Power Line Blog News

Pretty cool new site. It looks much more news worthy than many of the news sites I use.

Support the Troops

If a link can get them a dollar, then this just got them a dollar.
Seems to be the day for this kind of thing.

More Reasons to See the Boston Globe as Out of Touch

Here is a charming bit.

Denial can be more lethal than cigarettes.

That might explain, as well, why The New York Times managed to expend some 2,000 words on an obituary for Peter Jennings without ever mentioning that the ABC anchorman who also succumbed to lung cancer this week had been a smoker. Or why the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute failed to anticipate the outrage earlier this year when it appointed a tobacco industry executive to its board of trustees.

Hmm. Obituaries generally celebrate a persons life not the reason that they died.

And even though the BG believes all tobacco industry execs are evil incarnate, doesn't make it the truth. Some of those execs are very good managers and people.

So the article is thumping that dead and decayed horses cadaver on smoking. Must be a slow day. Nothing new to argue and more questioning on why it isn't illegal yet. More of the mommy state democratic clap-trap. You'd think these people could find something more important to discuss.

Kansas IDiots

Ok, maybe a bit strong, but when you hold hearing where only one side testifies and then draw conclusions, I would say the results aren't very logical.

The State Board of Education has approved the latest draft of science standards that include greater criticism of evolution.

The board approved the draft on Tuesday by a vote to 6 to 4. It then voted to send it to be reviewed by outside academics. The board is expected to give its final approval in October.

The draft says the board is not advocating the teaching of "intelligent design," which contends that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent creator, not evolution. But the language favored by the board does come from advocates of intelligent design.

Tell me that isn't a bit of foolishness.

Kathy Martin, the newest board member and a former science teacher, said that opponents of the draft were overreacting and that Kansas was not going to lose any jobs or technological advancements because evolution was given a critical eye.

"I hope you guys can realize it's not going to be the end of the world," Ms. Martin said. "I hope you will try to be more open-minded."

Yeah, more open-minded. Seems like they might want to try that hat on themselves. Not that anyone has ever shown religious whack jobs to be close minded.

Day By Day

Chris Muir needs some help. Go and click for him.

9/11 Cell Known Before 9/11?

Here is an interesting bit of news.

Rep. Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who serves as vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified the men in 1999.

That's an earlier link to Al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta if the information, which Weldon said came from multiple intelligence sources, is true.

With the 9/11 commission disbanded for a year under provisions of the legislation that created it, some of the panel's members have said congressional committees should investigate Weldon's assertions.

According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell the unit code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.

Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.

I wonder if those big stone walls that the Clinton administration forced between intelligence agencies had anything to do with this. Could it be that Military Intelligence, like the CIA, wasn't supposed to be involved in intelligence regarding affairs on US soil?

The NYT has a piece on topic:

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, said later that "there were a number of intelligence operations prior to the attacks of 9/11" but that "it would be irresponsible for us to provide details in a way in which those who wish to do us harm would find beneficial."

An intelligence official said Tuesday that the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was "working closely with the Department of Defense to learn more" about Mr. Weldon's statements. The official confirmed that the congressman recently met with Mr. Negroponte, but declined to discuss the subject.

I suppose that is no real big surprise that Military Intelligence doesn't want to discuss it.

An outspoken member of Congress on military and intelligence questions, Mr. Weldon, a champion of military data mining like Able Danger, has helped arrange interviews for reporters with the former military intelligence official. The official insisted on anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support for future data mining in the military.

Jeopardize political support? Why would you think that? I would think that this would be perfect evidence for how such data mining would extremely valuable as a tool for intelligence.

The big question is, do we really need another commission to study this? These commissions put out big documents that no one apparently reads. Especially the MSM who continue to put out misinformation related to the subjects. Will anything useful come out of another study? I'm thinking no. It would just provide further evidence of how very very broken the overall intelligence scenario was prior to 9/11.

Does the Left Want Lose?

An interesting collection of thoughts. I do have to agree. Where is the reaching out that we should be seeing? Where are the sister cities, support groups, aid concerts for the people of Iraq? Is the hatred of Bush so great that they're willing to consign millions of people to anarchy & suffering rather than possibly contribute to a success? Is idealogical purity so important that we can't help after the first step if that first step was against our beliefs? If so, then surely we shouldn't be sending aid to African nations since many of their problems spring from the age of Empires. After all, it's Belgium's problem for mucking up the Congo so badly. Let them sort it out while we sit back and act smug... Isn't that the correct attitude?

Leaving the Left

Wow! Full props to Belmont Club for this one.

Read it. I wish there was a way to communicate these ideas to my monster-in-law, but if the Boston Globe doesn't say it, it's all right wing propoganda. So, when the GeekWife & I disagree with the Holy of Holies, the Globe, we're just demonstrating how we've turned into right-wing, radical, Christian conservatives (who still believe in freedom of choice, gay rights, most social programs, and ARE NOT Christian, hmmm....). Go read it.

British Subway Bomb Making Tutorial

Schneier post regarding the NYPD explanation of what the British Subway bombs were made of and how they were triggered.

The best part is that he also shows a link where the howto for this can be found online. Just to show those that get ripped about the police stating such information, really don't know what kind of world they live in.

ABA Partisan on SCOTUS Nominees?

Here's a good bit from Professor Bainbridge on the ABA's rating of conservative nominees.

It's short and too the point, so I'm going to leave the discussion there.

Radical Islamic Clerics

Keep hearing about the British moving to control or censor these radical clerics, but will it really work?

An outspoken British-based Muslim cleric who left the country in the wake of a government pledge to crack down on radical Islamists said on Tuesday he had merely gone on holiday and planned to return.

Syrian-born Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has lived in Britain for 20 years, left for Lebanon on Saturday and associates said he would not come back.

Bakri said on Tuesday he had decided to take a short break from Britain because he feared the government was using clerics like him as an excuse to rush in new laws and "put pressure on the Muslim community."

This guy has just used the British move to control these clerics, in their incitation of violence, as a means to broadcast the action as oppression. Is that helpful? You'd think that such radical clerics would go quiet in public, but in private would continue their movement.

One wonders if the same thing could be done in the US. I'm not really sure. From what I've heard of the sermons, they could be construed as inciting violence, which is not protected speech in the US. But then, some very fine lines have been drawn regarding what is incitation to violence. I'm thinking that the freedom of religion and freedom of speech don't collide to heavily here. I find it unlikely that a court in the US would find inciting violence a reasonable part of any religion. Well, maybe in the 9th circuit, but not elsewhere.

This article explains some of the actions that Blair is looking to enact into law.

He would greatly expand grounds for deportation to include fostering hatred, advocating violence to further political or religious beliefs or justifying such violence. The plan creates a new crime of glorifying terrorism, refuses political asylum to anyone with links to terror groups and strips citizenship from naturalized citizens who participate in extremist movements.

It would expand police powers to hold terror suspects for three months without charges and would close a number of radical mosques. Treason charges - the most serious of offenses under British law, punishable by death until 1998 - also are being considered for three British-born Muslim leaders who have praised terrorists and said in public they would not inform the police if they knew a terror attack was planned.

There should be little controversy over the proposed powers to deport foreign extremist clerics who abuse Britain's tradition of free speech and political asylum to incite violence. It's wrong to argue, as some civil liberties lawyers have done, that Blair's plan erodes Britain's commitment to human rights. Promoting terror, by word or deed, is not a universal human right, even by the most tortured stretch of that concept. As for the rest of the plan, it will be tested in the courts. That's as it should be in a democratic society under threat.

I'm quite certain that many of these would never be allowed in the US. For good reason. Holding with out charge for 3 months is unreasonable for a citizen of the US. I also doubt that any non-citizen would be held for that long if arrested by the US civil authority in the US. I'm uncertain about the situation of a cleric not informing the authorities of a planned terror attack scenario. I don't know of any restrictions, as a Roman Catholic priest has with regards to the confessional, that is applicable to an Islamic cleric. Though I am certain that the ACLU would advocate against such action.

For the most part I believe that Moslems in this country are much better integrated with the rest of society. Hopefully that will help with some of the problems seen in Britain.

Central New England Karate Championships

My instructor is hosting his first tournament. This is what I hope to be the first of many web links to articles about it. I'll be helping to judge and acting as an uke (an attacker) for a self-defense routine. Shihon is one of the last people in New England to have actual self-defense as part of the competition. It should be good to watch.

Iraq War Debate Weirdness

Now this is truly bizarre:

NEW YORK It was bound to happen sooner or later, and in what newspapers in Kentucky are calling a first, one American has killed another in a dispute over the Iraq war. It happened at Floyd County flea market on Thursday, when two friends, who were firearms vendors there, drew guns after quarreling about the war. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who backs the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who opposed it, according to investigators. Moore was released without being charged after he convinced police he had acted in self-defense. A grand jury may yet hear evidence in the case.

Now, that is strange. I wonder what all the facts are.

A Few Bloody Noses

Finally finished this one. I don't know why it took so long. It was a great read. There weren't any huge revelations in it for me, and it didn't read like revisionist history. It seemed complete, thorough and accurate. I especially enjoyed the emphasis on the politics leading up to the revolution and concluding the revolution. Samuel Adams, referred to in the book as "the real Father of the Country" was quite the character. The battles are accurately portrayed and their social and political context laid out quite well. Robert Harvey, the author, quite correctly calls Yorktown a French victory, which does go against the grade school level of history that most people follow.

One of the more interesting parts of the book was the aftermath of the Revolution. Harvey calls, and I think appropriately, the constitutional convention a counter revolution by the extreme conservative faction within the revolutionists. They convened, independently of Congress, with a collection of self-appointed individuals, no nominations or elections as so recently seen in Iraq to create the convention. Said convention then created a document that roundly peeved the founders of the revolution since it established a strong, central government, stronger even than British rule had been. This was this forced on to the larger states by the smaller ones, by the country on to the city. Yes, even at the founding of the country, the cities were more collectivist and the country-side more conservative.

I think Mr. Harvey is unnecessarily harsh on the US for its treatment of Indians and Slaves (which was quite brutal in both cases). He implies or states outright that the harsh treatment of these groups was a uniquely American phenominon not originating within French or English peoples. Strange when one considers that, prior to the successful revolution, "Americans" were just English, French & German settlers, all operating under some sort of home rule (except for the Germans).

Overall though, this was a great read and really interesting history.

History Now

I was just cruising through Trenches web site, which I do on occassion, looking for new, or new to me, books on WWI when I read the latest Tripwire (their email update). It had a great letter from a soldier/history teacher serving in Iraq and talking about the other wars & soldiers who had been through the same areas he was currently visiting. It's worth a look.

EU Law: I Don't Understand

I must really be missing something on this one.

Under the EU's Optical Radiation Directive, employers of staff who work outdoors, including those in Bavaria's beer gardens, must ensure they cover up against the risk of sunburn.

Bavarian bar keepers have been told that the dirndl, generally rather revealing, will have to be replaced as it offers no protection against what the directive calls "natural sources of radiation", meaning sunlight.

[Hattip Ravenwood's Universe]

Quote of the Day

Last night I stayed up late playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.
--Steven Wright

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.
--Albert Einstein

When choosing between two evils I like to try the one I've never tried before.
--Mae West

It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I just beat people up.
--Muhammad Ali

Either you think - or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you.
--F. Scott Fitzgerald

You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure, what you do not understand.
--Leonardo da Vinci

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.
--General George S. Patton

SayUncle's 21 Lessons on Online Debate

I don't agree with all of them, but he's pretty much got it all correct.

Most of his list are those things that make me dislike the blogsphere.

Another Gun-Grabber in Camo

TriggerFinger shows us www.huntersandshooters.com. Another interesting little hunter's site that has an odd smell to it.

I went to the web-site and straight to the "home-defense" section. I didn't find it unreasonable, but it still didn't strike me as providing any useful information. The whole article strikes me as the usual liberal naval gazing that doesn't provide anything helpful.

In deciding whether a firearm in the home is a risk or a benefit, four common sense factors must be considered:

1. Is a firearm in the home more likely to be used to protect its owner or is it more likely to be used against a member of the household?
2. How frequently are guns used for self-protection?
3. How effective are handguns when they are used for self-protection?
4. Overall, how safe are guns in the home?

There are certain factors that weigh heavily against keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. One of the most widely quoted statements about guns is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This comes from the Journal of Medicine in 1986, following a six-year review of gunshot deaths in Seattle, Washington, conducted by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and others. The validity of this study in determining the value and risk of firearms for home protection has been questioned. The Kellermann study focused only on defensive gun uses where the criminal intruder was shot and killed. Instances in which intruders or assailants were wounded or frightened away were not included.

They name one of the worst studies and point there is controversy and then drop the discussion. That strikes me as odd. Why not also provide discussion of a study that shows the opposite result to provide a balance in the debate? Maybe because they don't want you to come up with the logic that supports gun ownership for defense? I can't speak to their reasoning, but I find it dishonest to fail to provide balance. (Oh, by the way I find the same issue with the NRA.)

Realistically speaking, in order to safely keep a firearm in the home for self-protection, one must create a situation in which the firearm is readily available when needed, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others.

Quick release trigger locks, chamber/cylinder locks or special locked cases that can be instantly opened by authorized individuals are options that should be considered.

The most important responsibility is ensuring that children do not and cannot gain access to a loaded gun.

I've tried a bunch of different trigger locks. I've never seen one that could be defined as "quick release." I'm also not on with the "most important responsibility" statement having to do with only the safety of children. I'm quite certain that your child seeing you lying in a pool of blood because you couldn't get the trigger lock off may nullify that responsibility.

It must come down to having the ability to reasonably protect yourself and your family and preventing the improper access to the firearm to the children. It can't be only protecting the children. If you're dead or incapacitated, then there is no one to protect them. Maybe the police if you get lucky and delay the attacker long enough, but you can't and shouldn't count on that.

Take a look. I'm sure you can make up your own mind.

Roberts Nomination to Supremes

So here is another report that makes me think this guy is an excellent choice.

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

This was pro-bono work, meaning no money. Sounds like a strange lawyer to me.

I still haven't heard anything that makes me think Roberts shouldn't have the seat. Every single objection I've heard from all the whacked out liberal left have done nothing more than convince me that he's the right person. Mostly I don't take their word on anything, I just go and look up the information on the case and that provides some very convincing information.

Of course there also is the tabloids going after access to the adoption records for his children.

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge RobertsÂ’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.

Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.

Both children were adopted from Latin America.

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

Standard background check? Give me a break. If this is standard then the NYT is slimier than I ever believed. What a bunch of crap. Let's not look into what his record on the bench is, let's look at how he adopted his children. Bloody scumbags.