Salon: Rich Mommy Freaks When Confronted with Middle America

Anyone who reads this blog regularly (all four of you), knows that I read Salon.com and occasionally bring back some of their insanity to share. Well, this one is HUGE. The lead in blurb where a mom starts crying because her son learned the Pledge of allegiance, and no, they weren't tears of joy, pretty much guaranteed that I would read it.

Our family first arrived in Narrowsburg in 2000, as city people hunting for a cheap house. For barely $50,000 we were able to buy the "weekend house" we thought would complete our metropolitan existence. But soon after we closed on the home, we moved to Paris, spurred by the serendipitous arrival of a book contract. When our European idyll ended after two years, and with tenants still subletting our city apartment, we moved into the Narrowsburg house. After growing accustomed to the French social system -- with its cheap medicine, generous welfare, short workweek and plentiful child care -- life back in depressed upstate New York felt especially harsh. We'd never planned to get involved in the life of the town, nor had it ever occurred to us that we might send our son to the Narrowsburg School. But suddenly we were upstate locals, with a real stake in the community.

TRANSLATION: We're friggin' rich, can live where we want, but circumstances forced us to rub shoulders with real people in, of all places, a small town in the United States. Life is just awful.
I'll bet if life in Upstate NY is harsh when compared to her life in Paris, that she was not living in the Paris burbs that so recently were going up in flames on a nightly basis.

Still, for the first few months, we felt uneasy. Eighty of Narrowsburg's 319 adults are military veterans and at least 10 recent school graduates are serving in Iraq or on other bases overseas right now.

TRANSLATION: Oh crap. Evidence that there are other people in the world that might just have a point of view that disagrees with ours.

The school's defining philosophy was traditional and conservative, starting with a sit-down-in-your-seat brand of discipline, leavened with a rafter-shaking reverence for country and flag. Every day the students gathered in the gym for the "Morning Program," open to parents, which began with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a patriotic song, and then discussion of a "word of the week." During the first few weeks, the words of the week seemed suspiciously tied to a certain political persuasion: "Military," "tour," "nation" and "alliance" were among them.

TRANSLATION: And they're patriotic... and they're Christian... we're in Hell.
Crap lady, do you really think that all of America looks just like the Upper West Side? Honestly? I'll bet you think of yourself as a member of the "fact based community" too.

Shortly afterward, another parent casually told me that she wanted to bring her daughter's religious cartoon videos in to share with the class, but couldn't because "some people" might object. When we later learned that the cheery kindergarten teacher belonged to one of the most conservative evangelical churches in the community, we were careful not to challenge anyone or to express any opinion about politics or religion, out of fear our son would be singled out. Instead, to counteract any God-and-country indoctrination he received in school, we began our own informal in-home instruction about Bush, Iraq and Washington over the evening news.

I have to admit, I wouldn't be crazy about a fundamentalist teaching my kids, but based on all of this author's carping so far, the "most conservative evangelical" church in the area was probably Episcopalian or Presbyterian (for those who don't know, they're about as benign as it's possible to be and still call 'em Christian). But I'm sure her "instruction" about Bush was based on facts... No really.

That November, at the school's annual Veterans Day program, the children performed the trucker anthem "God Bless the USA" (one of the memorable lines is "Ain't no doubt I love this la-aand, God bless the USA-ay!"), as their parents sang along. About a dozen local veterans -- ancient men who had served in World War II, and men on the cusp of old age who had served in Korea and Vietnam -- settled into folding chairs arranged beneath the flag. When the students were finished singing, the principal asked the veterans to stand and identify themselves. Watching from the audience, I wondered if anyone would speak of the disaster unfolding in Iraq (which was never a word of the week).

No one did. The men rose and stated name, rank and theater. Finally, a burly, gray-bearded Vietnam veteran rose and said what no one else dared. After identifying himself, he choked out, "Kids, I just hope to God none of you ever have to experience what we went through." Then he sat down, leaving a small pocket of shocked silence. No one applauded his effort at honesty. On the contrary, the hot gym air thickened with a tension that implicitly ostracized the man, and by extension -- because we agreed with him -- me and my husband.

Oh, and you take the statement that he hopes the kids never have to go through what he did as anti-war? Wake up lady. Everyone hopes their kids never have to go through bad stuff. Some of us are capable of acknowledging that, hope though we may, bad stuff will come. Some of us are even capable of preparing for those bad things by doing crazy stuff like choosing to join the military which can, does, and will, defend this country that, despite your view of it, really is one of, if not the, best places on the planet right now.

In simple language, I told my son that our president had started a war with a country called Iraq. I said that we were bombing cities and destroying buildings. And I explained that families just like ours now had no money or food because their parents didn't have offices to go to anymore or bosses to pay them. "America did this?" my son asked, incredulous. "Yes, America," I answered. He paused, a long silent pause, then burst out: "But Mommy, I love America! I want to hug America!"

You go kid. By the way lady, we're not raining bombs from the sky in Iraq. For the most part the fighting is between the elected, representative Iraqi government and hard core Jihadists who would kill you and your son. Which side are you on? By your statements, I'm pretty sure it's the side of the Jihadists. Your child, thankfully, isn't.

Now it has been almost a year since my son scampered down the steps of Narrowsburg Central Rural School for the last time. We've since returned to the city, driven back to urban life more by adult boredom than our children's lack of educational opportunities. Our son is enrolled in a well-rated K-5 public school on Manhattan's Upper West Side; not surprisingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer part of his morning routine. Come to think of it, and I could be wrong, I've never seen a flag on the premises.

And she's happy about it... No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand-basket. Lady, teaching your kid to love this country doesn't mean teaching him to be blindly obediant to anyone that happens to wrap themselves in a flag. It means that you can be proud of the things this country stands for despite the fact that it isn't perfect. Let's face it, no country on the planet is perfect. France is a pretty messed up place to be unless you're a native or a rich American.

My husband and I realized, though, that Narrowsburg did more than mold our boy into a patriot. He can, it turns out -- despite the warnings of other city parents -- read at a level twice that of his new peers. Since we returned to the city, he has learned how to ride a bike, long for an Xbox, practiced a few new swear words and, somehow, learned the meaning of "sexy." He has pretty much stopped favoring red, white and blue.

He'd have learned all that stuff in Narrowsburg, but he'd probably still "favor" red, white & blue.
This story made me very sad, but it does help explain why I'm having such a hard time understanding people like this lady. It really does seem to be breaking down to a divide between rich & poor, between those who can afford one house and those who can afford something on the Upper West Side (which, I jokingly referred to earlier, but which is where she actually lives) and a "weekend" house, and occasional sojourns in Paris.

Rumsfeld and the Generals News

The weekend produced a bunch of commentary on topic.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal has a decent discussion, especially with this comment:

If their complaint is that Mr. Rumsfeld has since fought the insurgents with too few troops, well, what about current Centcom Commander John Abizaid? He is by far the most forceful advocate of the "small footprint" strategy--the idea that fewer U.S. troops mean less Iraqi resentment of occupation.

Our point here isn't to join the generals, real or armchair, in pointing fingers of blame for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Mistakes are made in every war; there's a reason the word "snafu" began as a military acronym whose meaning we can't reprint in a family newspaper. But if we're going to start assigning blame, then the generals themselves are going to have to assume much of it.

They have other pointed opinions that really must be considered on the topic.

Then there is the Chicago Sun-Times that comes out and just asks:

But the question really isn't whether Rumsfeld should resign. He has already resigned several times and had President Bush tear up his letters of resignation. He clearly is taking responsibility for his actions on a continuing basis.

But now that a galaxy of flag officers are raining down on Rumsfeld demanding his resignation, no one seems to have bothered to ask which, if any, of these generals had ever submitted his own resignation in protest against the conduct of the Iraq war, or the bumpy transition we are locked in now. The demands for Rumsfeld's resignation began with Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Personally I think this is a good question to ask, but not of the highest value in the discussion. It does give you perspective though. If Rumsfeld was so impossible and unreasonable, why put up with it?

Newsweek has an article on the issue. They point to Shinseki as a case of a general not taking part in the "revolt."

Gen. Eric Shinseki, former chief of staff of the Army, says he is "at peace." But reached last week, he didn't sound all that peaceful. In the winter of 2003, alone among the top brass, Shinseki had warned Congress that occupying Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, had rewarded Shinseki for his honesty by publicly castigating and shunning him.
....
Shinseki, who has retired to Hawaii, was clearly uncomfortable with the role of martyr. He had no desire to join the chorus of retired generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. He was circumspect about criticizing Rumsfeld at all, but he seemed to be struggling to disguise his feelings. He pointedly said that the "person who should decide on the number of troops [to invade Iraq] is the combatant commander"—Gen. Tommy Franks, and not Rumsfeld.

I find it interesting how the writer goes to such details on Shinseki's emotions and discomfort. It strikes me that they are trying to build more into Shinseki's responses than we the reader can hear for ourselves. But then, I don't see Newsweek as being a balanced source of news.

Read the rest for yourself. The Opinion Journal piece gives you the most to think about.

New Orleans to Return Firearms Starting Monday

They're going to return the guns, if you can prove it's yours and you pass a backgroud check.

Residents whose guns were taken should call the New Orleans Police at (504) 658-5503 or go in person to the Police Property and Evidence facility, at 400 North Jefferson Davis Parkway. Gun owners will have to provide proof of ownership, which could include a bill of sale, a description of the firearm including brand and model and the serial number or a notarized affidavit that describes the firearm. Citizens claiming their firearms will need proper identification, such as a driver's license. Before firearms are returned, New Orleans police will conduct a background check.

Funny that you have to prove ownership. Wonder if they gave out receipts to the citizens whose guns they stole, um, siezed?

Even more amazing is how this bit of news is completely ignored by the MSM. No agenda I'm sure.

Get & Go Kit - Survival Kit

Been discussing this and I see that these fall into 2 types, those that you grab when potential of danger is coming(natural disaster), and those that you have with you when you are not expecting danger, but you're in a situation where something unexpected could happen(recreation, Hiking/camping). There is some differences. In camping, you want to have a good time and are not responding to a threat, just the potential for one. I'm going to start with this one.

So the first kit is fairly small and can be put in a day pack or the like. I wouldn't carry food or water beyond the planned needs. The kit must also have the ability to be long lasting. You can't have supplies spoiling. The kit should also be something you can stash in the car for prolonged periods. You'll also notice my attempts to completely avoid batteries and other failure points that could have you carrying useless equipment.

I've chosen a kit container is something like an EMT kit about 3"x4"x8" in dimensions and has the ability to be carried on the belt.

Items: Most of these should be wrapped in some type of ziplock bag of some sort. Dry is always better.
Compass - I usually have a good compass for hiking and the like, so this one would be a simpler form.
Faraday flashlight -You know the ones you shake, no batteries
Chem light sticks (2) Emergency use
Folding knife or multi-tool - I'm going for one of each since the multi-tool doesn't have a good knife, but the extra tools is helpful.
String/rope - 15' parachute cord, 20' of lighter cord, 30' of nylon fine string
Water Purification tablets - I have the really strong ones intended for purification of really bad water
Matches - In a waterproof container - Both the 'strike anywhere' type and the wind/waterproof types
Sparker tool - Military or magnesium types
Fire Accelerator - Something that is easy to start and will continue to burn in bad environments to get a regular fire started. Trioxane fuel or a wax/paraffin fuel. Still trying to figure out what is best for this one.
Candle
Emergency Survival Sleeping Bag - This is the those foil reflective blanket. Don't go too cheap, though these are pretty inexpensive to start with.
Metal Signaling Mirror
Emergency Whistle
Duct Tape (15') - Not that silver crap, get the green or black military stuff. Stickier, stronger, longer lifetime. I'm wondering if I should have more since it doesn't take much space and is really useful.
Wire Saw
(2) 1-Gallon Ziplock bags - You can carry water or whatever in them and take almost no space
Fish Hooks or fishing kit
Safety pins (5)
Carabiner and Bead Chain lanyards (3) - You don't want to lose the compass or knives, so put a lanyard on those things that are very important.
Pencil and Notebook - I'm not sure I see much need for these, but they can be bumped for something that makes more sense
Bic Lighter - Don't I have enough fire makers? Probably skip this

What else? I've heard of the Sewing kits, but I'm not convinced for this level of kit. I'm also skeptical of the fish hooks, though I think the space is so small that it's something to toss in just in case.

I still find this lacking in addressing the need for medical equipment, but those supplies generally have a shelf life that I am having trouble resolving. I'll just have to work on this more.

Now the Get & Go pack for the natural disaster. Start with the kit above. You have a good deal of the basic to start with. The pack will obviously have to be larger. I'm thinking you get to the level of a small day pack for a single person. Expand as needed for the family or multi-person kits and the number of bodies who can carry them. Remember, go for small and light weight with everything.

Items:
Water Filtration System - I'm fond of the ceramic filters for their greater efficiency and lifetimes, but the cost is an issue there.
Canteen - 1 liter size stored empty
Long blade knife - Military type survival knives are good. Think 8-12" blade. Not double edged, this is a multi-use tool not just a weapon, though that use is still available.
Hatchet or heavy knife - I prefer the Woodman's Pal, though there are alternatives
Crank Powered Radio
Rain Poncho
Sewing Kit (?)
Small Surgical Kit - Not that you necessarily have the skills to use it, but you may have to improvise. These kits are of the tools, not bandages or the like.
Small Medical Kit - (sigh) I'm still not sure what to have for this. Probably the best thing to do is to have the kit of pain killers, bandages, and sterilizers in your medicine cabinet and then pack it at the last minute. Use and replace materials as needed.
Basic First Book - Field guides are available that are pretty good.
Food - Another hard one. MRE's are available, but they aren't fine cuisine and they do age. I leave this one to the house-hold food stores for emergencies.

What's not included?
Well, clothes for one. You'll have to take the time to grab what is appropriate for the weather and the emergency.
Water. It doesn't store well in my opinion. You should preemptively store water. Bottle it a couple of days before the possibility of trouble. It also is very heavy so it isn't good for carrying. I prefer the filtration kit since it's smaller lighter and allows you to be much more efficient.
Firearms. This depends on where you live and your ability to carry concealed and the problem of proper and/or legal storage. I'm also of the opinion that if you have your sidearm in the kit, it's useless. Put it on, and keep it ready. I've also thought about it, and I'm doubting I'll be carrying my highly concealable handgun. I'm probably going for the Colt 1911 and a secondary. Long arms will be dependent on situation.

Then there are the Government recommendations. This is from Ready.gov for a portable kit. Personally, I view this as a bloody joke.

Recommended Supplies to Include in a Portable Kit:

• Water, amounts for portable kits will vary. Individuals should determine what amount they are able to both store comfortably outside the home and be able to transport to other locations
• Food, at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food
• Battery-powered radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert, and extra batteries for both
• Flashlight and extra batteries
• First Aid kit
• Whistle to signal for help
• Dust mask or cotton t-shirt, to help filter the air
• Moist towelettes for sanitation
• Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities
• Can opener for food (if kit contains canned food)
• Plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place
• Unique family needs, such as daily prescription medications, infant formula or diapers, and important family documents
• Garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation
  

You can look at the rest of the site. There are some good ideas, but I think you could make a much more effective kit with a little simple thought.

Any suggestions of things I've forgotten?

More on Army Generals

All through this kerfluffle with the generals (including NPR counting those for & against like it was election night or something), I've been going through history in my head, the extreme criticism that fell on the head of Wilson's SecDef because of the appointment of Pershing, all the generals at Horse Guards trying to get Wellington's head even as he was winning battles, the backstabbing from various generals, active & retired, throughout WWII, MacArthur's entire career... Those are just the easy one's. But, I'd forgotten one of the biggest until I saw the picture over on InstaPunk's site.
McClellan! Lordy, the generals of the Civil War were such a political bunch that, despite LOSING battles that he should have won, McClellan went on to get the Democratic nomination to run against Lincoln in the 1864 election (where he got his but kicked, again). But to hear all the talking heads, this is the first time, ever in recorded history, let alone American history, that generals have spoken out against the way the war is being waged, winning or not.
Still, I don't want to come off partisan here (OK, too partisan). Mistakes in the execution, prosecution and follow-up to this war have certainly been made. Some of those mistakes were probably avoidable. So, some of the criticism being ladled out is probably deserved. But, in my opinion, the question isn't whether or not there were mistakes or will be mistakes, those are inevitable. The question is, how well do you deal with the mistakes as they occur. That's the difference between winning & losing. Just compare two Civil War generals that made a fair number of mistakes, Grant & McClellan. One learned from his mistakes, won the war and went on to become President. The other... didn't.
Well, anyway, read what InstaPunk wrote. It's worth a glance or three.

'Geek Squad' Software Piracy

Not that I'd use their services, but finding out that they are part of Best Buy makes me even less inclined to seek their services.

Best Buy's aggressively promoted, 24-hour computer support task force Geek Squad has been served with a temporary restraining order barring it from using a popular brand of system restore software, which Best Buy is accused of pirating.

The court order, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, stems from a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Winternals Software LP, makers of ERD Commander 2005, a repair tool that boots a dead computer for system recovery.

I wonder if there is any carry over of liability. Probably not.

Winternals and Best Buy began negotiating an agreement last fall to trial the software. The electronics retail chain broke off negotiations in February because it was no longer interested in a commercial license that Winternals' attorney David Weaver at Vinson & Elkins LLP said costs $1,200 each.

In a statement, Winternals said the license being negotiated was valued at more than several million dollars. The lawsuit claims that Geek Squad employees continued to use Winternals’ software in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Yipe. That's some expensive software. I wonder how it is licensed. Per repaired station? That doesn't make a lot of sense, but maybe that is the market.

I have a feeling someone is going to be paying out a bunch of money.

Rumsfeld Critics Analyzed

Big Lizards has an informative piece looking at the general's and some of the complaints against Rumsfeld. It's not the most precise of blogs, but it is a good starting point to consider the factors of who is complaining and possible motives.

I noticed several things right off:

1. These generals appear to be mostly from the Clinton era. Why is that important? Because, while progression through the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct presidential appointment. They are, in a sense, Clinton appointees.

Typically, presidents don't hand out stars to people who object to their philosophies; think of LBJ and Gen. William Westmoreland. So the first assumption is that if President Bill Clinton elevated an Army colonel to a Brigadier General -- or made him Commander in Chief of CentCom (paging Anthony Zinni) -- that general is probably a Clintonista.

2. All generals have been in the service for decades. For decades, we have refought World War II -- in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia, and Kosovo... by which I mean using more or less the same tactics (mass bombings, invasion by massive, centrally commanded divisions, and so forth). Those at the warfare styles to which these generals were long accustomed.

Even before the Iraq War, Secretary Rumsfeld embarked upon a revolutionary reformation, not only of how we fight wars but also the entire organization of our military forces. He is pushing towards smaller units, more unit independence (moving command decisions down the ranks), much greater reliance on Special Forces, and a reorganization of units to be self-sufficient rather than specialized.

It's hardly surprising that some men who have invested so much of their lives in one particular way of running a war would be angry, rebellious, and confused by a completely different way of running a war... or that some of them would lash out at the symbol of that change. They are no different from vice presidents at General Motors or IBM who furiously denounce splitting those companies into self-reliant business units instead of the normal corporate divisions they've had for twenty years.

Go and read the rest.

The Belgravia Dispatch has an entry on why the generals should be listened too.

Overall, I'm still not convinced that Rumsfeld should be removed. The generals yelping should have some consideration, but the motivations of those yelping must also be understood. Politics rearing it's ugly head again doesn't aid their cause. The Secratary of Defense is a political position no doubt. He's the one that has to decide what political games get moved down to the professional levels. Generals are also, unfortunately, political creatures. The public far too often just gives them the nod as assuming they are the "professionals" when in fact they are playing politics at the same time.

COUNTERCOLUMN has a rather extensive piece on the Generals as well.

UPDATE:
Wretchard also has a decent piece on topic.

The Gateway Pundit gathered a history of the fire-Rumsfeld movement going back to 2003 which shows that while he has for long been the "near enemy" it was always the "far enemy" -- and his policies -- that ultimately mattered. Those policies framed strategy far beyond Iraq. Among the questions for which there is still no bipartisan consensus is how big should the Ground Forces be? On this fundamental point both the President and Congress must bear a fundamental responsibility on which depends the viability of "more boots on the ground". What should the strategy against terrorism be? The Real Security plan advocates a police approach aimed at pursuing a specific group called the Al Qaeda. Is this a correct appraisal of Al Qaeda's importance in the overall strategic landscape? Others have suggested a greater use of "soft power", including diplomacy, in place of utilizing the Armed Forces. Even within the bill of indictments against Rumsfeld there there is still debate over whether the de-Baathization of Iraq, which resulted in the dismantling of Saddam's Army was a mistake. There are many other unresolved questions; and that they have remained so 5 years into the War is an interesting commentary not only on the Bush administration but on American politics in general.

Glock's Massachusetts Adventure

Couldn't help but pass this one on. (h/t SayUncle)

Attorney General Tom Reilly has learned that gun dealers recently began selling Glock handguns to Massachusetts consumers, after the company represented that the handguns were in compliance with the Attorney General's Handgun Sales Regulations.

AG Reilly's Office has notified Glock, Inc. that the "extractor indicator" device which the company recently added to its handguns is not an effective load indicator and, therefore, does not comply with the handgun regulations. The AG's Office reached this determination after consulting with firearms experts. In response, Glock has recalled all handguns shipped to dealers and distributors in the Commonwealth and ceased in-state sales.

AG Reilly offers the following information to consumers about Glock handguns:

-• Glock handguns may not be sold to consumers in Massachusetts.

You'd think he'd offer a few more bullets if he was going to use that writing device.

As always, the handgun regulations do not pertain to firearms used by law enforcement or military personnel as part of their official duties.

- Massachusetts consumers are encouraged to return recently purchased Glock handguns.

Glock has asked Massachusetts consumers who recently purchased handguns to return them for a full refund. Because the handguns lack an important device designed to promote the safety of gun owners and their families, AG Reilly encourages consumers to return these handguns.

Yup, the police and military can use unsafe handguns, but not you citizens. I encourage anyone that purchased a Glock to giggle and not return it.

The Attorney General'’s Handgun Sales Regulations fall under the state's consumer protection law and protect consumers and their families from unsafe handguns. The regulations require all handguns sold in Massachusetts to include certain safety and child-proofing measures and safety warnings.

Now that just proves that Reilly is a comedian. If he thinks anyone believes that, he's stupider than he acts.

Italy Not Requesting Extradition of CIA Operatives - For Now

Looks like the judicial system in Italy has decided not to play. They don't give any reasons though.

Italy's justice minister on Thursday said he has decided not to seek the extradition from the U.S. of 22 CIA operatives accused of abducting an Egyptian cleric from a Milan street, in a blow to prosecutors investigating the case.

Justice Minister Roberto Castelli informed Milan's chief prosecutor that he would not submit a request to the Bush administration for the extradition of the 22, who are accused in a 477-page arrest warrant of carrying out the kidnapping three years ago. He gave no reason for denying the politically sensitive request made by the Milan judiciary five months ago.

However, prosecutors investigating the case said they would not give up their efforts to have the 22 men and women brought to Italy and would resubmit the request if a new justice minister is named.

"We can ask for the extradition at another time, when we have a new justice minister and a new government," said Armando Spataro, the Milan prosecutor who heads the investigation into the February 2003 abduction case.

Makes one wonder why they would proceed with this in any case. It is political, but then, do they really think that the US would hand over intelligence service members to a foreign power?

Spataro said that he will proceed with plans to prosecute the 22 current and former agents in absentia and that he expects the trial could begin this fall, with or without their extradition.

Most of the 22 current and former operatives are believed to have used false names during the time they spent in Milan plotting and executing the February 2003 abduction, and Spataro also acknowledges it is unlikely the U.S. would readily cooperate with an extradition request.

Well, I'm certain they have nothing better to do than run a trial that won't have any defendants.

Union Penalty for NY Transit Strike

I thought this had just gone by the wayside, but it looks like the judge actually is putting down some real penalties. Well, at least of the union management.

Roger Toussaint, the president of the transit workers' union who led bus and subway workers in a strike that crippled New York City for three cold days in December, was sentenced yesterday in a surprise ruling to 10 days in jail.
.
.
.
Mr. Toussaint was also fined $1,000. Ed Watt, the union's secretary-treasurer, and Darlyne Lawson, its recording secretary, were each fined $500, but were not sentenced to jail.
.
.
.

"I am confounded by the tortured tale of these negotiations," he said. "It is unfortunate that it came down to an illegal strike, but it was nonetheless illegal."

The judge's ruling, read before a packed courtroom, provoked angry gasps from the 40 union supporters who were present.

The charges stemmed from the union leadership's failure to order transit workers back to work after Justice Jones ruled that they must do so under the state's Taylor Law, which prohibits strikes by public employees.

"Angry gasps" is just entertaining. Why is it that they expect no penalty for contempt of court. Considering the effects of the strike, this is astoundingly light. The union overall will be taking the fall not those mismanaging it.

The ruling came amid a series of hearings on other penalties that are being sought for the strike, including fining the union $1 million for each day of the walkout, as dictated by the Taylor Law, and a motion by lawyers for the transit authority that it be authorized to stop automatic payroll deductions of union dues for Local 100 members.

Justice Jones has not ruled on those matters, but acknowledged yesterday that the financial penalties could put the union out of business.

"In light of the millions of dollars in fines," he said, "the potential danger to the continued existence of the union rests fully with the adjudication of those fines." The union maintains that either measure would devastate its overstretched finances.

Stop the payroll deductions? Where is the money going too? You'd think those fines would be going to the city, not back into the pockets of the union members that performed the illegal strike.

I see no issue with the penalties that were prescribed. The Taylor Law specifically outlines what methods are to be used in cases where contracts cannot find resolution. The law wasn't enacted to punish unions, but to protect the public from union threats to the public welfare.

Then there is the call for changing the law:

With no negotiations taking place, the state has ordered binding arbitration to settle the dispute. Mr. Toussaint and other union leaders are urging members show their support in a second vote for the same contract they voted down, with ballots to be cast by next Tuesday.

But Roger L. Green, a Democratic state assemblyman from Brooklyn, who attended the hearing in support of the union, said Mr. Toussaint's jail sentence would provoke fresh calls to amend or eliminate the Taylor Law, which many union leaders believe gives an inevitable upper hand to management.

What a surprise. Didn't see that coming. Union leaders believe the law gives the opposition the upper hand. If the law required that the management give them 90% of union demands for every contract negotiation they still would feel persecuted.

Unions have their place, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to violate law at their whim. I don't think you'll see much support for changes of the legislation when the public remembers those cold days on foot.

FEMA Getting Better of Worse?

Chertoff announced changes to the FEMA procedures to have the response personnel in place before the disaster occurs.

Usually, FEMA waits until after a disaster hits to put federal relief coordinators and overseers in place. But confusion in Katrina's immediate aftermath demonstrated widespread failures when the federal government doesn't work closely with state and local authorities, said a senior Homeland Security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made.

State emergency managers fear that part of the plans will create another level of bureaucracy to deal with in the midst of a disaster.

Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, said state officials vigorously oppose the top-level disaster site overseers. Former FEMA director Michael Brown served in that role immediately after Katrina, and, Sheets said, "it was confusing." Brown resigned under fire two weeks after Katrina.

"It's just another layer of bureaucracy," said Sheets, whose organizations represents emergency management officers from all 50 states

"Another layer of bureaucracy" is an interesting point. But then, what do these people want? They want the assistance and the money, but not the oversight? What if the hurricane sweeps across several states, who then makes the decision where the supplies are needed the most? I guess that layer of additional bureaucracy has a purpose. And to use Katrina as the example, we saw just how spectacularly the state and local emergency responders utilized their local assets. Bus' unused, refusing access to the Red Cross to force people to come out of the area. It looks to me that they should have another layer to deal with.

The real issue seems still not to have any solution. Command and control is still on the whim of the state and local bureaucrats. Coordination seems to be something that isn't being practiced nor even negotiated in the planning stages. This is why there was so much yelling about letting the military run disaster relief, at least they have a command structure that doesn't fall into the cess pool of politics.

New MA Health Care Plan

I heard about this last Friday and thought it sounded very promising. Time will tell of course, but it does seem like a good way to get everyone to pay for health care, without falling back on government and taxes. As we know, because (rightly) you can't be refused emergency care, the truth is that we DO have universal health care in this country. The problem is that only the insured pay for it, and the uninsured make the bills higher than they should be by only having access to expensive emergency care.

What impressed me about reading this piece is that I didn't realize the impetus and research to make this happen came from Gov. Romney.

VDH on McKinney and Arrogance

Not to go into the McKinney case again, I just loved this bit of perspective:

Some of the official response so far has been depressing. The leading Democrat in the House, California 's Nancy Pelosi, initially dryly dismissed the incident with, "I would not make a big deal of this." Fine, except this same congresswoman recently referred to Vice President Dick Cheney's handling of his hunting accident as a "manifestation of the arrogance of the White House. They don't come clean with the American people. They think they are above the law and above accountability to the American people."

Note Pelosi's words "arrogance" and "above the law." Is deliberately slugging a federal security official at a Capitol checkpoint less arrogant or illegal than how Cheney behaved after accidentally peppering a friend during a private hunt?

Heh. You have to love the juxtaposition of the reactions.

Nuking Iran

I have to say that all I thought when I first heard these reports was "so what?" I was surprised that people would think that the US wouldn't have military plans for action against Iran, including the use of Nuclear weapons. But then Hersh wasn't exactly talking about planning.

Writing in the New Yorker magazine, investigative journalist Seymor Hersh said according to a single, unnamed source, the White House wants to keep not only a 'military' option on the table, but a nuclear one as well.

"There are many people in the administration who think the President and the vice-president and others in the so-called neo-conservative White House want this and that they think it's almost messianic," says Seymor Hersh.

Note that un-named source. Got to love those. Messianic? Would it be out of line to call Hersh 'melodramatic?"

I especially like the thought that this is just psychological warfare. Iran even views it that way.

"We consider military strike planning (against Iran) as psychological warfare stemming from America's anger and failures," observes Hamid Reza Asefi, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

But then they have to, since they fell all over themselves when Regan came to office to return the embassy hostages. Can't be looking weak like that again. I like the 'anger and failures' thing. Makes them sound potent.

Then there are the tin-foilers going to ground on the issue:

"That is another example of the move-from-the-hip, shoot-from-the-hip cowboy diplomacy of this administration," blasts Senator John Kerry, a 2004 Presidential candidate.

Good John, Good. Posture for the 2008 election. You have a snowballs chance in hell. But keep the gums flapping.

Illegal Immigrant Protests

Wonderful to see the protests of Illegal Immigrants against the country that they seem so desperately to want to stay in. No doubt that making all present illegal immigrants in this country felons would not be wise just from the enforcement stand point, but then, I see no issue with setting a date at which illegals are defined as felons. This would have to include some form of amnesty or there would be no way to bring the present crisis to resolution. Call it a guest worker program if you must, it's not any different in the end.

Then you have all of these wonderful quotes.

They wrapped themselves in American flags, waved ''We Are America" signs, and alternated between Spanish and English as they vowed to make themselves known to the nation's elected leaders.

''Today we march. Tomorrow we vote," said Jaime Contreras, president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition, which helped organize the rally.

This theme was quite prevalent in the MSM. Almost sounds like a threat to me. But then, those protesting forget that there are a lot of American citizens that have the vote and don't like the illegal immigrants issue as it stands. The politicians may also want to consider that there is a lot of constituents who stand against the illegal immigrants and will help them on their way to a new career should they decide the illegals are right. But go on protesting, it won't raise awareness or move anyone into voting against those that support blind amnesty.

And for a big laugh we get to the Bush dementia crowd:

Contreras led the crowd in a chant. ''Bush escucha: Estamos en la lucha." (Listen Bush: We're in the fight.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't Bush the one that years ago started pushing for immigration reform and is a strong supporter of guest worker programs? Nothing like waving your fist at the guy who wants to help. Never mind that he has nothing to do with the present legislation. But it still must be Bushitler's fault.

Of course, you had to expect that darling of the fever-swamp left would be heard from:

''This debate goes to the heart of who we are as Americans," Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, told the crowd in Washington. ''Some in Congress want to turn America away from its true spirit. . . . They say you should report to deport. I say, report to become American citizens."

Yes Teddy, that worked so well last time that the problem has escalated far beyond the original cure that merely managed to increase the infestation. Forget keeping out the murderers and rapists of other countries, they can move in next to Teddy. Forget controlling who gets in, the Mexican population has a right to be in this country. Not that there are any other nationalities that would help make this diverse country better.

Note that the Mexican flags were well hidden in these protests? The organizers appeared to get the point that the last protest really pissed off a lot of Americans. I doubt their wrapping themselves in the American flag will help them.

What the country needs is a realistic immigration policy. Neither side has one though. The Repugs want felons and removal, Dems want blanket amnesty with no control. They both cry about the countries security, but that hasn't even become a portion of the discussion. It's especially sad that the only Dem that has been voicing any policy is Teddy-the-Tick. Reid and his ilk have effectively blocked all debate on the topic and any amendments. Nothing like political quagmire to define your political strategy.

Former General on Iraq

Lt. General Newbold on why Iraq was such a major mistake. Once you cut through his self-justifications and flag waving you get down to his point.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

Another voice to the view that only a military man can justifiably choose what wars to fight. I don't buy it for a second. The "casual & swagger" argument is opinion that clearly has been used by any voice against the war. They never provide justification of that statement either.

His other points ring true, though wars commonly have similar issues, it is still 20/20 hindsight. It would be more convincing an argument if he had remained a general.

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

This statement is pretty hard to stomach from someone who "retired" prior to action. It's also a well-worn argument that is slowly being eroded by the documentation found in Iraq. Look at this piece at Captain's Quarters. More details are surfacing that Iraq had involvement with terrorism and Al-Qaeda. What would have been the results in the Middle-East had Iraq not been invaded and Saddam's apparent support not removed? The hindsight of what went wrong is necessary, but denying what went right is just as needed.

His solution, remove Rumsfeld.

So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it.

It would be informative to see if prior Secretaries of Defense or Secretaries of War faced similar calls for removal. There is also the thought that the replacement may be more of a problem than the present Secretary.

French Surrender to Students/Unions

No great surprise here.

President Jacques Chirac has bowed to student and trade union pressure by withdrawing an employment law that triggered protests and strikes across France.

The U-turn is a blow to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin who staked his reputation on the proposals, which were intended to cut France's rampant youth unemployment.

Mr Chirac's office said a new plan focussing on youths from troubled backgrounds will replace the "first job contract," which would have made it easier for employers to fire any worker aged less than 26.

Well, Chirac certainly will stay popular no matter the consequences to Frances economy.

Makes you wonder who runs the country, the government or the unions.

The Goverment Will Protect You

Here's one to make you confident in the system.

An investigation is underway in Detroit after a six-year-old boy called 911 to get help for his mom, and the operator acted as if it were a joke.

Detroit NBC Affiliate WDIV reports that six-year-old Robert Turner called 911 on February 20. He thought his mother, 46-year-old Sherrill Turner, had passed out. She was later found dead.

911 tapes detail the call, where the boy tells a female operator that his mom had passed out. The operator demands to speak to an adult before sending police.

The boy eventually hung up and called back a short time later. This time, the same operator warns the boy that he could get in trouble for making a prank call to 911. The boy said police didn't arrive until three hours later and found his mother dead.

The boy is living with family members, who are now pursuing a lawsuit.

Officials said the 911 operator will be disciplined, but because of her years of service she will not be fired.

Makes you wonder what this operator would have to do to get fired. A single death isn't enough? As for the lawsuit, forget it. The government doesn't have any liability.

(h/t Of Arms and the Law)

Kerry: Man of Action

Is he a man of action or just a wind-bag?

Mr. Kerry, who was sometimes criticized as stiff and dour during the 2004 campaign, got several laughs, Mr. Sharpton said. At one point, Mr. Kerry, who has had his verbose moments, offered "a little 10-point plan" in response to complaints that neither Democrats nor Republicans have an agenda for the nation.

"Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights," Mr. Kerry said in ticking off his list, which also included supporting health care, education, lobbying reform and alternatives to oil, as well as reducing the deficit.

I'd like to see him actually start doing something on his list. Though, I'd guess his effectiveness would come to a quick end should he actually apply his first point to himself.

Counterinsurgency Counteranalysis

Yep, that's a mouthful, and an interesting topic.

In that vein, a proposed definition for counteranalysis might be:

Counteranalysis - utilizing analytical techniques or methodologies to develop an understanding of an adversary’s analytic process, thereby predicting the adversary’s potential decision outcomes and likely courses of action.

This technique does not seek to disrupt the enemy’s analytical process so much as to anticipate it and leverage it to ascertain what his decisions—and derivative courses of action—may be before he has a chance to implement them.

The counteranalysis methodology offers some distinct advantages over traditional analysis in a counterinsurgency context. Counteranalysis may present a uniquely attractive option for mitigating casualties in the Iraqi counterinsurgency campaign, where traditional analysis normally requires an accumulation of enemy attacks to develop an historical base of analyzable statistics.

The discussion speaks of Boyd's OODA Loop and alternative analysis methods from those typically utilized by our military.

And then the finishing quote in the article:

Thus, what is of extreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy….
Therefore, determine the enemy’s plans and you will know which strategy will be successful and which will not;
Agitate him and discern the pattern of his movement.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Viral Battery

Nope, not Sci-Fi.

Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the United States have figured out a way to use viruses to build ultrathin lithium-ion batteries that pack three times the normal energy level for their weight and size, they said this week.

By manipulating genes inside the viruses, the scientists coaxed them into coating themselves with cobalt oxide molecules and gold particles and then lining themselves up to form tiny wires that serve as the anode electrode in a battery.

I get nervous when scientists start using life-forms or pseudo-life-forms to manipulate matter. I always get that creepy feeling that the virus will mutate and become the destroyer of worlds.

Kinda like worrying about Bacteria that eat styrafoam.

Doesn't this strike you as finding solutions that could be worse than the problem? I know it hasn't happened, but let's add a 'yet.'

Declassification or Leak

I suppose I'm confused. Not an unusual circumstance with respect to the logic of politics.

PRESIDENT BUSH was emphatic in July 2003: ''If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." According to a federal prosecutor this week, the president himself authorized the leaking of classified CIA material. This whole affair cries out for a congressional investigation into the leak, and also into the broader question of how President Bush and Vice President Cheney used intelligence to draw the United States into war with Iraq.

So here's my questions:
If the President can't declassify and reveal information, who can?

If it's ok for non-authorized 'whistle-blowers' to illegally reveal classified information for exposure of the 'truth,' why is the President's actions viewed as wrong? Didn't that 'leak' of information actually reveal the truth of the allegations that Wilson had put forth in the MSM, in direct opposition to what he reported in classified documents to the CIA?

Then there is this:

No one is saying Bush wanted Plame's identity to be revealed, and leaks are an integral aspect of official Washington. Bush may technically not have leaked secrets since presidents apparently can declassify information at will. The disclosure that Bush plays the Washington game, however, shows his hypocrisy and ought to inhibit him from threatening newspapers that use leaks to report essential information.

Bush plays political games by the rules and is a hypocrite? Legally, he can declassify and reveal information, and I'd state that the information was in no manner "essential" to any security needs. But when the press gets illegal information, the President can't try to control the release of said information, even if it's essential to national security?

Sometimes I wonder if I'm just dense, and then I realize that it's not me, it's the morons who write these editorials.

You can go read the BoGlobe's editorial and find the rest of the factual challenges that this editor has against a setting of reality.

Michael Yon Returns to Iraq

Michael Yon is returning to the war.

In the few months since leaving the war, I’ve crisscrossed the United States several times, talking with infantrymen in their twenties and veterans in their eighties, helicopter pilots, special forces soldiers, families and friends of wounded and killed warriors, all for a book about the Deuce Four’s Battle for Mosul. But it’s time to take a break from writing to let the facts and details steep. I’ve headed back to war.

I am writing now from the Middle East, poised to reenter the war in less than 15 hours; this time without the protection of the military.

I've added a link to his site. I found his work with the Deuce Four very interesting and I'm hoping he continues, safely, with the excellent information.

(h/t Instapundit)

"Gun Guys" Again

The Smallest Minority has a great piece pointing out the repeated stupidity of the Gun Guys. I won't link to the Gun Guys. I find their work on par with the Brady Bunch on it's myopic understanding of reality.

Go see the time map of the increase of states that have changed to "shall issue." Oh and while you're at it, not which state is among the eight that had "shall issue" laws way back in 1986. Also note that no state has gone to greater restrictions on concealed carrying.

A little more SF for the day

This was one chilling read. I sure hope it is a short story and not the truth.

h/t Vodkapundit

French Protests

Shock of shocks, Salon is on the side of protesting youth. After all, they might have to learn an actual skill that was honestly in demand and then, horror, actually perform that skill, tedious though it may be, for years on end. However, the line that got me the most was:

Many French see the manifestations as a key battle to preserve an essential element of their economic culture and a fight for the soul of the European Union, pitting their sacrosanct labor stability against a more ruthless economic Anglo-Saxon model.

Yeah, more than 10% unemployment in general, 23% for the young, a stagnant, possibly shrinking economy, but hey, at least it's not Anglo-Saxon. Yeah, less than 5% general unemployment, a growing economy, these would be bad things. As for "labor stability," am I wrong, or are there major protests by various worker groups in France two or three times a year, ongoing, for the last 30 years or so? That's stability? I guess I'll take our "unstable" system over theirs.

Sci-Fi and Decentralized Government

Here's a bit of analysis on how Sci-Fi has treated government at the Volokh Conspiracy.

In sharp contrast to legal scholars and other academics, the majority of whom tend to favor relatively centralized government, major science fiction and fantasy writers tend to support decentralized political systems or even anarchy. I am not arguing that decentralization is the main theme of these works and in some cases it isn't even conscious. But it does seem to be there.

He goes on to give examples of his point.

No-Knock Warrants Before the SCOTUS

QandO piece discussing Hudson v. Michigan. Calling it this years Kelo.

I wish this were a more clear cut case to take to the SCOTUS. Here's a synopsis at Duke Law.

Hudson was charged and convicted in state court with possession of cocaine and a firearm after Detroit police officers entered and searched Hudson'’s home, pursuant to a warrant. Hudson argued that the evidence against him was seized in violation of the "knock and announce" rule of the Fourth Amendment, which requires the police to knock, announce their presence, and wait 20-30 seconds before executing a search warrant, except in exigent circumstance. The trial judge granted Hudson's motion to suppress the evidence because the officers failed to knock on Hudson‚’s door and then waited only three to five seconds after announcing their presence before entering his home. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was bound by two cases decided by the Michigan Supreme Court that created an "exception" to the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the knock and announce rule when the evidence would inevitably have been discovered.

Even better when you read the January blawg entry at SCOTUSblog.

On the afternoon of August 27, 1998, seven Detroit police officers approached the home of Booker T. Hudson seeking to execute a valid search warrant for narcotics and weapons. Upon reaching the door, several officers shouted, "Police, search warrant," but did not actually knock on the door. After waiting only three to five seconds (a time period that Officer Jamal Good described as lasting "about how long it took me to go in the door"), the officers opened the unlocked door and proceeded into the home. Officer Good testified that this rapid entry was motivated by a concern for officer safety (a concern prompted by his previous experiences of having been shot at during narcotics raids). Upon entering, the officers found Hudson sitting in the living room and several other people running throughout the house. On Hudson's person, the police discovered five rocks of crack cocaine. Elsewhere in the house police found numerous baggies of cocaine and a loaded revolver.

There is a lot to the argument that I won't go into, but you can read.

I understand that the police officer's job is intrinsically hazardous, but that doesn't sway the requirements of knock and announce. QandO also points out that these no-knock searches have had an increasing affect on citizens who were put through these raids by mistake. There are deaths attributed to this as well.

From my point of view, I think there should be the allowance for no-knock searches, but that they should be extremely limited. The environment of the search should be the factor for justification and should have to be proven to a standard. And, if they make a mistake and go into the wrong residence, they should be required by law to pay full restitution and have to face negligence charges. When using deadly force you should just be making a best effort, you should be taking extra measures to ensure that you're actions will not impact any innocent.

Final word quoted from QandO.

The police are public servants, doing a dangerous job. I appreciate that fact, having worked as a sworn officer in both military and civilian law enforcement. But the bottom line is that the police are our servants, not our masters, and any mode of policing that puts law abiding citizens at greater risk is intolerable, even if the price is some increase in the risk police officers face.

McKinney and Prosecution

This would have been a minor thing if McKinney hadn't started screeching racism. Now it's moving on to a grand jury.

U. S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said Wednesday that Rep. Cynthia McKinney turned an officer's failure to recognize her into a criminal matter when she failed to stop at his request, and then struck him.

"He reached out and grabbed her and she turned around and hit him," Gainer said on CNN. "Even the high and the haughty should be able to stop and say, 'I'm a congressman' and then everybody moves on."

My amazement is the complaints by people that the police officer grabbed her was inappropriate. I don't see how that has any logic. You just had a person bypass a checkpoint with no identification and ignored verbal attempts to have her stop, what was left? Or should they have just let her walk on?

No one is above the security requirements. Period. Ignoring security or abusing it makes for poor security. The police get tired of being ignored by the "privileged" of that office area, and sooner or later will shrug off when someone dodges and ignores them. It's not right, but it is human nature. If there was no special treatment for the "privileged" then there would be less likelihood that there would be a breach in protocol. Places with real security don't allow different classes of security.

The political games have started on this as well. No big surprise there. Personally, I think she deserves all the shame that can be piled on her. Not that that will have any affect.

Senate Rangling over India Nuclear Treaty

As usual the MSM has not reported much on what was really offensive in the politico's statements. Babs Boxer compared India to an errant child, though finding a quote of that in print seems to be very difficult to find.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), offering one of the day's bluntest critiques, said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the deal in effect rewards India for refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. She also charged that the administration's desire to solidify ties with India was part of its goal of offsetting the influence of China, which she called "the unstated yet driving force behind this deal." She said the strategy was "old-fashioned, Cold War thinking."

Boxer, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) expressed concern about news reports of military contacts between India and Iran, suggesting that the administration should not provide nuclear know-how to a nation that is friendly with the Islamic regime in Tehran. The concern was based on reports that Iranian ships carrying naval cadets made a port call at the southern Indian city of Kochi last month.

Clever logic I supposed. Or extremely isolationist.

India has never been a part of the NPT. Punishing them, if you really see the refusal of this as a punishment, will mean that they go elsewhere for their civilian use technology. Say to Russia. They already have a military nuclear program that you can be assured will not be going away, and they have a civilian nuclear program besides.

I find it rather humorous that thinking that India can balance some of the regional power of China is "old fashioned Cold War thinking." I suppose if something actually is correct thinking, it doesn't matter if its old-fashioned.

The thought that India's relationship with Iran should negate all of this is also rather short sighted. India and Iran are close neighbors. Getting along with a neighbor is good policy, and doesn't necessarily mean you're providing them with logistical or military support. In fact, this treaty would help balance that relationship as well. India has far more to gain from a US relationship than one with Iran.

Sarbanes made a good point in his questions.

Rice offered a compromise yesterday. She said any changes in the law would not take effect until the president certifies that he is satisfied with India's agreement with the IAEA. But some lawmakers balked at that idea, saying it would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Bush administration.

Rice's solution would "move Congress out of the decision-making process," said Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.).

Alternatively, the administration could seek a waiver from current law, but that would subject the deal to annual renewal, which Rice said would make it impractical for businesses seeking to sell nuclear technology to India.

One Democratic Senate staff member said whether the changes in U.S. law or the IAEA agreement come first is important because "this is a president who has a very low stockpile of trust left." He said lawmakers are also likely to seek a number of assurances written into the legislation, including commitments that India will not divert nuclear material from civilian to military facilities, and that India will not tap U.S. technology to reprocess or convert nuclear material for weapons use.

It would be far better to know that the IAEA had its safeguards agreed upon with India first. Or the US could make the treaty contingent on them. But the Senate shouldn't give blank approval before that is in place. In fact, it would be irresponsible of them to leave it in the President's control. The Senate approves treaties as they stand and not as they may come to be.

Fortunately it looks like there are more Senators in favor of this treaty. Hopefully they will work out the logistics of having the IAEA controls in place prior to the final vote.

John Kerry: Still Without a Clue

Not sure why I'm bothering. From what this Op-Ed states, he's fully on board with the Murtha plan of cut and run. He wants a time table, though he disguises that by calling them deadlines, and he thinks the over-the-horizon presence as sufficient.

Oh and let's not forget his masterful understanding of the lessons of Vietnam.

WE are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

Does anyone still think the US would have been safer with this elitist politician as president?

VDH on Immigration

A couple of articles from Hanson on the immigation protests and the issue of assimilation.

Protests:

The conventional wisdom was that the supposedly spontaneous outbursts of immigrant pride and anger took lawmakers by surprise. In response, politicians may backtrack on some of the tougher proposals concerning border enforcement, from constructing a wall to deportations. The media tended to emphasize the heartfelt anguish of the demonstrators, who often on selected televised clips carried American flags and were shown reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

But here in Central California that is not the public face of the demonstrations that we saw — which were mostly angry and, in the case of truant high-school students, so often unfortunately characterized by Mexican chauvinism, if not overt racism of the La Raza ("the race") type. And while these public outbursts were for the present just noisy, the private counter-reactions to them, I fear, are going to grow larger and angrier still.

And Assimilation:

But there is still a solution to the immigration problem: It involves supporting any practice that leads to the assimilation of legal Mexican immigrants into the American mainstream — and opposing everything that does not.

Employers and La Raza activists who thrive on the current non-system might not like that approach, but it is the only way to avoid the gathering political and cultural storm.

As we've seen from second- and third-generation legal immigrants, when a person from Mexico comes to the U.S. with legal documentation, learns English and regards an unskilled job as the start, not the end, of a career, success most often follows.

And when immigrants, of all nationalities, finds themselves surrounded by others from all over the world, they generally accept English as our vital bond and see that a common culture, not race, is what matters.

Not So Smart

Scenario: You're out in the woods hunting or whatever and you find 40mm round. You know, a big bullet. What do you do?
a) Take it home for a paper weight assuming its a dud.
b) Take it home assuming its probably still a live round.
c) Leave it right there and call the police.

Me, I think I'd go for C.

Now I looked up 40mm cartridges and lots of the definitions include the term 'grenade' or 'high-explosive.'

So this makes one wonder just how smart this teacher is.

Part of a teacher's hand was blown off when a 40 mm round the instructor used as a paperweight on his desk exploded in his classroom.

Robert Colla struck the round with an object Monday afternoon while teaching 20 to 25 students at the Ventura Adult Education Center on Valentine Road.

Part of Colla's right hand was severed and he suffered severe burns and minor shrapnel wounds to his forearms and torso, fire Capt. Tom Weinell said. No one else was injured.

Colla was taken to Ventura County Medical Center, where he was described only as stable.

"It was just a horrible accident," said Dennis Huston, who teaches computer design alongside Colla. Huston said he had his back turned to Colla and was only about three feet away when he heard a loud bang.

Colla found the 40 mm round while hunting years ago, Huston said. He used it as a paperweight and "obviously he didn't think the round was live," Huston said.

Who just leaves 40mm rounds lying around? And why would you assume that it's not live? It's very similar to assuming the gun wasn't loaded.

Another article states that he was using the round to squash a bug. Another good use for a device typically known to be explosive.

Oh, and just a little irritation at the article, there was no shrapnel.
Shrapnel is:

Shrapnel, and if anyone can find an essentially different definition anywhere he is ahead of me, is "an artillery projectile provided with a bursting charge, and filled with lead balls, exploded in flight by a time fuze." It was named for its inventor, General Henry Shrapnel of the British Army, who died in l842, so it is no Johnny-come-lately in the fields of ordnance and gunnery...

Or if you like:

Shrapnel is the term used to describe the spherical shot or musket balls dispersed when a shrapnel shell bursts. It is also used by extension to describe the fragments and debris thrown out by any exploding object, be it a high explosive (HE) filled shell, or a rupturing pressure vessel, etc. For shells, bombs or other munitions, the correct term for these particles is fragments, splinters or shards, fragments being the preferred name in scientific documents on the subject. Technically shrapnel can only come from a shrapnel shell and no other explosive device.

Yeah, it may be picky, but it's not so different from calling a motorcycle an automobile.

Movie Plot Threat Contest

Now this is funny. Schneier has an interesting idea for a contest.

For a while now, I have been writing about our penchant for "movie-plot threats": terrorist fears based on very specific attack scenarios. Terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists exploding baby carriages in subways, terrorists filling school buses with explosives -- these are all movie-plot threats. They're good for scaring people, but it's just silly to build national security policy around them.

But if we're going to worry about unlikely attacks, why can't they be exciting and innovative ones? If Americans are going to be scared, shouldn't they be scared of things that are really scary? "Blowing up the Super Bowl" is a movie plot to be sure, but it's not a very good movie. Let's kick this up a notch.

It is in this spirit I announce the (possibly First) Movie-Plot Threat Contest. Entrants are invited to submit the most unlikely, yet still plausible, terrorist attack scenarios they can come up with.

Your goal: cause terror. Make the American people notice. Inflict lasting damage on the U.S. economy. Change the political landscape, or the culture. The more grandiose the goal, the better.

Assume an attacker profile on the order of 9/11: 20 to 30 unskilled people, and about $500,000 with which to buy skills, equipment, etc.

I've got one. The St. Patrick Day or Rose parade float that spews Radioactive powder onto the crowd.

Maybe that is just too silly.

Iran's Military Bragging

Flying boats. Shake in your boots American military.

"A super-modern flying boat was successfully tested in the 'Great Prophet' war game in Persian Gulf waters," state television said.

"Because of its hull's advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can locate it. It can lift out of the water. It is wholly domestically built and can launch missiles with precise targeting while moving."

A quick thought, if you have a weapon like this, isn't it a better idea to keep it secret? Doesn't such a brilliant powerful tool lose some of its edge if you tell the enemy about it? Doesn't the enemy get warning that they should develop a countermeasure?

Or is it more likely that this is just a stunt?

The Defense Ministry was not immediately able to give details of a "flying boat" that was shown on television.

The small propeller-driven aircraft floated on a trimaran hull until it took off and flew low over the surface of the water. State television said it could reach speeds of 100 knots.

I'm betting the F-15s are terrified of a 100 knot flying boat.

This WaPo article has an interesting analysis of the Iranian military claims, including the appearance that many of these weapons have similar counterparts developed by Russia.

The new weapons, many of them shown on Iranian state TV during their tests, have come with impressive claims:

_ A missile, the Fajr-3, that is invisible to radar and able to strike several targets with multiple warheads.

_ A high-speed torpedo, the Hoot, able to move at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo, and fired by ships cloaked to radar.

_ A surface-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, with remote-control and searching systems that cannot be scrambled.

_ A "super-modern flying boat," undetectable by radar and able to launch missiles with precise targeting while skimming low over the surface of the water at a top speed of 100 nautical mph.

and

And some experts cast doubt on just how radar-evading Iran's ships and missiles are.

Iran's radars are not as advanced as those of Israel, for example _ meaning that perhaps the weapons can avoid the radar that Iran has access to, but not more advanced types, said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born, Israel-based analyst.

"The question here is, what radar did they test their own weapons against? If it's the radar they've been using for all these years, then that's not saying 100 percent that these things are undetectable," he said.

Others questioned if Iran developed the weapons on its own.

I'm going to bet that most of the Iranian military 'news' is just a lot of hot air.

Politics Best and Brightest

Tom Delay (aka 'the Hammer') isn't going to run for re-election and has chosen to leave.

With his former aides pleading guilty to corruption charges and cooperating with federal investigators, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has decided not to run for re-election, according to senior House Republican officials.

Long known as "the Hammer" for keeping Republican troops in line, DeLay (R-Texas) stepped down from his leadership post last fall after a Texas grand jury indicted him on campaign finance charges and his legal troubles mounted. But he insisted he was innocent and vowed to stay in Congress as he fought the charges.

Last week, however, DeLay decided to resign from Congress, according to a source close to the lawmaker. He informed President Bush on Monday and also told other senior Republican leaders. He is expected to make an announcement Tuesday on his Web site, tomdelay.house.gov. Sources said DeLay is likely to leave Capitol Hill by Memorial Day.

Good bye, good riddance. Your skating on the edge of the rules made the Repugs look worse than they are. Now go find a nice lobbying job somewhere.

Then there is the Demo's all-star McKinney. I still can't figure out how this is a racial thing other than that is what she and her posse seem to keep screeching.

Neither Phillips nor the police department would say what charge was being sought against the six-term Georgia Democrat or when any warrant for her arrest might be issued.

In a statement, Capitol Police said it had "referred its investigative findings to the U.S. attorney." Filing such an affidavit is the first step in obtaining an arrest warrant. Only if Wainstein approves the affidavit can Capitol Police officials ask a judge to issue the arrest warrant.

Wainstein could clear the way for a warrant. He also could decline to go forward with the case.

McKinney spokesman Coz Carson acknowledged the investigation.

"We're aware that the wheels are turning in Washington," Carson said. "We will make the appropriate statement and take the appropriate action once we know where they're going."

Several police sources said McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer March 29 when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked.

Last I knew, everyone had to show ID and pass through the metal detectors to get into the office building. But it's a racial thing because she was forced to follow the rules that everyone must follow? Well, if you have heavy hitters like Belafonte and Glover on your side, you must be in the right.

Worse, it appears that House members are allowed to side-step the metal detectors.

When she attempted to sidestep a metal detector, as members are permitted to do, she was asked three times by a police offer to stop, but she ignored his requests.

The officer allegedly proceeded to tap her shoulder; McKinney responded by hitting the officer with her cell phone.

McKinney maintains she was “touched inappropriately” with “excessive force” and that her actions were “instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman.”

Well, I suppose having to show ID is all that should be required. Though I disagree with that thought. So much for security. I'd been looking for details of that inappropriate touching allegation and the details are just humorous.

And for further humor:

Last week she appeared at Howard University alongside Lethal Weapon’s Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte. Glover said, “She alone has stood up for issues that are important to this country and important to the world. We're not here to judge the merits of the case; we're here to support our sister.”

Well, Saint Cynthia shouldn't be bothered by security at all. She probably should just float on her heaven sent cloud to her office throwing lightening bolts at the lowly citizenry she show graciously represents.

Bah. Politicians are scum.

Global Warming

George Will on the MSM hyping Global Warming.

So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.

Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"

It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by -- how did you guess? -- big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .

Read on to the section about Montana Gov. Schweitzer pushing coal as a solution. Just too strange.

Iran's Response to Military Attack

I guess I'm a bit cynical, but this article struck me as responding with, "No Shit Sherlock."

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Iran would mount attacks against U.S. targets inside Iraq, where Iranian intelligence agents are already plentiful, predicted these experts. There is also a growing consensus that Iran's agents would target civilians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, they said.

Did they really need a military analyst to come up with rather obvious scenario?

Iran's Underwater Missile

Not sure why this is getting the press all excited. The Russians had an underwater missile and it never was such a big deal.

The Iranian-made missile has a speed of about 350 kilometres an hour underwater, claimed Gen. Ali Fadavi, deputy head of the navy.

If those claims are true, it would rival the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval missile, developed in 1995, which can travel three or four times faster than a torpedo.

and

"It has a very powerful warhead designed to hit big submarines," Fadavi told Iranian television. "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."

He did not say whether the missile contained a nuclear warhead.

I'm going to remain skeptical. The Russians developed theirs in 1977, not 1995. (Apparently the MSM has a difficulty understanding the difference between "development" and "deployment.")

The first (domestic) version of the underwater missile entered service back in 1977 with the Russian Navy under the designation VA-111 Shkval jet torpedo/missile.

This early version, not available for export, was armed with a nuclear warhead and provided a guaranteed kill capability at distances of up to 10 kilometers against submarines moving in depths of up to 400 meters with speeds of up to 50 knots.

The Shkval was powered with a jet engine, running on solid hydro-reacting fuel. As a result, at that time, the torpedo could develop an underwater speed of 195 knots, or 100 meters per second. However, the VA-111 was unguided and was only armed with a nuclear warhead, the latter feature being the reason for the removal, ten years ago, of all the Shkvals from the Russian multi-purpose submarines, under a mutual agreement signed by the Presidents of the USSR and the USA.

I wonder what form of guidance the Iranian missile has. Guidance systems being the hardest part to develop, I'd guess theirs is unguided as well. And a test-firing isn't a proof of effectiveness.

Then there is the thought of how they would deploy the system. If on a ship, does anyone really think the US Navy couldn't destroy such a vessel from over the horizon? Or from a plane? I'm going to guess that these have limited range and any ship seen on an attack coarse to a US ship will probably leak heavily after a couple of minutes.

I guess this is again proof that the US military stands no chance in taking down another large military complex, like Iraq say, or a tough military like Afghanistan's.