Voting Reform and the Evil ID Card

WaPo again making or passing on the ludicrous notion that having to have an ID card to vote is discrimatory.

The problem recommendation -- which drew a dissent from three of the 20 commission members, including former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) -- would require voters to present a government photo identification at the polls. This may not sound particularly burdensome in an age when, as the commission noted, such IDs "are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check." Yet 12 percent of the voting-age population does not have a driver's license, and those without identification tend disproportionately to be minorities, the elderly and the poor. To its credit, the commission urges states to ensure that such IDs are "easily available and issued free of charge." But for those who don't already have identification, the hurdle of assembling the necessary documentation and obtaining the cards could prove a deterrent to voting.

If they are too lazy to get the ID, then I'd say it's likely they are too lazy to vote. The rest of the population had to get sufficient documentation together to get their driver's license and then had to register to vote on top of that. How is this a deterrent, when they would have to do what the rest of the voting population has already done?

Indeed, election administrators agree that absentee ballots pose a bigger risk of fraud, and in that case the commission would guard against fraud by having election officials match a signature on file. As commission member Spencer Overton, an election law expert at George Washington University, asks, why wouldn't the same be sufficient for those who turn up at the polls without ID? Allowing voters to show alternative forms of identification or to sign a sworn affidavit of eligibility could go a significant way toward deterring fraud without imposing the burden of an inflexible photo ID requirement.

If absentee ballots are such a large risk, do something to fix it. Making the system looser doesn't solve the problem of fraud. As for alternate IDs, sure, why not. As long as they meet a predefined criteria of having a name, address, and photo I think they should be allowed. Military ID's are accepted, passports are accepted, I see no reason why local authorities can't have a list of alternates.

Sworn affidavit? Yeah, there is a secure manner to prevent fraud. How about that affidavit and require a photo be attached of the person that swore it out. Oh, wait, that would probably be inflexible and a deterrent as well.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be false IDs created, but a bar code or magnetic strip on the card certainly would make it so that they can at least be verified as legitimate. You could even take the relevant data and hash the ID with the person's SSN to make it less prone to simple falsification. (It wouldn't eliminate false IDs, but it certainly would make them less likely to be made inexpensively and frequently.)

Blessed Brighid, Jemma is on board with the use of the IDs. How can you argue with that?

"The American people are losing confidence in the system, and they want electoral reform," Mr. Carter said in a statement.

These are the main recommendations:

¶States, not local jurisdictions, should be in charge of voter registration, and state registration lists should be interconnected so voters could be purged automatically from the rolls in one state when they registered in another.

¶Voters should be required to present photo ID cards at the polls, and states should provide free cards to voters without driver's licenses.

¶States should make registration and voting more convenient with innovations like mobile registration vans and voting by mail and on the Internet.

¶Electronic voting machines should make paper copies for auditing.

¶In presidential election years, after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, the other states should hold regional primaries and caucuses at monthly intervals in March, April, May and June, with the order rotated.

They're railing against a sodding ID card and they have no issue with the voting by mail/Internet suggestion? After all the whining about the risks of voting with various types of machines, you'd think this would be a no go.

Schneier has a blog entry on the Georgian version of this. (Which from what I have read is flawed in that it does require the person to pay for the ID. That is a poll tax as far as I'm concerned.) It is interesting to read through the comments. One comment that slapped me in the face was this:

Could we outsource identification to Blockbuster Video? People don't seem mind proving who they are when they rent a $2 DVD. If they believe voting is more important than that a photo ID shouldn't be an issue.

Rather inciteful that. And a perfect argument on why the voter's ID is a valid recommendation.

If the ID card is such a concern for security, I'd say that many of the other suggestions have worse security flaws. The state maintained voter list could be hacked and altered, the voting machines could be hacked, Internet voting could be set up to strategically alter vote counts. There are methods to make them all secure, they just will never be 100% fool proof. That is asking more than the fates would allow.

The EPIC comments pointed to in Schneier's blog are interesting to look at. Though I would say that some of their assumptions are rot.

As EPIC has previously explained in the analogous context of voter registration, voter registration was designed to deny suffrage to those groups that were deemed not to be worthy of equal participation in the democratic process. From generation to generation the list of the outcasts of American Democracy included women, new citizens, minorities, young adults, first time voters, poor people and immigrants.

Registration in itself is not what limited the vote. It was the requirements or qualifications for registration that did. Poll taxes, proof of literacy, proof of land ownership, proof of race, have all been used. Registration today merely requires proof of residency. I suppose this does limit one's ability to vote, but only by limiting a person to vote where they live and then only once.

Then there is this:

GeorgiaÂ’s Secretary of State Cathy Cox in letter on April 8, 2005 stated her opposition to the proposed changes in voting identification requirements. The state currently has several measures in place to detect voter fraud of the kind alluded to during the debate over passage of the legislation. To date there is no evidence of fraud having been detected and thus no justification for the restriction of voter identification to only certain state and federal issued identification documents. The nature of voter identity fraud would yield complaints from voters who when attempting to vote in that state would have found that someone had voted in their name. In addition this factor not being present to indicate a need for the change in identification requirements. It should also be noted that Georgia has "“severe criminal sanctions"” for the type of fraud suggested by the passage of the new identification requirements. Further, the application of the new voter identification requirement to absentee voting is courteous. Especially in light of the numerous cases of voter fraud related to the casting of absentee ballots that have been noted by the State Board of Election.

I love that part I highlighted in green. Isn't that the old "more laws will decrease crime" concept? Where have we heard that used before? Think hard. [Think gun control.]

I've also seen statements that this is to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I'd say that is a willingly blind assumption. There isn't a huge amount of real data on voter fraud, but there is some. The present system is so freely open to fraud that actually compiling data on the levels of abuse is unlikely to occur. Partisan politics won't help in documenting the issue either.

This really is a valid point. Too bad that people would rather live with fraud or the chance of fraud, rather than have all voters do a little work for that vote.

Egyptian Elections

Juan Cole... Oh, yeah, I guess I should say more stuff, but usually saying his name and shaking your head communicates quite a lot. First off, lest Professor Cole ever read this (fat chance) let me just say, that I'm not a Middle East expert nor do I play one on TV. I don't read the untranslated Koran. I've never been to the Middle East (although I'd love to go on a tour of Crusading sites... Krak de Chevalierss... ooh... where was I). There, now he can feel totally superiour and dismiss out of hand everything else I say without reading (just trying to help out Prof.).

He's right. Partially. The Egyption elections were rigged. However, the interesting thing isn't that they had rigged elections. The interesting thing is that they had to dance through hoops to try to give the appearance of having elections. These guys did everything they could to make it look like they were having an honest to goodness plebescite. In the past these things were incredibly silly farces with one or two candidates, both from the same party, and the miracle of 100% turnout (no sick or injured, everyone goes to the polls). That's a pretty major change. No, it's not enough, but this guy needs to give some credit where it's due. It's the first election since 1954!

Most of the stuff I've read has said right along that Mubarek was only holding this election because he was forced too, not because he was suddenly a believer in democracy. But damn it, the fact that he was forced into a decision he wouldn't have otherwise made means that things are happening there and they're good things.

Other than that, blah, blah, the US stinks, Bush is failing, everyone except Juan Cole is wrong and stupid, blah, blah, blah.

Seperate Schools for Katrina Students?

I think this is a seriously silly kerfluffle over managing schools & students. Let's look at it this way, we have thousands of people in shelters. Their kids need to go to school. We all agree on these two facts. Now things get entertaining. First off, they're technically homeless (far too many are in fact, but some are only in terms of time), therefor a federal law that prevents discrimination against homeless people comes into play. So, they can't be segregated or marked in any way. But, they still have to go to school. So, the school system has to look at how it handles this. It can bus them all over town, from all over town, in order to distribute them accordingly. In doing this though, it can't mark these students so they get back to the correct shelter. That would be bad. Oh, and lots of people don't want to be bused, that smacks of mistreatement and the poor kids can't go to their local school. Of course the local school can't stack chairs in classrooms, so there's only so many they can take, but opening a school, say next to a shelter, in order to give the kids there an education locally would be artificially segregating them... Gods in the heavens, is it more important that these kids go to school or that narrow little rules that really don't apply to this situation get in the way. What is wrong with starting another school to which all these new students can attend. Let's put it this way, if, instead of one week, a school system had this kind of growth over a couple of years. Wouldn't they bus the kids where they needed to go and/or build a new school near the new neighborhood? That's sure what they're doing in our town, but it doesn't seem to be because of segregation, but because, oh, I don't know, they have to manage their resources maybe... Just a thought.

Hanson & Huffington Debate

I haven't seen it yet, but this is what is linked to at VDH site.

It's a video link. I haven't tried it yet, but you can try and tell me how it is. (I'm at work, so can't really try it at the moment.)

Why Wars End

Niall Ferguson article relating to why the world has seen a decline in armed conflicts world-wide.

There are significantly fewer wars in the world today than there were 10 years ago. After a peak in around 1990 - when the end of the Cold War seemed to have unleashed a New World Disorder - the number of wars in progress has fallen to just 20. And many of these are rather small-scale affairs.

According to the University of Maryland's Centre for International Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), "global warfare has decreased by over 60 per cent since peaking in the mid-1980s, falling… to its lowest level since the late 1950s". In the past three years alone, 11 wars have ended, in countries ranging from Indonesia and Sri Lanka in Asia, to Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Angola and Liberia in sub-Saharan Africa.

The two most striking features of war in our time have been, first, the decline of traditional inter-state warfare and, second, the rise and fall of civil war. Since the end of the Cold War there have been just a handful wars between separate states, and most of these were of very short duration: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war to liberate it; the border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the various American-led interventions to topple "rogue regimes" in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The most interesting conclusion he makes is:

Yet maybe there's a third explanation for the recent peace "wave". Maybe local people, regardless of foreign intervention, are simply opting for peace because they're sick to death of fighting each other. War, after all, is attractive only to a minority of people: bored young men and the cynical politicians who see violence as a route to power and its perquisites. That's why only a handful of the post-1989 civil wars lasted longer than seven years.

An interesting read.

North Korea Abandoning its Nuclear Program?

Sounds like a start, but you'll forgive me remaining skeptical.

North Korea agreed Monday to end its nuclear weapons program in return for security, economic and energy benefits, potentially easing tensions with the United States after a two-year standoff over the North's efforts to build atomic bombs.

The United States, North Korea and four other nations participating in negotiations in Beijing signed a draft accord in which the North promised to abandon efforts to produce nuclear weapons and re-admit international inspectors to its nuclear facilities.

and

The draft accord commits North Korea to scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities, to rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and to readmit international nuclear inspectors. North Korea withdrew from the treaty and expelled inspectors in 2002, after the United States accused it of violating a previous agreement to end its nuclear program.

The United States and North Korea also pledged to respect each other's sovereignty and right to peaceful coexistence and to work toward normalization of relations. The two countries have no full diplomatic relations and did not sign a peace treaty after the Korean War.

It's not a final deal, and this is a country that has failed to live up to such agreements before. So this sounds a bit thin at the moment.

Max Boot on Yahoo's Disgraceful Activity in China

Yahoo, among other high-tech companies have been facilitating political repression in China. I've always been a very strong believer in capitalism being the way to move countries into freedom, but in this case I really believe that Yahoo is letting money overwhelm what is right.

Shi, the victim of Yahoo's shameful behavior, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for "illegally sending state secrets abroad." Shi was a reporter for a Chinese newspaper, Contemporary Business News. His crime consisted of e-mailing to a New York-based website information about a supposedly secret directive his newspaper had received from the state propaganda department telling it how to cover the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The security services were able to track him down thanks to information helpfully provided by Yahoo's Hong Kong affiliate, whose e-mail service Shi used.

Yahoo isn't alone.

Yahoo, Google, MSN and other Web search engines have agreed to block searches in China involving words such as "Tibetan independence" or "human rights." Bloggers can't post messages involving "democracy" or other "dangerous" concepts. Rupert Murdoch's Star TV has agreed not to carry BBC news or other information that the Chinese government might not like. Cisco has sold Beijing thousands of routers programmed to monitor Internet usage and flag for the secret police any "subversive" sentiments.

I understand fully that these companies have a base interest to make money for there stock holders, but that doesn't mean I need approve of their use of there technology to continue repression.

What to do though? I doubt that legislation as Boot suggests would really work. Unfortunately, the ability to force these companies to be good world citizens through economics won't be very effective. Cisco for one doesn't deal with individuals, they deal primarily with large companies. Yahoo could be battered, but there isn't much likelihood that that will happen, since the fate of those like Shi are pretty much ignored by the MSM and most of the world.

Zombie Test

Ok last one. Couldn't resist this one, though I'd put odds that I'd do better than the guy who wrote this thinks.

Official Survivor Congratulations! You scored 67%!

Whether through ferocity or quickness, you made it out. You made the right choice most of the time, but you probably screwed up somewhere. Nobody's perfect, at least you're alive.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 65% on survivalpoints

Link: The Zombie Scenario Survivor Test written by ci8db4uok on OkCupid Free Online Dating

Descendants Test

Ok, So I'm a bit bored.

And sometimes these tests are kind of fun.

176,570 descendants - you're more genetically fit than 51% of the current population -

176,570. Not bad. You're no Mongol warlord, but to have that many copies of your genetic code running around 800 years from now is pretty impressive. You're in the lower middle of the scoring spectrum, but, honestly, when you consider that the cheaters, swindlers, and football players of this world are statistically best-equipped to create children, scoring low is something to be proud of. As you'll see below, some of your lines will die out, but nonetheless your genetic material will thrive here on earth for a long time to come. A close friend of mine created a program to generate family trees for this test. It's based on your unique answers. We accounted for sterility, birth rates, death rates, disease, drug abuse, nitwitism, and accidents and came up with this, for you. Note that you'll have significant offspring with two separate partners; the second of your genetic lines is slighly faded to make the chart easier to read. The second line could represent either a second marriage or an affair:

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 59% on fitnessfactor

Link: The Genghis Khan Genetic Fitness Test written by gwendolynbooks on Ok Cupid

Political Test

Saw this at The Smallest Minority.

Looks pretty accurate to me. Though like TSM I don't understand how Kerry got place dead center. That really doesn't make much sense. Also, why is Adam Sandler on the chart at all?

You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (68% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

Debates

The geekwife sent this link to me on a debate between Hitchens and Galloway. Very amusing. Though I did find the New York crowds reaction to 9/11 as disturbing.

This all triggered me to check on commentary on the Hanson vs. Huffington brawl. The news and commentary are shockingly lacking. There was so much trumpeting about this debate on September 14th I would have sworn there would have been a lot about it. This is all I found.

WTF?

UPDATE:
LGF has some comments here. I haven't tried the link to see if there is a recorded version of the debate.

Another UPDATE:
Here is a blog coverage of the Hitchens/Galloway brawl from OxBlog.
If you're especially into pain and aggravation, you can listen to the debate archive at KPFTX.org. I haven't even gotten into the debate and I'm thinking of turning it off. The exceptional left twist of the pre-debate commentary is just pathetic. Should have expected it when they announced they are from Stop The War Productions.

Oh, and if you need to have visual punishment along with vocal punishment, you can see this mess at C-SPAN (Book TV) Saturday, 9PM EST or Sunday, 12PM EST.

If you are fortunate to be able to fast-forward through the pre-debate analysis, there is some humor in listening to Hitchens slap Galloway around. (He even slaps the crowd down once calling them "booing morons" just before they start booing, at which point they sound like they stop quickly.

Not a very good debate. No debate at all from what I've heard. You need to have two people argue a point. I haven't heard any actual arguments on the point from Galloway.

Roberts Commerce Clause Comments

Glenn Reynolds gets up tight over Roberts' answer to a Schumer question on the commerce clause. I think maybe he should re-read the comment looking at what was actually said. I also find it a bit strange that Schumer didn't catch on that Roberts' undercuts his assumption.

SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you, then, this hypothetical: And that is that it came to our attention, Congress', through a relatively and inexpensive, simple process, individuals were now able to clone certain species of animals, maybe an arroyo toad. Didn't pass over state lines; you could somehow do it without doing any of that. Under the commerce clause, can Congress pass a law banning even noncommercial cloning?

ROBERTS: I appreciate it's a hypothetical, and you will as well, so I don't mean to be giving bindings opinions. But it would seem to me that Congress can make a determination that this is an activity, if allowed to be pursued, that is going to have effects on interstate commerce. Obviously if you were successful in cloning an animal, that's not going to be simply a local phenomenon. That's going to be something people are going to...

SCHUMER: We can leave it at that. That's a good answer, as far as I am concerned.

Schumer states the assumption that the activity of cloning wouldn't pass over state lines. Roberts then clearly states that congress could determine that it went over state lines and could then regulate it.

I think Reynolds is missing a point that the hypothetical was flawed, and allowed that there is an alternative view on whether interstate commerce is involved. Also missed is that just because congress chooses to regulate under the commerce clause, doesn't mean that a SCOTUS finding couldn't over turn the law if an activity is determined never to be effecting interstate commerce.

Am I missing something here?

Paying for Hurricane Recovery

I caught this from Bainbridge. You should read his derisive remarks about Tom Delay. He's pretty much completely correct.

But the topic leads to a $$$ link at the WSJ. So you have to read Bainbridges quote.

This article, brief though it is, also points to pork that could be trimmed out of the Highway bill to pay for the recovery efforts. Though you'll laugh to see that they think that no one should touch that money.

Keep your hands off the estimated $24 billion in "pork" within the recently approved federal highway bill unless those projects are for national safety.

That is our recommendation to the U.S. representatives and senators whose 6,300 "district" projects are included in the $284 billion bill.

Just a bit irritating that they don't want to contribute with money that is already in place instead of tacking on another huge deficit bill. Of course, they have an alternate suggestion:

Eliminating the pork in the highway bill would be a start. Two other ideas have been floated that deserve discussion: Delaying the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan scheduled to become effective Jan. 1, and calling for across-the-board, 10 percent spending cuts in federal budgets. Conservative groups have said delaying the drug plan would save an estimated $40 billion to $50 billion.

Umm. Yeah, that's a bloody brilliant alternative.

I can think of better alternatives. Take a little look at the Transportation Bill and the Energy Bill. Those two are so laden with lard that it's hard to believe they wouldn't be looked at for a trim. (Entertainingly, neither bill's final content is yet in print.)

Fiscal responsibility was once something you hoped to see from a republican, because you knew you couldn't get it out of a democrat. Now, I'm failing to see much of a difference between the two on spending.

Slate's Nonsensical Rantings on Roberts Hearing

I realize that the judiciary hearings for the supreme court are rather frustrating, but rants like this idiotic piece show a writer with pen engaged and brain off.

Then the increasingly crazed Joe Biden, D-Del., gets involved: "Does the right to privacy include the right to make the difficult decision when to no longer continue using an artificial apparatus to keep your parents alive?" Roberts cannot answer since that is "an area pending before the court."

"Just talk to me as a father," pleads Biden. Roberts says he will not consider this in the context of a father or husband. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., emotes even harder. She can't understand why he was so candid yesterday morning and then totally shut down after lunch. "Did anyone caution you?" she asks worriedly. Or did he spill iced tea on himself at lunch and short-circuit his memory bank? "I guess what has begun to concern me a little bit is Judge Roberts, the legal automaton, as opposed to Judge Roberts, the man," Feinstein says. Then she tries to get him to answer Biden's right-to-die question but pretend it's him dying as opposed to his wife or children. When he begins to offer a legal answer, she urges, "I am trying to get your feelings as a man."

It's like a bad method-acting class. Pretend your puppy's dead, judge. We'll be needing some tears here. Feinstein sticks to the dead-people theme as she names all the children who died due to guns after the court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act in Lopez. Silly Rabbit. Doesn't she know Vulcans only get feelings once every seven years? And then only long enough to mate?

I continually get the feeling that articles written by the likes of Slate contributors show frustration, but don't ever bother to point out the precedent of Roberts' refusal to answer and the reasons why this really is proper.

Precedent, just look at the Ginsburg hearings. Breyer may have spoken more during his earings, but it definitely comes down to the nominee to decide what is appropriate. It should also be noted that the ABA has a doctrine related to all of this.

3) A candidate* for a judicial office:

(a) shall maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality,* integrity and independence of the judiciary, and shall encourage members of the candidate’s family* to adhere to the same standards of political conduct in support of the candidate as apply to the candidate;

(b) shall prohibit employees and officials who serve at the pleasure of the candidate*, and shall discourage other employees and officials subject to the candidate’s direction and control from doing on the candidate’s behalf what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the Sections of this Canon;

(c) except to the extent permitted by Section 5C(2), shall not authorize or knowingly* permit any other person to do for the candidate* what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the Sections of this Canon;

(d) shall not:

(i) with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of the office; or

(ii) knowingly* misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent;

Slate's contributer then list the questions that he refused to answer with snarky comments.

He won't answer questions about any case currently pending before the Supreme Court (abortion, right-to-die);

He won't answer questions about any case that might someday conceivably be pending before the Supreme Court (separation of powers, contested presidential elections);

He won't answer questions he's decided on the court of appeals (since they may someday conceivably be pending before the Supreme Court);

He won't answer questions about prior nominees (Robert Bork) because that is not appropriate;

He can't answer questions about general legal doctrine because they are too general;

He can't answer questions about specific legal doctrine because they are too specific;

He can't answer questions about his early memos because a robot wrote them.

Cases before the court are off limits because should he get on the court he would have to judge them and making statements relative to such a case could prejudice how the case is argued. So not answering is correct. The second and third points are valid for the same reason.

Questions on prior nominees, especially failed ones I'd say is a personal choice. Personally, I can't see any relevance to questions related to failed nominees.

"General" legal doctrine questions get general answers, which opens his answers to interpretation. With the present political environment, I would say his refusal is appropriate. Especially since distorting statements or cherry picking sections of testimony and making commentary is very common. (Yup, just what I'm doing. But I will demand you read the full statements and not just take my word for it. Which is something the MSM is incapable of doing.)

I disagree with the statement on specific doctrine. I haven't seen a question that is specific that doesn't violate the first three complaints. You can't as specific questions in a forced context. Especially when you're intent is to try and dodge the Ginsburg rule.

As to the memos, this statement is just foolish. A lawyer is set to advocate for the client. It isn't an indication that he can't make independent logical conclusions, nor that the conclusions made in the memo are indicative of personal beliefs.

I wonder if there was this much whining going on during the Ginsburg hearings?

Pledge Controversy Revived

I suppose I'm not surprised at this sour grape popping into the mix again. After the ruling of the SCOTUS on the first try, I was pretty much certain this guy would find someone to make him relevant to the case.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton said he was bound by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled that the words "under God," added by Congress in 1954 during the McCarthy era, rendered the pledge unconstitutional.

Michael A. Newdow, the atheist who won the 9th Circuit ruling, ultimately lost his case last year before the U.S. Supreme Court. Without deciding the constitutional question of separation of church and state, the high court ruled that Newdow had no legal standing to sue on behalf of his grade-school daughter because he did not have primary custody.

Newdow still lacks standing, but his new lawsuit may go forward because he has added plaintiffs who are parents with full custody of their children, Karlton decided. The ruling affects the Elk Grove Unified School District, the Eleverta Joint School District and the Rio Linda Union School District in Sacramento County.

The issue is a bit complicated, if you bother to look at it equitably.

First is Newdow's claim that this is unconstitutional because it appears to be an attempt to establish a religion controlled by the first amendment.

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'll say that the original intent of adding the line "under God" wasn't likely to be any attempt to establish a state religion, but most certainly was focused on the Christian God. The change only came in 1954, so I doubt any historical perogative could exist. Personally, I fail to see this as any attempt to establish a religion or prohibition of the free exercise therof.

I would, in fact, point out that if Newdow is using this as his argument, I would say it certainly appears that he is attempting to establish Atheism as the state religion/philosophy. Maybe not. But I do see that as a valid point of view for those who have firm religious beliefs. In fact you could say, that if the SCOTUS finds in favor of Newdow, that they are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religious beliefs.

In my opinion this is forcing the SCOTUS to draw a line in the sand, but a line that will be very difficult to interpret. If they allow the Newdow finding, will it then indicate that Congress can't have a prayer before starting a session?

I just can't find any logic, or anything in the constitution that promotes an Atheistic world view as being more valid than a Theistic view. I fully believe that this is a perfect example where strict reading of the constitution is correct. The government can't create laws establishing or forbidding or restricting religion.

Personally, I'd rather see the pledge in its historically original version. But this case isn't about the pledge.

Roberts Hearing

I watched a bunch of the testimony yesterday and some of the clips, of various earlier section, of the hearings. Pretty much what I expected. Biden and Kennedy were exceptionally combative and couldn't allow answers from the judge to block their political rants. Kennedy was appalling. One of his questions was very long and meandering with a huge number of assumptions, and when Roberts didn't immediately agree with him, he just started talking over him.

Well, most of the senators were polite for the most part. I have to agree with the commentary I've seen at SCOTUSblog and elsewhere, that Roberts showed he was more clever and able than those questioning him.

Of course, abortion/privacy was the primary torture device of the day. Personally I think the relevant subject on this topic was related to precedence.

Roberts told Specter that he respected the doctrine of stare decisis -- letting decided issues stand -- adding, "I do think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent." But some long-standing cases deserve to be overturned, he said, such as those that legalized slavery in the 19th century and racial segregation in the 20th century.

Roberts set forth criteria that he said judges and justices should use to determine whether to "revisit" a precedent, saying they include "settled expectations," the court's legitimacy and whether a precedent is workable or has been "eroded by subsequent developments."

"It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided," said Roberts, who during the 1980s signed a memo saying that Roe was "wrongly decided" and should be overturned.

When Specter asked whether the decision's legal legs have been eroded, Roberts replied: "I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases."

Later, Biden asked whether "there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment?" Roberts replied, "I do, Senator. I think that the court's expressions, and I think if my reading of the precedent is correct, I think every justice on the court believes that, to some extent or another." The answer appeared ambiguous because some of the current justices have made it clear they would support overturning Roe .

I think the WaPo interpretation of what was said isn't correct. It isn't ambiguous to state his belief that all of the justices believe that privacy rights exist in the 14th Amendment, even if some of those justices believe that Roe overstepped the bounds of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

Personally, I found the hearings to be frustrating to watch. The senator's grand-standing with their political diatribe and, in some cases, openly antagonistic questioning just sets your teeth on edge. Then there is the Ginzberg dodge, which I can understand, but would still like to know the answers. I understand the reasons why they shouldn't answer, but I still would like to know. Biden's bickering about Roberts not answering some questions, and then stating that they should fall under the Ginzberg principle was just amusing. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that senators believe they are always correct. It's just kind of fun when they run into someone that they can't brow-beat or defeat in the argument.

Chernobyl Reports

Finally found the reports on the Chernobyl aftermath. There are actually three reports. The title link is for the "Socio-Economic" impact. This report is a 2002 report, so I'm uncertain of the relevance to the original topic. Probably you're going to wish to look at the Environment and Health reports.

There also is a "Digest" report for those that don't wish to fight with full reports. This is the one with the title that was on the UN press release.

They're all PDF's so good luck. (oh and they are big.)

If you need help in conversions for the amount of radioactivity you can look here. I don't have a good grasp of how much radioactivity is in a Bq (Bequerel) but I know the Bq is really small.

Now to trudge through them.

Israeli Palestinian Troubles: Stage 2

Sadly, I believe Israel is about to enter a new series of troubles from Gaza. It's comments like the following that really make it appear likely:

Militant group Hamas said its campaign of violence had been the driving force behind Israel's withdrawal.

"We will not rest until we liberate all Palestinian land, crowned by Jerusalem," leader Ismail Hanieh said.

Israel says it will retaliate harshly to any attack on its citizens from the area.

Hamas is obviously deluding themselves. They were definitely not the driving force. I honestly believe it was world opinion. The Israelis realized that if they gave all that land back, then there is almost nothing a reasonable critic could hold them to for criticism. Unfortunately for them there are a huge number of unreasonable people in the world.

I suppose all we can do is wait and see.

VDH Online Q&A

You should probably read this article first since it relates to the discussion.

I doubt I could ever do anything like this. I've seen Hanson take such questioning on television before from obviously antagonistic questioners. He does a great job in generally answering the questions of people that just aren't thinking or just don't read what is written.

Washington, D.C.: As a graduate student in history at the American University here in Washington, D.C., I wonder how you as a historian can rationalize your methodology which argues that Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam? How can you premise your entire argument for American involvement in Iraq on lies: Lies of weapons of mass destruction, and lies of links to Al Qaeda? Just as our involvement in Vietnam was based on the failed paradigm of the "Domino Theory," our involvement in Iraq is based on a failed oil based Middle East policy dating back to 1950's and the ouster of Iranian Premier Mohammad Mossadeq by the CIA. The United States and this administration has abused its power, and it is showing in the streets of New Orleans.

Victor Davis Hanson: Let me address "lies" for a second. To believe that the U.S. deliberately lied about WMD rather than mistakenly privileged that casus belli over the other 27 writs for war passed by the U.S. Senate, one would have to believe that the Clinton administration and most Democratic senators were lying all during the 1980's and during the debate over their war resolution in October 2002, that European intelligence was lying, that Arab governments who warned about tactical use of WMD were lying, and that U.S. commanders in the field who ordered their soldiers to wear protective gear in unbearable heat were part of the lie as well as was their own independent military intelligence. So no, I think it is peril to keep chanting "lies" and leads nowhere. It reminds me of what they said about Lincoln when he signed the Emancipation Declaration and supposedly introduced a new reason for the war other than saving the Union.

I'm uncertain if there was any sifting of the questions, since this one was just such a waste of time. The whole lies argument usually makes me fume because of the complete failure to notice reality. Of course, that leads to a second question which continues in the crackpot theme.

Washington, D.C.: Your response to the question regarding "lies" is reminiscent of the Bush administration's calling those who disagree with the war "unpatriotic." Please address the poster's contention, namely, that a flawed methodology leads to flawed results, and in this case, a flawed policy. No Lincoln metaphors, please.

Victor Davis Hanson: Here we go again. I called no one unpatriotic at all. I did point out how the allegation that mistaken intelligence could hardly be deliberate lies, given the numerous foreign and domestic, friendly and hostile, states that came to the same independent conclusion. You did not read either what I wrote: there were 20 some reasons the Senate voted to authorize war with Saddam. Read what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton said on the floor of the Senate. All were legitimate. So the policy of removing a dictator with a long history of war with the U.S., attacking regional states, genocide, and state-sponsored terror was rational, not flawed in a post-September-11 world. And despite our lapses we are seeing the dividends in both the Middle East in general and inside Iraq.

Sigh. There are some decent questions in the end, though I'd say Hanson went to a lot of trouble to answer questions from people that didn't care about the answers, but just wanted to snipe.

9/11 Photos

Ravenwood's Universe. Photogallery of 9/11.

Louisiana Loathing

I've caught this in the news and on several blogs.

The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security blocked a vanguard of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items from bringing relief to the thousands of hungry and thirsty evacuees stranded in the New Orleans Superdome after Hurricane Katrina struck, according to a Fox News Channel report.

The state agency responsible for Louisiana's security "told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come," said Fox News reporter Major Garrett in a radio interview.

and

The Louisiana governor's office of Homeland Security explained to the Red Cross that they didn't want the relief supplies, because they wanted the evacuees to leave, according to Garrett.

"At the very moment that Ray Nagin, the Mayor of New Orleans, was screaming where's the food, where's the water, it was over the overpass [nearby], and state officials were saying you can't come in," Garrett said.

So here's another place where FEMA wasn't directly at fault. Though I'd say that they are a partner in the problem. The logic goes, that FEMA is the agency that assists in training and preparations for emergency scenarios. The coordination was obviously not there. The state DHS was so short sighted that they didn't know that people couldn't get out. The mayor of NOLA failed to make that clear to the state, not to mention failing to assist in evacuation.

The Red Cross has posted a "Disaster FAQ" on its website which explains, "Access to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders."

The private charity says, "The state Homeland Security Department had requested -- and continues to request -- that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city."

Yup, that's pretty disturbing.
[h/t Ravenwood among others]

On the topic of NOLA, we have another Ravenwood's Universe post that is disturbing, though the result is understandable. This from the NYTimes:

Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here. No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.

I suppose the authorities have that right, since it is in the state of marshal law at the moment. Though I must admit I find this next paragraph disturbing in contrast.

But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons. [Emphasis mine]

Now why are wealthy individuals allowed to stay in NOLA, but not others? I can understand the security companies, as long as they are coordinated with law enforcement. They're there to ensure that certain exceptionally valuable sites aren't plundered. That alleviates law enforcement control. But the wealthy individual is getting preference because of their wealth. The individual isn't coordinated with law enforcement. Just how wealthy do you need to be to stay in NOLA and be armed to protect yourself and your possessions? And why are the wealthy being given a choice, while the poor aren't?

No class preferences here.

UPDATE:
Go read this entry from SayUncle on the rise in the number of firearms sold after the hurricane. Especially look at the second quote on nurses who are returning to work in NOLA.

Politics as Usual

Tom Delay, again the shining star of his party.

A Travis County grand jury indicted a business organization and a political committee founded by U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday on felony charges of violating election laws by using corporate money to influence state elections.

and

DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the majority leader was not responsible for TRMPAC's daily operations and that the indictment has nothing to do with him. Madden said DeLay talked to Travis County prosecutors about the case last month.

"Mr. DeLay assured the district attorney's office that he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of TRMPAC and to his knowledge all activities were properly reviewed and approved by lawyers for the PAC," Madden said.

Something smells off. Delay perpetually strikes me as that dishonest used-car salesman. I don't know if he was involved directly, but the association isn't doing him much good. This does warrant investigation. Though getting a fair investigation is unlikely, in my view.

Then there is all-star Harry Reid's comments on the hurricane funding. (No I won't call it Katrina funding or use Katrina in any description. It sounds bloody stupid.)

"After everything that has happened with FEMA, is there anyone who believes that we should continue to let the money go to FEMA and be distributed by them?" said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate's Democratic leader.

So a question to the Brilliant Senator from Nevada, if not FEMA who? Who has the means and infrastructure to actually use and correctly distribute the aid? Why start throwing political stones when you obviously have no reasonable alternative. Should we just fire all the personnel in FEMA just because the reaction times for the hurricane didn't match your ideals?

Then there is this swell little bit of logic:

One of the 11 House members to oppose the measure was Rep. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist.). He said he was concerned not about the amount of the appropriation, but about the lack of any mechanism to guarantee that FEMA spends the money properly.

"Some of us believe there should be accountability tied to the funds so that we actually do assure that the people who need assistance get it. If you simply give a blank check to someone, there is no way to assure accountability," Garrett said.

Ok, what's the alternative? Whose opinion of the spending should say that it's right? Seems to me that FEMA has regulations on how money can be spent. But since this brain trust thinks that FEMA is so poor, I still don't hear an alternative. Accountability tied to the funds is just pathetic. Is Garrett really going to suggest that FEMA is misappropriating the funds? Or maybe we should all just wait while congress figures out how to distribute the funds outside of FEMA. I'm betting all the millions of affected people would think that's just fine. I'm certain the congress would have a solution in a couple of months at the soonest.

Then there is the remarks from yesterdays Jackass of the day:

"Here we are on the floor of the House appropriating $50 billion to an agency that has a record of poor performance and leadership without qualification for the job," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House Democratic leader.

You just have to love Pelosi. FEMA's leadership is more qualified for their job than she is for hers. Or maybe she's just firing at the political appointees of the system. But then, they aren't the ones actually running the on-site operations now are they?

Which leads to the jewel of the article:

Some of the harshest criticism of President Bush came yesterday on the floor of the Senate from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

"The commander in chief was AWOL," Lautenberg said, standing before a poster-sized picture of Bush strumming a guitar at an event in California the day after the hurricane struck.

"I was angry as hell at the casual manner that the president put forward," Lautenberg said.

Lautenberg just jumped up to the Schumer level of stupidity. The president was AWOL because he was sitting in Washington at his desk 100% of the time during the crisis? You mean to tell us that the president should have been down in NOLA sand-bagging a levee or the like? Would that have been good enough?

God I hate politicians.

Schwarzenegger Listens to the Constituents

Looks like Arnold is actually doing what politicians are supposed to do.

A day after California's Legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced through an aide Wednesday that he would veto the measure "out of respect for the will of the people." In a careful statement, Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson invoked the voter approval in March 2000 of Proposition 22, which said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action — which would be unconstitutional — but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state," the statement said. "We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote." The statement also said Schwarzenegger "believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against." It did not offer his opinion on same-sex marriage, but when asked about it last year, the governor said, "I don't care one way or the other." The California Supreme Court is likely to decide next year whether Proposition 22 and other state laws that define marriage are constitutional.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable action to me. He doesn't agree with it fully, but the vote for Prop 22 made it clear that the citizens of California want marriage to be restrictively defined. I don't know if the law has parallel protections for same sex marriages, but I'm guessing it probably already does.

You can read the outrage statements in the article. Not really worth addressing here. Funny that Arnold does the right things and then gets pummeled in the polls. You'd think that he'd get more support on issues where he obviously was following a voter mandate.

You'd also wonder how a legislature could pass a bill that so obviously flies in the face of the voter proposition. I'm thinking some of those politicians are really not paying attention.

Nancy Pelosi: Jackass

I heard Pelosi's tirade on the news last night and went to find a quote, but RedState.org has an entry that pretty much fits what I was going to say. But maybe a little more politely.

The White House is taking issue with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's account of a conversation with President Bush yesterday. After a White House meeting, Pelosi said that the president is "oblivious" to and "in denial" about the problems following Hurricane Katrina. That became clear, Pelosi said, when she recounted how she urged Bush to fire FEMA chief Michael Brown.

"He said, 'Why would I do that?'" Pelosi, quoting the president, told reporters.

"I said because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right last week," Pelosi said. "And he said, 'What didn't go right?'"

Pelosi then said Bush's comments showed that the president was "oblivious, in denial, dangerous."

It's worse than even this sounds. She was pretty much spitting blood while saying this. Does this sound like a reasonable person? Would a person that heard Bush say the federal reaction to the disaster was unacceptable just a few days previously really think this, never mind run out in front of a load of reporters and start screaching?

And just to keep the "Evil Karl Rove" conspiracy alive, I wish to state here that he put the president up to saying what he did to Pelosi just to watch her go off like a rocket. That tirade did the Dems more damage than most of the wigging out about SCOTUS nominee Roberts.

I Love the Way this Man Thinks... and Writes

This is a great read, as is everything I've read at this blog. I think it well worth sharing.

Only a few minutes ago, I had the delightful opportunity to read the comment of a fellow who said he wished that white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself could have been herded into the Superdome Concentration Camp to see how much we like it. Absent, of course, was the fundamental truth of what he plainly does not have the eyes or the imagination to see, namely, that if the Superdome had been filled with white, middle-class, racist, conservative cocksuckers like myself, it would not have been a refinery of horror, but rather a citadel of hope and order and restraint and compassion.

And

But Sean Penn can take himself, an entourage and a personal photographer – that’s three or four people in a four-person boat – and show us all how incredibly big and down-home he is by sailing off a few feet to rescue people, before the boat sinks from the incompetence of failing to put in the drainage plug. He wore a very nice white flak vest, instead of the passé orange life preserver, because getting shot at is a lot more macho looking, if a million or so times less likely, than drowning because you went out into the water with a lead vest rather than a life vest. It’s a scene in the trailer that runs incessantly in their heads: In a world run by evil corporations, a rebel who plays by his own rules starts a deadly game of cat and mouse with an all-powerful conspiracy in this searing portrait of extraordinary courage in a life under siege, starring…me!
I was actually ready to publicly commend the guy, until I heard about the personal photographer. If he wanted to help people – and that’s all – he could have paid for that boat, and a few hundred others, manned them with reasonably competent recreational boaters, and sent out a flotilla. But no. It’s not about having people saved. It’s about something else entirely. It’s about having people saved by Sean Penn. That’s when I realized that whether it’s the Murderous Regime in Iraq, or the Murderous Regime in Iran, or the Murderous Storm in Louisiana…ultimately, it’s all about Sean Penn. Peace Be Upon Him.

It's a long read, but enjoyable and well worth the time.

A Look at What Wasn't Done

I found this informative, with details and facts that I hadn't heard in all the blaming going on.

The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.

The actions and inactions of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin are a national disgrace due to their failure to implement the previously established evacuation plans of the state and city. Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin cannot claim that they were surprised by the extent of the damage and the need to evacuate so many people. The plans projected that 300,000 people would need transportation in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. If the plans had been implemented, thousands of lives would likely have been saved.

In addition to the plans, local, state and federal officials held a simulated hurricane drill 13 months ago, in which widespread flooding supposedly trapped 300,000 people inside New Orleans. The exercise simulated the evacuation of more than a million residents. The problems identified in the simulation apparently were not solved.

It's appalling, and all the more so because we're not likely to get this information on the news anytime soon. We'll just get more Nancy Pelosi demanding that the head of FEMA be fired.

Sigh. You'd think I'd be used to it by now.

UN Reform

Ah yes, is anyone surprised by this? If you are you should probably go crawl back under your rock.

A yearlong inquiry into the U.N.'s oil-for-food program blames Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Security Council and some member states for allowing mismanagement and corruption to undermine the program and enrich Saddam Hussein. A preface to the Independent Inquiry Committee's report, to be released today, says the U.N. requires stronger leadership and serious overhaul.

Shock. This is pretty precious,

Decisions were "delayed, bungled or simply shunned" when the political and economic interests of Security Council member states conflicted with the U.N.'s administrative guidelines, it says. The states mentioned included the United States, Russia and France.

Then there is the recommendations.

The panel, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, called for four key reforms, including creating the post of chief operating officer and an independent auditing board, and said they should be implemented within a year.

The chief operating officer will be a cousin of Annan's and the auditing board will be run by 7 heavily corrupt officials from countries who have a special dislike for the US. Well, maybe I'm being a bit cynical on those points.

But then I'm certain that obstructionism in the reforms will be justified because the US is doing so much to outrage the Millennium Development Goals. Obviously, Bolton is just being disruptive to the UN's agenda by providing comments so late in the preparations period. Imaging if he had been installed earlier, the comments and US positions probably would have been less of a disruption. Well, then again, probably not.

Work on a summit declaration was thought to be progressing smoothly until mid-August. A 39-page document was in its third draft when Washington's U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, submitted hundreds of proposed changes, along with seven U.S. position papers.

Not that there are any issues that are a real problem.

Among the most contentious issues being negotiated is development. Early drafts of the summit declaration contain commitments to so-called Millennium Development Goals, one of which would commit wealthy countries to spending a percentage of their national income on development assistance.

Ambassador Bolton sent a letter to colleagues last week laying out his objection to what he called "global aid targets." He says the Bush administration remains committed to pledges made at the Millennium Summit in 2000. But he says those commitments are different from the Millennium Development Goals backed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"We said explicitly that President Bush has repeatedly endorsed the goals contained in the declaration of the millennium summit in 2000. Under Bush we have nearly doubled official developmental assistance," he said. "There is a lot of confusion about the phrase 'Millennium Development Goals.' I sent a two-page dear colleague letter to explain our position, and we're going to negotiate it out."

It looks like the seven sticking points are quite stuck.

With only a week to go before the summit opens, negotiators say there is no agreement on any of the seven main issues up for discussion.

The status of the talks was summed up Tuesday by Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali. As he entered a negotiating session, he told reporters "We're stuck."

Well, that is just sad. I'm especially torn up by the 0.7% of a countries GDP needing to be given to the UN for support of their goals. Personally, handing that gigantic wad of cash to an organization that hasn't been cleared of corruption is likely a poor idea.

If you'd like to see the US alterations to the document you can find it here. This website has most of the documents related to the Millennium Summit.

And don't forget just how dedicated Annan is to reform. Though I'd say he's doing his best to fend off any real reforms, but what the hell do I know?

News Coverage Humor

I found this quite funny. WazzaDem must have a lot of time on his hands. It is funny, but not completely inaccurate.

I saw the coverage of several of the reporters he pokes at and I found Anderson Cooper by far the worst. Closely followed by Geraldo. I was definitely irked that none of them could actually present anything like a fact.

I'd rank the coverage with MSNBC probably doing the best job, then Fox, with CNN as an absolute pathetic last.

UN Report on Chernobyl

Found this one a bit odd, but the studies sited are from quite good sources scientifically.

The long-term health and environmental impacts of the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, while severe, were far less catastrophic than feared, according to a major new report by eight U.N. agencies.

The governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the three countries most affected by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, should strive to end the "paralyzing fatalism" of tens of thousands of their citizens who wrongly believe they are still at risk of an early death, according to the study released Monday.

This is all realated to the study by the Chernobyl Forum. They are made up of:

The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

Can't find the study itself though, but this link show a good synopsis of the findings. Maybe it will be available for real review. The WHO has something nearly identical on their website. The IAEA doesn't have as much though. Where in the hell is the report? Not even on the UN website.

And just for a laugh here is a comment from Green Peace.

The Greenpeace environmental group also denounced the report, saying it was "whitewashing" the impact of the world's worst nuclear accident.

"It is appalling that the IAEA is whitewashing the impacts of the most serious industrial accident in human history," said Jan Van de Putte, a Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, in a statement released by the organisation's headquarters in Amsterdam. "Denying the real implications is not only insulting the thousands of victims - who are told (they are) sick because of stress and irrational fears - but it also leads to dangerous recommendations, to relocating people in contaminated areas," Van de Putte said.

Greenpeace said a more careful reading of the 600-page report and other published research by UN bodies leads to a different conclusion.

Now I might be more friendly to the last line if the group bellowing here wasn't Green Peace. I'd have linked to their site, but there wasn't any relevant information on topic.

Well, I'll keep looking. Hate to see reports mentioned when you can't even read it for yourself.

Blame Game

Been a long weekend of the blame game. I must admit I'm pretty tired of it all. This article from the American Spectator is pretty much on par. I don't think it would matter much what had happened with the hurricane, Bush would have been to blame.

Not that the federal government doesn't deserve some of the blame for the effectiveness of the recovery, but to completely ignore that the local and state authorities failed miserably is just foolish. Especially considering that they are the ones that must start all the emergency activities. The federal government doesn't get involved directly until requested. They can stage and prepare, but they can't just walk in and take over. (Don't believe me, look at the Stafford Act.)

I also particularly loved the bellowing over the looting. Such wonders as suggesting that the National Guard or the 82nd Airborne should have been put in place before the hurricane to prevent looting are just brilliant. Where in the three states affected would you have placed them? Who would be at fault when a lot of them died due to the hurricane?

Get this from the troll Krugman:

Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "“On Wednesday,"” said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "“reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"

Maybe Bush administration officials believed that the local National Guard could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National Guard and much of its equipment —"including high-water vehicles" are in Iraq. "“The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters several weeks ago.

Well, let's start with the obvious. The LA National Guard wasn't under federal control. Still isn't. No doubt that they could have helped, but they are military and going out and doing things independantly is commonly frowned upon. Especially when they may/could have been ordered to some place with extreme need and wouldn't have been available. But let's just throw the vitriol around, and not bother to think there are reasons why they were where they were.

Here's the best line from Krugman:

I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.

At a fundamental level, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.

Do I really need to go into why Krugman is a clueless ASS? "They like making war," statement just irritates me beyond belief. Does he honestly believe that? "They don't like providing security..." is just startling in its completely overwhelming level of blind caustic hatred for the present administration.

Is it any wonder that I'm sick of all of this tripe?

I really would like to see a complete timetable of the hurricane and when activities occurred. You hear pieces here and there, but nothing complete. I suppose we'll have a Katrina commission soon to investigate the issues. Not that the findings will be believed any more than the 9/11 commission's or the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings were.

Oh, and one last bit. This whole situation proves what all gun owners have known for a long time. The government isn't going to be there to protect you, so you must take on the responsibility of protecting yourself. Any other action is going to leave you dead by the road side.

Sean Penn: Incompetent

Heh. Gotta love this.
Saw it at Free Will.

EFFORTS by Hollywood actor Sean Penn to aid New Orleans victims stranded by Hurricane Katrina foundered badly overnight, when the boat he was piloting to launch a rescue attempt sprang a leak.

Mr Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug a hole in the bottom of the vessel, which began taking water within seconds of its launch.

Go see the picture of Penn in his "flak vest." Just seeing that made me want to shoot him.

I gotta ask, would you get into a boat with Sean Penn or take your chances on foot?

Me, I'd rather walk.

The best part is the last line in the article:

With the boat loaded with members of Penn's entourage, including a personal photographer, one bystander taunted the actor: "How are you going to get any people in that thing?"

Heh.

USS Philadelphia Collides with Turkish Cargo Ship

Not much info, but looks like a minor collision with a cargo ship. Articles say no damage, but I find that unlikely. More likely is that there was only minor damage. I always get a laugh when they say there is no damage and then have to go on and say that there was no damage to the nuclear power plant.

I've been on the SSN-690. Strange to hear news about a ship you've worked on.

Schumer Screwing Around About SCOTUS

What in the Hell is Schumer playing at?

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) floated the most specific, if unusual, suggestion: He proposed that Bush temporarily fill the Rehnquist vacancy by asking O'Connor "to stay on as chief justice for, say, a year."

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Schumer said: "At a time when the nation needs unity and stability more than ever, she would bring it, and it would be a breathtaking choice."

O'Connor has said she will stay on the court until her successor is confirmed. She has given no indication that she would be interested in Schumer's suggestion.

Not that this is a reasonable suggestion. O'Connor said she's done and trying to get her to stay for no really good reason, other than he wants to delay filling the positions is pretty much obvious. Stability would be satisfied by filling the positions.

Here is an interesting blog on putting Roberts up for Chief Justice. Less fights seeing that Roberts is already up for associate, but now Bush has placed him up for Chief, I think I like the nomination. It's going to be uglier than ever though.

You may also wish to look at How Appealing. They've got quite a massive selection of links to many commentary out there on the topic.

Treaty of Portsmouth: 100 Years

The treaty ending the Russo-Japanese war, and some other little things, was completed 100 years ago today on Portsmouth naval shipyard. Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace prize for his mediation.

This is the building where it was signed. I haven't been there in years, of course, it was on a secure government facility when I was there. I haven't been to the yard in years, so god only knows what the building is being used for now.

Levee Engineering

Belmont Club entry on the engineering of the levee systems.

When Katrina showed up, it simply exceeded the designed defenses of city. There was never any prospect they would hold up. Nor was there any possibility any could be built until the middle of the 21st century. Given the length of time necessary to defend the perimeter of New Orleans against a Category 4 threat, a number of proposals were advanced suggesting enclosing the city's vitals in an cofferdam, in a manner reminiscent of battleship citadels.

His statement based on an article linked from from Civil Engineering Magazine.

Freemasons In US News & World Report

Too cool.

Wal Mart is Evil. Evil.... Never Mind

I think we have an Emily Litella moment here.

Paragons of virtue, like Blunderford (insert Tourettes-like cussing), probably regularly howl at Wal Mart for their evil practice of making a profit in a free enterprise system while employing teenagers and retirees on decent wages (the monsters). Right they are too. How dare this horrendous, monstrous, dare I say it, corporation, actually bring in supplies to the devestated region. Worse than that, these cretinous, drooling, heathens actually have the temerity to plan on giving away these supplies to people who need them. Will the horrors never cease? Can Noam Chomsky not save us?

Good for you Wal Mart and thank you.

Blunderford. Absolute Cur

The spewing rage I feel towards someone this low, this despicable, this god-damned cowardly... Holy Cow! I'm going to pop a blood vessel. If you go over and read on his blog (which I'm NOT going to link to), he's crowing about it. Enjoy your moment in the sun you... I don't even want to type the words that are coming to mind. I just want to go & stencil them on his frigging face with an exacto knife. Petty, small, waste of resources. He's breathing oxygen, eating food, and drinking water that a real human being may need someday.
Partisan bikering is one thing. This is flat wrong. Sick. I'm quite frankly, simultaneously gob-smacked and furious. Only follow the link if your blood pressure is under control or you wear a tin hat around to avoid the Bush mind control rays.

Micro$oft and Massachusetts

The People's Republic of Massachusetts is looking to dump Micro$oft if it doesn't come up with more open source formatting in its document products.

The state of Massachusetts will revamp its digital output during the next 16 months to create only open-format documents and is increasing its use of Linux and free and open source software (FOSS) among its workers, the state's chief information officer told DesktopLinux.com Thursday in a conference call.

and

The state said Wednesday that starting on Jan. 1, 2007, all electronic documents created by state employees could be saved in only two format types: OpenDocument, which is used in open source applications such as OpenOffice.org, and the Adobe-created Portable Document File (PDF). OpenDocument can be used for saving documents such as letters, spreadsheets, tables, and graphical presentations. It is the default file format for OpenOffice 2.0, currently in Beta 2.

Heh.
Pretty much the smart thing to do in reality. That way no one would be limited in their ability to access/use documents from the state.

Of course, Micro$oft doesn't like it:

Alan Yates, general manager of Information Worker Business Strategy at Microsoft, told DesktopLinux.com: "We do not believe ... that the answer to public records management is to force a single, less functional document format on all state agencies.

"The proposed policy is inconsistent with ongoing dialogues Microsoft is having with other Massachusetts state agencies about how Microsoft products can best meet their data and records requirements for a variety of data types -- ranging from traditional documents to pictures, audio, video, voice, voice-over-IP, data, database schema, webpages, and XML information.

Micro$oft again is digging in to resist making life easier for everyone. I'd guess that it wouldn't be that difficult to have some template form in their product that would be just an OpenSource style. That would be the simplest, but you can bet that Micro$oft will make it so that it is really hard to use and will look really horrible.

Funny that usually markets define what they want and manufacturers try to match their product to the need. Micro$oft does just the opposite. Nothing they do is fully compliant with any open standard, and they fight like hell to keep it that way. Working for a small company that has had security products for Micro$oft OS, I've heard the horrors of even getting them to discuss why there would be an issue. But Bill Gates isn't trying for a monopoly, oh no.

Looting, Violence, and General Mayhem

Just don't get it. You'd think there is enough misery in the area.

But the ambulance service in charge of taking the sick and injured from the Superdome suspended flights after a shot was reported fired at a military helicopter. Richard Zuschlag, chief of Acadian Ambulance, said it had become too dangerous for his pilots.

and

In a sign of growing lawlessness, Tenet HealthCare Corp. asked authorities late Wednesday to help evacuate a fully functioning hospital in Gretna after a supply truck carrying food, water and medical supplies was held up at gunpoint.

"There are physical threats to safety from roving bands of armed individuals with weapons who are threatening the safety of the hospital," said spokesman Steven Campanini. He estimated there were 350 employees in the hospital and between 125 to 150 patients.

Tempers flared elsewhere across the devastated region. Police said a man in Hattiesburg, Miss., fatally shot his sister in the head over a bag of ice. Dozens of carjackings were reported, including a nursing home bus. One officer was shot in the head and a looter was wounded in a shootout. Both were expected to survive.

Looters used garbage cans and inflatable mattresses to float away with food, clothes, TV sets even guns. Outside one pharmacy, thieves commandeered a forklift and used it to push up the storm shutters and break through the glass. The driver of a nursing-home bus surrendered the vehicle to thugs after being threatened.

Hundreds of people wandered up and down shattered Interstate 10 the only major freeway leading into New Orleans from the east— pushing shopping carts, laundry racks, anything they could find to carry their belongings.

I don't understand the looting of non-neccessities. If you need food or water, I can't blame you. Attacking hospitals or relief workers is just abominable.

If it wasn't for Posse Comitatus I'd say bring in the Marines for control and leave the national guard for assisting with aid.

As for Bush going to the area, I think that is a really poor idea. The area is far too large and will just distract from the rescue missions. Politics should just stay out for now.

Watching the FEMA press conference, I was just pissed. The only questions you heard were related to why FEMA is/has failed so miserably. The reporters even went so far as to say that the tsunami relief was faster. Not a fair comparison mind you but they had to go there. I even heard the question on how much the Iraq operations were effecting the recovery. The FEMA representative was quite clear that the Army stated they had no personnel deficit and that Iraq was totally irrelevant to the situation.

Gasoline Prices

Tuesday morning $2.53.
Wednesday morning $2.89.
Thursday morning $3.06.
Thursday afternoon $3.27.

Gouging? I don't see how a product can vary in price that quickly. But I'm probably not really understanding how pricing of gasoline works. Most products are produced at a price and then sold for a defined profit. Is this how gasoline is priced? Doesn't look like it to me. I'm just confused. Worse, I'd conjecture that refineries staying making gasoline will effect heating oil prices.

This article discusses price caps for gasoline. Personally, I don't think that is needed. Though I would expect that the states and federal government would keep a close eye on those who may try to gouge.

My brilliant landlord, box of rocks that he is, recently had a chance to lock in the home heating oil price at $2.19. He decided to wait. Now I don't buy heating oil, but I do know that heating oil prices start to go up in September, not down. Now he's said he may have to raise rent. My forehead is getting seriously calloused from banging it on the desk.

Defense is Not an Option

I caught this at Ravenwood's Universe. It's a blog entry on some extreme lunacy regarding a case where a 72 year old man kills a man in a Walmart who was in the act of attempting to stab his wife to death.

The original post is from The Smallest Minority. It's quite frightening to look at the remarks that he quotes. You can go to the original piece with its remarks directly from here. They are truly amazing.

You should really read this stuff direct, so I won't quote. Just incredible.

California Gun Law Success Story

Nice to see that extreme gun control laws in California are doing so well.

Four men were indicted in Southern California on Wednesday in what federal authorities described as a terrorist plot hatched inside a prison to attack synagogues, American military installations and Israeli officials.

The defendants in the case - three American citizens and a fourth man from Pakistan - had bought weapons, "were in the planning stages" of the attacks and "were well on the way" to carrying them out, said Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Looks like those gun-control laws are doing wonders in keeping guns out of the hands of felons.

New York Times Reports Positive Gun Use

I think we may be seeing signs of the apocolypse. The NYT is reporting on residents who are using their own firearms to protect themselves and their property and the Times isn't denigrating them. To my knowledge, this is a first in the modern era.
Arguments are coming out that since it's just larceny, and mostly for food, it should simply be allowed to happen. That'd be fine if that were the whole story. The Times report includes the attempted theft of a generator. I've read another report of the actual theft of a generator. There have been attacks on hospitals. Hijackings... Since it'll be a few more days before order can even begin to be restored, having your own firearm is a must for protection, not attack and the NYT's agreeing at last. Woo hoo!

Looting

Shouldn't be unexpected. That's what happens in areas of disaster. Still sucks. This SayUncle piece shows a bunch of variations on the reporting and what's being stolen.

I especially like the discussion on the racist reporting on the looting.

Hurricane Politics

QandO has a couple of decent posts on the rubbish flowing into the politics of the hurricane disaster. The vitriol being splashed around is kind of stunning. Screams about the National Guard not being around to help because they are in Iraq to the rants that the severity of the hurricane is Bush's fault.

The quotes from Kennedy and Jurgen Trittin are fascinating. Especially in the total lack of research that they indicate. How someone can open their mouth to make such statements with no contact with science is amazing. Worst of all is that people will believe them because they are speaking in the press.