« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 30, 2006
Day By Day
Posted by Mike Lief at 04:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Flight 93
I want to see it; like Van Der Leun, I'll probably go alone.
. . . [O]n that day, there was as we knew, and now as we have seen, another group of American men and women who, when they found out what was happening and what was to be their likely fate, also took that fate in their own hands and came on, fighting to thwart or reverse that fate, until the last moment of their lives. Ordinary people in an extraordinary situation finding the ordinary courage to resist and to fight against the evil that appeared among them.
That's the theme and the pace and the action of "United 93:" How ordinary people, at first strangers to each other, found the courage to act together in the face of certain death.
Despite the whines and the cavils of the weak and the vile and the corrupt among us, "United 93" has no "message."
Despite the rising and continuing attempts to cheapen the film from the spiritually and politically bankrupt that batten off America, "United 93" has no politics.
You don't "review" this film if you have an ounce of soul left to you. You watch it.
"United 93," from the first frame to the last, simply and clearly lets you see what happened high in the air on that day. It is, as the phrase on the poster says, "The plane that did not reach its target." Instead, it reached something unintended and much higher. It became and will remain a legend; an integral part of the tapestry of the American myth from which we all draw what strength remains to us, and, in the future, will surely need to draw upon even more deeply. Like the best of our legends, it arises out of our ordinary people doing extraordinary things.
"United 93" lets you see, without footnotes or the faintest tinge of an agenda of any sort, how ordinary people in one of the most banal yet dangerous modern settings, refused at the last to be cowed or frightened and, knowing full well that all was probably up for them, still fought to save their lives or, in the end, thwart the designs that evil had brought on board.
[...]
In a film of brief but telling moments, there's one moment towards the end where you see one man reach down and remove his seatbelt. In that moment you can sense that he goes from being a passive victim to a man who has decided to stand up and engage the evil that has taken control of his life; to take the controls back from thugs and the cut-throats and the mumbling fanatics of a wretched and burnt-out god.
That man, like the firemen who went up the stairs, and his fellow passengers who attacked up the aisle in those last moments, became, in the end, one of the Americans who decided on that day and the days that followed, to stand up. Soon after, that man and all the others on United 93 went into the smoke of that fire in the field.
"United 93" . . . has no message, but if you -- as I finally did -- choose to go, it will pose you a question: What would you do, an ordinary person in an extraordinary moment when life and death, good and evil, were as clear as the skies over America on September 11? Will you, as so many of our fellow citizens yearn to do these days, stay seated? Or will you stand up?
On one of our days to come, there will be another test. You'd best have an answer prepared.
Read the rest of his post; it's a powerful piece of writing.
There's a storm coming, one that will require each of us to answer Van Der Leun's question. Have you thought about your response?
Posted by Mike Lief at 03:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 29, 2006
Hollywood star thinks GIs are jerkoffs
According to Contact Music, the star of Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead had this to say about the military.
Movie star JAKE GYLLENHAAL has shocked American Gulf War veterans by joking they did nothing but "masturbate" during their time in the desert in 1991. The cheeky 25-year-old stars in JARHEAD, a movie exposing the US soldiers' lack of combat in the Middle Eastern conflict. He said, "The US soldiers were sent to the desert for 122 days and they sat in the same tent and did nothing, except a little too much masturbating."
Having pretended to be a soldier, Gyllenhaal feels comfortable characterising the service of our GIs as little more than an exercise in short-range target practice.
This from a man who "earns" a living being paid piles of cash to convincingly speak words written by others, speaking them in such a fashion that we believe that he could actually be something more than an effete snob living in the Hollywood bubble.
Unlike stars of Hollywood's long-gone Golden Era, today's acting elite often has no real-world experience beyond high school plays, college theater programs, waiting tables, and acting.
Lee Marvin was a Marine, greviously wounding fighting against the Japanese. Clark Gable left Hollywood at the peak of his stardom and flew bombing missions as an enlisted gunner. Jimmy Stewart piloted a B-17 over Nazi-occupied Europe -- and brought his crew home safely time after time. Sterling Hayden parachuted into Yugoslavia with the OSS and fought with the partisans against the Germans. James Arness became what may have been the tallest GI (6'7") to storm the beaches of Anzio, before he became the tallest sheriff on the longest-running Western on TV. David Niven graduated from Sandhurst -- the British West Point -- serving during the war as a commando, then resuming his career as a suave leading man after VE-Day.
Christopher Lee, known to modern movie-goers as Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, gave the director some advice, based upon something he learned during his time behind enemy lines, fifty years earlier.
According to Mark Steyn:
My favourite moment in the Lord of the Rings movies isn't actually in any of the movies, but in one of those the making of documentaries that appears on the DVD.
It's the scene where Saruman gets stabbed by Grima Wormtongue, and Lee explains to director Peter Jackson that the backstabbing sound isn't quite right, because in his days with British Intelligence during the war he used to sneak up and stab a lot of Germans in the back and it was more of a small gasp they made. Jackson backs away cautiously.
The list goes on and on; men who left behind careers as actors to defend their nation and liberate the world. They knew something of the world, other than the power and privilege of stardom.
Then we come to what passes for stars in today's film industry: metro-sexual eternal teens, smooth of cheek, brow unlined, their life experience and knowledge confined to whatever they learn on the set while memorizing lines or hear in the Hollywood echo chamber.
A few months back, I commented on the disappearance of the Classic American Male, something Kim Du Toit wrote about in his essay, The Pussification of the Western Male. The changing face of manliness was something I noted was most prominent in the movies.
Gable, Cooper, Tracy, Cagney, Bogart, McQueen, Mitchum, Peck; from their first screen appearances, they were men, guys that reminded us of our fathers and their friends.
Today? Keeanu, Pitt, Cruise. Eternal college-age young adults.
Tom Cruise is older now than Bogart was in Casablanca. Steve McQueen was only 31 when he took part in the Great Escape.
Our culture no longer prizes "men." Or is this just another Red State/Blue State divide?
Gyllenhaal isn't fit to shine the boots of the men who fight for this nation, much less denigrate their service.
Having chosen to exercise his First Amendment rights and open his mouth and enlighten us about his ever-so-insightful thoughts, I'll exercise my economic rights and never pay a dime to see anything this guy's in.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:31 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Suddenly, steak seems less appealing
Waiter? I'll have the fish instead.
Read about Elvis and you'll understand why.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Forced charity is no charity at all
Tamara K has it right when it comes to talk of abolishing FEMA and replacing it with another agency.
I'm with James Madison on this one:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
It makes one look like a savage to say so, but if your house burns down, blows over, or floats away, it's not the job of the federal government to fix it for you. Charity is one thing, but federal tax dollars coerced at 1040-point from a single working mother of two in Dubuque (and then filtered through a morbidly obese federal agency) to rebuild your bungalow in Destin is not charity, okay? It's extortion.
The Senate panel was half right: FEMA needs to go. But it needs to stay gone, not come back in drag.
It brings to mind the same folks who live in flood plains, refuse to buy flood insurance, then expect government bailouts (i.e., your money and mine) to help them rebuild in the same damn place.
James Madison had it right, and it speaks poorly of our national character that we've bought into the idea that the all-powerful, all-knowing Daddy Gummint will make it all better.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 28, 2006
Day By Day
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 27, 2006
Diesels picking up steam support
Business Week has the lowdown on all the fuel-efficient diesels we cant get in the U.S.
They stink. They're loud. And, worst of all, they're slow. So goes popular American opinion of diesel-powered autos. But public opinion may be on the verge of a sea change, as a new generation of car consumers -- focused more than ever on fuel consumption and alternative energy -- matures and takes to dealer show rooms.
Indeed, if Americans shouldering the increasingly heavy burden of rising gasoline prices follow the European example, where gas has typically been between two to three times more expensive, diesel -- not gas or electric hybrids -- may forge the path forward.
The advantages of diesel engines to European car buyers are obvious. Besides the lower fuel cost per gallon, the average engine benefits from 30% better fuel economy. In turn, carbon-dioxide emissions -- a figure more commonly paid attention to by European consumers -- are reduced on average by 25%.
MANY MODELS. Maintenance costs may be noticeably lower, too. A Volkswagen TDI model, for instance, only requires oil changes every 10,000 miles, spark plugs are irrelevant, and transmission-fluid flushing is less frequently required as well. All mostly due to the generally lower RPMs of diesel engines.
Europeans got the message loud and clear. Virtually every auto manufacturer offers diesel options on cars in nearly every segment, from the smallest city hatchbacks to the biggest Autobahn-bound luxury cruisers. And despite the reputation for sluggish performance, improvements in direct-injection technology have produced engines capable of healthy power, in the 300-horses range.
Think about it: 30 percent better mileage, without all that hybrid hoo-ha. Just by changing fuels.
It's as if we can tell thirty percent of OPEC to bugger off, without building a refinery or forcing us into econo-boxes.
I'd buy one tomorrow. How 'bout you?
I previously wrote about the appeal of diesels here, here, here and here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Amnesty for illegals: What's the rush?
Andrew McCarthy asks a good question about the push to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
Here is what I wish someone who knows the immigration issue better than I do would explain.
I worked in government for many years. As even those who have not worked in government know, the general order of things is inertia, and that the urgent overwhelms the important.
Immigration “reform,” however, seems to violate this dynamic. I don’t mean border security – that’s obviously urgent and important, and should overcome inertia because there’s a growing crisis down at the southern border. I’m talking here about the status of illegals.
Why is there such angst to deal with this? Illegal aliens come into our country knowing they are illegal. Why should I care about regularizing their status? I can see the (substantial) downside of it, in terms of encouraging more illegal immigration and all the social problems that attend that. But what is the upside that I should care about that supposedly outweighs the downside? To be blunt, I don’t care about the struggles they face. I didn’t ask them to come, I haven’t asked them to stay, and they came knowing what the deal was, so I have a hard time listening to the drivel about how they’re getting screwed.
When I was a kid, I used to buy the $1 upper deck seats at Shea and then try to sneak down and grab an unoccupied $4 field-level box seat. When the usher inevitably came to shoo me away, I didn’t protest. I was doing something I shouldn’t have, and I ran the risk knowing that I might get sent back to the cheap seats or even kicked out of the ballpark – the latter being almost unheard of. (In fact, the reason so many urchins did what I was doing was because the ONLY sanction was to be sent back to the seat you would have had anyway.)
If we secured the border, ended visa fraud, and prosecuted employers who hire illegals, that would make coming and staying here much less inviting. Many illegals would leave, so the problem would be more manageable. Why do we need to do anything more than that at this point? Why can’t we just do those things and take another look at this in five years? The usual Washington solution – see, e.g., Iran, tax reform, social security reform, entitlement reform, election fraud, border security, etc., etc., etc. – is to kick the can down the road. Why not with this where it actually makes sense to do that?
I just don’t get why the status of illegals is a priority for our government to deal with given (a) the zillion more important things there are to deal with, and (b) our toleration for manageable crime problems in other (to me, at least, more serious) contexts.
Here’s to gridlock!
I concur; the urgency to surrendur our national sovereignty just mystifies me. I don't get it.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2006
Which fuel is better than gasoline?
Popular Science has published a comparison of the most talked-about alternatives to gasoline, listing their pros and cons.
The chart above summarizes the results; click on it for a larger, more easily-read version.
Notice that the only fuel that is cheaper than gasoline is CNG, which will require MORE EXPLORATION to exploit.
The graphic is a great way of presenting the data; take some time and give it a close look.
P.S. Click here for the article on one page.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Oil companies making obscene profits! Not.
Everyone is wincing as they pay at the pump, but let's lay the blame where it belongs: at the Birkenstock-shod feet of the environmentalists. They've done everything in their power to block oil exploration, the building of new refineries, and the construction of nuclear power plants for the last thirty years.
Happy Earth Day!
What about the GOP? In a reflex act of cowardice and know-nothingism, Pres. Bush and the Congresscritters have called for yet another investigation into price fixing/gouging by the oil companies. This has been done many times, and no evidence has ever been found that the eeeeevil oillllll companies are engaged in this nefarious practice.
But everyone is quick to rap the oil companies for their outrageous profits. Well, guess how much money they're actually making?
The oil company profits are not obscene. As of September of last year the total take for local, state and federal governments for each gallon of gas sold was 46 cents. In New York that figure is 63 cents. At the same time gasoline retailers were making about 12 cents on the sale of a gallon of gas. Right now the government take is approaching an average of 50 cents a gallon. Retailers are making about 14 cents. so ... who is making the obscene profit? The local gasoline retailer invests in the community, buys a plot of ground, builds a gas station, hires the employees, pays the local taxes, deals with the local regulatory agencies, and makes a big screaming 14 cents on each gallon sold. Meanwhile, the government steps in without having invested one dime in that facility and takes about 50 cents per gallon. Some obscene profits, right?
As for profit margins ... the amount of money earned for each dollar of sales ... oil companies are nowhere near the top of the list. In 2005 pharmaceutical companies made about 17.6 cents for every dollar of revenue. That, for those of you educated in government schools, that works out to a 17.6% profit margin for the drug makers. How about your local bank? They made about 19.1 cents for every dollar of revenue. Almost a 20% profit! Not too shabby. And what about your household goods and cosmetics? Those companies earned 11 cents on the dollar. A lot of competition there. Now, the oil companies. What did they make? In 2005 the average was 8.5 cents per dollar of revenue. That works out to an 8.5% profit margin.
That's what is considered an outrageous profit? I don't think so. If you want to pay lower prices at the pump, demand: lower taxes; increased exploration; and begin drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, dammit!
It's time -- again -- for me to dust off my "gas is expensive 'cause we won't increase production" post.
Gasoline prices paid at the pump have been on a steady decline since the 1920s, with the obvious exception of the 1970s, when we faced an OPEC embargo and gasoline lines. In 1920 the real price of gas (excluding taxes) was twice as high as today. Electricity prices were about three-times higher 75 years ago.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the all-time highest price for gas was in March 1981, when prices at the pump shot up to the equivalent of $3, in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution and the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran War.
Okay, we've surpassed that record price, but mainly because demand has increased while production has not kept pace, something I discussed below.
Further, as with all manufacturing processes, there are costs associated with making a product.
The reality is that demand for gasoline had increased over the years, even with the increase in average mileage of passenger vehicles, mainly due to an increase in the number of cars on the roads -- a function of the increase in population.
So, more drivers, requiring more gas.
Demand goes up, so manufacturers increase production to meet demand, right?
Except that due to a combination of EPA regs and NIMBY-assed kvetchers, the number of new refineries built in the U.S. in the last 20 years is. . . .
Wait for it. . . .
Zero.
We have done everything we can to ensure that demand outpaces supply.
And while we're talking supply, we're sitting on top of HUGE oil reserves that Congress refuses to tap.
And to make it even more expensive to make gasoline, we have a patchwork of environmental regulations, requiring different formulas of gas from state to state.
So, the bottom line is that the price of gas is NOT unreasonable, when adjusted for inflation, and we need to build more refineries and drill more oil.
Or, reduce the number of cars on the street (and hence the number of drivers) by building more rapid transit (too expensive to build, and Americans don't want to ride the bus), or by limiting the number of people driving, by enforcing mandatory family size limits, ala China (yeah, that'll happen), or by cutting off immigration (yeah, that'll happen, too!).
Folks, to borrow a phrase from the late, great, Robert Heinlein, TANSTAAFL!
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
Rethinking my political independence
Kim Du Toit has taken a look at what the Stupid Party has done with its mandate since retaining power during the 2004 elections, giving a letter grade in each area of interest.
Kim is not -- how shall we put it -- pleased with the GOP, which receives somewhere between an F-minus and F-minus-minus-minus in most categories.
Take a minute and read the GOP's report card. Kim also posted his thoughts on disgruntled conservatives pushing for a third-party alternative to the Stupid Party.
No. The net result of conservatives doing this will be to hand the White House, Senate and HoR to the Democrats.
The Dems did this to themselves with Nader, and may still with the Greens, and look at the results.
The problem with “third-party” dreaming . . . is that it’s a “magic bullet” solution. There is no “magic bullet” solution in American politics (Lincoln, McKinley and Kennedy notwithstanding).
Grassroots. We have to get involved in the process—locally, statewise, then nationally. It’s not easy, it’s a huge PITA, it’s going to take some time, but it’s the only way.
Look, the tide is actually rolling in a conservative direction nowadays, and the Democrats/Socialists are aiding the process with their moonbattery. It’s far easier to effect change in the Republican Party now than it was when Goldwater tried it in the 1960s, and Reagan in the 1970s.
Splintering the Republicans (a la Teddy’s Bull Moose Party) will just give the country another Woodrow Wilson or a new Hillary Clinton.
The Presidency is a popularity contest, the Senate a bunch of poltroons. The best determinant of the will of the people that we have is the House—and yet you and Al are prepared to “lose it for a couple of years”?
You NEVER hand over the reins of power to the socialists, just “to make a point”. Never. Never. Never.
And particularly not at this point in our history.
Socialists understand power, they love power, they hold onto power, and they use it ruthlessly to further their aims.
Conservatives distrust power, use it gingerly, and try to avoid it wherever possible.
Now… who would you prefer to wield that power?
He's right, of course. As much as the GOP sucks, the alternative is worse. I've always known in the back of my mind that the key to fixing this party is the primaries, but participation in them requires membership in the Stupid Party, and my distaste for their business-as-usual games resulted in me dropping my party membership a long time ago. I've been a registered Independent ever since, able to shake my head and say, "Hey, don't blame me; I'm a Conservative, not a Republican."
Kim has made me given me yet another reason to rethink that position. Better than standing with my nose pressed against the glass, watching the party hacks screwing things up, I should be on the inside, trying to correct the course of the only political party with even a chance of doing the right thing. It's an exaggeration to say I've never thought about this before reading Kim's posts; every time I had to sit on the sidelines during the primaries, I wondered if preserving my restored political hymen was worth it; the virtues of being unsullied by disgusting electoral party politics may have felt good in a Church Lady superiority-dance sort of way, but it came at a significant cost: irrelevance. I think Kim has finally pushed me from my comfortable seat on the fence.
I'm going to register as a Republican and see what we can do to help save the GOP from its own worst instincts -- and protect the U.S. by keeping the America-hating Moonbats from getting their hands on the levers of power.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 23, 2006
Stupid Party update
I'm watching Fox News Sunday, and once again the Stupid Party is getting its ass kicked by a glib Democrat, while the GOP's man blathers ineffectually.
Rep. Jane Harman (D - California), who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, calls Pres. Bush "the leaker-in-chief," claims that the U.S. is acting in a manner no better than our enemies, and says that the Administration has made up its mind about the so-called Iranian threat, adding that she hopes that the American people demand that the U.S. work with the U.N., China and Russia to manage the Iranians.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan), the chairman of the House Intel Committee, never responds directly to any single allegation until the very end of the segment, when he says that the president has the responsibility to determine what is and is not classified, thereby making it factually impossible for him to be a leaker.
The statement about America being no better than the terrorists? No rebuttal; nothin'. Another great opportunity to ask if the Democratic Party believes that the U.S. military is no better than Al Queda killers passes without a cross word.
All in all, Harman spits out all the Democratic talking points, and Hoekstra talks about "as we move forward," and "looking to improve our intelligence agencies' performance."
Pathetic.
UPDATE
Later in the show, the panel discussion about the past week. Liberal Juan Williams sails off the edge of the Earth, saying stuff that leaves the other panelists aghast, Brit Hume literally holding his head in his hands.
Discussing the spike in oil and gas prices, Williams goes on a rant about the GOP's tax breaks and giveaways to the oil companies being at fault. He then says that no one can deny that oil supplies are at an eight-year high, and that supply and demand have nothing to do with the price increases.
He finally runs out of gas -- ahem -- and as the flecks of spittle settle on the desk before him, the set is silent.
Then, host Chris Wallace says, "That was economic glossolalia. You know what that is?"
Brit Hume replies, "Yeah, nonsense, speaking in tongues."
Bill Kristol tries to explain that even if supply hits an all-time high, the other half of the equation -- demand -- determines the cost of a commodity. If supply increases, but demand increases faster, the price goes up.
Williams is dismissive; it's the evil Republicans' fault, giving tax breaks to oil companies.
Hume tries now, explaining that as prices rise, it becomes economically feasible to get oil elsewhere. For instance, wells that have been shut down, because the cost of extracting oil was higher than the revenue to be realized, will come back on line if the price of oil goes high enough. Other methods of producing energy become economically viable if oil does not have a price advantage. And areas heretofore off-limits to drilling -- like ANWR -- can be opened if the demand -- and the price -- increases. The point is, eventually production ramps up, supply increases and meets (or exceeds) demand, and the price drops.
All of this is -- to rational minds -- obvious examples of how supply and demand work together.
Not Juan Williams.
After the commercial break, the discussion moves to the CIA employee, fired and facing criminal charges for leaking classified information to the press.
Williams is on a tear, ranting about how -- as an American citizen -- the rogue CIA agent has a right! to speak her mind as an act of conscience (video here).
Bill Kristol responds that people with access to classified information have signed forms, acknowledged that they may not divulge said information without permission, giving their word that they will not do so, because it puts the nation -- and the lives of covert agents -- at risk.
Williams says, "So you're saying she's not an American citizen? She has no rights?"
The camera cuts to Brit Hume, who is listening, mouth agape, then puts his head in his hands, as Williams continues his hysterical response.
Williams defends the leak as an act of conscience on the part of the CIA agent; "She took a risk to speak her mind and now she's facing the consequences."
Hume points out that if it was an act of conscience, she could have left the CIA, but instead chose to secretly contact the press and try to get the info out while protecting her identity; where's the courage, the honor, the act of conscience in that?
This was an awesome example of the true face of moonbat leftist policy-making.
No understanding of basic economic theory.
No understanding of the rationale for protecting sensitive information.
It's all about gaining temporary political advantage, doing what "feels" right, rather than what you gave an oath to do.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:12 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 21, 2006
Another one with the Right Stuff is gone
Scott Crossfield, the test-pilot who followed Chuck Yeager into the upper reaches of the atmosphere as the fastest man alive, died yesterday while flying his plane in a storm, still using stick and rudder at the age of 84.
Aviation Week conducted an interview with Crossfield back in the '80s; here's a few excerpts.
"The research airplane program was probably the most successful government research program on record. It involved about 30 airplanes for 30 years, running from 1945 to 1975, and probably produced almost all of the information that has been essential to our transonic and supersonic flights, our transonic transports, and our space program.
"The X-1 was the first of the research airplane series -- post-war research series. Its primary purpose -- or its sole purpose -- was to see if we could, in fact, exceed the speed of sound with a manned aircraft. There were a lot of people who said that we could not. And a lot of reputable opinions that said that we could.
"It was very simply designed. It was an airplane that incidentally was patented by Bob Wood in 1945. It used an RMILL4 engine which was the beginning of our successful rocket era (and was) developed by the Navy and Bob Truax. The all-point simplicity and design -- and the objectivity and design -- made it very successful. It did accomplish its end of flying supersonically in 1947, of course, (we all know) with Captain Charlie Yeager at the controls."
[...]
"When they were designing the X-1, we did not have the capability to do wind tunnel testing transonically. So they made a very good ... decision. They made the forebody of the X-1 shaped like a 50 caliber bullet which was a well-known supersonic projector at the time.
"It was (that kind of) judgmental design characteristic that was essential at that time; but we had no way to test (it). And that is the sole reason for the research airplane program. We had the capabilities with engines to speeds and altitudes; (but) we had no capability to test. We did not know how to analyze, so flight test was the only way."
[...]
"Well, as I remember the genesis of the X-15, one time coming home from a fishing trip with Walt Williams (who was my boss at NACA) ... We heard on the radio that a 75,000 pound thrust Viking rocket engine was successfully fired at Santa Suzanna. Of course nothing would do but I got a piece of paper out of his glove compartment and we decided what we could do to man a plane with a 75,000 thrust rocket. That became the X-15. We gave that idea to Hilbert Drake who developed it in 1955. In that year the X-15 went under contract."
[...]
"[T]he checkout in the X-15 was rather abrupt in that, on our first flight, we flew it as a glider alone. That gave me three minutes and fifty-eight seconds to learn how to fly the airplane and bring it in for a landing.
"On the approach and landing, I had a control problem that really turned out to have a very simple solution. But the airplane, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be unstable and pitched to me, which meant that it was very difficult to control it. The pitching oscillations got very high and I had to figure out a way to get the airplane on the ground at the bottom of the pitching oscillation so that it would not wrap up in a ball of metal.
"As it turned out, I succeeded. However, I landed at 140 knots instead of my anticipated 174 knots."
[...]
Q. I would like for you to describe what happened with the ground test on the first XLR99engine. When that engine exploded, two questions ... Why were you in the cockpit? That relates to controlling with the first thrustable rocket engine. And secondly, what happened to you in that explosion?
"When we installed the large engine on the X-15, (because of) our flight test plan we were going to demonstrate that the engine could be started. It could be throttled from 50 to 100 percent as designed on the first flight. The way that we were flying, I was limited to the speeds that I could allow the airplane to get so it took a very precise engine-on-off and thrust program to stay within that flight plan. To make sure that all of the systems would respond to this plan we made the last test of the engine on the airplane on the ground.
"This is kind of humorous because the pilot gets into the airplane to run the engine. Everybody else gets into the block house. That is called 'developing the confidence of the aviator.' In doing that run, we had a propulsion system failure that was borne of something unique to the ground run that caused the airplane to blow up. About 1,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and 1,200 gallons of (word deleted) and 800 pounds of 98% hydrogen peroxide got together and did their chemical thing.
"It was a pretty violent activity for a moment or two. It was like being inside the sun. It was such a fire outside that it was a very brilliant orange. The fore part of the airplane, which was all that was left, was blown about 30 feet forward -- and I was in it. Of course I was pretty safe because I was in a structure that was designed to resist very high temperatures of reentry flight."
Crossfield said he was bothered that the Air Force wouldn't count the time he was airborne following the explosion toward his total logged hours in the cockpit.
Although Crossfield -- like the rest of the test pilots -- snickered at the idea that they were heroes, to kids like me in the '60s, the Crossfields, the Yeagers, they were everything we thought heroes should be.
Rest in peace.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 20, 2006
Day By Day
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Du Toit for Press Secretary
I nominate Kim Du Toit to replace Scott McClellan as Pres. Bush's spokesman; based entirely on Kim's application, he's perfect for the job.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The sun sets on Britain
Just how bad is it in Britain? Theodore Dalrymple, the eponymous British writer and physician, says it's worse than you think.
[My wife] noticed some youths setting fire to the contents of a dumpster just outside our house, a fire that could easily have spread to cars parked nearby. She called the police.
“What do you expect us to do about it?” they asked.
“I expect you to come and arrest them,” she said.
The police regarded this as a bizarre and unreasonable expectation. They refused point-blank to send anyone. Of course, if they had promised to make every effort to come quickly but had arrived too late, or even not at all, my wife would have understood and been satisfied. But she was not satisfied with the idea that youths could set dangerous fires without arousing even the minimal interest of the police. Surely, some or all of the youths would conclude that they could do anything they liked, and move on to more serious crimes.
My wife then insisted that the police should at least place the crime on their records. Again, they refused. She remonstrated with them at length, and at considerable cost to her equanimity. At last, and with the greatest reluctance, they recorded the crime and gave her a reference number for it.
This was not the end of the matter. About 15 minutes later, a more senior policeman telephoned to upbraid her and tell her she had been wasting police time with her insistence on satisfaction in so trivial a matter. The police, apparently, had more important things to do than suppress arson. Goodness knows what homophobic remarks were being made while the youths were merely setting a fire that could have spread, and in the process learning that they could do so with impunity.
It is not difficult to guess the reason for the senior policeman’s anger. My wife had forced his men to record a crime that they had no intention whatever of even trying to solve (though, with due expedition, it was eminently soluble), and this record in turn meant the introduction of an unwanted breath of reality into the bogus statistics, the manufacture of which is now every British senior policeman’s principal task—with the sole exception of enforcing the dictates of political correctness, thereby to head off the criticism levied at them for many decades by the liberal Left—not always without an element of justification. Proving their purity of heart is now more important to them than securing the safety of our streets: and thus Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
What's amazing is that the Broken Windows theory of policing has been known -- and proven correct -- for more than twenty years. Aggressively pursue small crime, and bigger, badder crime is deterred. But not in England. That's not the worst of it; violent street crime gets barely a slap on the wrist.
A 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, [was] attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them.
[...]
The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet. This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.
... [H]e made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.
One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.
Before passing sentence for the attack on Wareing, the judge was eloquent in his condemnation of the two youths. “You were looking for trouble and prepared to use any excuse to visit violence on anyone you came by. It is the callousness of this that is so chilling. . . . You do not seem to care that others have been blighted by your gratuitous violence.”
You might have thought that this was a prelude to the passing of a very long prison sentence on the two youths. If so, however, you would be entirely mistaken. Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right. In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father. One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.
Even at so young an age, nine months is not a very long time. Moreover, when I recall that for youths like these a prison sentence is likely to be a badge of honor rather than a disgrace, I cannot but conclude that the British state is either utterly indifferent to or incapable of the one task that inescapably belongs to it: preserving the peace and ensuring that its citizens may go about their lawful business in safety. It does not know how to deter, prevent, or punish.
[...]
As for Peter Wareing, even in his brain-damaged state, he had a better appreciation of things. He was evidently a man of some spirit: having been a salesman, he decided to study for the law, supported himself at law school by a variety of manual jobs, and qualified at the bar at the age of 40.
The extent of his recovery astounded his neurosurgeon, who attributed it to Wareing’s determination and “bloody-mindedness.” He is avid to get back to work, but the contrast between the nominal 18-month sentence for his attackers and his own “life sentence,” as he called it, of struggle against disability is not lost on him. “If there were real justice,” he said, “they would have gone to prison for life.” Could any compassionate person disagree?
Perhaps the final insult is that the state is paying for him to have psychotherapy to suppress his anger. “I have this rage inside me for the people who did this,” he said. “I truly hate them.” Having failed in its primary duty, the state then treats the rage naturally consequent upon this failure as pathological, in need of therapy. On reading Peter Wareing’s story, ordinary, decent citizens will themselves feel a sense of impotent rage, despair, betrayal, and abandonment similar to his. Do we all need psychotherapy?
Yes, Dr. Dalrymple, any fair-minded person is indeed filled with rage -- and sorrow -- when informed of the Mr. Wareing's ordeal, but at least in America we haven't yet reached the point where we demand more rehabilitative efforts of victims than criminals.
Yet.
Dalrymple has more examples of the speak-loudly-and-carry-a-very-small-stick school of law enforcement in the Emerald Isle; it makes for a dispiriting picture when the author decamps for France, deeming it safer -- and less disappointing -- than his homeland.
At least one doesn't expect the French to show courage in the face of crime -- or anything else.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 19, 2006
Diesel update
Via Autoblogger comes word that Honda is getting ready to being production in the UK of diesel engines for its cars.
In order to support high demand for diesel vehicles in Europe, Honda Motor Co. Ltd. has announced that it will start building oil-burning engines at its plant in Britain. Currently, its UK plant gets diesel powerplants from Japan, and will initially get the parts for the engines from Japan. Ultimately, however, the company plans to produce the parts in Blighty and assemble 20,000-30,000 engines annually.
The company will also increase output of diesels at its two Japanese facilities, which currently produce over 70,000 engines.
Business Times has the full story.
When will we get to know the joys of diesel-powered Hondas – better mileage than hybrids with half the sanctimonious thin-lipped preachifying.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's like "Rain Man" meets "Rudy"
Did you hear about the autistic kid who won the basketball game for the school that didn't want to let him play? The tale's heading for the big screen.
Pajiba thinks it's less impressive than meets the eye.
Of course he scored six times. No one, and I mean no one, would want to be known around school as the guy that elbowed the autistic kid. When the mentally disabled kid heads to the top of the key, you give him some space. I mean, come on, he’s autistic. That’s like cheating. At any rate, it’ll make a better movie than the sequel to The Accused starring the Duke lacrosse team that’s bound to be on Lifetime by summer.
He's got a point. In bad taste, of course, but funny -- and probably true.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
Retired crybaby generals, Part II
Judith Apter Klinghoffer adds to the chorus of those Americans unimpressed with the newly-found courage of retired generals.
I am writing in the hope of lowering my blood pressure. Islamists around the world are on a rampage and all the media focus is on retired generals who did not dare confront their superiors or even tell the truth to the president when asked to do so in the most direct manner.
I have called for Rumsfeld's replacement months ago but that is besides the point. For the generals to attack the Secretary of Defense on the issue of troop numbers in Iraq in 2003 is ridiculous. I want to know whether they think we need more troops in Iraq today or tomorrow.
To hear two and three star generals whine that Rumsfeld is too intimidating causes one to ask who else can so easily intimidate them? Are we talking perhaps of the insurgents, Ahmadinejad, Assad Fils, the North Korean or China? Imagine being a soldier who has served under the command of so easily intimidated a general. Their retired generals' contention that they are speaking for their active duty colleagues merely makes matters worse.
On This Week Joe Klein, whom no one can accuse of being a Bush fan, said that Bush repeatedly asked the generals in Iraq if they had everything they needed and they repeatedly assured him they did. But when Jerry Bremer asked them what they would do with an additional division, they said, we'd clear Baghdad. Excuse me? The American army in Iraq does not have a single general with enough guts to respond to the president's question with "depends on what you want us to do?"
Sorry, guys, civil control of the military is not our problem. Gutless military leadership is.
Exactly.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Can we question her patriotism?
Nina Burleigh has authored an article, "Country Boy," for Salon, the on-line arts and culture journal; the title doesn't reveal much, but the sub-title gives it all away: I cringed as my young son recited the Pledge of Allegiance. But who was I to question his innocent trust in a nation I long ago lost faith in?
Our family first arrived in Narrowsburg [NY] in 2000, as city people hunting for a cheap house. For barely $50,000 we were able to buy the "weekend house" we thought would complete our metropolitan existence. But soon after we closed on the home, we moved to Paris, spurred by the serendipitous arrival of a book contract. When our European idyll ended after two years, and with tenants still subletting our city apartment, we moved into the Narrowsburg house.
After growing accustomed to the French social system -- with its cheap medicine, generous welfare, short workweek and plentiful child care -- life back in depressed upstate New York felt especially harsh. We'd never planned to get involved in the life of the town, nor had it ever occurred to us that we might send our son to the Narrowsburg School. But suddenly we were upstate locals, with a real stake in the community.
In the fall of 2004, we enrolled our son in kindergarten at the Narrowsburg School ... "Do they even have a curriculum?" sniffed one New York City professor who kept a weekend home nearby. Clearly, Narrowsburg School was not a traditional first step on the path to Harvard ... When my husband and I investigated, we were pleasantly surprised. The school had just been renovated and was clean, airy, cheerful. The nurse and the principal knew every one of the 121 children by name. Our son would be one of just 12 little white children in a sunny kindergarten class taught by an enthusiastic woman with eighteen years' experience teaching five-year-olds.
Still, for the first few months, we felt uneasy. Eighty of Narrowsburg's 319 adults are military veterans and at least 10 recent school graduates are serving in Iraq or on other bases overseas right now. The school's defining philosophy was traditional and conservative, starting with a sit-down-in-your-seat brand of discipline, leavened with a rafter-shaking reverence for country and flag. Every day the students gathered in the gym for the "Morning Program," open to parents, which began with the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a patriotic song, and then discussion of a "word of the week." During the first few weeks, the words of the week seemed suspiciously tied to a certain political persuasion: "Military," "tour," "nation" and "alliance" were among them.
Ah, jeez, the horror of life outside Manhattan: patriotism, the American flag and military veterans. Talk about "at-risk children." But dealing with these tres unsophisticate yahoos -- while lip-curlingly distasteful to our heroine -- hadn't crossed the line into fear country. Yet.
But it wasn't until our boy came home with an invitation in his backpack to attend a "released time" Bible class that my husband and I panicked. We called the ACLU and learned this was an entirely legal way for evangelicals to proselytize to children during school hours. What was against the law was sending the flier home in a kid's backpack, implying school support. After our inquiry, the ACLU formally called the principal to complain. She apologized and promised never to allow it again.
[...]
When we later learned that the cheery kindergarten teacher belonged to one of the most conservative evangelical churches in the community, we were careful not to challenge anyone or to express any opinion about politics or religion, out of fear our son would be singled out. Instead, to counteract any God-and-country indoctrination he received in school, we began our own informal in-home instruction about Bush, Iraq and Washington over the evening news.
So, inculcating love of country in a child, providing a moral grounding is "indoctrination," but running a daily Bush-lied-people-died-no-war-for-oil drill for a kid in KINDERGARTEN isn't brainwashing? Poor kid never had a chance.
If you knew nothing else of the world, if you were just 5 or 6 or 10 years old, and this place was your only America, you wouldn't have any reason at all to question the Narrowsburg School's Morning Program routine. Hand over heart, my son belted out the Pledge with gusto every morning and memorized and sang "The Star-Spangled Banner." I never stopped resisting the urge to sit down in silent protest during the Pledge. But I also never failed to get choked up when they sang "America the Beautiful."
Listening to their little voices, I felt guilty for being a non-believer. When I was 5 years old, in 1965, did I understand what my lefty parents were saying about the Kennedy assassination, Watts and dead-soldier counts? Who was I to deprive my son, or his eleven kindergarten chums, of their faith in a nation capable of combining "good with brotherhood?" In a 5-year-old's perfect world, perhaps such places should exist.
Because, you see, in Burleigh's twisted world, there are no nations "capable of combining 'good with brotherhood.' " And those of us who believe that the United States of America -- flawed though she may be -- is the most perfect nation in history, the greatest protector of freedom and liberty the world has ever known, the destination of choice for millions of people around the globe, seeking escape from tyranny and poverty -- well, those of us who believe this are simply as gullible and unsophisticated as Burleigh's five-year-old son.
That November, at the school's annual Veterans Day program, the children performed the trucker anthem "God Bless the USA" (one of the memorable lines is "Ain't no doubt I love this la-aand, God bless the USA-ay!"), as their parents sang along. About a dozen local veterans -- ancient men who had served in World War II, and men on the cusp of old age who had served in Korea and Vietnam -- settled into folding chairs arranged beneath the flag. When the students were finished singing, the principal asked the veterans to stand and identify themselves. Watching from the audience, I wondered if anyone would speak of the disaster unfolding in Iraq (which was never a word of the week).
Much to her surprise, one vet does say that he hopes none of the children have to experience war firsthand, a sentiment I've heard expressed by every veteran who has found himself under fire. Burleigh interprets this as support for her Bizarro World view that the other veterans who failed to state the obvious want their grandkids to have to kill and die for their country.
A month later, just before Christmas, my son and I drove together into New York City with bags of children's clothes and shoes that he and his sister had outgrown. The Harlem unit of the National Guard was putting on a Christmas clothing drive for Iraqi children. On the way into the city, I tried to explain to my son what we were doing, and -- as best I could -- why. As we crossed the George Washington Bridge and the Manhattan skyline spread out below us, I began to give him a variation on the "Africans don't have any food, finish your dinner" talk. I wanted him to understand how privileged he was to live in a place where bombs weren't raining from the sky. It was a talk I'd tried to have before, but not one he'd ever paid much attention to until that day, trapped in the back seat of our car.
Missing the forest for the trees, Burleigh fails to note that it's the freakin' NATIONAL GUARD that's collecting and handing out toys for Iraqi tots. Of course, it's the "Harlem" unit -- as she is careful to point out -- so it's the black troops, who know all about oppression; not the Southern rednecks in the other units who like killin'.
Sigh.
Sorry, lady, hate to disappoint, but, not content to kill kidsand old ladies, our military is trying to focus the terrible violence in its arsenal on the Bad Guys, while winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This may be why only 18 percent of them want our troops to leave before killing more of the insurgents.
In simple language, I told my son that our president had started a war with a country called Iraq. I said that we were bombing cities and destroying buildings. And I explained that families just like ours now had no money or food because their parents didn't have offices to go to anymore or bosses to pay them. "America did this?" my son asked, incredulous. "Yes, America," I answered. He paused, a long silent pause, then burst out: "But Mommy, I love America! I want to hug America!"
Good for you, kid. So do I. Problem is, your Mom wants to kick Uncle Sam in the nuts and spit in his eye. Momma Moonbat fails to tell junior that Iraqi girls no longer have to fear that Saddam's sons will snatch them off the street for a little rape game, followed by Hide the Bullet in Your Brain. She fails to mention that Iraqi dads aren't being tortured and murdered for making off-handed jokes about Saddam Hussein.
And that the U.S. military is fighting the most precise war in the history of world, doing everything we can to avoid unecessary civilian deaths and destruction, at the cost of the lives of American fighting men and women.
Now it has been almost a year since my son scampered down the steps of Narrowsburg Central Rural School for the last time. We've since returned to the city, driven back to urban life more by adult boredom than our children's lack of educational opportunities. Our son is enrolled in a well-rated K-5 public school on Manhattan's Upper West Side; not surprisingly, the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer part of his morning routine. Come to think of it, and I could be wrong, I've never seen a flag on the premises.
Nice to know she's finally found a school that's devoid of American flags and other disturbing signs of incipient facism racism patriotism. So, the cycle is unbroken; her parents turned her into an America-hating Moonbat, and she and her husband are well on the way to passing on their anti-values to the next generation.
And that's how un-Americans are made.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Writing where whites fear to tread
Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker pens the kind of column on race that would get a white writer run out of town on a multi-cultural rail.
Tucker tried to get black laborers to help build her mother's new home, only to find it difficult to hire -- and keep -- men willing to complete a day's work. Noting that her experiences are anecdotal, she is left with the nagging feeling that her life as an upper-middle-class black professional has given her a distorted view of the job prospects -- and work ethic -- of blue-collar blacks.
An interesting read from a classic liberal journalist facing some uncomfortable truths.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:53 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Retired crybaby generals: Bring me the head of Alfredo Rumsfeld
Perhaps you've heard the rising drumbeat of anti-war moonbats calling for Pres. Bush to fire Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; they've lately taken to pointing out the dozen or so retired generals who've joined the chorus.
As the fellow at BrainShavings observes:
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, relishes the controversy over a few retired generals who have called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign. Joining the media dogpile, Vanden Heuvel asks:
Batiste. Eaton. Newbold. Riggs. Zinni... Is there a retired general left in the States who hasn't called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fall on his sword? While The Nation suggested he resign in April, 2003, an unanticipated and unprecedented cast of characters has joined the growing chorus.
But the retired flag officers -- one- two- and three-star generals and admirals -- who are not demanding Rummy's ouster outnumber them by just a bit.
This is one of those instances where a picture is worth a thousand words, so take a look.
I'm fascinated that the retired whiners chose to speak out after they retired. What's that? They couldn't criticize their boss while in uniform?
R-i-g-h-t. . . .
But they could have resigned their commissions in protest; that would have shaken things up, with guaranteed play above the fold on page 1 of every major newspaper: Revolt of the Generals!
But that would require putting the needs of the nation above their own lust for power and glory, taking off the uniform in an act of career-ending bravery. Instead, they opted to savor every damn day of their leadership positions, enjoying the perquisites that come with the stars on their shoulders, waiting until it was convenient to retire, and then giving voice to their piteous pissing and moaning.
Color me less than impressed.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 17, 2006
Iranian nutjobs and nukes: Oh, my!
In case you haven't been paying attention, the lunatic leader of Iran -- in between promises to wipe Israel from the map -- has also been saying that Iran has achieved a breakthrough in its efforts to produce nuclear bombs.
Mark Steyn sums up the West's reaction to these threats -- er, diplomatic pronouncements -- better than anyone else.
You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."
That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."
It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:
"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."
Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.
I was listening to the Distinguished Senator --Gag! -- from California bloviating this past week. Boxer was claiming that Iran was five-to-ten years away from being able to make an A-bomb, based upon "experts" who had been whispering in her ear.
Five to ten years? The United States was able to make two bombs in three years more than SIXTY years ago, when it had never been done before and no one was sure it would work. Who -- apart from Babs Boxer -- thinks that the Iranians are so stupid that they'll mosey on down the nuclear path, giving the world plenty of time to gather 'round the cracker barrel and jabberjaw for a DECADE before finally squeezing one out?
Oy! My head hurts.
Here's a tip: when a nut with an army tells you he intends to invade and pillage and -- oh, by the way -- destroy an entire people, it usually makes sense to take his threats at face value.
I seem to recall an Austrian fellow who made no bones about his desire to rule the world and wipe the Jooos off the map; published a book about it, too, called "My Struggle," laying it all out. Wouldn't you know it, the crazy bastid actually meant what he said, ended up killing eleventy-bajillion people.
Can we afford to wait and see if the Iranian fuhrer is bluffing?
As with all of Steyn's writing, read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More judges gone wild, 9th Circuit Edition
Yes, it's another example of judicial lunacy, turning the plain-English language of the Constitution into a DaVinci Code-worthy hunt for hidden meanings.
This time, the Ninth Circuit, having already stymied California's death-penalty as unconstitutionally cruel, decides to find that rousting bums and hobos is an Eighth Amendment violation.
Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks as "an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter" violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and punishment, a federal appeals court ruled today.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, decided in favor of six homeless persons, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The suit challenged the city's practice of arresting persons for violating a municipal ordinance, which states that "no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way."
The appeals court ruled that the manner in which the city has enforced the ordinance has criminalized "the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless," and thereby violated the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[...]
In her ruling, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said that Los Angeles' Skid Row has the highest concentration of homeless individuals in the United States. She said that about 11,000 to 12,000 homeless people live in Skid Row, a 50-block area, bounded by Third, Seventh, Main and Alameda Streets.
"Because there is substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times, including on the night" the plaintiffs were arrested or cited, "Los Angeles has encroached upon" the plaintiffs' 8th Amendment protections "by criminalizing the unavoidable act of sitting, lying or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless," Wardlaw wrote.
Wardlaw believes that bums are now members of a protected class, and that penalizing the conduct that arises from their "condition" is impermissible.
Of course, reading the Constitution doesn't really help anyone understand how Wardlaw gets there from here.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Funny, isn't it? Almost 220 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, we've finally gotten around to making damn near anything "cruel and unusual."
Why is it when we analyze a contract, we base the interpretation on how the parties understood the document, using what is contained within its four corners, without any hidden meanings or penumbras? But the Constitution, that's different.
Sigh.
I expect the U.S. Supreme Court will add this to the list of Ninth Circuit reversals.
Wardlaw deserves a swift kick in the ass for this half-baked decision.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 16, 2006
Greenpeace founder backs nuclear power
Patrick Moore, who helped found Greenpeace, has had a conversion; he now believes that nuclear power may be the best, cleanest and safest option for our energy needs. The Washington Post ran an opinion piece by Moore today, detailing his reasons for changing his mind and why he's now backing atoms for energy.
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.
What? Nuclear power is safe? Hasn't this guy heard about Three Mile Island? Actually, he has.
And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
What's even more interesting is that the pro-nuclear argument is gaining steam -- so to speak -- amongst even more of the Greenpeace crowd.
And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.
There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored.
He makes more interesting points in his essay; read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 14, 2006
Canine mind control (for Avi)
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:05 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ben Afleck: Genius
Did you hear about the astute political analysis provided by brainiac Ben Affleck on Bill Maher's show?
Reminiscent of Al Franken on the Late Show last October, on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, actor Ben Affleck charged that President Bush “probably also leaked” Valerie Plame's name and so “if he did, you can be hung for that! That's treason!” In full rant, an apoplectic Affleck asserted: “You could be killed. That's not a joking around Tom DeLay 'I'll do a year, I bribed the state officials with corporate money.' That's like they shoot you in the battlefield for doing that.”
A couple of points about Affleck and his actor friends: a bigger group of know-nothings I've never met. During my time as a theatre-minor in college (for the writing, dammit!), I spent quite a bit of time with the acting crowd. Nice people, but terribly insecure, most only comfortable when pretending to be someone else, with what to say having been taken off the list of things for which they were responsible -- at least when on stage.
But, as a result of the "Method," everything was about feelings, an approach to acting that bled over into the way to live life.
Take these critical-thinking skills -- BWAHAAAA! -- and add into the mix huge piles of cash and toadying lackeys kissing their pampered asses and proclaiming the brilliance of their deep thoughts, as the moviestars glance out of the corners of their always-a-little-panicked eyes to see if the audience is clapping, and you get the typical Maher celebrity guest.
I gave up on Maher when he moved from the East Coast the the West. He used to be able to get heavy-hitting politicos and other establishment types, putting together panels where there were typically three interesting intellects of the sort not usually seen on talk shows, with one Hollywood assclown thrown into the mix for a dash of humor.
The 3-1 ration of serious to moonbat proved informative and entertaining. Reversing the ratio when he took his act west has proven deadly: hooting audiences egging on three liberals, often actors and comics, as they gang up on the one conservative who thought he'd get a chance to make at least one substantive point during a conversation with another guest.
Must not have watched the show to begin with.
In any event, Affleck's political and constitutional acumen is truly impressive; I owe him a "Thanks!" for providing further proof that nothing has changed on Maher's show.
Check out the video of Affleck's rant; it's a hoot.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Global warming? Canuck eggheads beg to differ
As I was saying, although Al Gore and his moonbots want us to believe that global warming is a done deal; to disagree is a sign of either early-stage Alzheimer's or membership in the Republican Party.
Well, 60 Canadian scientists sent an open letter to their prime minister, advising him that the matter was far from settled.
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans.
[...]
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
[...]
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
[...]
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
[...]
It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
Of course, they're only five dozen of Canada's best and brightest experts in the field -- what the hell do they know? Have they ever marched in a patchouli-soaked protest with gigantic paper-mache puppets and burned the American flag?
Amateurs.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:28 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Get rid of illegal workers and get tax credits!
One of David Frum's readers has come up with a brilliantly simple solution to the problem of illegal aliens who are working in the U.S.: make it worthwhile for employers to only hire people who are here legally.
If you really want to stop hiring of illegals cold without having to boost the ranks of enforcement staff by huge amounts, simply make this simple change to the tax code:
Expenditures for wages and benefits of employees shall be deductible for tax purposes only for those employees that the employer can prove are legal residents of the US.
To make this work, the government must set up a database for matching an employee's name with his social security number that could be easily checked by employers. Confirmation numbers, similar to those issued by hotels and airlines, would be issued and kept in employee files along with the current I-9 forms that require picture ID and proof of legal residency. Exceptions have to be made for excellent forgeries, etc., etc. But you get the idea.
We won't criminalize hiring of illegal immigrants. We'll just make it equivalent to persons who use their business expense accounts for procurement of personal benefits (alcoholic beverages, household items, lap dances, etc.) You can buy it. It's not illegal. Just ensure that you use your after-tax dollars to indulge in this activity.
We don't need to arrest them or round them up; if employers won't hire them ('cause they want those tax credits), the illegal aliens will deport themselves.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 13, 2006
Day By Day
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Minnesota's favorite illegal alien getting a break
An illegal alien, used by the pro-illegal immigration forces as a great example of the work ethic and energy they bring to our country, has been arrested for a home-invasion robbery.
A young illegal immigrant who became a cause celebre in Minnesota after secretly living in a high school for weeks has been arrested here on home invasion charges, months after he was supposed to have left the country.
Francisco Javier Serrano, 22, had waved goodbye to supporters and journalists who saw him off at the Minneapolis airport in January, but he apparently never boarded his plane for his home country of Mexico.
Two weeks ago, police arrested him after finding him with a knife in an apartment in Boston's North End, struggling with the tenant, who was unharmed, The Boston Globe reported Thursday. He remained in Suffolk County Jail facing home invasion charges and eventual deportation.
Serrano, who overstayed a 2002 tourist visa to live with his father and attend high school in suburban Minneapolis, was embraced by Minnesotans after he was discovered sleeping in the school's auditorium in January 2005 and told how he had spent weeks hiding there, foraging for cafeteria food and showering in the locker room.
Students handed out "Free Francisco" T-shirts, and a developer gave him a place to live and hired an immigration lawyer for him.
Last fall, a federal judge ruled that Serrano must leave the country but gave him until Jan. 5 to do so. That day Serrano went to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, but his plane ticket was never used.
[...]
A pretrial hearing was set for April 28. The charges against Serrano probably will be reduced to breaking and entering because he has no history of violence and did not hurt the tenant, said David Procopio, spokesman for the Suffolk district attorney.
What bothers more than any other aspect of the case is the statement by the Boston D.A.
Home invasion robberies are incredibly dangerous; someone all-too-often ends up dead, and if we take a look at the beginning of the story, it says that when police arrived, they found the illegal alien, armed with a knife, struggling with the unarmed resident.
"No history of violence"? "Did not hurt the tenant"?
Are they kidding?
First, that a court-ordered deportation did not have the illegal alien in handcuffs and escorted out of the country is pathetic. Apparently, the honor system is good enough for someone who has already shown contempt for our system of laws.
Second, making a misdemeanor out of a serious felony can happen for good reason in Boston -- usually when the founding member of the Chappaquiddick Swim Club is involved -- but the facts as related by the AP don't support giving this mope a break.
Knife, struggle, home invasion; sounds like a recipe for a dead victim, and but for the arrival of the cops, Minnesota's favorite foreigner might be facing a murder rap.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Look sharp, Marine, but not if it kills ya
According to an article at Military.com, Marines in the sandbox have been ordered to stop wearing commercially manufactured, non-military issue sportswear, for the best reason possible: it can kill them.
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq - Under direction of Marine Corps commanders in Iraq, wearing synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon has been prohibited while conducting operations off of forward operating bases and camps.
The ban on popular clothing from companies like Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials.
When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.
Whether on foot patrol or conducting a supply convoy while riding in an armored truck, everyone is at risk to such injuries while outside the wire.
“Burns can kill you and they’re horribly disfiguring. If you’re throwing (a melted synthetic material) on top of a burn, basically you have a bad burn with a bunch of plastic melting into your skin and that’s not how you want to go home to your family,” said Welling.
According to Tension Technology International, a company that specializes in synthetic fibers, most man made fabrics, such as nylon, acrylic or polyester will melt when ignited and produce a hot, sticky, melted substance causing extremely severe burns.
For these reasons, Marines have been limited to wearing clothing made with these materials only while on the relatively safe forward operating bases and camps where encounters with fires and explosions are relatively low.
[...]
This point was driven home recently at a military medical facility located at Camp Ramadi, a U.S. military base on the outskirts of the city of Ramadi, arguably one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq.
“We had a Marine with significant burn injuries covering around 70 percent of his body,” said Cmdr. Joseph F. Rappold, the officer in charge of the medical unit at the base.
The Marine was injured when the armored vehicle he was riding in struck an improvised explosive device, or IED, causing his polyester shirt to melt to his skin. Even though he was wearing his protective vest Navy doctors still had to cut the melted undergarment from his torso.
His injuries would not have been as severe had he not been wearing a polyester shirt, said Rappold.
For years servicemembers with jobs that put then at a high risk of flame exposure, such as pilots and explosive ordnance disposal personnel, were kept from wearing polyester materials because of the extra burn threat. Now, with so many encounters with IED explosions, the Marines are extending this ban to everyone going “outside the wire.”The camouflage utility uniforms are designed to turn to ash and blow away after the material is burned, but the burn hazard is still present, said Welling, who recommends wearing 100% cotton clothing while on missions.
This tracks with what the U.S. military learned from the Brits' experiences during the Falkland Islands War, back in '82. Argentina successfully hit Royal Navy warships with French-made Exocet missiles; the subsequent fires proved unecessarily deadly to the English sailors, as a result of their polyester uniforms.
In the years since World War 2, synthetic wonder fabrics had become poplular with Western militaries; cotton and wool wrinkled easily, and the troops always looked sharp in their polyester duds. But, as in Iraq, the well-creased and always-pressed uniforms had a distressing way of melting onto and then fusing into the sailors' skin.
As a result, the U.S. Navy -- the branch with which I have the most familiarity -- decreed that wool and cotton would be the only materials authorized for shipboard wear. The Navy said that cotton could be pulled off -- even when burning; it wouldn't stick to skin, making the burns much less serious.
As an aside, it's always a bad idea to wear synthetics when flying commercially, for the same reason. Cotton, leather, and for Pete's sake, closed-toe shoes.
Anyhow, it's nice to see that the military is taking a common-sense step to ensure that the Marines are learning from the past to prevent future casualties.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 12, 2006
It's Passover
And so begins the annual retelling of our deliverance from slavery in Egypt, accompanied by the eating of the matzo.
Which is as good an excuse as any for JibJabs' take on the unleavened delicacy.
And then there's this animated retelling of the story of Pharoah's plaintive complaint: Who let the Jews out?
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The best deposition ever
I know, there's no such thing as a "good" legal proceeding, but take the time to watch this one.
Awesome.
Via Of Arms and the Law.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
NSA's job gets a lot harder
While the objectively pro-terrorist anti-Bush forces continue to fulminate against eavesdropping on people who want to kill Americans, encryption technology keeps getting better and better. The end result? Privacy advocates -- and jihadis -- can probably stop worrying about The Man, if they're talking via web-based VOIP.
Eavesdropping on phone calls just got a lot harder. Phil Zimmermann, the guy who invented PGP encryption for Internet mail, has developed a similar product, Zfone, for VOIP (telephone calls over the Internet).
Zfone, like PGP, is free and easy to use. PGP drove intelligence agencies nuts, because it gave criminals and terrorists access to industrial grade cryptography. PGP doesn't stop the police or intel people from reading encrypted email, but it does slow them down.
Zfone, however, uses stronger encryption. This means more delays, perhaps fatal delays, in finding out what the bad guys are saying. There's no immediate solution for this problem, unless Phil Zimmermann has provided a back door in Zfone for the intel folks. That is unlikely, but at least possible.
Question: Do you think it's a good idea for everyone to have nearly-bulletproof encryption available?
As much as I'm a hawk in the fight against the jihadis, I'm also a believer in the free market -- and the right of Americans to be free of unwanted eavesdroppers. But I'm troubled by the idea that those who wish us dead may have perfect voice-comm security.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
How does Mexico handle foreign nationals?
In the aftermath of yesterday's pro-illegal immigration ralllies, it's instructive to ask, "What would Mexico do with illegal aliens demonstrating for their 'rights'?"
Heather Mac Donald answers: Deport them on the spot.
The Mexican government constantly hectors the American people about how we should treat its illegal migrants. President Vicente Fox, Foreign Secretary Ernesto Derbez, and Mexican consuls in the United States insist that Americans should be grateful for the hundreds of thousands of surplus Mexicans who break across our border each year. Without them, these leaders explain, the American economy would grind to a halt (never mind that Mexico’s management of its own affairs would seem to undercut the officials’ economic expertise). Therefore, as a token of appreciation for keeping us afloat, say the Mexican apologists, we must grant amnesty to the law-breakers and reward them for illegal entry with a host of rights.
Fine. If Mexico wants to dictate our immigration policy to us, let’s follow their example to the letter. That example is particularly relevant on this further day of protests demanding amnesty for illegals. Among the demonstrators in at least 60 cities nationwide will undoubtedly be thousands of border lawbreakers. What would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. In 2002, a dozen American college students, in Mexico legally, participated peacefully in an environmental protest against a planned airport outside of Mexico City. They swiftly found themselves deported as law-breakers for interfering in Mexico’s internal affairs.
If Mexico was willing to strip these students of their duly-obtained travel visas, imagine what it would have done had the students broken into the country surreptitiously—not just summary deportation but undoubtedly howls of complaint to the U.S. government for winking at this double violation of Mexican sovereignty. Open borders propagandists in the U.S. constantly present deportation as a patent act of cruelty that no right-thinking person would tolerate. Yet Mexico has no qualms about deporting not just illegals but legal immigrants as well whom it deems fractious.
[...]
It is particularly delicious to imagine what would happen if American students in Mexico ran the American flag up a flag pole over an upside down Mexican flag, as students in a Southern California high school did last month. An international crisis! Each participant would be promptly ejected and possibly the American ambassador as well. When President Ernesto Zedillo tried to revise Mexican textbooks in the 1990s to be more favorable toward U.S. foreign policy, Mexico’s pundits denounced him as a traitor. Yet Mexican consuls in the U.S. work mightily to disseminate Mexican textbooks in U.S. schools and they have raised not a peep of remonstrance against Mexican protesters carrying signs such as THIS IS STOLEN LAND and WE DIDN’T CROSS THE BORDER, THE BORDER CROSSED US during the mass demonstrations last month.
[...]
Then there’s the question of whom we should favor in our immigration policy. Accept only the economic cream of other countries. Mexico’s immigration law grants preferences to scientists and other professionals likely to contribute to “national progress.” Peasants with third-grade educations aren’t high on their wish list; in fact they do everything they can to keep them out. Local observers have often alleged Mexico’s brutal treatment of impoverished Central Americans crossing its borders. Yet according to Mexican officials, millions of uneducated, unskilled campesinos are just what the American economy needs.
You have to admire the Mexican elites. They have a clear-sighted understanding of their country’s national interest—which lies above all in getting as many Mexican citizens as possible into the U.S. for their billions of dollars in remittances—and they’re unapologetic about pursuing it. Mass demonstrations that include illegal residents demanding that Mexico override its laws to accommodate them wouldn’t cow those elites for an instant. Too bad American officials can’t summon the same commitment to the wishes of the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose the rewarding of law breaking. The U.S. government isn’t about to deport the thousands of illegals who will be exploiting the American right to protest today, but it should at least not be swayed by their mass show of force.
Sad to say, but our week-willed Senators could use a dose of south-of-the-border courage from the Mexican politicos.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Global warming? That's so 1998.
The tree huggers like to rant on and on about the dangers of global warming, baying that it's "a settled matter!" Well, no it's not, Bub.
First of all, one volcanic eruption can pump more crap into the air in a week than a hundred years of collective crap from the ecologically-backwards cesspools of the Third World.
But if you want to argue that the West in general and the nasty U.S. in particular have been pissing on Mother Earth, giving her hot flashes, how do you explain that global temperatures between 1998-2005 not only did not rise, they actually registered a very slight decline?
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
[...]
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
Of course, that was written by a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, who specializes in paleoclimate research. When it comes to knowing of what he speaks, he's no Alec Baldwin. After all, he's never played a scientist; he has to settle for being one.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Scholastic Broke Back
Seems that school really is about more than reading, writing and 'rithmatic. The California Senate is poised to require students' textbooks to inform kids about which famous people throughout history have been homosexuals, because what they did is less important than who they did when the history-making was done.
The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks "accurately" portraying "the sexual diversity of our society." More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on "the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America."
Though it's a California bill, it could have far-reaching implications, not only by setting a precedent but also because California is the nation's largest textbook buyer and as such often sets the standards for publishers who sell nationwide.
[...]
The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, rejects the criticism. "We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake," she said.
As for the need to teach gay history, Kuehl points to research she says concludes that gay students might do better in school and be less at risk for suicide, truancy or drug and alcohol abuse if they saw their own lives more accurately reflected in school textbooks and if the issue were more openly discussed in classrooms.
"Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all," said Kuehl, one of the Legislature's six openly gay lawmakers. A Senate analysis of her bill noted that one of the few times homosexuality is routinely discussed in classrooms is in relationship to pathology. "In textbooks, it's as if there's no gay people in California at all, so forget about it," she said.
The bill expands on the existing state education code that already requires inclusion in the curriculum of the historical role and contributions of members of ethnic and cultural groups.
But central to the coming legislative floor debates will no doubt be questions about how gay issues might be woven into American history. The answer is still up for debate -- as is which historical figures might be outed in the process, and how textbook authors would decide their relevance.
"We're not suddenly going to say, 'So and so was gay' when they never said that," Kuehl cautioned. "But if you're teaching Langston Hughes poetry, you get a twofer because he was admittedly gay and he was black. So you could say he was a gay, black poet and talk about that."
[...]
[Critic Karen] England says she doesn't really care, because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
"I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay," England said. "If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom."
Who cares? Gawd a'mighty, I don't recall my history teachers telling us about 'tang-crazed persons of great historical import, and if they did lecture about where Tallyrand dipped his tallywhacker, it left a much less lasting impression on my young mind then did Peter Graves asking his young charge, "Billy, do you like Roman gladiator movies?"
Perhaps it's time to drop the "L" from Public Education; it would be a more honest statement of what K-12 is really all about: creating little Democrats.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2006
Add crybaby to his resume
According to the Smoking Gun, the DEA agent who shot himself in front of a classroom of kids -- after saying he was the only one qualified to handle his Glock .40 cal, has filed a lawsuit over the release of the video.
APRIL 11--A Drug Enforcement Administration agent who stars in a popular online video that shows him shooting himself in the foot during a weapons demonstration for Florida children is suing over the tape's release, claiming that his career has been crippled and he's become a laughingstock due to the embarrassing clip's distribution.
Lee Paige, 45, blames the video's release on DEA officials in an April 7 federal lawsuit filed against the U.S. government. A copy of the pro se complaint by Paige, a DEA agent since 1990, can be found here. According to the lawsuit, Paige was making a "drug education presentation" in April 2004 to a Florida youth group when his firearm ... accidentally discharged. The shooting occurred moments after Paige told the children that he was the only person in the room professional enough to carry the weapon.
The accident was filmed by an audience member, and the tape, Paige claims, was turned over to the DEA. The drug agency subsequently "improperly, illegally, willfully and/or intentionally" allowed the tape to be disseminated. As a result, Paige--pictured above in a still from the video--has been the "target of jokes, derision, ridicule, and disparaging comments" directed at him in restaurants, grocery stores, and airports.
Paige, who writes that he was "once regarded as one of the best undercover agents, if not the best, in the DEA," points to the clip's recent airing on popular television shows and via the Internet as the reason he can no longer work undercover. He also notes that he is no longer "permitted or able to give educational motivational speeches and presentations."
The video is a cringe-worthy hoot; check it out, along with the filed complaint.
I've watched the internet-distributed recording of the event with a cop or two -- and discussed it with many more -- and the response is always the same: What a maroon.
So, technically, he's right. He is a laughingstock.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The illegal-immigration poll results are in
The folks at Power Line have finished their on-line immigration poll and have
tallied the results.
We've closed the poll on immigration policy at Power Line News. The final results are really no different from what we saw the first day. We asked the question:
What should be our highest priority in formulating policies on immigration?
With nearly 13,000 votes cast, here are the results:
These results don't demand much commentary. They show overwhelming support among mainstream conservatives for the policy of "Enforcement First." The highest priority, by an overwhelming margin, is getting control of our borders.
Conservatives are relatively evenly split on whether the more important purpose is to keep out terrorists or to protect our society and culture against those with no wish to assimilate, but either way, the policy preference is the same: restore the significance of our borders.
There is also considerable support for a crackdown on employers, which many see as the most effective way to reduce the lure of illegal immigration.
It is striking, to say the least, how little support there is for other immigration priorities.
A mere 2% think our highest priority should be providing a path to citizenship for the illegals who are already here. What I take to be a fair paraphrase of the Wall Street Journal's position scores even lower, at 1%. And there is no support--none--for the policy of giving priority to importing the relatives of those already here.
The readers of this site are an excellent cross-section of mainstream conservatism. Immigration is not an issue that we have pushed heavily over the years, so no one can argue that our readership is self-selected to be unrepresentative on the subject. And yet the results couldn't be clearer.
We will make sure that Republicans in Congress are fully apprised of these data. (In principle, Democrats should care too; but I don't understand anything about what they are doing on the issue, and, in any event, we have a good deal more influence on the Republicans.)
With a tough election cycle coming up in just seven months, it makes no sense for Republican candidates to ignore the strong and almost unanimous views of their own party's base.
I can't explain the Stupid Party's resistance to "getting" it, at least in the Senate. The best hope we have on blocking more idiotic "reform" measures is the House of Representatives, where the Stupid Party's members still understand that we vote, and the illegals can't.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Revenge of the hybrids
I've pointed out before that when it comes to fuel efficiency, diesels have hybrids beat by a long shot -- at least when you compare what kind of a price premium you're paying for the vehicle to get better mileage.
The diesels available to overseas customers are v-e-r-y good at squeezing the maximum mpg out of every drop of fuel, often besting their high-tech cousins. And they're fast, too, unlike the dogs we remember from the '80s (thanks a lot, GM!).
Toyota is unwilling to stay second best to Otto Benz' 19th-Century creation, and has announced plans to make the Prius the best in class.
According to AutoExpress UK, Toyota is set to go for the green-veined jugular with its next Prius. The automaker's next hybrid will reportedly net a scarcely-believable 94 mpg (113mpg in imperial gallons). The figure comes about as the company has reportedly set a fuel economy bogey of 40km/liter, as it looks to distance itself from the fuel-sipping diesels that are so popular abroad.
Word is that the gains will largely come from replacing the current Prius' nickel-hydride batteries with lithium ion cells. AE further reports that Toyota hopes to have the charged-up hybrid on the road by as early as 2008. While pulling up the MPG, the manufacturer also hopes to improve the car's acceleration, and is expected to drop its 0-60 mph times by more than one second.
Of course, the Prius will still have additional costs. But 100 mpg, if true, does sound appealing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 10, 2006
But -- my honor -- she's my wife!
I was handling the morning's cases in the master trial calendar court a few years ago, when a Spanish-speaking in-custody inmate stood up in the box to be sentenced by the judge.
He had entered a guilty plea to a violation of California Penal Code Section 273.5, misdemeanor domestic violence, had slapped his wife around, but without serious injuries -- that's why it wasn't a felony.
The case had been referred to probation for a sentencing report and recommendation, the usual practice in DV cases, and the judge was pronouncing sentence, based in part on what the deputy probation officer who had authored the report was requesting.
The court's Spanish-language interpreter stood outside the custody box, to the inmate's left, whispering in his ear, as his public defender stood to the defendant's right.
"Sir, you are sentenced to 45 days in the Ventura County Jail with credits of --" the judge paused, looking at the public defender.
"Seventeen days, your honor."
"With 17 days' credits," the judge continued. "The court offers to place you on 36 months formal probation, with weapons terms, 52 sessions of domestic violence counseling. You are furthermore ordered to use no force or violence against Maria X; do not annoy molest or harass Maria X. Do you accept probation on these terms?"
The interpreter murmured in the defendant's ear, then listened as he spoke in rapid-fire Spanish, a confused look on his face.
The defendant tried to speak, as his attorney tried to shush him.
Growing more agitated, he pushed the interpreter aside and began addressing the judge directly in passable English.
"But my Honor, she's my wife!"
The judge paused, studying the defendant over his reading glasses, then sighed and said, "That fact notwithstanding, sir, you are ordered to use no force or violence upon her. Do you understand?"
With a furrowed brow, the defendant said, "Yes," agreed to the strange conditions of probation, then disappeared into the sally port to begin serving the balance of his sentence.
Which serves as a long-winded introduction to how they do domestic violence
south of the border.
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A Mexican couple were recovering separately after a marital spat got out of control and saw them firing guns, throwing knives and hurling homemade bombs, Mexican daily Milenio said on Monday.
In scenes taken straight out of hit romantic comedy "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," starring Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Juan Espinosa and Irma Contreras fought until their house blew up in a homemade gasoline bomb explosion, Milenio said.
Police called to the home in the indigenous Mayan Indian town of Oxkutzcab in the southeastern state of Yucatan arrested Espinosa. Contreras was taken to hospital with third-degree burns.
A local police official confirmed the report but declined to provide further information.
In the violence-filled movie about the fictional Smiths, Pitt and Jolie play married assassins ordered to kill each other.
Espinosa told reporters he was glad his wife had suffered burns, while Contreras said she was only sorry she had not "hacked off his manhood" during the fight.
They probably wouldn't do well on probation up Ventura way.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
From the WTF Files
I used to believe that going to prison meant that society was punishing criminals. That involved denying them rights and freedoms that the rest of us enjoy.
Over the years, the judiciary, in a display of arrogance and idiocy perhaps unrivaled in human history, has set out to make prison a place where killers, rapists and child molesters lack one thing, and one thing only: the ability to go home.
Did you know that "prison overcrowding," as defined by Federal appellate courts has forced the release of inmates, because judges have decreed that prisoners are entitled to more room than members of the U.S. military? It's true; the square-foot-per-man ratio aboard a submarine would be considered a constitutional violation in a U.S. prison.
In some states, judges have ruled that inmates can have conjugal visits.
It's also considered a violation of prisoners' rights to interfere with their religious practices, including their dietary requirements.
From the black-robed morons of the Massachusetts judiciary comes this.
BOSTON - The state’s highest court has ruled that the state prison system has failed to justify denying a Muslim inmate special feast-day meats, such as oxen and camel.
In a unanimous ruling Friday, the Supreme Judicial Court said officials at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center had failed to show why providing the proper meats to Rashad Rasheed on certain holidays was a burden.
The decision reversed a Superior Court judge who dismissed Rasheed’s claim without a trial. The case now goes back to Superior Court for review.
The SJC ruling noted that the state Constitution goes further than the U.S. Constitution to protect the religious freedom of prisoners, The Boston Globe reported.
Justice Robert Cordy, writing for the court, said the Massachusetts Constitution is “more protective of the religious freedoms of prisoners than the United States Constitution, and ... the proper standard of review to be applied to the infringement of such freedoms is consequently more demanding.”
Rasheed, a practicing member of the Nation of Islam, has been serving a life sentence since 1975. A Department of Correction spokeswoman, Diane Wiffin, would not disclose why Rasheed was in prison and his lawyer, Neil McGaraghan, said he didn’t know why.
Rasheed sued in 2000 after the state signed a contract with a new food vendor that began providing lamb and fish to Muslim prisoners on two Islamic holidays, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Rasheed said the meals were inappropriate.
On the first holiday, which marks the end of Ramadan, Rasheed’s faith requires that he eat the meat of cows, oxen, or camels. On the second holiday, which celebrates the pilgrimage to Mecca, he is required to eat specially slaughtered cattle.
McGaraghan applauded the ruling, saying it was the first time the SJC has said that inmates are entitled to the same religious protections as free people in Massachusetts.
“It recognizes the long history of the importance of religion in the Commonwealth,” he said. “Dating back hundreds of years, religion has been recognized to be one of those core fundamental rights worth enshrining in the Declaration of Rights and specifically extended to inmates.”
[...]
Rasheed’s claim charged prison officials with violating his right to practice his Muslim faith in a variety of ways, including limiting the meals, forbidding him from using a bulky prayer rug and restricting him to an ounce of scented prayer every three months.
I have a hard time believing that the Massachusetts Constitution requires this kind of deference to the spiritual needs of its prisoners.
I don't care that he's a Muslim; it's the idea that prisoners have the right to force their religious requirements upon their jailers, that free exercise of religion includes catering -- literally -- to the requirements of their faith, that puts a frown on my puss.
Anything beyond prayer books ought to be verboten to inmates; they can read the Word and nurture their souls. But special food? Kosher, halal, whatever. We ought to be following the lead of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who feeds his inmates bologna and cheese sandwiches, and houses them in tents in the Arizona desert.
Camel? Oxen? Sure, just so long as it's Oscar Meyer camel-bologna on stale white bread.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:36 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 09, 2006
Iraq invasion was necessary -- and justified
We've been forced to listen to the jabbering moonbats of the Left, nattering on for years about Pres. Bush and his "trumped up war," "Bush lied and people died," and various other reality-defying tropes.
As more of the documents seized from the Iraqi dictator's files are translated, they prove time and again that he was working with terrorists in their efforts to attack America. But, as with the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, evidence -- even from the Soviet Union's own files -- proving their guilt was besides the point: The bad guys are always Americans; anyone spying for America's enemies is, by definition, one of the good guys.
Well, the Bush haters are going to have a difficult time with this.
Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism: Case Closed
A few days ago, I posted a translation of a document culled from the captured Iraqi documents that the US found during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This particular memo, dated March 17, 2001, comes from a brigadier general in the Iraqi Air Force and requests a list of volunteers from all units under his command for suicide attackers. The memo explicitly explains the targets for these terrorist attacks, as the original translation from Joseph Shahda shows:
The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.
When I posted this document, readers of this blog questioned the accuracy of the translation. People know that Joseph translated this for Free Republic, a strongly pro-war website, and that it was distributed by Laurie Mylroie, another pro-war commentator. Skeptics felt that this pedigree lent itself to a possibly warped interpretation of the memo. While the accuracy of the translation remained in question, the actual text -- which showed an active Iraqi terror program aimed at Americans -- would not get the attention it deserved.
In order to solve this problem, I decided to hire two Arabic translators on my own.
I found a translation service, Language 123, that employs a number of translators who work as free agents. The first translator, Nabil Bouitieh, works in the UK as a full-time translator for several government services. He has language certificates from Karl Marx University in Dresden, the German Cultural Center in Damascus, a degree in translation from Polytechnic of Central London, and a Masters of Diplomatic Studies from the Diplomatic Academy of London. Separately, I also hired Hamania H, who works from Damascus. She earned several degrees in language at Saint Joseph University in Beirut, including masters in translation, foreign languages, and bachelors in both areas and in law as well.
Neither of them knew that I had asked the other to translate the document. I split out page 6 from the original PDF and sent it to both along with payment. They both returned their translations today, and their results make it clear that Joseph Shahda had it right all along. First, we have Nabil Bouitieh:
Top secret memoranda sent to Al-Kadisseiya Military branch No.2205 dated 04/03/2001 and to the Headquarters of Zee karr military branch No. 246 dated: 08/03/2001 that we were informed by another memo from Ali Unit military branch No. 154 dated: 10/03/2001. We urge you to inform the above mentioned unit of the names of people wishing to volunteer for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests according to the following below for your information and to let us know.
Now here's the translation of the same passage from Hamania H:
A confidential letter of Qadisya Military Branch, that holds the number 2205 dated on 4/3/2001, notified upon a confidential letter issued by Thi Kar military command, that holds the number 246 dated on 8/3/2001 and notified to us upon a confidential letter issued by Ali squad military command, that holds the number 154 dated on 20/03/2001. Kindly provide the aforementioned squad with the names of persons desiring to volunteer in the suicidal act in order to liberate Palestine and to strike the American interests in accordance with the following details. You are informed and we therefore expect you to notify us.
You will note that all three translations of this document -- performed by three different people working independently of each other -- all translate this section almost identically. All three explicitly show that the Iraqi military had ordered a call for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on American interests, six months before 9/11 and two years almost to the day prior to our invasion.
This confirms that Saddam Hussein and his regime had every intention of attacking the US, either here or abroad or both, using members of their own military for terrorist attacks. That puts an end to all of the arguments about whether we should have attacked Iraq, we now know that Saddam and his military planned to attack us. This one document demonstrates that had we not acted to topple Saddam Hussein, he would have acted to kill Americans around the world.
I don't really expect this to change many minds; those people who believed that in a post-9/11 world we cannot afford to wait until a threat becomes imminent already supported the decision to topple Saddam Hussein.
And those amongst us who believed that Pres. Bush was engaged in a campaign to avenge the plot against his father's life; and to enrich himself and his personal friends at the cost of dead Americans and dead Arabs, well, they departed from any semblance of logic and reason a long time ago.
The evidence that the Iraqi regime was intent on attacking us before the Twin Towers fell will be ignored -- or sneeringly dismissed as "fake evidence trumped up by a fake president in support of a fake war."
Proving yet again that for all the failures of the Stupid Party, the Left and its Democratic puppet are not to be trusted with the defense of the American people.
Captain Ed has done a tremendous service to the cause of freedom and protecting us; it's a damn shame that the Bush administration can't accomplish what a blogger has done on its behalf.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 07, 2006
Jobs Americans won't do
Gerard Van der Leun has a better take on the favorite new catchphrase of the founding member of the Chappaquiddick Swim Club.
My current replacement statement, not nearly so catchy as "Illegals are doing the jobs Americans won't do" reads: "Americans will do a tough and dirty job for $15 an hour until somebody else shows up from somewhere and offers to do the same job for $10 an hour, at which point the American will be fired, laid off, or told 'Hey, I'd like to hire you, but the governement has said this is a job that Americans won't do.' "
Van der Leun writes about his brother, a retired teacher who has started a gardening business, one that is viable because there are no illegal aliens in his neck of the woods -- yet.
it won't take long before you see . . . illegals ready to do the exact same job for $20 or less. At that point, my brother's landscaping business is over for him. Not because it is a job an American won't do for $30, but because it is a job that an American can't do for $20.
Ah, you say, well it is a free market, let him cut his price to $20 to compete. Ah, I say, you don't really get how Mexican shape-ups in Southern California ( coming soon to American towns everywhere) work. You cut your price to $20, their going price soon drops to $15. You follow and theirs goes to $10 and they'll throw in their brother for free. It's capitalism raw and bloody but with a built-in bias for the illegal since his overhead is close to absolute zero and the California welfare state gives him medical insurance for free. Down at the bottom of our labor landscape the playing field is anything but level. And it ain't tilted towards American citizens.
As with most everything on his page, it's worth taking the time to read the whole thing.
Moving from the middle-class world of home lawn care to the more cloistered environs of the country club crowd, we find that the PGA -- and duffers the world over -- owes a debt of gratitude to illegal aliens, as they undertake yet another onerous task beneath the abilities of stiff-necked gringos.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says golf fairways would suffer if illegal immigrants were returned to their native country.
"You and I are beneficiaries of these jobs," Bloomberg told his WABC-AM radio co-host, John Gambling. "You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?"
[...]
"Nobody wants to deport them, in the end, because people need them to take these jobs and do the things that nobody else is doing," Bloomberg said.
I have just one response to Bloomberg's slur against the work ethic of America's greenskeepers.
Who can forget the immortal exchage between Greenskeeper Sandy McFiddish and Carl Spackler:
Sandy: Carl I want you to kill all the gophers on the golf course
Carl: Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key.
Sandy: Not golfers, you great fool. Gophers. The *little* *brown*, *furry* *rodents*.
Carl: We can do that. We don't even need a reason.
I think it's important to take a moment to remember the uncommon wisdom of this iconic and iconoclastic American laborer, brutally shunted aside by the south-of-the-border low-bid competition.
License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote.
[...]
This is a hybrid. This is a cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia. The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
Och, where are ye, Carl, when ye are so needed, laddie?
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More guns, less crime
Great response to those gun prohibitionists who believe that more guns lead to more crime.
UPDATE
Reader Chris forwards this link.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:09 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
So many illegal aliens; so many reasons to control our borders
The folks at Power Line are running an on-line poll (look on the right side of the page to cast your vote) to see what is the most important reason for getting a handle on illegal immigration. They hope some of the weak-willed Republicans in Congress might find a reason to reject the terrible amnesty plan in the results.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:47 AM | Comments (0)
April 06, 2006
Illegal alien reconquistas take the U.S. Senate
Hugh Hewitt spoke with uber-columnist Mark Steyn this afternoon about the Senate GOP surrenduring to Ted Kennedy and his minions on illegal immigration.
Hugh Hewitt: I'm joined now by Mark Steyn, columnist to the world. You can read his work at www.steynonline.com. Mark, good Thursday to you.
Mark Steyn: And happy Thursday to you, Hugh.
Hugh Hewitt: There's a lot to cover, but we've got to start with the immigration "compromise." Now I've only seen what's on the New York Times, which says you know, if you've been here five years, you get on a path that takes you so long, and two to five years, and one year. But I have been told by senior Republican sources on the Hill that the border fence is indeed part of this. But John Cornyn just took to the floor to denounce the lack of border security and the lack of a temporary worker. Thus far, with what little we know, what do you make of it, Mark Steyn?
Mark Steyn: Well, it doesn't sound to me like a compromise. It sounds like the people who want to legalize every illegal immigrant to the United States have got their way. And we talked about this last week, and I always feel slightly uncomfortable talking about this, because I am a foreigner. It's hardly my place to tell Americans who should be coming to America. But just to put this into perspective, as someone who's been through the immigration bureaucracy here, and as someone who crosses the U.S. land border, I would guess, more frequently than 90% of Americans do, what I don't understand is how they will be able to distinguish these categories. By their definition, illegal immigrants are not people who are in the computer records. So who's to say whether somebody's been here five years, or two to five years. Essentially, an illegal immigrant can give his own date for that. And what means do they have of sifting through the evidence? I would say that essentially, these people will be able to declare what it is they wish to declare, and an already overloaded immigration bureaucracy will effectively just take them at their word.
Hugh Hewitt: In reality, isn't it likely that those who can easily prove their duration, or can come up with the counterfeit documents will stay. The rest will stay underground, but that we'll get the fence. Is that a good enough of a deal for you?
Mark Steyn: Well, I do think legal immigration, including the fence on the Southern border, has to be fixed, and has to be streamlined. And this is a bureaucratic agency that has a sort of pathological inability to prioritize. And I hope that there will be ... if there is no enforcement mechanism here, and if there is no fence, then it is a waste of time. You know, someone said to me the other day, I'd actually crossed the border yesterday, and I was joking with one of the guys up there. And he was talking about the compromise bill, and I said you know, I think my ideal compromise would be that all 300 million of us legal residents and citizens get to become undocumented, too, because I think the undocumented guys have a great deal. They're living in the shadows, so-called. They're not paying any taxes. If they have to produce I.D. for anything, they produce fake I.D. that gets accepted everywhere, they get their free health care and free schools. Personally, as a legal immigrant, I feel overdocumented. And I do think there is a danger that this particular issue can backfire very badly, and that it's essentially rewarding bad behavior without showing that that bad behavior will stop in the future.
The GOP deserves the nickname, "The Stupid Party." This "compromise" is a "F--- you" to the more than 60 percent of the American public who want Congress to stop illegal immigration. The House of Representatives passed a tough bill; the Senate has settled for flipping the voters the bird and using the other hand for a Broke Back Mountain-esque gesture of friendship.
One can only presume that the House is more responsive because of the two-year election cycle; they have to pay attention to us. The useless senators, on the other hand, believe that their six-year terms shield them from the stoopid voters.
The Stupid Party is in for a surprise come November. Conservatives are prepared to stay home -- or vote for Democrats who are willing to crack down on illegal immigration. My father sends GOP solicitations for donations back with notes saying, "Not one dime until you protect the borders."
He's not alone.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:18 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Senate GOP caves on illegal immigration bill
Treasury Department to issue new currency commemorating the event.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:25 PM | Comments (0)
We're losing in Iraq
At least that's the impression you'd get from reading and watching the MSM.
But a look at the numbers -- stripping out the bias of the anti-America media -- shows a very different story.
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? ... No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right? 215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233).
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right? 70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30.
Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians. 527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there. ... My only point is that ... I was unequivocally shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I’d expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers.
More analysis on what it all means over at the Belmont Club.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thursday morning hound
|
|
Bogie keeps an eye on the suspicious activities of his feline roommates, while asserting dominance over the only cat that will tolerate such canine tomfoolery, the usually malevolent Mean Kitty.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:02 AM | Comments (0)
Well, he is an English teacher . . .
From Houston comes another example of the fine edu-mi-cation America's teens receive in the public school system, courtesy of your tax dollars and the selfless professionals known as "teachers."
Rudy Rios was stripped of his duties as junior varsity baseball coach at Chavez High School last week after using a district copying machine to make a flier encouraging Latino students to attend a rally protesting restrictions on illegal immigration.
Rios, who still retains his duties as an English-as-a-second-language teacher, was copying and distributing a flier that read: "We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)," according to district officials.
"Mr. Rios used taxpayer-funded school equipment to copy and distribute to children an offensive statement," said Houston Independent School District spokesman Terry Abbott. "The principal exercised his authority to remove Mr. Rios as junior varsity baseball coach, and it certainly was an appropriate decision."
Chavez Principal Dan Martinez made the decision, but referred questions on the issue to Abbott. Rios could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
According to district records, Rios has been with HISD since August 2002. He earned about $42,000 a year.
Last week, Reagan High School Principal Robert Pambello was disciplined for putting a Mexican flag below the U.S. and Texas flags that fly at his school.
Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, said many educators are struggling to keep their opinions on the controversial changes to the immigration laws out of the classroom.
"It's a very tough one for a lot of the teachers because it's a highly emotional issue," she said. "A teacher's role is to be informative, but not persuasive. They need to talk to students. They need to make sure they know the issues, but like any other political issue, their role is not to express a specific opinion."
Great. Rios encourages students to ditch class, but continues to "teach" a class he's manifestly unqualified for. Can you think of a better example of the stupidity of school administrators than allowing him to . . . act as an English teacher, but suspending his physical education privileges?
Seems to me that he does as much damage -- if not more -- to students by being allowed anywhere near a classroom.
"We gots 2 stay together and protest against the new law that wants 2 be passed against all immigrants. We gots 2 show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)."
Beautiful.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 05, 2006
Darwin Awards, Ventura County edition
I've got a favorite Darwin Awards-worthy story, one that never made the national media (but it should have). Before I tell it, a local event made the AP and the networks.
VENTURA, Calif. — A teacher who kept a 40 mm shell on his desk as a paperweight blew off part of his hand when he apparently used the object to try to squash a bug, authorities say.
The 5-inch-long shell exploded Monday while Robert Colla was teaching 20 to 25 students at an adult education class.
Part of Colla's right hand was severed and he suffered severe burns and minor shrapnel wounds to his forearms and torso, fire Capt. Tom Weinell said. No one else was injured. He was reported in stable condition at a hospital.
The teacher slammed the shell down in an attempt to kill something that was buzzing or crawling across the desk, said Fire Marshal Glen Albright.
Colla found the 40 mm round while hunting years ago and "obviously he didn't think the round was live," said Dennis Huston, who teaches computer design alongside Colla.
Using explosives as a flyswatter. Not smart.
When you find a round -- whether it's a .38 or a 40mm -- if the casing still has (1) the primer; and (2) the projectile, the only logical, safe and non-idiotarian conclusion to be drawn is that it's still a LIVE round.
This guy is a teacher.
Perfect.
Now, my tale of award-winning stupidity.
Back in the early '90s, I was working at a newspaper in New Jersey as the day news editor. Come Fourth of July, the reports started coming in over the police scanners of the latest proof that booze and explosives were not a good mix.
The all-time best I'm-A-Yankee-Doodle-Jackass tale involved an M-80 firecracker, a case of cheap beer, and a fool with all his body parts -- at least at the time he started drinking.
This guy thought it would be fun to light M-80s and toss them into Lake Mohawk, using his lightning-quick reflexes to throw the explosives before they made a pretty flash and a big BANG.
About three-quarters of a case of beer later (and three sheets to the wind), Chumley's reflexes were dulled, along with the limited neurological activity in his tiny little pea brain, and he decided he try and cut it closer with the bomb tossing, 'cause it was just too easy to light the fuse and throw right away.
As you may have guessed, he ended up holding on just a wee bit too long, and one M-80 went off while it was still tightly clenched in his fist.
Blowing off all his fingers and his thumb, too, in a gore-soaked version of a "flower-petal" aerial firework display.
You don't think we're done yet, do you?
The four fingers and the thumb shot off in five different directions, traveling at high speeds, riding the shock wave created by nearly a quarter-stick of dynamite. The thumb and three of the four fingers disappeared into the lake, landing with a SPLISH! (thumb) SPLASH! (middle finger) KERPLUNK! (ring finger) and BLIP! (pinkie), but the forefinger flew a short distance in the opposite direction -- and poked the fellow's eye out.
There was no warning label on the can!
I hold Budweiser responsible.
Given that my mother always cautioned against various activities as being likely to "poke someone's eye out!" I've always wondered about three things. How did she miss "Don't get snockered and play with explosives!" and "Don't kill bugs with artillery rounds!"
And does this mean that her warnings to stop making faces because it could get stuck that way were based on a real risk?
Nahh.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 04, 2006
Can you hear that? It's the sound of Bush Haters' heads exploding
You can see what's driving the Bush Haters crazy -- uh, crazier -- here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
HD is in the house!
High Definition movies are headed into the home via HD-DVD; only problem is there are two competing formats.
Can anyone say Betamax vs. VHS?
All is not doom and gloom, however. This explains that the free market and the wonders of competition are already at work to help make the latest, greatest home entertainment technology more affordable.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Courage of their convictions
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:24 AM | Comments (0)
Guns, human dignity, and a nation of cowards
I had a conversation yesterday with a good friend, a man who at one time carried a gun and a badge protecting his fellow citizens on the mean streets. He expressed, not for the first time, a belief that only trained law enforcement personnel ought to carry guns.
I asked him why, given that with more and more states recognizing the right of civilians to carry a concealed weapon, the bloodbath predicted by gun prohibitionists had not materialized. No enraged motorists shooting it out over a disputed parking space at the mall; no homicidal golfers in golf-cart drivebys.
He asked, "If CCW deters crime, why don't we hear about all the criminals being shot by civilians?" I answered that if I was walking to my car at night and was confronted by a would-be mugger, drew my weapon and the crook ran off, wouldn't he agree that a crime had been prevented without a shot fired?
He thought for a moment, then nodded.
I asked why he thought "hot prowls" -- breaking into a home with the owners present -- were so rare in the U.S., while home-invasion robberies were the favored method of British thugs. "Probably because the risk of being shot is pretty high in the U.S.," he said. I agreed, adding that kick-in-the-door burglaries in the U.K. were common because Britain's near-total prohibition on firearms had rendered law-abiding citizens nearly defenseless, a real-world demonstration of the foolishness of unilateral disarmament.
Criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; the easiest score with the smallest risk. Americans are an exceptionally well-armed people. Better to avoid the possibility of leaving a targeted home with more holes than a body ought to have.
My friend sat thinking for a moment, then shook his head and sighed. "I know what it's like to draw down on someone and have to make that split-second decision, shoot/don't shoot, bad guy or wrong guy; I made the right choices, thanks to the training I received and my experience on the street. Civilians are at a serious disadvantage."
With regards to his belief that police officers have sufficient training to reduce the risk of "bad shootings" to a level significantly below that of the general populace, I pointed out that -- according to experts like Don Kates and David Kopel -- the aggregate pool of civilians with CCWs had a smaller percentage of inappropriate uses of lethal force than did law enforcement.
But there's a more fundamental reason why I believe civilians ought to own and be willing to use a gun: because to refuse to do so is an act of cowardice, a repudiation of the worth of one's own life. A bold charge, I know, one I first read in an essay written by a mid-western attorney, more than a decade ago.
Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" posits that we cannot claim to value human life and dignity and yet be unwilling to use force in defense of our lives and our dignity.
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, car-jacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
The preceding paragraph strikes me as so obvious that it ought not have needed to be written, yet the very fact that it seems radical is proof that our understanding of "dignity" and "self-esteem" -- and what their value is and ought to be -- have been perverted. Life is priceless, yet not worth defending, in the parlance of the cultural relativists and pacifists.
Paradoxically, the same people who reject the idea of armed resistance to violent criminals, telling us that the police are best equipped to handle our defense, are also the same people who decry the brutality of our allegedly fascist government and its jack-booted enforcers.
A surprise to no one who knows me, I reject the passive premise of exclusive reliance upon the strength and courage of others.
Snyder then questions the odd proposition that violence committed by proxy, by underpaid bodyguards or Jannisaries, is a more appropriate form of self-defense then actually defending yourself.
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.
There's more to Snyder's essay -- read the whole thing -- but I think the central premise is unassailable; that human life and dignity is worth defending, and that the gun is merely a tool, a means to ensure that the law of the jungle, the Hobbesian view that life must be "nasty, brutish and short" applies to the wolves, more than the sheep.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 03, 2006
It's kind of like . . .
Vodka Pundit describes -- for those of us who haven't yet experienced it -- what a fundamental part of parenting is like.
Imagine you're on a date with a supermodel. I grew up in the '80s and I dig brunettes, so I'd choose Paulina Porizkova. You choose whoever you like.
Now imagine you're having dinner somewhere really nice. Fine food, fine wine, perfect service - the works. The conversation sparkles like the crystal, and you yourself are shining like the silverware. You're pretty sure that if you don't score tonight, she's at least going to give you a second date to try again.
And then she rips a fart so nasty it makes waves in the tablecloth.
That's kind of what it's like being the parent to a really cute kid.
Interestingly, for those of us who don't (yet) have kids, encountering an obnoxious child in a restaurant is less appetizing than seeing a supermodel blow the tablecloth into the air with a subtle lift of a shapely cheek.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Do no harm -- go home
Joe Sherlock posts a great quote from Lynn Nofziger, the iconoclastic, Mickey Mouse tie-wearing Republican strategist who passed away last week.
Back when he was governor, Ronald Reagan always went home reasonably early. He didn't believe in hanging around the office for the sake of hanging around the office.
One time, about 5:00, he was on his way out when he stuck his head in our office and said, "Fellas, go home to your wives and daughters." We said, "If we do, who's going to do the work?" And he said, "It doesn't need to get done. Go home."
And I've always thought that he was right, that much of the work of government doesn't need to get done.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A nation of riflemen -- er, handgunners
This graphic shows the incredible progress over the last twenty years in advancing the Second Amendment right of Americans to defend themselves while away from their homes, i.e., the spread of CCW, or the right to carry concealed weapons.
Back in 1987, almost no states provided for shall-issue permits, meaning that only the rich, the famous, and friends of politicians and police chiefs could carry a concealed weapon.
In places like New York City, that's still the case, with pistoleros like Donald Trump, Howard Stern and Robert DeNiro packing heat, while no-name businessmen walking home from their bodegas with the day's receipts have to either risk being robbed of their money (and their lives), or face jail for carrying an unauthorized concealed weapon.
But across the nation, from almost coast to coast (the ocean-adjacent states are still notoriously Second Amendment unfriendly in the West and the Mid-Atlantic region), there's been a sea change over the last twenty years.
Nebraska and Kansas are the latest to join the ranks of those states recognizing that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The best roundup on what it all means is over at -- where else -- The Volokh Conspiracy, where David Kopel says:
40 states generally allow such carrying:
No permit needed. 2 states do not require a permit for any adult who is legally allowed to possess a firearm. These are Alaska and Vermont. These states will issue a permit, however, upon application. (See discussion of “reciprocity,” below, for why a person would want a permit.)
"Do Issue." 3 states have statutes which reserve some discretion to the issuing law enforcement agency. These are Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa. In these states, local law enforcement will generally issue a permit to the same kinds of persons who would qualify for a permit in a Shall Issue state.
"Shall Issue." 35 states, including all states not listed elsewhere. Nebraska (this week) and Kansas (last week) are the most recent states to join this list.
10 states generally do not allow such carrying.
"No Issue." Illinois and Wisconsin have no process for issuing concealed carry permits. Illinois allows certain persons (e.g., law enforcement, security guards) to carry without a permit. By a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, no permit is needed for concealed carry in one's home or place of business. (See my Albany Law Review article for discussion of the Wisconsin and Rhode Island cases.)
"Capricious Issue." 8 coastal states give local law enforcement almost unlimited discretion to issue permits, and permits are rarely issued in most jurisdictions, except to celebrities or other influentials. These states are Hawaii, California, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
Kopel gives an interesting analysis on how states previously opposed to the idea of shall-issue come 'round to giving it the "okay."
The pattern in almost all the states with Shall Issue laws has gone something like this: Initial discussions follow a predictable pattern, with proponents promising reductions in the crime rate, and opponents warning of Wild West shootouts. John Lott is discussed, pro and con, in infinite detail.
Over time, the personal testimony of female Shall Issue advocates sways some legislators. Other legislators, looking at the experience of other states, conclude that Shall Issue is, at the least, harmless; the lurid and sweeping predictions of opponents have not come true anywhere. The more states that enact Shall Issue laws, the more that legislators in a hold-out states become open to the idea that Shall Issue is not dangerous. Ohio, Minnesota, and Michigan are examples of states which are not considered strongly pro-gun, and whose enactment of Shall Issue legislation was possible only because so many other states had acted previously. As the number of Shall Issue states rises, so does the possibility of enacting Shall Issue in the dwindling number of hold-outs.
As momentum builds in a given state, the bill eventually attracts the support of all or almost all Republican legislators, and of almost all Democrats with a C rating or higher from the National Rifle Association. Many of the swing votes (the C-rated legislators, who say that they are pro-Second Amendment, but who often vote for gun control laws) are attracted by the objective standards of the Shall Issue system--which, unlike the Capricious Issue system--forbids gun carrying in certain places (e.g., hospitals), sets objective standards about who may not receive a permit (persons with various disqualifying conditions), and (in most states) requires a specific amount of firearms safety training.
What it all means: 40 states recognize a right of personal self defense; 8 states leave it up to local police chiefs to decide which citizens may protect themselves; and 2 refuse to allow their serfs to do anything other than cry, "Help!"
Hat tip to The Smallest Minority.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 02, 2006
Hybrids: Bad for the environment?
Which car is kinder to Mother Earth?
The horrific Hummer H2, an ecological disaster on wheels?
Or the metrosexual, hip and oh-so-trendy Toyota Prius (unicorns and faeries not included)?
After all, the Hummer gets terrible mileage, which is bad for children -- My gawd, think of the children! -- and butterflies and dolphins, too.
The Prius gets good mileage, which has the added benefit of making Prius owners better people than those of us driving gas-guzzling SUVs. That's because the Prius -- and its hybrid siblings -- are more energy efficient than the Hummer.
Or is it?
The results of a new study conducted by CNW Marketing Research Inc. is sure to generate some arched eyebrows. The firm's report stems from their two-year effort to collect and analyze data on the "energy neessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." CNW then assigned their findings a new comparative metric - "dollars per lifetime mile" - or, said another way, total energy cost per mile driven.
The findings? America's most expensive vehicle in calendar 2005 was the Maybach (presumably a 62), tallying up at a staggering $11.58/mile. The thriftiest? Scion's boxy xB, just $.48 cents/mile.
But here's where it gets interesting: CNW's findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model. It judged showed that the Honda Accord Hybrid rang up an Energy Costs Per Mile of $3.29, while a gas-powered Accord was significantly cheaper at $2.18/mile. The study concludes that the average of all 2005 U.S. market vehicles was $2.28/mile.
The reasoning goes that hybrids use up more energy to manufacture, as well as consume more resources in terms of the assembly (and eventual disposal) of things like batteries and motors. By CNW's reckoning, the intrinsically lower complexity of, say, a Hummer H3 ($1.949/mile) actually results in lower total energy usage than any hybrid currently on the market, and even a standard Honda Civic ($2.42).
While the study's findings don't take issue with what vehicles are more financially economical to own (read: those with better mileage), it does pose some interesting questions about total energy usage in hybrids.
Obviously, in order to best judge the merit of CNW's findings, a clearer explanation of the study's criteria and processes is in order.
[Sources: CNW via Yahoo Business, QCNetwork.com]
I have no idea if the methodology is sound, but there are hidden costs associated with hybrid technology that, when factored into the manufacture of the vehicles, appear to make them less of a bargain -- as well as not quite so good for the environment.
The battery packs are expensive to replace and difficult to dispose of, containing toxic heavy metals and liquids. It seems reasonable that the total energy costs associated with manufacturing and disposing of these vehicles might be significantly higher than is the case with more mature technologies, i.e., standard internal combustion powertrains.
I'll be interested in seeing how this turns out after the collective power of the gearhead blogosphere finishes vetting the research.
Via Autoblog.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Ungrateful bastards update II
I noted Friday that the two pacifists rescued by coalition forces from the clutches of the barbarians who murdered fellow moonbat pacifist Tom Fox were, how shall we say, rather parsimonious with the "thank yous" for the brave soldiers responsible for their freedom.
The folks at Little Green Footballs point out that one Canadian, Loney, has now said that he is eternally grateful to his rescuers.
What about Sooden?
Canada's National Post addresses the despicable "peace activist" in today's lead editorial.
Canadian Harmeet Sooden -- is now even insisting the entire rescue mission was "contrived," presumably to give the coalition a public relations boost amid continued bad news about the insurgency in that country.
Speaking in Auckland, New Zealand, yesterday, Mr. Sooden insisted it was "highly likely, highly probable" that a ransom had been paid for his release and that of two fellow CPT prisoners, Canadian Jim Loney and Briton Norman Kember. Both the Canadian and New Zealand governments seemed genuinely shocked by his contention and emphatically denied his claim.
When pressed by reporters, Mr. Sooden admitted he had no proof his captors had been paid off. Rather his "instincts" were telling him ransom must have been made. When British and other special forces raided the house in which he was being kept, Mr. Sooden explained, his captors were "nowhere to be seen," which was "highly unusual." He assumed his captors had been bribed by the coalition in hopes they would flee, and the British and American forces could "contrive" a rescue, presumably to generate a glowing propaganda victory.
What rubbish. The break in the hostage taking came the evening before the rescue mission, when a member of the kidnappers' organization had been captured by coalition forces and was convinced both to give up the location where the CPT members were held and to call his comrades and warn them to flee the scene before the commandos arrived.
Mr. Sooden's rescue, and that of his colleagues, was the result of a dangerous mission that was months in the planning. It was no publicity stunt. Several times intelligence operatives put their lives at risk to obtain scraps of information about where the victims were being held, not to mention the risk the soldiers took entering the building where the trio of "peacemakers" were. They could not be sure until they were inside that the kidnappers had fled.
Still, such is Mr. Sooden's conviction that the coalition's "illegal occupation" is all evil, he has no trouble pretending headline-hungry coalition forces staged the whole thing.
Only Jim Loney, the other freed Canadian, has admitted he is "forever and truly grateful" to his rescuers. The CPT at first, of course, could not bring itself to thank the military saviours and later added a grudging thank you only under public pressure. And the freed Briton, Mr. Kember, could barely muster a half-hearted and heavily qualified thanks. He said that while he still blamed coalition forces for the conditions that led to his capture, he could "pay tribute to their courage."
Here's a suggestion: The next time peaceniks are taken hostage in a war zone while attempting to thwart the efforts of Western coalition forces, when those same forces come to save them and before the helicopters lift off to safety with the hostages aboard, the soldiers should ask the former detainees how they feel about being saved. And if there is a moment's hesitation for philosophic reflection or any hint of ingratitude, the soldiers should be free to return their passengers to the desert with all good wishes for fair treatment by the first jihadis who pass by.
Bravo.
I'd like all of these self-hating Westerners to become living participants in the 21st Century's version of the Ransom of Red Chief.
Of course, I suspect Muslim kidnappers are less inclined to see the merits of the deal offered by the kidnap victim's father in O. Henry's tale.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 01, 2006
Army days, Part II
Some more memories, an addendum to my earlier post.
MSG Depp was marching us to chow and, as our company arrived at the mess hall, she gave the command, "Mark-time, march."
"Bravo Platoon, column half-left, from the left --"
Sgt. S-1 called out over his right shoulder, "Column half-left --," as Sgt. S-2, Sgt. L and Capt. C yelled, "Stand fast!"
MSG finished the command, "MARCH!" and Sgt. S-1 executed a crisp half-left turn and stepped off with his left foot, heading for the stairs leading to the chow hall's entrance.
Those of us in the fourth squad waited our turn, and I noticed what appeared to be two Marine drill instructors leaving the mess hall. They were wearing MARPATS, the new Marine camouflage-pattern combat uniform, with the familiar broad-brimmed Smokie the Bear hats. One Marine, a huge black guy, strode quickly down the stairs on the opposite side of the landing, and I spied a column of college-aged men and women in civilian clothes, mostly jeans and t-shirts.
Suddenly I heard a bass voice yelling, clearly furious; it quickly became clear that it was one of the Marines.
"WHO DROPPED HIS EQUIPMENT? WHO!"
A frightened voice said, "I did, Drill Instructor."
"ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRICKIN' MIND? ARE YOU FREAKIN' INSANE?"
"No, Drill Instructor!"
This was getting interesting. My attention was momentarily diverted by Capt. C calling out over his right shoulder, "Column half-left, march!"
I reached the pivot point, turned 45 degrees to the left and marched to the base of the stairs, executing a 90 degree turn to the right, halted two steps up, came to attention, then went to parade rest. I was then able to resume eavesdropping on the saga of the misbegotten would-be Marine OCS candidate.
The drill instructor, who seemed to have gotten angrier -- and bigger -- since I last saw him, stepped into view, his back to me. With his right arm extended, he hurled something with his left arm, stiff-arming it like you'd hurl a grenade, and I thought I saw a web belt with a canteen attached flying through the air. It landed in the street about 30 yards away with a CLANG!, then skidded along the asphalt towards the barracks.
"GO GET IT! GET IT! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? GET YOUR FREAKIN' GEAR! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?"
One of the jeans-clad men broke ranks and began a panicked 50-yard dash, the massive Marine dogging him the whole way.
The line had moved forward and I passed through the threshold and into the building, losing sight of the travails of the Sad Sack would-be Marine. I thought to myself, "It really is a new world. Who would've thought a Marine sergeant would say 'freakin' and 'frickin'? Gunny Hartman would be appalled."
Later, Sgt. S-1 was standing outside our barracks. He said that he had recognized the gargantuan drill instructor: "He was my D.I. at Parris Island."
"How long ago was that, sergeant," I asked.
"I went to boot camp in 1998, so it must be about 8 years," he answered.
"You never forget your D.I.," I said.
Sgt. S-1 said, "The amazing thing is he remembered me! He looked at me and said, 'You look familiar. Do I know you?' Thousands of boots over the years and he remembered me."
That's the thing about the military; the people you meet, the things you experience tend to be so vivid, so memorable, that the smallest details stay with you for the rest of your life.
Sounds, smells, sights; years later, veterans have perfect recall. I could spot my boot camp drill instructor, pick him out of a crowd after 25 years; can tell you where my rack was in the sub's berthing space; how it felt to climb onto the bridge after we'd spent days submerged, breathing diesel fumes, mixed with the funk of a hundred men living in a sewer pipe; the green flashes of light as the ocean washed over the bow at night, tiny phosphorescent sea creatures marking our passage with a silent fireworks display.
That's why, for all the pain-in-the-ass moments, so many of us have fond memories of the military. Days of boredom, punctuated by moments of terror make for experiences that last a lifetime, replayed in our mind's eye in glorious Technicolor.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack