in bars? How about some of their proposed rules for alcohol advertisements, which state no advertising shall:

Feature actors, models or other talent or characters under the age of 30
Be broadcast to audiences with less than 90% adult aged 21 and older viewership
Feature on-camera consumption
Use celebrities, music stars, athletes, animals, cartoon characters, or other language or images that appeal to youth
Depict sports, rock concerts, or other events with strong appeal to youth
Depict revelry or hint at the possibility of inebriation
Portray drinking in association with sexual passion, promiscuity, or any other amorous activity as a consequence of or in association with alcohol consumption
Disproportionately target ethnic minority communities

So just to be clear, the worst possible thing in the world to MADD would be a television ad showing a black music star having a good time with a beer in his hand, while talking to his girlfriend. If it were up to MADD, all alcohol advertisements would be black text on a white screen, stating simply: Please buy our product, just don't drink it.

MADD has become a Neo-Prohibitionist organization. Even the founder of MADD is on the record as stating "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned." Learn more at Neoprohibition.com, and try reading their excellent study on MADD. (PDF)

So what brings this rant on? The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to look for drunk patrons, and issuing citations and making arrests. That's right, arresting people for being drunk in a bar! MADD is fully supportive of this campaign, with a spokesman saying "Can you imagine if TABC had not stopped those people from leaving the bar, how many more drunk drivers we might have had on the road?"

Earth to MADD -- the officers weren't stopping anyone from leaving the bar, they were stopping them in the bar. Some of those drunks may have been planning to call a cab, or had a designated driver. But MADD isn't about stopping drunk driving -- they're about stopping drinking.

For the record, Fairfax county tried this about a year ago. It was covered in the Washington Post as well as in the Neo-prohibition study linked above. Enforcement died after a Washington Post article about a designated driver (!) who was told she had to "prove" she was sober while in the bar. The article stirred up enough controversy to stop police from arresting folks in bars, at least temporarily.

Church Says It Won't Break Laws, But Condemns Those Who Follow Them

2006-03-09T18:39:00.000-05:00

Westboro Baptist Church likes to protest at funerals. Pretty disgusting, huh? And what are they protesting? They're protesting against homosexuality. So you'd think they're protesting at the funerals of gay men who've died from AIDS, right? Pretty insensitive, right? No, Westboro Baptist, a small church in Kansas, travels around the country to protest at the funerals of American servicemembers killed in combat.

At least they're going to the funerals of gay servicemembers, right? No! This church is hijacking the funerals of proud servicemembers in order to promote their anti-gay agenda. Specifically, they're praising God for killing servicemembers for defending a country that allows homosexuality. Because you can legally have sex with another man, these people think God is killing our soldiers with IEDs as punishment.

I could talk about how it's not actually illegal to be gay in most countries, and how tenuous the relationship between a bomb placed in Iraq is to God's feelings on two men in San Francisco, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. Nor will I point out that the United Stated Armed Forces have got to be one of the most homosexual-intolerant institutions in the country.

Instead, I'll just point out a simple piece of advice. If the fact that people are free to live how they want bothers you, move out of our country. Many fine countries have far fewer freedoms and more governmental controls on personal behavior. May I recommend Saudi Arabia or Iran?

We're Watching You!

2006-01-28T19:06:00.000-05:00

I am now officially sick and tired of calls from Congressional leaders, non-profit groups, and mud-slinging politicians to investigate "President Bush's domestic spying program." Completely and utterly sick. So I'm going to set a few facts straight right here and now.

Firstly, next time a "key Congressional leader" protests this program, remember that all key Congressional leaders were repeatedly briefed on the specifics of the program. Anyone who claims they didn't know about it is either a lying bastard or just plain Ollie Northing the issue.

Secondly, previous Presidents, to include former President Clinton, have used the authority to initiate intelligence collection against entities within the United States without a court order. So when you hear Hillary spouting that it's illegal, keep that in mind.

Thirdly, it's not illegal. You may hear that the "wiretaps" were not in compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Yes. However, this post isn't in compliance with that Act either, and it's legal. That law doesn't apply in this case -- that doesn't mean the activity is illegal. This program has been approved by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General as well as literally hundreds of lawyers in various government agencies, and subjected to a review every ninety days to ensure that it has remained in compliance with the law. Even the Democrats admit that no law was broken, even as they bash President Bush for not staying within the confines of FISA.

Lastly, and most importantly, the program in question is not "domestic spying." Domestic communications are defined as communications originating and terminating within the United States. This is the same definition of domestic used for domestic flights, domestic mail, domestic commerce, etc. Domestic communications require a court order to be intercepted and analyzed.

The program in question allows the National Security Agency to intercept communications of a known terrorist, not within the United States, even if the terrorist contacts a person located within the boundaries of the United States. Under rules in effect prior to September 11th, if a known terrorist in Afghanistan placed a phone call to New York, the NSA could not intercept and process the phone call. The program in question does nothing more than to correct that.

This national security vulnerability was pointed out by the 9/11 Commission. They specifically criticized the intelligence community for not linking events in the United States to events overseas. What could possibly be more important to analyze than a phone call between a known terrorist and a person located within our borders? Yet prior to 9/11, such phone calls were "protected."

General Hayden was the director of the NSA when the program was established, and has since moved on to become the Deputy Director of National Intelligence. He spoke recently about this program, and I strongly urge everyone to read his speech. There is no one who knows this program better than General Hayden. For those who won't follow the link, I'll quote a few choice sections:

NSA has an existential problem. In order to protect American lives and liberties, it has to be two things: powerful in its capabilities, and secretive in its methods. And we exist in a political culture that distrusts two things most of all: power and secrecy.... Look, this is not unlike things that happened in other areas. Prior to September 11th, airline passengers were screened in one way. After September 11th, we changed how we screen passengers. In the same way, okay, although prior to September 11th certain communications weren't considered valuable intelligence, it became immediately clear after September 11th that intercepting and reporting these same communications were in fact critical to defending the homeland. Now let me make this point. These decisions were easily within my authorities as the director of NSA under and executive order; known as Executive Order 12333, that was signed in 1981, an executive order that has governed NSA for nearly a quarter century.... I testified in open session to the House Intel Committee in April of the year 2000. At the time, I created some looks of disbelief when I said that if Osama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, there were provisions of U.S. law that would kick in, offer him protections and affect how NSA could now cover him. At the time, I was just using this as some of sort of stark hypothetical; 17 months later, this is about life and death.... You know, the 9/11 commission criticized our ability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. In that light, there are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.... Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.... So let me make this clear. When you're talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications.... Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such....

God Says MLK Was Wrong

2006-01-16T20:23:00.000-05:00

New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (left in photo) spoke today about Martin Luther King, Jr. Before I tell you what he said of the great man, let me quote the most famous paragraph from his "I Have A Dream" speech:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

In summary, Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed that one day people would stop thinking in terms of black and white, and instead consider each person on his own individual merits.

Mayor Ray Nagin, who is black, spoke today to honor this great man, and to show how little of his dream has been accomplished. Let me quote his great speech, which does not rise to the caliber of MLK's epic prose:

It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans — the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be.

That's right. The mayor says white people need to move back North, because God wants black people to live in New Orleans. God obviously doesn't believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, because the first thing God thinks when he sees a white man in New Orleans is "Get that honky outta my city!" Hey, don't blame me. I didn't elect him.

Of course, God has told Ray Nagin much more than his opinions on white people living in the South. For example, God told Ray Nagin that he is a Democrat. This is fortunate, because Ray Nagin is also a Democrat. Allow me to quote his memorial speech once more:

Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country. Surely he doesn't approve of us being in Iraq under false pretenses.

This is the same mayor who said in an October town hall meeting "How do I make sure New Orleans is not overrun with Mexican workers?'" I guess God gave him the answer: only let blacks into the city.

The Point Of Freedom Is To Deny It To Those You Hate

2006-01-14T11:22:00.000-05:00

Has anyone been following the Gay Marriage Ban that has been progressing through Virginia? It looks like it will be put before voters in a referendum in November. Just to clarify, Virginia already bans same-sex marriages; this bill is intended to prevent couples married in other states from having any legal status in Virginia.

Supporters say they aren't trying to discriminate against homosexuals, but rather preserve marriage. I don't understand that. I'm not homosexual, and I'm married. Were homosexuals allowed to be married, I don't see how my family would fall apart. Nothing would change for anyone, except homosexuals. Why should I be against them enjoying the same legal benefits that I enjoy?

Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg) is one of the amendments main drivers. Tell me, does this sound like someone who has a good handle on their own lifestyle choices: "Marriage is much more than just two people sharing a committed relationship. By changing the definition of marriage, the family, too, would be redefined, ultimately destroying the traditional family. And if the traditional structure of family no longer matters, what is marriage for?" She is assuming that allowing two women to marry will mean that no women will marry or raise families. Wrong, Kathy, some of us are pretty confident that the human race will survive if people are allowed to choose who they have sex with.

The main opposition, strangely enough, isn't coming from those who support gay marriages. The opposition is coming from legislators afraid that straight couples in non-traditional relationships may be impacted. They worry the bill, which disallows any rights to unmarried non-family members, would impact unmarried couples right to make health care decisions, and even reduce protection to unmarried victims of domestic violence.

What's wrong with this picture? Opponents of the bill are saying they like the general idea, but they worry that straight people might be affected? Is there no one left who believes that each American should be free to pursue his own happiness, in his own way, without government interference? When can we finally kick Uncle Sam out of our bedrooms?

Phinky made an excellent point on Ignorant Hussy. In the aptly-named Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Virginia law prohibiting interracial couples who married in other states from living as husband and wife in Virginia. If I may quote from the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

If you don't see a relationship between this bit of history and the current debate, perhaps you should read up on the arguments used to support bans on interracial marriages in the last century.

Truth and Lies in E-mail

2006-01-03T17:44:00.000-05:00

I got one of those e-mails today that tried to justify staying in Iraq. While I agree that we should stay, I don't support the use of fuzzy math to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Here's the e-mail I received:

Subject: STATISTICS

Interesting thought for the day: - Gotta love the logic.

If you consider that there have been average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C

In God We Trust

(All typos from the original)

It doesn't take a genius to see this was rapidly thrown together by someone who didn't care to check statistics. The given numbers show not the firearm death rate for Iraq, but the overall death rate including accidents. Even then, if you do the division you'll find the stated numbers come out to 1320 per 100,000 over the 22 month period, or 720 per 100,000 over a one-year period.

Of course, it's not fair to add in the non-combat deaths, nor is it really fair to include deaths from the "major combat" phase of operations. After all, we're trying to compare the cost of supporting peace and democracy in Iraq, not the cost of the overall war. We can't change the past, but we can consider the future. So how many Soldiers are dying in Iraq from combat?

According to casualties.org, a mildly anti-war site, there have been 1,604 hostile deaths since the end of major combat, a period of 141 weeks (April 9th 2003 through Dec 17th 2005). And although the number of troops was higher during major combat, and there has been talk of increasing troops strengths back up, the baseline for US troops in Iraq has been 138,000. So, when I do the math I get a hostile death rate of 428.65 per 100,000 troops, per year.

You may have seen statistics that the DC area saw a record 466 homicides last year. Of course, that's the DC area -- Washington DC itself saw a slight decline last year, with only 194 homicides. With a population of 572,000, Washington has a homicide rate of 33.92 per 100,000 residents, per year.

Net result: Your odds of being shot during a one-year tour of duty in Iraq are approximately ten times your odds of being shot in Washington DC during the same time period. A man who lives in Washington DC his entire life, therefore, is far more likely to be killed than a Soldier who deploys to Iraq for a year.

Of course, we can fudge the numbers further if we get into squishy math. Most of the Soldiers deployed to Iraq are men, aged 18-25. The vast majority of homicides in DC are men in the same age group, but our death rate has factored in little children and old ladies. But I'm not trying to split hairs or reach a magic number. I just want to illustrate, without making up numbers, that Iraq is not the den of death that Zarqawi wants Americans to think it is. It's not Vietnam, where in 1968, the death rate was roughly 2894.74 per 100,000 Soldiers, per year.

Oh, and in case you think it's time to leave Washington, Marion Barry was robbed today, at gunpoint. What do you think he did? According to the Washington Post, this was his statement:

"To this young man who did this to me, I have no animosity," Barry said. "I don't even want you prosecuted. I love you. Give yourself up. Call the police. Let them know that you engage in these activities. I will do all to advocate non-prosecution."

A Year-End Look at the War

2005-12-31T13:49:00.000-05:00

I confess, I've been really bad this holiday season about posting regularly. And once again I'm about to cop out by just telling people to read someone else's work. Sorry, guys.

Logic Times has run some good analysis in the past, and the new post is no exception. It takes on many various arguments as to why the US is "losing" the war in Iraq, and demonstrates that compared to other wars, we are doing extraordinarily well. Case in point: It not only took many years to squash insurgent movements in Germany post-WW II, but Germany could not ratify a Constitution until 1949 -- twice the time it took Iraq to form a new government.

What really made me smile, however, was the choice of links to the analysis. A "Conservatives Start Here" link took one directly to the numbers, but a "Liberals Start Here" link took liberals to this preface which contained a few gems of its own. How about this one:

Americans historically have not been concerned when Iraqi civilians die. You may be the exception, but it is unlikely. Between 700,000 and 1,000,000 civilians died between 1979 and 2003 and, if you are a typical American, you were unaware of this or lightly concerned. Keep this reality in mind when reading.

It's a great point that bears repeating: More Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam's government than in fighting post-liberation.

In any case, on to the analysis. Read and enjoy!

FBI Monitors US for Radiation

2005-12-29T18:16:00.000-05:00

Faced with angry complaints, U.S. officials defended an anti-terrorism program yesterday that secretly tested radiation levels around the country... Angry complaints? Why would anyone be upset to learn that the FBI had been monitoring radiation levels, in order to detect any radioactive material that could be used in a dirty bomb?

Because among the list of sites monitored, which included airports, government buildings, businesses, and warehouses, were a number of mosques.

Virtually every attack carried out by Islamic terrorists can be traced to a mosque at some point. Why? Because they're Islamic terrorists. If there were a serious danger of clowns detonating dirty bombs, I'd expect the FBI to start nosing around circuses, too.

An unnamed official who spoke to a reporter about it (Washington Post article) said "now it sounds like a crazy thing. But at the time it didn't sound like a very crazy thing." Hey Jack, I don't think it's a crazy thing. The nice thing about detecting radiation is that it carries out from the source, so it can be detected at a distance, e.g., the street. And since radiation is in itself dangerous, the FBI has a legitimate interest in detecting it on public property, even if there's no reason to suspect a dirty bomb is being built. And since Usama bin Laden has declared that he wants to destroy America, and we know he's expressed interest in dirty bombs... I only have one question:

Why was this program stopped in 2003?

Judge Rules Against Religion in School

2005-12-20T18:36:00.000-05:00

The closely-watched trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, is finally over -- and hopefully the precedent will carry over to similar trials in Kansas and Georgia. Calling the case an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources," U.S. District Judge John Jones delivered a 139-page opinion that leaves little room for doubt:

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute reacted with this quote: "The judge thinks intelligent design is a supernatural explanation, but it clearly is not. So the entire decision is predicated on a false perception of intelligent design."

American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines supernatural as:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.

A force that cannot be explained by natural laws would be supernatural. A force that "guides" life without using laws of science would be supernatural. An omnipotent being would be a deity, and thus supernatural. Any being with infinite intelligence would wield divine power and be supernatural. And a being, unobservable by any scientific means, that can make things happen in violation of the laws of science, would be miraculous, and -- you guessed it -- supernatural.

Science class is supposed to teach natural science. That's what it's for. Honestly, I don't object to the teaching of religious concepts in a religious elective in public school. Nor would I object to comparative religion being a mandatory class. I only object to the idea that we should accept religion as being "science," when in fact it doesn't follow any established guidelines for science.

And for those who think that the judicial branch is ignoring the will of the people, recall that all but one of the board members who voted to require the teaching of intelligent design were ousted in the subsequent election. The new board has no plans to appeal or attempt to re-implement the policy.

William Buckingham, who introduced the policy before being voted out of office, said "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state."

He's right. The Constitution does not require a separation between Church and State. It does, however, prohibit the government from establishing an official religion. Not an official sect, but an official religion. Monotheism, which Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as, is a religion. I sure hope Bill Buck is reading this.

For Once, Let's Listen To The Liberals

2005-12-07T20:41:00.000-05:00

The entire world has been riveted to the tragic story of four peace activists who have been captured in Iraq. No, I tell I lie. Jesse Jackson and Gerhard Schroeder have completely failed to drum up sympathy for these members of Christian Peacemaker Teams who have been captured in Iraq.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the US government, British government, and the Canadian government all stand fast in agreement that negotiating with terrorists is out of the question. If you reward terrorists, you give them both the incentive and means to conduct further attacks. One must only look to the coast of Somalia to see this feedback loop in action today.

So the terrorists (and their captives) were undoubtedly heartbroken to learn that the US would not be released hundreds of known terrorists, criminals, and hostage-takers in exchange for these four activists. In retaliation, they did the worst possible thing they could do to us: Extend the deadline.

Can you believe the gall of a terrorist, to kidnap protestors who agree with them, and threaten to kill them if we don't do what the victims demand? On a "hostage video," on of the hostages declared "I ask Mr. Blair to take British troops out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to come to their own decisions." Another stated in the video "As a representative of Christian Peacemaker Teams, we feel that continued American and British occupation is not in the best interest of the Iraqi people."

We're not occupying a country, as I pointed out in a previous post. It's not called occupation when a democractically elected government requests your presence. And if you want to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, you support democracy, not terrorism.

Maybe I'm just a cold hearted asshole, but I'm willing to make an exception for these four morons. Let's show them exactly what life will be like if they get what want. Let's make no attempts to rescue them, or to attack their captors.

Be careful what you wish for, for you walk amongst snakes while cursing the boot salesman.

The Truth Behind the Numbers

2005-12-06T21:12:00.000-05:00

It's not often that I blatently steal another blog's thunder, but every now and then a blog posts something so important that I need to ensure every reader of my blog has seen it too. This is one of those cases.

You've undoubtedly heard numbers touting the high level of civilian casualities the US "occupation" force has inflicted on Iraq? I use parens, because as my last blog entry pointed out, the sovereign elected government has requested that US Forces remain in country.

Those numbers are fake. There's just no way around it. The Iraq Body Count Project proclaimed recently that 24,865 civilians have been killed in Iraq. The project very carefully documented each death, rather than pulling numbers out of a hat. However, the characterization of these deaths as "civilian" is misleading. Eighty-one percent of the "victims" of US occupation are male, and over ninety percent are adults. Stray bullets and stray bombs hit men and women, adults and children alike. In a country with nearly fifty percent women and nearly forty-five percent children, these statistics reveal a telling truth -- not all "civilians" are random people.

In a war where only one side wears uniforms, but "victims" are primarily young adult males, one is forced to venture forth some theories. I'll leave the explanation of these numbers as an exercise for the reader, but you can hear some good ones here, which happens to be the site (Logic Times) I'm hoping everyone visits and reads.

Want something more to think about? Even if these civilian casualties are the fault of US Forces, it doesn't matter. Why not? Because fewer Iraqis are dying today than died under Saddam's rule. The numbers don't lie, do they?

Guess The Headline

2005-12-05T18:02:00.000-05:00

Each of these facts was presented by Iraq Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer, an elected representative of the Iraqi people, at a press conference. Can you guess which was used to title the AP article that described the conference?

Iraqi Vice President insists that the Iraqi people need US forces to protect them from terrorists.
Iraqi Vice President dismisses calls for a withdrawal timeline, saying "I wish it were that simple."
Iraqi Vice President asks US military to monitor polling sites to ensure fair voting.
Iraqi Vice President says UN ineffective, asks US to take over UN duties

The correct answer? None of the above. AP chose to the this story with the headline "Training of Iraq Forces Suffers Setback."

I know what you're thinking. Of course Yawer wants the US to stay. He's a Shia Muslim that's finally been able to take control of the government with the help of the US. If we leave, Sunnis will overthrow the government and he'll be back on the street. Nope, Yawer is a Sunni Muslim, who advocates peace and secular politics. Despite being a Sunni Muslim, he's no fan of Saddam Hussein. The "setback" he referred to? Some of the newly trained Iraqi forces are using Saddam-era tactics, indicating it will take longer than expected to develop an army that fights fair, with minimal damage to civilians.

Come on, AP. How hard is it to write a headline that isn't full of negative spin? If you wanted to say Yawer disagreed with Bush's assertations that the Iraqi forces are growing strong, what was wrong with "Iraqi Vice President Asks US Not to Withdraw Troops"? A headline like that might convince people that staying the course is the right thing to do. A "setback," on the other hand, sounds like something bad is happening -- and maybe we should pull out.

Iraq is a sovereign nation ruled by an elected government. Since when has America turned a blind eye to free democracies asking for help from terrorists and those who wish to build dictatorships? Regardless of why we went to Iraq, it is our duty to protect freedom and democracy, wherever it grows.

AP Reports Good News (but backtracks in the article)

2005-12-01T18:59:00.000-05:00

Suicide Bombings in Iraq Show Decline

Suicide bombings fell in November to their lowest level in seven months. Yet the AP noting this fact felt the need to talk about the continued deaths, going so far as to specifically mention a US Soldier that died in a car crash in Iraq yesterday.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw an article in the US press that seemed optimistic about progress in Iraq? One that could be, by some stretch of the imagination, called "positive"?

The US is under attack for paying Iraqi media outlets to carry information provided by US troops. Information, not misinformation. We're talking about subsidizing media for printing the truth, not bribing papers to print lies. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with that. In fact, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement back home, too.

Who's for it? I'd pay a little extra tax money to provide funds to get CNN and Fox News to show all the facts, not just the ones that support their agenda. Is there a law against that? Not that I'm aware of, although our media apparently thinks it's wrong.

You can't pay a paper to print a good story, but they'll carry Zarqawi's propaganda and lies for free. God bless the "free" press, as long as they're on your side.

Want another look at Iraq? Kevin Sites writes about a museum erected in Sulaymaniyah by Iraqi Burds, who want to ensure their children remember what they were forced to live through before America freed them. Does anyone else remember the Anfal campaign, in which 182.000 Kurds were killed? I wish we could send Americans to that museum...

A Marine reports from Iraq

2005-11-22T17:41:00.000-05:00

This article was in the Washington Post today. There's really no need to elaborate on it. I really don't like to repost entire articles; I prefer to post a link and write up my own commentary on them, but I want to ensure everyone reads this piece. Our Marines are on the ground, kicking ass and taking names, and they don't understand why the press keeps saying we're losing the war. Supporting our troops does not mean bringing them home so they can live in fear of terrorists, it means giving them what they need to win. This article talks about what they really need:

A Marine reports from Iraq

TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By An anonymous Marine
November 22, 2005

Editor's note: There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine. We've withheld the Marine's name and his father's to spare them the inevitable political or institutional flap. Among the most interesting tidbits: Our Marine reports that servicemen are shocked at negative press coverage of the war, and they believe the United States is winning decisively -- but that the number of troops in the field should be bolstered. On equipment, our Marine thinks the older, battle-tested parts of the U.S. arsenal are the most useful equipment in the fight against insurgents. M-16s aren't much good, but "Ma Deuce" is, and the .45 pistol is highly coveted. Body armor has plusses and minuses.

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son... [He] spent seven months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi, a.k.a. "Fort Apache." He saw and did a lot. The following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous information which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions.
• The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the sand over there, which is like talcum powder. The sand is everywhere. You feel filthy two minutes after a shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it also has jamming problems. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cannot be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
• The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon) .223 cal: Big thumbs down. Drum-fed light machine gun. Universally considered a piece of s***. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. That's fun in the middle of a firefight.
• The M9 Beretta 9mm: mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in a desert environment, but everyone hates the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys get hit multiple times but are still in the fight.
• Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well and is used frequently for clearing houses, to good effect.
• The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal belt-fed machine gun: Thumbs up. Developed to replace the old M-60 -- what a beautiful weapon that was -- it is accurate, reliable and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle-mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
• The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight-stopper, puts their d**** in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
• The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, it can reliably be expected to put 'em down with a torso hit. The special-ops guys -- who are doing most of the pistol work -- use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
• The M-14: Thumbs up. It is being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special-ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low-power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and people love the 7.62 round.
• The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers -- we actually stop a lot of them -- and barricaded enemies. Definitely here to stay.
• The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been using them heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with over 100.
• The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approximately six pounds and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as s*** to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat, which averages over 120 degrees. Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to improvised-explosive devices was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.
• Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more of the enemy are being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.
• Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon-mounted and personal lights are Surefires, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for night urban operations. [Name redacted] carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it.

I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old. With all our technology, it's the World War II- and Vietnam-era weapons that everybody wants. The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.
Bad guy weapons:
• Mostly AK47s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt-fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like s***. Undisciplined "spray and pray"-type fire. However, precision weapons are more and more common, especially sniper rifles. Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let's just say they know better now.
• The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.
• The improvised-explosive device: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jerry-rigged artillery shells. A lot found in [name redacted]'s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take two or three 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank.
Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated "shape charges" (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready-made IEDs are supplied by Iran, the country which is also providing terrorists, Hezbollah types, to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray-painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40 percent before they detonate. The bomb-disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.
• Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet-era 122mm rockets, with a range of 18 kilometers, are becoming more prevalent. One of [name redacted]'s NCOs lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage "inside the wire." [Name redacted]'s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (it worked). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds and then haul *** in a matter of seconds.
Bad guy technology is simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones and also by email on laptops. They use handheld Global Positioning System units for navigation and "Google Earth" for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is top of the line. Night vision is rare.
They are very careless with their equipment, however, and the captured GPS units and laptops are intelligence treasure troves when captured.
Who are the bad guys? Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province -- Fallujah and Ramadi. These are mostly "foreigners," that is, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab jihadists from all over the Muslim world and Europe. Most enter Iraq through Syria -- with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian government -- and then travel down the "rat line" which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we've been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young jihadists who end up as suicide bombers or are used in "sacrifice squads."
Most, however, are hard-core terrorists from all the usual suspects -- al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens, many of whom are Caucasian, are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired and led Iraqi Shi'ites. The Iranian Shia have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local government, police and army. Since the early 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, they have had a massive spy and agitator network there. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.
Bad guy tactics: When the enemy is engaged on an infantry level they get their a**** kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice eight-to-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AKs and RPGs directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time -- see the M2 and M240 above. [Name redacted]'s base was hit like this often. When engaged, the enemy has a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that's the end of that, more often than not.
These hole-ups are referred to as "Alpha Whiskey Romeos" ("Allah's Waiting Room"). We have the laser-guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18s, are taking an ever-increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45,000 and 50,000. That is why we're seeing fewer and fewer infantry attacks and more improvised-explosive devices, suicide bomber s***. The new strategy is simple: attrition.
The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties, so therefore schools, hospitals and especially mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi government. Kidnapping of family members, especially children, is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cannot otherwise reach, such as local government officials, clerics or tribal leaders, etc.
The first thing our guys are told is, "don't get captured." They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the Internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman.
This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don't give a s*** about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.
The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***.
Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.
According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.
For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there.
That's it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

Military Recruiting and Evidence of WMDs

2005-11-17T18:28:00.000-05:00

Once again I apologize. I've been remiss in keeping the blog current. I'm only one person, and I expect work conditions to keep me in this semi-blogging state probably through the holidays. In the meantime, I'll try to get one or two posts a week up, and if any non-bloggers out there have any good original material, send it my way and I'll see if I can't fill some gaps.

The first thing I want to mention today is Colin Powell. He's apologized for his speech in the UN. NewsMax asked a very good question, though -- why has everyone forgotten the actual evidence he presented? Does no one else remember the audio tape of a base commander freaking out because inspectors were coming to his base, and he still had some evidence? If not, the link above has a transcript.

The second thing I want to mention is an article entitled Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11. I hate the title, personally -- it should be "Who Carries the Torch?" or something a little more reflective of the debt we owe those who protect our nation. The upshot of the article is that despite liberal assertations to the contrary, the military is not feeding off the poor and underprivileged. Military recruits come from all walks of life, but are slightly skewed towards the wealthier end of the scale. Since 9/11, the average recruit is better educated and better off than before.

What does this mean? It means that despite a few angry personnel mouthing off in the MSM, the majority of our Soldiers and Sailors joined not out of necessity, but out of desire to serve. They believe in America, they believe in our country, and they believe in our elected leaders. They don't feel they're being let down, as liberals claim, but rather that they are backing us up.

This Week in Iraq

2005-11-13T15:49:00.000-05:00

Busy week for me here, so I haven't had as much time to do research as I'd like. That seems to be turning into a tradition here, but I'll do my best.

We've seen construction start on a number of water and sanitation projects in Iraq this week: a new sewer in Baghdad (11/8), some water compact units in Baghdad (11/11), and a new water transmission main in Fallujah (11/13). Work also completed on a water network project in Baghdad (11/10), and a new electricity network in Baghdad (11/9).

Many of these projects are now being done with local labor, which improves the economy and raises employment rates. The picture to the left shows Iraqi residents repairing their own electric lines, work that used to be done by US contractors. There's a good article about this here. The CENTCOM newsletter also listed a bunch of other signs of progress this week, but I can't provide any more detail on these:

Fifty-eight teachers, supervisors, and administrators attend training to improve teaching methods.
The Model Schools training program shows continued success in preparing secondary school teachers.
Iraq Transition Initiative (ITI) grant provides for the rehabilitation of a local road, employing 60 local residents.
ITI helps expand a non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on promoting gender equality and combating the physical abuse of women.
A community center in northern Iraq, established to assist returning refugees, receives help in facilitating a training series.
Construction continues on the library and student center for a university in the Wassit governorate.
Universities discuss Centers for Excellence (CFE) to increase cross cultural understanding.
Reconstruction of primary school in Qadissiyah completed.
Work continues on Al-Sadder Stadium.
Internet center in Wassit benefits Persons with Disabilities (PWD).

I'm hearing increasing reports of local support for terrorists diminishing within Iraq, and even cases of factional fighting between terrorist groups. Last year, after the elections, the terrorists suffered from a loss of support. Now, with elections approaching again, it appears they will suffer even more as Sunnis seem ready to vote in large numbers.

More News About Jordan

2005-11-11T20:48:00.000-05:00

Moustafa Akkad and his daughter died in the Amman terrorist attacks. Don't recognize his name? Sounds like another terrorist to you? Akkad was born in Aleppo, but immigrated to Los Angeles and become a filmmaker. He was responsible, among other films, for all eight Halloween horror flicks. Just thought you should know that. The Lebanese Daily Star carried the story here.

So the Washington Post carried an article today about Washington area Muslims mourning relatives lost in the attacks. Apparently two attendees of the Falls Church Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center lost a combined 17 relatives. Sheikh Shaker Elsayed decried "...this senseless act -- people who did nothing but go about celebrating the wedding of their son and daughter." He also said that Islam does not condone the killing of innocents.

What a nice man, and right here in our own backyard, too.

I could have swore I'd heard that name before. Shaker Elsayed used to be the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society. I wasn't surprised when The Counterterrorism Blog told me in this article why the name Sheikh Shaker Elsayed sounded familiar. Let me quote his speeches when he isn't comforting relatives of those who died in terrorist attacks:

"...about the subject unfairly named suicide bomber, homicide bomber, murderers, or killers. Our answer to this issue is simple... The Islamic scholars said whenever there is an attack on an Islamic state or occupation, or the honor of the Muslims has been violated, the Jihad is a must for everyone, a child, a lady and a man. They have to make Jihad with every tool that they can get in their hand. Anything that they can get in their hand and if they don't have anything in their hand then they can fight with their hand without weapons..."

"We say to the Palestinian people, 'Go ahead. Continue your fight against occupation no matter what name they give you because we give you the name of courageous people who stand for the rights and we're standing with you.' ...My name is Shaker Elsayed ... I'm the Secretary General of the Muslim American Society."

Heck, one only has to look at his perverted view on the US and Iraq, including the bizarre belief that the US ordered Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait so that we could drove him out in order to justify our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. It's clear this man sees the world through blood-colored glasses.

So what's my point? We've got a rat in our own backyard, encouraging terrorism. Suddenly his good friends and followers come up and tell them they lost close relatives in a terrorist attack, and now he says Zarqawi was wrong. Wrong for hurting his friends, that is -- he should have concentrated on American troops and Israelis. You gotta love that hypocrisy.

Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

2005-11-10T20:13:00.000-05:00

I'm coming late to this topic (I've been overworked and unable to post for awhile now), but I couldn't let this one slip by. Thousands of protestors took to the streets in Jordan, denouncing Al Qaeda, and specifically the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This fits in nicely with my last post about Moroccan protests against Al Qaeda. The difference? Western media covered this one. (AP, CNN, USA Today)

Interestingly, of that list none mentioned that Zarqawi was born in Jordan. Also, while some mentioned the protests occurred across the country, none mentioned the specific cities of Zarqa (Zarqawi's birthplace), Aqaba (the site of the last terrorist attack in Jordan), and Maan (considered the most fundamentalist of Jordanian cities). Al Jazeera did cover that, and more. They were also the only major press outlet to post pictures of the protests.

Bloggers have been covering this very well, as you can see in this partial list:

Why the increased coverage of this protest, and none at all of the Moroccan protests? Perhaps it's because Jordan has historically allied itself with the US. Jordan was a bigger supporter of the US invasion of Iraq than, say, France... and the western news consistently fails to even mention the rioters in France are Muslim. It appears as if the media is content to draw false images of the world as they want to perceive it.

Reading the news, one could draw the following conclusions:

The French poor are rioting because France's socialistic system has failed to take care of them. Reality: Muslims in France are attempting to establish autonomous ghettos where they will be able to self-rule under Sharia law, thus allowing Wahhabist sanctuaries in Europe.
Iraqi's have attacked Jordan because Jordan supported the invasion of Iraq. Reality: Very few suicide bombers are Iraqi. The hotel bombings were orchestrated and prepared in Iraq, by a Jordanian, and conducted by non-Iraqi citizens.
The majority of Sunni Muslims support Al Qaeda. Reality: Nearly one hundred percent of Jordanians are Sunnis. Across the Middle East, there is no country in which the majority of Muslims, much less Sunnis, support Al Qaeda.

I'd go on, but I'm running low on time and energy. I can only continue to ask that readers continue to look beyond the MSM for news and perspective on world events.

Riots in Morocco

2005-11-08T15:44:00.000-05:00

Large-Scale Riots in Morocco

Another day, another riot where thousands pour in the streets, chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel!", and generally being a pain in the neck, right? No, not at all. Fortunately, there are millions of Muslims in the world who understand that death and destruction are wrong, and that freedom and liberty are rights. This picture shows them protesting against Al Qaeda. Betcha didn't see that on CNN, did you? As of today, searching CNN.com's website produces no mention of them, but they did cover a Moroccan sports story from the same day! Oddly enough, the AP and Reutuers did release it, but the MSM hasn't picked it up yet.

Once again, a hat tip to Al Jazeera for covering this story that the western press is afraid to touch. Also, the Lebanese Daily Star and the Iraqi Al Mendhar covered the story well.

After two Moroccans were kidnapped and sentanced to death by Al Qaeda in Iraq, Moroccans have become inflamed. Morocco has been supportive of the new Iraqi government, and the Iraqi people. In a speech that I felt echoed some of President Bush's comments, Moroccan Foreign Ministry said its embassy would not succumb to "blackmail," particularly "coming from a terrorist group which cannot claim to represent Iraq."

Funny how Moroccans in France violently riot, trying to gain the right to enforce Sharia law within the ghettoes, while Moroccans in Morocco peacefully demonstrate against violence.

Good comments on these protests are over at Hyscience, Gateway Pundit, In the Bullpen, and Officers Club. Check them all out.

This Week in Iraq

2005-11-06T14:23:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know, I'm late. I apologize, but I've been very busy. Still, here's some news from Iraq for the last week.

Omar has some great pictures of a family amusement park built by Americans to give Iraqi families something to enjoy. Check out his blog entry to see more photos like the one here. Samawa is the MSM's darling city of death and destruction; if you listen to them, there is nothing in the city but terrorists trying to kill Americans. These photos show the side of the majority, ordinary people who want to enjoy life.

I'd also like to point out this week saw a wave of major infrastructure projects beginning work. Construction began on a new sewer system in Mosul (11/1). Also new water systems in Al Dayer (11/2), Karadah (11/3), and Kirkuk (11/6). A new substation feeder broke ground in Altrush as well (11/4).

On a humor note, I'd like to also draw your attention to two terrorists in Baghdad who were assembling a car bomb when it detonated. In America, we teach children not to make homemade explosives. If only that message were taught around the world....

In somewhat related news, Project Valor-IT is trying to raise money to purchase voice-activated laptops for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines with hand or arm injuries. It's being run as a competition between supporters of each of the service (as of writing Navy is winning). To donate, go to this link and support your troops.

Lastly, I want to show the dedication that our troops have to defending our freedom. Roderick Evans was at home when a recruiter stopped by to talk to his son. Inspired by the recruiter, Roderick said he wanted to join as well. Unfortunately, at 418 pounds, Roderick was too heavy to walk a block, much less fight a war. To join, he began a workout regimen that caused him to lose 230 pounds. He's now a private in the Reserves, undergoing combat medical training. For more information (and photographs) of this amazing story, click here.

Democrats Reject Free Speech

2005-11-04T21:12:00.000-05:00

If you've been following campaign finance reform at all (and you should), then you probably know that the courts ruled public communications to include the Internet. This means that any speech on the Internet endorsing or disparaging a candidate or political party in an election would be considered regulated campaign contributions. In other words, every blogger in America who posted opinions on an election should add the cost of the endorsement (computer, blogging service, bandwidth, etc.) and count that as a campaign contribution. Campaigns should also track these contributions to ensure they don't exceed any limits.

I'm against Campaign Finance Reform in general. Every time I see it, its invariably a proposal to limit speech somehow. When the courts determined that the most recent law applied to the Internet, it had the effect of legally regulating speech by individuals so far as to effectively prohibit it.

HR Bill 1606 was introduced to plug that gap. Specifically, it states:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

A very simple bill that shouldn't generate any opposition, right? Representative Hensarling (TX-5) didn't think so, and he brought the bill to a vote on a motion to suspend the rules. This is typically done for bills that are so noncontroversial that normal procedures are pointless; instead a vote is brought out immediately. To prevent abuse, bills brought forward under this motion require a two-thirds majority to pass. Clear so far?

The bill didn't pass. Click here for a XML breakout of who voted what, or here for some basic analysis include a colored map of the nation. The vote was roughly along party lines, with 82% of Republicans voting Aye, and 24% of Democrats doing the same. Totals were 225 Aye, 182 Nay, 26 Not Voting. While that's a majority, it didn't meet the higher requirements brought forth by suspending the rules.

Representative Martha Blackburn has some thoughts on why it didn't pass, and Matt Johnston has some more at his blog. But both missed the underlying reason -- the majority of the liberal left oppose free speech. Rather than allowing a free discourse of ideas, they believe that Americans should be feed a healthy mixture of approved ideas. Let the public be educated by the government; don't let the public experiment with the government.

Don't believe it? Just look to California, where Gov. Schwarzenegger has put Proposition 75 up for a referendum on November 8th. This law, if passed, would prohibit unions of public employees from spending dues on contributions to political parties and candidates. A quick trip to the liberal Alliance for a Better California will list many reasons why this bill is bad:

Supporters of Prop. 75 aren’t for workers rights. They’re using that argument as a smokescreen to push their real agenda. They’re against the minimum wage, against strengthening employee health care and against the eight-hour work day. And they support cuts to education, health care and oppose retirement security.

Nevermind that none of that is mentioned in the bill. The Alliance does post the real reason they oppose Proposition 75: "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care and public safety, effectively clearing the opposition to the Governor’s education and health care cuts." It's not about education or health care cuts; those are scare tactics to motivate voters. It's the first phrase -- "Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond..."

Yes, Proposition 75 forces the public to do the actual thinking and voting. Democrats prefer a system where the union forces the public to hand over cash in dues in order to keep their jobs. The union then distributes that money to political causes that it believes are right. What makes Proposition 75 such a good idea is that it specifically targets public employees. Did you realize that many state government employees, as a condition of employment, must pay union dues -- and then watch as the union passes that money directly to the Democratic party?

The good news? Polls show a majority of Californians oppose Porposition 75. And HR 1606 is not dead. Now that it failed to bypass the rules, it can still be considered as a conventional bill. This is a stumbling block, but a minor one. With a majority of representatives in favor, it stands a very good chance of passing. Improve that chance by writing your representative and senator today! Also, check out EFF's resources for bloggers, and blogging freedom.

What the Press Won't Tell You

2005-11-03T21:40:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin writes in a wonderful piece entitled "All the news that's fit to omit" about a New York Times article opining about the 2,000 casualty in Iraq (link here, but you have to pay). Let me start by saying that the article failed to alert readers to the fact that nearly a quarter of those deaths were not combat related. I don't know why 1,588 combat fatalities is a "grim milestone," but I'll grant the NY Times that license to embellish.

What bothers me is that the article focuses on a single soldier, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, who died April 30th in Ramadi. Note that Cpl Starr wasn't the 2,000 soldier to die, rather, he died months ago. He was chosen out of all the soldiers who perished in Iraq, to symbolize the cost of the war. The title of the piece? THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: THE FATALITIES; 2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark

Allow me to quote from the article:

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."

Is it just me, or does it sound like this young man was disillusioned, upset at being in Iraq, and fearful for his own life? One is left wondering why he was willing to go to Iraq three times with that attitude. Lest I leave you with the impression that this hero of our country was anything less than that, allow me to quote a little more of the letter, not published by the New York Times:

Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.

The American public needs to know the Cpl Jeffrey Starr did not die following orders he did not understand. He did not die fighting for a cause he didn't believe in. Cpl Starr died because he felt it was his duty to allow people all around the world to enjoy the same freedoms he enjoyed at home. He found for his country, and the Iraqi country. He knew the risks, and accepted them freely without hesitation or reservation. The New York Times has no right to take that away from him, and turn him into a symbol for peace at any cost.

In lighter local news, the Washington Post reports that Mayor Anthony Williams has changed his mind and signed the emergency DUI law. It's obvious that he did so in order to attempt to preserve some kind of high ground for a compromise law that, while not setting the legal limit as ridiculously low as before, would still have DC presuming intoxication at levels every other state in the nation recognizes as generally safe. This is at best a half-victory; it means the police harassment of innocent people will abate for the time being, but everyone needs to write their councilmen and Mayor Williams and tell them the only acceptable law is one in line with the rest of the nation.

And click on the news article scan, it's worth reading. Trust me.

More News on Iran

2005-11-02T11:53:00.000-05:00

Where to start? With Iran trying to minimize the hatemongering spewing from their "elected" leader, the last thing they need is further evidence that they are providing weapons to the terrorists in Iraq. However, it appears the British have found such. Hyscience has the story here.

You would think that this kind of news would put a damper on Iran's attempts at hegemony, right? Not on the anniversary of the 1979 embassy takeover, where over 10,000 demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" outside the former compound (news story).

Well, if Iran is going to be confrontational, then at least we ought to be preparing for war with them, right? Not so, claims Iran, which declared its intention to resume uranium production "for peaceful purposes." (news story) Iran has already produced enough uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon, but apparently it screwed up. The uranium is too impure to convert to UF6, which is needed to enrich uranium into the state required for a nuclear weapon. So, as the old adage goes, "try, try again."

So Iran is arming terrorists, chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!", threatening countries with extinction, and would like, pretty please may I, to enrich uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Dream on, Ahmadinejad. Stay the course, President Bush.

In other news, Paulieworld is carrying two new letters from the front. Well worth reading!

UNSC Passes Syrian Resolution

2005-10-31T14:21:00.000-05:00

I'm pleasantly surprised that the UN managed to unanimously pass a resolution calling for Syrian cooperation with the independent investigation of Hariri's assassination. Among the provisions is a required that Syrian arrest anyone the probe deems a suspect, and to allow the investigators to question them in any location they choose. Direct threats of sanctions were removed to obtain a unanimous vote, but since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII, it is legally enforceable by military means.

The most disturbing part of the news is another section of the resolution dropped out of the final wording. In order to obtain Russian and Chinese support, the sponsors removed the wording appealing Syria to cease support for "all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups." Why would any country oppose that plea?

Because China and Russia know that Syria won't like cooperating with the investigation, but they will. They also know that Syria is about as likely to become the 51st State as cease supporting terrorism. Passing a resolution requiring Syria to stop supporting terrorism is an automatic approval for action e.g., sanctions, against Syria, a major trading partner with both countries.

But hey, we can accept a little terrorism as long as our trade goods keep flowing. Especially if the terrorism is directed against Israelis and US troops.

News links here and here.

Postnote: Mohammed has a wonderful post on the subject here, and I highly encourage you to read it if you haven't already.

This Week in Iraq

2005-10-29T13:10:00.000-04:00

This week in Iraq has seen quite a bit of good news that missed the media spotlight. First, I'd like to congratulate the San Francisco Chronicle for having the courage to report on MAJ Steve Warren, and how he feels about the Western coverage of Iraq. In this article, MAJ Warren says that he watches American TV reports from Iraq, "and I ask myself, 'where are they?'"

MAJ Warren is in Diyala, part of the Sunni Triangle. He had a translator listening to a local radio talk show, where Sunnis complained of the US troops' presence. But they also complained about the trash on the streets. Knowing that soldiers are training from boot camp to be as clean as possible, he saw a solution. The troops bought garbage trucks and cleaned the city up, literally. Now instead of complaining about the Americans, the Baquba residents complain about schools and unemployment. Progress is being made, thanks to heroes like MAJ Steve Warren and his men.

Chad Evans from In The Bullpen posted an entry yesterday about the US troops reducing their presence. I think it's too early to significant withdrawal -- there is much left to be done. Nevertheless, we have been cutting back. Since February, the US has either closed or transferred to the Iraqi military ten bases in Iraq. Next month we'll be turning over Saddam's presidential palaces to the Iraqi government.

In other news,

Two generators installed at water treatment facilities in Baghdad (10/24) Further increasing the flow of clean water.
Construction begins on a million-dollar water project in Kirkuk (10/25) Ditto. This is a lot of money being spent to fight disease and starvation.

Do all these reconstruction news bits really make a difference? You bet they do. LTCOL S. Jamie Gayton, commander of the 2nd Brigade Troops Battalion wrote "Technicians and operators were challenged with maintaining an electrical distribution network that was ignored throughout the years of Saddam Hussein's reign.... The electrical distribution system in Betoul has changed the lives of all the residents. When we arrived here, this area was one of the first I visited. The project had just started and the residents told me of its importance. On every return trip, they remained upbeat and patient, trusting that good things would happen. They were rewarded this summer when a special electrical feeder was linked to the distribution network and the system was energized for the very first time." The picture above shows Gayton's troops looking over the new electrical system in Betoul, a poor Baghdad suburb.

Did I Say Holocaust? No, I meant Holocaust.

2005-10-28T17:15:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I linked to a new story entitled Arab States Silent on Iran's Remarks. I thought about it some more, and decided it was worthy of further discussion.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." All but a full declaration of war, from a country trying to defend its right to develop nuclear technology. Western nations have been quick to condemn his comments, but Arab states has been mostly silent.

Chad Evans posted in In the Bullpen that this wasn't the first time Iran had called for the destruction of Israel. He linked to a 2003 article in the Guardian where Iran had threatened the same thing.

Some Iranian diplomats are trying to downplay the issue. According to this AP story, the Iranian embassy in Moscow released a statement saying "Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Hey, I've got a bridge in Moscow I'll sell ya. Would you like to know what Ahmadinejad said when he heard that? "My words are the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

Pop quiz: Which of these statements was made by Usama bin Laden, and which by President Ahmadinjad:

"We won't hesitate to kill the Israelis who occupied our land and kill our children and women day and night. And every person who will side with them should blame themselves only."
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

The complete text of Ahmadinejad's recent speech is here.

Profiting From Dictators

2005-10-27T12:25:00.000-04:00

Before I begin, I just want to link to this AP story. Should a later post talk about the Iranian government, I want everyone to know just how dangerous that country is.

In a speech Wednesday, [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

In other news, the Independent Inquiry Committee investigating abuses in the Oil for Food program released its final report that clearly shows who was and wasn't profiting from the program. Not surprisingly, those who profited most (France, Russia, and Germany) were the ones most strongly against the war.
What does the report say?

Iraq received $1.8 billion in kickbacks and bribes from 2,200 companies. That would be one-point-eight billion dollars paid to Saddam Hussein's coffers. American, British, and Japanese companies did not make any such bribes, if only because Saddam Hussein would not allow companies from those countries to obtain contracts. On the other hand, French, Russian, and Chinese companies were given preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts -- a move that successfully split the Security Council on all matters involving Iraq.

Worse, Iraq paid some of this money back out to those it needed to secure support. Most notably, France's ambassador to the United Nations received $165,725 from the Iraqi government.

One issue that was not covered in depth by the report is the $34.5 billion dollars in "humanitarian goods" sold to Iraq. Table Seven of the report (linked above) describes loosely what the UN was allowing Iraq to buy despite the sanctions. Some of the items are clearly humanitarian (e.g., rice). Others are very questionable (e.g., black tea). And still others are just downright confusing (e.g., decorated wall tiles). Since when has decoration been a basic human need? What's the point of sanctions if those sorts of deals are allowed? What were we sanctioning, anyway? Keep searching, and you'll find cars, art supplies, computers, stained glass, office chairs, cigarettes, and other assorted "humanitarian needs." You'll also find items that clearly have military applications, just as mobile radios and radio relay links.

Now that the final report is out, it's time to take action against the companies that profited from supporting Saddam in violation of UN sanctions. With this report we can account for every dollar illegally made by various companies around the world. The United Nations should take that money back, and donate it to Iraqi reconstruction. To let them keep the money would be to reward criminal profiteering.

Our Oldest Enemy

2005-10-24T21:59:00.000-04:00

I'm not opening with a picture of a woman with large breasts just to improve my site traffic, although I'm sure I'm going to get some extra pervert traffic from the search engines. Rather, the picture is inspired by a recent news story about our oldest enemy, France.

"France Says Too Early for Sanctions Against Syria," read the headline of this news article. I agree it's too early, since the final report of the United Nations won't be released until December. But somehow I suspected France meant waiting longer than two months.

"We have here an opportunity to do justice with an independent inquiry. Let's go to the end ... if we need to make it longer, let's do it, and afterwards lets see what the consequences should be, including on the question... of sanctions," stated French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. That's right; the French are already asking for an extension, even though the UN hasn't asked for it.

Let's review the facts quickly. Rafiq al-Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, was killed along with 22 others when his motorcade was blown up in Beruit last February. The UN probe issued a preliminary report indicating they had evidence of Syrian involvement. Lebanon even froze five accounts they believe are related to the murder. Things aren't looking good for some major Syrian officials.

But again, I wouldn't suggest sanctions before the final report. So why has Bush warned that he would push for them, and why is France already objecting? Because the report also found evidence of massive systematic cover-ups by the Syrian government. So we find ourselves in a familiar situation; see if you can see any analogies:

A government is widely believed to have conducted something illegal.
The UN is investigating.
The UN complains that the government is not cooperating, and writes a letter to the Secretary General asking for help.
The US tries to apply pressure to force cooperation.
France objects.

Why would a country that has profited from stealing money from the Oil for Food program, bought oil from Saddam under sanctions, conducted illegal trade with Iraq, and generally profited from Saddam's rule -- why would such a country possibly oppose anything to upset Syria? Maybe because Syria, the former French colony, conducts eighteen percent of its trade with France. That's over a billion dollars worth of exports, and nearly as much in imports, each year. How many French politicians can you buy with a billion dollars? All of them.

French politicians are reliving the past, believing that they are a second superpower that can counter America's influence in the world. As such, the believe anything that hurts America is good for them. Saving a few billion in trade is a cherry on the top.

Really think the French are our friends, deep down? A survey found that twenty-five percent were hoping America would lose the war in Iraq. And President Chirac? Remember in the early 1990's, when Jose Bove destroyed a McDonald's franchise (which he viewed as a symbol of America)? Chirac publicly supported him, claiming "complete solidarity," and even going so far as to say "I detest McDonalds."

France has been a thorn in America's side since the French and Indian Wars of the eighteenth century. Why should we expect a change of heart now?

If you'd like a complete history of America's relationship with France, I recommend Our Oldest Enemy, an excellent book on the subject.

American Workers Too Proud To Work (but not too proud for unemployment benefits)

2005-10-23T18:49:00.000-04:00

"If an employer has a job that no American is willing to take, we need to find a way to fill that demand." - President George W. Bush (news article)

It's the economy, stupid. If people aren't willing to take a job, the need for that labor drives wages up. Allowing illegal immigrants to take the jobs at minimum wage (or less) drives down the cost of labor, and puts middle class out of reach for more and more Americans.

Bush's plan to allow "undocumented workers," which is a kinder, gentler way of saying illegal immigrants, to work for up to six years is in direct contradiction to this pledge to "return every single illegal entrant, with no exceptions."

Low-skill jobs were once filled by proud Americans who took pride in what they did. Not anymore. We are practically begging illegal workers to come into our country and do our dirty work for us, just because they will. And the very idea of accepting those jobs is unthinkable to many Americans. They won't admit it, but they just aren't willing to do "immigrant work."

The net result: Higher unemployment, lower average wages, and an unstoppable tide of illegal immigrants. Not worried yet? Take a look at Saudi Arabia, which like most rich Arab nations employs foreigners to do the majority of its "dirty work." Thirty five percent of its workforce are non-citizens, and the domestic unemployment rate exceeds 25% (World Factbook).

The US unemployment rate stands at around 5%. Historically, that's about average for us. But that's coincidentally about the same number of illegal immigrants working in the US, according to the Pew Hispanic Center (report).

Stop coddling our unemployed. Stop telling them it's all the government's fault. Start telling them that there's a job waiting for them, and even if that means they need to flip burgers or change sheets at a hotel, it's still better than nothing.

This Week in Iraq

2005-10-22T16:44:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm happy to say it's Saturday, and time for another This Week in Iraq. Like last week, the news in Iraq is dominated by the referendum. I'll give you some "you heard it here first" news and statistics in a second, but first let's see what else in cooking in the country:

Two new electricity distribution projects complete in Al-Talayee and At-Thawra (10/20) We continue to bring Iraq closer to a never-before reached goal of 24/7 electricity to each home.
New road built in Al-Basrah (10/21) Half a million US dollars invested in a road to allow village residents to bring their wares to Basrah. What did Saddam ever do for Basrah province? I'll wait for an answer.
New water project begins in Baghdad (10/22) Two million dollars invested in clean running water for the city, bringing a nation out of the third world.

So onto the referendum. Results were so massively in favor of a peaceful representative government that the world cried foul, insisting that the results must have been faked. There will be an investigation, and if there was wrongdoing, we will see that it is corrected. A week later, the Electoral Commision has said the vote appears fair (news story), but they won't release the results until Monday or Tuesday. Place your bets on a "yes" vote, however.

And the statistics? Here they are:

450,000 -- just under a half million people -- volunteered to work at polling centers. Unlike last year's election, hundreds of thousands (279,000, to be exact) were turned away as unneccessary.
While still preliminary, it appears that approximately 9.6 million Iraqis voted, including detainees held by the United States.
Total attack tallies: 89 attacks, of which 19 took place at polling centers, which resulted in ten deaths -- only three of whom were civilians. Zero suicide bombers. Last year's elections were hailed as amazingly peaceful with only 299 attacks.

Slow but steady progress wins the war, and wins freedom for millions of Iraqis. March on!

Our Soldiers Are Not Criminals

2005-10-21T18:27:00.000-04:00

Do you remember when the UN wanted us to put our soldiers under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and President Bush said no? We were ridiculed around the world for holding a double standard. But Bush argued that small nations, unable to defeat the US by any other means, would hold us down by attempting to prosecuted our soldiers for all sorts of fictious charges. I, for one, believed him.

It looks like I was right.

The Lone Voice had a blog entry yesterday covering a story that somehow didn't get much press coverage from our leftist media. A Spanish judge has issued an arrest warrant for three US soldiers who accidentally killed a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman. Let's review the facts of the case:

Both of the casualties had intentionally entered a war zone for the purpose of recording a war. They were aware of the dangers they were subjecting themselves to.
The three soldiers were part of a tank crew that fired into a building, from which they were receiving fire. Under US Rules of Engagement, which are based on the International Law of Warfare, a soldier always has the right to self-defense, and may return fire in order to save himself.
The three soldiers were subjected to a review at the highest level, with the US Secretary of State declaring that the soldiers' actions were in accordance with law.

Should Spain, which fled Iraq after terrorists detonated bombs on its public transportation system, really have the right to review our soldiers' actions on the battlefield? I think not. Even if the soldiers had done something wrong, which they hadn't, they were acting as agents of the United States Government. Spain should seek redress from the government, who would in turn take action against the soldiers should there have been wrongdoing.

This attempt by the weaker nations to undermine the actions of the United States by attacking our soldiers is wrong, and displays exactly why Bush was right to refuse it. America will not hand our national heroes over to Spain.

While you're visiting The Lone Voice, please also read this post about the "rising death toll" in Iraq. Soon we will crest the 2,000 dead mark, and the media is sure to leap on it as a sign of failure in Iraq. The fact that only 2,000 Americans have died means this has been one of the least costly wars in American history. Food for thought.

Saudis Speak Out

2005-10-20T13:00:00.000-04:00

Saudi Arabia is a net exporter of Salafist theology, and probably contains more radical imams than any other country. But just as America has more Pat Robertsons and Louis Farrakhans that any other country, that doesn't mean we're all radicals.

If you listen to CNN, the entire Middle East is full of hatred for America. I was watching Blackhawk Down on DVD earlier this week, with commentary from veterans of the battle. In the final scenes, as the Americans returned to the safe zone, you saw hundreds of Somali's cheering the Americans on. The soldiers commented that this was very accurate, and esitmated that eighty percent of Somali's were grateful for the US intervention. The disparity between soldiers' observations and the media's observations seemed oddly reminiscient of Iraq.

Do all Arabs hate the US? Not at all. Nor do they all believe in violence. Sheikh Salman Al-Oadah, a widely respected religious scholar in Saudi Arabia, writes (translated from the original Arabic):

This brings us to the concept of jihâd. There is no such thing as “holy war” in Islam. This is a mistranslation of the word. Holy war is carried out to forcibly subject others to one’s religious beliefs. As we have seen, this is expressly forbidden in Islam. The word jihâd literally means struggle and applies to any colossal effort, not just to warfare. Jihâd may be against one’s own desires or evil inclinations....

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade the killing of non-combatants. Ibn `Umar, a Companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Recently, Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Sheikh printed two columns in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah. A choice quote: "In my opinion, the ideology of Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya is very similar to Nazism in terms of its causes and reasons." A slightly longer one, deriding the idea that terrorists are true Muslims who "strayed from the path" and should be treated with forgiveness:

The question that must be asked courageously is: Have the clerics of our times fulfilled their duty, as our forefathers did when they [fought] against the Khawarij? The most direct answer is: Sadly, no! Let's assume that the government decides to allow women to drive without obligating them, for instance, to wear a veil; what would be the reaction of these clerics and students? How many protest delegations would come to Riyadh from all the provinces? How many fatwas would be signed? How many accusations would be leveled? How many noisy sermons would be delivered by many imams in the mosques?... Is a woman driving a car, or even not wearing a veil, a more serious prohibition in Allah's eyes... than the acts of murder, slaughter, destruction, and violation of women's honor [committed] by these 'sick people?' Why in the name of God [do we how] all this gentleness, forgiveness, and a tendency to 'speak gently' when it comes to terrorists, while [we show] extreme blatancy and harshness when it comes to women, for instance?

What's the point of all this? America needs to help Arab moderates take control of Islam. Isolationism is not the answer; engagement is. By supporting and working with the moderates, we can help elminate the driving factors behind radicalism.

Closing note: If you feel like getting angry, take a look at what Time Magazine has done. In the Bullpen covers the story here.

DC Bill Passes

2005-10-19T15:20:00.000-04:00

Good news! The emergency legislation that I mentioned here has passed. Unless the mayor vetoes it, you can no longer be charged with DUI regardless of your blood alcohol content. The new rules put DC in line with Maryland and Virginia. Namely:

Under 0.05	You are presumed not intoxicated
0.05 - 0.079	You are not presumed intoxicated. You may be charged if you exhibit other signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, erratic driving, etc.
0.08 and above	You are presumed intoxicated.

Not sure what these numbers mean? Run this test to see how quickly your
own BAC rises.

I'll tell you now that my opinion is 0.08 is too low, and many drivers are able to drive perfectly well at that level of alcohol. However, let's celebrate one battle at a time. And I'd also like to thank all the Nervous Rodent readers who wrote or called their councilmen to help get this legislation through.

Mayor Anthony Williams has ten days to decide whether to veto the legislation. He's already attacked it, calling it "hastily written" and criticized the council. E-mail and call the mayor, explaining that it is necessary to keep DC businesses alive, and DC drivers safe from unfair prosecution.

Assuming the mayor doesn't stand in the way of this bill, it will take effect for ninety days. In that timeframe, new legislation will have to pass to make the changes permanent. Tell you councilmen that you don't think police should be able to charge drivers with crimes they can prove they didn't commit.

Voting against the measure: Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6).

Check out Paulie's post on this at Paulie World.

Death and Taxes, and We're Working on Death

2005-10-18T13:33:00.000-04:00

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. -- Benjamin Franklin

Ask any American history professor for the causes of the American Revolution, and high taxes is near the top of the list. But today, our taxes are several times higher than those paid by the colonists. Not just in real dollar terms, but in terms of the percentage of your labor that goes into government. What's wrong here?

Firstly, the government wastes money on non-essential functions. Unless you believe the fallacy that our government is more efficient than private industry, you must realize that every dollar spent by the government includes a "friction" charge of government inefficiency. Transfer non-essential services to private industry, and watch productivity go up -- and taxes go down.

Of course, certain functions remain central to the federal government, like national defense. Fortunately for us, there's a good guide already drafted that tells us which functions are essential and which are not. It's called the Constitution, and it lays it all out in black and white. If it ain't in there, don't try to spend federal dollars on it.

The second step to reducing the tax burden is fixing the tax code itself. Beyond the millions of dollars spent to keep the IRS running, how many billions are spent by companies and individuals trying to comply with the law? How many poor business decisions are made because a loophole will allow a tax-writeoff in excess of the loss itself? I can file my 1040 by myself each spring, but there's no man alive that can claim to understand the entire US Tax Code, pictured to the right. This is insane.

Debbie (from In the Bullpen) blogged about a Chicago Sun Times article on this subject, which caught my attention. You should all know I stand for minimization of federal spending outside that enumerated within the Constitution, but the way we collect that tax is important as well. Every engineer will tell you that each added complexity to a system will only add friction and losses. Our entire tax system is nothing but a collection of complex additions!

Rep John Linder is pushing for a solution. The FairTax bill calls for a repeal of all current corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes. It replaces them with a single personal consumption tax (sales tax). Business-to-business transactions are exempt, as are sales of used items (already taxed). To remain progressive, individuals can obtain refunds on taxes paid on consumption up to the poverty level.

This is exceptionally simple, and easy to enforce. It eliminates the arbitrary double- and triple-taxation the current system entails. It's fair, and it will improve efficiency. We need folks like John Linder to help us break out of the "income tax is here to stay" mentality, think outside the box, and think of solutions for our country.

President Bush has formed a tax panel that is recommending simplifying the system. Get in touch with your congressmen and tell them it's not enough to remove a few deductions. It's not just personal income tax that's fatally flawed, it's income tax itself. Don't use the government to discourage income.

Want to learn more? Visit Americans for Fair Tax, and see what you can do to help.

Around the World, the Media Hates Peace

2005-10-16T23:08:00.000-04:00

I was driving with my wife this morning, and I mentioned that the Iraqi referendum had passed with virtually no violence. About a half percent of voting stations were attacked, which means ninety-nine and a half percent of polling stations watched thousands of Iraqis vote without incident. And like last year, Iraqis held their thumbs high with pride -- without fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, the radio news came on. It reported, and I'm not making this up, "Despite scattered attacks, Iraqis turned out to vote..." Scattered attacks? God forbid you allow the news on Iraq to be portrayed in a positive light. But it's not just the radio that wants people to think our country is failing.

The Media Research Center has recently released a report on ABC, CBS, and NBC's coverage of Iraq (press release, summary, PDF, html). The bottom line -- only 15% of MSM stories about Iraq were positive. Forty percent of stories were on the actions of terrorists, whereas only 0.6% of stories actually reported on positive accomplishments of US forces. Even stories about the political progress were overwhelmingly negative. A third of the optimistic reports about Iraq's future were aired in the two days after the January elections.

Ouch. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Five years ago I wouldn't have been caught dead saying this, but Al Jazeera is more trustworthy than our own press. Need proof? Try reading Al Jazeera's headline article today. Compare it to this AP article, where you can see the author trying to find a negative spin. Even the title seems negative: "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote." Or, without the spin, "Iraqi Voters Appear to Approve New Constitution."

Conservative Nation has some additional thoughts on this, as well as the validity of Bush's recent polls numbers.

It's not just the Western press that hates us. And it's not just the West that is affected by the pervasive slanting of reality. If you were unlucky enough to have watched Fahrenheit 9/11, you may have thought the damage was limited to left-wing reactionaries convincing Americans that our government is a collection of incompetent crooks. But in this modern world, a movie like that has repercussions throughout the world. As we speak, the Iranian-owned Channel 2 is broadcasting a satire called Fahrenheit Infinity (video, transcript). Between Hollywood and the MSM, we are providing our enemies everything they need to convince audiences that we are evil incarnate.

Here's the good news: Despite the bad press, it appears that the constitution will pass. I'm sure more complete numbers will trickle in throughout the day, but here are the most complete numbers I've found to date.

This Week in Iraq

2005-10-15T10:30:00.000-04:00

I made a prediction last week that the referendum would limit the starting of new projects in Iraq, and it looks like I was right. The big news, of course, is the referendum.

You've probably been reading the blogs about the upcoming referendum. If you missed it, you'll definitely want to read this one written by an Iraqi citizen, where he describes the Ba'athist propaganda, as well as compares this vote to those under Saddam.

But here's the news: Out of 1,200 polling stations, only five were attacked. Nobody was killed, and only seven voters were injured. During last year's elections, I remember the editorials talking of violence, but the embedded reporters were just showing Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding their thumbs in the air. The terrorists were unable to stop that election, and they did even worse stopping this referendum.

Make no mistake, this referendum is important -- far more important than the elections. And whether they vote yes or no, it's still a good thing. The elections allow the Iraqi people to choose leaders, but the referendum allows them to choose a system of government.

Nervous Rodent's prediction: 65% yes, 10.5 million votes cast, constitution passes. We'll see how well I do.

But since you expect to hear things here that aren't printed elsewhere, I do have a little tidbit to tide you over. Thursday and Friday saw groundbreaking ceremonies for the construction of two new substation feeders, costing a total of $1.5 million, in Baghdad. And a new $200,000 clinic is opening in Baghdad. Next time you wonder why the US is spending so much on the "war" in Iraq, remember that much of the money is helping people help themselves.

Also, Michael Yon has a new blog post up. While it may not be news events from Iraq, it is news from Iraq. And as always, he will help you see what life in Iraq is really like. This time he also helps show why the media is giving such a distorted view.

In other news, the DC Council has introduced emergency legislation that states anyone driving with 0.05% BAC or below is presumed not intoxicated. Keep calling your councilmen, and let's make this thing pass!

Too Drunk to Drive, Continued

2005-10-14T20:24:00.000-04:00

Remember this mug shot? You should, because I posted an article about Police Chief Ramsey last week. I called on him to admit his mistakes and correct them. And now, as the Washington Post continues its series about DUI laws in the District, I'd like to say it again.

Given my previous article on DUI laws, and the controversy that the Washington Post has stirred up, you'd think that the Police Chief would set about to correcting the wrongs, right? Or would you expect him to lie, again, to the press? Let's examine the facts:

While being interviewed by the Washington Post, Officer Dennis Fair was quoted saying "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance."

When the Post asked Ramsey about that quote, Ramsey replied "He's wrong if he's saying that. It's not coming from me, and that's certainly no policy I've instituted. That's just incorrect." Ramsey then denied that he has ever used the term "zero tolerance" to describe the DC policy on drinking and driving. Why then, Chief Ramsey, did the DC Police Department's website say that DC has a "zero tolerance" policy until Tuesday, the day that the Washington Post printed the first article in the series?

Don't believe me? Use the Web Archive to check the facts. This link will take you to an archived copy of the DC Police's website from last week, and this link will take you to the same webpage today.

That's twice in two weeks that Police Chief Ramsey has been caught in an outright lie. Folks, call your Councilman and demand that DC's laws on drinking and driving be brought in line with the rest of the nations. And Chief Ramsey, it's time for you to start telling the truth.

Too Drunk to Drive, Too Sober to Patrol

2005-10-13T21:00:00.000-04:00

It's a well-intentioned law, I admit that. But DC's DUI laws are hurting innocent people, and it's time they were changed.

After the Washington Post ran an article earlier this week about Debra Bolton's legal troubles, people are starting to notice. And it's about time.

In most states, the legislature has set a legal limit for the maximum concentration of alcohol in the blood when driving, usually 0.08%. This is generally acknowledged as a simplistic solution to a complex problem. We all know someone who can drink way more than they ought to, and still act sober. We also know people that drink very little and still stagger about. What this means is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same concentration of alcohol.

To even things up, many states having two threshold levels. In Maryland, for example, driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% is illegal -- period. You will be charged with DUI in that case. If the BAC is between 0.07% and 0.08%, that is considered prima facie evidence of DWI, and you will probably be charged. Between 0.05% and 0.07%, you may be charged with DWI, if your other actions indicate that you not only ingested alcohol, but that you are impaired by it. Below 0.05%, you are not considered impaired by alcohol.

This system gives police a little leeway to evaluate drivers straddling the fuzzy line, where some might be perfectly safe, while others are clearly unable to safely drive. Of course, there are cases when police make poor decisions, but the law does limit the policeman's ability to make judgments that aren't backed by evidence. He couldn't declare someone with a 0.15% BAC to be sober, nor could he declare someone at 0.02% to be drunk.

Not so in Washington, DC, where the law gives the policeman all the latitude he needs to make judgment calls. Driving at 0.08% or higher is an automatic DUI charge, but a police officer may charge any individual with DUI, based solely on his judgment, regardless of blood alcohol levels. As a result, hundreds of people are charged each year with DUI or DWI, despite having blood alcohol levels of 0.03% or lower.

How low is 0.03%? An average woman who drinks a single glass of wine with dinner, over the course of an hour, will typically score about 0.03%. Ever seen a woman sip a single glass over an hour, then stagger down the street drunk? Me neither.

But some DC police go even further. This year they even charged a computer programmer who registered a perfect 0.00% on the scale, because in the officer's judgment, he was drunk.

The vast majority of these cases are dropped without conviction, generally for lack of evidence. But that doesn't mean they don't matter. It can cost thousands of dollars to contest a DUI charge. And being found innocent in court doesn't mean your insurance company will consider you innocent -- or even the DMV. According to Corey Buffo, the general counsel for the DC DMV,

"Our burden of proof is lower.... Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us."

You you get pulled over on a bum charge, the officer decides he doesn't like you, and he charges you with DUI. You spend thousands of dollars to prove you're innocent, but your license is still suspended. When you finally get it reinstated, your insurance has doubled.

All those in favor of responsible legislation, raise your glasses. Unless you plan on driving home tonight.

Sins of the Court

2005-10-12T22:28:00.000-04:00

Despite what you may hear during some of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices, the Supreme Court has one real job. The Court should balance the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, especially when it comes to violations of the Constitution. If someone violates your Constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is your final resort.

Unless, of course, you're a minority.

Which is rather hypocritical for a court that has "Equal Justice for All" emblazoned across the front of the building. But that's the way it is.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case of Cynthia Simpson, who had been denied the right to give an invocation for the Chesterfield County board meetings. She was denied the right because she is a Wiccan, and therefore not Christian.

Cynthia successfully sued on the basis that the county was giving preference to Christian clergy over other religions. However, the county appealed to the District Court after changing their policy to disallow the mention of "Jesus" during invocations, and the District Court held that meant that the county was no longer giving one religion preference over another. Since the Supreme Court will not hear the case, the District Court's decision stands.

The county will accept invocations from Jewish, Muslim, and Christian clergy. No other religions are permitted to give invocations. While many may not see a problem with this, try role reversal. Imagine if over the next twenty years, most of the country converts to another religion. Now imagine you are a Christian, and a minority. Would you feel the same way if you were told that Christians could not give invocations at government functions, while other religions could?

Frankly, I don't think a government meeting is the right place for group prayer. If you're going to do it, you're going to have to let every religion do it. Banning all but three religions is nothing less than the establishment of three official religions, and as we all know,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Beautiful Maidens

2005-10-11T11:30:00.000-04:00

The Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), which owns five television channels (including Al Arabiya) as well as a radio station, is helping shatter America's misperception that Arabic TV is more biased than CNN.
Jeremiah Stoddard wrote an article yesterday about a new TV show on MBC, which takes extremist Islamists to task. By quoting the Quran and discrediting extremist religious foundations, it weakens the base from which extremists can draw from. The director for the show even admits its targeted to those who have yet to make up their minds about terrorism, and show them how un-Islamic violence really is.

Of course, extremists across the Middle East are angry. Even some of the moderates are angry, or at least angry at the title: Al-Hour Al-Ayn, or Beautiful Maidens. Most of the terrorists and extremists are sexually repressed young men, waiting for their seventy two virgins when they martyr themselves. One of the attackers in the 2003 bombing of a residential center in Saudi spoke his last words over his radio: "One second to the beautiful maidens."

It must be very upsetting for young men to discover the Quran doesn't say anything about seventy-two virgins. The Hadith does specifically mention seventy-two virgins, but only in the context of a reward for virtuous men. Killing young children is apparently not a prerequisite the poking them in the afterlife.

The American equivalent would be a popular morning evangelist saying that discriminating against gays will prevent you from coming into Heaven. Or maybe the Catholic Church saying that the Bible isn't accurate on certain points, but that's another story entirely.

Either way, it's making news. Extremists are mad, and the common folk are talking about it, and this is all good news to me. My favorite part? Airing the show during Ramadan, when the righteous have little else to do but watch TV until the sun goes down.

Free Speech vs. Fair Elections

2005-10-10T14:40:00.000-04:00

Councilman Jack Evans, shown to the right, is in hot water. Maybe not as bad as Marion Barry, who has been indicted for tax fraud, but hot water nonetheless. Apparently, Jack Evans has been running a Political Action Committee, and handling the money and reimbursements himself. In English, he has been accused of taking money from supporters, and spending it on his campaign.

Say what?

The Federal Election Commission has developed rules to prevent rich corporate moguls from "buying" elections. These rules limit how much can be given as campaign contributions, and how much can be spent on TV ads and so forth.

Just to prove how effective those rules are, I challenge you to name a single candidate for president that garnered significant support, but was not a millionaire. I couldn't either. But I do remember Ross Perot, who tried to buy an election without a party behind him. Kerry had the Heinz fortune, and Bush is rich in the wealth of Texas oil. Even Cheney's got Halliburton backing him up.

The reasons that money still talks in politics are multiple. Firstly, would you vote for a man that was not capable of raising significant funds? If you've got the charisma, intelligence, and social aptitude to be the leader of the free world, you're not going to be flipping burgers at McDonalds at forty-five. Secondly, Political Action Committees (PAC's) can spend millions of dollars without being bound by the FEC's rules.

Over the last few elections, you've seen PAC's in action. As the FEC tightened rules elsewhere, PAC's grew in importance. Now it seems that PAC's, like Swift Boat Veterans and MoveOn are more vocal than the candidates. And that's because they are! As long as they don't endorse a specific candidate or break various other rules, they can spend all the "soft" money they want.

Most bloggers were completely unaware of campaign law until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Law, was extended to apply to the Internet by US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Unable to register and comply with complex PAC regulations, bloggers who endorse candidates will be considered campaigners -- and subject to a candidate's limitations on campaigning. Fundamentally, this will legally prevent bloggers from endorsing candidates at all, to include quoting or reprinting press releases or linking to campaign sites.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think most people agree that money shouldn't buy elections. Major media conglomerates should not charge less for ads for candidates from one party than another. But our government has no right to prevent the public, or the press, from expressing our own opinions on candidates. Nor should our government restrict candidates from spending money to obtain airtime, in order to have their opinions heard by the public. Because while money may be the root of all evil, free speech is the foundation of a free society.

Clinton Talks About Iraq

2005-10-09T14:50:00.000-04:00

It's almost a tradition for former presidents to not criticize current presidents. No, let's not call it a tradition. It's more than respect even -- it's what's best for the nation as a whole. It serves no purpose except to devolve politics into the same chest-beating world of, say, professional wrestling.

Nevertheless, it should surprise no-one that Slick Willy has made a habit of criticizing our current administration, from the government handling of Katrina to the war in Iraq. But Clinton's past statements don't support his current attacks, as Republican Vet points out in this article.

As recently as October of 2003, former president Clinton insisted that he had no doubt that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction up to the start of the war. In July of 2003, he even said the same thing on Larry King Live. Yet he recently told George Stephanopoulos that there was no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's one thing to say, "I was wrong; I made a mistake." It's another thing entirely to change your story, then blast your successor for making the same mistakes you made.

This Week in Iraq

2005-10-08T13:45:00.000-04:00

I apologize, for various reasons I wasn't able to compile as much information about humanitarian projects ongoing in Iraq this week. This is primarily due to me being busy, although it's possible that the rate of "key events" such as groundbreakings and completion ceremonies is little going to decrease until after the referendum. Still, here are a few updates:

$22 Million Infused into Local Economy through Construction Projects (10/3) A thousand construction contracts in nine provinces means a lot of jobs and a lot of new facilities.

Construction Complete on Two Water Treatment Plants in Najaf, Begins on one in Baghdad (10/4) Sanitary water is one of the necessities that brings a nation out of third-world status.

Six New Schools Open in Sulamaniyah (10/6) If you were an Iraqi parent living in Sulamaniyah, surely you'd appreciate America giving you the best opportunities for education in Iraq in decades? Too bad AP didn't interview those parents.

Three More Water Supply Projects Started in Hit, Al Jubayl, and Al Anbar (10/7) Again, fresh clean water to the people is something that Saddam should have delivered. It would only have cost him one of his many palaces.

I want to stress that these are just a handful of projects that I'm aware of going on this week. The CENTCOM newsletter has information about many more projects, including completion of a new 260-bed maternity hospital in Mosul, and the start of construction for a new 400kV substation in Mosul that will allow for an additional two hours of electricity per day in a nation that has never seen 24/7 power to any homes except presidential palaces.

Letters from the Front, Part Deux

2005-10-07T16:10:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I posted a blog article about letters written to America by soldiers deployed to Iraq. Foolishly, I forgot that Americans aren't the only "fighters" writing letters, and today the Pentagon decided to help fill that gap.

The Pentagon has released portions of a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If you don't follow the war on terror, this would be approximately equivalent to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, writing a letter to General Abazaid, the commander of US Forces in the Middle East -- and having our enemies obtain a copy of the letter. I'll break down some key points here:

Zawahiri warns that things are not good in Afghanistan. He tells Zarqawi that they have been defeated, and are hiding to avoid capture. Their communications and funding have been cut off. Desperately, he pleas for Zarqawi to send money to him. Fewer than half of Americans think we can win this war, but our enemy's leadership seems to think we can.
He warns Zarqawi that the violence he is causing, especially beheadings and other "terror" attacks, will ultimately serve to turn the population against him. Gruesome images like the one to the right only serve to make Iraqis realize that Al Qaeda is not "on their side." While I cannot find good evidence of this on CNN.com or Fox News, I will tell you that conversations with friends in Iraq back this statement up. The message from Iraqis to our soldiers: Help us get rid of this menace!
Expressing optimism that somehow Al Qaeda could force America to abandon Iraq, Zawahiri implored Zarqawi to not end the fight there. Instead, he urges him to push out into other countries, expanding the war until it encompasses the entire world. While some may be deluded into thinking that pulling out means peace, it is clear that Al Qaeda's plan is "Iraq first, then the world." Appeasement didn't work with the Nazi's, and it won't work now.

Captain Ed and Discerning Texan both have good blog entries about this letter as well, kudos to 'em for beating me to the punch.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us."

More Ground Truth in Iraq

2005-10-06T16:46:00.000-04:00

Before I even begin this post, let me tell you all to go to Michael Yon's blog and read this post. It is one of the best pieces on "ground truth in Iraq" that I've ever read, and should be read from top to bottom. There is no excuse for not reading it. Once you do, read the President's speech from today again, and maybe you'll understand what it is that the media hasn't been telling you.

"Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared. I couldn't agree more.

The photo on the right shows US soldiers swimming with Iraqi children, from Michael Yon's blog mentioned earlier. The media wants you to think Iraqis hate us, and they're trying to kill us all. Its a lie, and a racist one at that. The Iraqi people are smart enough to see what's going on around them, and they're helping us out. They can do the math and see what America has done for Iraq, and what the terrorists have done to them.

The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial today that should be required reading as well. I'll cover some of the highlights, with some of my own analysis added in:

Medical - Under Saddam, Iraq had some of the worst health care in the world. Money from the Oil for Food program, which was supposed to be spent on food and medicine, was instead diverted into weapons purchases and luxuries for Saddam and his inner circle. Since 2003, America has built 600 medical facilities, and vaccinated over four million Iraqis against common diseases that ravished the country under the Ba'ath party. Additionally, a half-billion dollars worth of food has been shipped into the country and donated to the poor and hungry.
Education - Over two thousand five hundred schools have been built or renovated with modern facilities. Most schools in Iraq prior to the war did not even have electricity.
Utilities - Basic services form the foundation of a strong economy. We've added a quarter-million telecommunications lines, turning the dream of a phone into a reality for many Iraqis. Since we entered the country, we've added 1,100 megawatts to the Iraqi power capacity, far exceeding the power available under Saddam. Not to mention the half billion dollars we've spent on sanitation to provide clean water to communities that previously had none.
Environment - Saddam lit wells and spilled oil to wage "environmental war" against Kuwait. He also drained the marshlands in an attempt to starve opposing tribes that lived in the southern part of the country. We are re-flooding these lands, much to the joy of the natives who live there.

Five years ago, Iraq had a political system in which Saddam would order his forces to gang-rape his opponents' female relatives as punishment. Today, women serve in senior positions in government. Five years ago, the sadistic Uday would roam Baghdad, searching for attractive women to kidnap, torture, and sometimes kill. Today, Uday and Qusay are dead, and Saddam is under trial.

The way ahead is clear. We can't abandon a grateful population in need, to watch them fall prey to villains as evil as the one we just rescued them from. We must fulfill our promise to the Iraqi people to give them freedom, democracy, and peace.

On a slightly related note, Military.com has revamped its photo and video collection -- check it out.

Your Safety for Sale

2005-10-04T20:37:00.000-04:00

Folks, if you don't live in Washington, DC, you may not recognize the man to my left. His name is Charles Ramsey, and he's the Police Chief here in town. And he's a lying crook.

Despite today's Washington Post article which revealed the District's red-light cameras have not had any effect whatsoever on accident rates, Chief Ramsey stands by them as effective. He says that the number of red lights being run has dropped by sixty percent since the cameras were installed in 1999. "They make people slow down. They reduce the number of traffic violations, and that's a good thing."

Okay, Chief. One question -- sixty percent fewer people run lights, but accident rates remain constant, what does that tell us? It tells us the people running red lights aren't causing the accidents. Second question -- why should the police department waste resources enforcing a traffic law that doesn't cause accidents?

Did I just say "waste resources"? These cameras don't waste resources. In fact, since installation in 1999, the forty-five cameras have netted the District a cool $32 million. If these cameras were meant to prevent accidents, not raise money, then why were seven installed at intersections that had not seen a single crash in years?

This isn't a new issue. In 2002, the Weekly Standard ran a five-part serial about this. One of the surprising things they exposed was how this program was managed. The entire process was contracted to Lockheed Martin IMS, who kept $32.50 for every red-light ticket, and $29 for every automated speeding ticket. (Since then, the contract moved to Affiliated Computer Services.)

What's wrong with this picture? Not only does the program not serve a public purpose, but it also allows fines to be levied and points issued without the review of a government official. Pretty scary, since over a quarter of citations issued are successfully contested in court as misidentifications. It becomes worse when you realize the contractor has a financial incentive to ticket as many drivers as possible.

If you want to stop people from running red lights, increase the length of the yellow. They're way too short in Washington, DC -- and the government knows it. The average yellow at an intersection with a camera is four seconds, even though Federal guidelines suggest six seconds. None of the forty-five targeted intersections have seen yellow length increases to attempt to save lives. Of course, increasing the length of the yellow would decrease violations, and thus decrease revenues.

What about the speeding cameras? Surely those are helping us be safe, right? Wrong again! Repeated studies have shown that people generally ignore posted speed limits, and drive what they feel is a safe speed for the road. A Federal Highway Administration study found that changing speed limits by 15 mph caused drivers to shift speed an average of 1 to 2 mph.

People drive with the flow of traffic. A police officer in the median tends to slow the flow, at least temporarily. A hidden camera doesn't affect speeds at all, but it does issue citations to drivers that would risk being rear-ended if they drove the speed limit. How many drivers? In the first week of the Districts use of speed cameras three years ago, the police caught close to 10,000 drivers speeding. That's four percent of DC's population, and equal to the number of speeding tickets issued the prior year.

The net result is roads that are less safe, thanks to this hidden tax on drivers. But it's not just our roads that are less safe -- the Washington Times once reported that the large number of automated speeding tickets issued to fire trucks and ambulances had increased the average response time to a 911 call.

Folks, this is insane. There comes a point in the inevitable growth of any bureaucracy where its primary function becomes to grow larger. At this point, the District Police is more concerned with increasing revenues and expanding the government than protecting citizens.

Chief Ramsey, three years ago you said "It isn't about revenue making. It's about saving lives." With thirty two million dollars in revenue, and no lives saved, it's time to admit you were wrong.

Click here for more links on red light cameras, and here for a large collection of studies about this.

Letters from the Front

2005-10-03T22:30:00.000-04:00

The American Legion has opened up a new feature on their website called "Letters to America from the Front." At the moment, only one letter is up on the site, but it's worth reading. If I could quote Adam Bock (rank unknown):

"...it is great to know that I have been a part of the future for the Iraqi people. They have an amazing culture; they are supportive, polite and respectful to all of the Americans serving here. It is truly the actions of a few that have destroyed the image of the whole. I have met many locals and they always show a smile and sense of gratitude to all of the soldiers and their sacrifices."

I read that, and it reminded me of a letter I recently read from Henry Knox over on Paulieworld. I'll quote it here as well:

"Anyway, we’ve got work to do and a lot yet to accomplish. Part of my point is that an awful lot has been successfully accomplished already and the efforts continue. By far the biggest obstacle to a more speedy success and return home to the States is this liberal media, the academic and Hollywood freaks who have no clue or purposely misrepresent or ignore the truth to push forth their own agendas. Continue to watch ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, and read the NY Times and Washington Post if you want to be manipulated and let them form your opinion. Start ignoring them or, better yet, challenging them if you truly do “support the troops”! The last thing these guys over here need is all that two-faced “we support the troops” hoopla when people don’t. If you’re not behind the mission, you’re not behind the troops. If you can’t acknowledge what they’re doing is important and necessary, then you’re belittling their efforts and sacrifice. They don’t need and want that. So, thank you to all who truly do “support the troops”."

To those deployed, I can only say these letters are important to us. Please continue sending them, not just to your family and loved ones, but also to the American public so that the truth can be told. To those at home, write these fine men and tell them you support them. But please, no more baby wipes. They have enough of those.

The Carrot and Stick Approach

2005-10-02T22:38:00.000-04:00

Libya, and Col Qadhafi, is by no means America's greatest friend. Col Qadhafi has personally ordered numerous terrorist attacks, including the 1988 bombing of a Pam Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. As a strong believer that the US needs to stand strong against terrorism, why then do I applaud this move by the US?

Because it shows us the War on Terror is working. If you had asked me in 2000 what states were the largest sponsors of terrorism, I would have answered Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Strike two state sponsors of terrorism to military action. Which leaves Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Iran remains belligerent. Syria has been making baby steps, pulling out of Lebanon and attempting to stem the flow of foreign fighters across their border in Iraq. While these measures by Syria show some willingness to join the international community of civilized nations, they are not enough. Libya, on the other hand, has seen the light.

Col Qadhafi's decision to renounce his WMD program, even though the West had no solid evidence of illegal weapons, and thus had not applied pressure on him to disarm, caught many by surprise. Examining Libyan nuclear weapons research, US intelligence analysts discovered they were far more advanced than previously believed. Why would a dictator who was successfully hiding his WMD come clean?

The answer is obvious. For the first time in modern history, America has a president that is serious about confronting terrorists and rogue states. Bill Clinton responded to Al Qaeda's twin bombings of US embassies by firing missiles at a camp in Afghanistan, but took no further action when it was discovered that Bin Laden was not hurt in the attack. And his response to a failed assassination attempt by Iraq against a former president of the United States was... firing missiles. It may have come as a surprise to America, but the rogue nations of the world already knew that no country has ever fallen to missiles alone. Without the threat of boots on the ground, all America could do was talk loudly and carry a very small stick.

With the successful overthrow of two rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, Libya knew that America was no longer the paper tiger of the West. Bush's foreign policy had teeth. Given the carrot of renewed trade and the stick of serious military action, Col Qadhafi's decision makes perfect sense. This is the power diplomacy that is understood by Arab culture, and this is evidence that the world is, despite CNN's insistence to the contrary, becoming a safer place.

This Week in Iraq

2005-10-01T13:00:00.000-04:00

US Soldier Builds Playground Equipment at New School

(and other headlines you didn't see)

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on what was, and was not, reported on the US Military's actions in Iraq this week. First let's see what did hit the AP wire:

U.S. Soldier Killed in Vehicle Rollover (9/25) "The death raises to 1,914 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count." By my count, that raises to 426 deaths caused by accidents and illnesses unrelated to combat.
Gunmen Kill Five Shiite Teachers in Iraq (9/26) (Buried deep in the article, the author admits "The shooting was a rare attack on a school...")
Iraq's First Female Suicide Bomber Kills 6 (9/28) "This could be a sign that the insurgency is getting greater support among a larger segment of the population, that women are getting more militant and willing to take on a greater role." A closer reading of the article will tell alert readers that this is actually the third female suicide bombing in Iraq.
Bombs Kills 60 in 10 Minutes (9/29) "A string of car bombs exploded Thursday in the Iraqi city of Balad, killing at least 62 people and wounding more than 70 others."
Bomb kills 8 at market in Hilla (9/30) "The motive behind the blast was unclear, but police said it appeared to target civilians."

Now let's take a look at a very small sampling of what wasn't in your local newspaper:

Al Faradazdk school renovated (9/25) We've added electricity and plumbing to a school. Yes, electricity and plumbing.
Coalition forces donate school supplies to Saliyah School in Baghdad (9/25) US troops are helping underprivledged children get an education, amidst terrorists who would like nothing more than children raised in ignorance and religious indoctrination.
Water project completed in Kirkurk (9/26)
Water treatment facilities costing $230,000 built in Kufa and Shamtonia (9/28) These headlines show the financial committment the US has made to the health of our Iraqi breathen. Despite attempts by terrorists to starve the population into a Somalia-like lawlessness, we are fighting to maintain health and order.
Two new schools completed in Al Tamim and Diyala (9/29) More funding to improve education.
Ground broke on new electrical distribution network in Baghdad province. (9/30)

The soldiers deployed to Iraq are chasing down terrorists. But they are doing so much more. We are helping a people rise above violence, decay, and oppression! We are doing good!

If you're interested in news like this, leave a comment. If there is enough interest I may make this a regular weekly feature of the blog. In any case, feel free to join USCENTCOM's newsletter which carries some of these stories widely ignored by the press.

Two Upsetting Stories

2005-09-30T22:15:00.000-04:00

The Baltimore Sun carried an article today about one of the most despicable crimes I'd heard of in a long time... A ring of theives, working as baggage handlers for the military at BWI, were stealing from the bags of soldiers deploying to Iraq. Police confiscated over 1,500 CDs and DVDs from the thieves, as well as laptop computers, video games, knives, and "small military items such as compasses." I can only hope nobody died because they deployed sans knife or compass.

If that doesn't get your ire up, how about this: The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that victims of a drunk driver can sue a gas station that sold gas to an intoxicated man. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw an attendant at a gas station. Should gas station attendants now have the authority to conduct breathalyzer tests? And why can't we just place the blame exactly where it belongs -- on the drunk who decided to drive when he was too drunk to do so safely?

Sorry for ruining your Friday night....

Nervous Rodent's Manifesto

2005-09-29T23:03:00.000-04:00

Last updated: 29 September 2005

I figure everyone has the right to know where a blogger is coming from, so I'm posting a manifesto of sorts. This isn't all-encompassing, but it should serve to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from politically.

The government that governs best, governs least. -- Thomas Jefferson
Every service provided by the government is paid for out of the coffers of American wealth, e.g., taxes. To endorse spending is to postulate that the government can get more productivity from the wealth than private citizens, corporations, or organizations.
It is not a crime that hurts none. All laws should exist to protect innocents; any law that does not is superfluous.
The economy knows best. Only in the most extreme cases should the government interfere with the free working of the economy. Having said that, many problems are caused by government interference, and may require additional action to correct.
All people have equal rights, and should be treated equally under the law. Giving privledges to one group over another to correct perceived "disadvantages" is insulting and degrading.
It is better to fight for your country on foreign soil than at home. Like all rational people, I oppose war on principle. But I would rather fight in Iraq and Afghanistan than Maryland and Virginia.
There is nothing wrong with religion. Except that no government should ever invoke it, for any reason. Government, by definition, has power over people, and the combination is dangerous in the extreme.
All citizens have the right to argue and petition for change. Our Constitution has an amendment procedure for a reason. Violent action against a government is only justified against governments that do not, and it is especially justified in that situation.
Debate and discourse of individuals is preferable to news and editorials dictated by major corporations.
Opinions change, including mine. This manifesto may change with time. That's because I will, too.

The images at the bottom give a bit of a clue. They are courtesy of the OkCupid politics test. Feel free to take the test, and post your results as a comment so I can see what my readership is like. I'm 71% socially liberal, and 83% economically permissive. The first graph tells me I'm a Libertarian, the second tells me I'm similar to Jefferson, and the third tells me that people who scored similar results to me were split between Bush and Kerry in the last election.

Thanks to Dave's Not Here for pointing me to this test.

Guilty Unless Proven Innocent

2005-09-28T22:30:00.000-04:00

This is truly disturbing news. I was surfing blogs and came across this entry on The New England Republican, which ought to bother the crap out of you.

Apparently, a twenty year veteran of the Marine Corps, and veteran of three foreign wars, was dismissed from his job as a police officer because seven years earlier an ex-girlfriend charged that he had harrassed her. No evidence was found to substantiate the claims, and he was never taken to trial.

I was going to take a day off from blogging, but this just sickens me. Having been falsely accused of crimes a couple of times in my life, and having spent a few days in court on the wrong side of the bench, I've got a lot of sympathy for those accused of crimes they didn't commit. While our legal courts may require evidence to convict a person, increasing the courts of public opinion do not. Just ask Tom Delay, indicted on charges that I can't even fully comprehend. I'm not saying I like the guy, but I just can't quite figure out what was illegal. IANAL, but don't you have to show intent to intent to commit a crime in order to convict someone of conspiracy?

It's time to stop judging people prematurely. That, and I really wanted everyone to hear Dennis Walsh's story. These things need to be told.

Why We Are Right, And Why We Will Win

2005-09-27T18:40:00.000-04:00

A day does not pass where I do not read an editorial about us losing the war in Iraq. In fact, in a recent poll, most Americans said the US will not win the Iraq war. Well, I've got news for you. We won a long time ago. We came in, removed a dictator, and began building a peaceful democratic country.

What we have now is an "insurgency," fueled by forces from outside Iraq, attempting to prove to the world that the US is weak and vulnerable. After a searing defeat in Afghanistan, the Jihadists need a new country to act as safe haven and sponsor -- and if they can show the world they can take it from under America's nose, well, that's one hell of a cherry on the top.

That's not an insurgency in my book. Insurgents are people unhappy with their government, willing to fight against it. The correct word for outside criminals fostering violence to overthrow a society for personal gain is terrorists.

We must prevail in Iraq, because to fail would elevate this war to a new scale. An Iraq run by Jihadists, planning attacks against the US homeland, would be the worst of all possible scenarios. Do you really think these terrorists will be satisfied with just one country? Not in a million years!

But let us look for a moment at who we are fighting. Who are these strange men who wrap bandanas around their heads and chant oddly while firing in the air? They aren't Iraqis. Many, like Zarqawi, leader of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, are criminals from other countries who found an opportunity to gain fame and power. Others, like Ahmad Al-Shaye', are idealists who were tricked into supporting these criminals.

Yes, I said tricked. And no, you've never heard of Ahmad Al-Shaye'. But you should have. On September 18th, Al-Majd TV in Saudi Arabia aired a hospital interview with Ahmad Al-Shaye'. (For those with Arabic skills, visit MEMRI and search on that name. Clip #861 has the entire interview. Everyone else can click the first link for a translated transcript.)

The terrorists that co-opted Ahmad Al-Shaye' asked him if he wished to conduct a suicide bombing. He answered he did not. They took his identification and money "for safekeeping," and asked him to drive a fuel-laden truck to provide supplies. What he did not know was the truck was an armed bomb, and his route was designed to kill innocent civilians and Iraqi government officials. His "leaders" had already called his parents to tell them he died bravely in combat.

Fortunately for Ahmad Al-Shaye', he survived the explosion. Badly wounded, he returned to Saudi Arabia and told the story of his attempted murder on national TV.

Thank you, Ahmad Al-Shaye', for exposing the truth about the evil criminals who are masterminding the "insurgency" in Iraq for their own gain. Thank you, Al-Majd TV, for telling Saudi Arabia the truth. Shame on you, CNN, for telling America that we are losing a war against an insurgent Iraqi population that never wanted to be rescued from Saddam Hussein's death squads.

Bring Your Bible To School!

2005-09-26T19:00:00.000-04:00

In the sweltering summer of 1925, in Dayton Tennessee, the State brought forth and prosecuted one Mr. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher accused of teaching evolution in the classroom. Be still my beating heart!

For those who forgot that two hour trial, John Scopes was convicted and fined one hundred dollars, later overturned on a technicality (the fine exceeded the amount allowable by law). John Scopes said, after hearing the sentence,

"Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom, that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our Constitution of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust."

Thirty seven years later, the law forbidding the teaching evolution in Tennessee was finally struck down as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The same year, John Scopes published a book, Center of the Storm, in which he said: "The day will come when we will not be bothered by Fundamentalists."

Friends, that day is not today.

Nor is the current legal challenge in the backwaters of Tennessee. Today, this battle is being fought in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The state capital, and only two hours from Washington, DC, this well-developed city boasts an International Airport, a well-esteemed minor league baseball team, and has been twice-honored as "All America City"(according to the National Civic League) -- and is now offering ringside seats to The Monkey Trial II.

Eight families in the Dover Area School District are taking the school to federal court, arguing that the government has no right to teach their children "Intelligent Design," or the belief that evolution is bunk and God created everything. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Oh, but it is hard. As recently as 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that States cannot require schools to teach creationism. Yet even our President, George W. Bush, has stated that schools should teach it. What's the deal here?

It's simple, folks. Teach your kids about religion at home, in church, and in your community. Don't ask the government to do it for you. Don't give me any crap about Intelligent Design not being religious -- it's the belief that a deity created the universe. That's a religion to me. Don't give me crap that it's "all religions," and therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. It clearly violates polytheistic beliefs, atheist beliefs, and the beliefs of many other religions that believe that while god(s) exist, they did not create the universe.

Maybe we should look at this from another point of view. Do you trust your government? Do you trust them enough to want them to teach your children about God?

I didn't think so.

9/27 - Update -- ScrappleFace is now covering this topic. Good to see a little light on the topic.

Big Brother or Nanny?

2005-09-25T10:29:00.000-04:00

Only one day before Tom DeLay announced that eleven years of GOP domination of the house has finally won the war on wasteful government spending, the FBI has opened a new account, and fitted it with blank checks.

After nearly two decades of fighting child pornography online, with only moderate success, the FBI has decided to expand the War on Pornography to include activities between consenting adults. Yes, consenting adults. We're not talking about child pornography or rape, we're talking about things normal people do in their own homes (and then gasp if they hear them mentioned in public). Get ready to gasp -- I'm going to say them here.

In a Washington Post article last Tuesday, announcing the creation of a new task force to seek out obscene material, an FBI memo was quoted as saying the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior."

Note to college kids: Your hardcore porn is OK, as long as it isn't too rough.

This is crazy. The Miller Test, used since 1973 to define obscenity, is already hopelessly outdated. It has three tests which a work must pass in order to be considered obscene:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Community standards? In the past, this meant the Supreme Court had ruled that material legal in San Francisco might be illegal in Utah, under the same Federal law. Now, lacking a good definition of community, Internet users form communities online. Maybe a little S&M posted in alt.childrens.books will offend, but within the S&M community it won't.
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

Yes,a Federal law defines material as illegal under Federal law only if the state agrees. Another useless piece of legislation in the Internet age.
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Do you really think that Federal judges, the likes of John Ashcroft, are the best judges of what is art and what is not? The FBI memo said that S&M could be prosecuted, just fifteen years after Robert Mapplethorpe received National Endowment for the Arts funding for homosexual S&M works, including the famous picture of himself inserting a bullwhip into his own ass, and a crucifix in a jar of urine.

Possession of obscene material is not a crime -- only the production or distribution of obscene material is illegal under current law. Rob Zicari, owner of a porn company, successfully argued in the District Court in Pittsburgh that citizens had a Constitutional right to view obscene material, and by prohibiting the production and distribution of such material, the government is infringing on that right. The case is currently under appeal -- assuming he wins again, this task force is investigating "crimes" that break no laws.

This is insane, and a waste of money. And you can thank Congress for it. Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said.

An unnamed FBI worker said it best:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."