London Bombs

These guys were definitely out to make major mayhem.

"When you put the X-ray machine on it [the bomb], you see what is bulging on the sides of the bottle are nails — many, many nails," said Ayers, while examining the photo. "And the nails are put there so that when the bomb goes off, the nails will tear tissue and kill people in the area. Bombs don't kill by concussion. Small bombs, they kill by the blast effects of fragments of glass or metal, and this is designed to kill people."

Charming.

Photos of the damage and some of the recovered bombs can be found here.

Briton Extradition on Hacking US Military Computers

This guy is a gem. Hopefully they'll get him for trial here in the US.

A Briton facing extradition to America for perpetrating "the biggest computer hack of all time" left a message criticising American foreign policy on an army computer, a court heard yesterday.

Gary McKinnon, 39, is accused of accessing 97 US government computers, causing damage estimated at $700,000 (£370,000).

An extradition hearing at Bow Street magistrates' court was told that McKinnon, of Wood Green, north London, deleted files that shut down more than 2,000 computers in the US army's military district of Washington for 24 hours "significantly disrupting governmental function".

It was claimed he left a note on an army computer in 2002 saying US foreign policy was "akin to government-sponsored terrorism". The note allegedly said: "It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year. I am Solo. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."

On the other side of this, when is the friggin' military going to learn how to secure vital systems? Sorry, but if it is a vital system, there shouldn't be any access to the web, period. Intercommunications between the systems can be secured using IPSec and all networks secured to only allow encrypted incoming traffic. This isn't rocket science here, this technology exists and can be easily implemented.

As for the human factor, that can be worked on as well. Anyone creating an illegal back door into the system should be tried and sentenced to making big rocks into little rocks in Kansas.

Domestic Terrorism

The "Intelligence Report" is a periodical issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The article is quite interesting, but is oddly focused just on the "right-wing" radical groups. Though I believe the site is primarily focused on "hate" crimes. Though I would have thought that the Eco-terrorism that has been seen could fall into the hate crime category.

Ten years after the Oklahoma City bombing left 168 people dead, the guardians of American national security seem to have decided that the domestic radical right does not pose a substantial threat to U.S. citizens.

A draft internal document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was obtained this spring by The Congressional Quarterly lists the only serious domestic terrorist threats as radical animal rights and environmental groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front. But for all the property damage they have wreaked, eco-radicals have killed no one — something that most definitely cannot be said of the white supremacists and others who people the American radical right.

I guess I have an issue with them being so upset concerning a draft internal document. Being a draft doesn't mean it was or, was ever intended to be, policy. Am I in error calling this an over-reaction?

Read the article. It provides data that is very indicative of how dangerous the Wing-Nut Right really are. I honestly believe that there are far more violent radical groups on the right. That would likely be the reason that the SPLC has few articles on eco-terrorism.

Though the Eco-terrorism articles are there. Check them out.

Extremists within the environmental and animal rights movements have committed literally thousands of violent criminal acts in recent decades — arguably more than those from any other radical sector, left or right.

Although these extremists have yet to kill anyone in America, they have carried out arsons, firebombings, assaults, and attacks on animal-based businesses and laboratories.

"Have yet to kill anyone" is accurate. I would also point out that they have likely pulled back from the more radical violent actions due to new American legislation and policy on terrorism. No longer will their actions be viewed under the simple actions with the related penalties. Now there will be the addition of terrorism charges with all the extra penalties.

Children Friendly State

So, which state ranks best for children currently? Guess. California? Nope (17th). Massachusetts? (Close, but no. (6th)

New Hampshire ranks number 1. Strange, the state has been ranked #1 for several years.
Imagine if the state could actually fairly fund schooling.

The criteria are interesting. Take a look at the stats per state and the stats per individual topic.

The End of Tolerance?

Granted passed this to me, and I thought it was funny enough to share.

For four years, much of the western world behaved like Bryant. Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims.

Until the London bombings. Something about this particular set of circumstances - British subjects, born and bred, weaned on chips, fond of cricket, but willing to slaughter dozens of their fellow citizens - seems to have momentarily shaken the multiculturalists out of their reveries.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The WSG editorial on the legislation to protect gun manufacturers from the most recent style of lawsuits.

Senate Republicans say they have 60 votes to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which would protect gun makers from lawsuits claiming they are responsible for crimes committed with their products. The support includes at least 10 Democrats, which speaks volumes about the political shift against "gun control" in recent years.

The "assault weapons ban" expired with a whimper last year. State legislatures have been rolling back firearm laws because the restrictions were both ineffectual and unpopular. Gun-controllers have responded by avoiding legislatures and going to court, teaming with trial lawyers and big city mayors to file lawsuits blaming gun makers for murder. Companies have been hit with at least 25 major lawsuits, from the likes of Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago and Cleveland. A couple of the larger suits (New York and Washington, D.C.) are sitting in front of highly creative judges and could drag on for years.

I truly hope this gets passed. Though I must say I'm still dismayed that this legislation is so narrowly focused. If the legislation had been broader to include all legal products whose illegal use prompts lawsuits, it would likely have been bullet proof. (yep. pun intended.)

The Economics of Student Loans and Higher Tuition

Economics is a subject (one of many) which I know very little about, so I found this article informative.

the federal government has now become the co-signer on nearly every student loan, even paying the loan's interest while the student is in school, and guaranteeing to lenders at least 98% of their principal should the student default. The government also guarantees private banks that they will turn a profit on student loans no matter how low interest rates fall.

The non-free-market economics of student loans affect tuition - I guess that is no surprise.

Unfortunately, by footing these bills and turning higher education into an entitlement, Congress itself is primarily responsible for isolating academia from normal consumer pressure by shielding most students (and their parents) from the true cost of higher education. That's why schools can keep ratcheting up tuitions beyond what any middle class family can reasonably afford to pay--because they know taxpayers stand ready to take up the slack.

Hmmm... I'm still learning about all this stuff.

AFL-CIO Falling Apart

The massive AFL-CIO is flying apart. Two of the largest unions, the Teamsters and SEIU are leaving.

"What was being done at the AFL-CIO was not working, and we are going to do something new," said Teamsters President James P. Hoffa as he and SEIU President Andy Stern explained their unions' departure at the start of the AFL-CIO's four-day convention in Chicago.

From high-ranking AFL-CIO officials to heads of local union labor councils, the departure of the two powerful unions and the precedent-setting rift among unions brought anger, frustration and fears that their exit will lead to a heap of problems.

Together, the two unions account for $20 million, or about one-fifth, of the dues collected annually by the AFL-CIO. The federation will lose 3.1 million members, falling to just below 10 million rank and file.

The article doesn't go into the reasons why they are splitting though. Various commentary I've heard relate the problems to how service union people are not truly represented. There also appears to be a large amount of dissatisfaction with how political funding is used to support union causes.

The LATimes has an interesting article with this bit related to politics:

Sweeney, the AFL-CIO president who is expected to be reelected to a third term this week, lambasted the defection in his Monday keynote address.

"At a time when our corporate and conservative adversaries have created the most powerful anti-worker political machine in the history of our country, a divided movement hurts the hopes of working families for a better life," he said.

On Monday, numerous labor experts, union leaders and Democratic politicians said the spin-off could undercut unions' bargaining power and undermine their political sway.

Although unions' financial support is important for Democrats, labor's ability to tell its workers why they should support the party is far more vital, particularly in close races, said Steve Elmendorf, a political strategist and deputy campaign manager for Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, last year's Democratic presidential candidate.

"If we have a divided labor movement in 2008, if they are distracted or divided, that's not going to be helpful to us," Elmendorf said. "This is bad for Democrats, and good for Republicans."

Maybe they are missing the message. Influence that is limited to the minority party doesn't get you very far. Nor does it appear that they understand that not all union members support the democrats.

It will be interesting to see where this all goes in the next few years.

Return of Hanoi Jane

Just to ensure she pisses of at least two generations of military veterans Jane Fonda has decided to call for the end of the Iraq war.

Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting,"” she said.

Yippee. Maybe we can get her a one way ticket to Bagdad.

Prompted by a question from the audience, Fonda said war veterans that she has met on a countrywide book tour have encouraged her to break her silence on the Iraq war.

"“I've decided I'm coming out,"” she said.

Hundreds of people in the audience cheered loudly when Fonda announced her intentions to join the anti-Iraq war movement.

"“I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam,"” she said. "“I carry a lot of baggage from that."”

Oh, I'm certain she's been encouraged by veterans. More likely they meant she drop dead. As to her carrying a lot of baggage, well, it's obvious she didn't learn anything the first time.

Another Call for a Draft by the Left

Kennedy starts out with calling our present military "Mercenary."

THE United States now has a mercenary army. To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.

And he ends with the call for a comprehensive draft to ensure that the military is "fair" to all the citizenry.

The life of a robust democratic society should be strenuous; it should make demands on its citizens when they are asked to engage with issues of life and death. The "revolution in military affairs" has made obsolete the kind of huge army that fought World War II, but a universal duty to service - perhaps in the form of a lottery, or of compulsory national service with military duty as one option among several - would at least ensure that the civilian and military sectors do not become dangerously separate spheres. War is too important to be left either to the generals or the politicians. It must be the people's business.

This individual, beyond being completely clueless, should be forced into service and put in Iraq to ensure he understands what he's stating. He completely misses the point of the modern volunteer military and the professional requirements for those in service.

I wonder how he would justify the higher numbers of deaths that would be seen from a military whose members are forced into service and don't have a professional attitude.

Telling Quotes of the Swampies

Here's a link I saw at Greenie Watch as well. Some very startling remarks.

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state. -Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

I'm betting he'd already procreated, unfortunately.

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion-guilt-free at last! -Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).

Yes, you have your idealistic little Indian village, and I'll be the Mohawk raider killing and enslaving your idealic little world. Talk about a lack or historical understanding.

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world. -John Shuttleworth

Elitist species? Not sure where to take that bit.

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Really? I think we can find something to expose you to that will help balance the ecosystem. Though I'm sure you think that your statement shouldn't apply to you.

Go read some of these jewels just for laughs. Makes you want to Stomp out Swampy in a big way.

Global Warming Fraud

Here's an entry from Greenie Watch on Michael Mann finally releasing his source code that he used to generate "his "hockey stick" reconstruction of the earth's climate."

They seem to give him a bit of an out that the original program was lost, but I don't accept that. If he was using that program to generate data he then published, he should have retained the original program or not used the data. Essentially this "loss" makes replication of the data impossible and should by all rights nullify the data.

Here's the crux:

However, the newly-archived source code demonstrates clearly that MBH did calculate the cross-validation R2 statistic (pages 28-29 in my printout). Accordingly, I can now assert that the information was withheld in the original SI.

At this point, we also know that the values of the cross-validation R2 were very insignificant (~0.0) in the controversial 15th century reconstruction. One can reasonably surmise that this information would have been very detrimental to widespread acceptance of the MBH98 reconstruction had it been disclosed. The IPCC assertion that the MBH98 reconstruction "“had significant skill in independent cross-validation tests" is obviously not true for the withheld cross-validation R2 statistic. I previously discussed this inaccurate disclosure by IPCC as illustrating the potential conflict of interest between an author in his capacity as an IPCC review author and in his capacity as the author of the underlying study.

I'll agree with GW that it sounds like fraud to me.

Please note, I'm not saying that there is no likelihood that there is global warming at present related to industrialization. I'm saying that the report that provided most of the major backbone for the argument is likely scientifically unsound.

Sign the Damn Petition

Damn, I've already signed the Eminent Domain Amendment, why haven't you?

What Happens When the Good Guys, er Democrats, Run Things

This is maddening. When are the freaking liberal morons in this state going to wake the hell up and vote the Dems out, at least long enough to shake their corrupt hold on this state's government?

The Mary Cheney Strategy: John Roberts

Must be something about relative morals. Seems some on bloggers (I'm guessing those leaning Left) are conjecturing that John Roberts is gay.

You can read Ravenwood's entry. I just find it all so pathetic, even if they are just trying to be funny.

PC Policy Gone Mad

I'd like to say this is hysterical, but given that it is likely absolutely true, it's really pathetic.

1. Does rolling your eyes when someone says something stupid constitute harassment?

2. How would anyone know what eye-rolling was based on?

I wonder how many institutions of higher learning are this stupid?

Tour de France: French Still Sour

Lance wins his seventh and of course the French press still have to put out suspicions of drug use on his and his teams part. No facts mind you. Just suspicions.

The final Tour de France victory of Lance Armstrong has left a legacy which may takes years to beat, but France's AFP wire reports, Armstrong's domination of the race since 1999, 18 months after he had recovered from cancer, has always aroused suspicion.

If Armstrong was found to be doing illegal enhancement drugs, fine, hang him out as a loser, but spouting suspicions without proof shows just how much of a sore-loser these people are.

Of course natural talent and well paid team mates must be irrelevant to the win.

Jalabert, who raced for the Spanish ONCE team and ended his career with CSC manager Bjarne Riis, claimed that some teams hold the magic formula to avoid being caught by the doping inspectors.

"Someone asked me, 'why is Armstrong and his team superior to all the others?'. I said, 'because they've got the recipe that works'.

"I don't want to go into all the medical details. All I'm saying is that people who watch cycling are not stupid."

Boyer feels that Armstrong, despite his seven Tour victories, has left some unconvinced.

"The doubt remains as to whether there's something hiding behind his success. A lot of people who work on the Tour feel something's not quite right.

"History shows us that we'll end up finding out in the end. My passion is cycling and I hope we find out that everything that Armstrong has achieved is the fruit of his hard work and his quality. Not the contrary.

Note that last sentence well. We'll find out. And if there isn't any evidence, someone will make up that evidence. I'll put money on that happening in the near future. Oh, and just in case you don't know, Jalabert is French.

Kerry on Armstrong

Heh.

Sen. John Kerry thinks Lance Armstrong would make a terrific politician _ but fears he'd be running for the other party.

Heh.

Environmentalists Propaganda: Chemical poisoning of Children

Environmentalists are one of the MSM saints. Them and Gun-Controllers, Abortion Rights Activists, and any other apparently PC related nut case.

This article talks about that wonderful Environmental Working Group report on chemical compounds that were found in umbilical cord blood samples. It is a body burden report, which I'm a bit skeptical about after looking at the methodology. Ten samples? That's a pretty miniscule sampling. The title linked article give some brief relevant discussion after their rhetorical rant.

The current EWG study is called "Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns," and it is another bonanza of junk science. Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health states, "EWG has taken substances known to be a toxin or carcinogen in high-dose animal experiments, disregarded the actual concentration, and used it for a scare campaign. They've ignored one of the sound principles of toxicology: the dose makes the poison. Any substance can be toxic at a high enough dose."

The actual data in the report makes this clear. For example, EWG claims methyl mercury at 58 parts per billion (ppb) in the mother's blood during pregnancy "causes measurable declines in brain function in children." Yet the tests EWG ran on umbilical cord blood found no level of methyl mercury higher than 2.3 ppb.

From the report's own methodology you get this jewel:

The American National Red Cross obtained ten umbilical cord blood samples from live births in U.S. hospitals in August and September 2004. Besides each child's birthday, the Environmental Working Group obtained no identifying information, either personal or geographic, regarding the samples. [emphasis mine]

So that allows for no understanding of the environment of the sampled child or how representative that sample should be considered of the population as a whole.

You can find the detailed results here. You may wish to remain skeptical though of their conclusions. They fail to provide comparisons as to what levels of the chemicals are known to be dangerous for the found chemicals. They do give a page of references, but parsing the data would have been much more effective rather than just spouting the effects.

You can look at the CDC body burden report which is at least scientific not to mention less inflammatory. They don't give any risk comparisons either. I'm coming to believe that that may be a fairly large effort. Considering the variations for acute exposure and systemic exposure.

Personally, I think that there should be some in depth study of the nature of these chemicals and the related effects. But the conclusions put forward by the EWG study strike me as being knee jerk reactions. Some are likely warranted.

Remove from the market chemicals for which tests demonstrating safety are not conducted.

Eliminate confidential business protection for all health, safety, and environmental information.

Provide strong incentives for green, safer chemicals in consumer products and industrial processes.

Grant the EPA clear and unencumbered authority to demand all studies needed to make a finding of safety and to enforce clear deadlines for study completion.

Others are extreme and by their definitions would likely have a devastating effect on the industry.

Require chemical manufacturers to demonstrate affirmatively that the chemicals they sell are safe for the entire population exposed, including children in the womb. In the absence of information on the risks of pre-natal exposure, chemicals must be assumed to present greater risk to the developing baby in utero, and extra protections must be required at least as strict as the 10 fold children's safety factor in FQPA.

"Demonstrate affirmatively" would come down to extremists arguing that the industry didn't test broadly enough or didn't research long enough to provide useful data. Who would then be in charge of deciding what is reasonable testing?

In any case, this specific case I at first assumed was from a non-propagandist group and was based on clear scientific results. Again, the MSM has lead the public astray with giving voice to a group that uses junk science and fails to perform studies that could at least provide useful information. The results provided in the EWG report should be evidence for a call for a study, not a call for actions against the chemical industry.

Souter's Supreme Stance on Kelo

I don't understand this. Souter voted with the majority on Kelo, yet here is a case when he was on the NH Supreme Court where he ruled that the City of Manchester couldn't sieze open space.

Souter's role then Manchester attorney William H. Craig represented the Manchester Housing Authority, the entity authorized to conduct eminent domain proceedings in the city. To this day, he hasn't changed his view of the Merrill case. "I think you need economic development," Craig said. "People need jobs, we need a good tax base, and I think the first place we should be allowed to look, if other circumstances are proper, is open space. Then, failing that, then you go to people's homes."

Craig said he was not at all surprised with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, noting it was "perfectly consistent" with other court decisions in recent years. In fact, he said, "The New Hampshire case almost stuck out like a sore thumb, compared to the cases in other jurisdictions."

"The only surprise to me was Judge Souter's position, because he sat on the New Hampshire Supreme Court when the Merrill case was decided," Craig said. "And as far as I can see, the Merrill case stands for the proposition that you can't take open space for economic development but it's OK to take people's houses."

He calls that "absurd."

"It created a bad precedent if you're interested in development at all. God knows I like open space. I'm going to spend the weekend mowing a hayfield I've got. Nevertheless, I think the priorities have to be straight. If people said to me OK, take open land or people's homes, first I'd take the open land."

Very odd stance.

Captain's Quarter also has a piece on the proposal for taking Souter's NH property in Weare for a hotel and discussion of how strongly NH citizens feel on the topic of eminent domain. Strange that they feel so strong, yet there is not a hint of legislation to limit the use of eminent domain in the state.