Wiretapping Statute in NH

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with wiretapping. It's about a foolish law that limits a private citizen's ability to use video surveillance on their own property. No wires are being tapped, not that they are really tapped any longer in any case.

Last week, Rep. Dudley Dumaine, R-Auburn, and five other sponsors introduced House Bill 97, which would add an exception to the state's wiretap law, letting property owners record their own premises, with or without warning.

"This bill creates an exception to the violation of privacy and wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes to allow any person to conduct, without notice, audio or video recordings, or both, on his or her private property and curtilage for security purposes," the bill's description states.

"It's just common sense," Dumaine said. "I can't picture anybody not believing that it's okay to protect your property."

and

Dumaine crafted his bill so that property owners would no longer need to post warnings of recording on the premises, as has become common in stores that use video for anti-theft purposes. Warnings only serve to invite criminals to steal the recording equipment, or find other ways to subvert it, Dumaine said.

Dumaine said he also plans to sponsor a bill to make it legal to make video and audio recordings of people in public settings, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That bill was motivated by a case in the Keene area, in which a motorist was charged for turning on a tape recorder after being pulled over by police, Dumaine said.

I think Dumaine goes overboard with the public recording. I see no reasonable reason for allowing secret recordings in public. There could be a case for citizens documenting crime or police misconduct. Though making a widespread allowance strikes me as setting up for abuse.

Of course, the NHACLU is against it. Shock.

Claire Ebel, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, urged the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee not to allow audio recordings. Ebel said videotaping the person's property was less intrusive.

State law requires the knowledge and consent of both parties when an audio recording is made, not just the one doing the taping, she said. If lawmakers make an exception, the eavesdropping could be used as evidence without all the parties knowing they were being recorded, she said.

Sorry, that doesn't follow. The legislation is discussing the use on private property. Curtailing one's ability to record criminal action limits the ability of the owner to seek restitution or legal action. The original bill does nothing but restrict the ability of the property owner from using protections that governments and LEO use for themselves. That double standard is unreasonable.

The legislation will no doubt need to be carefully crafted to ensure rental owners aren't allowed to abuse recording in units where privacy is assumed by the tenant. There will also have to be clear injunctions against the recording of other peoples property to prevent abuses by the peeping-tom neighbor.

Bloomberg's Gun Grabber's Meet

Why isn't this guy in jail yet? Honestly, why hasn't the BATFE at least told the public why it hasn't taken any action. You'd think there would have been enough evidence of the activity to have any of the rest of the citizenry arrested for like actions in the Straw Purchases that he pulled. Why the glacial rate of activity on this?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — Mayors from some of the nation’s largest cities gathered on Tuesday to urge Congress to crack down on the trade of illegal firearms. But the mayors’ efforts, led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Thomas M. Menino of Boston, generated a small protest by advocates for gun owners and dealers.

At a daylong conference here, the coalition, known as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, vowed to press for federal legislation to give cities greater access to trace data, which law enforcement authorities can use to determine the origin of guns involved in crimes. A trace tracks the weapon’s sales history, from manufacturer to distributor to retailer to buyer.

An appropriations provision passed each year since 2003 has banned the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from releasing gun-trace data, except to police officials and prosecutors investigating or prosecuting a crime. The provision prevents the data from being used in civil lawsuits against gun dealers or manufacturers.

With Congress now under the control of Democrats, who are generally more favorable to gun control, the provision may be rescinded this year. To advance that goal, along with other measures to stem the flow of illegal guns, the mayors announced the creation of a bipartisan task force of four House members concerned about illegal guns.

Of course they had to beat the gun-trace database issue. Note that there isn't any mention of how such a system could, and likely would be abused by those with an anti-gun agenda. Seeing that civil lawsuits are the only method that appears to be interesting to these Mayors for actually stopping gun crime, since god knows that actually enforcing the law isn't good enough. The obvious thing to do is to bring civil litigation against anybody who at any time may have legally owned the gun that was used in a crime.

And now they have Congress jumping on board with more committees. I'm certain that will come up with another champion of anti-gun legislation like the '94 ban on guns that look like assault weapons.

The two Democrats on the task force are Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The Republicans are Representatives Peter T. King of New York and Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.

There were signs of opposition to the mayors’ efforts. The New York Sun reported last week that Jared D. Fuhriman of Idaho Falls, Idaho, became the first mayor to withdraw from the coalition, saying he thought its proposals were going too far.

Bi-partisan indeed. No doubt there will never be any voice for those who understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the discussion on the straw purchases. It's rather lame.

As the conference proceeded at the Cannon House Office Building, four gun-rights groups held a news conference at the Capital Hilton downtown to denounce Mr. Bloomberg, whom they called “the Manhattan gun grabber.”

They questioned the propriety and legality of the Bloomberg administration’s use of private investigators to conduct undercover sting operations. The operations have documented so-called straw purchases, in which proxies sign the paperwork on behalf of buyers who would not be eligible to buy a gun or pass required background checks. Such operations have been the basis for civil lawsuits by the city against dealers.

“This is the kind of slapdash, Keystone Kop behavior that the mayor has been engaging in, and indeed by sending non-law-enforcement people to do these attempted sting operations, he is violating the law,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America.

Note that there isn't any discussion of the BATFE investigation. Convenient omission?

At the conference, Mr. Bloomberg maintained that the coalition respected the Second Amendment and was not trying to curb gun rights. “That’s ideological nonsense, and we’ve just got to move past it,” he said of the arguments raised by critics. “Respecting the rights of gun owners while cracking down on illegal guns are completely compatible goals.”

Right. Anyone else believe that statement? You respect the 2nd Amendment only to your interpretation and that is clearly that it's a collective right not an individual right. This is evident through the gun laws that these mayors have in their cities. Just because they state that they are solely looking to control illegal guns doesn't make up any ground on the fact that these are among the worst gun grabbers in the country. But they respect your rights. Sure.

As to the compatibility of his goals, I'm thinking his actions have proven that he really doesn't believe what he is stating. New York has some of the most restrictive gun prohibitions in the country and it takes a near act of god to get a carry permit for self-defense. Well, unless your Chuck Schumer.

Then for some reason they pop out a quote from that pseudo gun rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

Ray Schoenke, the president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a small gun-rights group that describes itself as an alternative to the National Rifle Association, addressed the mayors and said that he thought many of their ideas were reasonable.

“It is time to begin rebuilding respect for our hunting and shooting heritage, which for the last 30 years has been tarnished by gun-rights extremists,” Mr. Schoenke said.

I'm wondering if they were with the GOA and the other gun rights groups or was their quote stitched in after the fact to make it appear they were a gun rights group. You can recall that they are the gun rights group that doesn't appear to have any support for the right of self-defense. Recall this post where they use the logic that a gun in the house is more often used against the owner?

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

The motives of this group are so exceptionally suspect that most gun bloggers can only pay them a sarcastic remark with regards to their activities.

With the recent Democratic wave, I'm sure that there will be plenty of legislation to help out these mayors. The question is, is there enough of us out there to stop them?

RFID Tattos

Caught this linked at Schneier. I agree with his statement that this is just stupid.

Somark Innovations announced this week that it successfully tested biocompatible RFID ink, which can be read through animal hairs. The passive RFID technology could be used to identify and track cows to reduce financial losses from Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease) scares. Somark, which formed in 2005, is located at the Center for Emerging Technologies in St. Louis. The company is raising Series A equity financing and plans to license the technology to secondary markets, which could include laboratory animals, dogs, cats, prime cuts of meat, and military personnel.

Yep, military personnel. Tell me that this company isn't completely idiotic.

The ink also could be used to track and rescue soldiers, Pydynowski said.

"It could help identify friends or foes, prevent friendly fire, and help save soldiers' lives," he said. "It's a very scary proposition when you're dealing with humans, but with military personnel, we're talking about saving soldiers' lives and it may be something worthwhile."

Not thinking about how militaries work. Soldiers don't want a means to be tracked. If their own side can track them, so can the enemy. Might as well wear a big loud speaker broadcasting that you're there.

The best comes with comments at Schneier, that point out that it can only be read from 4 feet away.

If it's used to identify friend or foe, you're f**cked.

The range is 4 feet, as mentioned in the article.

Even if that range gets doubled or tripled with sensitive receivers or other technological improvements, you're still f**cked if your foe gets within 12 feet of you.

Even increased by an order of magnitude, 40 feet, how useful is it really going to be as an IFF system? Put 2 foes in a car, traveling at a mere 25 MPH, and 40 feet is still in the "You are dead" zone.

Maybe the person who proposed this should consider getting another job. One that requires less intelligence.

2nd Amendment Ratings for '08 Presidential Hopefuls

From the Volokh Conspiracy. Dave Kopel does a great service here.

Top tier. Nearly perfect pro-Second Amendment records: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Former Gov. Jim Gilmore (R-Vir.). Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.).

Very good. Not a perfect record, but still a very positive one overall. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.). Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). Former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R-Wisc.). Former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

Mixed: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)(mostly positive record, except for lead sponsorship of two terrible bills: McCain-Lieberman, a badly-written bill which would have given the BATFE the authority to administratively eliminate any or all gun shows, and McCain-Feingold, the campaign speech restriction law which significantly affects right-to-arms groups).

Poor: Former Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.). Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). As noted by, inter alia, the Boston Globe, Romney's flip-flops on guns are part of a larger record of inconsistency.

Almost perfect anti-Second Amendment record: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Former Vice-President Al Gore (in Congress, a nearly perfect pro-gun record until 1989, when he switched sides). Al Sharpton (D-N.Y.).

Record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)(very effective in pushing gun control during his tenure as Judiciary Committee chairman). Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-Iowa). Former Mayor Rudy Guliani (R-N.Y.)(even worse than his predecessor, Democrat David Dinkins; indeed, based on his record, arguably worse than Sen. Clinton).

I don't know: Former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska). He has been out of Congress for 25 years, and I don't know his voting record from his 1969-81 Senate terms. Given that he represented Alaska, and that he was (and is) a fervent populist, I would be surprised if he had a record of support for gun control.

In the comments, please focus on information to make these rankings more precise, rather than arguing the pro/con merits of the Second Amendment or gun control.

Sadly, I can't stand anyone on the list. All the Repugs leave a bad taste overall and Bill Richardson is about the only Dem that doesn't make me retch. And he's no great shakes.

The comments are interesting and long. Sadly, a lot of them are of little value since the speakers obviously don't have a clue about what has been happening in the Gun-rights world or they are clearly anti-gun.

Clinton Just Not Getting IT

Hillary obviously just doesn't get it. Look at this:

Congressional criticism of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq threatens to erode the morale of American soldiers and Marines serving there, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., implied Tuesday at a Senate confirmation hearing for Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Bush's choice to be the new commander in Iraq.

McCain’s raising of the morale question was quickly disputed by one of his potential 2008 presidential rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

McCain and Clinton may get a chance to put their clashing ideas to the test of the electorate in the 2008 presidential election: they are leading contender for their respective party’s nominations.

McCain raised the morale issue in a question he posed to Petraeus, saying, “Suppose that we send additional troops and we tell those troops, ‘we support you, but we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission… we do not support the mission we are sending you on’? What effect does that have on morale of the troops?”

“It would not be a beneficial effect, sir,” Petraeus answered.

Clinton disagreed with both McCain and Petraeus on the morale issue.

Clinton disputes morale effect
“Our troops are on the Internet constantly; they know very well there’s a debate going on in this country,” Clinton told reporters after she left the Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing. “From the troops I’ve spoken with, a lot of them share many of the concerns that I and others have.”

I completely disagree with her rather weak point. They may have concerns, but they want to succeed. The discussion on limiting or stopping funding doesn't help their mind set. Let's keep it simple, how many of their fellow soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen have died and now they are being told that the US should bail and ensure that their deaths were completely in vain. Success will at least make the sacrifice partially justified.

Her argument is essentially irrelevant to the discussion of morale.

UPDATE: I guess I'm really late on this one. Fox News is running this topic now. Sheesh.

For the Want of Civil Response

Wonder if CAIR is going to help blame this on the unreasonable American public.

MILWAUKEE -- An American GI in Iraq who e-mailed a Wisconsin company to ask for a shipment of some floor mats got a brusque reply: "We would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq."

The two-line e-mail response quickly circulated on the Internet and has led to threats against the Muslim-owned business and demands for a boycott.

Bargain Suppliers, an online retailer based in the Milwaukee suburb of West Allis, shut down its Web site Monday and fired the unidentified employee who sent the e-mail, WTMJ-TV reported.

Co-owner Faisal Khetani, a Muslim from Pakistan, has received threatening calls, the TV station said. An answering machine at a number listed for the business said the mailbox was full and would not accept a message Tuesday.

A civil response would have been fine. But that response is just amazing. No doubt this company is going to pay for the actions of this idiot. Too bad there are a lot of people going overboard with the threats though.

The article also points out that this was a soldier purchasing outside of the military purchase system. I'm constantly surprised to hear soldiers buying stuff like this out of pocket.

Chinese Satellite Killer

The Chinese confirm that they have tested the weapon. I don't suppose it is an especially egregious act, since the US tested one previously, and no doubt the Russians did as well. It is aggravating though that they are testing in an environment that is especially fragile with respect to the debris that they caused.

China said on Tuesday that it held an anti-satellite test, confirming earlier reports from Washington, and stressed that it opposed any arms race in space and did not pose a threat.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a news conference that the government had informed the United States of the test.

"What needs to be stressed is that China has always advocated the peaceful use of space, opposes the weaponisation of space and an arms races in space," Liu said. "China has never participated and will never participate in any arms race in outer space.

Not participating? Funny, looks like they are. Why else would they have built a satellite killer?

China had repeatedly refused to publicly say whether it knocked one its own aging satellites out of the skies with a missile on January 11 in what Washington officials criticised as a provocative escalation of military competition.

On Monday, a State Department spokesman said in Washington that Chinese officials had acknowledged the test when they met U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill in Beijing over the weekend.

Asked about China's delay in reporting the test, Liu said: "China has nothing to hide. After various parties expressed concern we explained this test in outer space to them."

Outer space? Looks like near Earth orbit to me. Not sure why everyone is all upset. China has as much right to participate in space weapons as anyone. And why does the State Department think China has a responsibility to report to them anything at all? The delay statement seems to indicate that they were obligated to explain, which is completely false.

It may be an action that is risky to other people's assets, but there is very little doubt they have the right to develop weapons for their own defense. The US has stated it will defend it's own assets and an assumption that others aren't allow similar protections is rather foolish.

Net Neutrality Redux

Legislation is starting again. The context at the start of this article is truly interesting.

The current Internet supports many popular and valuable services. But experts agree that an updated Internet could offer a wide range of new and improved services, including better security against viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks and zombie computers; services that require high levels of reliability, such as medical monitoring; and those that cannot tolerate network delays, such as voice and streaming video. To provide these services, both the architecture of the Internet and the business models through which services are delivered will probably have to change.

I love the contention that the service providers would in reality take on any of these protections. They have an interest to stop bad acting systems and DoS attacks, because they cut into their bottom dollar. As for the real time monitoring, let's be realistic. Medical monitoring will never be a concern of the service providers, because frankly, they'll never accept the liability that would go with it. Streaming video and Voice are both things that they want because they can make more money on the services with limited liability.

Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customers.

Traffic management is a prime example. When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, it makes sense to allow a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict traffic that is downright harmful, such as viruses, worms and spam.

Right. And the network provider is going to assume the liability associated with deciding what service deserves what bandwidth? Not likely. They'll be deciding based on who ponies up the most cash. Network operators already have the right to restrict, nay stop, harmful traffic types. It's disingenuous to try and posture that as a drawback on net neutrality. By stopping problem traffic, they assure better quality of service to those that are paying.

Pricing raises similar issues. To date, Internet pricing has been relatively simple. Based on experience in similar markets, we expect that, if left alone, pricing and service models will probably evolve. For example, new services with guaranteed delivery quality might emerge to support applications such as medical monitoring that require higher levels of reliability than the current Internet can guarantee. Suppliers could be expected to charge higher prices for these premium services.

Blocking premium pricing in the name of neutrality might have the unintended effect of blocking the premium services from which customers would benefit. No one would propose that the U.S. Postal Service be prohibited from offering Express Mail because a "fast lane" mail service is "undemocratic." Yet some current proposals would do exactly this for Internet services.

This shows an extreme lack of understanding of how the internet actually works. Their post office analogy is completely false. In fact, most Internet traffic that passes over long distances has to pass through multiple service providers. By their post office analogy, it would be like demanding that the USPS pass priority mail to UPS for handling and demanding that they do so with no additional costs. In fact the USPS charges you for priority mail just as the service provider charges you for bandwidth. Priority mail costs more because you are using more bandwidth.

That isn't what net neutrality is trying to restrain. Large use services, such as google, would be held to providing payment to every service provider, for access to the core network, irrespective of the source of the network traffic. The reason this doesn't work now is because the network providers refuse to give priority access to traffic from other service providers over their own local traffic. There is a method called QoS for marking high priority traffic, they just choose not to control the traffic that is marked for high priority. And even with allowances for the "new Internet" there isn't any assurance that they would do this either.

The present payment scheme for the Internet is based on a bandwidth scheme. The change would allow services providers to charge everyone multiple times for access through their section of the core. So google would have to pay a higher price for access because they are popular, rather than paying for a level of bandwidth that their local service provider is paid to provide, and that that local provider pays adjacent providers for access to the core.

The issue with congestion won't be solved by keeping the same sized pipes and giving better access to those that pay the most. It will be solved by building bigger pipes and charging for the increased access. The nay-sayers continue to say that the core providers haven't any reason to increase bandwidth, which is fascinating, since they can most certainly charge more for it. Instead they propose to leave the core bandwidth the same and then charge users more for priority access.

Makes you wonder how many times the advocates of the change believe a core service provider should be allowed to charge for the use of the same bandwidth? Say example.com uses X amount of bandwidth now. With the change allowing to charge for better service, they would have to pay the same amount for the bandwidth and then more based on getting good service during times of contention for core bandwidth. So in reality they don't really get the bandwidth they pay for unless they pay for a quality factor as well.

Wonderful logic that.

Nuclear Resurgence?

I've seen a few of these articles and Op-Eds floating around lately. I'm not convinced that there is going to be an extensive increase in nuclear power. Most of the works being considered appear to be continuing around the older technology and I'm seriously doubtful that any of the newer technologies will ever be considered. However, it is interesting to see that there are some former anti-nuclear voices changing sides.

Buoyed by billions of dollars in subsidies pushed through Congress by the Bush administration, the U.S. nuclear power industry says 2007 is the year its plans for a “renaissance” will reach critical mass.

“We see a wave,” said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman with the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s chief lobbying arm, pointing to letters of intent by a dozen firms to seek licenses for as many as 31 new nuclear power plants. “We definitely believe it’s going to be a whole new era of new plant construction in this country.”

Kerekes credits improvements in plant design and efficiency and the ability to operate without spewing carbon into the air — a key advantage amid mounting concern about global warming — as chief reasons for the resurgence.

I'm not fond of the subsidies. I think there are far more useful places to place that money, including storage and reprocessing facilities for the spent fuel. Note that no fuel reprocessing occurs in this country, and it's a vast waste of fuel. Much of that fuel has cooled to the point where reprocessing would be much easier. But instead, the US is looking just to bury it. The waste of that resource is appalling and the screaching about that waste is even worse. If reprocessed there would be less waste, and that waste for the most part would be substantially shorter lived radioactively.

"If this were a renaissance, you wouldn’t need to be enticing giant corporations with subsidies in order to get them to build reactors they claim are economically viable,” said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for the environmental group Greenpeace, a staunch foe of nuclear energy.

Greenpeace, the foe of anything human is not who I would have gone to for a comment. What alternative technology which is capable of running our industries, does Greenpeace support? I'm betting none. Solar and wind won't do it, and I'm betting they'd stand against any scaling of that technology to the level that would support the present economy.

They of course have the usual litany of statements about Chernobyl and TMI. No real discussion of scope or similarity of the plants or the problems and the related solutions. Just that the industry has improved its safety procedures. Then for some reason the article goes into a long tirade on the Cheney Energy commission. Sadly the article spends most of its time wandering around the politics or the issue rather than the viability or comparative use in a world with a strong need to move away from fossil fuels.

Fairness Doctrine, Ensuring Bias Gets Fair Time

Frankly, the Fairness Doctrine is up there with one of the more moronic governmental controls ever considered.

Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because “neo-fascist” and “neo-con” talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the “illegal” war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush’s repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the “right-wing oriented media” were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.

His answer, a bill titled the “Media Ownership Reform Act,” would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.

Hinchey, chairman of the “Future of American Media Caucus” in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the “corporate media.”

How absolutely pathetic.

Couple of questions. Who decides what is fair? The MSM has certainly proved their inability to put forward fair reporting. Can we honestly expect that they will change? Can we expect that the liberal bias will get their feet held to the fire? Will PBS get reined in?

But, it's all about the Conservative bias. Because, well you know, the liberal media isn't biased. Right?

The Puffington Host has an entry by Charlie Reina, which is very unconvincing.

QandO have a couple of entries on the topic, which I frankly find more convincing.

And no real surprise, Dennis Kucinich is leading the knee-jerkers and tin-foil set into battle on this topic.

Global Warming Committee

Not sure why they need another committee. Frankly, I think there are far too many as it is.

And, their choice of chairman is not surprising. Another proud knee-jerker from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Representative Edward J. Markey of Malden is in the middle of a high-profile battle between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and some of the chamber's most powerful committee chairmen, with Pelosi turning to Markey to head a newly created committee on climate change that will focus on curbing the production of greenhouse gases.

The creation of a special committee to confront global warming signals a desire by Pelosi to control greenhouse gases by imposing tougher regulations on auto emissions and on industries that deplete the ozone. The move follows six years in which President Bush and the Republican-led Congress did little to address global warming.

Fascinating. Especially with the yelping about the Administrations abuse of scientific data. Funny that they would choose someone who seems to have the same problem, just bent in the opposite direction.

Dingell had announced hearings on global warming before Pelosi moved to create the new committee, though environmentalists regard him with deep skepticism because of his ties to the auto industry. His wife, Deborah, is a top lobbyist for General Motors.

"The chairman has for many years been strongly opposed to increases in [fuel-economy] standards, though there is pretty clearly a majority in the Democratic caucus who favor higher standards," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

Clapp called it a "gutsy move" by Pelosi to try to overcome the "balkanized" committee process by putting Markey in charge of shepherding a vital policy area.

If there was an issue with Dingell's integrity on being fair in hearings, why was he given a chairmanship? Well, I suppose you could look at it as Pelosi fixing the problem, by adding another redundant committee to further confuse the matter.

In a nod to Dingell and other committee chairman, Pelosi agreed that the new committee would not have the power to draft legislation, and instead gave it purely oversight and investigatory functions. That means any concepts Markey and his colleagues want to pursue as bills must navigate the regular House committees, including, in some cases, Dingell's.

Can't draft legislation? Then why bother? And if they find something in their oversight, which committee will be doing the legislation? Dingells?

Along these lines, you catch the Weather Channel's own political correctness director?

A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.

The call was made by Heidi Cullen, host of a weekly global warming programme on the cable network called The Climate Code, and coincides with a stretch of severely off-kilter weather across the US this winter and moves by Democrats to draft strict new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the "seal of approval" that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures.

"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather," she wrote in her internet blog. "It's not a political statement... it's just an incorrect statement."

Ms Cullen is not alone in trying to marginalise doubters, who mostly argue that recent rises in temperatures are caused by normal cyclical weather patterns. They were described as "global warming deniers" by former vice-president Al Gore in his recent film An Inconvenient Truth.

Nice to see that the intolerance to opposing theory is reaching a crescendo. Think Ms. Cullen would have condemned Galileo? I do. This level of intolerance is foolish in the extreme. No one is forcing you to believe their theory, but unless you can scientifically destroy that theory, you should have no say at all on their accreditation. Seeing that the loony left has closed their minds to any alternative theory, looks like they have nothing to say on the President's poor activities with regard to scientific information.

Discussing The End of the World

Interesting post. It's an email exchange about discussing survival preparedness with those who don't want to be prepared. Seems this guy ran into a bunch that thought he was an ogre because he basically told them he wouldn't save their asses if the SHTF.

On Christmas Eve I went to a party where the four liberal families I previously discussed were present, and followed your advice. After bringing up the emergency kit issue again, lots of people complained and teased me (in a good natured way) but as expected, the ”we’ll just come to your house” meme reared its ugly head. I stated, as you suggested, that I would *NOT* help them in an emergency unless they first took measures to help themselves. This did not go over well. Much argument followed. The net result:

1) I am no longer welcome at any of the four homes (no great loss).

2) I am now morally equivalent to Hitler and George Bush.

3) One woman called me a potential child molester (I’m not sure of the logic, but it had something to do with not helping her starving kiddies when the world goes whacky).

4) Republicans are evil, therefore, I am evil (being a Libertarian, this seemed a bit unfair, but the finer points of political philosophy were lost in the debate).

5) Another woman (a hardcore feminist) screamed “I’ll call the police!! Hoarding in an emergency is just wrong. You won’t get away with it.”

Etc.

I don't typically discuss this type of thing with anyone but those that are already prepared at some level. Personally, I wouldn't warn them to stay away, I'd just shoot. Those who know I'd support them, know that I wouldn't shoot them. That list is very very short.

I've had similar conversations as described, but I usually don't push people to be prepared. Frankly, I'm not into discussing it because you are then identified as being prepared and then are in the back of someone's mind as being the place to go for help. In such a bad situation, I doubt I'd be much help, mainly because I would be too busy protecting myself. I also analyze who is valuable in a survival situation, and most people I know are major deficits.

I find the hoarding statement fascinating. Having assets prior to an incident doesn't make you a hoarder. Gathering excessive assets after an incident is. I suppose by the discussion above I'd be a monster. Better a live monster that a bloated corpse.

More Talk on Running Out on Iraq

Clinton is finally standing on Iraq, and is standing, as expected in the wrong place.

Newly returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq and under growing pressure from antiwar Democrats as she weighs entering the 2008 presidential race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Wednesday for a cap on the number of U.S. troops stationed in the war zone.

The New York senator's proposal to freeze troop levels faces dubious prospects in a divided Congress and was quickly spurned by the White House. But the political urge to weigh in against President Bush's "surge" of military personnel to Iraq appeared irresistible.

Even as Clinton unveiled her plan, two of her possible rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut — announced their own troop cap proposals.

Accusing the Bush administration of a "failed strategy" in Iraq, Clinton said she wanted to freeze the number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq as of Jan. 1, before Bush announced a planned increase of 21,500 troops to help patrol strife-racked Baghdad and Al Anbar province.

"The president is sending mixed signals. We need to change course," Clinton said.

And since the LATimes can't complete the quote, she went on to state that there should be goals set that if not met will mean further withdrawal of troops. That's the way to provide security, remove those who are providing it. Brilliant. Would never have thought of that.

I love the thought of a cap. Nothing like handicapping the Generals who have to make action plans based on reality not on politics. But hey, I'll throw in a Vietnam comparison, since everyone else does. Didn't we learn that you don't let politicians decide how to fight? Especially in committees like the Congress always appears to want to do. Whether your cutting funding or legislating troop caps, your forcing a narrow course for those that actually have to do the job.

Hillary also thinks the troops should go to Afghanistan.

Senator Clinton, who was on her third trip to Iraq, said she was against increasing US troops there.

"I am opposed to this escalation," Mrs Clinton told CBS News.

"I am for putting more troops in Afghanistan," she said, describing Afghanistan as one of the "great missed opportunities".

US forces should be boosted there before an expected spring offensive by the Taleban, she said.

Clever, I'd not have thought of taking troops from a highly unstable area and mass them in a country that is fairly well stabilized by NATO. Not that the collapse of Iraq would cause an increase in the threats in the middle-east and elsewhere. But let's do this, since it's such a great strategy to decrease the threats from terrorism. No doubt the terrorists won't move into a fractured Iraq and use it as a further training space for their fight against us. Considering there won't be any troops there to ferret them out and destroy them, seems like a good way to ensure failure.

I also have to love this article with it's Albright analysis.

Meanwhile Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state under Democratic President Bill Clinton, described the Bush strategy as less a statement of policy than a prayer.

"It was not about reality. It was about hope. But hope is not a strategy. Iraqis will continue to act in their own best interests as they perceive them and we must act in ours," she told a hearing at the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.

Right. I always seek out a diplomat when looking for a solution to a security issue. Her analysis is so clueless that it's nearly fascinating. That statement is the pinnacle of not saying anything of substance while damning the strategy. One wonders if her analysis of the economic and political strategy are nearly as astute.

There also is the renewed yells for partitioning of Iraq. I love the call for an "orderly" partitioning. As if there would be any chance of that occurring. The Iranians are discussing this. Look at this article. I won't speak to the veracity of the source, but it is amusing.

The details of President Bush's plan to partition Iraq and reward Iran can be found at Debka.com. In brief, President Bush's plan would dissolve Baghdad's central government, aside from a residual administrative entity that would regulate Iraq's oil sector, most likely on a temporary basis. The Bush Plan would also permit the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan in place of the Baghdad government. Each new state would have its own militia. The US would withdraw most of its troops in Iraq to Kurdistan to deter Turkey from intervention against Kurdish independence.

The consequences of President Bush's Iraq partition plan will all be negative. For this reason Bush's plan is strongly opposed by all of Iraq's neighbors, aside from Iran.

Anyone else hear of this plan? At least they are realistic about the results of such a plan. You can depend on huge amounts of sectarian and ethnic cleansing and an escalation in violence. The results may be more stable, but the payment for that stability will me monstrous.

Earmarks Jousting

The House has at least put in the vast majority of the earmarks for the requirement that earmarks specify their sponsor, portion of the bill. Funny that Reid has been resisting rather nastily on that level of reform. Been trying to find his quote from yesterday on his belief that the earmark reform from the house is not well thought out. Couldn't find any quote though. Fortunately a Republican pushed the amendment into the bill.

Sadly it's being blocked by a line item veto amendment, that frankly is foolish.

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said the Senate should act on ethics legislation that would increase scrutiny of federal spending earmarks.

Enzi supported an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., that would enhance disclosure requirements for congressional earmarks, tax benefits and tariff benefits.

“I support ethics reform, but what I believe is even more beneficial to voters and tax payers is increased disclosure of where their tax money is going. We, or rather our children and grandchildren are facing frightening financial times. This amendment would help us see and better gauge when a congressional earmark or other spending project is off the mark so we can correct it,” Enzi said. “Voters want more responsible spending and this amendment would help them more easily judge if they are getting what they want. This legislation discourages wasteful spending.”

The original Senate bill narrowly defined earmarks as targeted funds for “non-federal entities.” DeMint’s amendment requires full disclosure of earmarks, including pork for federal projects (such as earmarks for the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Defense), targeted tax and trade benefits, and all earmarks contained in committee reports, where approximately 95 percent of earmarks are inserted.

The Senate passed the amendment Tuesday after it survived an attempt to table it last week. The move to defeat the amendment was rebuffed by Republicans and 10 Democrats. Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is resisting further fiscal Republican amendments, such as one proposing a line-item veto, but Reid insists the overall ethics bill will be finished before next week.

The line-item veto is sponsored by Judd Gregg. There is some logic to it, but very little when it comes down to the facts that it pretty much will kill any bill. It should be removed to ensure this reform passes.

Scents of the Senate

Scents of the Senate is what I call when the Knee Jerkers need to make a stink over something they have absolutely no power to change.

Senate Democratic leaders, including armed services committee chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and foreign relations committee chairman Joseph Biden of Delaware, are drafting a nonbinding “sense of Congress” resolution opposing the troop increase that Levin said will be designed to gain Republican votes. Dodd will offer his binding legislation to limit funds as an amendment, his aides said.

“The president seems determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq by escalating U.S. military involvement there,” Dodd said. “The president no longer has the luxury of dismissing Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and the time for blank checks is over. Congress needs to act urgently on this matter before we send additional troops into harm’s way.”

Caps similar to what Dodd is proposing have been used in the past to limit deployments when Congress disagreed with executive branch plans for specific military operations, including in Vietnam in 1973, Lebanon in 1983, Europe in 1984 and in Colombia in 2000.

I think I'm on board with McCain, this is a half-assed action. If you want to stop it stand up and prove it. They still see no obligation to provide alternatives, and for the most part, they still are just fuming.

Doomsday Clock

The crackpots, uh, scientists of the world have moved the clock a bit closer to doomsday. Strange how little credit I'm willing to give them for being able to predict anything.

Scientists on Wednesday changed the time on Chicago’s Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight, or the apocalypse, based on what they said is the “most perilous period since Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” during dual announcements in London and Washington, D.C.

"We foresee great peril if governments and societies don’t take action now” to offset climate change, said astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, who has warned that the survival of the human race depends on its ability to colonize space because of the increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth.

“It is now five to midnight,” he said of the clock, which was introduced in 1947 by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to assess the threat of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War.

The scientists said to avoid disaster, we must reduce the “launch readiness” of the United States and Russia – 2,000 of their 27,000 nuclear weapons are able to launch within minutes — remove nuclear weapons from day-to-day military operations and stop production of nuclear weapons material such as highly enriched plutonium and uranium.

As for global warming, “Through flooding and desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water and other natural resources,” Bulletin scientists said in a statement.

The group specifically singled out Iran and North Korea as examples of the threat posed by countries striving for nuclear technology.

Lately I've become quite cynical about the politicization of many professions. Viewing "historians" take on recent history is a great indicator that a "professional" is as likely to be bent as much as anyone. I don't credit these scientists with any more clear unbiased reasoning than I do historians.

It will be interesting to see where the real tin-foilers go with this.

Power

Well, electricity actually.

Thousands of New Hampshire homes and businesses still were without power Wednesday from Monday's ice storm.

The storm left more than 50,000 homes and businesses without electricity overnight Monday. Line crews worked to reduce the number to about 12,300 by late Tuesday night, even though they faced a tough day.

The area still most affected by Monday's ice storm stretches from the Manchester area in the north, to Nashua in the south, to Keene in the west.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the state's largest utility, said as of 5 a.m., Wednesday, 11,000 customers still were in the dark. It expects that the bulk of customers in the southern part of the state will have power restored by mid-evening Wednesday.

It was 6 degrees out this AM when I decided to go into work. I have electricity only due to the fact that I have a generator. That is plugged into the building's power supply to run the oil heat. (My landlord doesn't appear to have a generator for such a task.) I have a little electricity off of that because the generator is mine and I basically dictated that.

No hot water though. That sucks. The gym is just down the street, but who wants to drive to the gym at 5:00 AM to take a shower?

The power company trucks drive up and down the street every couple of hours shining their lights about, but still no electricity. Makes you wonder what they're doing. I followed one as I went to work, and they light up the ice in the trees really nicely. I'd prefer having my electricity on.

Gun Bill Film - New Propaganda

This is bloody pathetic.

Catherine Crowley tried to change a state gun law after her 18-year-old son killed himself with a shotgun he bought at a Wal-Mart.

Her endeavor fell short when lawmakers rejected her idea to require a waiting period for young people to buy guns in Maine. But her effort can now be seen in a new documentary.

The 55-minute film, "There Ought To Be A Law," provides a look at Crowley’s experience navigating the legislative system in hopes of getting a law on the books to make it harder for young people to get their hands on guns.

Crowley is hopeful the film can carry forward her message. If enough people see it, she might ultimately succeed, she said.

"I’m not defeated unless I give up," she said. "If I keep going, eventually I’ll have enough people who’ll say, ‘Enough is enough."’

The film begins with footage of Crowley walking through Woodlawn Cemetery in Auburn with flowers in hand to place on her son’s grave.

Larry Belanger Jr. killed himself in his Lewiston apartment on May 23, 2004, but gave no indication why in a note he left behind.

Crowley and a friend found her son’s body when they went looking for him in his apartment, located in a house next door to Crowley’s home.

When Crowley, a mother of four, learned that her son had bought the shotgun at a Wal-Mart a day and a half before turning it on himself, she went to the store and talked to a manager: How could an 18-year-old, her baby, simply walk in and buy a gun without a waiting period?

She was told that Wal-Mart hadn’t done anything wrong; if she didn’t like the law, she could try to it get changed.

I feel sorry for her in a minor way. On the other hand, blaming an inanimate object for her son's death is foolish. I'm wondering how much retrospective she's taken on why he was broken in the first place. People don't commit suicide because they are functioning properly. I may sound harsh, but the logic of going after gun legislation to fix the problem of suicide is to deny the actual cause of the problem. If she were looking for legislation to assist those who are suicidal, I'd applaud.

It strikes me that people that use guns to commit suicide aren't crying out for help. They really do want an end. A person who wants to die that clearly will find other means to do so. Look at Japan for an example. They have nearly no guns at all, yet have a high suicide rate. Lots of jumpers in Japan. Jumping being another method of assured end.

Now the nice misinformation:

Craven’s bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period for people age 22 and under to buy a gun. It was later watered down to require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds to buy firearms. In the end, though, the bill was defeated.

Yep. Apparently they want you to believe that a 16 or 17 year old can buy a gun at this time. They can't, with or without parental consent. Federal law requires you to be a minimum of 18.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Under the GCA, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some State and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)]

But you wouldn't get that from the article.

But the most moving parts are Crowley’s personal story and the agony of losing her son. The film includes footage that leads viewers up a staircase to Belanger’s apartment — the same stairs Crowley ventured up before finding her dead son.

It also shows the pain she felt when she came across messages on Internet forums that attacked her, questioned her parenting skills and even blamed her for her son’s death.

Even though Crowley favors a waiting period, she says she isn’t opposed to guns in general. Her son was in the National Guard, and she was raised in a hunting family. Her efforts, she said, have been about teen suicide, public safety and families.

Craven, who is featured prominently in the film, said she already has submitted a bill for this legislative session calling for a 10-day waiting period for anybody wanting to purchase firearms. The bill won’t pass, she said, but maybe it’ll keep the debate going.

It's sad she was attacked at the forums, but when you attack the deeply held beliefs of others on the AlgoreNet, you're bound to get kicked. Of course, this will certainly play out as the nasty gun nuts attacking the victim of their stupidity. I just don't follow that it's about teen suicide and public safety. Hell, her kid could have offed himself at the National Guard and it wouldn't have involved a purchase. Then what would she have done?

Another wonderful bit of anti-gun propaganda coming to a theater near you.

Cell Phone Fire

Not that I needed another reason not to get a cell phone, but this one is especially odd.

The man, Luis Picaso, 59, suffered second and third degree burns over 60% of his body, including his upper torso and arms, in the fire late Saturday night, said the investigator, Bill Tweedy at the Vallejo Fire Department in an interview today. The victim was listed in critical condition this morning at the University of California at Davis Medical Center, a spokeswoman said.

And

Tweedy said a thorough investigation showed nothing else in the bathroom could have ignited the fire, such as matches or a lighter. "The only thing that was a power source was the cell phone," Tweedy said.

Tweedy said it was a "pretty new cell phone" that was just a voice device, and not a smart phone. He refused to disclose the brand, saying it was not the kind of accident that would necessitate a manufacturer's recall.

"I think it was just a malfunction," Tweedy explained. "The phone was in his pants pocket and he was leaning against a chair asleep, so one button was depressed. That meant power was going through the phone, and the phone overheated."

It didn't help that the victim's pants were a polyester blend, which caught fire and then ignited his nylon shirt and jacket, Tweedy said. The fire spread from the victim to the plastic chair he was seated on, and the flame and heat from the chair set off the sprinkler.

You'd have thought that someone would have designed the phone not to be able to do such a thing. Especially considering that a cell phone is most commonly carried in a pocket where a key could be depressed for an extended period.

Of course, the polyester clothes sets off alarm bells on this one. Do people really wear that much plastic?

I know the guys at work call me a luddite for not having a cell phone, but if this is the cutting edge of the technology, I guess I'll be avoiding it for a while longer.

Because Average REALLY is Average

And there is really is a below average, not just average and above. This guy makes an excellent point that is grounded in reality and yet either overlooked or unspoken in the talk about education, education reform, and income disparity.

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

****

It's no use to say that IQ scores can be wrong. I am not talking about scores on specific tests, but about a student's underlying intellectual ability, g, whether or not it has been measured with a test. And it's no use to say that there's no such thing as g.

While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, g exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of g when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact.

That says nothing about the quality of the lives that should be open to everyone across the range of ability. I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated. My point is just this: It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.

More Chemistry Making Life Better

Another indication of how simple it is to use the common chemical infrastructure to cause major health risks. Just imagine if this had been intentional and in a high density population center.

Four runaway rail cars traveled 20 miles before hitting two parked locomotives, causing a chemical fire near Irvine that prompted an evacuation and orders that others stay indoors.

The crash released "a toxic cloud" of butyl acetate, a flammable liquid, from a burning tanker car, authorities said. The fire produced a huge column of black smoke, and a section of the Kentucky River caught fire. No injuries were reported, authorities said.

Terrorists don't need to sneak bombs through the ports, we give them easy tools to cause havoc. But hey, let's enact legislation to spend lots of money on methods terrorists won't use and ignore the simple tools that they could use.

"Warriors" Rally Against Iraq War

Warriors? Last I saw they were Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines. None of those designations refer to "warriors." If you don't know the difference, maybe you should do a little research.

In any case, the article is more propaganda by the anti-war campaigns to bring attention to the fact that some in the military don't like the war.

Sgt. Jabbar Magruder spent 11 months in Iraq and turned into one angry soldier.

No weapons of mass destruction. Shifting rationalizations for a mismanaged war. Now a civil war among Iraqis.

He began speaking out against the war last year. He wants others in uniform to do so as well and wants civilians to support them.

Now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, he joined other active-duty personnel and peace activists at a Norfolk church Monday to promote an "Appeal for Redress" that asks Congress to bring the war to an end.

Funny how the WMD issue is the only one that ever has any traction. I could have sworn there were a total of 23 resolutions in the AUMF. But beyond that, I suppose these guys have every right to complain. I'm certain that there are always a certain level that complain in every armed conflict.

More than 1,030 soldiers, sailors and airmen have signed the petition, which is to be presented to Congress today.

"We've served in combat, and we've seen the futility of this war," said Magruder, who serves in an Army National Guard unit based in California. "The soldiers want to resist. The soldiers want to come home. We need the citizens to back us up."

More than 100 people attended the protest. Roughly one-third of the crowd were active-duty service members.

While still relatively rare, a growing number of military personnel are coming out against the war, bucking a culture in the armed forces that frowns on public opposition to presidential policies. A recent poll shows that support in the military for the war is diminishing and that only 54 percent of those who wear the uniform now approve of President Bush's handling of the war.

Don't you love unnamed polls? I'd love to see the questions and results as well as who sponsored the poll. Bet there was no bias there. I'd also like to see the proportions polled of active duty compared to the National Guard and Reserves. Polls always seem to be a way of proving ones point, even though anyone with a small amount of intelligence has come to the realization that a poll can be made to say whatever you want it to.

The president says that the war can be won and that more troops are needed to prevent Iraq from being taken over by anti-American insurgents.

One message was repeated at Monday's protest: Dissent is not disloyalty, and those who object to the war are not traitors.

"It is not political, despite how others try to label us," said Liam Madden, a Marine who served seven months in Iraq. "Veterans often say, 'Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie.' This is not political. It is a call to conscience."

Service members are allowed to publicly oppose the war if it is done on their own time and they do not wear their uniforms while doing so.

"This is a movement," said Norfolk-based Seaman Jonathan Hutto, an event organizer. "We're not advocating an abandonment of Iraq, but we don't want to see more troops sent in, and we want a political solution to end this. Right now, Iraq is in virtual chaos, in a civil war."

Peace activists from the region welcomed the active-duty war protesters warmly, promising to support them.

"We have a message for the military brass: Any harassment or retribution of these people ... will be met with the full force of our resistance. These are our brothers and our sisters, and they do not stand alone," said Phil Wilayto, a member of the Virginia Anti-War Network.

The last message is especially interesting. The first assumption is that there will be retribution. I've looked around the AlgoreNet and haven't found any reports of such. Milblogs definitely don't speak to it, though the vast majority of them seem to have a message quite in conflict with this one.

I'm also fascinated by the calls to stop the surge. Seems those calling for this line of reasoning are using Rumsfeld's strategy. Odd that, considering these are the same people who were yelping for his head just a couple of months ago. It's even better when they quote the generals that supported Rumsfeld's methods.

The worst argument that is continually being perpetuated, is that there is only a political solution in Iraq. Fascinatingly myopic. Anyone that has studied any history of insurgencies will tell you that politics alone isn't enough. Just like military alone isn't enough. Iraq is even more complex than most historical insurgencies, so a more complex solution is needed. Politics is the big one, and the Iraqi elected government needs to do more. There also needs to be security for the people in the zones of major conflict. That includes controlling the militias and enforcing stability. There is also economic solutions required for jobs for the unemployed and oil revenue sharing among the factors. Putting onus on a single part of a realistic solution is further proof that the speaker truly hasn't a clue.

Active-duty war objectors face ostracism among their peers and potential retaliation from their superior officers, said Fabian Bouthillette, a former Navy officer who joined Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"Supporting the troops means more than slapping a bumper sticker on a car," he said. "I think it is very difficult for active-duty men and women to protest, to speak out. They have that right. We're all in this together."

Not much you can do about the ostracism from peers. You choose to protest, you choose to stand in the way of dissension. Your choice. As for the command retaliation, I'm betting that is far less than this guy would lead you to believe. There are rules within the military, and if the officers stray outside there bounds they can see legal action. As long as the protester sticks to the requirements of the law they have little to worry about. But note, the repeated contention that they will be ostracized by the command structure is a bit of propaganda to make you believe that this is actively occurring, though there is little evidence to support it.

Summit of the Common Enemy

The countries most profiting from US presence in the world have been meeting to complain about that profit.

Iran's hardline president expanded his courtship of allies in his standoff with Washington on Sunday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged deeper ties with Nicaragua's leftist leader through the opening of new embassies in each other's capitals.

Ahmadinejad was in Managua as part of a whirlwind series of meetings with Latin America's newly inaugurated leftist leaders.

He visited fellow OPEC member Venezuela on Saturday, vowing with President Hugo Chavez to spend billions of dollars financing projects in other countries to combat the global influence of their common enemy, the United States.

Ahmadinejad's tour comes as he faces rising criticism at home for his handling of the international debate over his country's nuclear program and its alleged meddling in Iraq.

Conservatives and reformists alike have blamed his provocative remarks for increasingly isolating Iran, which now faces sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

President of a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy deeply hostile to Washington, Ahmadinejad met with Nicaragua's newly inaugurated leftist President Daniel Ortega.

Ortega's first government faced a U.S.-backed guerrilla insurgency during the 1980s.

The leaders announced they would open embassies in each other's capitals, strengthening ties between two countries that have had little interaction yet share long and troubled histories with the U.S.

It's nice to see that they have a hobby to use that money on. Not that they are doing much to improve the economy or the people's level of living. But hey, why actually benefit the people you represent, when you can get international advertising about how bad the US is.

UN Solution for Iraq?

Niall Ferguson generally has a fairly intelligent stand on the question of solutions. This time he is completely out to lunch.

For these reasons, I see only one credible alternative to Bush's strategy: U.S. forces should hand over responsibility for Iraq's security not to the Iraqis but to a new force provided by the United Nations.

The challenge would certainly be a daunting one for the U.N.'s new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon. With about 74,000 troops already committed to 18 different peacekeeping operations around the world, the U.N. is far from ready to take on the world's No. 1 trouble spot. And, of course, there are many people who would choke at the very idea of a U.N. bailout of an American undertaking they opposed from the outset. Indeed, Bush himself might find it pretty hard to swallow.

Right. That makes sense. The UN who has been incapable of pulling up sufficient military forces to do anything, who has this habit of hiding in their compounds while the place goes to hell, who perpetually leans very heavily on the US for any actual fighting that must be done, is the solution? Give me a break.

The only reason I find it hard to swallow is that it will end with the US military continuing their presence, but under a bureaucracy that is highly divided on how to get it done correctly that it will ensure that more US troops will die for no increased insurance of success.

The idea is to succeed in Iraq, not pass the failure on.

Political Compass Test

Bit interesting. I fall pretty much neutral economically and on the libertarian side.
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21

You can see a general mapping of the blogsphere at the title link.

In the Shadow of Vietnam

I wasn't surprised at all at the vitriol lobbed at the Presidents proposals. Though I found it especially entertaining to hear the Dems state that they had no obligation to propose alternatives, which is funny considering their perpetual screeching for phased cut-and-run. I also agree with McCain:

As Sen. John McCain put it, "I believe those who are calling for withdrawal have the obligation to tell us what we do in the region when it descends into chaos..."

But that won't be happening either.

The congressional hearings yesterday were quite interesting with the Vietnam historical floundering that went with Bush's statements regarding Iran and Syria's interference in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Bush did not have the authority to send U.S. troops on cross-border raids.

"I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that," Biden, D-Delaware, said during a Thursday hearing on Iraq. "I just want to set that marker." (Watch heated exchanges between Rice and several senators Video)

Rice did not directly reply to Biden's remark, but she said the country expects Bush "to do what is necessary to protect our forces." Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House after Thursday's hearing, calling on Bush to explain his position.

In his Wednesday night speech announcing the deployment of more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, Bush blamed Iraq's neighbors for stoking the violence there and accused Iran in particular of "providing material support for attacks on American troops." (Watch how the plan will work Video)

"We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said Rice's responses had echoes of the debate over the Vietnam War, when the Nixon administration denied U.S. troops were conducting raids into neighboring Cambodia to stop the flow of weapons to South Vietnam's communist insurgency. Hagel, a veteran of that war, called Bush's plan "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

"When our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia, in fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee," he said. "Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous."

Funny the prognosticating that is going on. The immediate assumption has been that US troops will pick a fight with Iran and then cross the border. Though that is a far stretch from what the President said. It's even more entertaining that Hagel postures the Cambodian incursions as being blunders. In that war the military actions into Cambodia weren't a mistake at all. The lying about it most certainly was, but that is a completely different thing.

The comparisons of Vietnam/Cambodia to Iraq/Iran are off the mark. First, the Cambodian incursions were against NVA and Cambodian forces in a fairly limited region. The area was full jungle and very difficult to monitor. Monitoring of the Iraq/Iran border are very spread out, but for the most part wide open. Most of the military supplies would be going to Baghdad, and seeing that the distances between the capital and the border are fairly large, detection and intervention will be somewhat simpler. Additional time and clear lines of site will assist in detection.

Of course, the good Senators don't want to bother looking at the Iranian interference. That was happening in another hearing.

Iran has exploited the war in Iraq and a proxy fight with Israel to emerge as a more powerful and confident foe of the United States and is casting a growing "shadow" of influence across the Middle East, the nation's top intelligence official testified Thursday.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on national security threats, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte and other officials expressed a new level of concern over Iran's capabilities and intentions, saying the Islamic regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons was only one element of its increasingly aggressive behavior.

"Iran's influence is rising in ways that go beyond the menace of its nuclear program," said Negroponte, ticking off several developments that had emboldened the country in the last year.

Among them, he said, was an increase in oil revenue that allowed greater funding of terrorist activities, and a belief in Iran and Lebanon that Hezbollah — the Tehran-sponsored militant group based in Lebanon — was the victor in heavy fighting with Israel last summer.

Iran "regards its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad as a key element of its national security strategy," Negroponte said, adding that Hezbollah, which the United States classifies as a terrorist organization, "could decide to conduct attacks against U.S. interests if it feels its survival — or that of Iran — is threatened."

His testimony comes at a crucial juncture in the long-strained relationship between the United States and Iran, as the Bush administration struggles for ways to derail Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and curb its interference in the Iraq war. Iran's Shiite Muslim government is a strong supporter of Iraqi Shiite militias involved in sectarian violence.

Indeed, U.S. forces took six Iranian nationals into custody in Iraq on Thursday, while lawmakers in Washington used three separate Capitol Hill hearings to express their concerns that President Bush's plan to deploy 21,500 more troops to Iraq in an effort to stabilize the country could lead to a military confrontation with Iran.

But I'm sure the Senators still believe we should negotiate with them to stabilize the region. In fact, Sen. Webb proved himself the imbecile very quickly by just such a statement.

Sen. Jim Webb, a freshman Democrat who has urged a broader diplomatic approach to reach a solution in Iraq, gave Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a suggestion for Bush to consider: personal involvement with Tehran.

"It would be a bold act for George W. Bush to get on an airplane and go to Tehran in the same manner that President Nixon did" to China more than 30 years ago, Webb maintained at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

I don't recall China being run by a theocracy that has openly called for the destruction of the west. They were a belligerent in Vietnam, as was the USSR and several other countries. Then again, they weren't supporting terrorism in various diverse locations either. Maybe Webb should go speak with the Mullahs, since he obviously has more sympathy for them than he does the US.

I wonder how much louder the screeching will become.

You can see more details of the Political tantrums on the President's plan here.

Bullet Points on the "New Way Forward in Iraq"

From the White House:

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

• Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security

Iraqi:

• Publicly acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence.
• Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.
• Deliver necessary Iraqi forces for Baghdad and protect those forces from political interference.
• Commit to intensify efforts to build balanced security forces throughout the nation that provide security even-handedly for all Iraqis.
• Plan and fund eventual demobilization program for militias.

Coalition:

• Agree that helping Iraqis to provide population security is necessary to enable accelerated transition and political progress.
• Provide additional military and civilian resources to accomplish this mission.
• Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
• Accelerate and expand the embed program while minimizing risk to participants.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Continue counter-terror operations against Al Qaeda and insurgent organizations.
• Take more vigorous action against death squad networks.
• Accelerate transition to Iraqi responsibility and increase Iraqi ownership.
• Increase Iraqi security force capacity – both size and effectiveness – from 10 to 13 Army divisions, 36 to 41 Army Brigades, and 112 to 132 Army Battalions.
  • Establish a National Operations Center, National Counterterrorism Force, and National Strike Force.
  • Reform the Ministry of Interior to increase transparency and accountability and transform the National Police.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political

Iraqi:

• The Government of Iraq commits to:
  • Reform its cabinet to provide even-handed service delivery.
  • Act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections).
  • Give Coalition and ISF authority to pursue ALL extremists.

• All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.
• Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.

Coalition:

• Support political moderates so they can take on the extremists.
  • Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds.
• Support the national compact and key elements of reconciliation with Iraqis in the lead.
• Diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation outside Baghdad (more flexibility for local commanders and civilian leaders).
  • Expand and increase the flexibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) footprint.
  • Focus U.S. political, security, and economic resources at local level to open space for moderates, with initial priority to Baghdad and Anbar.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Partnership between Prime Minister Maliki, Iraqi moderates, and the United States where all parties are clear on expectations and responsibilities.
• Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption.
• Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations.
• Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq's communities on an impartial basis.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Economic

Iraqi:

• Deliver economic resources and provide essential services to all areas and communities.
• Enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.
• Capitalize and execute jobs-producing programs.
• Match U.S. efforts to create jobs with longer term sustainable Iraqi programs.
• Focus more economic effort on relatively secure areas as a magnet for employment and growth.

Coalition:

• Refocus efforts to help Iraqis build capacity in areas vital to success of the government (e.g. budget execution, key ministries).
• Decentralize efforts to build Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone.
  • Double the number of PRTs and civilians serving outside the Green Zone.
  • Establish PRT-capability within maneuver Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs).

• Greater integration of economic strategy with military effort.
  • Joint civil-military plans devised by PRT and BCT.
  • Remove legal and bureaucratic barriers to maximize cooperation and flexibility.

Key Elements Of The New Approach: Regional

Iraqi:

• Vigorously engage Arab states.
• Take the lead in establishing a regional forum to give support and help from the neighborhood.
• Counter negative foreign activity in Iraq.
• Increase efforts to counter PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

Coalition:

• Intensify efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence inside Iraq.
• Increase military presence in the region.
• Strengthen defense ties with partner states in the region.
• Encourage Arab state support to Government of Iraq.
• Continue efforts to help manage relations between Iraq and Turkey.
• Continue to seek the region's full support in the War on Terror.

Both Coalition And Iraqi:

• Focus on the International Compact.
• Retain active U.N. engagement in Iraq – particularly for election support and constitutional review.