Investigating Secret Programs

Tell me, does anyone actually think that the Judiciary committee and all the people screeching for an investigation of the NSA wiretapping program have any clue about security, never mind secrecy?

President Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the anti-terror eavesdropping program that intercepts Americans' international calls and e-mails, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush refused to grant security clearances for department investigators who were looking into the role Justice lawyers played in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency listens in on telephone calls and reads e-mail without court approval, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Without access to the sensitive program, the department's Office of Professional Responsibility closed its investigation in April.

And

Later, at the White House, spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program is reviewed every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the "proper venue," Snow said.

"What he was saying is that in the case of a highly classified program, you need to keep the number of people exposed to it tight for reasons of national security, and that's what he did," Snow said.

Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. Justice Department inspector general Glenn A. Fine and two of his aides were among other department officials who were granted clearances, Jarrett said in an April memo explaining the end of his probe. That memo was released by the Justice Department Tuesday.

That last bit, using the FBI investigation of leaks as an example, completely distorts the situation. First the OPR was tasked with investigating the program itself. That would mean that they would have access to the fine details of the program. The FBI on the other hand would be locked into that "need-to-know" scenario, where they would only be allowed access to information related to who would have the ability to leak the information. Those limitations are huge.

I still fail to see why Specter continues his tirade on this topic. The Intelligence committees of both houses have been briefed and the President has supposedly agreed to a review of the program before the FISA court. Any other investigations are just a waste of time and money, but that never has stopped the politicians before.

Parental Fears

As if all the worries about your children weren't enough, you can add this to the list. It's a great article over on Salon about parents suspected of child porn due to innocent pictures taken on a camping trip. Seriously scary stuff. From the sound of the article, I'd go camping with this family any time I was invited. Seriously though, this is a scary part of our (justified?) concern for protecting children within this society. There are some serious monsters out there and a sharp eyed development technician at a drug store could very well stop one of them. But, what happens when it's not a monster? That's the story this author sets out to tell.
It's worth the read. While reading it, my mind kept flashing to pictures of my kids, at the breast, getting diapers changed, in the tub... I think few if any of them have the kids nekkid, but what if they did? What if that caused DSS to show up at our house? It just makes my gut clench to be so powerless over something so innocent.
I suppose its probably nothing to worry about. Besides, we'll probably be getting the DSS visit when our kids start correcting the history teachers in school.
BTW, mostly off topic, what is it with Salon writers and France?

Sam Adams Homebrew Contest

I've been looking at the number of hits we get from people searching for this on our site. Watching the volume and interest, plus the fact that I've gotten the assembly line going again, I've decided to take Ken Ryu Ale (The Eclectic Beer, It Packs a Punch) into the contest. It's my only personal recipe and it came out quite good. I don't think I can get the same yeast again, so I may have to try recreating it. I'll have to see if White Labs still has the 10th Anniversary yeast available. If not, I'll have to try to blend it myself. I'll also have to get Shihan's permission to use that name. He may object or there could be legal issues. Anyway, it's all my recipe and it came out pretty good, so we'll have to see if I can make it happen again.
Any volunteer taste testers?

Bush's Open Mic

I'm finding it hard to see why some in the MSM are finding this an embarrassing situation. Personally, if that had been me, the language would have been far more, uh, colorful.

Bush: What about Kofi Annan? I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically cease-fire and everything else happens.

Blair: I think the thing that is really difficult is you cant stop this unless you get this international presence agreed.

Bush: She's going. I think Condi's going to go pretty soon.

Blair: Well that's all that matters. If you see, it will take some time to get out of there. But at least it gives people ...

Bush: It's a process I agree. I told her your offer too.

Blair: Well it's only or if she's gonna or if she needs the ground prepared as it were. See, if she goes out she's got to succeed as it were, where as I can just go out and talk.

Bush: See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over.

Blair: Cause I think this is all part of the same thing. What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if he gets a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way, he's done it. That's what this whole things about. It's the same with Iran.

Bush: I feel like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel and we're not blaming the Lebanese government.

Can't get by those "lap-dog" comments either:

Most UK papers agreed that Blair had fared the worse over the microphone mishap. The remarks provided a unique insight into the relationship between the two men, said The Independent.

It had "done little to rebuff suspicions that the prime minister is something of a Washington poodle." said the Opposition Conservative-supporting Daily Mail.

Moronic statement that. How is it that if someone agrees with Bush he's immediately a lacky? Couldn't be that he has sound reasoning and judgement on his side. But then, when has the Daily Mail ever used those parts of the mental tool kit.

Personally, I think the President should have a Secret Service member in the sound booth for these things and when they aren't actively speaking he should just shut down the system. This Gotcha press maneuvering is pathetic.

A Well Regulated Militia

I just don't have the time to put up a lot of comments about this. I'll say this much now. It sure sounds like it might be an interesting book. I personally subscribe to the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment (that nagging phrase "the right of the people" which has such specific meaning everywhere else in the bill of the rights) so anything that supports it, even in a round-about way, sounds good to me. However, this doesn't sound like it's the case in this book. One of the really weird things that I read, quite a lot, and it was here too, is that if militia membership is required for gun ownership, then there would be no hand guns. Is this because people think that the military doesn't have & use hand guns? I assure you, they do. Therefor, hand guns would still be in circulation in civilian hands, despite whatever gun control scheme you're subscribing to.
The argument that keeps coming out is this definition of "citizen". Yet, the right is ascribed to the "people". I realize I'm just a simple person reading these words, but in my mind, they are, in fact, different, with inherently different implications. So that if it said "the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I really could see a different reading than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't know. Stupid and ignorant I guess.
h/t History Carnival

Bloomberg for President? - Third Party Posture

Here's an OpEd to make you nervous. At least those that are strongly pro-gun rights.

Democrats and Republicans here are taking seriously talk that Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run as an independent for president in 2008. One source close to Mr. Bloomberg predicts he will dispose of his multibillion-dollar business holdings next year, give much of it away to charity, and use some of the remainder for a high-stakes presidential campaign.

At a dinner party I attended last month, much of the talk was about whether the mayor might run. Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, noted that the people around Mr. Bloomberg were clearly making noises about the possibility. Another leading Democrat, who is close to Sen. Hillary Clinton, opined that a Bloomberg candidacy would wind up hurting her general-election chances. A Republican broke in to disagree, noting that should the GOP nominate a highly conservative candidate in 2008, Mr. Bloomberg could snap up votes from middle-of-the-roaders in both parties attracted to his technocratic style.

But could a Bloomberg candidacy actually succeed? Certainly, dissatisfaction with both major parties is high, with large numbers of Americans viewing Republicans as unprincipled and less than competent and Democrats as feckless and unserious. Similar conditions gave rise to Ross Perot in 1992, and for a while the diminutive Texas billionaire was running first in the polls. He eventually won 19% of the national vote and helped Bill Clinton defeat the first President Bush.

The frightening thing is that Bloomberg in a third party and centrist position would likely have quite a good chance of winning. I think much of the editorial points to good reasons. He's essentially a republican centrist from a liberal city/state. He'd be a spoiler for the party machines.

I personally don't like him. First for his gun control buffoonery and then there is the fiscal liberalism:

His record is liberal on fiscal issues too. He raised taxes during his first term and now appears to be on the verge of capitulating to the city's public-sector unions in contract talks. On Saturday the New York Times reported that he has settled for a 10% wage hike over the next 32 months in talks that include no concessions from the union on work rules. "Should Bloomberg cave [in] to one union, the pressure on him to give in to all the others will be immense," says Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Institute. Bowing to the union machine wouldn't exactly represent the kind of profile in courage that voters in heartland states might appreciate.

That type of attitude in the national government will be devastating. I don't know if he could change his stripes, but I am of the opinion that we really need a president with some serious fiscal control. (Not to mention a congress with some control.)

They also make an interesting point about the effects of the electoral college if a third party candidate split the vote so that no majority could be had.

In the end, all this speculation may not pan out. Mr. Bloomberg knows that the odds are against him: No modern third-party candidate has come close to winning, and even if one managed to poll close to 40% of the popular vote, it would be hard to carry a majority of the Electoral College. In the absence of an Electoral College majority--something that hasn't happened since 1824--the next president is selected by a vote in the House, with each state's delegations casting one vote and a majority needed to prevail. Given that almost every House member is a Democrat or Republican (Vermont's Bernie Sanders is an independent, but he's leaving to run for the Senate), an independent's chances of victory there are slim.

At the height of Perotmania in 1992, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call surveyed 301 House members as to how they would vote for president in the absence of an Electoral College majority. Two-thirds said they were uncommitted; the vast majority of the remainder indicated they would either vote the same way as their congressional district or would vote for their party's nominee. "The clear upshot was that Perot was going to have a tough time winning in a two-party dominated House," recalls Jim Glassman, publisher of Roll Call at the time. The same would likely be true of Mr. Bloomberg should he run.

That should make a lot of people nervous about this election year.

New Counterinsurgency Field Manual

Saw this posted at Global Guerrillas blog. The do comment of the lack of any discussion on the topic of Fourth Generation Warfare. I think his own link to the 4GW may be insightful on this point, since the Field Manual is strongly for the people on the front more than the officers in the rear. (Though I could very well be mistaken in this, I think overall strategy at the front is much different than the complete war plan.)

The tactical and strategic levels will blend as the opponent's political infrastructure and civilian society become battlefield targets. It will be critically important to isolate the enemy from one's own homeland because a small number of people will be able to render great damage in a very short time.

Leaders will have to be masters of both the art of war and technology, a difficult combination as two different mindsets are involved. Primary challenges facing commanders at all levels will include target selection (which will be a political and cultural, not just a military, decision), the ability to concentrate suddenly from very wide dispersion, and selection of subordinates who can manage the challenge of minimal or no supervision in a rapidly changing environment. A major challenge will be handling the tremendous potential information overload without losing sight of the operational and strategic objectives.

Psychological operations may become the dominant operational and strategic weapon in the form of media/information intervention. Logic bombs and computer viruses, including latent viruses, may be used to disrupt civilian as well as military operations. Fourth generation adversaries will be adept at manipulating the media to alter domestic and world opinion to the point where skillful use of psychological operations will sometimes preclude the commitment of combat forces. A major target will be the enemy population's support of its government and the war. Television news may become a more powerful operational weapon than armored divisions.

It seems to me that even fourth generation warfare leaves most of the soldiers daily activities much the same, but requires new forces to fight certain new fronts and it also requires that the leadership be able to understand the blending and resonance of the different parts in the overall strategy.

That said, I would think it would be something that all soldiers and marines understand to a certain level, but may not be required to the depth that more specialized forces will need to have.

Tabata

Figured I'd put up a few links to articles on Tabata's in case anyone is interested in pursuing it further.

http://www.cbass.com/Tabata_GXP.htm
http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=684&print_art=1
http://www.cbass.com/Sprintendurance.htm

And definately visit Ross Enamait's site for his books.

I'm also going to be picking up these books:

and


If anyone can recommend more, I'm always trying to learn.

Yeargghh

No, that wasn't the Dean Scream(TM). That was me after my workout this morning. I've been doing Tabata's for a while. I got them from Ross Enamait's book "The Underground Guide to Warrior Fitness." It's based on a study done in Japan that established high intensity interval training (HIIT, the other name for this kind of workout) as one of the best conditioning excercises available. The method is, pick a whole body type of excercise like sprinting, heavy bag, burpees, and do that excercise as hard as possible for 20 seconds. Then rest, full stop, for 10 seconds. Then start it up again. Keep this going for 4-8 minutes. Then, as somone I read once said "That thing that you're trying to wipe off your face... it's the floor." Problem is, timing this is a bear. Nyarl came over to our house once and laughed his butt off while the GeekWife & I ran through a set of these things, oh and timed us. Enter Gymboss
This handy little tool times excersice & rest periods that you can set yourself. It also counts rounds. I used mine today for the first time. The evil little device counted 20 seconds as slowly as it could and then raced through 10 lightening quick, over & over again, mercilessly. I loved it! I did sprints outside for four minutes, took a break & then worked the heavy bag for four. After the room stopped spinning I ran up here to type this out.
We're going to be using our Gymboss a lot over the next six weeks as we train GeekWife up for her black belt test and then I'll be using it once a week or so when I lead excercises in the dojo. No more trying to peer at the clock to see where the second hand is. Great product and really inexpensive.
Mr. Enamait's (should call him Sensei or Shihon or something horribly honorific) book is out of print, but it's been replaced with Never Gymless, which I intend to pick up soon.

About Damn Time

Jeff Goldstein over at Protien Wisdom has finally contacted the authorities. This lady is more than a little bit wacked and I'd want her placed under a doctor's care if she were treating my family in this manner.

Satire is an American Thing

I'm sure that's going to be news to Britain. Anyway, since I don't get out into the alkali desert right, I've never heard of this guy before, but it sure looks like he stepped in it in a big way. The funniest part of the situation is that he won't stop even though he knows he was mistaken.

EU Whining About Israel

Between Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is in another mess. The international commentors seem to have an interesting view point on the problem.

The European Union and Russia have criticized Israel's strikes in Lebanon as "disproportionate." European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana will travel to the Middle East on Saturday to back United Nations efforts to defuse the growing crisis, the EU's Finnish presidency said Friday.

France is one of the countries which has taken an even sharper tone publicly about the Israeli retaliation.

"This is a disproportionate act of war with very negative consequences for Lebanon, especially because it runs the risk of sparking even more violence which could destabilize the whole region," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

US President George W. Bush has said Israel has the right to defend itself, but should not weaken the Lebanese government.

So, tell me, if someone starts invading your country and kidnapping soldiers/citizens and firing rockets across the border at civilians, what is the proper response? I'm sure the French belief is tha they should surrender, but the other EU states should be a bit more realistic. How is it reasonable to stand by and allow attacks? Are they trying to propose that Israel only reply in kind?

I don't agree with the contention that their action will cause further violence. There will be further violence irrespective of Israel's responses. The loudest critics sit far too comfortably in the EU and Russia has no right to criticize without taking a good look at their own actions in Chechnya.

Inflatable Space Station

This is pretty neat. Though, I'm not certain this is an environment I would want to live in. The concept of Micro-metorite would keep me nervous. (Not to mention that thing about radiation.)

The mission of Bigelow Aerospace's revolutionary prototype space habitat launched Wednesday has gone smoothly through its first day in orbit. The program's founder said the success achieved so far has been an exhilarating experience for his team before they set off to begin a comprehensive testing regimen on the inflatable space station pathfinder.

The craft - called Genesis 1 - marks the birth of Bigelow's grand commercial space adventure that should culminate in the construction of the industry's first private space station by 2015.

Real estate and hotel tycoon Robert Bigelow founded the company in 1999, and has since invested over $75 million of his fortune into the project. Upwards of $500 million could be needed by 2015.

Bigelow said he was pleasantly surprised how smooth the mission has gone in the first day of operations. He said he expected at least a few problems to be on his mind at this point in the mission, but so far none.

"We were more prepared actually for failure than we were for success," he said in a phone interview Thursday.

Launched on Wednesday atop a Dnepr rocket flown from a Russian missile base, Genesis 1 quickly got to work to ready for its mission. Compressed air in tanks attached to the spacecraft rushed into the module, inflating it to a total interior volume of over 100 cubic meters.

Is anyone else getting tired of all these things being launched from Russia? You'd think with a capatalist system we'd be able to provide more competition.

Return to Normalcy - At Least for the Judicial Branch

I got a chuckle out of this OpEd by Krauthammer:

But, of course, the war on terrorism is different. The enemy is shadowy, scattered and therefore more likely to survive and keep the war going for years. What the Supreme Court essentially did in Hamdan was to say to the president: Time's up. We gave you the customary half-decade of emergency powers, but that's as far as we go. From now on the emergency is over, at least judicially, and you're going to have to operate by peacetime rules.

Or, as Justice Anthony Kennedy, the new Sandra Day O'Connor, put it, Guantanamo (and by extension, war-on-terrorism) jurisprudence must henceforth be governed by "the customary operation of the Executive and Legislative Branches." This case may be "of extraordinary importance," but it is to be "resolved by ordinary rules."

All rise: The Supreme Court has decreed a return to normality. A lovely idea, except that al-Qaeda has other ideas. The war does go on. One can sympathize with the court's desire for a Harding-like restoration to normalcy. But the robed eminences are premature. And even if they weren't, they really didn't have to issue a ruling this bad.

From this point of view, which I agree with, the Judicial branch has decided to stand outside of reality. Or more likely, have decided that they will define reality from the bench. Unfortunately, this type of decision will handicap the executive branch in dealing with terrorism into the future.

And what happens if there is another attack from a known party? Does the Judicial branch truly believe that the president will no longer have the Article 2 powers to defend the country? I suppose we'll just have to wait for the lethargic Judicial system to rule on that point.

But no matter. Logic has little place here. The court has decreed: There is no war -- or we will pretend so -- and henceforth it shall be conducted by the court. God save the United States. (This honorable court can fend for itself.)

Think the NSA is Listening? - Sue 'Em

Here's a bill of high value from your favorite political hack Chuckles Schumer.

A BILL To provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes.

And

(a) STANDING.--A United States citizen who has refrained or will refrain from wire communications because of a reasonable fear that such communications will be the subject of electronic surveillance conducted without an order issued in accordance with title I of the Foreign Intel-ligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) under a claim of Presidential authority under either the Constitution of the United States or the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740; 115 Stat. 224;50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall have a cause of action and shall be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to such electronic surveillance.

And

(3) A reasonable fear shall be established by evidence that the person bringing the action-- (A) has and will continue to have regular wire communications from the United States to one or more persons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, or any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism in the course of that person's paid employment doing journalistic, academic, or other research pertaining to terrorism or terrorist groups; or (B) has engaged and will continue to engage in one or more commercial transactions with a bank or other financial institution in a country described in subparagraph (A).

Almost sounds like a profile on how to dodge the surveillance systems for financial transactions or terrorist plotting. Let's see, be a journalist or academic etc. doing work that has to make money transfers to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and you're afraid that you might be watched by the intelligence services, then you can sue them to get an injunction to stop them from eavesdropping on your activities, then you have a clear method to carry on with your terror related activities.

WTF?

Military Tribunals Debate Begins

The political games have started, and there are some surprises, but mostly exactly what was expected.

Yesterday, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England issued a memorandum to the armed forces explaining that the Supreme Court, "as a matter of law," had found that a Geneva provision known as Common Article 3, listing several prisoner safeguards, applied to the conflict with al Qaeda. He instructed military personnel to comply with Common Article 3 -- but then asserted "it is my understanding" that existing interrogation practices and other prisoner policies already do so. He gave subordinates three weeks to review their procedures to ensure they comply with the Geneva provision, which bars not only torture, but also "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "It is not really a reversal of policy. Humane treatment has always been the standard, and that is something that they followed at Guantanamo."

The England memorandum affects only the Defense Department, leaving unclear what safeguards apply to prisoners held by other agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency.

I suppose that the "humane treatment" that Snow talks about is really questionable. If the protections are supposed to be meeting those of common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, some of the activities for acquiring information are suspect. Though there isn't much indication that these took place at GITMO.

"The most expeditious way to do it would be to essentially ratify the process that's already in place with the military commissions," said Daniel Dell'Orto, the Defense Department's principal deputy general counsel.

But some Republicans joined Democrats in asserting that the Supreme Court ruling demanded more. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican and an Air Force Reserve judge, said the starting point shouldn't be the military-commission regulations drafted internally by the Pentagon general counsel, but rather the Uniform Code of Military Justice, with changes regarding evidence and procedures based on specific national-security needs.

"If you'll adopt that attitude and that approach, we can get a product not only that will pass court muster, but the nation can be proud of," Sen. Graham said. "If you fight that approach, it's going to be a long, hot summer."

Graham's proposal sounds like a better starting point to me. Especially since, you can be assured, that this will be finding its way back to the SCOTUS in challenges.

And never avoiding the opportunity to throw darts:

Several Democrats argued that the Supreme Court ruling was fatal not only to the military commissions but also to other administration policies, such as the warrantless electronic-surveillance program, that the White House says spring from the president's commander-in-chief function or Congress's military-force resolution.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) asked if the Justice Department was reviewing other policies "that are also based on the [military-force resolution] -- which has been discredited by the Supreme Court -- so that we will avoid a Supreme Court decision" striking them down.

Fortunately, Chuckles Schumer and his ilk are in the minority. Especially considering that this is an election year, there is nothing like having the appearance of going soft on terrorists. Chuckles also seems to have selective memory in that the Hamdi decision did in fact support the military-force resolution as supporting the actions that the administration has taken.

Neal Katyal at Slate, makes the asinine suggestions that the Court Martial is the path to trying these terrorists.

Today the Senate begins hearings on whether to create, from scratch, a new legal system to handle the cases against suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and around the world. The hearings are a response to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court decision that last month struck down President Bush's fake trial system at Guantanamo. This debate is important, and long overdue, but it should not obscure the fact that the military already has a battle-tested system for dealing with such problems: courts-martial. We should only break from that proud American tradition for the best of reasons and with adequate empirical support. There are no such grounds here, and changing the rules now will be another fruitless step backward from our goal of bringing terrorists to justice.

He has good arguments for the problems with any new legislation for the military commissions, but the use of the Court Martial is incredibly short sighted in that it will provide all the protections guaranteed to valid combatants, which these prisoners most certainly are not. I would also state that many of these prisoners will walk if the evidenciary requirements of the Court Martial are required.

I'm all for having justice in these cases. I don't see justice being served by providing terrorists with protections that they refuse to provide for other combatants under the rules of war.

The outcome of these hearings should be an informative indicator as to where many politicians actually stand on the war on terror.

The New Psilocybin Review

More research into magic mushrooms?

In a study that could revive interest in researching the effects of psychedelic drugs, scientists said a substance in certain mushrooms induced powerful, mind-altering experiences among a group of well-educated, middle-age men and women.

Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions researchers conducted the study following carefully controlled, scientifically rigorous procedures. They said that the episodes generally led to positive changes in attitude and behavior among the 36 volunteer participants and that the changes appeared to last at least two months. Participants cited feelings of intense joy, "distance from ordinary reality," and feelings of peace and harmony after taking the drug. Two-thirds described the effects of the drug, called psilocybin, as among the five most meaningful experiences of their lives.

But in 30% of the cases, the drug provoked harrowing experiences dominated by fear and paranoia. Two participants likened the episodes to being in a war. While these episodes were managed by trained monitors at the sessions where the drugs were taken, researchers cautioned that in less-controlled settings, such responses could trigger panic or other reactions that might put people in danger.

A report on the study, among the first to systematically assess the effects of hallucinogenic substances in 40 years, is being published online today by the journal Psychopharmacology. An accompanying editorial and commentaries from three prominent neuroscientists and a psychiatrist praise the study and argue that further research into such agents has the potential to unlock secrets of consciousness and lead to new therapeutic strategies for depression, addiction and other ailments.

But of course, there has to be the warning about those evil drugs stitched into the article.

Researchers acknowledge that the study's positive findings may encourage inappropriate use of the agents. Roland Griffiths, the Hopkins neuroscientist who headed the research, warned against viewing the results as a green light for consuming the mushrooms. "We don't know all their dark sides," he said. "I wouldn't in any way want to underestimate the potential risks" of indiscriminate use of the drugs.

The National Institute for Drug Abuse, which co-sponsored the study as part of its support for research into drugs of abuse, also warned against eating psilocybin mushrooms. They "act on serotonin receptors in the brain to profoundly distort a person's perception of reality," the institute said, possibly triggering psychosis, paranoia and anxiety.

Interesting study. Though I don't know where they find the people to take these things. I can't see myself going into a room with a bunch of strangers and taking a mind altering agent. Hell, I have a hard enough time going into a room with a bunch of strangers when I'm just taking a depressant.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Now Characterized with Eugenics

Social Conservatives sometimes really irritate me. Well, more often than not. This article by Terence Jeffrey is a perfect example. It's especially loathsome for its use of comparisons of stem cell research to the activities of the Nazis under Mengele and Brandt.

Bush said he wanted "to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

The next year, announcing his support for banning all human cloning (including cloning embryos to kill them for their stem cells), Bush crystallized the issue: "Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics: that no human life should be exploited for the benefit of another."

Bush was echoing a principle enunciated by the U.S. judges who tried Nazi doctors at Nuremburg after World War II.

In "The Nazi Doctors -- Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide," author Robert J. Lifton chronicled how Hitler seduced physicians into overseeing mass murder. It started when Hitler directed his own doctor, Karl Brandt, to make certain a single deformed infant was "euthanized." From there, it escalated to Dr. Josef Mengele monitoring the arriving trains at Auschwitz to choose which prisoners to send directly to the gas chambers, which to retain as workers, and which to send to his laboratory for experimentation and dissection.

"It seemed easier -- perhaps more 'natural' and at least less 'unnatural' -- to begin with the very young: first, newborns; then, children up to 3 and 4; then, older ones," wrote Lifton, summarizing Germany's initial steps toward medicalized killing.

Where to start. Well maybe we could look at the left over and abandoned embryos from fertility clinics. How is this like eugenics or Mengele's experiments? Well, because the extreme social conservatives rant that they are life, period, no argument. Of course, that is the simplistic argument. In fact they aren't viable life. They don't exist in a self sustainable manner, unlike those killed by Brandt or Mengele. They also have no path to becoming viable. If there is such a demand for these frozen cell masses, why are there so many sitting in storage? If they are so highly valued, why hasn't the social conservatives moved to force them to come to fruition? Because they can't, or don't want to.

And don't forget that you can't call the conservatives Nazis, but that doesn't apparently apply when making an argument that stretches the facts to the breaking point.

This obviously isn't an argument that will move stem cell research forward. That should be the primary focus in this debate. It would make more sense to move forward with as many research paths as possible, but the far right seems to be doing their best to just block any discussion. Funny, that's the same methodology that the far left seem to think is a reasonable solution.

Gun Control a Political Loser

h/t to the Blogfaddah

Yeah, yeah. This was on instapundit so the 25 people who link here everyday have no doubt seen it, but just in case this one seemed to bear repeating.

A few points worth noting about the article. Just how far on the wrong side of history is the state of Massachusetts? While this may be a loser on the national level, depending on how blue your state is (and our's is down right Prussian), it still carries quite a bit of weight. Wouldn't it be great to have a law that prevents the confiscation of firearms during emergencies because I'll tell ya, I expect it to happen in MA . Finally yes, let's concentrate on people breaking the law rather than on the object that the law is broken with or for. Criminy!

People's Republic of Massachusetts and Gun Control - or Lack Thereof

This one ring the bell. I thought "holy crap" when I found this linked at SayUncle.

I'll put in the whole article except for the title:

Massachusetts may have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but the state is woefully inept at keeping track of the whereabouts of guns seized by local police departments.

An expose in The Sunday Sun (July 2) revealed that thousands of guns confiscated from individuals facing domestic-abuse violations wind up in bonded public warehouses for firearmas and are rarely, if ever, returned to their rightful owners.

So what happens to the guns?

Sun reporter Rita Savard posed the question to countless police, state officials and warehouse owners over three months. Incredibly, no one could give an exact answer.

Despite a comprehensive gun law enacted in 1998, Savard found there is no trail of public records on the seized guns, nor is there a state agency monitoring the storage, disposal or resale of the guns.

The findings are alarming, leaving police and gun-control advocates wondering whether the seized guns are being recycled into the population through auctions or Internet sales offered by owners of the bonded public warehouses.

In 1998, the Legislature enacted the Gun Control Act to toughen requirements for the purchase and sales of legal weapons. Under the law, bonded public warehouses -- run by private gun dealers -- were created to store the guns seized by local police departments lacking space for their weapons stockpiles.

While the state Executive Office of Public Safety has the responsibility of implementing the law, Savard found officials to be clueless about the gun-warehousing provision. After repeated inquiries, officials admitted finally that because no public records existed to document the transfer of the seized guns from local police departments to the bonded public warehouses. The admission was surprising, since public warehouses charge a $20 transfer fee for each gun to cover the costs of paperwork, specifically federal and state forms.

Once told about the inconsistency, the Office of Public Safety issued a statement saying the 1998 Gun Control Act doesn't require the state to monitor seized guns.

If you can't own up to the responsibility, just dismiss it entirely. That's basically what the Office of Public Safety is saying.

Rep. Paul Casey, D-Winchester, wrote the 1998 gun-control legislation. He said it was up to the Office of Public Safety to write the rules and regulations for the law's implementation. "The bill was for gun reform. If we haven't been able to monitor where secondary or third guns go, there's a problem."

Indeed there is.

As it stands now, the public bonded warehouses aren't being audited for their inventories of seized guns. The law permits warehouse proprietors to sell the guns if owners fail to pay storage fees. Once again, Savard found no public records as to whether a single gun was ever returned to its rightful owner or sold at public auction.

Savard's investigation has disclosed an inexcusable lack of follow-through on the part of the Office of Public Safety. The trail of seized guns should be monitored from beginning to end, and bonded public warehouses should not be allowed to operate below the radar screen.

The Legislature should investigate this sloth and remedy the situation immediately.

I wonder what Mumbles Menino has to say on this. But to him the Boston Crime problem comes from certain states to the north with loose gun control laws. Of course, with the perspective of this, I wonder just how many of these guns have gone missing. Probably never will know since they aren't required to keep records.

Wonder if these bonded warehouse owners also have FFLs? Here's a link to Savards original article.

Local police departments, including Billerica, Methuen, Tewksbury, Westford, Wilmington, Littleton and Lowell, have emptied evidence lockers and poured seized guns into the Village Vault, a bonded public warehouse for firearms in Northboro.

Building owner and licensed gun dealer Peter Dowd also operates Village Gun Shop at the same address. Signs posted over a dark window list phone numbers and a string of messages: Closed. Semi-retired. At-home appointment arranged.

Dowd said the bonded public warehouse was born out of tougher gun-control laws that require any subject of a restraining order to surrender firearms.

"We recognized police were getting overloaded with guns and that there was a need to set up a facility to serve them," said Dowd. "Restraining orders are the primary focus of our business."

Well, what do you know.

Massachusetts requires all gun sales to be recorded and all sellers to be licensed. Private sales, along with sales at flea markets, gun shows and auctions, are harder to follow.

"The record-keeping requirements on guns sold at auctions are not the same as they are for dealers," Rep. Casey said. "In some cases it's impossible to trace them."

Ron Glidden, police chief in Lee and chairman of the state Gun Control Advisory Board, admits there are loopholes in the current law.

What? Are they trying to say that an auctioned gun doesn't require the record keeping as a gun sold from a store-front? I'm going to throw the B.S. Flag here. Maybe not at the state level, but the Federal Firearms laws don't make any allowances.

Doesn't this just make you feel all warm and comfortable knowing that there isn't any records kept?

You can read the rest.

New Toy

Ok I've had it for a while, but the guy that owned it wanted to by a bike and needed the cash. (His girlfriend doesn't like guns either. Note that she's a high-school teacher, which explains a lot.)

So I got a new toy.



Now I have to think about that SOCOM-16 or maybe the SOCOM II.

Congressional Offices FBI Search Ruled Constitutional

Heh.

This isn't really surprising, but I'm betting that jackass Hastert's blood-pressure went way up when he heard this.

A federal judge in Washington Monday ruled that an unprecedented FBI search of a congressman's office on Capitol Hill was constitutional.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said the search of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.'s office did not violate the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government.

"It is well established ... that a member of Congress is generally bound to the operation of criminal laws as are ordinary persons," Hogan said in his opinion. The section of the Constitution protecting members of Congress from lawsuits or questioning about legislative acts "does not shield members of Congress from valid search warrants," he added.

Hogan denied a motion by Jefferson, supported by a bipartisan U.S. House group as friends of the court, to exclude from the case any evidence gathered in the search of his office in May.

SCOTUSblog adds this:

The congressman, with the support of House leaders, asked the judge to order the return of the materials to him, and to bar the FBI from examining them. The judge denied the return request, and found to be moot the plea to keep the FBI away from the files. Hogan did concede that the unprecedented search raised serious constitutional questions, but he proceeded to answer all of those questions in the FBI's favor.

In the key part of his ruling, the judge drew a distinction for Speech or Debate Clause purposes between a subpoena and a search warrant, when the target is a member of Congress. Producing evidence in response to a subpoena, Hogan said, is a testimonial act, and the Clause provides an absolute testimonial privilege. Having a member's property subjected to execution of a valid search warrant, however, "does not have a testimonial equivalent," so the Clause's privilege was not triggered by the warrant's execution.

"Congressman Jefferson was not made to say or do anything. In fact,...he was not even present at the search....[T]here simply was no compulsory testimony to trigger the privilege."

And

The fact that some privileged material was "incidentally captured by the search," the judge found, "does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."

As to the House leaders' argument that even a federal court could not review the seized materials to determine if the legislative privilege applies, the judge said "the claim...that the Constitution does not allow a document-by-document review by the judiciary fails."

The judge defended his own decision to issue the warrant, rejecting the House leaders' implied suggestion that it would be easy for the Executive Branch to get a warrant from a judge to search legislative offices if this one were upheld. That, Hogan found, was "a gross trivialization of the role of the judiciary. A federal judge is not a mere rubber stamp in the warrant process, but rather an independent and neutral official sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution."

Now I wonder where this will be headed.

Slavery Reparations - Again

You may also want to compare the BoGlo Article to the AP article, since they seem to have trimmed out all the portions that speak against reparations. (how convenient)

So this stupidity is raising it's ugly head again, or is that still?

Advocates who say black Americans should be compensated for slavery and its Jim Crow aftermath are quietly chalking up victories and gaining momentum. Fueled by the work of scholars and lawyers, their campaign has morphed in recent years from a fringe-group rallying cry into a sophisticated, mainstream movement. Most recently, a pair of churches apologized for their part in the slave trade, and one is studying ways to repay black church members.

The overall issue is hardly settled, even among black Americans: Some say that focusing on slavery shouldn't be a top priority or that it doesn't make sense to compensate people generations after a historical wrong.

Yet reparations efforts have led a number of cities and states to approve measures that force businesses to publicize their historical ties to slavery. Several reparations court cases are in progress, and international human rights officials are increasingly spotlighting the issue.

I don't personally care if private organizations choose to play the reparations game. I do object to the point where the government of states starts trying to punish private companies for historical activities that were fully within the law of the time. That touches on the complete lack of perspective of history and forces the "sour grapes" meme to an extreme that is frankly unacceptable.

About six years ago, the issue started gaining momentum again. Randall Robinson's "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks," was a best seller; reparations became a central issue at the World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa; and California legislators passed the nation's first law forcing insurance companies that do business with the state to disclose their slavery ties. Illinois passed a similar insurance law in 2003 and in 2004 Iowa legislators began requesting -- but not forcing -- the same disclosures.

There you go. If some company stock owner had slaves, the company is a pariah of the rest of time. That makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure that I'll be unemployed soon for the rest of my days because I have an ancestor that was a pirate, or maybe it will be the minister in the family tree that will do me in. (He was a convicted horse theif.) Though maybe this will balance out with the American Indians and the one African-American in the family tree. (Maybe I should be demanding reparations?)

Reparations is just a bad idea from the point of deciding who should pay whom. My family has links to the earliest colonies in New England and none of the records show any ownership of slaves. The fact that at least two of my ancestors fought and died in the Civil war also brings up the question of what is owed the family who sacrificed their blood to free the slaves. But I suppose I'm muddying the waters by asking.

Here's a bit that the BoGlo leaves out:

Reparations opponents insist that no living American should have to pay for a practice that ended more than 140 years ago. Plus, programs such as affirmative action and welfare already have compensated for past injustices, said John H. McWhorter, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

"The reparations movement is based on a fallacy that cripples the thinking on race - the fallacy that what ails black America is a cash problem," said McWhorter, who is black. "Giving people money will not solve the problems that we have."

Welfare isn't even a reasonable argument. Though he does have a point that handing people cash won't solve the problem.

If the reparations debate is gaining steam, I think we're seeing the PC world of the alleged "progressives" starting to spin out of control.

Witch Exoneration and the Perpetuation of the an Equal Rights Myth

I didn't think this was news worthy, but then I got to the quote:

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine gave an informal pardon Monday to Grace Sherwood, who 300 years ago became Virginia's only person convicted as a witch tried by water.

"I am pleased to officially restore the good name of Grace Sherwood," Kaine wrote in a letter that Virginia Beach Mayor Meyera Oberndorf read aloud before a re-enactment of Sherwood's being dropped into the river.

"With 300 years of hindsight, we all certainly can agree that trial by water is an injustice," Kaine wrote. "We also can celebrate the fact that a woman's equality is constitutionally protected today, and women have the freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams."

Odd statement. Witch prosecutions in the Anglican/Cavalier southern colonies was a fairly rare occurrence. Witch hunts were more a Calvanist/Puritan problem in the American colonies. Her statement also blatantly ignores that men were also persecuted as witches. I agree that they were persecuted to a lesser number, but they accounted for about 20% of the prosecutions overall. Of course, Kaine also forgets a little issue about who the primary denunciators of witches were:

Women were more prominent than men at witchcraft trials, both as accused and as accusers. Not only did Sprenger's image of women as the more lustful and malicious sex generate suspicions; the fact that women had a lower social status than men made them easier to accuse. In most regions, about 80 percent of the alleged witches killed were female. Women were then as likely to be accused witches as men were to be saints or violent criminals. That was because women typically fought with curses instead of steel. Although the stereotype did not always fit, the British witch was usually seen as irascible, aggressive, unneighborly, and often repulsive-hardly the gentle healer of neopagan fantasy. Her colorful curses could blight everything down to "the little pig that lieth in the sty." She magnified her powers to frighten others and extort favors. If she could not be loved, she meant to be feared.

No doubt that the primary prosecutors were men, but those accusing were more likely to be woman. Kaine's statement ignores historical perspective as well as fact. The times of the witch trials were substantially different that today, and societies had much different reactions to people out of the norm. One should look at the prosecutions for sexual deviance in the Puritan colonies to take a measure as to who was more unjustly prosecuted by sex. I'm not talking about adultery or bastardy here either.

Let's also not forget that witch persecutions was also fairly rare in the colonies overall. Europe had many more prosecutions and executions. The "Witch of Pungo" didn't die from her trial by water either.

But, let's just keep promoting a myth because it "feels like" it's the truth.

Mexico = Florida

Yawn!
Seriously. Is this now the trajectory of every election that the left loses? Point to a few anomolies, complain about the anullment votes (if people can't follow instructions, do you really want them voting) and generally try to stir up suspicions is simply a way to undermine the government, not win elections. Salon is critical of the claims in this case (too bad they weren't more so in Ohio) but still way to credulous.

UN Gun Summit Aftermath

So the whole thing appears to have ended in disarray. Though it would be interesting to find someone's analysis of the players and how things fell out. I'd like to know who were the major countries that were playing the gun-control hand and those that stood against them. (Other than the US.)

The UN Gun Summit is over, and gun owners have won for now. The conference ended in chaos on Friday afternoon when the various nations in attendance failed to agree on a written plan of action on how to deal small arms and light weapons. Because no document could be produced, no agreement could be made on continuing the process with further meetings and summits. For now, the UN's Program of Action on Small Arms and light weapons is over. No further meetings are scheduled.

Two weeks of meetings, statements, press conferences, and behind the scenes negotiations could not prevent the summit from ending in failure. The United States remained strong in its opposition to institutionalizing the small arms and light weapons summits, and would not agree to continuing the process beyond the summit that just concluded. Other countries had similar disagreements with various parts of the draft document that had been circulating since the first week of the session came to a close.

The part that I should look at is those who are talking about a summit outside of the UN.

NRAnews.com Executive Editor Ginny Simone, who provided live coverage from the United Nations every day of the summit, reported that several countries and non-governmental organizations discussed holding meetings in Geneva to try and continue the process of global gun control. As bad as the UN process has been, private meetings outside of the United Nations might be even worse.

If the various countries that support the end of civilian firearms ownership (and the list is long) decide to get together for informal private meetings, they can pick and choose who they want to be a part of the process. At the United Nations, the National Rifle Association is an accredited non-governmental organization and can monitor what's taking place in many of the meetings. At a private summit, it would be up to the organizers to give gun owners a seat at the table. They could bar the press from attending, or shut out programs like NRAnews.com from covering the process. And you don't need the United Nations to get a formal treaty written. The international treaty covering land mines, for instance, came about not at the United Nations, but at a summit in Ottawa.

Not being completely blind, I'd like to have a more moderate view of the whole thing rather than the NRA view. I like the NRA running the fight, though I don't always agree with all their talking points. Unfortunately, they have to play by the same rules as the gun grabbers. Though, from what I've seen, they at least provide honest statistics for most of what they put forward. (Unfortunately, the NRAnews website is rather poor when it comes to finding information.)

This article from the WaTimes shows a couple of statements from Gun Activists.

"A firearm is a tool, a very simple tool that dates back to the 12th century," said Thomas Mason, a frequent gun lobbyist who represented the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute at the conference. "Like any tool, it can be used for great good or great harm," he said.

The alliance of two dozen manufacturers has embraced marking and tracing of weapons but is opposed to similar tracking for ammunition, as is commonly proposed on the sidelines of the conference. As many as 14 billion rounds of ammunition are produced each year, and manufacturers note that it would be technically and logistically impossible to mark each bullet.

There are comments from the Firearms Importers Roundtable Trade Group (A lobby group with no website that I can find.), Safari Club International, and a firearms broker. Not all the most convincing statements, though their statements are brief and may not give a very good representation of their overall points.

It will be interesting to see what develops from this. Especially if they do move to a closed summit in Geneva. That should make things especially worrisome with little to no access to the activities therein. The end game could be telling though depending on when they decide to bring this before the international community for ratification. If it comes under a democratic president, one can only wonder about how they would choose to represent the citizens in going for a signature on such a treaty. Not to mention what would happen in the Senate.

Debra Frisch

I just want one question asked & answered. Is what she did simply abhorrent, or is it criminal? I haven't seen that question or an answer anywhere.

World Cup Follow-up

No link, just a bit of honesty. While I am glad that the Italians won the Cup, France played a better game and should have won. Sad to say, but there it is.
Zidane, however, was a wanker. What a foolish thing to do on your last game ever. They sure could have used him in the penalty shoot-out...

Why Isn't China Showing Anger at NoKo?

This is an OpEd by Niall Ferguson giving a bit of history on the NoKo situation. He concludes with:

For it is China, not the United States, that has the power to decide the fate of North Korea. It is China that has consistently propped up the regime's basket-case economy. It is China that has hitherto resisted calls from the United States and Japan for tougher action when Pyongyang has broken its word.

It might be thought that China gains little from having a madman as both a neighbour and a dependant. Until now, however, it has suited Beijing quite well - better, at any event, than a North Korean collapse. Moreover, North Korea has been more than merely a buffer state. It has been a useful proxy, allowing China to probe the vulnerability of South Korea and Japan and to assert Chinese parity with the United States in matters of Asian security.

The big question is whether or not this might be about to change. For perhaps the most significant thing that happened last week was that Kim fired his missiles in defiance not just of the United States, Japan and South Korea but also of China. Before July 4, Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Prime Minister, explicitly warned North Korea not to heighten diplomatic tension. By ignoring that warning, the Dear Leader can scarcely have endeared himself to his patrons in Beijing.

The Korean peninsula has seen more than enough bombs and missiles in the past 100 years. But when the Chinese finally ditch crazy Kim, it will be time for some real celebratory fireworks.

At this point I'd almost think that even having China take over NoKo would be a more stabilizing action than any other. I'm thinking it won't happen just because China sees some benefit in having NoKo as a thorn in the side of the US. But then, that may not counteract the changes that Japan will move into if something doesn't secure the situation. The Japanese are already moving toward their own military autonomy, and it should be no surprise if they move toward a nuclear weapon. (Though I think this is less likely with their countries very strong aversion to nuclear weapons.)

Presidential Secrecy

We've seen the NYTimes among others revealing secret programs and try to justify them in. Now they step back a little and just report on the political disagreements on the reporting and oversight by congress on some program. Looks like the whistle-blower may actually be real this time and not just a political leaker.

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters. The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

I'm sure the NYTimes was saddened at not getting details on the program so that they could further screw the intelligence programs that actually are aiding in the war on terror.

JustOneMinute has a blog entry that points out that the NYTimes has left out some interesting information that was in the letter.

But the Times also offers a .pdf of the letter itself, which includes this (my typing, and emphasis added) on the topic of Bush's decision to bring back Steve Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA:

I understand that Mr. Kappes is a capable, well-qualified, and well-liked former Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer. I am heartened by the professional qualities he would bring to the job, but concerned by what could be the political problems that he could bring back to the agency. There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency. I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group. I must take note when my Democratic colleagues - those who so vehemently denounced and now publicly attacked the strong choice of Porter Goss as Director - now publicly support Mr. KappesÂ’s return.

Is the Times kidding? The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is "convinced" that a CIA faction is intent on discrediting the Administration and that the Plame story is part of their scheming, and the Times can barely mention it?

Read the rest.

World Cup

I've never been a sport spectator. I love playing almost anything, but sitting down & watching a game, or games, for hours on end as most of America seems to do every Sunday (if the conversations around my desk are anything to go by), blech. However, that all changes when we start talking about football (soccer for the unwashed). I love watching professionals play that game. The excitement. The tension. Seeing the French get their butts womped... Anyway, I'll be plopping my butt in a chair on Sunday to watch. This article is a nice wrap-up on this year's cup, the two teams in the final and I like the predicted winner.

Global Warming - Arguments for Action

The article provides some "inconvenient truths" relating to Algore's agenda.

Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.

From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

His conclusion:

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.

I must agree. The idea of taxing oil just won't work due to the rest of the world developing into heavy users of fossil fuels and counteracting any benefits that the west could provide.

The problem I have with all arguments on global warming is that no one wants to put all the arguments together. Getting independent from fossil fuels will aid in removing the main support of middle eastern regimes that for the vast majority are repressive and supportive of fundamentalist groups that are causing most of the international problems in the world today. Independence will necessitate the development of clean energy resources. This development will help all countries with their energy needs. By leading in the development, the US could create a whole new industry that could benefit the US itself.

The problem with Algore's methods is he's trying to scare activity out of people. That doesn't work well in western societies. First they tend to listen to those who most closely approach what they want to hear. The portion of society that will listen to Gore are those that already like his politics and hate those that oppose it. Big surprise there. A neutral party presenting the information would have gotten better results.

As for those that ignore Algore due to his hype, ignoring information that does have wide spread support is not intelligent. It may not be as big a problem as Algore is putting forward, but how long does one procrastinate before it is too late? Wouldn't prudence demand that some action be taken to at least mediate the threat? And in a capitalist society, couldn't this be a gold mine if one develops a viable clean energy technology?

How's that saying go? A stitch in time saves nine?

[h/t Viking Pundit]

"Star Wars" Missile Defense

I admit, originally I thought of the "Star Wars" Missile Defense systems as being a solution to a problem that was unlikely to occur. I'm still not convinced that the NoKo missile tests are a real threat in the near term, but I'm convinced that they may be in the long term. Lots of things have changed since the start of the "Star Wars" programs were initiated.

It is important that the American people understand two aspects of the current crisis as it relates to missile defense. First, the system President Bush recently ordered advanced from its testing stage to operational status when the North Koreans began preparing the Taepodong 2 launch is extremely rudimentary because it is still being developed. The system now includes only 11 ground-based launch sites in Alaska and California capable of knocking out long-range missiles like the Taepodong 2, and four Aegis-class Navy destroyers equipped with missile defense battle management systems and Standard-3 missiles capable of hitting medium range threats.

Second, they will no doubt protest to high heaven, but "Star Wars" critics must bear the major burden of responsibility for the delays and setbacks that have prevented the missile defense system from becoming fully operational long before the present crisis with North Korea. There have been technological problems, especially in the very early stages, but those were temporary and subject to American technological prowess.

I'm hoping that the missile defense systems are up to these expectations. Between the Chinese and Russians, I don't see any efforts to rein in what appears to be a truly strange and unstable dictator. This may all be posturing and noise to get NoKo more from the present negotiations, but I'd rather not take that risk.

Road Use Tax

Oregon and California are looking to require the installation of GPS and related equipment so that they can track your driving activity as well as tax you for your use of the road.

Right now, California and Oregon are looking at proposals that would require every car to have a GPS system, so the state can track personal road use and tax accordingly.

Motions and lawsuits have been filed to exclude black-box-collected vehicle condition evidence in product liability cases. Plaintiffs argue that use and performance data collected by cars is private and personal.

Also getting attention is a provision that would hook up all cars to an electronic system. The purpose: to track vehicle speed between Point A and Point B, which could result in an automatic traffic ticket mailed to your home. Is this over the top? Or just life in the 21st Century?

I'm unhappy at the thought of having to deal with the little black boxes that are being installed in cars today, but this is beyond reason. The tax perspective is even worse. Makes you wonder what they'll do to people who come from states that don't have these little tax devices installed.

Salon Compares War On Terror to WWI

I fire up Salon for my lunch-time read and get this subtitle:

Wartime leaders have always demanded docility. But if the press had
revealed the hideous truth about WWI, millions might have lived.

Oh boy. They're going into WWI. This should be wildly entertaining. Are they going to imply that a press report about the front-line conditions would have stopped the flu epidemic? If only a NYT reporter could have leaked information about the attack on Chateau-Thiery, the war would have ended sooner... somehow.
I don't even get to anything on WWI before they start to dig a hole:

It's a common intelligence gambit to let the enemy know you're onto their
networks because the revelation will often roll them up of its own momentum.

Right. No mention of the fact that, that is what you do after you've milked the network dry or, it looks like the enemy may actually find out that you know about their network. Other than that, from what I've read, you keep this stuff secret because the more the enemy doesn't know about what you know, the better. Saying that the NYT is exposing secret agents is a total crock.

So truth, as J.B. Priestley aptly wrote, became the first casualty of World War I. Over the ensuing four years of terrible carnage it was joined by 20 million dead soldiers and civilians and countless more gruesomely wounded. The Great War, before it ended, made the Russian Revolution possible -- unless one imagines Kerensky and his handful of zealots could have subdued Moscow were the czar's armies not frozen to their machine guns on the Eastern Front. It also caused the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which spawned a Balkan conflict that continues to this day, and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, beginning but surely not ending with the creation of an artificial state, Iraq, whose warring nationalities and sects have been at one another's throats for a thousand years, yesterday inclusive. And finally, Germany's defeat forced the abdication of the Kaiser, which was followed by the inevitable collapse of the feeble Weimar Republic, which in turn begat Nazi Germany and World War II, which left 50 million dead and gave rise to the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam.

All absolutely true. But the implication that, if only the reporters had been allowed to report the horrors of the war, after it had already started, it would have been stopped is just nuts. There was tons of information and misinformation about that war. None of it would have prevented things from going to a grizzly conclusion. The Christmas Truce had more of a chance of shutting down the war than some intrepid NYT reporter leaking the secret that an attack on the Somme was imminent. Because, for this comparison to work, it has to be a secret that is reported, not cold facts.

Would it have come to all this if the London Times and Le Monde and the New York Times -- even the German press -- had published authentic accounts of the horrors at Ypres and Passchendaele and the Somme?

That's it? That's the counter-factual? Oh, if only someone had let the information run free, then the hippies protesting the draft would have stopped the war... Oh wait, that was Viet Nam. Which, isn't surprising when you consider this:

I was a young staffer at Time magazine when the Nixon administration was firing almost as much ammo at the press as it was at the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army.

That explains quite a lot really.

Up To Seven from North Korea

North Korea seems to be taunting those that are trying to negotiate with them.

At approximately 3:30 AM local time (2:30 PM EDT, just minutes after the launch of the space shuttle Discovery), North Korea began its testing of seven missiles. Six appear to have fired successfully; these were Scud and Nodong missiles, which have been part of the North Korean arsenal - and available for sale on international markets - —for years.

The remaining missile was a Taepodong 2, which has been on its launch pad since May. A fully functioning Taepodong 2 missile could potentially strike the western United States, according to defense estimates. But North Korean ICBM technology is not yet fully functional. Roughly 40 seconds into its flight, the Taepodong 2 failed and crashed approximately 200 miles west of Japan in the Sea of Japan. This is good news in the short term, but the North Koreans will be able to analyze what went wrong and use that information to attempt to fix it. This test, despite the missile's failure, is a step towards an operational North Korean ICBM.

And what I've just heard is that there is a Chapter Seven resolution in the UN Security Council. This is a statement of intent that they warrant the ability to respond militarily. Though most of the news commentators are of the opinion that this won't go anywhere due to Russia and China.

There also seems to be a lot of comments that this is just a show because most of the launches were SCUDs. Though the test launch of the Taepodong 2 was certainly of some development value, even in it's failure.

I wonder why China isn't being more restraining on North Korea? They must be seeing the change in the US and Japanese military posture to give Japan their own military and defense systems. Do they really think it would take Japan any time to develop a nuclear capability and they already have missile capability. Japan has a lot of Plutonium that could easily be fashioned into a war-head. Does China really want a nuclear armed neighbor that close?

Army's Existence Scares Boston Globe

This is one of those articles in the Globe that just makes you insane. Yes guys, putting anything like a positive spin on the Army, you know, those volunteers that willingly lay down their lives in defense of all of us, is a bad thing. First off, we get this:

The roughly dozen complaints come at a time when the military is struggling to meet recruiting goals and has undertaken more aggressive efforts to draw the interest of youngsters.

Yes, in recent months, like two years ago, the Army has been missing some of their recruiting goals. Of course, last year, they exceeded them. So, maybe, big stretch here, it fluctuates. But that's a nit. Here's where it gets weird:

Titled ``Duty, Honor, Country," the issue depicts a soldier in Iraq manning a machine gun on its glossy cover and includes articles ranging from what it's like to go through boot camp -- ``You're in the Army Now" -- to a rundown of the Army's ``awesome arsenal," to a detailed description of Army career opportunities.

But most controversial has been the pair of teacher's guides ...

It's the combination of these two sentences that makes me crazy. They describe what sounds like a benign description of the basics of military life and then add the "But most controversial." I must have missed it. What was controversial about the last part? Go read it. I'm not taking this out of context.
More:

For example, the Army has funded the development of video games to bring its message to teenagers across the country

Yeah, in 2002. What the heck is it doing in this story? Oh, I mean, apart from making the Army sound really scary.

Some complaints have centered on the fact that little attention is paid to the combat role of the Army -- its risks and sacrifices.

So, you'd be OK with it if it showed pictures of some guy's head splashed across his Humvee in addition to the fact that kids can learn computer skills?
Oh and speaking of missing recruiting goals, the Globe can't seem to satisfy it's New York Times masters in terms of revenue. Maybe they should do a story on that.

A Scanner Darkly

Now this could be good. I've long thought A Scanner Darkly would make a good movie. Yeah, the interviews with these simpletons are laughable. Winona Ryder commenting on modern geo-politics is a hoot. However, the stills and the obvious interest that the director has towards the work make this sound like it may be the first real adaptation of PKD's work.
I watched Sin City (again) last night. Those techniques may have been even better than straight out animation, but the style they're doing here is akin to the old rotoscoping, so it should be kind of fun and may work extremely well.
Now, someone needs to get to work on Martian Time-Slip or Clans of the Alphane Moon or Valis or ...
You know, better still, I may have to start re-re-reading these books.

Top 10 Reasons Not to Become A Mason

I won't be very active for the next few years, but I'm still keeping an eye on the Lodge. Got this from one of the Brothers and thought I'd spread it around a bit. It's mildly humorous and it defines some of what it means to be a Freemason.

NATO in Afghanistan

Max Boot has an informative article related to where Afghanistan has been going and where the military resources are coming from.

I found this a bit disturbing:

European officers pride themselves on taking a softer approach to counterinsurgency than the supposedly gun-happy Americans. ISAF troops are supposed to focus on providing security, jumpstarting economic development, and, above all, on facilitating the work of 21 civil-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams spread across the country. They are not supposed to chase bad guys.

That's all well and good in theory but difficult to implement in practice. What do commanders do if they get intelligence on Taliban fighters gathering a few miles away? Wait to be attacked, or strike first? For American officers it would be a no-brainer. But NATO troops have the difficult task of interpreting rules of engagement laboriously negotiated among 26 nations. They are not allowed to mount offensive operations, but they can engage in "proactive self-defense operations." Meaning what? That will be up to individual commanders to decide.

One can be pretty confident that some contingents, for instance the British and Canadians, will take a broad view of their mandate. Others, however, are likely to take a narrower interpretation, which is why so many Afghan government officials are pleading with U.S. troops not to turn over their areas to NATO replacements. And it is not only Afghans who are concerned: During our visit to Kandahar Airfield, a British officer was overheard berating a Dutch air force officer for limiting his activities to tame convoy escorts and not having the guts to engage in real combat.

It sounds like the activity in Afghanistan will be dependent on who is in command. And NATO is the force that is supposed to be coming in and expanding the governments control in the southern and eastern provinces where they haven't had much control.

There are some 70 separate national caveats limiting what NATO troops can do. Some of these restrictions are relatively innocuous - e.g., troops are not allowed to operate outside of Afghanistan. Others forbid some troops from taking part in combat operations or even from using chemical riot control agents like tear gas. The complete list of caveats is secret - you don't want to let the enemy know what your forces cannot do, not to mention that many European nations would be embarrassed to have the full list of their caveats revealed.

That must be an interesting play book. 70 caveats sounds too complicated to me, though I imagine that some are fairly obvious. Well, at least there is some comfort in knowing that these are NATO troops and not those under the control of the UN.

This is quite a challenge for any military force, much less one with NATO's limited resources. It's hard enough to get member states to cough up troops; harder still to get are transport helicopters and aircraft, of which there is a notable deficit outside of the U.S. armed forces. And no wonder: Defense spending outside America is anemic. For years, NATO has urged members to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. The actual average, excluding the United States (which spends more than 3.5 percent), is 1.94 percent - and falling. And that figure is inflated by high levels of defense spending in Greece and Turkey, where the armed forces are preparing not for NATO missions but for fighting one another.

It has taken a lot of public prodding and behind-the-scenes diplomacy on the part of the Bush administration (for which it has gotten scant credit among critics who bemoan American "unilateralism") to get NATO to commit a force as substantial as the one in Afghanistan. There are already 9,000 coalition troops in the country (not counting American soldiers), a number due to grow to 17,000 by the end of the summer and larger still in the fall. But will European states keep sending soldiers for the many years that it will take to make any significant progress? And how will they react when they take the inevitable casualties?

The question of casualties is quite important. Though I'm worried that there will be very limited casualties because the commanders will decide to minimize the risks, which sadly will minimize the benefits of their being there as well. Fortunately, the largest contingencies are from Canada and Britain, who seem enthusiatic in assisting in this part of the war on terror.

Sam Adams Homebrew Contest

Hmm. I think someone should look at this.

Historian Wants to Reexamine Bellesiles

Seriously, does this really need to be reviewed again? Yet another defender of Bellesiles points out that the commission that led to his resignation (prior to removal) only "found" the "one table" to be false. I'm sure that the fact that they only investigated Bellesiles use of probate records, and not the rest of the book, may have had something to do with it.
The thing that makes this singularly irksome is the implication that Bellesiles (and Churchill) actually didn't do anything wrong, but were poor victims of a witch hunt. This despite the fact that their peers reviewed their work and found it wanting. Oh those pesky facts, they do get in the way don't they.