Airline Security and Profiling

Schneier has had several posts recently that have been quite disappointing in their lack of logic or in any real attempt to analyze the issue. This blog entry quotes Patick Smith's Salon article on why the Israeli model of airport securty won't work in the US. To prove his point on profiling, Smith cherry picks several historical aircraft incidents that weren't done by middle eastern males. This is far from a realistic study of the facts. Instead of making a reasonable analysis, Schneier just jumps on the band wagon.

Racial profiling doesn't work against terrorism, because terrorists don't fit any racial profile.

The funny part, comes in Schneier's quiz. He takes the points that Smith quotes and then fails to provide all of the related data. The dates of the quoted points are also all mover than 12 years old.

Interestingly, commentors to the site throw the B.S. flag on his contention. Such as:

That sounded a bit like "it didn't work in five cases, so it will never work".

Of course profiling cannot be anywhere near 100% reliable, but that doesn't mean it has no value.

Sikh extremists and Irish (in the '80s) would also be targets of any serious profiling.

Profiling, not just on race but on a number of criteria, can give some clues. If they are used with common sense and care, they can help.

(Just my opinion, of course).

The comments also provide other salient points relating to effectiveness and costs. At least they have some thought behind them.

Further to the point I found Patrick Smith's article quite informative and it doesn't try to play the PC game. This is the simple point that he makes in his article:

But it's not draconian strictness or bullying regulations that make Tel Aviv so impressive -- not on the surface, anyway. It's common sense and efficiency. The place isn't merely safeguarded; it's downright passenger friendly. So it would seem those letter writers are right. We could do worse than emulate our allies in the Middle East. Why can't we, or why don't we, have a system like theirs?

Unfortunately, that's a bit like asking why America's streets can't be as clean as Singapore's. Mostly it's a case of scale. The United States has dozens of mega-terminals, and hundreds more of varying sizes; the nation's top 25 airports each process more than 20 million people a year. Tel Aviv is Israel's sole major airport, handling 9 million passengers annually -- about the same as Raleigh-Durham, N.C. The ability to focus on this single, consolidated portal makes the job comparatively simple. There are aspects worth borrowing, for sure, but it's naive to think Israeli protocols can, in whole, be fitted to a nation that is 50 times more populous, and immeasurably more diverse and decentralized.

That sounds like a fairly astute conclusion to me.

I'm slowly losing respect for Schneier. In general he's been excellent in analysis of security, but when he allows personal and political views to cloud his judgment he, like all of us, makes bad conclusions.

New Whining About the Electoral College

New noise from the likes of California and other large population states about the unfairness of the electoral college. They have a new suggestion though that falls with in the constitutional rules. I'm not sure it's exactly what you'd call a fair solution though.

My interest in the problem was renewed when I watched a program on C-Span with former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., and former presidential hopeful John B. Anderson, R-Ill., among others. They proposed an elegant solution that does not require amending our Constitution.

In a nutshell, the idea they put forth is to have each state legislature pass an act to ensure that all their electoral votes would be cast for the candidate who receives the largest number of popular votes in all the states. This should not go into effect until the electoral count of the states going along with the plan reached 270, a majority.

As I see it, the main objections to this idea will come from the major political parties, which save a lot of money by funneling all their resources and tailoring their message to a few swing states while ignoring the others.

Yes, it's an issue of the political parties and not large states trying to overwhelm the smaller states. By this method, the political parties would have more interest in spending money in the large populations states and ignoring other smaller states since they want to get the largest number of votes per advertising dollar.

The Electoral College is more than just a way of forwarding the votes. The college ensures that a state gets a minimum vote irrespective of the population. They get three votes minimum, and they gain more votes once their population reaches a landmark. At present seven states benefit from this control.

This method of parsing the vote is interesting, and apparently within the rules of the electoral college. I wonder though how a states population would feel if their majority voted for one candidate and their electoral votes went to another candidate.

And, wouldn't this cause all state's votes to be contested? If only the volume of votes count, then every ballot would be in contention and the voting irregularities would become a huge cost to the states. Unless you do what some states have in requiring the candidate calling for recount to pay for that recount.

In any case, this really strikes me as a half measure. I'd think it would be easier and faster and fairer to go to an amendment to move to a popular vote at this time. I don't know how you'd guarantee fairness to the small states, but that would have to be part of the debate.

Democrats Proposals for Iraq: Levin Amendment

Amazing how the MSM have been reporting on the political conflict on the topic, but constantly fail to actually tell you what the proposals are. The Levin amendment has some reasonable requests, though I think the whole thing as a unit isn't going to make it. But when does reasonable ever succeed in politics?

"Americans want an exit strategy," countered Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "The status quo is a disaster."

The GOP-controlled Senate was poised to vote Thursday on two Democratic proposals to start redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq this year, a week after both houses of Congress soundly rejected withdrawal timetables.

Both proposals - offered as amendments to an annual military bill - were expected to be defeated, mostly along partisan lines.

"One hundred percent of the Democratic caucus believes it's time for change. One hundred percent of the Republican caucus believes it's time to stay the course," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said during debate, voicing the Democratic view of the likely vote outcome as well as the choice facing voters this fall.

Boxer's contention is just wrong. The results that have been seen in the past year are proof that the policy is succeeding, even if only slowly. That is far from a disaster. And Durbin has it wrong as well. Absolutes like that are never true. There is always people that want variations to the situation. The votes may fall completely along partisan lines, but that won't prove that the beliefs held are absolute on this topic.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., laid out the stark differences according to Republicans, saying Democrats offer "a vacillating strategic plan for retreat" while the GOP supports "a steady strategic plan for success."

To counter criticism that no weapons of mass destruction turned up in Iraq even though that was a key argument for going to war, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., released a newly declassified military intelligence report. It said that coalition forces had found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.

Allen gets it wrong as well. That characterization is overly simple. There are proposals from the democrats, including this one from Levin et al, that are intentionally steady. They just want the plan to be understood and in the public eye.

As for those WMDs, I wasn't surprised to hear that they were found, though the initial reports didn't give any details. You had to have thought that they were likely leftovers from previous conflicts. The quantity was small and the details to what they were was vague. Though I would rather see the report than hear the MSM reported evidence that they were from the Iran-Iraq war. I'm just not that trusting that the media will provide accurate information and not just fly with conflicting rumors. Oh, and Mustard Gas is a blistering agent, not a nerve agent.

WaPo has an additional article looking at the presidential politics for the next election related to this topic.

Here is what Levin proposed in his speech:

What does our amendment urge the President to do relative to our troops in Iraq?

• First, after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year;

• Second, submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise; and

• Third, expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

• Finally, our amendment recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq.

Our amendment doesn't establish a fixed ending date for the redeployment. It doesn't set out fixed milestones once the phased redeployment has begun. So while it does not establish a timetable, it does establish a fixed, but not precipitous, time for the beginning of a phased redeployment - by the end of this year.

Beginning the phased redeployment of American troops in 2006 would send a very clear message to the Iraqis: We've been in Iraq over three years. We've lost 2,500 brave Americans and suffered more than seven times that number of casualties to make it possible for Iraq to become a free nation. You, the Iraqis, must now decide whether you want a civil war or a nation.

Mr. President, sending that message to the Iraqis and ending the open-ended U.S. policy toward Iraq will:

• Prod the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to end the dominance of the militias;

• Reduce the Iraqi dependence on the U.S. security blanket, which deters tough choices by the Iraqis;

• Change the perception that we are permanently occupying Iraq, a perception which plays into the hands of terrorists;

• Reduce the number of U.S. targets for terrorists and insurgents; and

• Reduce the strain on U.S. forces.

The requirement for the start of a phased deployment is a strict time table and is just unrealistic. This doesn't address the potential for the need for increased military in Iraq is there is a need. Though he does make a statement about contingencies, I don't see that there isn't conflict in how that can be read.

Requiring a plan with dates isn't completely reasonable, since it will make public a timetable that will only be useful for political bickering when dates aren't met. Some of the discussion I listened to yesterday made this sound more like they desire to have a plan with defined milestones toward withdrawal, which sounded more reasonable. I would be surprised if some such plan doesn't already exist in the military hierarchy.

I find the "security blanket" statements to be a bit short sighted. There are some that want the Military to stay until there is absolute peace, but that isn't realistic. From just what the MSM puts out, you'd think that there is more desire from all parties in Iraq to get the US out ASAP. The present government is being more realistic and looking at phased withdrawals from areas that are relatively peaceful and could be controlled by Iraqi forces.

I think this plan would find much more success if it stopped the time-table demands and stuck with milestones. In fact, if this administration were a little more open, they could probably lay out the basics of what plans they likely already have.

NY Most Polite City?

Well, it was the only US city in the report.

New Yorkers are a polite bunch.

No, really, they are. So says Reader's Digest.

The magazine sent reporters "undercover" to 36 cities, in 35 countries, to measure courtesy. New York was the only American city on the list.

In a city with a reputation for being in-your-face, New Yorkers seem to be expressing themselves with a new one-finger salute: a raised pinkie. In fact, they seem to have even better manners than people in London, Toronto and Moscow.

In its admittedly unscientific survey, the magazine's politeness-police gave three types of tests to more than 2,000 unwitting participants.

No surprise that it was an unscientific survey. Why have a scientific one?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he's not surprised.

He told reporters Tuesday that whenever he travels abroad, he hears nothing but praise for the Big Apple's good manners.

"We are so jaded," he said. "We want to think the worst of ourselves, and people from around this country and around the world think exactly the reverse."

NY City manners should be ranked up there with their gun control laws. And I'm not saying that they are good. One wonders where exactly they performed their little test scenarios on people.

That's just too difficult to give any credence to.

Haditha Coverup

Apparently, there wasn't any.

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

That doesn't mean the Marines are off the hook, it just means that there hasn't been any coverup. Anyone going to hold Murtha to accounts about his statements? I doubt it.

UN Gun Ban

This article is just a touch bizarre. I'm wondering if someone has a slight loss of touch with reality.

For 12 years, I fought lawlessness as Detective Chief Inspector Jane Tennison in the television series Prime Suspect. The crimes I solved were sometimes horrific, but I have since discovered that they can pale in comparison to the real-life horrors faced by millions of ordinary people when guns are easily available and can fall into the wrong hands.

Over the past five years, I have become deeply involved in the Control Arms Campaign, run by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms. I have visited South Africa and northern Uganda, and met children who have been raped at gunpoint, seen their parents shot or been forced to become child soldiers.

Um. Don't you mean you were an actor playing a detective created by Lynda La Plante. You didn't really solve anything. Then there is the Africa woes, which seem to miss the point that just as many, if not more of that violence was perpetrated by thugs carrying machete, and not guns. But, hey, that doesn't prove the point that guns are evil, so you must be right.

The Control Arms Campaign is trying to stop weapons from getting into the wrong hands, and being used to kill or harm innocent people. At the UN conference on the small arms trade, it is calling on governments to agree on principles to govern the transfer of weapons between countries.

Opinion polls commissioned by the Control Arms Campaign and released yesterday show a groundswell of popular support for tougher arms controls. The research showed that 87 per cent of all respondents want strict international controls on where weapons can be exported to.

Next week's UN meeting is the second world conference on the small arms and light weapons trade. I was at the first, held in 2001. In the intervening years, almost two million people have been killed by guns. The challenge this time is for governments to agree on tough controls that will actually save lives. Good intentions and empty rhetoric mean very little to people like Mary.

Just inter-country transfers is all that is being requested? I don't think so.

Amnesty International, OXFAM, and IANSA seem to be also relating famine to the proliferation of guns. Though I would say they over state the case:

Amnesty International, Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) are pushing for a treaty to "protect civilians from armed violence."

Those three groups -- which have formed a coalition called the Control Arms Campaign -- say their goal is to reduce arms proliferation and misuse -- "and to convince governments to introduce global principles to regulate the transfers of weapons." They are urging the United Nations to impose a "binding arms trade treaty."

According to Amnesty International, nearly 2 billion people live in deep poverty, a problem made worse by the "uncontrolled proliferation of guns and other weapons that also fuels human rights abuses and escalates conflicts." Amnesty International claims that weapons kill more 1,000 men, women, and children every day.

"It doesn't have to be like this," Amnesty International says on its website. The Control Arms Campaign believes a global Arms Trade Treaty is the solution.

By standing on the point that it's guns that are solely the problem they ignore reality in many of the conflicts that are occurring. Ignoring that civil war is occurring in most of the problem areas will result in no changes. Most of the areas of conflict have plenty of guns, so outlawing international trade won't solve the problem.

But then there is the question of National Sovereignty and the codified rights:

The U.N. conference poses a direct threat to America's constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Gottlieb, who plans to attend the U.N. conference, is urging the U.S. government to reconsider its financial support for the United Nations, given its effort to undermine the Second Amendment.

"Had it not been for our tradition of private firearms ownership, our citizens might still be subjects of the queen," Gottlieb said in a press release.

"Had it not been for America, all of Europe might be speaking German. Were America not the 'great arsenal of democracy' that President Franklin D. Roosevelt described in 1940, the world would be a far different place, and the sanctimonious bureaucrats at the U.N. might instead be working in labor camps."

I don't think that there is much worry that the US will become part of this overall sanction against gun ownership. But it is worth noting what the UN is doing and how the US representatives react. I'm sure this will be a very interesting UN action.

Nobel Laureates and North Korea

Sometimes I really wonder what planet these people are on.

Past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have come together in South Korea to call for peace on the Korean Peninsula and a resolution of the dispute over North Korea's nuclear weapons production. Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who hosted the gathering, says North Korea must return to talks aimed at disarmament - while the United States must make some compromises as well.

Why should the US make any compromise at all? This seems to be making the US the only broker in the issue of North Koreas nuclear and military activities. I could have sworn that there was at least one massive power right adjacent to North Korea, who never seems to do anything. And what about the UN? I thought that the US was being heavily criticized for going into actions alone. Shouldn't the UN be leading this?

Former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung, who won the prestigious peace prize in 2000, said Saturday that the international community - especially North Korea and the United States - must work harder to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programs.

Again, Why just the US? Especially considering the last time the US brought a large offering to the table and North Korea failed to uphold their side of the deal.

Wangari Mutha Maatai, a 2004 Nobel Peace laureate from Kenya, read the declaration aloud Saturday. It included a plea for mutual concessions by the U.S. and North Korea, which is also known by its official initials, the DPRK.

"We expect that the DPRK will completely abandon its nuclear weapons policy and accept international inspections," she said. "We also call for the U.S. to end financial and economic sanctions on the DPRK and offer security guarantees."

Funny, looks like she's marking the US as a bad guy in this. I see no reason for the US to provide any security guarantees. North Korea refuses to abide by settlements that benefitted them greatly, and now the US is the bad guy because it chose to remove those incentives when North Korea moved on with its nuclear program.

By the standards of these Nobel Laureates, you'd expect the US to be required to surrender everything to those that threaten the world so that the world can be safe. Sometimes the price is too high.

SCOTUS on Wetlands Protections

This is a complicated subject, and it appears obvious to me that Scalia and Kennedy don't really understand the limits to which they are placing on what is considered a wetland.

A divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad power of federal environmental regulators to protect most wetlands from development, even in areas that are dry much of the year.

The decision split the justices three ways and left uncertainty about the reach of the Clean Water Act. But it was a setback for private property advocates who hoped the more conservative court would sharply cut back protections for wetlands.

The case was the first environmental dispute before the court since John G. Roberts Jr. became chief justice, and it highlighted the conservative-liberal divide.

Taking a middle position, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the pivotal opinion, which appears to provide continued federal control over most wetlands.

At stake were an estimated 300 million acres of sometimes-swampy ground that includes half of Alaska and an area as large as California in the lower 48 states. Since the 1970s, the Army Corps of Engineers has said the owners of this land may not fill or drain it without a permit.

Last year, the court voted to take up a property rights challenge to how the federal government was enforcing the Clean Water Act, which was passed to protect "navigable waters."

Rapanos' argument is a far to narrow reading of the act. That pretty much falls out in the results.

Six years ago, the court cut back the government's authority over ponds and isolated wetlands that had no connection to rivers or the sea. In that 5-4 ruling, the justices — including Kennedy — said Congress had spoken of protecting the navigable waters of the United States from pollution, and there was no way that pollution from an isolated pond would pollute rivers, bays or lakes.

That decision set the stage for the Rapanos case.

Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., both new to the court in the last year, agreed with Rapanos. The two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, joined an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia that said only wetlands connected to a steadily flowing stream were protected.

The opinion would have stripped away federal protection from most wetlands that are miles inland and nearly all of those in the West, since many stream beds there are dry most of the year.

But Kennedy, a native of Sacramento, balked and wrote a separate opinion that essentially upheld the broad reach of the current law. He cited the Los Angeles River and other streams in the West that send "torrents thundering" downstream, but only for short periods of the year.

The problem with Scalia's argument is that he dismisses the fact that waters, in season, may need outlets, and when those outlets are filled in, the water goes places that cause extra damage to properties and major silting to waterways. On the other hand Kennedy's argument misses the point that some places have water on them only in a relatively minor extent for short periods of the year. I know of certain people's houses that would be considered to be in a wetland by Kennedy's opinion. And that house is on the side of a hill.

This article at the Volokh Conspiracy does a better job at discussing the findings than the LATimes article.

In the near term, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion creates more work for federal regulators. His concurrence presumes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will draft and promulgate additional regulations that identify what creates a “significant nexus” between wetlands and waters. In subsequent enforcement actions and challenges to federal jurisdiction, federal officials will also have to make a greater showing that a given parcel has the requisite ecological attributes to meet this test. But without a dramatic shift in the approach adopted by most federal courts, this is a burden the federal government will meet more often than not, particularly since most federal courts will readily defer to the Corps’ technical expertise.

It is also worth noting that the Court’s actual opinions show unreasonably apocalyptic were some characterizations of the stakes in these cases (e.g. that the Everglades could be at stake as Scientific American suggested). The arguments advanced by petitioner Rapanos were so sweeping and ambitious that they commanded not a single vote on the Court. Even Justice Scalia’s plurality explicitly rejected so narrow a reading of federal jurisdiction. Considerations of stare decisis have particular force in the statutory context. Thus, even were a majority of justices sympathetic to such an interpretation of the Act, it was foreclosed by the Court’s prior interpretations.

There is also an article there on the relation to Federalism in this finding.

SCOTUSblog has related entries on topic as well.

Hadji Girl: More MSM PC BS

I didn't start at MTV's review of the song. So you may want to view it yourself before you look further. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has kindly provided the clip with the obscenities removed, so it's closer to, but not quite, work-place safe. Personally, this is a lot of complaining about nothing. I'd say that it's also a clear indication of the total disconnect between the US public and their military. You hear the screeching about them dying every day in the MSM, but if there is one soldier being non-PC, you hear screams for his head. The Marine Corps is even investigating this, which I find offensive in itself.

I guess even with the garbled recording I could understand that this was humor, black as it is, and wasn't meant to be social commentary. The audience it was meant for was obvious his fellow Marines. But MTV, that bastion of gang-banger and cop-killer lyrics somehow has found this offensive. What bloody hypocrites.

The Marine Corps is investigating whether Belile broke the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the laws of armed conflict by filming a video for his obscenity-laced song "Hadji Girl," in which he sings lighthearted lyrics about killing an Iraqi family.

Because of easy access to computers, miniature video cameras and plug-and-play music-editing software, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have already created one of the biggest archives of songs, movies and digital photos that chronicle the everyday lives of soldiers of any conflict in modern history.

But Muslim-rights groups have complained that the widely circulated four-minute video of Belile performing his song on an acoustic guitar in front of a group of cheering U.S. troops steps over the line of commentary.

Yeah, and those gang-banger videos are commentary that is within the limits? Their observation about light-hearted lyrics about killing an Iraqi family are just astounding in their complete lack of comprehension. The lyrics are about a Marine that is lead into an ambush by a girl whose family try to kill him and he kills them instead. They even completely miss the point on a section of the lyrics.

The "Hadji Girl" video finds the Marine singing lines such as, "I grabbed her little sister and put her in front of me/ As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes/ And then I laughed maniacally ... I blew those little f---ers to eternity ... They should have known they were f---ing with the Marines."

Yep, that's the lyrics, but with pushing the song as commentary and not humor, they completely distort the point that a Marine would never do that.

"The military has reacted appropriately and the person involved has apologized," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. "We welcome the apology and are leaving it to the Pentagon to see if disciplinary action is warranted, but our concern is that it creates a negative impression of our nation's military. We're also concerned that it may be symptomatic of a callousness that is developing against Iraqi civilians, which is also not good for the military or for their image in the Muslim world."

Hooper said the "Hadji Girl" video is not the first example of members of the military posting inappropriate material on the Internet. "There have been several incidents in the past, including one in which a soldier sent a picture on the Internet that claimed to mock some Iraqi children," he said.

Yeah, the over-reaction to this is astounding. I'd even put forward that this is exactly how we want the Muslim world to view the Marines. I'd rather they be viewed as blood thirsty savages than the kinder-gentler-weak-kneed military that the far left seems to want. Their job isn't to hand out hugs, it's to kill people.

MTV at least gives him a voice, even if their commentary is to condemn him.

Belile, who is stationed at Marine Corps Air Station New River in North Carolina, is a member of a band called the Sweater Kittenz. He told the Jacksonville, North Carolina, Daily News that the song was "supposed to be funny," with lyrics based on lines from the 2004 satirical war movie "Team America: World Police" by "South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

"It's a song that I made up and it was nothing more than something supposed to be funny, based off a catchy line of a movie," Belile said. "I apologize for any feelings that may have been hurt in the Muslim community. This song was written in good humor and not aimed at any party, foreign or domestic."

The sad thing is, that if MTV or Comedy Central had this song on one of their shows belittling Christianity it would have been A-ok. You'd see it in regular re-runs and would get witty banter from the critics on how enlightened the writer was.

Congressional Buffonery

Almost makes you wonder when the House and Senate will start having outbursts like those witnessed in Taiwan. This NYTimes article makes one pause at how anything can actually get done. The political games are just astounding. The Rethugs toss in obvious legislation to make the Dems look bad, the Dems then screech that it's unfair or that it's just political posturing, and then both sides try to ride the wave to success.

Murtha was just precious, as usual.

Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran whose call for a speedy withdrawal of troops transformed the debate last year, rose repeatedly to tell Republicans, "Rhetoric does not solve the problem." He added: "We need a plan. It's not enough to say stay the course."

Referring to the sectarian violence cleaving Iraq, Mr. Murtha said, "They're fighting each other, and our troops are caught in between."

He keeps yelling that same thing over and over, yet his only proposal is to bail out "over the horizon" and let the Iraqi's fend for themselves. If things get really bad we could send in a quick reaction force that will take hours to arrive at best. Yes, you need a plan that makes sense if you're going to change the course. But we're still waiting for one.

Then there is the Kerry/McConnell Amendment. This one is just fascinating.

Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."

Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry's amendment, rose to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.

I don't suppose I need to further comment on those political shennanigans. Though I really want to know who the six senators were that voted for that amendment. That would be a list of pariahs to keep handy.

Then I'm going to guess that this bit is the President's involvement. And of course the Pentagon screwed up, or if you're especially cynical, as I am, you'll think that politics in the Pentagon played themselves out.

In a highly unusual attempt to influence the debate, the Pentagon sent a 74-page "prep book" to several members of Congress, outlining what it called "rapid response" talking points to rebut criticism of Mr. Bush's handling of the war and prewar intelligence. The Pentagon sent the book to Democratic leaders on Wednesday night, apparently in error, then sent an e-mail message two hours later asking to recall it.

I love the email recall. Yeah, like I'd return the "prep book" if I was a Dem. I'd publish it. AMERICAblog has what I'm assuming is the document. Since this isn't any official site, I'll remain my usual skeptical as to whether this is the actual document. I'll look at some of the congressional sites later and see if they have posted it.

On another congressional topic, there is the outing of Jefferson by the House Dems.

Add political banishment to the list of problems confronting Rep. William Jefferson , ensnared in a bribery scandal that fellow Democrats hope to turn to their election-year advantage.

"Democrats are determined to hold a high ethical standard," the party's leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said Thursday night after engineering a 99-58 vote of the rank and file that stripped Jefferson of his seat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

"This isn't about proof in the court of law. This is about an ethical standard," Pelosi said. "I wish that the White House would do the same."

Democrats long have accused Republicans of nourishing a "culture of corruption" in Congress, and signaled their desire to make ethics a key issue in their drive to win control of the House in the November elections.

Hmmm. I wonder what Pelosi means by that shot at the White House? Does she mean that the President should start firing people who are under suspicion but not indictment against the standing rules and for political gain? It is about an ethical standard, but there are standing rules, and just because there is a look of impropriety doesn't mean you can choose to circumvent those rules and still be fair. The finger pointing on the culture of corruption also isn't working. I have yet to see a poll that doesn't have Dems viewed in the same light as the Repugs.

Ain't Politics Grand?

Hudson v. Michigan - SCOTUS on Knock-and-Announce

Another split along liberal/conservative lines.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled on Thursday that a violation by the police of the "knock-and-announce" rule when they enter a home with a warrant does not bar the use of evidence gathered in the search. "What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected...is one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360) -- a case that had been argued twice during this Term. A part of Scalia's opinion, saying that the result was dictated by the Court's prior precedents, had the support of only three other Justices. (Justice Kennedy's concurrence is available here; Justice Breyer's dissent is here.)

Orin Kerr discusses the logic.

One of the debates between Justice Scalia's majority opinion and Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in the new knock-and-announce decision, Hudson v. Michigan, is which opinion is more consistent with the Court's Fourth Amendment precedents. According to Scalia, automatic suppression for a knock-and-announce violation is inconsisent with precedent; according to Breyer, precedents strong support such a rule. Which side is right?

As a doctrinal matter, it seems to me that Justice Scalia's majority opinion has it basically right. First, Fourth Amendment rules traditionally have focused on the facial validity of the warrant - the requirements of probable cause and particularity - rather than its execution. So long as the evidence discovered is within the scope of the warrant, the execution of the warrant traditionally receives very little constitutional scrutiny. Second, even where the Court has announced a constitutional suppression remedy, that remedy is typically limited by all sorts of exceptions such as good faith and fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine. As every practicing criminal lawyer knows, when the police have a warrant the evidence is probably coming in even if the defense can find some technical violation along the way. So if the question is which rule fits most naturally into the preexisting framework of Fourth Amendment law, it seems pretty clear that it's the majority's rule, not the dissent's. Put another way, Scalia's opinion essentially restores the constitutional status quo.

He also discusses Breyer's "elementary logic"” argument calling it "pretty amateurish."

How Appealing has links to the decision and findings and also liked this AP report.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

Suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

Personally, I think the no-knock warrant is an abomination. Not on fourth amendment grounds, but because the police have killed too many people using it and knocking down the wrong door. Violation of the "endorsed" time for an announced entry is interesting and Scalia does have a point that the discovery still would have occurred if the police had waited the longest time "endorsed."

I think this goes even further with respect to Breyer's opinion. If the police knocked and waited 14 seconds, or what appeared to be 10 seconds as could be claimed by a defendant, the court would have to throw out all of the evidence. That strikes me as an extreme travesty of justice.

Kennedy's joining with the majority provides an intelligent comment to the procedural aspects.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

There you go. Let the politicians enact law that defines what is reasonable and enforce it from that level. If the person searched has a valid complaint, they can use the law to support their civil rights claim.

I'd like to see a detailed explanation as to why this finding is wrong. Other than the dissent filings that is. I have a feeling that they will not be greatly understandable. (I could be wrong.)

I don't see this as effecting no-knock warrants in any way, and unfortunately, we'll have to see more deaths related to them before legislation is enacted that ensures that the innocent citizen is protected from police mistakes.

Wind Farms - More Proposed, More Blocked [more NIMBY]

The NIMBY effect goes on. It's a wonder that this country can maintain, never mind create, any infrastructure. Wind farms are taking a hit again.

A group of residents has hired an attorney in connection with proposals to build a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent. Wind Power Ethics Group, made up of approximately 30 people, wants a moratorium on development of commercial wind power facilities.

The group hired Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki, who drafted a letter asking the town board to make no decisions on wind farm projects for six months.

Drabicki said the town needs to carefully examine the potential harm posed by wind facilities.

"You need to look at the view shed. You need to create computer generated images. You need to study the birds, study the traffic, not just click off boxes on a form," said Drabicki.

Oh LORD yes, we need more studies. Imagine the results of a study on "view shed." You can be certain that that has far more to do with the resistance to this than birds or traffic. I'm stunned that they didn't pop out the old RADAR interference complaint while they are at it. But go ahead with the studies. The company that wants to provide that clean, safe, renewable power source has very deep pockets. They can wait years to move on a project to help diminish the US dependency on oil. (If you didn't note the sarcasm, try again.)

Haven't heard the RADAR argument?

More than $500 million in wind farm developments in Minnesota face potential delays because of a federal directive to study the effects of wind turbines on military radar installations.

At least four wind projects in the state - and more than a dozen elsewhere in the Upper Midwest - have been temporarily denied safety permits from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Instead, the FAA has sent notices of "presumed hazard" that effectively prohibit construction until the wind farm proposals are reviewed further, or until the Department of Defense completes a study ordered by Congress earlier this year.

And

"Our goal is not to put up roadblocks to these wind farms but to preserve the safety of our airspace and defense of our nation," said Eileen Lainez, a Defense Department spokeswoman.

Congress ordered the study about wind farms and their effects on military radar in a last-minute amendment to a national defense bill in January.

The language apparently was added because of a wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts. Some residents of the Cape Cod area oppose the project on grounds that the machines will spoil their views and kill migrating birds.

The author of the amendment was Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who, the Chicago Tribune reported, has tried previously to block the cape project.

In March, the departments of Defense and Homeland Security issued an interim policy that they would contest any new windmill farms "within radar line of sight of the National Air Defense and Homeland Security Radars" until the study is completed.

Some opposed to the Nantucket Sound project, called Cape Wind, have strong environmental credentials, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. His uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., also has been an opponent, and the issue has created a rift among environmental activists.

I completely believe Lainez. The DoD isn't trying to block the wind farms. But only a complete moron would not understand that the POLITICIANS that required the study certainly are trying to block them.

If the worry over RADAR is of that high level of priority, why not also look at mitigation of the effects? That wasn't part of the legislation now was it? The UK is doing trials related to mitigation work for RADAR.

Scotland is planning to utilize up to 1.4 Gigawatts of power from wind alone. Of course they are getting a lot of complaints about the view and birds as well. At least they are trying to move to clean sources. The US seems to be doing its best to block every attempt.

I'd really like to know if the present RADAR used for civilian aviation and the military doesn't have a design that prevents blank spots in cases of failures. I would have thought that such redundancy and design would allow for an overlap in RADAR coverage that could easily be used to overcome the possible interference of the turbines. Maybe I'm assuming too much? One would hope that modern technology would have moved to the point where RADAR is more dependable and effective.

Then there is the birds. Migratory and courtship disruptions.
Migratory:

So what happens when the birds encounter 40,000 acres of 400-foot-tall wind turbines a few miles off the coast, as is planned at Padre Island? No one knows for sure. But we need to find the answer before plunging ahead, or we might wake up one day and say, "Oops, what's happened to all our songbirds?"

Wind energy certainly has the potential for clean, renewable energy, resulting in less dependence on fossil fuel and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions known to coincide with global warming. Thus the rush to build wind farms off the Texas Coast. But the rush, if not thought out, might result in bloody bird feathers.

I really want to know how they propose to do that study. No wind farm means no stimulus to note alterations in the birds migrations, so what will they do? Well, fault to the safe side and don't allow the wind farm.

Proof that wind turbines harm birds is at California's massive wind farm at Altamont Pass. Up to 1,300 birds of prey, including 75 golden eagles, perish each year in collisions with wind turbines and adjacent power lines.

Nice vague statistic there. How many from turbines and how many from powerlines? Again, isn't there a way of mitigating the hazards?

The problem of bird mortality has not been ignored by the Texas wind-farm industry. Houston-based Superior Renewable Energy (www.superiorrenewable.com) has publicly stated its intention to conduct a study of bird migration in order to mitigate bird mortality at offshore wind turbines. However, the outlines of the study and possible mitigation strategy remain unclear.

Oh, see, someone is trying to do it right from the design time. Though I'd bet that their results will be discounted and the project blocked until an independent study can be performed.

Courtship:

These days, the prairie-chicken, which makes its home on the Kansas plains, is also getting much scrutiny from energy companies, biologists, wildlife groups and government agencies.

That is because the windy sites it loves may also be the perfect place for a wind farm. And in an unusual example of cooperation between energy companies and environmentalists, the fate of the bird is being considered in a four-year study before development begins.

"This is about doing wind energy right, putting it where it doesn't do significant ecological damage and developing to get the benefits that wind energy promises," said Rob Manes, conservation director for The Nature Conservancy of Kansas.

One of the most sensitive grassland birds, the prairie- chicken -- or Tympanuchus cupido -- needs wide open range to wander in search of insects, other food and nesting sites, naturalists say.

How wind farms may affect nesting areas is a key part of the study, Manes said. If nesting birds abandon their habitat, reproduction will drop and their numbers will decline, he said.

A FOUR year study. I'm certain that the vast tracks of wind farms will soon cause the prarie-chicken into extinction. Or is it more likely that they will just not nest directly under the turbines and roost elsewhere just as nicely.

It's almost funny how the tactics to block nuclear power stations are now being used to block wind farms. Don't like it, demand studies of the impact. Don't like those results, demand a study on the environment. Don't like those results, change local zoning. Fail in that, go to your local politician. If that fails, by this time the company proposing the project has likely given up due to loss of feasibility.

At least Barny Frank has changed directions in supporting the Caps Cod wind project.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank has changed his mind about wind power and now supports the controversial Cape Wind project, as well as turbines in Buzzards Bay that do not interfere with navigation.
The Newton Democrat wrote a nine-paragraph e-mail to his constituents yesterday, explaining his sudden shift in support for offshore wind projects.
"I am in favor of wind power off our southern coast, both in those waters adjacent to my own district and to others," he wrote. "I do not believe there are any environmental or aesthetic objections that should get in the way."
Rep. Frank explained in the e-mail that his initial opposition to the 420-megawatt, 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound was out of deference to U.S. Rep William D. Delahunt and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who has a direct geographic interest in the project. By supporting their position against Cape Wind, he hoped they would help him in matters pertinent to his district, such as the proposed liquefied natural gas plant in Fall River.

Nice to see that Frank can point out that Delahunt and Kennedy are not disinterested parties. In fact, here is more on the Kennedy's.

Critics include members of the Kennedy family, whose summer compound is on Cape Cod. Both Senator Edward Kennedy, and his nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have said the turbines would spoil the ocean views, threaten the local tourist economy and endanger migratory birds. The younger Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and activist who has supported wind power in other parts of the country, said putting a wind farm in Nantucket Sound would be akin to placing one in the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone National Park. "This isn't the right location, for a number of reasons," Kennedy said.

So Cape Cod is comparable to the large national parks? Well, if it's that nice maybe we should move you out of it and make it a park. That way we can ensure its preservation and eliminate all those hideous mansions that are parked on the coast. It's especially entertaining to see an environmental lawyer standing firmly against this.

I suppose with these extreme NIMBY attitudes, you can completely discount the Tidal Energy Project.

With all the screeching over global warming, you'd think there would at least be a little push back on this. I honestly don't believe that anyone really wants clean energy. How much more proof does one need?

Motivation to End Oil Dependency

Hanson stating the obvious. The US oil dependency does more to support our enemies than anything else.

Here in the U.S., Americans grew freer and richer than at any time in their history. In contrast, Europe's creeping democratic socialism left much of the continent with low economic growth, high unemployment, a demographic crisis, and a growing cultural pessimism. In short, there was global proof that the more individual freedom and capitalism, the more the good life followed.

Why, then, are socialists such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia now expanding an anti-capitalist bloc in Latin America - nationalizing companies, jailing dissidents, and whipping up the cult of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro from Peru to Mexico? Why here at home, when the stock market is near all-time highs, the unemployment rate low, and home ownership at record levels, with interest rates and inflation both in check, do the American people express little confidence in their economy and President Bush's leadership?

Fortunately the Chavez factor has been seeing less support from his own neighbors. The Andean trade alliance has decided to work cooperatively with the US on trade which has essentially told Chavez to go to hell.

Bolivia's Evo Morales, Ecuador's Alfredo Palacio, Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and Peru's Alejandro Toledo signed an accord pledging to respect the rights of individual nations in the bloc to negotiate free-trade agreements with the United States.

The leaders also agreed to initiate regional free-trade talks with the European Union by July 20.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, a fierce critic of U.S.-backed trade liberalization, announced in April that he was abandoning the Andean bloc, saying it had been ''fatally wounded'' when Colombia and Peru signed individual trade pacts with Washington. Those deals have yet to be ratified by those nations' legislatures.

At least the benefits of trade with the US are giving Chavez's neighbors some independence from his rather shrill complaints against the US.

Back to Hanson.

And huge petroleum profits don't just empower dictators, subsidize nuclear proliferation, and curtail economic reform. They also have pernicious psychological effects. Americans hit with gasoline price hikes of nearly a dollar a gallon have fallen to despairing over our economy. Try telling furious motorists that the extra cost for most drivers amounts only to about $500-700 per year - a pittance compared to sky-high housing prices that leap tens of thousands of dollars annually. No matter: people see the numbers on the gas pump, and less cash in their wallets, and figure the U.S. is teetering on the brink.

Sadly the US public is too easy to distract with simple problems. Gas prices hit $3 a gallon and the world is coming to an end. Point out the inconvenient point that the price is still among the lowest in the world and could be lower if the Gasahol lobby could be put to rest, and they don't get it. Imagine if these same people had to pay $6 a gallon, the suicide rate would just leap.

Next time we whine that we cannot drill in the Arctic or off our coasts, that nuclear power is too dangerous, that government-encouraged conservation violates free enterprise, or that gasification from coal and shale is too costly, we should remember: there are insidious - and dangerous - costs in today's oil trade too.

The resources are there, but we can't go into ANWR because it may have an effect on an ecosystem that no one uses or goes into, can't drill off of California or Florida since it may interrupt someone's view or the environment. (Though the environment complaint is foolish with the legal requirements for drilling and the present technology. But hey, it's okay to drill off of Mississippi or Louisiana, which is completely different how?) And don't get me started on wind farms. Oh wait, I'll do that next.

KFC Lawsuit

Read this at the Volokh Conspiracy. They didn't comment so I will.

This is all interesting, but does it justify a lawsuit?

See you in court, Colonel Sanders.

That's the message delivered today to KFC, a unit of Louisville, KY-based Yum! Brands, by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Today that group and the Washington, DC, law firm of Heideman Nudelman & Kalik, P.C., filed suit against the fast-food giant over its use of partially hydrogenated oil--the chemically altered, trans-fat-laden oil that kills roughly 50,000 Americans per year. The class action suit, filed in Superior Court of the District of Columbia, asks that the court prohibit KFC from using partially hydrogenated oil, or that at the very least, signs be posted in KFC outlets notifying customers that many KFC foods are high in trans fat.

"Grilled, baked, or roasted chicken is a healthy food-and even fried chicken can be trans-fat-free," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But coated in breading and fried in partially hydrogenated oil, this otherwise healthy food becomes something that can quite literally take years off your life. KFC knows this, yet it recklessly puts its customers at risk of a Kentucky Fried Coronary."

And

The plaintiff in the case is retired physician Arthur Hoyte, of Rockville, Maryland. He had purchased fried chicken at KFC outlets in Washington, DC, and elsewhere, not knowing that KFC fries in partially hydrogenated oil.

"If I had known that KFC uses an unnatural frying oil, and that their food was so high in trans fat, I would have reconsidered my choices," said Dr. Hoyte. "I am bringing this suit because I want KFC to change the way it does business. And I'm doing it for my son and others' kids-so that they may have a healthier, happier, trans-fat-free future."

I haven't found much in the complaint on damages, just for costs essentially. (Though there is a "Prayer for Relief" on page 13 that I don't know the significance of.) And this bit from the complaint:

As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of KFC's breaches, Dr. Hoyte and the Class have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

I wonder though, as a doctor, and I'm assuming he's an MD, shouldn't he have had an idea that the use of such oils is legal and possible? And who exactly eats that much at KFC? I find it hard to believe that anyone uses KFC products as the cornerstone of their diet. I could be wrong.

The Complaint makes this statement:

By failing to disclose and warn as to its use of partially hydrogenated oil in its products, KFC damaged Dr. Hoyte by selling products that KFC knew or should have known were unhealthy, inferior, and dangerous to the health of consumers, including Dr. Hoyte. In addition, by not disclosing the use of trans fats in its food products, KFC failed to provide D.C. Consumers with the information they needed to make informed decisions regarding the food products and trans fats they were consuming.

Back to the article:

Meals at KFC can be startlingly high in trans fat. Besides chicken, KFC's biscuits, potato wedges, pot pie, and several desserts all contain hefty amounts of trans fat from partially hydrogenated oil. Just one Extra Crispy breast has 4.5 grams of trans fat. A large order of Popcorn Chicken has 7 grams of trans fat, and KFC's Pot Pie contains 14 grams of trans. A typical 3-piece Extra Crispy combo meal, with a drumstick, two thighs, potato wedges, and a biscuit has a staggering 15 grams of trans fat-more trans fat than an individual should consume in a week.

Ouch. That is kind of frightening. Glad I don't eat there.

"District of Columbia law allows consumers to seek relief from the courts when companies fail to disclose essential facts about their products," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. "That KFC uses the worst frying oil imaginable to prepare its chicken is something that KFC should absolutely be required to disclose at the point of purchase."

That statement bothers me. First, if oil with transfats is so harmful, why isn't it illegal? If its legal, doesn't that mean it meets an FDA standard for safety? Then there is that disclosure bit. If the law doesn't require said disclosure, why would KFC disclose it at the point of purchase? Since I like guns, I'll use them as an analogy. Should a firearms dealer be required to disclose at time of purchase that the gun makes loud noises that could harm the hearing and flings projectiles that could cause death or severe injury? Or is there a distinction here on what is considered obvious and not quite so obvious? Fried chicken if fit to eat, but is obviously not the basis of a healthy diet. But KFC also is using an oil that is pretty much the least healthy. Does that require them to qualify the health aspects to the consumer, or is it the consumer's responsibility to know what they are eating? I'm not fond of the KFC method, but it does strike me as primarily the consumer's responsibility.

You'd think that with information like this available to the consumer, they would choose to eat elsewhere and force the companies to change their methods. It does work. Though I must admit that the vast majority of the public doesn't really give a damn about what they eat or what's in it.

It makes me nervous when courts start to make the decisions on what I should eat. Where does one draw the line? What is good to me won't be considered so by another person. I just don't trust that court room decision on what is reasonable.

I doubt I'll be eating fast food for a long time after reading this.

Psychiatric Analysis of the Anti-Gun Crowd

This was linked at SayUncle and it's a gem. A Psychiatrist looks at the Anti-Gun Mentalitiy.

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

I'll remain skeptical about comminicating with them, effectively or otherwise. But after hearing for so long the pseudo-psychiatric analysis of gun owners, it's at least fun to see someone push back with analysis of the opposition.

Rove Off the Hook, but Dems Still Ignoring Reality

How sad it this. Rove has been acknowledged as not having done any wrong in the Plame case, but the Dems spitting mad that the Administration is leaking facts.

Democrats on Tuesday said they would do all they could to keep alive the larger issues of the case, the most significant investigation to date into the workings of the Bush White House. Lacking a Rove indictment, they will attempt to focus public attention on the revelations that Rove and former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - and even Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - were involved in various decisions to leak information aimed at discrediting a critic of the Iraq war.

"The notion of the leak and the overall White House involvement, that ain't over," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic committee that sets strategy for House races. "Obviously, we know that 'Scooter' Libby is not Karl Rove. But you have the vice president of the United States involved, or at least his office was involved."

Still missing that the release of information to "discredit" a critic of the Iraq war is in fact the legal declassification and release of the facts in the case. If they mean that "discredit" is to provide the truth to the scenario, then I'm fine with that. But I don't think that that is what they mean nor does it fulfill their political needs.

And of course, since the criminal investigation found nothing, there needs to be a congressional investigation.

Another leading Democrat, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's decision not to indict Rove should trigger a congressional investigation into whether the top White House aide mishandled classified information when he discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.

Waxman argued that although Fitzgerald conducted a "narrow" criminal investigation, Congress should examine the broader issue of whether Rove deserved to keep his high-level security clearance.

And we all know how effective these investigations are. But hey, go right ahead, I'm sure there isn't anything more important that they could be doing. And everyones favorite, Chuck Schumer want a report NOW.

One Democratic lawmaker who has been pressing for tough action on the leak, Senator Schumer, said he had "every confidence" in the decision about Mr.Rove, but wanted Mr. Fitzgerald to issue a report detailing how the disclosure took place and who was responsible. "We still need to make sure that anyone who did that is given the appropriate punishment," the senator said.

So if the law finds no wrong doing, make sure that the congress gets into penalizing people for political reasons. Nice that Fitzgerald at least points out that he can't legally release any of the information that Schumer so desperately wants.

At a press conference last year, Mr. Fitzgerald said that, unlike independent counsels appointed under a now-expired statute, he could not make his findings public.

"I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet."

At least Fitzgerald is striking me as honest.

Salon: More on the '04 Election

Yet another person weighs in on the stolen election of '04. This argues, as the others have, that the exit polls are accurate, more accurate than the election itself. Therefore, if the polls say Kerry won but the votes say Bush won, then the election was stolen. Right... Honestly, this one is really starting to get tin-foil hat feeling to it. I'd be laughing if I didn't keep remembering that people who believe this sort of male bovine excrement get to vote.

Motorcycle Week in NH - or - Week of the Assholes

I generally hate this week. The huge convergence of assholes on really loud motorcycles. The typical slow ride because they want to cruise nice and slow through your neighborhood. The 2 AM train of roaring Harleys coming down the street. The multiple deaths because they drive like idiots.

As the riders cruised down a sloping Route 9 straightaway into a turn, one of the motorcyclists veered into the path of an oncoming Jeep Cherokee, authorities said. The collision caused the Cherokee to roll over three other motorcycles. Two other bikers lost control and rolled over. Only one of the seven motorcyclists made it through upright, authorities said.

And Sunday being Father's day, means you get to drive behind the huge back up of motorcycles leaving and clogging up traffic for very long periods of time.

You think I'm over reacting? Well, I'll send the Harleys your way after midnight. Wake you up 3 times a night for a whole week. Loud motorcycles aren't cool or interesting at 2 AM. They're a bloody pain in the ass.

I'm hoping for rain.

An Attack on String Theory

Someone throwing stones to sell a book. [h/t GeekPress]

But is string theory true? Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University, has challenged the entire string-theory discipline by proclaiming that its topic is not a genuine theory at all and that many of its exponents do not understand the complex mathematics it employs. String theory, he avers, has become a form of science fiction. Hence his book's title, Not Even Wrong: an epithet created by Wolfgang Pauli, an irascible early 20th-century German physicist. Pauli had three escalating levels of insult for colleagues he deemed to be talking nonsense: "Wrong!", "“Completely wrong!" and finally "Not even wrong!" By which he meant that a proposal was so completely outside the scientific ballpark as not to merit the least consideration.

Woit's book, highly readable, accessible and powerfully persuasive, is designed to give a short history of recent particle and theoretical physics. Ultimately he seeks not only to rattle but to dismantle the cage of the string theorists. What gives the book its searingly provocative edge, moreover, is the fact that Woit isn't even a tenured professor, but a mere mathematics instructor specialising in computer systems. Yet he has formidable allies such as David Gross (the Nobel Llaureate theoretical physicist), Roger Penrose (the world-class mathematician) and Lee Smolin (the leading cosmologist), plus an accumulating constituency of other big-name supporters. Woit has taken on a group of the smartest minds in the world and told them that their intellectually imperial pretensions are naked. He has boldly published what many have thought but never dared to express so cogently, or at such length.

He grants that an explanation for gravity is usefully embedded in string theory, but he challenges its authenticity as proper science. In his view, string theory offers no foreseeable prospect of making predictions, a crucial criterion for any theory worthy of the name. Matching the theory with the way we see the world, he argues, depends on believing in sixseveral tiny unobserved spatial dimensions wrapped around each other. Hence there is an infinite number of possible choices as to how one would make predictions, and nobody knows how to determine which choice is correct. The objection invokes the late Karl Popper's widely accepted definition of science. An explanation is scientific, according to Popper, only if it can be used to make predictions of a kind that can be falsified: in other words, can be checked to be right or wrong.

Woit's second main objection is that string theory offers no possibility of producing experimental evidence. Even the proposed prodigiously expensive class of accelerators known as Superconducting Super Colliders (SSCs), he claims, would have failed to provide the merest clue as to whether the theory had merit. In the event, the SSCs fell victim to the hubris of physics. An infamous example is the one at Waxahachie, Texas. Budgeted at $11 billion, and designed to be 87km, it was cancelled by Congress in 1993 when $2 billion had been spent and 22km of tunnel constructed.

His premise is that it can't be a theory if you can't prove it. I guess I'll stand up and say bullshit. Many theories existed long before there was the ability to prove that they exist. In fact, I'd say that there are many portions of modern physics that still have no path to proof. Just because the ability to prove a theory doesn't presently exist, doesn't mean that it isn't a plausible theory.

A case in point would be the atomic model. Democritus and John Dalton both proposed a theory based on the atomic model, but had no means to prove that it was true. They were indeed correct for the most part. But by Woit's argument, these models should have been ignored.

Woit goes on even more insultingly:

Finally, and most devastatingly, he follows the lead of the science writer John Horgan, who suggested in his controversial book, The End of Science (1996), that, having reached their limit, some areas of science are in danger of becoming what he terms "ironic science." In a passage of ultimate insult, Woit unpacks this notion further, suggesting that theoretical physics has become like the deconstructionist realms of literary criticism in the 1970s, which disappeared up its own fundament, "incapable of ever converging on the truth."

That is far from devastating. Merely throwing rocks at a theory doesn't make the person throwing right. This is the 'critics' model of science. If you don't know enough to actually produce a cogent theory, merely toss out invective and you'll be right. Sorry, if you can't produce a theory that is more plausible, and by Woit's standard, provable, then you are providing nothing to the field. Even more humorous is Woit's contention that physics is like the deconstuctionists. If that is where physics is, where would you place his specialty of mathematics?

What a waste of air.

Hill Search Escalation

Here's a bit of interesting news that seems to have been carefully hidden. A google news search only came up with about half-a-dozen articles on the topic, and none were very specific as to the case. Fortunately, there are blawgs out there like SCOTUSblog that have provided some extra information.

Lawyers for the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives have asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to rule that the Justice Department acted unconstitutionally in staging a prolonged search of the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat under investigation on possible bribery charges. On Wednesday, the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a friend-of-court brief in the case in which the congressman is seeking the return of all items taken from his legislative office.

The leaders asked U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan to rule that both the warrant -- issued by Hogan himself -- and the search violated constitutional protection given the House in carrying out its legislative duties. But the leaders did not immediately embrace Jefferson's demand for a return of the papers and computer hard drives gathered up in the 18-hour search of his office overnight on May 20-21.

So much for the "cooling off" period. Maybe the President should withdraw that nicety since the House leadership has decided that it prefers to fight in the court rather than come to a procedural agreement.

In a challenge to Judge Hogan, the House leaders wrote: "It is easy to treat this case, as many in the media and public have, as a simple matter of subjecting Members of Congress to the same laws as everyone else, or bringing an allegedly corrupt Congressman to justice. It is much more difficult to recognize the grave threat the Justice Department's unprecedented actions pose to our tripartite system of government and heretofore remarkably successful system of checks and balances. However, it is essential that this Court do so."

While the Department may have been "well-intentioned," the brief suggested, it is a "dangerous assumption" to trust the Departrment "not to abuse the precedent this case would establish."

This last bit bothers me in that the congress wants special protections that even the president isn't allowed. This Townhall.com op-ed speaks directly to the issue.

The separation of powers does not create a firewall between the branches. They interact all the time. Remember the Supreme Court ordering President Nixon to turn over the tapes? And Congress, if it so chooses, can restrict the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts. To suggest that every time one branch takes action that affects another branch violates the separation of powers principle is an insult to that principle.

I find this action by the House leaders as especially heinous. They screech about the co-equal branches of government, and in the same breath claim special privileges. They had a setup where the executive branch law enforcement party would subpoena documents in a criminal case rather than issue a warrant and seize them. But when one of their own flagrantly ignores the subpoena and action by the other two branches moves beyond the niceties, they get offended. Sorry, if you have an agreement on how law enforcement is going to work for the House, then you had best abide by those agreements. If you can't, then you should not only expect, but should condone the escalation of action.