Students Suing the School

Ah the California Dream. Even the students are flakes and nuts.

A group of California high school students sued the state's superintendent of education, claiming a new exam may unfairly deny them a diploma even when they meet all other graduation requirements.

Hmm. Let's see. If the requirement for graduation includes the test than how they being "unfairly denied" a diploma? Why do the students believe that they have the right to set the bar?

The students claim the California High School Exit Examination, which is being given for the first time this year, denies them an equal opportunity to learn because some teachers aren't certified in the subjects being tested. Thousands of students may join the suit, filed today in San Francisco, said Arturo Gonzalez, a lawyer for the students.

Well, if some teachers aren't certified, sue the Teacher's Unions. I'm certain they are ensuring the highest level of certifications for their members. Or maybe not.

Then the lawyer was heard.

Gonzalez said the state failed to study alternatives for students who could not pass the test, particularly English-learners, as the legislation required when lawmakers approved the exam in 1999. The lawsuit also claims the state is denying some students their fundamental right to an equal education.

How much is this guy making on this suit?

The issue still comes down to making allowances for those who won't put the effort into passing the exams. The teacher may not be the pinnacle of their profession, but the standard being set isn't a gold standard either. By allowing an alternative to passing the test requirements you set the education standard lower. How does that provide for an equal education?

It also sounds like another case where someone has a "right" that doesn't exist. The student has no "right" to a diploma. They have a right to receive a quality education. They have earn the diploma. This is another wonderful indicator of the entitlement society being constructed in the US.

Nerve Gas Alarm

So the Capitol building was evacuated last night.

A suspected nerve agent forced the evacuation of a U.S. Senate office building late on Wednesday until tests concluded the vapor that set off the alarm was harmless, police said.

Some 200 people, including several senators, were quarantined for three hours in a nearby underground garage while tests at the Russell Senate Office building determined they were never in danger.

And the politicians were at there best.

"We've been through a lot of these things in the Capitol. It's unfortunately a sign of the times," Sen. Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said on CNN after leaving the Senate garage.

Not sure why it's unfortunate. Unfortunate would have been a nerve gas attack that really killed a bunch of the politicians. Or maybe that wouldn't have been so unfortunate.

Schneider said substances as benign as fertilizer could trigger a false positive result for chemical agents.

Well, you can be certain there were many fertilizer-like substances floating around that building.

Trust Me

I suppose there is no way out of this NSA issue without the disclosure. Though this will probably end the effectiveness of the program. How many senators and representatives are being briefed? I'm thinking its around 70.

After weeks of insisting it would not reveal details of the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mails, the White House reversed course Wednesday and provided a House committee with highly classified information about the operation.

The White House has been under pressure from lawmakers who wanted more information about the NSA program. Democrats and many Republicans rejected the administration's contention that they could not be trusted with national-security secrets.

The shift came the same day Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., announced he is drafting legislation that would require the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the NSA's monitoring program and determine if it is constitutional.

It also came after Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., chairwoman of a House intelligence subcommittee that oversees the NSA, broke with the Bush administration and called for a full review of the program, along with legislative action to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

She and others also wanted the full House intelligence committee to be briefed on the program's operational details. Although the White House initially promised only information about the legal rationale for surveillance, administration officials broadened the scope Wednesday to include more sensitive details about how the program works.

The results are to be seen. You can also be quite certain when, and note I don't say if, the details make it into the MSM there will be no accountability from those briefed.

Lawmakers leaving the briefing said it covered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department papers outlining legal justifications for the operations, details on success stories and some highly sensitive details.

Not that that is a disclosure, but typically when being briefed on secret information, one doesn't detail what the briefing was about, even at a high level.

But "trust me" is what the legislature has bashing Bush for saying, and now they are saying the same. And these politicians do have political axes to grind in many cases.

I get nervous when a president says "trust me." But when that turns into a chorus I know I'm going to lose.

Plush Pet of the Month Club

Not going to give this away, just go and look.

I got a special laugh at Gnasher.

I also like the ISOAR site.

Cthulu Ftagan Legos

I think Professor Bainbridge has this one right.

Some folks just have way too much time on their hands.

King Funeral: The Public Shaming of the President

Nice to see that the politics invaded the funeral of Coretta King.

Joseph Lowery, who founded the influential Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with Coretta's late husband, brought down the house with remarks directed squarely at Bush.

'We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there, but Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection here,' Lowery said, using a poetic cadence typical of black ministers.

It was a clear reference to the unconventional weapons Bush cited to justify the invasion of Iraq, and the 'misdirection' of Bush's proposed budget for 2007 that boosts defence and security spending while cutting social programmes - and taxes.

'For war, millions more, but no more for the poor,' Lowery said, provoking laughter and applause. At the end, he turned abruptly and shook a smiling Bush's hand.

I'm not certain what WMDs had to do with the funeral, other than giving Lowery a pivot to throw muck at Bush. Of course, as I recall, the Iraq resolution had 22 other reasons and was approved by the senate, but let's not point out inconvenient facts in the face of Lowery's stunning rhetoric. As to misdirection, that strikes me as totally disingenuous. The budget is completely open and available for everyone to see. It's also not the end product, just the proposal. The congress has to layout the end product.

I'm surprised the article doesn't continue the quote relating to the wire-tapping of King. [I can't find a news report with the quote, so I'm not certain if Jemma or Lowery said it.] The obvious reference of the evil Bush adminstrations use of wire-taps on foreign-to-domestic sources. That got them on their feet at the funeral. Though the inconvinient facts that a democrat was president when it happened to King, and the democratic attorney general ordered them.

Then, to no one's great surprise, Jemma started throwing stones.

Former president Jimmy Carter also raised the racial and social inequities exposed by Hurricane Katrina.

'Those who were devastated by Katrina know that there is not yet equal opportunity for all Americans,' he said.

Carter noted that, as a southern Democrat from Georgia, he would never have entered the White House in 1977 if it had not been for the African American vote - a vote made possible by the voters' rights and registration campaigns led by the Kings.

Nothing like a funeral to show public scorn for the Political establishment you disagree with.

Defense Budget

This years Defense budget is said to have a 7% increase over the last budget. I've yet to find an explanation as to what that 7% entails, but I have found a huge amount of whining related to projects that "military analysts" in the MSM think should go. I've linked to Fred Kaplan's "War Stories" feature at Slate. This is a typical piece in the press.

Fred has an interesting way of adding up defense budgets. He seems to want to add any appropriation related to the military as having to be part of their budget. The point being that these appropriations are analyzed and approved separately, but that fact doesn't seem to have meaning for Kaplan.

One way that administrations understate the magnitude of military spending (and this practice long antedates George W. Bush) is to talk only about the "Department of Defense budget." Yet this comprises only a portion (though, granted, the largest portion) of what officials outside the Pentagon call the "national defense budget."

The DoD budget for fiscal year 2007 is indeed $439.3 billion (though more about that computation in a moment). But look at the Office of Management and Budget's "Analytical Perspectives" documents, specifically Table 27-1, "Budget Authority and Outlays by Function, Category and Program." The category called "National Defense" includes not only the Defense Department's budget but also the "defense activities" of the Department of Energy (mainly nuclear warheads and the national weapons labs, totaling $16 billion) and several other federal agencies ($4.4 billion), as well as $3.3 billion in various "mandatory" programs (mainly accrual payments to the military retirement fund).

I'm going to chime in specifically on the DOE that he seems to choose to point and screach about. First, the DOE is an independant functionary in the government. And for good reason. That little "nuclear" thing that Kaplan points out is rather important. If the DOE budget was tied to the DOD budget, the independance and control of a little group known as the NRC would be suspect. The NRC is the single agency responsible for oversite and regulation of Nuclear and Radiological material. The military, which is well known for not always being the most careful with dangerous stuff, is required to abide by the regulations of the NRC, thus ensuring that control of nuclear and radiological materials is standardized in this country. So, tell me, do you really want to attach the spending of such groups to the military budget?

Kaplan then goes on to rail against several of the big budget items for future weapon systems, and takes the cowards way out and doesn't bother to take a stand on which is unneccessary.

I could go on. I'm not proposing that Congress should kill all these weapons systems—just that it should (as a starter) ask if funding all of them is necessary, especially at these extravagant levels, given the threats that are out there in the world, and the need to set priorities, given that we're broke.

We're broke? Let's look at this from another angle. How much money has been invested in these systems? Should there be no benefit from that investment? I'd say that the military analysts have to make the decisions on what is needed. The 1889 trapdoor rifle was just fine in the Spanish-American war, right up to the point when the Spanish started shooting at the soldiers with Mausers using smokeless powder. Technology moves forward. Having the best technology will help in aiding the soldier to survive in the battle field, not to mention win battles.

What most of the commentators in the MSM are continuing is the long tradition of second guessing the professionals on what will be needed in the future. Just because the status-quo is working just fine right now doesn't mean it will in the near future.

Thugs for Puppies

Just reading this made my blood pressure go up. It's this kind of cowardly bullying that just makes me insane with rage. It's also the kind of thing that would get people killed. I'm kind of surprised that no one has firebombed SHAC or started going after their people in the same way. Let's be honest, if someone is out in front of your house, screaming with a bullhorn at the windows... Sneak 'round the back with a BB gun & teach 'em the error of their ways... for a start. I'm sorry, but "threats to kill or injure one's partner or children" is a declaration of war as far I'm concerned, joke or subtle F'U aside.

Cartoons and Freedom of Speech

I saw this linked at Powerline. [I think.]

The writer has some pretty good points in the Op-Ed.

The key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones. Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

There is a point there. Especially when looking at the "official" statements later quoted in the press. I don't think that it was intelligent to print and disseminate these cartoons for the simple reason of civility. I think the same thing when I see anything disrespectful to someone's race. But the point here must be that Islam can't be allowed a free pass when they themselves commonly have derogatory press about other religions. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are still the most vigorously defended rights in this country and most English speaking countries. That's what makes these comments disturbing.

* Britain: "The republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful, and it has been wrong," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

* New Zealand: "Gratuitously offensive," is how Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton described the cartoons.

* America: "Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,"a State Department press officer, Janelle Hironimus, said.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the cartoons were "unnecessary" or "offensive" or "inciteful" but the topic itself included freedom of speech, and these mouth pieces completely missed the point. By completely avoiding that part of the issue they trivialized the western side of the conflict.

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realist novel "The Satanic Verses." Rather than stand up for the novelist's life, President George H.W. Bush equated "The Satanic Verses" and the death edict, calling both "offensive." The then secretary of state, James A. Baker III, termed the edict merely "regrettable."

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster depicting Muhammad as a pig, the American government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Clinton, a State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns, called the woman in question "either sick or ... evil" and said, "She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam." The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst. As I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I "found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic."

I don't recall these statements. Though I have to say I find them offensive now. Personally, I think an administration can dislike a persons statement, and should make statements with regards to them. It should also be understood that calls for retraction are allowable and at times necessary [Look at the calls for Pat Robertson to STFU]. But calling for trial for practicing a protected freedom is beyond the pale.

I'd say that calling for the deaths or cutting off the hands of the cartoonists are as offensive as the original cartoons. The expectations of reason in this case seems to have fallen on the floor. If the western way of life is to maintain its common values, it must practice those values and enforce them as well.

QandO has a decent entry on the topic.

Spend Spend Spend

Fiscal responsibility? I still don't see Bush demonstrating any restraint. There are voices in the Republican party calling for it, but they certainly aren't the majority. And the Democrats have never seen a spending measure that they didn't like.

In all, Mr. Bush proposes spending $2.77 trillion in fiscal 2007 -- assuming he needs only $50 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, an amount that falls short of current spending. That works out to 20.1% of the gross domestic product, or the total amount of goods and services produced in the U.S. He expects revenue, after some tweaking of the tax code and some new fees, to reach $2.42 trillion, a 5.7% increase from this year. That would bring total revenue to 17.6% of GDP.

Oh my aching back. I'm not seeing much logic in further tax cuts with this. You can't reduce taxes and spend more. It just doesn't work that way.

Spending on Social Security would climb 5.6% to $581 billion next year -- all of it needed to pay benefits already provided by current law. Spending on the Medicare and Medicaid health-insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor would climb 10.4% to $592 billion. Mr. Bush proposes changes to the two programs, but they would save only $3.2 billion next year, and $40.8 billion over five years -- about 1.2% of the programs' projected five-year spending.

By contrast, annual congressional spending outside of defense and homeland security would be cut below this year's level, cuts that would be magnified by inflation. Much of that money, which constitutes about a sixth of federal spending, is targeted at the poor.

Social Security isn't even in discussion any more, so that albatross will continue pulling us down. As for the spending restraint that targets the poor, I just don't see how much you can pull out before you start causing an impact on society. Cuts in areas like Medicare and Medicaide aren't going to provide enough balance to the funding increases.

The deficit would fall to $354 billion, or 2.6% of GDP -- but only if Congress accepts all of Mr. Bush's money-saving proposals, which it likely won't, and doesn't add any other spending or tax breaks. The deficit for the current year is expected to be about $423 billion, or 3.2% of GDP.

So the annual deficit won't be as heavy as it was last year, but it still will exist. That is until the Pork and earmarks get tagged on from the congressional buddy system. It makes you wonder if we'll ever see a responsible government again.

Increases in Homeland Security and the Border Patrol make some sense, but the issue of illegal immigration still hasn't been addressed which makes one wonder how these increases will help if we can't even have allowances for workers to enter the country who are needed. I'd also would hope for a effectiveness review of some of the newer spending on homeland security. Throwing money at a problem doesn't commonly solve it, and I'd conjecture a lot of waste exists out there under the present system.

Fiscal responsibility, as practiced today, will sooner or later catch up to us. The present policy makers either don't understand this, or just don't care.

McCain Putting in the Boot

I can't put it any other way. Read it.

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform were sincere," McCain writes.

and

"When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. ... I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interept your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."

His derision is aimed at the up-and-coming star of the democratic party, Barack Obama.

Writes McCain, "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."

Could one call McCain a touch unhinged? Makes you wonder who publicized the letter. Not something to make McCain look like a reasonable person, even if Obama has decided to play political games.

Guns and Road Rage Study

No link. Just analysis.

I obviously don't have the study data or most of the questions. Both would have been valuable in clearing up this rather vague and illogical report. But my statements are on just what the report states as method and results.

The first problem, as I have seen mentioned elsewhere, is that the only statistic that they have on guns in the car is whether you had driven in a car where a gun was located.

• They don't separate whether the gun was owned by the person answering the questions.
• They don't detail whether the gun was a in the car during the road rage incident.
• They don't specify what amount of time guns were in the vehicle.

This lapse is made far worse in that they only use the metric of whether the questioned had been in a vehicle with a gun at least once during the past year. This is even further antagonized by the road rage question being four in number, and that any one of these questions appear to qualify the subject in the past 12 months as being involved in road rage.

So One time driving in a car with a gun you may not own, and one obscene gesture at you in a totally different vehicle qualifies as a positive hit on this study.

The contention in the introduction is that 23 states have in the past decade made it easier for people to carry guns in their vehicle. They reference a Rosengarth study which is solely on Concealed Carry. This is completely distortive. They don't separate hunters out of the questions. This will most certainly distort the results heavily due to a vast majority of states allowing residents to openly carry long arms in their vehicles to hunt. This level of distortion of the results should find outrage from the scientific community, not praise as seen in the New Scientist.

The contention in the report also tries to place aggression soley in relationship to the having a gun in the vehicle. Other factors are quite apparent in the study. Being a liberal, living in the Northeast, having a criminal record, being young, driving a lot. But yet the only publicized and forced result is related to having a gun in a car with you at some point during the year.

They also mention that giving a rude gesture is likely to receive one in return. But with that understanding, they should have disqualified at least one of the criteria for road rage. Leaving that criteria in place dilutes the results. A person who has considered everything that they have done driving as polite and safe will still make obscene gestures when receiving one. Just because you receive an obscene gesture doesn't necessarily mean you deserved one.

Toward the end of the report they spout out that they would have hoped that people carrying guns in their cars would be the most self-controlled and law-abiding. Then they admit that they don't know whether any of those questioned had a gun in the vehicle when the road rage incident occurred. So, the contention is that being a gun owner, you wouldn't make an obscene gesture when someone flips you off. An obscene gesture isn't illegal by the way. I'd also generalize in that someone that carries concealed is more likely to have more self-control while carrying. That's not what this study is able to conclude though.

And just to be nasty, Ted Kennedy, by this study, is far more likely to be an aggressive driver than I or anyone I know who owns a gun, is likely to be.

SayUncle had it right. This study is Bullshit.

Nuclear Dreams: More on Pebble Beds

This is a link to QandO discussing some news out of China on the PBMR. The original article is from Newsweek.

Nuclear scientist Chang Wei pointed at the model, which looked like a basement furnace split down the middle, and explained how the design - —including 27,000 balls of uranium wrapped in layers of super-strong silicon carbide, ceramic material and graphite—makes it physically impossible for the reactor to do anything but shut down if something goes wrong; the dangerous uranium would be trapped inside the spheres, which have a melting point much higher than the temperature inside the reactor could ever reach.

Dangerous Uranium. You know, the Uranium isn't the thing that is really dangerous. It's the other nuclear byproducts that are really dangerous. But lets not nitpick.

"So let me see if I can describe it in Texas English," said Snead, 76, an entrepreneur who hopes to build a nuclear power plant on 55 acres in Texas. "There's no way it can explode or melt?"

Chang nodded in the affirmative. She went on to explain how the design requires only a fraction of the control-room staff a more conventional reactor would need. Snead, apparently impressed, exclaimed that this newfangled Chinese technology may be the key to assuaging the nuclear fears of Americans. He wants to go back and sell the idea to Texas A&M University or another school willing to back a research center. "I think the Americans will be buying nuclear plants from China within five years," he said.

Umm. "Newfangled?" And it's not Chinese technology. It was originally developed in Germany and worked on all over the place, including in the US. Well, at least the article corrects Snead.

From the article it does sound like China is moving fairly aggressively on the technology. They'll probably reach oil independence long before we in the US do. Too bad we are held back by the fear mongers who consistently screech about the evils of nuclear power.

Jaime Hernandez keeps going

Apologies to the GeekWife, but I was in love with Maggie & Hoppie before I met her. It's great to see they're still going strong, although Maggie is looking a bit overused. Just wanted to share this one.

Gonzales and NSA Wiretaps

WaPo article is pretty poor. Doesn't go into the testimony as much as reports the Senatorial griping.

Specter suggested that the program's legality be reviewed by a special federal court.

"There are a lot of people who think you're wrong. What do you have to lose if you're right?" Specter asked Gonzales.

Hmm. Let's see. Political gerrymandering and screams for impeachment? I'd say that is something to lose. I don't see how this isn't going to end up in court. That said, these hearings are pretty much a joke. Speaking of which, here's another of the clowns.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said that while al-Qaida terrorists should be monitored, Bush chose to illegally wiretap Americans' conversations without safeguards to protect civil liberties.

"My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists," Leahy said.

Proof Senator? Please name the Quaker, Nun, or Baby that is being spied upon. The topic today was NSA spying, not the TSA no fly lists.

Gonzales told the panel that in authorizing the program, conducted by the National Security Agency, "The president is acting with authority both by the Constitution and by statute."

Gonzales called the electronic eavesdropping program "reasonable" and "lawful." He said published criticism of the program was often "misinformed, confused or wrong."

and

"There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the president has authorized and what we're actually doing," Gonzales said.

"You're not answering my question," Leahy retorted. "Does this law authorize the opening of first class mail of U.S. citizens? Yes or no."

"That's not what's going on," Gonzales said. "We are only focusing on international communications, where one part of the conversation is al-Qaida."

Well, that was clear. But did Leahy hear the answer? And if he did, does it matter?

And now on to the head clown.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., told Gonzales the administration broke with the time-honored system of checks and balances by not seeking greater congressional cooperation.

Kennedy said the eavesdropping program could actually weaken national security, raising the prospect that terror suspects could go free if courts rule evidence collected from such surveillance to be tainted.

"We're taking a risk with national security which I think is unwise," Kennedy said.

"We don't believe prosecutions are going to be jeopardized because of this program," Gonzales told Kennedy.

Sad as it is, he has a slight point here. Though I will say that prosecutions aren't likely to be a worry for those who are killed if a terrorist action comes to fruition. We should have concern for those people inside the US who are conspiring with terrorist, and with any luck the President and the law-enforcement institutions are getting the warrants when they are needed for prosecutions. The likelihood of our actually hearing about those cases is probably quite low though.

Gonzales declined to discuss details of the operation, as skeptics of the program have demanded. "An open discussion of the operational details of this program would put the lives of Americans at risk," he said.

Not really surprising. Though I wonder how much impact the revelations of the NSA program have impacted it's effectiveness. I'm going to guess that it has taken a substantial hit.

The Volokh Conspiracy gave me a headache when I read this.

Precedents on Inherent Authority: I've been watching parts of the Gonzales hearings this morning, and find it a bit frustrating that Gonzales seems to me mixing up two different kinds of claims concerning "inherent authority" to conduct surveillance. The first kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress does not need to create it for it to exist; the power exists even before Congress grants it. The second kind of inherent authority is inherent in the sense that Congress cannot extinguish it; the power exists even after Congress tries to take it away. It is true that there are a number of past precedents on the first type of inherent authority, but there is very little on the second type. My understanding is that Gonzales is using "inherent authority" in the second sense, but I don't think it's particularly helpful to cite precedents on the first type of inherent authority to support a claim of the second type of inherent authority.

I suppose there is a difference, but it really sounds like hair splitting. Not being a lawyer, I guess I'll just take Orin Kerr's word on his statement.

Training Round?

Someone still doesn't understand firearms training.

An Israeli chiropractor has invented a training bullet (Bullite) for pistols and shotguns, that allows you to practice your marksmanship by firing burst of laser light, instead of bullets. The idea came to the doctor when he was on active duty in the Israeli army, and he kept working on it until he got it to work. ......

The Bullite is the same size as a 9mm. .40 or .45 caliber cartridge. But Bullite contains a laser and battery. When the firing pin of the pistol hits the back of a Bullite, laser light comes out of the barrel, showing the shooter where the shot went. Each Bullite costs $200 (the 12 shotgun shell version costs $240), and the batteries are good for 10,000 shots. The one year warranty includes battery replacement, after than you have to send it back to the manufacturer to have the batteries replaced, or for repairs. Still, that's a lot cheaper (two cents a shot), and safer, than real ammo.

Bullite makes it much easier for pistol and shotgun users to improve their accuracy. Bullite also allows pistol users to safely practice "“draw and shoot."” This sort of thing is rather more dangerous when using live ammunition. Why didn'’t somebody think of this before?

It may be safer than live ammo and may have a limited use for draw and shoot training, but it doesn't teach people to deal with recoil. Recoil is the biggest hurdle to overcome when learning to shoot. You can flash a little light all you want, but the soldier needs live ammo training to understand what the recoil is like. Especially with handguns where getting sights back on target quickly is something that isn't simple.

I'd say this is of fairly limited value for training anyone in firearms. Maybe if you're teaching them how to use the sites, and then after that they need to know what the firearm does in reality.

If the Boston Globe Likes Him...

The Boston Globe magazine had this stellar profile of a "reasonable" gun control advocate. The slick picture of John Rosenthal on the page with his over-under 12 gage is supposed to get you all warm over his concern with "hunter's rights."

The question I have is, if the Boston Globe defines him as a "reasonable" gun control advocate, how does he appear to the rest of the country? Well like a gun grabber of course.

Rosenthal himself was a gun owner long before he was a gun crusader. In his 20s, he built a house in Waitsfield, Vermont, where a friend introduced him to shooting clay targets, which he added to a list of outdoor pursuits that included kayaking, skiing, and sailing. "It's a Zen sport," he says. "If you aim, you miss."

Zen sport?

Central to AHSA's mission is a national legislative agenda that includes closing loopholes that let criminals purchase weapons at gun shows, banning military-style assault weapons, requiring training for gun owners, and pushing for issues like wildlife conservation that Rosenthal says the NRA has neglected.

The NRA has been neglecting wildlife conservation is relative to gun control how? And there's that little word "banning." Pushing for the way of Massachusetts.

This is nothing more than another BG propaganda piece trying to push huntersandshooters.org as a "reasonable" gun control group. The usual argument, "we don't want to stop hunters, we just want to stop the gun violence." Nothing like another rich guy deciding on who has the right to protect themselves. Oh, but that can't be part of the issue. I mean:

Rosenthal is known as many things - but a gun enthusiast isn't one of them. His biggest claim to fame, in fact, may be the 252-foot-long billboard he owns along the Mass Pike in Boston that has for years featured the faces of children killed by gun violence. Its current incarnation reads "Welcome To Massachusetts: You're More Likely To Live Here" - a reference to the state's rate of handgun fatalities, the lowest in the nation.

Yes, Massachusetts, where in order to hunt you have to go through the same procedures that a person that carries concealed has to go through. And then the local constabulary can still decide you don't have any reason to own a gun. That's what the rest of the country wants.

Bullshit in a large steaming pile.

Cookies: Not the Edible Type

Caught this at the Vodka Pundit.

Google's recent legal spat with the U.S. Department of Justice highlights not only what information search engines record about us but also the shortcomings in a federal law that's supposed to protect online privacy.

It's only a matter of time before other attorneys realize that a person's entire search history is available for the asking, and the subpoenas begin to fly. This could happen in civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions.

That type of fishing expedition is not legally permitted for Web mail providers. But because search engines are not fully shielded by the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act--concocted back in the era of CompuServe and bulletin board systems--their users don't enjoy the same level of privacy.

and

Two solutions are simple to describe, but not likely to happen. First, search engines could voluntarily--or be required by law to--delete search histories after a few months unless the customer objects. Second, federal law could be amended to make it clear that search engines, which serve as a window to the Internet, are fully protected.

Don't think your going to see any help from those who tack cookies onto your browser. It gives them a lot of information and helps their business.

Q: Does Google collect and record people's search terms whether they're logged in or not?

Yes. Google confirmed this week that it keeps and collates these results, which means the company can be forced to divulge them under court order. Whether Google does anything else with them is another issue.

Given the Department of Justice's recent subpoena to Google, it's likely the police or even lawyers in civil cases--divorce attorneys, employers in severance disputes--eventually will demand that Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and other search engines cough up users' search histories.

Q: Has this happened before?
Almost. A North Carolina man was found guilty of murder in November in part because he Googled the words "neck," "snap," "break" and "hold" before his wife was killed. But those search terms were found on Robert Petrick's computer, not obtained from Google directly.

Also, attorneys have already begun introducing searches conducted on Google, Yahoo and AltaVista as evidence.

It's just a good idea to periodically delete your history and cookies.

It's not difficult to do either. On Firefox go to the Tools drop down menu and click on Options. Go to the Privacy tab and set the time for your History files. Then go to the Cookies tab and just delete them. Disallowing cookies will make a lot of sites not work, so you may as well live with them and just clean house periodically. I tend to do this quite a lot at work, just to ensure there isn't anything stored that may look bad. Especially if you sometimes go to sites that has different content then what you weren't expecting.

You can go and read the rest of the details. It's pretty good information for those concerned with privacy issues.

Cartoon Cluster @#%$

Let's see, protests throughout Europe, Indonesiea, Packistan, and the Middle East. Burning embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

Papers reprinting the cartoons to prove their freedom of the press. Other press agencies blurring out the images to try and be sensitive to the Moslems. But why show the image at all if you can't see it?

Are these all actions of reasonable people?

Free Will calls it a witch hunt.
QandO also has commentary pointing out the double standard on offending religious groups at CNN.

Big Mouth, No Evidence

Hillary really irritates me.

Senator Clinton told a largely friendly audience here Saturday night that the slow pace of government-sponsored reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina was the result of a deliberate decision by the Bush administration and may have been motivated by a desire to discourage Democratic voters from returning to the devastated region.

"I think that basically we are now watching a deliberate policy of neglect take root," Mrs. Clinton said during an appearance at a fund-raiser for legal services charities. "It is deeply troubling for any American to believe that your government would abandon such a huge part of our country and such an important part of our history."

Mrs. Clinton said she suspected that the assignment of President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, to oversee the relief effort indicated that political mischief was afoot. "Cynical minds might suggest that the destruction of the Democratic vote in Louisiana was a mixed blessing. If you rebuild New Or leans, all those Democrats might come home," she said during a 90-minute public interview conducted on an auditorium stage by a former television host, Jane Pauley.

I would demand some proof if I wasn't certain that this was the worst of the political rhetoric out there. Can anyone really believe this without real evidence?

Mr. Duffy said Mr. Bush has already directed $85 billion to recovery efforts in the Gulf. "He stands by that commitment just as he did in the rebuilding of New York City after 9/11. I think it might be best if we return to the spirit that brought New York back from the ashes," the spokesman said.

So the funding is already in the field. Maybe she means something else?

Read the rest of the article. It gives an interesting perspective on where Hillary is on quite a bunch of topics.

"Lost Liberty Hotel" Rejected

Pretty much what I expected. The people of Weare were reasonable.

Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

With any luck the state of NH will place intelligent restrictions on Eminent Domain in the near future.

Jail for the STUPID - A New Lawsuit and a New Pile of Morons

Professor Bainbridge among other blawgs is excellent for providing these jewels of modern society.

A complaint filed with a California court this week alleged that Apple'’s music players were "“inherently defective in design"” and "“not adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss".

and

"“Millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by Apple'’s conduct,"” the complaint said.

and

In addition to unspecified damages, this week'’s complaint sought to force Apple to upgrade its iPod software to limit the amount of sound the music players can produce.

Ok, so let me get this straight. You don't control the volume, so you play the music so loud that it hurts. Then it's Apple's fault because they made a device that allowed you a choice of how loud to play the music. And more of those warning labels must be required to detail what could be dangerous to people who are too stupid to be careful.

Here's another perfect example of a case where anyone who accepts money from this law suit should be tatooed on the forehead with a big, idiot label. Then they get put in a little padded cell until they can prove that they are capable of living responsibly on their own without having every product pre-emptively designed so that they can't hurt themselves.

No reason for tort reform in this country though, is there?

Gun-Toting Motorists

I caught this at SayUncle and I'm tending to strongly agree with him, this is Bullshit.

GUN lobbyists like to repeat the quote often attributed to American writer Robert Heinlein, that "an armed society is a polite society". But this is certainly not true for motorists.

A survey of 2400 drivers carried out by David Hemenway and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that motorists who carry guns in their cars are far more likely to indulge in road rage - driving aggressively or making obscene gestures - than motorists without guns. Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns (Accident Analysis and Prevention, DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014).

Yet in some states it is easier than ever to own a gun and carry it a car. In the past two decades 23 states have eased restrictions on carrying guns, says researcher Mary Vriniotis. Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

"Our findings indicate that the people driving around with guns in their cars are not among the most responsible and best-behaved people on the road," says Vriniotis. "In the interests of injury and violence prevention, it probably makes more sense to tighten rather than relax restrictions on gun carrying in motor vehicles."

Sorry, but this doesn't pass. I'd really like to see the actual report and some peer review, but it doesn't appear to be available anywhere. I'll keep looking.

This argument is the same as the Video-game argument. You remember, "video games make kids more aggressive and more violent." Not that it couldn't possibly be that you have the effect as the cause. Could it be that aggressive drivers may be more likely to seek out the right to carry?

This doesn't mean by any fair stretch that gun carrying causes vehicular aggression.

I've found a couple of writings by Hemenway, and they don't exactly read like a non-partisan researcher. Here is a link to a review of Death by Barrel. Then there is the Harvard Injury Control Research Center where apparently he does a lot of research of guns and suicide with some side research on homicide and accidents. And then there is the Public Health Method of Gun Control. Oh that is the Public Health Approach to Addressing Gun Violence. I seem to have garbled it a bit.

Oh, and look, he's a grantee at the Soros Open Society Institute. No question of where his gun control views lie. Oh and make sure you look and see his credentials are in Economics. That makes for a clear and reasonable understanding of the topic, I'm certain.

I'm going to keep looking for the study. I don't think there is any reason to buy this guys book. I think it's abundantly clear that this isn't exactly a disinterested study.

UPDATE:
I could only find a place to purchase the study. I'm going to guess that this will just be convinient for those who wish to pay the price. So much for open debate.

I've been reading the review of "Death by the Barrel" and the commentary is pretty sorry. Here's a great start:

"Why manufacture guns that go off when you drop them?" asks professor of health policy David Hemenway '66, Ph.D. '74. "Kids play with guns. We put childproof safety caps on aspirin bottles because if kids take too many aspirin, they get sick. You could blame the parents for gun accidents but, as with aspirin, manufacturers could help. It's very easy to make childproof guns."

Let's see, the function of a aspirin bottle will not be substantially effected by altering the cap. Changing the gun to make it "child-proof" will also ensure that it is difficult to use in an emergency. Let's see you run to the medicine cabinet and open that bottle of aspirin while being attacked. You think you'll get that bottle opened? Tell me that this is a reasonable expectation. Of course, you COULD hold parents responsible for failure to safely store and use guns.

Logic like this pervades Hemenway's new book, Private Guns, Public Health (University of Michigan Press), which takes an original approach to an old problem by applying a scientific perspective to firearms. Hemenway, who directs the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the School of Public Health

Yeah, that's what I suspected. Poor logic. And scientific method has been used many times, but if you have an ax to grind, that method itself gets distorted.

The ways in which people die by guns would not make a good television cop show. Rarely does a suburban homeowner beat a burglar to the draw in his living room at 3 a.m. Few urban pedestrians thwart a mugger by brandishing a pistol. "We have done four surveys on self-defense gun use," Hemenway says. "And one thing we know for sure is that there's a lot more criminal gun use than self-defense gun use. And even when people say they pulled their gun in 'self-defense,' it usually turns out that there was just an escalating argument—at some point, people feel afraid and draw guns."

Hemenway has collected stories of self-defense gun use by simply asking those who pulled guns what happened. A typical story might be: "We were in the park drinking. Drinking led to arguing. We ran to our cars and got our guns." Or: "I was sitting on my porch. A neighbor came up and we got into a fight. He threw a beer at me. I went inside and got my gun." Hemenway has sent verbatim accounts of such incidents to criminal-court judges, asking if the "self-defense" gun use described was legal. "Most of the time," he says, "the answer was no."

Hmm. So what would you suggest to the woman who is being raped? Just submit and it will end? How about the person trying to kill you? Of course criminals have their weapon prepared at the start of the assault. But then, lying down and letting them kill you is just bloody stupid. I'd also challenge the "stories" that Hemenway collected. Didn't exactly seek those people's stories who weren't drinking or fighting. Amazing that the "typical" story comes from people who were ready to discuss the incident. Those that don't want to discuss it likely would have very different stories.

Some civil lawsuits have targeted gun manufacturers, seeking damages for the death and disability resulting from the use of firearms. In one sense, such plaintiffs are in the bizarre position of suing manufacturers for making products that perform as advertised. Yet there may be parallels to the legal assault on tobacco, another product that can be lethal when used as directed. "For decades, there were no plaintiff victories beyond the appellate level" in the tobacco litigation, Hemenway notes. "Reasonable suits might allege things that the manufacturers could do to make guns safer."

So the logic here is that lawsuits are reasonable when manufacturers don't make guns that have every illusion of safety tacked onto them. This logic is astounding. A gun isn't made to be safe, it's made to kill. What amount of safety could you add to the device where litigation, by this standard, could be prevented? Maybe if you welded the barrel shut.

You can read the rest if you want, but I see no real research in this. Just gathering of stories from the willing tale tellers and not real science.

UPDATE II:
SayUncle has a link to a John Lott's Website on topic. Apparently Hemenway is unwilling to provide his data for review.

SayUncle also says he has the Hemenway report and is willing to share. I've asked for a copy.

Oh, and Geek with a .45 and Clayton Cramer have some good commentary as well.

Greater Generation

The Baby Boomers were a greater generation than the Greatest Generation? Done laughing? Speaking as a history geek, the "Greatest Generation" did do some nice things. They also did some horrible things. However, they, as each generation does, recieved a world and built on to it. Same thing as the Boomers (of which, I'm unfortunately one). Remember Isaac Newton, "If I can see further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." So no one generation should be making grandiose claims of preference over the others. It's actually a pretty good article for being on Salon.

Slick Willy in the Voice of Jemma

Bill Clinton apologizing for the rude west again. Being cheered by the middle eastern countries for doing it. I wonder if Bill was our first Arab president on top of our first Black president.

Ex-president Bill Clinton is winning high praise throughout the Arab world for his recent comments condemning anti-Muslim bias and urging dialogue with Hamas - with even Iranian newspapers touting his go-slow approach to that country's nuclear threat.

and

Speaking in Jerusalem in November, Clinton acknowledged that the remark was "outrageous," but he cautioned that the Iranian leader was "not elected because of his hatred for Israel or the West."

"He was elected because of the economic distress of ordinary Iranians, and which he promised to relieve by giving them financial assistance," the ex-president insisted, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Clinton warned Israel not to act unilaterally when reacting to terrorist threats, saying that "true peace and security can only come through principled compromise."

The former president's remarks on Monday at an economic conference in Doha, Qatar are also winning high praise.

Clinton took pains to condemn a series of cartoons appearing in European newspapers that parodied the Islamic prophet Mohammed, calling them "appalling."

"So now what are we going to do? ... Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?" he told the conference.

On Thursday, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak warned that the cartoons could provoke terrorist attacks against the West, but according to the Bahrain News Agency, Mubarak "expressed appreciation of the declarations made by former U.S. President, Bill Clinton."

Clinton's recent performance has prompted glowing press in news outlets not known for their friendly posture towards America.

Bill seems to forget that freedom of speech thing that we have in the west. And then seems to think that satire against Islam is a disgraceful replacement to anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Hanson even mentions it in his post at NRO this week.

Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.

Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled -— and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies - they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy.

I really hope that people around the world don't think that Clinton speaks for America. He has a right as a private citizen to speak freely for himself, but doesn't represent the views of a large proportion of the American public.

You can read the nauseating end to the linked article on Clinton. I can't seem to come up with anything civil to say in response.

Do go and read the Hanson article. He has some excellent perspective in his commentary.

Freedom of Speech

OK, yes, the guy is just shy of being a barking moonbat, but his overall message is 100% right on which is why I want to share it. You could substitute a number of lefty writers & radio personalities and still have an identical message. The importance of our freedom of speech outweighs the occasional cost in hurt feelings or bad information. That much is clear from what I consider the center, what that guy considers the center (which is pretty far to the left), let's just hope it's as clear to the right.

Jemma on Hammas

Jimmy Carter, still irrelevant after all this time. With statements like this, there is no wonder why.

Hamas deserves to be recognized by the international community, and despite the group's militant history, there is a chance the soon-to-be Palestinian leaders could turn away from violence, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

Carter, who monitored last week's Palestinian elections in which Hamas handily toppled the ruling Fatah, added that the United States should not cut off aid to the Palestinian people, but rather funnel it through third parties like the U.N.

Sigh.

Jemma, Hammas is recognized by the international community. They are a recognized terrorist group. The group's history is also it's present standing function and purpose, to use terrorist force to eliminate the Israeli state.

As for funding the Palestinians through the UN, I don't think that is wise. Graft protections haven't exactly been emplaced, so how would one ensure that the funding went to humanitarian aid and not to buying Hamas some nice new shiny weapons.

Carter said "there's a good chance" that Hamas, which has operated a network of successful social and charitable organizations for Palestinians, could become a nonviolent organization.

The 39th U.S. president said he met with Hamas leaders in Ramallah, in the West Bank, after last week's elections.

"They told me they want to have a peaceful administration. They want to have a unity government, bring in Fatah members and independent members," Carter said. But he added that "what they say and what they do is two different matters."

However, Carter noted, Hamas has adhered to a cease-fire since August 2004, which "indicates what they might do in the future." He said Hamas is "highly disciplined" and capable of keeping any promise of nonviolence it might make.

"A good chance" is not where I want to put my money. And I wonder what Carter considers an adherence to a cease-fire. Rocket attacks against Israel don't meet that criteria?

Sorry Jemma, you just aren't convincing.

Gun Control Senators of NY - Still Lying After All This Time

Schumer and Clinton are just not getting it. This article starts off a bit confusing but does have some decent points on the misinformation that is being put out about the National Tracing Center database.

In another article, Senator Schumer claims the NRA has undue influence on the gun control debate because it is - “among the biggest givers in Congress.

Both New York senators voted against tort reform that would stop lawsuits seeking to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for their legally-sold, properly-functioning products.

Senator Schumer received campaign contributions of $2,363,373 from lawyers during the 2004 election cycle, more than double the $1,151,130 the NRA contributed to all federal candidates and parties. Likewise, Senator Clinton received $2,891,672 from lawyers during the same period.

By Senator Schumer'’s criteria, lawyers have an exponentially greater undue influence on the New York senators'’ abilities to pass laws that benefit the people.The real crisis here is law firms buying influence to maintain a legal environment where frivolous lawsuits flourish, which in turn transfers more money and power to a small group of trial lawyers. The rest of us end up paying in increased costs of goods and services. The Senators'’ true goal is to know where every "gun was first sold."” To do this, they must keep a permanent record the original purchase:

For instance, if police report a stolen gun used in a crime in New York to the ATF, local law enforcement could learn where that gun was first sold…...

I cut out the links in the quote since they were all wrong or broken. You can get the links in the article endnotes should you be interested. I apologize if the formatting has been buggered a bit.

I love the bit about lawyer's contributions. Like the mainstream gun control groups, they love to vilify the NRA contributions, but shovel in contributions from other sources and vote to support their agenda. Nothing like a touch of hypocrisy to define your political career.

The NYPost piece by Chuckles and Hillary can be found here.
This bit gets me in the complete failure of logic.

The National Tracing Center database is an essential resource for law enforcement. Beyond enabling law enforcement to trace the history of a gun linked to a crime, it helps identify patterns of gun theft and trafficking. And that information can help local law enforcement -— like the NYPD -— in stopping illegal guns before they're used to commit crimes.

For instance, if police report a stolen gun used in a crime in New York to the ATF, local law enforcement could learn where that gun was first sold, and whether other guns sold by the same dealer were used in other crimes in other states. This helps law enforcement identify sources of "crime guns" so that they can cut the supply off at the source.

I am still baffled at how the database could be used to preemptively stop crime. If a gun is stolen it's not likely to be in the hands of a law abiding citizen. A law abiding citizen has enough difficulty carrying a gun for protection these days, especially in NY. So how does the gun's information get compared to the data in the database? The gun's not like a car, no license plate to call in to see if it's stolen. Not to mention, being concealed, the police can't see the serial number. Are the criminals in NY stupider than elsewhere? I doubt they openly carry their illegal weapons so the NYPD can check the serial numbers.

As for the 'sources of "gun crimes"' last I saw those were people. Guns are still inanimate objects last I saw. They don't have the ability to jump up and commit a crime on their own.

As to tracking where the gun was first sold, I think there is a problem with that logic as well. It makes the leap of logic that the original sale was illegal. What does the database show you related to gun dealers that sell in areas of high crime rates. If guns are stolen frequently in a certain area, then the dealer will appear to have a link to the gun crimes, though they may likely never sell a gun illegally. I don't see any problem with compiling such data and allowing the ATF to investigate more suspicious sellers, but this is not going to stop "gun crime."

The worst contention of the NY Gun-grabbing Duo is here:

From 1988 to 2003, 92 percent of the illegal handguns recovered in New York City came from out of state. Stopping the flow of illegal guns into the Empire State is essential to ending the gun violence on our streets. We are therefore pressing our colleagues in both the Senate and the House to repeal the senseless law that handcuffs law enforcement and the public from having full access to the ATF gun-tracing database.

Why would the public need access to this database? What good would that do? I could see some reasoning to let FFL holders have access to the database to ensure that the gun isn't illegal. But that also poses the question about crime guns sold by police departments to raise funding. How would those guns be tracked? What happens if one of those crime guns doesn't get properly cleared in the database?

The other problem with that statement relates to the number of out of state guns coming into NY. There seems to be an implication that these guns are brought in by outside entities. I don't know if that is intended, but that's what it sounds like to me.

I'll agree that all state and local police agencies should report into the standing ATF database, but I won't come to the logic that it will provide any useful data without a serious amount of investigation after trends are found. I also find no logic to the idea that the database would or could provide for preemption for gun crimes.

Chuckles and Hillary just don't make any case. No facts, no arguments. No logic.

Was Ted Kennedy Wrong?

I'm so confused. For weeks, Planned Parenthood told me that Alito had a radical right-wing agenda. Not just right-wing, mind you, but RADICAL right-wing. Kennedy got all red in the face as he ranted about how Alito consistently sided with the government against the little guy.

And now, right out of the starting gate, this.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the stay, but Alito joined the remaining five members in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.

How can this be? Can it be that Kennedy doesn't know what he's talking about? That he exaggerated? That he was just posturing for his far-left base? Naaaa.

I know what it is. Karl Rove told Alito to let this one go just to throw the press off balance.

Military Body Armor Study

Here's a NYTimes article on the deployment of the new body armor. It has an interesting section from the author of the original report on armor effectiveness.

The military's medical examiner, Dr. Craig T. Mallak, cautioned the panel that the study his office prepared for the Marines was strictly a medical analysis that did not take into account other issues that military officials also weighed in deciding how much shielding to provide their troops, including the effect of additional armor on mobility. Dr. Mallak said he could not be certain how many lives would be saved by additional armor.

The Marine Corps has said it first learned of Dr. Mallak's work in August 2004, but did not commission the $107,000 study until December that year because of financing and other delays. Dr. Mallak said a similar study was now being conducted for the Army.

Dr. Mallak told a military panel in 2003 that he was conducting autopsies on every member of the armed services killed in Iraq in part to assess the body armor.

"We've collected every bullet, every piece of shrapnel that we can get our hands on," he said at the time.

But on Wednesday Dr. Mallak said that in telling the panel that his work "screams to be published," a comment reported in the Times article, he was referring only to his work on the use of ephedra by military personnel. That work was eventually published.

Several lawmakers at the hearing criticized The Times for disclosing the medical study on body armor, with one calling the inclusion of a chart detailing the findings "nearly treasonous."

Another secret study that has found it's way to the public. It makes you wonder WTF? Take a quick look at this report from the USTimes using the NYTimes article. Take a close look at that little picture on the upper right. Looks like a diagram on where not to shoot a US soldier to me. I'd say that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have learned where to shoot to get past the inserts, but this ensures that anyone can get this information. Why did this have to be printed? Why make the information convenient to the enemy? Wasn't there a way to print the article without detailing the vulnerabilities?

IAEA on Iran

Found this part of the report especially disturbing.

On Wednesday, a "troubling" briefing in Vienna revealed evidence that Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons, the U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

"The briefing highlighted many unanswered questions about (Iran's nuclear) program, and it also reported on new questions, including questions pointing directly to a military dimension, including the fabrication of nuclear weapons components and the design of missile re-entry vehicles," Greg Schulte said.

Johnson said the documents contained a "smoking gun" -- information on shaping uranium metal into hemispheres, which could serve only one purpose: "to get a bomb."

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA said the accusations are without merit and blamed faulty intelligence.

Since the IAEA has been so exceptionally cautious on anything that they do, I hope that the evidence they have is iron clad. It could be enough to push China and Russia into greater support for resolutions to control Iran's nuclear intentions.

Privacy Legislation in NH

This legislation looks like it's off the board for now. The bill is over the top, though I must admit that the people listed as complaining should be considered for special dispensation in the bill. Dispensation ensuring that they can't get or use peoples private information.

The latest proposal of the Legislature's fiercest defender of personal privacy ran headlong into a wall of opposition Tuesday from the media, private detectives, trial lawyers, state prosecutors, bankers and credit card company executives.

The state prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel shouldn't be restricted by the bill. They have legitimate reasons for access to some of the proposed protected information. As for the rest, they have no reason to have free access any more than any other private citizen.

Weare Republican Rep. Neal Kurk said his idea was a simple one: to enshrine in state law that someone's personal information belongs to that person. "It is intended to prevent additional intrusion into our lives," Kurk said. Kurk proposed that people would have to give consent before the release of their names, addresses, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers or "any other information" that directly or indirectly could be used to identify or locate them. "There are some who believe privacy is dead. I hope that's not true and particularly not true in New Hampshire," Kurk said. At the opening of the hearing, Kurk agreed to allow only names and addresses to be released and for this privacy protection to not extend beyond the grave, as he originally proposed. But Kurk's concessions failed to prevent a nearly two-hour onslaught from opponents of the bill, until its only defender, the lobbyist for the Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, could only offer that it should be shipped off for study.

Shame that the CLUofNH aren't even supportive. But then you get these comments.

Associated Press News Editor Joe Magruder said Kurk's bill unwittingly protects lawbreakers or those with something to hide.

"It would be a great deal for con artists, criminals, terrorists, anybody who was doing something shady, unethical or dangerous," Magruder said.

New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association President Matthew Cox said these restrictions would close off searches that lawyers routinely do for their clients.

"This bill might have dramatic unintended consequences," Cox said.

Outside of law enforcement, I don't see any reasonable exception for the press or lawyers. The legislation is over the top though. It essentially has no allowances for any reuse of personal information.

I hope they don't soften the bill too much. At this point private information has no protections, and far to many entities believe they have a right to information that should be controlled only by the owner.

Bouncing Cindy

So Sheehan got bounced for wearing an anti-war t-shirt to the State of the Union Address. She wasn't alone though. But she did get arrested.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan wore a shirt with the message, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read, "Support the Troops."

Both women's shirts resulted in their owners being ejected from the House chamber before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Sheehan, an invited guest of Democrat Lynn Woolsey, was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail, U.S. Capitol Police said.

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

Young was asked to leave, but was not arrested.

House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

Of course, they don't have any information on why there was a difference between the two. If they were treated differently for no reason at all, then shame on the police. But I just don't see it being that simple.

So let's list the conspiracy theories for both sides. Just for a giggle.

• Bush had his storm troopers arrest Sheehan to ensure she couldn't get her protests out.
• The liberal left get Sheehan arrested to ensure they get the most press coverage to make the president look bad.

Neither sound very interesting do they?

You can get Sheehan's side of the story at the Flatulent Fakir From Flint's website.

The Volokh Conspiracy makes note of this story as well and has an interesting point.

I was also struck by the number on Sheehan's t-shirt: 2,245. Whether the then current number was 2,245 or 2,243 (as shown on the icasualties.org website), it is likely that in the next few weeks, the total US military deaths in Iraq in the nearly three years since March 21, 2003 is likely to finally surpass each of the worst two months of the Vietnam War: Feb. 1968 (2,293 US military lives lost in that month) and May 1968 (2,316 US military lives lost in that month).

Good point.

UPDATE:
The police have at least apologized to Sheehan.

EFF Suing AT&T Over the NSA Spying

Here's another suit similar to the one I wrote about from the ACLU. It also sounds like it should suffer from the same problem of the 'injury-in-fact' test. You can go back and re-read.

The U.S. government's efforts to conduct surveillance and gather data on the nation's citizens has been aided by huge U.S. companies, specifically AT&T (NYSE: T) Latest News about AT&T, which are privy to the telephone calls and e-mails of millions of Americans, according to a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation Latest News about Electronic Frontier Foundation this week. Following last month's lawsuit against the White House administration and federal government filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups, the EFF is now suing AT&T, claiming the company made possible "the biggest fishing expedition ever devised," according to EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston. In the federal suit filed in San Francisco Tuesday, the EFF alleges AT&T gave the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) direct access to the company's "vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or e-mailed with in the past."

You can see the EFF site on this topic here.

I guess I don't see how the EFF can sue AT&T for complying with federal regulations. Last I knew AT&T and all other service providers are required to allow this type of search and the infrastructure to do it. The requirement comes out of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [CALEA].

They at least to take stands on Carnivore. They also address TIA.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Soldier's View on Woodruff

Apparently the soldiers aren't exactly enamored by the press coverage of the Woodruff incident.

In Iraq, and throughout the military, there is sympathy and concern for anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt, but there is also this question:

'Why do you think this is such a huge story?' wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. 'It`s a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you`d think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

'There`s a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That`s a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it's what you would hear over here.'

And

ABC News 'national broadcast Monday ran coverage on the extremely well equipped field and manned hospital at Balad Air Base, a transportable emergency room with not one but two neurosurgeons on duty, better than most emergency rooms in the United States.

It was a story ABC News became aware of because that was where Woodruff and Vogt were treated. It was not a story ABC necessarily had reason to do before; there was no news hook. However, this was where hundreds of wounded soldiers and Marines had previously been stabilized before being moved to Landstuhl Air Base.

'As we are hearing the details of Bob Woodruff's medical care and how he was shipped to Germany, and we go inside the operating room, (we realize) it's a part of the war that the press has basically ignored,' said Montgomery.

They do seem to have a point. Woodruff was personal and identifiable news, while the deaths and injury to soldiers were just statistics.

Oil and the Union

The State of the Union address was pretty much as expected. Partisanship, security, etc. were the usual blah blah blah that you expect from a politician. It was interesting to hear the comment on Isolationism. Especially since that is a typical weakness of the Republicans.

Bush also said the United States cannot retreat into isolationism and must get involved in regions where corruption, poverty and despair breed terrorism and other crimes, as well as help impoverished countries with issues like AIDS.

"For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life," Bush said. "Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security and dull the conscience of our country."

The MSM is painting Oil as the big topic of the speech. Frankly, it should be. Especially since this President is another in a long line of do-nothings on the topic.

Saying ''America is addicted to oil," President Bush used his State of the Union address last night to call for reducing America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil by 75 percent by the year 2025. Bush also laid out a relatively modest domestic agenda of providing federal help on healthcare and education, and vowed to remain vigilant against the ''enemies of freedom" around the world.

and

While Bush has previously unveiled many of the energy proposals he made last night, he offered a new initiative that he said would boost federal spending on clean-energy research by 22 percent. The government has spent $10 billion on such research since 2001, Bush said.

By setting a 19-year goal of slashing Middle Eastern oil consumption, Bush followed in the tradition of several presidents who have called for ending such dependence. Bush's term ends in January 2009.

Great, raise federal spending again. I also don't see how they will decrease dependency on Middle Eastern oil. I believe we only receive about 20% of the present oil supply from the Middle East and the markets control where it's bought and sold. So, we should be reducing our oil dependencies period, not just from the middle east. 75% of 20% strikes me as a very modest start. But at least it's a start. Now let's hear the specifics.

The Democratic response was disappointing.

Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, delivering the official Democratic response, said his party has ''a better way" to address many of the nation's problems, such as calling on oil companies ''to share in our sacrifice and return some of their record-breaking excess profits." Bush did not mention that issue in his speech.

I can't say I'm stunned. I'm hoping they're not pushing for more taxes on the profits again. Though I don't see any way the oil companies will willingly share their profits. They are a business after all and their purpose is to make money. And what exactly is an "excess profit?" Who decides what is too much? I'd say the market should decide. When things cost to much people stop buying and the profit margin is pulled back to stimulate buying.

Anna Aurilio, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said last night that Bush's goal of drastically reducing Middle Eastern oil imports was ''absolutely doable if [he] picked up a pen and required the auto industry to use existing technology to increase gas mileage." She said the United States imports about 60 percent of its oil, of which about 20 percent comes from Middle Eastern countries.

Gas mileage has been a good topic. I'm reticent to force legislation to make cars more efficient. The market has been doing the job on it's own recently. The rise of the Hybrid car has shown the buyer's concerns and willingness to move, even with extra cost, to a system that uses less oil.

It still comes down to the details.

Iran and the Security Council

China and Russia have joined the party. That's a bit of a surprise. Though they have added some delay in the process wanting to wait for the IAEA report to be issued. Probably not a bad thing.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to refer the dispute to the UN Security Council at an emergency meeting tomorrow. Russia and China agreed to join the U.S., U.K., France and Germany in backing the referral. The move follows Iran's decision in early January to resume research on uranium enrichment.

The U.S. and European Union are concerned Iran's enrichment research is a front for developing atomic bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is designed to produce electricity.

The response from Iran's President isn't unexpected though.

Iran won't "submit to bullying'' by "fake superpowers'' over the development of nuclear power, which is the Middle East nation's "undeniable right,'' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

The comments to a crowd of supporters in Bushehr province were broadcast live on state television a day before the United Nations nuclear watchdog holds an emergency meeting to pave the way for possible sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear research.

"All fake superpowers should know that Iran has been independent for 27 years, relying on its own will,'' Ahmadinejad said. "God willing in the area of nuclear energy, our nation will trace its own path until it has achieved its rights.''

and

Ahmadinejad responded today by criticizing U.S. support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

"You who support the Zionist puppet regime, you who support the destruction of Palestinian homes, you have no right to talk about liberty or human rights,'' he said.

These aren't the words of a man who is looking to get along with the world.

March will be an interesting month.