Battle of Gallipoli - 91 Years Ago

A new attack was launched on March 18, targeted at the narrowest point of the Dardanelles where the straits were just a mile wide. A massive fleet under the command of Admiral de Robeck containing no less than 16 battleships was initially successful, eliminating many Turkish artillery batteries. However, an undetected minefield, laid along the Asian shore by the Turkish minelayer Nusret, sunk or damaged a number of ships as they turned about. Three battleships were sunk (the British Ocean and Irresistible and the French Bouvet) while battlecruiser HMS Inflexible and the French battleships Suffren and Gaulois were badly damaged.

U.S. Policy on Small Arms and Light Weapons

Article from the Naval War College Review.

Bondi goes into some of the history and perspective on the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

I'm a bit suspicious about the article and it's political leaning. I found it disturbing that she quotes a study that states most gun owners supported a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. She doesn't bother to state that the study was by two Gun-Control Advocacy groups, the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. If you think the CFA isn't a gun control advocate, just look at their little publication stating that teddy bears are more regulated than guns. Bloody Nauseating.

I guess I'll just jump to the conclusion and note that I find the conclusion a bit ignorant when it comes to the 2nd Amendmant of the US Constitution. She apparently sees no issue with having an international treaty suspend a specified right.

U.S. policy to prevent and control the spread of small arms and light weapons has changed little over the past ten years and is unlikely to evolve dramatically in the foreseeable future. Incremental and parsimonious since its inception, the policy has hinged upon discreet limited interventions, such as destruction of weapons in regions of conflict, as well as capacity building and norm development. The Bush administration has showed little enthusiasm for multilateral initiatives under the aegis of the United Nations, which has taken the lead in confronting the problem of small arms proliferation. The sheer magnitude of this phenomenon in Africa and elsewhere has, however, grave implications for U.S. security, particularly when a nexus forms between arms trafficking and terrorism. Although the United States has recognized the perils of this nexus, it has not devoted commensurate resources, focus, or expertise to tackle it. The influence of the pro-gun lobby, which has many allies in the White House and Congress, has increased over the past four years. Such influence has ensured that the United States does not deviate from its minimalist path either at home or abroad. Failure to renew the domestic assault-weapons ban has cast doubts on commitment to weapons reduction in a nation that contains half of the worldÂ’s small arms and light weapons. Both abroad and at home, prevention is preferable to injecting more weapons in areas of instability, where belligerents (be they government forces or nonstate actors) can perpetrate human rights abuses and criminal networks can wreak havoc upon entire communities. This is why it is crucial to control and keep track of arms supplies.

American leadership and example in fostering and supporting legally binding commitments aimed at keeping transfers in check, and in tracing weapons throughout their itinerant lives, is essential but long overdue. Finally, failure of the United States to build on the United Nations Conference has the potential to undermine the collaboration and support of allies and partners in an array of other fields of security cooperation.

Bondi doesn't seem to see that the right to bear arms in the US and the issue of small arms abuse in Africa are completely separate issues. The vast majority of firearms in the US are used for peaceful purposes or at least in a legal manner. Weapons in African civil wars and other conflicts are not even in the same moral standing.

No doubt the US will take stands on the control of the weapons such as MANPADS and on weapons trafficking. But expecting the US to suspend one of the rights outlined in the Bill or Rights is exceptionally myopic.

I would have thought that the Naval War College Review would have expected a bit more balanced view of a topic.

Zepplin Offensive of WWI

Interesting article on the Zepplin bombing raids on Britain in the Autumn of 1916. From the War Times Journal.

They also have an archive of other WWI related articles.

Counterinsurgency Tactics for Iraq

This is a Parameters article discussing the counterinsurgency methods used by the British in Malaya and Kenya and its application to Iraq.

I won't quote, because this is a fairly concise article that should be read entirely.

The primary discussion relates to population control of minority groups who tend to support insurgents. The conclusion is that it probably wouldn't work in Iraq at present. Partly from the point that the present political methods in getting the Sunni tribes to participate seem to be working and the likelihood that the American public would not support such an activity.

None of this, as far as I can find, is discussed in the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

You may also be interested in a previous Parameters article related to couterinsurgency, Why the Strong Lose.

Military Review has a couple of articles on Counterinsurgency as well.

National Security Strategy

I looked up the newly released NSS. Most of the reports on it are, to be kind, poor. It's long but there are some interesting parts. I'm especially interested in the doctrine of preemption, mainly due to the Tin-foil Capped Liberals who have been crying foul. QandO has picked some interesting quotes:

Ted Kennedy: Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said it was ominous that the Bush administration "would even attempt to resuscitate its radical doctrine of preventive war."

And I like their quote of Howard Dean and the commentary.

The debate is not over whether the United States should retain the right to pre-emptive attack -— it does, and always has -— but whether it is correct to employ such a doctrine in specific circumstances. Critics who inveigh against the mere existence of a doctrine of preemption are woefully uninformed of US foreign policy -— and even the position of the current Democratic Party Chairman who said...

"America has always had an unspoken doctrine of preemption. The question is whether we have had a spoken doctrine of preemption, and the answer to that is absolutely not," Dean said in an interview with Globe editors. "To lay out a doctrine of the right of the United States to preempt any time there is a threat is pretty much an international outrage."

Dean conceded that the US retains the right to preemptive strike -— he merely objects to talking about it. (though he didn't have any trouble conceding its existence; bonus points to anybody who can satisfactorily explain that dichotemy)

I am still baffled by Dean's statement. Is he trying to make the point of "speak softly and carry a big stick?" I'm going to guess that isn't his point.

Saddly too many in this country seem to have the distorted chivalrous view that you can't defend yourself until you're attacked.

The majority of what I see in the NSS that relates to preemption is related to Terrorists.

Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.

Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate.

and

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.

I don't understand how anyone can stand against these types of strategy. Is there a logic to letting the bad guys kill Americans first in order to take action?

The NSS is excessively speachy. I find myself becoming frustrated having to shovel through the lengthy wording that could have been so much more simply stated. Well, if you feel up to it have a look for yourself.

Evacuation Day

Just a little history for you.

On March 17, 1776 the 11-month siege of Boston ended when the Continental Army, under General George Washington, placed captured cannon from Fort Ticonderoga onto Dorchester Heights in South Boston. With a clear view of the city and the narrow harbor where the Royal Navy's ships were docked behind it, the Americans had General Howe's garrison dead-to-rights. To prevent what would have been an inevitable slaughter of his troops, Howe agreed to retreat to Nova Scotia via his ships without setting the city on fire as he left.

So what the hell happened to Boston?

New Nuke in USA

I'm surprised. I wouldn't have thought to see any proposal this soon.

Duke Power Co. and Southern Co. have selected a site in South Carolina for a potential nuclear power plant, which would be one of the first ordered in the U.S. in more than 30 years.

Duke Power, the electric utility subsidiary of Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp., will be the developer and licensed operator of a potential plant co-owned by Atlanta-based Southern, both companies said.

Duke Power chief nuclear officer Brew Barron estimated the cost of building the new plant to be $4 billion to $6 billion. The utilities expect to file an application to build the plant with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in late 2007 or early 2008, Duke Power said

Makes you wonder it that $4-6 billion includes the court costs to fight all the swampies that will be flipping out over this.

Here's a WaPo article with more information.

The site is the same one where Duke Power had stared constructing a nuclear plant in the 1970s, Barron said. The project was abandoned in the 1980s when load projections were lowered, he said.

"This site was a very good one at that time, so it's not surprising the Cherokee site came up again at the top of the list," he said on a conference call. "We saw it as being a win-win."

Cherokee County last year approved an incentive package that offered a 50 percent break on property taxes if the nuclear plant was located there. The site is in the Cherokee Falls community near Gaffney, S.C.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford welcomed the announcement and the potential for new jobs.

That should make the approval process a lot easier, considering that it has already been investigated once.

Duke has said previously a new nuclear plant will feature two Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactors. Each reactor is capable of producing about 1,117 megawatts, Duke Power said.

The Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactor is much simpler than older types of reactors.

The passive safety systems are significantly simpler than the traditional PWR safety systems. They do not require the large network of safety support systems needed in typical nuclear plants, such as AC power, HVAC (heating, ventilation & air conditioning), cooling water systems and seismic buildings to house these components. Simplification of plant systems, combined with increased plant operating margins, reduces the actions required by the operator. The AP1000 has 50 percent fewer valves, 83 percent less piping, 87 percent less control cable, 35 percent fewer pumps and 50 percent less seismic building volume than a similarly sized conventional plant. These reductions in equipment and bulk quantities lead to major savings in plant costs and construction schedules.

Too bad they still aren't looking at using more innovative designs. But, I suppose that the US will only accept so much change, and this is going to be hard enough as it is.

Let the protests begin!

Removing the Gray Wolf from the Endangered Species Act

Been hearing this discussed in several venues as well as discussions on the Grizzly and Bald Eagle. The wolf looks like it may actually have partial removal from protections in the mid-west.

Farmers and ranchers in northwestern Minnesota would have broader leeway to shoot and trap nuisance wolves under a new proposal made Thursday by the Bush Administration. U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton set in motion a federal plan to hand management of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes states back to tribal and state resource agencies. Norton proposed removing gray wolves from the endangered species list, saying they have recovered to the point that federal protection is no longer needed.

The proposal covers Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, where roughly 3,800 wolves live. It also would remove federal wolf protection in neighboring parts of the Dakotas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, where rogue wolves might wander but where federal authorities say they are unlikely to establish populations.

Under the federal proposal, state and tribal governments would take responsibility for ensuring that populations of gray wolves, also called timber wolves, remain healthy. All three states have drawn up wolf management plans that have won approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3800 still sounds like a pretty small population to me. But then, I don't have the best of understanding of what kind of population the available land could sustain. Sounds like they are attempting to set a reasonable management program, so you can be certain that this will get tied up in knots in the courts real quick.

$pend $pend $pend

Very aggravated.

The U.S. Senate approved a 2007 budget plan that rejects President George W. Bush's calls to trim Medicare spending, while it boosts federal spending by at least $11 billion more than the administration's request.

The chamber voted 51-49 last night to approve a budget blueprint of about $2.8 trillion that also allows oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plan omitted procedural protections needed to enact any controversial tax-cut legislation.

"This is a responsible budget,'' said Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who heads the Budget Committee. "It's not everything I wanted, obviously. But it's a step in the right direction.''

Nearly all Democrats opposed the plan, many saying it would do little to tame the nation's persistent deficits.

"Borrow and spend, that's what this budget represents,'' said Senator Kent Conrad, the top-ranked Democrat on the Budget Committee. "A vote for this budget is a vote for more debt, higher interest rates, a weaker economy.''

So much for fiscal responsibility. Judd G. has got to be smoking something. How can an 11 Billion Dollar increase be a step in the right direction? No cuts reported anywhere. What's next, raising taxes?

The majority of Republicans voted for this, proving that politicians in general love to piss away money.
The majority of Democrats voted against, proving that partisan politics thrives. You can't honestly tell me that if they were in control of the senate that this would have been any more fiscally responsible.

I guess I don't really need that cup of coffee right now.

Skinhead Port World

I saw Brit Hume mention this and just had to look it up.

Chuckles Schumer at his best:

Mr. Schumer'’s campaign against the Dubai deal was a Sunday press conference gone nuclear, a political explosion fueled by the tabloid-honed, bread-and-butter Brooklyn populism that has driven Mr. Schumer'’s remarkable success with the New York and, increasingly, the national media. The ingredients were familiar: a suspicion of Arab governments; an immediate grasp of an issueÂ’s visceral appeal (Terrorists! Ports!); and a wonky intimacy with the arcana of a relatively obscure policy area, maritime security.

The Senator'’s position came under fire from many quarters, with some critics suggesting that opposition to the deal was driven by xenophobia or anti-Arab racism. Mr. Schumer heatedly disputes that view. "Let's say skinheads had bought a company to take over our port,"” he said. "“I think the outcry would have been the same."”

Um, ok. But tell me, if they were American skinheads, would there be any legal restrictions to their owning the port terminal operations? I'm going to say a big NO. And would there have been an outcry? Is there some contention that skinheads are terrorists or a security risk?

Sorry, I'm thinking Chuck is out to lunch again. Or is that still?

UN Arms Control

Good link from SayUncle.

I find this good news.

As the United Nations prepares to host a review conference on curbing trade in small arms and light weapons, disputes over the extent of such measures and whether they should be legally binding are hampering progress. The disputes have helped block participants from even agreeing on an agenda, raising the possibility of a repeat of a 2001 conference that ended without an agreement on binding measures.

More than 50 countries met at a Jan. 9-21 New York preparatory meeting for the June 26-July 7 UN review conference. At the conclusion of the preparatory meeting, Chairman Sylvester Rowe of Sierra Leone compiled a document of possible policy options for the conference, including consideration of legally binding measures. But the lack of consensus on the document brought the meeting to a close without an agreed agenda.

A number of countries, including the United States, resisted any attempt to discuss legally binding measures and also rebuffed efforts to address limits on civilian ownership, legal trade and manufacture, and transfers to nonstate entities.

I'm happy to hear about the blocking of legally binding resolutions, especially when it comes with relevant statements regarding civilian ownership. You know, that thing protected by the Second Amendment.

Some U.S. lawmakers are pressing the Bush administration to pursue a new approach at the 2006 conference. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), along with a dozen colleagues, sent a Jan. 12 letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to "“push for strong, specific arms export criteria in or [that would] supplement" the UN Program of Action in June. Such criteria, the letter volunteers, could include the prevention of arms transfers that could result in human rights abuses or terrorism, violations of international treaties and embargoes, or disruptions to regional peace and security.

Feinstein really irritates me. I always get a suspicious feeling that she would use one of these international agreements to force gun control inside the country if she could. Unfortunately, the wording of this report is really vague. I'd prefer very specific statements on what she wants to disallow rather than these broad sweeping terms that could come back to bite us.

Green on Ataturk

Stephen Green, Vodkapundit, goes back to WWI to discuss the establishment of the one, currently, working Islamic democracy, Turkey. Nice to see that the Great War built good things as well as established most of the world's current problems. Here's another counter-factual, but the probably a good one:

Wilson has the courage of his (ill-conceived, poorly established, knee-jerk) convictions and keeps the US out of the war. Then, instead of a humiliating defeat, Germany, France & Britain exhaust each other and reach a detente instead of the crushing peace that was imposed because of America's involvement. The Middle East is not then divvied up 'tween France & Britain. There is no WWII. Communism is possibly strangled in it's infancy since a strong Germany next door to a weak Russia influences their economy & politics.

However, Vodkapundit's ideas & reporting are much better than mine. If the three or four people that visit this site don't visit his, please do.

Islamic Inventions and Discoveries or not

Um, wow. No doubt we'll be hearing about Islamic "inventions" and "discoveries" for a long time to come. Why am I not surprised that the instead of recognizing that the Middle East was a conduit for information out of Inda & China, the media (and apparently science museum operators) see it as the source.

H.R. 1606 Due for Vote

Lots of Bloggers are voicing this as Blogsphere vs. Elitist MSM. That does have much too it. Though I'm more in support of it just to whittle away some more of the McCain-Feingold Political Speech Repression act. There is a problem with this bill being far too broad.

One bill, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, sponsored by Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling, would treat political ads influencing federal elections and transmitted over the Internet differently from political ads that are broadcast on TV or radio or published in newspapers and magazines. Internet ads would not have to conform to rules in place for "public communications" as defined by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which banned most soft money in federal campaigns, the huge unlimited contributions from corporations and other large donors to the national political parties. The result? A gaping hole through BCRA that would open the door for all kinds of backdoor funding, through soft money, of political ads on the Internet.

That bothers me, but then, I thought it would be better if all political speech would require complete disclosure of who paid for it. And not just in the microscopic print at the end of a commercial or on a website.

So you'd think the blogging community would have welcomed a new bill, developed in consultation with the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a DC-based nonprofit with a long history of advocating for free expression on the Internet. This new bill, the Internet Free Speech Protection Act, is also bipartisan, sponsored by Representatives Tom Allen (D-ME) and Charles Bass (R-NH).

The Allen-Bass bill does not exempt all paid political ads transmitted over the Internet from the campaign finance laws. But it includes very strong language that offers much broader protections to bloggers, websites and Internet journalists than are currently in place under federal law, and that are not even addressed by the Hensarling bill. "We want to keep the Internet free," Allen told Roll Call. "We just want to shut down the possibility of using coordinated campaign money through the Internet."

I like this bill better, in that it's less prone to abuse. At least that's how it appears at present.

I suppose my largest worry is the glacial nature of congress and the likelihood that nothing will be enacted in a timely fashion.

Now let's see what comes from the political games.

Hanson on Dubai Ports Fiasco

Hanson does a great job for handing out the blame on what went wrong.

To understand the fiasco, we must allot blame to almost everyone involved. A Republican administration -- almost daily accused of talking down to "the people" -- somehow feels no need to reveal how its own familiar world of transnational corporations works. Much less does anyone up on Olympus explain to us mere mortals below why our long-term strategic interests would remain safe with ports owned by Dubai's government.

and

Meanwhile, the Democrats, who have lectured us ad nauseam about ethnic stereotyping, couldn't resist the political opening. So they jettisoned this old sensitivity to score jingoist points by suggesting that an Arab fifth column could, in theory, gain control of our ports.

It was surreal to hear Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the multicultural guru, lecture us about the dangers of these Gulf middlemen -- even as her huckstering husband advised the United Arab Emirates how to finesse the American Congress.

He does seem to miss some others that would have been worth pinning some blame on.

Start with the Republicans in congress who sprinted to away from the deal without even attempting to get any facts. Then with pure political posturing denied any real debate on the topic. Nothing like pure self interest to make a politico ignore the facts.

Then there was the MSM who did a very effective job in their non-reporting of the few hearings that were held where Homeland Security and other agencies involved told why this was a non-problem. And the MSM talking heads who consistently got the fact wrong. Such as saying that the ports would be run by DPW and not just the terminal operations. CNN was especially humorous in never getting the facts quite straight. (Though none of the rest were exactly perfect on that count either.)

Let's not forget the polls. Nothing to show the public that they don't support a program based on no information, so that more mindless trolls can pile on the bandwagon.

IMAO, this whole scenario showed the US at its absolute worst.

Social Engineering to Win Basketball Games

I really loathe basketball, but some clever college student(s) seem to have done a really good job social engineering a opponents starting guard. It was very effective.

On March 4, University of California Berkeley (Cal) played a basketball game against the University of Southern California (USC). With Cal in contention for the PAC-10 title and the NCAA tournament at stake, the game was a must-win.

Enter "Victoria."

Victoria was a hoax UCLA co-ed, created by Cal's Rally Committee. For the previous week, "she" had been chatting with Gabe Pruitt, USC's starting guard, over AOL Instant Messenger. It got serious. Pruitt and several of his teammates made plans to go to Westwood after the game so that they could party with Victoria and her friends.

On Saturday, at the game, when Pruitt was introduced in the starting lineup, the chants began: "Victoria, Victoria." One of the fans held up a sign with her phone number.

The look on Pruitt's face when he turned to the bench after the first Victoria chant was priceless. The expression was unlike anything ever seen in collegiate or pro sports. Never did a chant by the opposing crowd have such an impact on a visiting player. Pruitt was in total shock. (This is the only picture I could find.)

The chant "Victoria" lasted all night. To add to his embarrassment, transcripts of their IM conversations were handed out to the bench before the game: "You look like you have a very fit body." "Now I want to c u so bad."

Pruitt ended up a miserable 3-for-13 from the field.

Schneier calls it "he cleverest social engineering attack I've read about in a long time." And I must agree. Now you know this will get completely out of control with the attempts to do it to other teams. Makes me wonder how successful they'll be.

Feingold Grandstanding

Here's an interesting article I found linked at Captain's Quarters on Feingold.

One longtime Senate aide was particularly scathing.

“Feingold’s grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist’s hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would’ve split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support. Russ Feingold had only one persons’ interests in mind with his Sunday bombshell, and those were his own. He practically handed a victory to a Bush White House that desperately needs a win.”

Heh. Not sure where to take that, but it was funny.

Decline in Gun Dealers

ABC has provided another useless article to stir the gun-control pot. No actual data or evidence for any of the statements. Pretty much the usual from a major player in the MSM.

The United States has more gas stations than gun dealers. "News flash?" you might think. But a decade ago, businesses licensed to sell firearms outnumbered gas stations 245,000 to 210,000. Since then, the number of licensed firearms dealers has declined almost 80 percent, according to a recent study of federal data.

The reason: changes in regulations in the 1990s that, among other things, required federally licensed gun dealers to comply with zoning laws and report certain information to local police.

Gun-control advocates contend that this dramatic reduction is a victory for "sensible" gun-control policy that has made it harder for criminals to get guns. They believe the reduced number of dealers makes it easier for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (known commonly as ATF) to police the "bad apple" dealers who divert guns onto the illegal market. ATF studies have shown that a disproportionately large number of those bad apple dealers were small businesses. And while gun-control advocates acknowledge there's no empirical evidence, they believe the reduction was one element that added to the dramatic decline in crime during the past decade.

Gun-Control activists faith in their cause. No proof, just faith. I suppose I'll just remain skeptical and now quote the NRA's reasoning, which is far far more reasonable.

The National Rifle Association has a very different response: "So what?" says Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Fairfax, Va. He contends the changes only drove out individuals who may have gotten a license so they could buy guns at wholesale prices for their personal use.

The alterations in the law requiring following local zoning restrictions and laws made the personal-use "dealer" to be forced out of their license due to most cities and many states having extremely draconian laws on how, where, and who can run a Firearms business.

The thing I find most disturbing is the attempt to attach the reduction in crime in the past decade with the reduction of gun dealers. No one has any real evidence one way or another. Though I'd think the fact that gun ownership has also increased in that same time period would make such a claim fairly suspect. There were far to many social and economic factors in that same time period to have anyone be able to stake a sole claim on the successful reduction in crime. As for reduction in dealers, I find that one of the weakest arguments yet put forth.

They also get in the jab about an NRA supported change related to dealers that ABC appears to dislike.

Gun-control advocates are concerned that some of the progress made in reining in the number of gun dealers will be lost because Congress has been quietly attempting to roll back some of the reforms implemented in the 1990s. For instance, in an amendment attached to the ATF appropriations bill at the behest of the NRA late last year, Congress forbid the ATF from suspending a firearms license because of lack of legitimate "business activity."

"What we really don't want to see is a return to the early '90s, when there was just horror story after horror story of people who were using their license to buy huge numbers of guns and then traffic them illegally into urban areas with strict gun-control laws," says Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit gun-violence prevention organization that conducted the study of the decline in gun dealers.

The NRA says it supported the amendment limiting the ATF's enforcement abilities because some individuals don't sell guns in a regular retail manner, and it believes they shouldn't be penalized for that. The organization also argues that the gun distribution system is not out of control. In fact, it believes the current ATF regulations are already too onerous.

Interesting that the Gun-Control advocate always get first voice of opinion in the article. I'd like to see the actual evidence that the VPC has for their statement. I think the NRA is more intelligent on this. Just because your business isn't doing very well, doesn't mean you should have your license pulled and thus have the government complete the destruction of your business.

H.R. 4900: Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006

In case you're interested. Here is some of the wording of the bill to maintain that little bit of political freedom of speech that is still out there.

Section 301(22) of the Federal Election Campaign

Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``The term'' and inserting ``(A)

The term''; and (2) by adding at the end the following new sub-paragraph:

``(B) The term `public communication' does not include any communication made over

the Internet, other than any of the following:

  ``(i) Any communication placed by a person on another person's website, if the aggregate amount
spent for such communications exceeds $5,000 during the calendar year.

``(ii) Any communication made by a State, district, or local committee of a political party
described in section 323(b).

``(iii) A communication made by anypolitical committee.

``(iv) A communication made by any person described in section 316 (other than a corporation described in such section ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS whose principal purpose is operating an online discussion forum or disseminating social or political ideas or commentary through operation of a website, web log, podcast, or other similar forms of Internet communication and which is not established, financed, maintained or controlled by a labor organization or by another corporation without such a principal purpose).''.

Dan Rather and Media Games

Saw this linked at Captain's Quarters.

This is a gem.

Here's the scene: Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather is in Cherry Hill, giving a speech about the need for journalists to do better.

"What's gone out of fashion is the tough question and the follow-up," he tells an admiring audience of about 600 people at Cherry Hill's Star Forum.

So how can I, the guy covering Rather's remarks, just sit there?

When he finishes, I hurry to a floor mike to ask Rather about an issue that will be part of my story.

"Mr. Rather," I say. "Great suggestions. But you left the anchor desk last year after your report questioning President Bush's military service was discredited. Key memos could not be authenticated. Do you think the failure to ask questions then affects your credibility now?"

Rather responds with civility -- if not clarity. He notes, in part, that an independent review "couldn't determine whether the documents were authentic or not."

Eager to please, I follow up: "The Courier-Post won't run something if we're not sure it's authentic. Are you saying it's OK . . ."

But my microphone goes dead -- and the audience stirs to life.

Some people jeer. Others glare and scowl (I can now distinguish between the two). This continues outside as I call in my story.

Gee, Rather's speech never mentioned this.

But for everyone I offended, here's more bad news.

Heh. Funny when the hero of the MSM gets called on his issues, the reporter gets censored.

What's that called? Hypocrisy?

Walsh does write a humor column, but from his telling, I don't see he was trying to make fun of Rather. Though how he could resist is beyond me. This is great reporting. It definitely points at the MSM's holier-than-thou attitudes.

I really hope this gets lots of Blogsphere play.