Martha Gets Another 3 Weeks

Hmm. They don't say why.

Martha Stewart will have to wear her ankle bracelet for nearly another month. Stewart's attorney, Walter Dellinger, announced Wednesday that she has "agreed to an extension of the terms of her home confinement until Aug. 31."

Stewart isn't saying why, and neither is the federal probation office supervising her house arrest.

Quotes of the Day

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be.
--Douglas Adams

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
--Benjamin Franklin

A man can't be too careful in the choice of his enemies.
--Oscar Wilde

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
--Napoleon Bonaparte

Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.
--Groucho Marx

Abuse of History

The VDH piece is on politico's abuse of history. That ugly twisting and warping of history to make it fit their bent agenda. Example:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) intoned of the USA Patriot Act he voted for, "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night." Though, so far, that mild statute pales before exigencies of past liberal wartime presidents who really did jail innocents, night and day, without warning or sometimes even justification.

He ends with the whys of the situation.

In our confusion during this war, why do we often ignore history or twist its details to fit our own particular needs?

First, in our schools, formal study of the past has given way to the more ideological agenda of the social sciences. Mastery of historical facts is seen as passe, while the less educated instead "do theory" to prove preconceived notions.

Second, good intentions don't always equal good history. Being politically correct often makes us plain wrong, relegating history to melodrama and negating history's power to put tragedy into context.

Third, we're in thrall to the present affluent age, convinced that our own depressing experiences are unique, naturally dwarfing all prior calamities.

But history is not a parlor game used to prove a political point. Instead, at its best, history should offer us solace that we are never really alone.

I'll add one thing that he doesn't throw in. Politicos are famous for not letting the facts get in the way of their arguments. And the press never holds them accountable for their distortions. For that matter, rarely does anyone point out the abuses and in my opinion that allows for the popularization of distorted history. Once a politico says it, and it's printed in the press, it must be true.

Bush and Intelligent Design

Well the MSM and secularist have stirred themselves up into another frenzy over nothing. President Bush was asked by the press about his views on Intelligent Design and teaching as theory in schools.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Seeing that this is WaPo you don't actually believe that they would place context properly? I'm sure Bush "told" the Texas newspaper reporters this unprompted. I'm sure he went out of his way to make a statement without being questioned on the subject. Also note that he made clear that this was a decision to be made locally and wasn't advocating it as national policy.

Of course, the liberals flipped out.

Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.

Let's see, he was asked regarding his opinion and he stated it. That is irresponsible how? What would Lynn suggest? Maybe he not answer the question or just state what the left wants to hear? I'd say Bush was being honest and forth right on his opinion and ensured that it was understood to be such. I see nothing unreasonable or irresponsible in what Bush said.

That being said, I disagree with his viewpoint. ID is not science and shouldn't be offered as theory along side scientific theories like evolution. ID has nothing that can be tested. ID is built upon evolutionary theory in anycase. It adds nothing to the scientific hypothesis that is in any way testable.

Beyond science, is ID plausible? Sure. When you get into philosophy and metaphysics you tread into regions where all that is important is belief. Evolution vs. ID really separates when you discuss causation. ID points to an intelligent force acting for change while evolution seems to prefer random chance. That in itself has actually become a large argument between these theories. Again, this is not testable. So falls outside of the realm of scientific theory.

The link I provide above on ID has a discussion of the various ID arguments and scientific criticisms to those arguments. Their theory is interesting, but still not science.

2004 Voter Fraud

Here is the report from the American Center for Voting Rights. [H/T QandO]

Let's get right to the point from the Executive Summary:

While Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. Instead, the evidence shows that Democrats waged aggressive intimidation and suppression campaigns against Republican voters and volunteers in 2004. Republicans have not been exempt from similar criticism in this area, as alleged voter intimidation and suppression activity by GOP operatives led the Republican National Committee to sign a consent decree repudiating such tactics in 1982. However, a careful review of the facts shows that in 2004, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts.[Emphaisi Mine]

What? You meaning those evil Rethugicans weren't as bad as those angelic Democrats?

That being said, take a look at the Rethugican and Demosprat charged acts of intimidation and suppression. These people are true jewels of humanity. The list of Democrat related acts is quite long and has reports of several actual felony arrests related to the intimidation.

You can read them yourself, but the thing that made me laugh was that the Dems used gun violence against Republican sites and there are no indications that Dems were put under such attacks.

I'll note that the ACVR is considered a GOP propaganda machine by some blogger(s). Note that these bloggers have some reason for that, but they themselves are far from a dis-interested party in the whole thing. So I suppose you can look at the evidence and decide yourselves.

Quote

"[I]t is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." --Benjamin Franklin

"A universal peace, it is to be feared, is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts." --James Madison

Current TV

This is about Algore's abomination of a television station. Sounds dreadfully boring to me.

Ever have a teacher who tried way too hard to be "down" with the kids? Who never knew that he was using out-of-date lingo or patronizing the intelligence of the people he wanted to befriend?

If you have a masochistic desire to spend hours with that kind of person, you could always tune into Current TV, a new cable channel that debuted in 20 million homes nationwide on Monday. (In Chicago, Current is available on DirecTV and Comcast digital cable at present).

The article doesn't get much nicer. In fact it makes the start of Current TV sound like a waste of time. I went to their web-site and the start page is just about completely blank. There are a couple of links that get you to content, but it's a waste.

Well, I'm outside of the demographic in anycase, but I'm betting I'd find it dreadful even if I were.

More on Wal Mart

Clearly I'm not alone in being a bit appalled at the comparison between Wal Mart & the Triangle Waist Factory.

Much better comments than mine to be found at Ivory Tower Adventures

I'm definately keeping an eye on this one. To say the least, it crawled right up my spine.

Wal Mart: All Things Evil

Great googly moogly. I'm not a fan or supporter of Wal Mart. I just hate this sort of article. While Wal Mart may be guilty of all things evil, the kind of comparisons going on in the article are just insane. It's made me so insane that I now feel I have to actually take the time to fisk an article instead making a snide comment or three along with a link.
They get going in paragraph two of the article with this little bit of "information"

The largest and most profitable retailer in the world -- and in the United States, with 1.3 million workers, the largest private employer -- is becoming nearly as infamous as Enron or the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.

Remember, Wal Mart is the largest and most profitable retailer in the world and the largest employer in the US. This will be worth remembering later. As to the comparison to Enron, maybe so, I'm no judge. Enron was guilty of horrifyingly bad business processes and Wal Mart may be as well. As to the Triangle Factory... Cornell University has a nice site on this event. So, Salon has evidence that Wal Mart is chaining exit doors shut and preventing its workers from evacuating facilities during a fire? No? Oh, and by the way, it's the "Triangle Waist Company" that makes shirts, not "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory." If you're going to make a comparison Ms. Featherstone, at least get the names right.
The article continues:

Years of citizen outrage...

Have resulted in the largest and most profitable retailer in the world and the largest employer in the US... Oh, that wasn't your point.

What Wal-Mart's abuses have in common, they say, is a disregard for the public interest in a single-minded pursuit of the bottom line.

Yeah, how dare they try to make a profit. How dare they actually try to pay their unskilled workers a legal, yet not exorbitant, wage, plus health insurance for the full time workers, etc.. You know, they're actually acting like they operate in a capitalist society. How dare they.

This Wal-Mart moment has been decades in the making. In the retailer's early years, beginning with its 1961 founding in Arkansas, unions mostly ignored its expansion. After all, many of the stores were in the South, where restrictive laws -- and a tradition of labor exploitation as extreme sport, dating back, of course, to slavery -- have historically kept unions weak. (Sam Walton's original five-and-dime store, in Bentonville, Ark., sits on a town square overlooking a monument to fallen Confederates.)

Oh boy. First, they're locking the doors on their sweatshop workers. Now, they're almost the same as slave owners since they run a non-union business. Yep, if you're not in a union, you must be a slave because, really, there's no such thing as middle ground there. And, Sam Walton had the effrontery to open a store in a town in Arkansas and in front of a Confederate monument. Now doubt, by design. See that slavery thing if you're confused.

Recognizing that so many low-income Americans desperately need Wal-Mart's low prices, Wake Up Wal-Mart's message is not strident or purist: The group is simply urging people to reduce their Wal-Mart shopping as much as they can.

Here we have the first words of sense in the entire article. Wal Mart lives and dies by margins. They keep all their costs as low as possible, in turn keeping the prices as low as possible thereby deriving a profit while providing a service. I thought this was what capitalism was all about. I mean seriously, if Wal Mart is violating laws, let's punish them, but let's not beat them up for being really good at operating within the free market system.

Blank, along with two other Wake Up Wal-Mart activists, emerged from the youthful enthusiasm of the Howard Dean presidential campaign, which used the Internet creatively and made activists of people who'd never before believed in the political process. (Another member of the Wake Up Wal-Mart team comes from the Draft Wesley Clark campaign, the Internet-based group that raised large sums of money for Clark before he'd even agreed to run in the 2004 presidential campaign.)

Aaaahhemm! Excuse me, little cough there. Enough said.

Like Wake Up Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Watch's staff has its share of Democratic political pros.

So, in short, the Democratic party is against successful companies that provide goods & services that poorer people can afford. They want to increase the overall operating expenses of Wal Mart, thereby raising the prices, thereby taking good and services away from poorer people. They're doing this because they're on the side of the poorer people. OK.

research showing that a new Wal-Mart actually increases countywide poverty rates.

What research? That's a pretty huge statement to make with nothing to back it up. You want to stop Wal Mart because you're anti-sprawl? Cool. I think, to a certain degree you're trying to fight the tide, but hey, more power to you. You want to stop Wal Mart because it closes down Mom & Pop stores. There is evidence that it does. Of course, there are also the Mom & Pop specialty shops that open up next to Wal Marts that seem to do very well indeed. Still. There's plenty of evidence for those arguments. Wal Mart CAUSES poverty. I need really solid facts from a source that's not union funded, but I'll take that much now.

City dwellers are also more likely to be offended by Wal-Mart, sometimes for social justice reasons, as in the massive sex discrimination lawsuit, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart, the largest civil rights class action in history, which charged the retailer with discrimination in pay, promotions and training. Urban residents also often oppose Wal-Mart out of concern over low wages, or for snobbish reasons: Wal-Mart sells ugly, cheap stuff, brings more poor folks to the neighborhood to shop and doesn't belong in a cosmopolitan environment. It's also, compared with the lonely exurbs, or rural America, relatively easy to organize and inform people who live in cities: They have plenty of civic institutions and consume media avidly. To win them over, Wal-Mart may have to make changes.

Now we finally get to the real deal. Open 15 more Wal Marts in Joplin and most of the people protesting aren't going to make a sound. Try to open one up near Tribeca and watch the "oh so concerned with the little man" liberals come crawling out of the wood work to protest. "What?" they'll say, "cheap goods that poor people will buy are being disseminated down the block? This shall not stand."

It is no accident that the anti-corporate campaign emerged in the anti-government Reagan era. Perceiving the major political parties as thoroughly bought off by corporate interests, activists saw their only recourse as appealing directly to the corporations and to their consumers. In President Reagan himself, corporate interests found a true friend, but even more important, for the first time, business was successfully organized as a political force, one that could lobby more forcefully than ever for its own interests.

And why, you may ask, did people feel this way? Because, instead of pursuing the socialist utopian plan, Reagan (and Thatcher) pursued the market. Lo and behold, our economy, which under Dem & Rep alike, has followed the market approach, is booming, making everyone more money. See Commanding Heights the documentary or book.

Indeed, we live in an era of painfully small-scale do-good impulses, best characterized by Julie Delpy's winsome character in last year's Richard Linklater movie "Before Sunset." Sitting in a cafe with her long-lost lover (played by Ethan Hawke), she explains that she used to believe in changing the world through revolutions, politics and big ideas, but now she doesn't think any of those can work, so she works for a nongovernmental organization that distributes pencils to impoverished third-world schoolchildren (just pencils). I'd guess that every moviegoer familiar with the fragmented, microspecific world of nonprofit organizations cringed and nodded with recognition at this scene, but it was also a funny -- and sad -- reminder of a generation's dearth of politics.

Ah crap. You want a revolution? Read some damned history! Even the American Revolution, although extremely sedate and kind as revolutions go, was something of a blood bath. From there you get into the extremes like the French Revolution(s) and all the miriad communist revolutions which left, literally, trails of bodies in their wakes. Yeah, last thing we need are people working to make a difference one pencil at a time. We need a revolution! Idiot!

It is precisely the willingness of the anti-Wal-Mart activists to rise above this nobly ineffective, pencil-sized universe and engage with a bigger picture, and with politics, that makes their campaign so promising. It is a campaign against greed itself, and the current direction of our economy, in which corporations can do as they please regardless of the human cost.

I say again, if they're breaking the law, let's prosecute. If they're just doing a good job at being capitalists, shut the 'f' up and sit the 'f' down.

What's more, Americans are desperate to catch a financial break somewhere. Since breaks are not forthcoming on the job, or from the government -- through, say, universal healthcare or free college tuition -- many will continue to look for relief in the aisles of Wal-Mart. When you're struggling to make ends meet, a $2.50 bra and a $30 microwave look pretty good. It may be that without more progressive people in government, and a more collective ethos in our society as a whole, activists may not be able to force Wal-Mart into fundamental changes.

And here is the word that I've learned to loath. Collective. Yes. Collective. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. It's been tried. It doesn't work. It failed. Badly. Go to Russia. See the devastation wrought by the Soviet Union on the people and the environment. Read the histories of what collectivism does to human rights.

Blogsphere Abuse

This is an entry from Schneier on the "Dog Poop Girl." You can find the links to various sites from the entry.

Here's the basic story: A woman and her dog are riding the Seoul subways. The dog poops in the floor. The woman refuses to clean it up, despite being told to by other passangers. Someone takes a picture of her, posts it on the Internet, and she is publicly shamed -- and the story will live on the Internet forever. Then, the blogosphere debates the notion of the Internet as a social enforcement tool.

The topic really comes down to the quoted discussion by Solove. Is the blogsphere a place for enforcement of social norms? I think that it can be [but probably shouldn't be]. First it must not violate the truth of the situation. Once you find a photo of the transgression, you should analyze the "digitally enhanced" finger being offered. Obviously, it was added to the photo. That's where I part company with this being appropriate.

Social norms are niceties that make society run smoothly, but there are many places where a variance in opinion makes friction. By posting a blog with a picture for a slight transgression and forever branding the individual is ridiculous. Remember in this world of photo-phones, you could be posted as the ass of the day very easily. And the expectation of fairness or even truth on a blog just isn't there. Read the part about where people started requesting info on DPG and her relatives. Starts to sound dangerous to me.

That also leads to the topic of retaliation. If one posts a truly unreasonable blog entry that gets large levels of viewing, can you be sued? I'd guess that the answer is yes. There is no journalistic protections here. If the commentary is unreasonable or factually wanting, you are in for a libel suit. It wouldn't necessarily be about the amount of money you'd lose but just how much they can rip out of you for being unreasonable.

Oh, just a warning, don't photograph me in public. No matter the reason. I'm not a very understanding person.

Is Chavez the new Castro?

The only difference between Chavez and Castro is that Chavez has a huge amount of oil money behind him. I just love the lunacy that he spews.

Chavez, a frequent critic of the U.S. government, also said he had read reports of President Bush "putting money in circulation to buy votes and to blackmail, through the so-called (U.S.) intelligence agencies, to approve an initiative which is perverse."

Chavez did not give other details of his source or the claims, which have been made by some opponents of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The House of Representatives narrowly approved the agreement Thursday in a 217-215 vote, four weeks after the Senate backed the measure.

Yeah, I'm betting that the Venezuelan Secret Service has access to documentation on Bush's wrong doings. That is just silly. Scary thing is that he's probably believed by many in Central and South America.

Chavez also responded to criticism by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has said Venezuela's government lobbied against the trade deal.

"I wouldn't do it because it's not up to me," Chavez said. "It's up to Central American fighters" to oppose such measures.

Along with his close ally Fidel Castro of Cuba, Chavez has sought to promote a socialist-based trade initiative called the "Bolivarian Alternative."

Heh, Socialist-based trade initiative? We've seen how effective socialist and communist trade has been for many economies. I don't see any that actually have succeeded.

Here's a bit on Bolivarian Alternative.

The ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas), as its Spanish initials indicate, is a proposed alternative to the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA, ALCA in its Spanish initials), differing from the latter in that it advocates a socially-oriented trade block rather than one strictly based on the logic of deregulated profit maximization. ALBA appeals to the egalitarian principles of justice and equality that are innate in human beings, the well-being of the most dispossessed sectors of society, and a reinvigorated sense of solidarity toward the underdeveloped countries of the western hemisphere, so that with the required assistance, they can enter into trade negotiations on more favorable terms than has been the case under the dictates of developed countries. [Emphasis Mine]

Sounds very utopian. Wonder why the countries involved in CAFTA are looking to the US rather than Venezuela for trade?

Laws of War and Terrorists

Here's a fairly long article on the legal issues surrounding terrorists/insurgents as are being encountered today by the US military. The article is from PARAMETERS.

Terrorists are gaining an astonishing legal edge over US and other armed forces deployed against them. The present trend promises to burden future generations, as well as our own, with an ad hoc, damaging legal framework sure to thwart counterterrorist operations and even furnish inducements for those tempted to join the terrorist ranks.

The long-term import of recent trends can'’t be overstated. The United States is surely- —and not so slowly-—bestowing legal status and privileges on members of terrorist organizations that have no precedent in the 3,500-year recorded history of warfare. Terrorists are acquiring legal recognition and support of a kind unavailable to members of US and other national armed forces, and for that matter unavailable to insurgents during civil conflict as well. (There are early intimations that the United States may end up unilaterally bestowing similar status and privileges on the members of opposing state forces as well as terrorist organizations.) The notion that opposing forces will ever make these unique legal privileges reciprocally available to the US armed forces simply doesn'’t warrant serious consideration.

This troublesome trend stems from uncertainty over how the law of war should be applied to meet terrorist threats. Though terrorism presents unfamiliar legal issues, these aren't quite as novel as they seem, and we could devise a more pragmatic approach. There is a way forward, but time is working against the establishment of an effective, national-security-focused wartime strategy for counterterrorist action. Steps need to be taken now to ensure the survival of a realistic, useful legal framework that meets these emerging challenges.

The article is pretty good. They discuss why the terrorists/insurgents are illegal combatants under the Geneva Conventions as well as international law and the laws of war.

A couple of clear perspective quotes:

This decision stems from the fact that military operations against terrorist organizations havenÂ’t been firmly placed within a law-of-war frame-work. Most US judges (like most of their counterparts around the world) are unfamiliar with the law of war, which has been applied infrequently in the course of American history. And, when it has been, decisions on the scope of application almost always have been made by the executive branch.

And

The present trend is beginning to arm captured members of opposing forces with a unique method of waging war even after capture. Access to lawyers and civilian courts to challenge their capture, complain about conditions of detention, or force second-guessing on executive branch decisions as to when or how administrative boards may consider matters affecting wartime captives could become highly disruptive. Such measures can force the allocation of resources and personnel to build and maintain administrative case files, distort battlefield prisoner handling procedures and tactical intelligence priorities in order to assemble evidence for newly invented legal procedures, and require the military services to pull or divert personnel from deployment to provide testimony and assist the government in litigation.

The context laid out in the article does make this whole scenario disturbing.

Boston Globe Editorial - Mistake?

This has got to be a mistake.

A Zell Miller Editorial supporting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Gotta be a mistake.

Islamikaze and Secular-Welfare States

Some interesting points of view about how British "asylum" seekers are part of the terrorist problem.

On Tuesday, the Times of London contained this intriguing tidbit about one of the thwarted suicide bombers of the July 21 tube attacks -- Yasin Hassan Omar, a Somali ''asylum seeker'':

''Omar, who was last seen vaulting a barrier at Warren Street station, has been the registered occupant of the flat since 1999. Ibrahim, who was last seen in Hackney Road, East London, after his failed attempt to blow up a No. 26 bus, shared it with him for the past two years. Omar, received £88 a week in housing benefit to pay for the council property and also received income support, immigration officials say.''

''Council property'' is Britspeak for public housing. So here's how things stand four years after 9/11: United Kingdom taxpayers are subsidizing the jihad.

There's a cheery thought for any Englishman the next time he's on a bus when some Islamakazi self-detonates: It's on his tax bill; pay as you blow.

This isn't some stunning shocking development, either. In a column on December 29, 2001, I noted the likes of Zac Moussaoui, the French citizen who became an Islamist radical while living on welfare in London, and wrote: "If you're looking for 'root causes' for terrorism, European-sized welfare programs are a good place to start . . . Tony Blair pays Islamic fundamentalists in London to stay at home, fester and plot.''

I did get a chortly out of the phrase "Islamakaze." Hadn't heard that one before.

I did hear this theory on taxpayer subsidized terrorism back when the first London bombing occurred. One of the Euro Programmers that we seem to have a lot of in this company told me that was one of the big differences between the US and Britain.

Niall Ferguson also has a piece that discusses the variance of religiousness in Europe and Great Britain.

According to the Gallup Millennium Survey of Religious Attitudes, barely 20 per cent of West Europeans attend church services at least once a week, compared with 47 per cent of North Americans and 82 per cent of West Africans. Less than half of western Europeans say God is a "very important" part of their lives, as against 83 per cent of Americans and virtually all West Africans. And fully 15 per cent of western Europeans deny that there is any kind of "spirit, God or life force" - seven times the American figure and 15 times the West African.

The exceptionally low level of British religiosity was perhaps the most striking revelation of a recent ICM poll. One in five Britons claims to "attend an organised religious service regularly", less than half the American figure. Little more than a quarter of us say that we pray regularly, compared with two thirds of Americans and 95 per cent of Nigerians. And barely one in 10 of us would be willing to die for our God or our beliefs, compared with 71 per cent of Americans.

Of course, these surveys make no distinctions between creeds, so they almost certainly understate the decline of British Christianity. Last year, do not forget, it was revealed that, in an average week, more Muslims attend a mosque than Anglicans go to church. Small wonder our talented but frustrated local minister has just announced that he is leaving the Church to become a lawyer: a true sign of the times.

Could there be links between the relative religiousness and what has brought about the terrorist attacks in Great Britain? I'm thinking there is.

Another Supreme Court Justice to Lose Land in NH?

This is just starting to make NH look a bit nutty.

Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain have proposed seizing Justice Stephen G. Breyer's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.

The state's Libertarian Party is trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Breyer's 167-acre property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home after a California man suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel.

I'm going to say that hopefully this is only happening because they both have property in NH. But, why do they have to go about protesting the eminent domain finding in such a childish way?

Energy Bill

They finally passed the Energy Bill. Not that it's a good one, but at least it's a start.

I was thankful that this bit didn't get in.

House Republicans also abandoned a provision that would have given the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE protection against lawsuits stemming from the chemical's contamination of drinking water supplies in at least 36 states.

Though I'm uncertain why the manufacturer would be liable when it was the government that required the use of MTBE and only MTBE. I suppose that would take a lot more research.

There of course is the ravings of the Representatives from the People's Republic of Massachusetts just in case you need a laugh.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said it falls far short of what is needed by not addressing climate change and including nothing that would increase the fuel economy of automobiles, the biggest guzzlers of oil. Just this week, Kerry said, a report was made public from the Environmental Protection Agency showing a decline in automobile fuel economy.

Yes, we always see such wonderful success when legislating these types of requirements. Gas Guzzlers will be punished by the price of fuel. Reaction there after will be for movement to more energy efficient vehicles. I honestly don't believe that legislation is a better path than market forces. That attitude has caused the price of new refineries and power plants to be so high that there hasn't been a new refinery built in 25 years. Let's not mention the fact that there hasn't been a new nuclear power plant in the country in at least that long. God forbid that any new technology be used when the government can punish the user because the old technology wasn't very efficient.

The one that irks me is Ed Markey:

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said, "This bill is packed with royalty relief, tax breaks, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporation in the history of the United States."

The reason he irks me is that he's actually right this time. Funny thing is that I saw a segment on the news where Bush spoke against these tax breaks, but I can't find a quote.

This article has more on what was proposed and what succeeded. You'll need Bugmenot.com to get in.

The Burr Amendment - named for its sponsor, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. -— would reverse a 13-year-old U.S. policy banning exports of weapons-grade uranium unless the recipients agreed to start converting their reactors to use less-dangerous uranium. The Senate rejected the measure last month after critics in both parties warned that it would accelerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear materials, but a House-Senate conference committee agreed this week to include it in the final bill.

Now there is a bloody foolish proposal.

Other major provisions in the legislation include:
Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal and solar industries and for technology aimed at making coal more environmentally friendly.
New efficiency standards for many commercial appliances.
A requirement for utilities to meet federal reliability standards for the electric transmission grid, in hopes of avoiding blackouts like the one in the summer of 2003.
Easing the way for more imports of liquefied natural gas by giving federal regulators final say over terminals.
Spurring construction of new nuclear-power reactors by offering loan guarantees and "risk insurance" against regulatory delays for the initial units to be built.
A nationwide inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Critics said theyÂ’re concerned the inventory may lead to drilling in areas now off-limits.

I think the nuclear power incentives are a good idea, though no one will act on them. Nuclear power is probably one of the best ways to get out of the odependencyncy problem. The risk insurance isn't likely to be enough. I'm betting that it doesn't cover all the frivolous law suits that would be issued against any company just trying to plan a plant.

Well at least it's a start.

Cisco Systems: The 800lb. Mangy Gorilla

To put it nicely, I dislike Cisco Systems. I could go on about their sales techniques or other unpleasantness about them, but you don't really have to when you read things like this.

The Michael Lynn story keeps getting more interesting. The computer security researcher lost his job at Internet Security Systems today after he briefed Black Hat conference attendees about a flaw in the software that powers Internet routers made by Cisco Systems. The latest is that Lynn has been served with a temporary restraining order designed to prevent him from discussing any more details about the flaw.

In the order, which was jointly filed by ISS and Cisco, Lynn is said to have illegally reverse-engineered Cisco source code and that he stands to profit from this research. A copy of the document, obtained by washingtonpost.com, reads: "Cisco believes that Lynn is also disclosing ISS and Cisco proprietary information outside of the context of a formal presentation as well."

And

Cisco routers are used on nearly every major segment of the Internet infrastructure. By exploiting the flaws described in his talk today, Lynn said attackers could crash those systems or intercept Internet communications. An automated attack against the router flaw -- delivered through an Internet worm, for example -- could effectively darken much of the Internet, he said.

You see, Cisco claims to be this wonderful security solution, but then when they show up having big security flaws, they first try to brush it aside, while they scramble to provide a fix, then they sue whoever happens to have found the flaw to prevent disclosure. I'm a bit surprised that ISS is taking the wrong side of this, though likely it's because they have a big juicy contract with Cisco to provide security analysis. Not to mention they don't want to get into litigation if they can avoid it.

The primary issue it that to the best of my knowledge Lynn did break the law. Though contextually, most of what he found could be arrived at from other sources. Cisco had some of their code stolen earlier this year and it was posted on a website. You don't honestly think that it didn't fall into the wrong hands many many times while it was posted.

The issue with disclosure of these flaws is fairly obvious. Cisco doesn't want to have its reputation harmed, but people in the security field want the information on major flaws made public so that they can be fixed. When a flaw is found and Cisco tries to squash the reports of it, that will ensure that not all of the flawed systems will be fixed. If they don't all get fixed, someone will find a way to exploit them.

The end result is that Lynn gave the speech, but now has to remain silent on the topic.

Cisco Systems and a network security firm reached a settlement with a researcher who quit his job so he could deliver a speech on a flaw in Cisco software that routes data over the Internet. Michael Lynn, who left his job at Internet Security Systems hours before his speech, agreed never to repeat the information he gave at the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday. He also must return any proprietary Cisco source code in his possession. A Cisco representative was supposed to join Lynn on stage. But Cisco and ISS changed course and tried to substitute an alternate presentation. When the firms were blocked by Black Hat, they canceled. They also hired workers this week to yank related pages from handouts and substitute conference CDs. After Lynn quit his job and gave the presentation, they sought a court order barring him from discussing the matter further. (AP)

You kind of hope Lynn finds some real good job after this. I'm betting this is a decent resume point for a security investigator.

Fat Complacent Democracy

From QandO:

Its been evident to me that much of the western world hit the snooze button not long after 9/11, prefering the mask of sleep to the reality that terrorism was here, had an agenda, and wasn't in the mood to stray from it. We've referred to those people many times as still living in a 9/10 world.

VDH has a related piece, And Then They Came After Us We’re at war. How about acting like it?

More on Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Seems that the CCRKBA are miffed at a WaPo editorial. Can't blame them really.

The Washington Post editorial board is staffed with world-class hypocrites who demand a federal shield law for journalists, while at the same time condemn the idea of legislation that would shield law-abiding firearms manufacturers from junk lawsuits, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today.

In a Tuesday editorial, the Washington Post whined that the proposed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would provide an "unfair and irrational special-interest shield from civil justice."

"Many American citizens, and at least one federal grand jury, might argue that a shield law to protect reporters from disclosing sources, even in criminal investigations, is also an unfair and irrational shield for a special-interest, in this case, the press," observed CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. "Yet the Washington Post recently editorialized that 'Almost all states recognize some form of privilege for reporters.' It clearly appears that the Washington Post is quite comfortable with a special privilege for the media industry that it does not care to share with the firearms industry.

Hypocrites? I guess they have a point.

Stupid Judicial Statements

The Millennium Bomber (Ahmed Ressam) was sentenced to 22 years. Kind of light I thought, but that isn't the point of this entry. Hugh Hewitt quotes the Judge (Coughenour) who sentenced him with the following statement:

The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.

"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."

Apparently judge Coughenour is trying to make a point about GITMO and the Military Tribunal process. I'd say that the judge should actually know what he's talking about or STFU.

Here's the problems that I see with his bench-side pontification.

• First: Ahmed Ressam was captured on US soil trying to kill US citizens. That put him in the jurisdiction of genius' like Coughenour. The GITMO detainees were captured in a theater of war as illegal combatants. I think Coughenour believes that his ilk should have jurisdiction here, but plainly the Supreme Court has stated otherwise.

• Second: The military tribunal system is not the horror that he seems to view it. The GITMO defendants will be allowed counsel. I pointed this out previously with this link to the DOD Military Commission Order No. 1. As to any of it being contrary to the Constitution, I suppose that he missed the Supreme Court findings, again.

• Third: Secret, in this case doesn't mean unjust. Nor does it mean without review. See the linked order. I suppose he has an interesting view of what constitutes "indefinite." I would wager that there have been US citizens detained for trial longer than some of the GITMO detainees. But for context he should maybe look to the detention periods of some of those war criminals held at the end of WWII.
  

Hugh has a decent piece there. I'm especially enamored with the fact that this jerk is a Reagan appointee.