America Thanks You

Via YouTube, via Move America Forward, an ad thanking the armed services for their achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On a related note, from the moonbat detector system, referenced in an earlier post, I came to learn of this cartoon which offers a decent counterpoint to the video referenced above. Only fair to include both sides, you know.

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XIII

Via David Drake, James Lileks defines Kos. I have nothing to add to this.

Lileks Defines KoS

Sunday evening, listening to the weekend rerun or best of the Hugh Hewitt radio program of last week’s broadcasts, Hugh was talking with James Lileks.

Hewitt asked Lileks what he thought of Markos Zuniga and KoS.

Lileks replied: “KoS is [nothing but] undisciplined and omnidirectional rage.”

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Lileks hits a Grand Slam!

Buy Her A Drink, Land In Jail

Via The Barking Moonbat Early Warning System, we see the great state of Wisconsin is considering a bill to legally strip the capacity to consent from otherwise-willing bed partners who have imbibed too much alcohol.

Prior to the change, which took effect in June, a victim who had been drinking typically had to be unconscious to be deemed incapable of consenting to sex. The law applies to alcohol-related sexual assaults committed by anyone anywhere in the state. But it may have particular resonance on hard-drinking college campuses such as UW-Madison, which was named the country�s No. 1 party school by the Princeton Review last year.

Scary when one thinks about the partners one has had throughout one’s time, who could not only hold their liquor just fine, but became a lot more “fun” after a night out on the town. Hmmm…naw, this is a sensible rule. Sure it is. What could possibly go wrong?

Slate’s True Colors

Slate Magazine shows us what it’s all about, and William F. Buckley calls them out on it. Slate’s dubious achievement is not so much to publish an article about President Bush being dumb, but to include the article in a package of vanguards that are supposed to represent the best of what the online magazine has to offer. So I guess it makes sense to, as the web site admonishes you to do, “Make Slate Your Home Page” if the whole point of the Internet is to give you daily reassurance that your President is a raging idiot — and everything else you can surf is just so much miscellaneous stuff.

No, I’m not surprised. I know there are people like that.

Side-point: Why is it when a web site or an application or a java script program has some idea about what should be my home page, the idea seems to always be one with very little to recommend it?

Back to the subject at hand. Who better to take up the clarion call to inspect this putrid boil of Bush-bashing, now that it has festered into a bright angry tenth-anniversary-thingy, than William F. Buckley. By the way, your Buckley “Word Worth Knowing” for this column is derogation:

v. der�o�gat�ed, der�o�gat�ing, der�o�gates
v. intr.

1. To take away; detract: an error that will derogate from your reputation.
2. To deviate from a standard or expectation; go astray.

I shall not quote from Buckley’s column, for his task is light: To demonstrate how, and why, that which is silly, is silly. The way he goes about it is more art than science, and he does it well. Have fun.

On The WMD

Great column in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial by Sen. Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra. Now, you get their side of what’s been happening.

Saddam’s WMD
Why is our intelligence community holding back?
BY PETER HOEKSTRA AND RICK SANTORUM
Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. “Since 2003,” the summary states, “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” which remains “hazardous and potentially lethal.” So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world. [emphasis mine]

What’s that now? Saddam had no WMD? Saddam was not a threat to us?

Facts, it turns out, are stubborn things, just like John Adams said.

Like any chronicling with some good lean meat, this one packages some new questions in with the answers we’ve been wanting. We have been lied to, for years, and the lies have been allowed to run, roam, blossom and bloom, helping many of the enemies of America. Those would be Al Qaeda; Saddam’s old regime which has nothing to do with Al Qaeda (oopsie, though, maybe we should re-think that too); other regimes chomping at the bit to develop their own WMD programs, and curious to see what we would do about it; and Democrats.

Our enemies have been helped by bad intelligence. Not intelligence from out in the field being disseminated to the classified community, but intelligence from within the classified community, being leaked to the declassified community-at-large. The “facts,” as we had been getting them, are just plain false. Santorum and Hoekstra are to be congratulated for cluing us in on what’s going on — but at the same time, we’re owed a better explanation than this…

The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information, but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of “cherry picking” and “politicizing intelligence.” He may therefore not be inclined to act.

In practice, then, the intelligence community decides what the American public and its elected officials can know and when they will learn it. Sometimes those decisions are made by top officials, while on other occasions they are made by unnamed bureaucrats with friends in the media. People who leak the existence of sensitive intelligence programs like the terrorist surveillance program or financial tracking programs to either damage the administration or help al Qaeda, or perhaps both, are using the release or withholding of documents to advance their political desires, even as they accuse others of manipulating intelligence.

We believe that the decisions of when and what Americans can know about issues of national security should not be made by unelected, unnamed and unaccountable people.

Like Adams said, facts are stubborn things. They determine everything, in the sense that an opinion formed on a “fact” that isn’t true, ends up being an invalid opinion. Such an opinion has a shot at leading to a strategy for success, in the same way a hunk of toast has a shot at landing on your rug butter-side up. Americans need good facts, not bullshit-facts. That holds true whether said Americans are cleared to work in the classified community, or not.

Let me put it more succinctly, using the half-dozen words of boilerplate always guaranteed to get attention: Our government has lied to us. A Republican government, Republican in theory, has been telling lies to get Republicans thrown out and to get more Democrats elected.

I would like an investigation into that. Why is an American government, all three branches of which are supposed to be somehow unfairly controlled by Republicans Americans, working overtime to get itself toppled and sold out to Democrats the Enemy? Oh that seems so harsh, but what is there to contradict it? Democrats have had two solid years to tell us what they’d do to protect us, and they’ve give us butkus except some kind of nonsense about “global test” and “respected around the world.” They don’t want to protect us, they want us ignoring national security entirely so we can quibble about medical benefits for old people. Now, it emerges that when most of us can figure this out, and make sure Democrats don’t run anything, they still get to decide what we are allowed to know.

If things have become so politicized that the President can’t bring the truth out even when its continued concealment is career suicide for him and everyone upon whom he relies, and this continued concealment doesn’t appear to be protecting the safety of anyone, then what hope do we have?

Who is running this government, anyway, if it isn’t the President and it isn’t anyone whose interests are aligned with his? I got an idea. When the highest levels of our government are not working overtime to get that very government toppled, maybe they could spare a little bit of that midnight-oil for finding us an answer.

TLA

The FAQ (Questions #8 and #10) makes reference to the wicked things, or at least the very insincere things, being done by what we today call “science”.

Science has been engaging in a bunch of ugly habits lately. I’ve already adequately covered how this works, I think. It says “we are the scientists and we think this is so, now unless you’re a scientist, go away.” That’s an entirely valid scientific exercise when the subject of discussion is a fact. Not when it’s an opinion. Lately, science has been doing this with opinions. Well, that isn’t really what we call “science.”

One of the ways this is pulled off is to come up with a TLA — a Three Letter Acronym — to describe behavior and then start compiling observations about how that behavior works. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong in doing just that by itself, it’s perfectly consistent with what science is supposed to do. But I notice established science, right then and there, will start pulling rank.

In other words, the opinions of lay-persons are worth jack-squat. Such-and-such is a scientist, so-and-so is not a scientist, so such-and-such knows all and so-and-so doesn’t know anything. Even if it’s a behavioral disorder, and so-and-so actually lives with the person being discussed, so-and-so still doesn’t know shit.

Down the road, maybe that’s an appropriate thing to do.

Science starts this rank-pulling, however, generations before science has a prayer of figuring out what the behavioral disorder is.

I mean, even fundamentally. Is it physiological? If so, is it genetic? Or could it be a non-physiological, purely personality-driven developmental disorder pertaining to environment? Could it be chemical? Before science even makes a stab at forming a theory around one or some of those, before it even tries to build some theories up or tear other theories down — in other words, before it even “does science” — it’s telling the little people what to do and how to think.

Well, Beth Wheeling of Miami has just decided to drop the act. Of course, she’s obviously being tongue-in-cheek about it, but I submit what she’s doing blatantly is no different than what “scientists” have been doing subtly. She’s gotten peeved about something, and decided to start building a file on it. With a TLA.

Obnoxiousness seems to be a contagious affliction

In light of news that road rage is caused by a psychiatric illness — Intermittent Explosive Disorder — I would like to share my own findings. I am a clinical psychologist and have come up with a new syndrome — obnoxious personality disorder.
:
You have OPD if:

� You have ever realized that you missed your exit on the Palmetto Expressway, come to a stop and put on your turn signal.

� You have tried to persuade people behind you in the speedycheckout lane that you only have 10 items because yogurt is on sale at three for $5, therefore the 30 items in your cart count as only 10.

� You have ever asked to go ahead of me in the checkout line because you “only have a couple of things,” then proceeded to stop the line when you realize that you forgot to get Brussels sprouts or you proceed to write a check.

You know what I’d like to call into question? The necessity of having a degree when you make up these TLAs. What happens if I do this? I have a high school diploma…it’s better than nothing. I wouldn’t mind making up some TLAs to describe things that may or may not be contagious. Why on earth not? Scientists, I have long suspected and now suspect even moreso, are just people with grudges. I can do that. I have grudges.

We could define PES to be Party Equivalency Syndrome, which is what the Dime People have; I discussed them here, here and here. Symptoms include denying any difference whatsoever between Republicans and Democrats, and noisily insisting people give you credit for being an “independent thinker” while running around babbling “not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” all the time.

SIS could be Subcompact Inferiority Syndrome, which is described in Thing I Know #28: People who drive great big cars don’t mind following other great big cars, but they absolutely have to get out from behind a little itty-bitty car even if it involves passing over a double-yellow line. You have it if you’ve ever consumed more fossil fuels than said itty-bitty car will consume in an entire week, in the blink of an eye, flooring it to get your hummer in front of the little rice rocket because boy howdee you can’t stand looking at his little tiny aluminum-plastic japanese-import ass.

HCD is Hillary Combat Disorder, wherein the subject is aroused with a great adrenaline rush to do a lot of arguing to defend the reputation of the junior senator from the state of New York, without understanding why.

Hey, this is getting kind of fun.

How about BSM for Blue State Malady, in which the subject protests that John Kerry was supposed to have won the 2004 presidential election, and is ready to call for one recount after another so that the Long-Faced One can finally be installed in the Oval Office — without having the slightest clue as to what, exactly, a Kerry Administration would do, about anything.

ITD is Inconvenient Truth Disorder, most noticeable when a hot summer comes right after the release of a certain movie. Symptoms include gloating on days when the temperature goes up a degree or two, followed by sullen pouting when the temperature goes back down again.

Let us not forget QPS for (Un)Questionable Patriotism Syndrome, a mental disorder afflicting people who babble endlessly about their patriotism while blaming everything on their country, saying absolutely nothing good about anything their country has done lately, to the extent where they change the subject if they can’t find anything to criticize. Example: America helped the Tsunami victims in Indonesia — this leads to “America could have donated more than it did,” or, “yeah, and we squandered the goodwill by blah blah blah.” To say the USA done good on something, and leave it at that, is somehow out of the question. Oh yeah, and nobody had better question your patriotism.

GHS would be Gun Hating Syndrome. Self-explanatory.

SGD would be Second-Guessing Disorder…for when you come to learn about soldiers signing up to serve in Iraq, knowing full-well what they’re doing, and you chalk it up to the density and naivete of those young kids, failing to understand they’re being sold down the river for Halliburton’s oil. You know this, they don’t, because you’re oh so smart.

DSD is Daily Show Delusion…a mindset where you watch a certain entertainment program on a regular basis, and from this gather the impression that you’re becoming knowledgeable about news and world events.

INC is Impeachment Narcissism Complex, in which the subject becomes resentful when he doesn’t personally get to decide which U.S. President should be impeached by the House of Representatives, and which President should not be. “But this one told a lie that got thousands killed, where that one told a lie about a blowjob!” is the common refrain. Symptoms include a complete inability to figure out when the lawbreaking being investigated is based on sex acts, and when it is not.

Golly. Those didn’t take any effort at all. Maybe this will be my first book.

ACLU, Otherwise Known As Democrats

Along the lines of the discussion between Good Lt. and the Two Girls mentioned below, we look into the source of all this disagreement. There is this lingering controversy on which many would like to express an opinion one way or t’other, but few would like to actually engage in a prolonged discussion of the controversy itself. The controversy is, does the American Civil Liberties Union exist to protect the rights of you and me, and stand by to safeguard our freedom during the darkest of times when no one else will?

Or do they exist simply to stir up talking points against Republicans and get Democrats elected?

Well if ever the day comes when we’re interested in engaging that discussion, maybe now it will be a short one. From the ACLU website, via Don Surber, via Stop the ACLU, via News Blog Central:

The ACLU today condemned the U.S. government for gaining access to vast troves of international financial data with no judicial or Congressional oversight nor definition of how the information is being used.

The program, revealed this morning the New York Times, outlines how the government received the cooperation of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, more commonly referred to as Swift, to monitor financial transactions. Swift is a Brussels-based consortium that serves as a clearinghouse for transactions worldwide. It was reported this morning that tens of thousands of records gathered by Swift have been turned over to the CIA, the FBI and the Treasury Department at the request of the U.S. government.

The following statement can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“The revelation of the CIA’s financial spying program is another example of the Bush administration’s abuse of power. The invasion of our personal financial information, without notification or judicial review, is contrary to the fundamental American value of privacy and must be stopped now. It seems the administration feels entitled to flip through all of our checkbooks. How many other secret spying programs has the Bush administration enacted without Congress, the courts or the public knowing? We need a full accounting of what information has been demanded by the U.S. government, how they have used it, with whom it was shared, and how they intend to repair this grave breach of trust. This program is a glaring example of how this government thinks nothing of widespread abuse of power.

“The government contends that the program is legal since Swift is ultimately a messaging service and not a bank, exempting it from U.S. banking laws. However, Swift is established and owned by banks to assist directly in banking activities. Swift is subject to both U.S. and European law, and it is wrong for the U.S. to demand information without following the established channels.

“Once again, this administration has performed an end-run around the legislature, allowing for no Congressional approval or oversight, and violating the freedoms Americans falsely believed they could take for granted. Congress should call them to account.”

I suppose reasonable minds may disagree about this. But I just don’t understand how it’s necessary for a party-neutral private organization tasking itself with the preservation of our civil liberties, regardless of the direction from which threats to those liberties may from time to time arise, to discuss “another example of the Bush administration’s abuse of power,” or to instruct us to believe “this government thinks nothing of widespread abuse of power.”

It seems to me an organization ready to stand vigilant watch over our civil liberties, would fancy itself to be an indispensable resource in a free society regardless of who’s running what. And here they are coming perilously close to saying, although not quite articulating it outright, that if we can just get rid of the current administration then the rivers in civil-liberties-land will flow with melted chocolate, the clouds will be made of marshmallows, and everybody’s farts will smell like cinnamon toast.

And among those with long-term concerns about what we call “civil liberties,” a general consensus has been achieved, rightfully so I think, that this just isn’t how it works. Power is vested in an administration that doesn’t care about civil liberties, and then power is vested in another administration that cares passionately about civil liberties. Power is then vested in a whole bunch of other administrations that are somewhere in between the first two mentioned…administrations come and go, falling anywhere they will in the spectrum of civil-liberties-respecting administrations.

Nothing changes as far as how closely the liberties must be watched, in order for them to be kept. Doesn’t the ACLU get it? The liberties are in danger ALL THE TIME. Our elected leaders don’t actually earn our “trust,” in the conventional sense of the word, no matter what they do. Not over the longer term, they don’t.

Director Romero, pointedly, fails to offer a reason why the information-gathering of the international records is unacceptable. This is why we have what are called “civil liberties” — the term has been abused to the point that it’s nothing more than a figure of speech. If he were to say “this is unconstitutional” then he’d be offering an argument that would be quashed, the minute someone experienced with law explained how the holders of international accounts aren’t protected by our Constitution. If that refutation were not to be forthcoming, for some reason — and it certainly would have to be — it would then be up to Director Romero to provide the citation of what Article, or Amendment, was being violated.

And then it would be up to the legal community to articulate what had been going on with that Article, or Amendment, since the day it was ratified. Every precedent within that timeline, conflicting with the excoriation that Director Romero wants to indulge, would be problematic.

And so we don’t use the word “unconstitutional” about situations like this anymore. Not very much. We like to talk about “civil liberties” instead. It lets us tell everybody else what to think, while sounding like we’re resting our case on some Master Document somewhere, when there really is no such thing.

Why should the Bush administration not be gathering these records, exactly? The ACLU pronouncement of angst and vituperation, quoted above in entirety, does not say. As Surber pointed out, not only would this be a brand-new right, if it is to be asserted that some shenanigans are going on here, but according to the status quo we emphatically do not have any variation of the right being discussed because of the procedures followed regularly by the Internal Revenue Service, if by no other agency. In other words, in its haste to condemn the Bush administration which can’t wait for anyone to actually look anything up in a rulebook — the ACLU has, in Surber’s words, “minted a brand-new right.”

Good Lieutenant Gets Into It

Good Lieutenant, who runs Mein Blogovault you see in the sidebar, gets into a back-and-forth with Two Babes And A Brain. The issue is the financial records of overseas transfers.

I think the Lieutenant has the better-thought-out position. According to what I read, he caught them forming extravagant opinions outside the perimeter of what available facts would warrant, and called them on it. However, to be fair he did misspell “intracacies.”

Memo For File VIII

Note to self:

Dumbass, would you quit ignoring Atlas Shrugs? The woman is gorgeous, she names her blog after your favorite book, and although it’s an obvious photoshop job she looks freak-o-nature fantastic in a Supergirl outfit.

Besides, her VLOGS are hilarious. Sure, she shouldn’t make them while she’s driving, but what the hell. She’s 3,000 miles away.

Update: Via Little Green Footballs, a Pajamas Media profile on Pamela from October, with over 170 comments from interested LGF participants.

More than one of whom have made the same observations as myself. She’s as pleasing to the eye as she is to the brain.

On Net Neutrality

Like most other people both within and outside of the technology industry, I have slowly become cognizant of “Net Neutrality.” From talking with nameless faceless voices across the “innernets,” I have come to gather the sense that most geeks are in favor of it and think we really need it badly.

This is curious. I’m a geek myself. A geek may be hardcore right-wing or hardcore left-wing, but as a geek, he is not motivated by political movements. His geek desires are motivated purely by anecdotes. A wise, experienced geek may have worked in all kinds of environments, perhaps consulted, or perhaps worked in development on the cutting-edge of some technology, and have some personal knowledge that Novell is dead-and-buried or that USB is the way to go. Anecdotes, divulged or not, determine everything. Likewise, a foolish geek may push for something, and commit the sin of forming his preferences on far too narrow a range of experiences — but they’re still experiences. They’re anecdotal.

I would say it is not too far off the mark, to uphold this as the definition of a geek. Preferences borne from anecdotes. And so this was a red flag, albeit just a tiny one: Geeks say “we need Net Neutrality” the same way geeks say “we need Bluetooth.” Where are the anecdotes? Now to be fair, it’s not out of the ordinary that an anecdote may be important, without my hearing about it. It’s commonplace. Geeks don’t go around talking about all the problems their network had with Layer 2 collisions, which would have been avoided if they had used Token-Ring instead of Ethernet. Contrary to popular belief, we’d much rather talk about that funny thing John Stewart said on his program the other night, just like anyone else.

But consider what the anecdotes about Net Neutrality would be. Just consider this. I’m a geek, I think we need Net Neutrality, and I have an anecdote. That means I, or someone I know, surfed the “innernets” and couldn’t get somewhere. I, or the other person, chalked it up to a server being down, or a router being down, for a few days, and then come to find out the evil corporation that owned my ISP, was blocking me. And as a somewhat responsible geek, I have proof.

Now, what topic of conversation would be more enticing and stimulating, than an anecdote like that?

So in a brave new digital world swimming in proponents of Net Neutrality, proponents who are supposed to be geeks, I would expect to see us also swimming in anecdotes. Not just one or two. Hundreds. Thousands. Hundreds of thousands.

I’m told “we need Net Neutrality.” Consider the hypothetical that we need, and we lack, “road neutrality.” Roads are paved by private corporations instead of by the federal government, state departments of transportation, and county agencies. Private corporations do everything. Consider the idea that these private corporations drag their heels about laying down asphalt leading to places the corporations don’t want people to go.

How many anecdotes would we have, about people not getting to places they want to go? Great googely moogely, there’d be millions every year. Old people would talk about it, the way old people talk about strip malls right now. And the damn kids who won’t stay off my lawn.

Yet here we are, “needing Net Neutrality,” and we have no such thing.

Red flag number two is the notion that technology, by offering us options that we did not previously have, creates a need for legislation that would have been previously moot. This is not unprecedented by any means. People must weigh their own pesonal scruples against what RU-486 does, and should they find said scruples violated, we have a problem with the clash between public policy and personal ethics. Some do feel so violated, and so we do have the clash. Embryonic stem cell research is another example. The sprawling nature of civilization itself, creates all kinds of ethical conundrums. If Township X was inhabited by Bambi, his mom, and all their friends, then what right has man to encroach? The list goes on and on.

When people desire legislation where none had previously existed, citing dilemmas presented by technology that, similarly, had not previously existed, the sincere activist wants something out-and-out banned. It may be a narrow prohibition or it may be a sweeping one. But he is able to point to something being done, which he wants to not have done anymore.

In the case of Net Neutrality, that is supposed to be “discrimination.” This has the distinctive effect of not actually banning anything, but rather transferring the technology from the private sector which brought the technology into being in the first place, into the public sector. Hmmm. You know, that’s not unprecedented either. But history presents a dearth of good results blossoming forward from such a thing.

That’s Red Flag #2. But I chalked this up to being a red flag against NN being a good idea, rather than a red flag against the sincerity of the NN movement.

Red Flag #3 was not long in coming, and this one ran against the sincerity. It was a one-liner from that not-quite-official source, Wikipedia.

In April 2006 a large coalition[4] of political bloggers and citizen/consumer-oriented lobbying groups such as Free Press and MoveOn created Save The Internet, a political-action lobby endorsing network neutrality regulations.

Now, it’s possible MoveOn could be involved in something that has beneficial ramifications for everybody, not just left-wingers. It’s possible. Personally, I doubt this. MoveOn was formed for the purpose of keeping a Democrat from being thrown out of office, and that is their mission. They get Democrats into office, and get Republicans out. Making the “innernets” into a better communication medium, would be a bunny-trail for them, a poorly advised one, unless they needed the net to be a better medium so they could get a Democrat elected.

No, this is about creating a climate for more regulation. And that’s something that a “coalition of bloggers” wouldn’t want, not if they knew what they were doing — a government that can more easily regulate ISPs, can certainly more easily regulate the consumers of those ISPs. It’s the camel’s nose in the tent. You’re worried about typing “Hate America” into a search engine on a Monday evening, and having the FBI show up at your door Tuesday morning. If the government can tell the ISPs how to shovel bits around, then start worrying about your search engine phrases — in spades.

Anyway, those are my thoughts about Net Neutrality. I’m deeply suspicious because while the concept is a good one, the movement is not about the concept, it’s about the regulation that would enshrine the concept into law. It’s an insincere movement. And the movement doesn’t behave the way a sincere movement would. Not when the movement rising up standing on the shoulders of The Geek.

Not that MoveOn can’t support a sincere movement. But the honest advocate would have provided that in fair disclosure, so that all recruits to the movement would have known who their new bedfellow was. It’s just the honest thing to do.

What is written above captures most of my thoughts, where they come from, and where they’re going, although I do have some basic conceptual stuff I’ll discuss further down. What is written below, excerpts what others have to say.

Wall Street Journal has a great op-ed on the subject…which, it seems at first, provides the anecdote for which I was seeking. But you better keep reading…

A Net Loser
Google and Moveon.org say they want to help you. Look out.
Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Chances are that by now readers have heard the term “Net neutrality,” even if they haven’t figured out what all the fuss is about. This week, the controversy reached the Senate, with Net neutrality proponents attempting to write a whole new layer of Internet regulation into law. Support for regulation of the Internet is also looking more and more like a litmus test for Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

A recent incident may illuminate the controversy for those wondering what both sides are after. Several weeks ago, users of Cox Communications’ broadband Internet service found that they could no longer access Craigslist.org, the free classifieds site. Some bloggers immediately smelled a rat–Cox’s parent company also owns newspapers, which compete with Craigslist for classified ads.

In a letter to this newspaper last week, Senator Ron Wyden (D., Oregon) cited the Cox incident as an example of why we need Net neutrality rules. Without them, supposedly, Verizon, Comcast, Cox and other Internet access companies would control users’ Internet experience to the detriment of consumers.

Well, not quite. It turns out Cox had installed another company’s security software to protect its users, and a bug in that software inadvertently cut users off from Craigslist. But don’t take our word for it. Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, no enemy of Net neutrality, said this about the incident on his blog: “The whole thing was exacerbated by folks talking about Net neutrality,” adding for good measure: “None of this was deliberate” by Cox.

I’m going back to Red Flag #1. Let’s have an anecdote that actually pans out. Let’s have tens of thousands of them, before we even think about inviting the heavy hand of regulation into this corner of our lives, where freedom has given us so much.

Is there anything you can find so much good to say about, as what you can find to say about the Internet? Try to think of something. You can’t. Oh, sure, you can find some old prudes who don’t quite understand it, and are suspicious of it, and have sinister things they heard about children abducted by their brand-new “chat room” pals. There are wives who have left their husbands because of some guy they met over the Internet. There is credit card fraud and theft of personal information, made possible by the Internet.

And yet, such evils serve to demonize the new technology only in the most awkward, logically unworkable ways. No sane man can stand on the soapbox of logic and common-sense, and propose that the new communication medium be stymied to keep the children from being abducted, to keep the treacherous wives with their husbands, to keep the credit card numbers and social security numbers safe. This would be sheer lunacy. The child would still have the habit of recklessly engaging strangers, the wife would still be an unfaithful whore, those tasked with responsible stewardship of the personal information, would remain habitually negligent. Reckless, unfaithful, negligent…and undetected.

And so, the Net is good. It is not “Net Good,” as no benefit can offset the profound tragedy of a trusting child being carted off somewhere by a pervert, and chopped up into bits. It is, I submit, “Gross Good,” because I place responsibility for such tragedy on the human element, not on technology. The technology is nothing but better communication, an increased capacity for searching out those amongst us who share our interests. History is mute on any benefit arising from the suppression of such a thing, and the Internet specializes in nourishing it.

The Internet’s mother is technology…and it’s father is freedom. Freedom, that thing we all say we want, although very few of us really seem to. Those who love government and regulation and nanny-state rules, are now saying the Internet should go and live with them. They presume, I guess, that the Internet has reached majority age and is ready to be transplanted. They already say the Internet is an out-of-wedlock bastard conception of that studly back-door man Al Gore. Now, it appears they think parentage should be subjected to a vote.

But freedom is the real father. You can tell. The Internet has it’s father’s eyes.

It Explains Stuff

Transparency Now.

It explains things like Groundhog Day, Gilligan’s Island, Logan’s Run. What’s the bigger picture here?

My kinda thing. Cool.

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… XII

Prof. Mike S. Adams just out-and-out calls the UNC administrators a bunch of bigots and liars. He raises an important point, which I can’t state any better than he does, but I do have a few things to add to the end. Let’s let him go first.

Recently, a local Wilmington, North Carolina news station (WWAY) ran a news story on my satirical column “My new contribution to educational racism.” Local news stations like to run news stories on my satires because the proliferation of crack, heroin, methamphetamines, prostitution, and illegal immigration in my town is not sufficiently newsworthy.

In the midst of important business negotiations (money talk), I declined to do a recorded TV interview for the WWAY Top News Story of the day, which was my satire. Instead, I offered the following statement intended to make things more exciting in the workplace when I return in mid-August:

“North Carolina’s most notorious bigots, racists and segregationists are no longer found within the leadership of the KKK. They are found within the leadership of the UNC system.”

The comment, which was expected to produce a blanket denial of racial discrimination by UNCW officials, appears to have had the intended effect. Here�s what WWAY reported as my employer�s response:

“UNCW officials deny any preferrential [sic] treatment of minorities.”

While WWAY carefully avoids “preferrential” treatment for serious journalism, UNCW officials are guilty of avoiding preferential treatment for the truth about the school�s racial policies. In a letter posted on the UNCW website, Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo had this to say to those who want to do business with the university:

“As a contractor seeking to conduct business with the University, it is my personal expectation that you will exhaust all possible means to meet or exceed the minimal 10% minority participation goal that has been established through the North Carolina General Assembly.”

Despite the “all possible means” language, I assume that DePaolo would stop short of asking employers with only 9% minorities to kill a couple of white employees in order to exceed the 10% quota. Nonetheless, the point is established. UNCW uses racial quotas and meets them via the “preferential treatment of minorities” they so blandly deny.

My comments:

This has become a widespread tactic anywhere an employer, or educational institution, or accrediting authority has a deep pockets and/or a critical mass in their payroll and/or medium-to-high visibility: Claim to not participate in, or to be aware of, or to sanction “any [preferential] treatment of minorities,” on the record. And then, when it’s time to actually engage in the hiring or contracting or graduating business that was just put under the inspection, go ahead and engage in the practice that was just denied. Go ahead and discriminate, in ways that any reasonable person could observe and comment “no ifs ands or buts, that right there is discriminatory.”

In other words, like Dr. Adams said, lie.

There is danger in this kind of hair-splitting, in which what’s been asserted on the record may be lexicographically correct, but is nonetheless conceptually wrong. The danger is that it’s an official line, and the vital ingredient of deception is already there. Once the process is re-articulated, people who have to do the job of articulating it but have that basic instinct of “gee, I don’t want to out-and-out lie about anything,” end up lying anyway. They aren’t introducing that vital ingredient of deception — it was already put in there, by the next layer up.

And so they end up saying things that are in stark contradiction with one another. We don’t engage in preferential treatment of minorities…and in the same breath…make sure you meet or exceed the ten percent requirement for minority representation.

Adams makes no mention of what the UNC system’s response is going to be to his charge of lying. I would expect they’ll say something along the lines of, this isn’t preferential treatment, Chancellor DePaolo is simply complying with the requirements of the state law. That’s the problem. The buck is always passed. So “no preferential treatment” doesn’t mean no preferential treatment, even if it’s misspelled. Fact is, we’re up to our armpits in preferential treatment.

We’re also up to our armpits in reverse-racists, reverse-segregationists, people who just don’t get it. As I had the pleasure of pointing out yesterday.

Mineta STWF’d

Instapundit has a write-up on Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta getting STWF’d. We like to use the four-letter acronym of STWF, since August 15 when I explained why, to describe high-level official who are leaving to Spend Time With the Family. Because, you know, at that level nobody ever gets just-plain-fired.

About God-damned time. Mineta is a nut, and every day he served in that capacity is an embarrassment to the Bush administration. President Bush built up a huge reserve of credibility with me, by simply having the balls to say Saddam’s gotta go, and sticking with the decision. And, I’d say by simply tolerating Mineta’s wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy utterances about racial profiling, President Bush spent about three-quarters of what he’d built up.

Norm represents something that is extremely broken in our society, to me, anyway. His heightened sensibilities about the internment of the Japanese-Americans during World War II, had a lot to do with his antipathy about profiling and anything that might possibly resemble same. And yet, I’ll bet some good money that this fucker would be first in line to nominate Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mister Japanese Internment himself, as one of our finest Presidents. Certainly, I’ve never heard Mineta utter an unkind word against the guy. Why, oh why, may I ask, is Japanese Internment something “we” did wrong, and not something that some racist President did individually? History strongly supports the latter of those suppositions over the former.

Like I’ve been saying for years, if you’re really sorry about this awful thing “we” did, and want to pay homage to our renewed commitment to never doing anything like it again…and I think that’s a great idea…put Ulysses Grant’s face on the dime. Otherwise, it can be said that we elected a President four times who locked people up for the color of their skin, and we love him to pieces because we got him on our money. Because we did. And we do.

But I digress. Ding, dong, the witch is dead. Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass, Norm.

Sidebar Update III

Just updated my sidebar to include “Good Lieutenant” and his blog, Mein Blogovault. He was kind enough, at the beginning of this month, to link to one of my posts and then drone on a bit about what a good post it is, which is always a good thing.

I’ve included a few others, including my friend Stephen VanDyke over at Hammer of Truth who’s agitated about how long my posts are. VanDyke has redeemed himself in my eyes, partially, although I’m pretty sure the feeling isn’t mutual — he had a priceless entry about the author of “Why Mommy’s A Democrat.” I already made up my mind to include him, before I tripped across that, but it’s still good.

There are a lot of other folks who have been giving me much better treatment than Mr. VanDyke, and they all deserve mention. However, after my recent past screw-ups leaving people out I lack the confidence necessary to list them all over again. My recent post where I apologize to all of them probably includes, after several patchwork sessions, as complete a list as I may gather at this point. It also includes notes as to exactly why I’m including them, and you’ll notice some of them have something to do with topical things and others have to do with just-plain-interesting things. So I’ll just include a pointer down there.

Blogs that are linked here, are ranked. That’s kind of unusual. We use metals here to rank the blogs, like you do with “medals.” There is a reason for this. When you rank medals, like olympic medals, there is a sense of honor that is “vertical,” as in gold is better than silver, and there is a sense of honor that is “horizontal” — there is an important honor extended to each recipient, for simply having been included. And that’s why we do that here. A “bronze blog” is looked-upon with just as much of a sense of “You Belong Here” as any much-higher-ranked blog. Many of the bronze blogs are included because they took the time to read my stuff, and applied the necessary analytical power to figure out what they liked about it, and write about it. Bronze blogs are blogs just like me: some guy writing about stuff. You folks are doing the work that our news resources simply will not do.

A silver blog is, basically, a bronze blog that has either busted something wide open, or has acquired the resources needed to do such a thing or to make it more likely. Usually, that means starting a membership roll and handing out accounts to groups of trusted individuals, who in turn submit semi-regular columns. This applies to my friends at News Blog Central. Some of the silver blogs have achieved high visibility, being included in several other blog sidebars. Some of them are byproducts of other things the author is doing, as is the case with Hugh Hewitt.

A gold blog is something with extraordinarily high profile, visible all across the national stage. These blogs have achieved more fame than I, personally, would ever want. Malkin’s blog is gold. You meet strangers and talk about blogs, and those-in-the-know will immediately start talking about Glenn Reynolds or Chuck Johnson. That’s “gold” stuff, kind of like the New York Times of blogging, except with more common sense and less nepotism. If there’s a picture of you taking a crap or picking your nose, you kind of wouldn’t want that on a blog, but you really wouldn’t want it on a “gold” blog.

And a “platinum” blog is a resource to which I’ve formed an addiction bordering on the unhealthy. If I must go without these because I’m on a camping trip for four days, once I’m back I’m probably hitting these before I even take my shower. Eww. I roll out of bed, I click on these. These are FARK and Boortz, period. Nothing else. For now.

One more thing. I’m not here to get attention, and the blog is kind of dedicated to the idea about rambling away without excessive concern about who’s reading. We think, here, when you’re too worried about who’s paying attention, the stuff you say starts to make a little bit less sense than it otherwise would — that’s a prevailing theme that resurfaces often here. But when people take the trouble to link back to me, I give them as good a treatment as I possibly can. And hey, I like traffic as much as the next guy. So I’m thinking about you folks. Now you can link to my blog with some good fashion sense. Samples below, code in the new sidebar.

Have fun.

Update: Note to self: Next time, hit Holtie’s House by Peter Gympie, and his friend Miss Cellania. Don’t forget to tell the readers that some of Peter’s pictures are unsafe for work, if, that is, said readers work with a bunch of crybaby pussies.

Also, don’t forget Annoyances and Dislikes which is run by some girl, of some undetermined age and location, who’s generally pissed off and annoyed by the same things that annoy me. You are inspired to do this because of a plurality of entries, not the least among them being this one…

You can’t even bring a bible to school without someone crying because they don’t believe in God. Ok, you don’t believe in God, fine by me, but don’t try to make others put their beliefs under a blanket because you’re too sensitive to even see a cross, let alone a book with a cross on it. If I can handle people wearing satanic necklaces, or even having the satanic star in their signatures ONLINE,mind you, you can tolerate someone holding a bible in their hand. America has become too sensitive.

And this one about smug, snotty atheists…

Yeah, they know who they are. I don’t care if they’re athiests,but I do care that they have to foam at the mouth everytime someone mentions the word Christianity and make personal attacks at everyone who believes in God. These particular kind of athiests think that we’re weak because we believe in God. So I guess, having a belief is considered being weak then,right? Wrong, we all have something to believe in. Christian or not. You believe that there is no God,right? So does that make YOU weak as well? Think about it.

Fix the spelling mistake. You know which one.

Get Papa Knows in there. Seems like a good, sensible guy.

Also, be Pro-Victory.

Ordinary Americans

A Google search on the phrase “Ordinary Americans” returns 1,410,000 results. Around sixty percent of these, give or take, have to do with surveillance programs. You know, the ol’ “George Bush is spying on ordinary Americans” thing.

So we’re talking about a million items taking this intellectually-sparse talking point and running with it, maybe 800,000 or 900,000 web log entries, essays, newsletters, magazine articles, newspaper articles, etc. Obviously, some of the 900,000 are being read by more people and some of the 900,000 are being read by less. But if the average circulation of each item is presumed to be two or three hundred, and this is exceedingly low, then within the United States it could be postulated that we’ve reached complete saturation. Everyone has heard the term; everyone has heard that President Bush is conducting surveillance on “ordinary Americans.” Certainly everybody who speaks English.

Time to ask: What exactly is an “ordinary American”? It seems like a fair question, if that’s what the fuss is about.

If I’m providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, but I have not yet been arrested for it much less convicted, is the absence of such a conviction the thing that makes me an “ordinary American”? Since when was a conviction obtained before the investigation was even begun?

Is Rush Limbaugh an “ordinary American”? What if he was under investigation for conspiring with Al Qaeda, would it be a fair assessment to say this is an example of “Bush spying on ordinary Americans”? I note with interest that many of the people who claim to be concerned about this surveillance activity, would probably need to know why Limbaugh is being characterized in such a way, before they could make the decision about supporting or deploring such a characterization.

What about immigration status? What if you’re in America on a student visa? What if the visa is expired? What if it was a counterfeit job to begin with? Does that make you an “ordinary American”?

Do the people who write these news stories about “ordinary Americans,” consider themselves to be within that group? Or are they altruistic ivory-tower elites, doing us little people the favor of letting us know we’re being spied on? As if to say, hey, you poor peasants down in those ditches digging away…you might want to know while you’re down there, you’re being spied on. Too bad you’re not up here like us, free of such concerns. Good thing for you we’ve taken the time to let you know.

If it’s fair to throw around the intellectually-vacant phrase, as in, “the White House is spying on ordinary Americans,” can I do other intellectually-vacant things with it too, like lament “why can’t everybody speak English like ordinary Americans do?” Would that be okay? Or would that be just a little too rustic, a little too Archie-Bunkerish. It would? Why is one exercise of this term unacceptably slope-headed and neanderthal, and the other exercise is not? It doesn’t appear that much more thought has gone into one than the other.

What is the sexual preference of an ordinary American? Do ordinary women like to sleep with men, and do ordinary men like to sleep with women? Do ordinary Americans eat meat? Once you’ve had your eyebrow pierced, are you no longer an ordinary American? If you still are one, then isn’t this a lot of money spent on making you “extraordinary” that is, in fact, going to waste? What about people who are missing fingers and toes? Don’t ordinary Americans have twenty digits? If you’re an albino, are you an ordinary American? What if you’re forty years old and have never been married? What if your parents were never married? What if you don’t believe in God?

Oh I’m being so silly. That’s the point, though. To tell me people are “ordinary” is a useless thing to do if criteria are not being applied, and it’s useless to inform me of qualification for the criteria if you refuse to tell me what the criteria are. Many among the 1,410,000 go much further than refusing to divulge the criteria; it has become commonplace to tiptoe around anything that might invite inquiry about the criteria.

Nobody ever says “the NSA has collected information about three million Americans some seventy-five percent of whom are estimated to be ordinary.” I’ve not heard anyone say anything like that. And yet, if “ordinary” is something more meaningful than a figure-of-speech, shouldn’t someone have said something like that by now?

I understand what I’m supposed to be thinking: An ordinary American is, simply, me. I’m supposed to worry that President Bush is going to spy on me when I read about these “ordinary Americans.” Once again, though, it seems nobody has the balls to come out and say that outright. So I have to wonder if the facts would support it.

Speak Spanish Or You’re Fired

Fire departments in Oregon need to operate with good communication in order to fight fires. So, in Oregon, it just logically follows, no way of getting ’round it, that if you’re a crew boss in a fire department in Oregon, and you can’t speak Spanish, and one or more of the firefighters on your crew speaks Spanish only, you’ll have to be demoted.

With 24 major wildfires burning across the southwestern United States, fire officials need every firefighter they can get. They’ve done that in Oregon but it’s created another problem.

Officials are now having to lay off some of the bosses who manage those firefighting crews because the bosses are not bilingual. Many of the newer hires in Oregon only speak Spanish.

The state said all bosses must speak the same language of their crew on the fire lines for safety reasons. They want to make sure that the leader of the crews can quickly communicate during an emergencey if the fire turns or if there is another problem on the fire lines.

“Our main concern is that they are safe, and they are in a safe environment, and a lot of that deals with communication,” said Jim Walker, with the Oregon Department of Forestry.

“If you have one Spanish guy on the crew, as an English crew boss, you can no longer be a crew boss. You have to step back to a squad boss, which is a demotion,” said Jaime Pickering, a firefighter squad boss.

The state of Oregon actually made the change in 2003. It just started strictly monitoring the law this year.

I know of no similar policy for fire crews in Arizona. Or California. Or New Mexico, or Washington State, or Texas. In those states, either they can hire an adequate number of firefighters who speak English, or the fires can be fought by fire crews who can’t commuicate amongst themselves, or both.

I’m being instructed to believe that proper safety procedures necessitate the demotion or dismissal of crew bosses who don’t speak Spanish, yet if it works that way in one place why doesn’t it work that way everywhere?

The most obvious explanation would have to be that Oregon has lost control of the criteria applied to new recruits. Slide down the pole in X seconds, lift X many pounds, X many push ups, and oh by the way you must speak English. I mean, Jim Walker spoke; you heard the man. Proper communication is essential for safety. Wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt.

And yet, they didn’t insist that firefighters speak English; they did the opposite. They insisted the crew boss speak Spanish.

What’s wrong with the way they did it? Well let’s start with the obvious. When the inmates run the asylum and their bosses are demoted for failure to master some marginal-appendage language, an issue must arise wherein the firefighters’ ability to communicate amongst themselves, must be called into question. You’re not expecting me to sit here and start believing that everything a firefighter does, is a one-man job, are you? Because that’s what you’d have to do if I’m to believe the firefighter has a need to communicate with the crew boss, and with nobody else. Gimme a break. There’s heavy shit to be carried around. There are hoses to be hooked up. Even fishing the legendary kitty out of the tree, could be a tough row to hoe if only one guy’s doing it.

Come to think of it, how many tasks does a firefighter have to do, which can be completed if he can just communicate with the crew boss — but with nobody else?

I mean I don’t want to decide how the Department of Forestry does its job, but I’d certainly like this to be explained. Safety protocols are concerned with the ability of each firefighter, to communicate with his boss. The crew boss, not the squad boss, the latter of whom can keep his job if he doesn’t speak Spanish. So just the crew boss. But there’s no requirement for all the firefighters to speak any one particular language. I’d just like to know — how’s that work? How is it, that there’s no equivalent pressing urgency for the firefighters to communicate amongst themselves?

What are the situations that emerge wherein there’s no time to call an interpreter? That would be an emergency, usually involving a fire, right? Wouldn’t the safety/communication protocols apply, first-and-foremost, to the boots on the ground?

Monday, I wrote about Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazelton, PA, who has made English the official language of his city. Jim Walker, of the Department of Forestry, talks about “safety” while Mayor Barletta talks about a “drain on city resources.” The two concerns, I would argue, are practically equivalent: Agencies are finding it difficult to complete their missions when they have to screw around with multiple languages. And yet the remedies they’ve selected are a hundred and eighty degrees opposite.

The comments I made about Mayor Barletta, still hold true: “If he can do it, anybody can.” That means Oregon could do what Barletta did, starting out first and foremost with their fire departments. Speak English, just enough so you can communicate effectively and get the job done, or no go.

I mean, safety first after all. Wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt.

CALWWNTY

C.A.L.W.W.N.T.Y. is what we call it, here at The Blog That Nobody Reads, when you purport to be engaged in an effort to equalize one class with another but you don’t want anyone to go questioning what it means to “equalize,” you don’t want anyone to dissect what it is you are specifically doing to achieve this equality, and most of all, you really don’t want anybody to measure the progress made against the length of time your efforts have been going on. C.A.L.W.W.N.T.Y. is an eight-letter acronym that stands for “Come A Long Way, We’re Not There Yet.” I wrote about it in January and again in February.

It is a tactic of evasion. The proclamation, “we’ve come a long way” naturally inspires logical questions: What have we done? Is it consistent with what we had committed to doing? Does any of it fall outside the expectations of those who joined our fight in good faith? What options have we closed off to make this progress come about? And the other half, “We’re not there yet” inspires other questions an irresponsible leader would find to be intrusive, a more responsible leader finding them to be far less so: What is there left to be done? How do we ensure that all the stakeholders agree these are the things we want to do? What are we going to leave undone, after we have declared complete success? What are we willing to sacrifice for the things we still want to do? What help do we need from outside interests to make these things happen? Are we relying on altruistic motives in these outside interests, or have we made sure the outside interests are dissatisfied in their own enterprises until our own goals are realized?

Those who support the feminist movement, have done an abysmal job of seeking further details behind CALWWNTY. In so doing, they’ve done severe injury to men, and haven’t done right by women either. Their leaders throw the sentiment around all the time, and nobody I can see ever calls them on it. Look how far we come! Oh dear, what a terribly long way we still have to go!

Long way to go? What do we need to do? Many will agree amongst themselves that yes, indeed, there still is a lot to be done — but how often do they collaborate on what, exactly, that is?

Sometimes, men are accused of raping women, and are subsequently acquitted. The case may fall apart for procedural reasons, perhaps there is exculpatory evidence, or maybe it’s just a matter of you can’t honor the accused’s constitutional guarantees, and still sustain a conviction. Is that part of the long way we still have to go? That rape suspects have the same constitutional protections that murder suspects do? Some would say yes; some would say no. My question is, where is the effort to reconcile these sides? If there’s still a long way to go, should a strong leader not emerge, and articulate what exactly this long way is?

And the black civil rights movement has done a still-worse job. What’s the list of things still left yet-undone? It’s one thing to say there are some things; it’s quite another to assert that some pressing need exists to get them achieved, while at the same time, no similarly pressing need exists to articulate what those things are.

And that’s where my friend at “Left Behinds” comes in. I seem to have bothered this person…which I’m not terribly happy about, I certainly don’t like to go out of my way to bother people. But the thing of it is, whoever this person is, he or she seems to be hopelessly entangled in an endless mess of CALWWNTY.

Here’s the crux of it: mkfreeberg seems to think there’s something controversial in saying that we’ve made enormous progress in racial equality since the 1960s, yet racial tensions remain. He writes about it here at length. Now, I grant him that in some ways it’s a platitude. But it is nevertheless true on its face. Races are more equal now than they were fifty years ago. Yet all is not healed and perfect. Instead, mkfreeberg says:

I’ll believe racial division is healed when whites let blacks represent them, and vice-versa. It does not appear to me that those who direct the course of these movements, even have a plan for such a thing, let alone can point to any progress toward it.

False choice in the first sentence: either we heal all divisions or we haven’t made any progress. The implication is that we must ignore all messy, real-world problems that don’t have neat solutions.

As to the second sentence, I don’t know how to communicate with someone who argues that racial divisions in this country have not lessened since the 1960s. Not any progress? What?

PS: After I turned off the computer last night I finally identified why this argument bothers me quite so much. Its natural conclusion is for government at all levels to stop trying doing anything to address any inequalities (since they are simultaneously unimportant and intractible). Based on what I can confirm cursorily, mkfreeberg is definitely male, not Jewish or black. I’m about 95% sure he’s a white guy (I’m pretty sure only a white person would so blithely identify race as a problem for other people to fix). In other words, while it’s very sad, all the unfairness and ugliness and all, we can’t ever make any progress toward fixing it, we just have to leave things as they are–which only happens to leave him on top.

I’m not entirely sure who this person is talking to. He, or she, does single me out by name — I am “mkfreeberg” — but the discourse I remember, was quite different from what’s represented here. I don’t recall saying that nothing has been accomplished, although for reasons explained above it would be a good exercise to put this to some question. Nor do I recall lamenting the controversial nature of saying that something has, indeed, been accomplished. And I do recall a lot of talk about how much racial tension has lessened since the 1960s — not very much of it on my end, since this isn’t a very meaningful metric to me in measuring racial harmony or lack thereof. To me, simmering resentments, people of one skin color agitated into voting against candidates of a different skin color, these are just as bad as race riots even if they may result in less property damage or human injury.

Most pointedly, I don’t recall posing the premise that either we have accomplished everything, or else we have accomplished nothing. I would like to see the leaders of the civil rights movement held to account, if what’s been accomplished is somewhere between those two extremes. Answering the questions I posed above, would be a dandy start.

To summarize, the discussion was one in which I was insisting not upon absolutes, but simply on goals. And the goal upon which I insist, if we’re all about healing racial division, is simply this — to heal the racial division. That seems only sensible, right?

Well, therein lies the problem: There is a significant weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, on the prospect of having Congressional Candidate David Yassky representing the 13th district of New York, which is what’s called a “Voting Rights” district. Why is there weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth? Because a “Voting Rights” district is a euphemism — it means black people live here, and only a black guy can represent a black district. Yassky is a white jewish city councilman.

There’s some kind of “rule,” which lots of people want to make some noise about, but nobody seems to have the balls to put in writing, that a white guy can’t represent a “Voting Rights” district.

So according to my premise — which has not been directly challenged, I note — the last four letters of CALWWNTY are off the table. We’re not there yet? Where exactly, I must ask rhretorically, are we going?

In a world where all blacks are too savage to represent white guys in Congress, and no white guy is pristine enough to represent blacks in Congress, what kind of “equality” are you gonna get that you don’t already have? I submit that with this premise left standing, further progress is impossible. Progress…towards what?

We have a black country and a white country, haphazardly thrown together, unable to mix with one another. That’s not the situation I want and that’s not the situation I brought about — that’s the way the civil rights “leaders” want it, so long as they’re protesting against Yassky’s candidacy on the basis of his skin color. Yassky appears to be a left-wing liberal democrat. Nobody has articulated any concerns, none that I’m aware of, that his actual voting record would be out of kilter with the desires of the 13th district voters-at-large. He just happens to be jewish, and to have a different tint.

Should the “rule” that nobody has the balls to write down, remain in force, there isn’t an awful lot that can be done. You could get 218 or more black congressmen elected to Congress…you could…I don’t see anyone working toward that goal. And if it came to pass, then what? We go a few years with the “black country” getting everything it wants, to have these achievements reversed when the “white country” takes control of the House again? Excuse me, this is exactly the situation we have now with Republicans and Democrats. They go, two years at a time, with one party or the other having 218+ representatives under the dome.

You see a lot of “equality” and “harmony” among donkeys and elephants?

So, no, I don’t think much of the “rule” that nobody has the testicular fortitude to actually write down. I think it’s stupid. I think that’s why nobody’s written it down — it makes no sense. “Antid Oto” is 95% certain I’m a white guy, which means there is 5% uncertainty about the issue. I’ll settle that — I’m a white guy, not jewish, but I’ll tell you this. If some black jewish guy wants to represent me in Congress, and I think he’s an okay guy, you’d better tell me something more compelling than “but he’s a black jewish guy” if you don’t want me voting for him. Because if he’s got the right positions on the issues and he’s got balls of steel, I don’t care. I’m voting for him.

And it cuts the other way, too. If I’m running for Congress, don’t bother coming up to me and saying “Hey, you can’t do that. This district is full of jews! This district is full of black people! You can’t represent them!” Don’t even bother voicing the concern to me. Nuts to you. I come from a weird planet in a far-off part of the galaxy — I guess — where white guys can represent black guys, and black guys represent white guys.

If that isn’t what we have going on here…then trust me on this. Forget CALWWNTY. Forget all about “We’re Not There Yet.” Forget all about it…because you’re there. You’re all the way there, the way your car is all the way there after the engine has exploded. Break out a tent. Build a fire. Car no go. You’re “there.”

How, in the world, can you have any sort of “equality” when we aren’t fit to live together just because of the color of our skin? Especially when the people who say we shouldn’t be intermingling in this way, don’t even have the balls to write down the rules, and have no cojones at all over & above what it takes to get the masses stirred up, more-or-less anonymously?

It’s called “identity politics.” It’s a thoroughly reprehensible practice, and it reflects poorly on all of us when we let the charlatans get away with this for just a year or two, let alone fifty of them.

I don’t blame Antid Oto for the “reprehensible” part. This person has fallen for a scam, not, so far as I know, indulged in the evil of perpetuating it. And yet it says something…his/her/it’s point depends on the premise that I’m a white guy, I’m not jewish, and I’m male. These things are all correct. The “Antid” entity has established itself as being of the jewish faith. I don’t know if it’s male or female. I don’t know if it’s black or white. Don’t know, don’t care, it’s not relevant to my point…although, curiously, my own race and gender have some vital ramifications to the point the other party is trying to make.

Yet if my faith was different or my skin color was different or my gender was different, all my points would remain standing. All my unanswered questions, would remain unanswered. And the silence on the part of those who ought to be engaged in trying to answer them, would be just as deafening.

M. Oto has inscribed his/her/it’s remarks on the Left Behinds website, not notifying me about them, leaving it up to me to find them during a routine search. For the next day or two, I plan to return the favor.

Compare and Contrast

For comparison’s sake, take the carefully-prepared Amnesty International hair-splitting er, uh, let’s say it’s a rather limp-wristed “Call To Action” I was carping about yesterday. Review…

Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law…Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.

Got that? They deplore the torture and murder of our brave soldiers, but in our punishment of the wicked we are to abstain from the death penalty. Should we have to choose between subjecting the villains to the death penalty, or letting them go free, I’m not clear which course Amnesty International prefers. It appears they won’t say.

There’s something damned disturbing about this. Like, Amnesty International, and other people who aren’t supposed to be cool with what happened to these two soldiers, if they were really uppity and angsty about it, they’d be saying and doing things just a tad differently. Kind of reminds me of…of…

Now let us cleanse our collective palette of this half-assed weasel-wording, and lay our eyes on the not quite as cool-headed, but far more refreshing, words of Robert Stokley, proud father of KIA SGT Mike Stokley (IED, 8/16/05) (H/T The Thunder Run via Sneakeasy’s Joint via The Rottweiler — Bless you all).

We must hunt these dogs down and eradicate them from the face of this earth.

This moment in time takes me back to my last instructions to Mike � don�t let them take you alive son, for they will execute you anyway, so go down fighting and take as many as you can with you � I was concerned about him being taken prisoner by these barbaric and cruel assassins who push aside all ethical and moral considerations of human dignity. To slit the throats and then put it on for display is a horror no family should suffer. It is a moment like this that I feel our family is extremely lucky.

Let us not forget this and let us seek maximum retribution to teach them and those around the world who would dare contemplate such acts a lesson. Let us not forget and let us deal harshly with those that lend assistance to such individuals in any way, at any place, at any time.

My point? Absolute statements do have a home. And one of the places where absolute statements are most appropriate, is within the issue of deterrent effects. As I was pointing out yesterday, you just can’t supply an adequate deterrent effect when you say “don’t do any more of A, because if you do, we’re going to do B and C and maybe a little bit of D. But rest assured that since we’re trying to set a good example, we’ll never ever do E F G or H, even though you’re doing them all the time.”

Lectures like those, examples like those, don’t quite set up the deterrent effect. The deterrent effect requires an absolute to be effective. And what more noble purpose can there be for a deterrent effect, might I ask, but to deter people from beheading, castrating and mutilating our soldiers?

Remember back in the eighties? Even left-wing Hollywood weanie types, made movies that were all about how some monsters can only be stopped by other monsters, and good men must become monsters themselves in order to carry the fight. Whatever happened to the days when even our Hollywood liberals understood this?

Memo For File VII

That this blog is called “The Blog That Nobody Reads,” indicates that topics are selected and opinions are formed in the only honest way such things can be done: with complete apathy about who is expected to come along and read the resulting product. “Memo For File” means these things are recorded for my benefit and mine alone — gotta jot ’em down somewhere, and for whatever reason I don’t think the Palm Pilot is the right notebooking device so I’ve elected to use the blog instead. Your ability to subsequently come along and read the notes, while not a cause for concern, isn’t a pressing objective on my part. Whether it is worth your time to do so, is a question for you to decide, and you alone. But as is the case with everything else you can find while surfing, you might find it interesting.

Having said that, however, readers are entitled to some background information before I get into the meat of things. No sense deliberately confusing denizens of the “innernets.”

As is explained in the FAQ (Question #1), I’m not a California native. I’m not that carefree or jolly, I’m not that fashionable, I’m not that concerned about what others think, and I’m certainly not all that nice. I’m a native of the Pacific Northwest, birthplace of Starbuck’s and “grunge,” the nation’s capital of rainy weather, homeless people, serial killers, roadside diners and clamdigging. Rambo: First Blood was filmed there, for the gloomy effect afforded when you climb a not-all-that-tall foothill, and look down on the clouds. Ted Bundy dumped the bodies there, as did more than one serial killer who came after him.

In a valley of Valley Girls, I am a redneck. I’m a pariah even among the rednecks here, because most rednecks in California don’t have webbed feet.

Because the economy sucked ass so hard in the early nineties, I had to leave Seattle and move to Detroit when my mother had terminal brain cancer. In the fourteen months between that relocation and her death, I saw her three more times. Once when she could speak, that unfortunate Christmas where she no longer could, and once after she lapsed into the coma from which she would never awaken. Dad was dead-set against this move. She was not. By the time a special Christmas rolled around which we all knew would be her last, I made the first of what would would become a series of annual car trips home, having relocated again, fortunately, to where I am now. Eight hundred miles isn’t quite so foolish in a car…not compared to three times that much, from Detroit.

On the advice of friends who had been questioning what remained of my common-sense faculties, I made one trip from Sacramento to Seattle by plane, right before she died. Never again. Even without the personal things that were going on at the time, this was a thoroughly miserable trip, a raging pus-filled pain in the ass. Even before 9-11, I made the choice that eight hundred miles was a tad bit below the point-of-diminishing-return; henceforth, airplane no, car yes. I don’t care what people think about it. The ensuing decade-and-a-half of saddle-sores have done nothing to temper this feeling.

The point, dear reader, is not about my being batted around from one piece of the country to the other, “exert[ing] roughly the same amount of control over [my] destiny, as a pinball exerts over its direction as it tumbles through a machine,” or about the things that were left unsaid to a dying mother, coming to my conscious attention when it was far too late to say them. The point is the stretch: the 851 miles of I-5 between the Highway 50 junction in downtown Sacramento, and the Super 8 Motel in Lynden, Washington. It has become my more-or-less annual habit to Hoof It, spending the holidays with the relatives who are left up there. I find it relaxing. I know the people who run the roadside eateries and hotels — not on a first-name basis; to those with a memory up to the task, I’m nothing more than “that guy.” But I know them, and I know this road. I know it well, the way a trucker would know it.

And toward the end of the journey there is an interesting landmark. “That billboard.” Not too many Christmas travels had already been completed, before I started the habit of looking for it. It’s at the halfway point between Centralia and Chehalis, Washington. Last Thanksgiving, taking my young son with me, I made a mental note that I found it at Exit 72. And RoadsideAmerica.com has an article all about it.

The Right-Wing Uncle Sam billboard is in the city of Chehalis (but everybody thinks it’s in Centralia). I talked to the guys who run the Country Canopy & RV Center — they rent from the Hamilton Family. Sam is on their land. Since this Sam is somewhat conservative in his beliefs, ahem — he doesn’t draw respect like the original Uncle Sam in Troy, NY — this Sam’s critics respond with debris, paintballs sometimes. Sam’s days were assumed to be numbered when Alfred Hamilton died, but his son took over, cooking up more slogans to annoy Hilary Clinton.

You may be driving through a state where the politicians have rubbed elbows with Saddam Hussein, praised the non-existent accomplishments of Osama bin Laden to schoolchildren, and won elections with more votes than there are registered voters. But Chehalis’ Uncle Sam will remind you he’s keeping tabs on it all, right off the I-5.

The graphic on the billboard stays the same, at least since I first noticed the billboard while still a Washington resident and native. The lettering changes. And it’s different on the front than it is on the back. (First observed caption, on North side, noticed during motorcycle trip to Portland: “IF DUKAKIS BECOMES PRESIDENT, KEEP ONE HAND ON YOUR WALLET.”)

You can only read the North side when you’re headed South, and vice-versa. I have tried to read both on one sprint, and this is poorly-advised. If you want to read both you must either leave the freeway, adding miles and minutes to your itinerary, or resolve catch the back-side on the way back home. I have found it is much safer to opt for the latter. It gives me something to anticipate during a boring road trip. This is the region in which I was raised to eschew the notion of “instant gratification.”

The Alfred Hamilton referenced in the Roadside America blurb, passed away in 2004. His itinerary his here.

Alfred Hamilton, whose billboard emblazoned with conservative messages engaged drivers on Interstate 5 for decades, has died.

Hamilton, 84, suffered from Parkinson’s disease and cancer. He died Tuesday at his home in this southwestern Washington town.

His two-sided “Uncle Sam” billboard dates back to 1971. Over the years, it has carried a litany of messages aimed at politicians Hamilton didn’t like as well as homosexuals, Russia, abortion, communism, big government, the United Nations and gun control, to name a few.

“He was a fighter,” Sherryl Zurek, one of his daughters, told The (Centralia) Chronicle. “He loved a fight. He loved to argue or discuss.”
:
In 1971, then-state Attorney General Slade Gorton sued Hamilton under the Scenic Vista Act. The case was resolved eight years later in Hamilton’s favor.
:
“He stood about 6-3 or 6-4, and weighed 200 pounds or so,” Bradshaw said. “He gave you the feeling he was the kind of man you wouldn’t want to mess with.”

Hamilton’s wife died in 2001. He is survived by his sister, Betty; his children; and 12 grandchildren.

Free Republic thread under that article is here. Someone there called Time Is Now was kind enough to upload the obituary picture you see below.

It is chilling that the above-mentioned case dragged on for eight years. Of course I’d be saying that if there was a greater differential between Hamilton’s place on the spectrum, and my own. I swear, I would. I wish I could point to a real-world example of that.

But I don’t know of any left-wing RV park owners who are being sued for their left-wing new-age progressive “Eat The Rich” type billboard messages. I don’t know of anyone displaying a billboard that says “Clinton lied, nobody died,” and being taken to court because of the billboard. Nor do I anticipate such a test case will come to pass. My knowledge of free-speech issues involving outspoken liberals, just covers pompous asshole hippies who make jokes about bombs, and then start crying “civil liberties” when they get kicked off the flight. Nothing about billboards. Not to my personal knowledge. Certainly nothing that spans eight years, involving the state Attorney General.

Do let me know if something like that, an “Anti-Alfred-Hamilton” case, comes up, will you?

Must-Tards VII

Thanks to Malkin, we have a bizarrely-worded press release from Amnesty International about the two soldiers kidnapped over the weekend and then found dead earlier this week:

Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty. [emphasis mine]

Boy, that’s pretty tough talk there. Full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty. How’s that going to go?

Hey United States? Amnesty International here. We got some contacts who claim to have caught the scum that killed your two soldiers. You want ’em? Okay, we’re all willing to agree, but first…no death penalty, okay? Okay? You heard me. So, what’s it gonna be? C’mon…no? You might kill ’em? *sigh* All right then, if that’s the way you want it, we’ll just have to cut ’em loose…you sure now? Okay. Damn shame, we really wanted these guys prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Anti-death penalty folks say that pro-death penalty folks like me, contradict ourselves. They say we want to kill people, to show that killing people is wrong. I think they’re the ones contradicting themselves, and Amnesty International does a great job of demonstrating how.

DON’T KILL. And just to make sure the point sinks in, if you DO kill, we’re going to prosecute you “to the full extent of the law.” Kinda. Not really. We mean, to the full extent, short of actually killing you. You might say, “you stop killing people, because if you do not, we will become very angry with you, and we will write a letter to you, telling you how angry we are.”

How incredibly sensible. How incredibly EUROPEAN.

And I don’t mean that in a good way. It seems we have a lot of people who are in positions of high authority and visibility, who are convinced when you draw a line and someone steps over it, you can simply draw another line and hopefully THAT one they’ll leave alone.

When you think about it, it’s pretty scary. We’re fighting people who like to fly planes into our buildings…with their pathologically screwed-up butts sitting right in those planes. They give their lives for the cause. Well, the ones who do the actual work, are willing to.

So recap. Some greasy goat-molester is ready to kill himself to kill us. And Amnesty International goes on record saying “if you kill anybody, we’re on record as demanding you be punished to the full extent of the law short of being subjected to the death penalty.” And Muhammad Al-Weirdbeard says to himself, ooh, better call the whole plan off then. I mean, I’d be dead, but they could still go after my boss, Mahmoud Al-Tons-o-fun, and I sure wouldn’t want that to happen.

These Amnesty people aren’t making any decisions that actually matter, are they?

Thing I Know #46. No statement achieves a unifying force without first achieving unidirectional flow. People aren’t inspired by slogans containing the word “but”.

This Is Good X

Now this is why I have a blog. Wall Street Journal, online ed., presents us with a story about the dark seamy underbelly of our society, all that is wrong with the world in which we live. And yet, how come it is that every paragraph I read I can’t stop giggling?

One sunny afternoon in January, Vicki Chandler, a 55-year-old underwriting associate at Cigna HealthCare in Chattanooga, Tenn., was walking to her car when a teenager in loose khaki pants approached her, pointed to her pocketbook and said, “I need that.” As she recounts the incident, he snatched the purse and took off. But then he ran into trouble. As he ran, his loose trousers slipped down below his hips. As he reached down to hold them up, the teen was forced to throw the purse aside.

“That boy, he could run fast but he got caught up by his pants, which were real big and baggy,” says Ms. Chandler, whose purse was retrieved by a parking attendant who had heard her cries for help. It’s a problem for perpetrators. Young men and teens wearing low-slung, baggy pants fairly regularly get tripped up in their getaways, a development that has given amused police officers and law-abiding citizens a welcome edge in the fight against crime.

James Green might have made a clean getaway when he stole seven DVDs from a Blockbuster store in Ferndale, Mich., last October. But he, too, was undone by his baggy pants. Mr. Green, 30, rode away on a bicycle, with copies of “Donnie Brasco,” “The Bourne Identity” and “Sin City.” When a patrol car knocked over the bike, he fled on foot. As he ran, his trousers slipped down past his hips, and he tripped. He hitched up his pants and ran a few more yards before falling again.

Things got worse and worse for Mr. Green. He finally kicked off his pants and shoes and “ran into the yard of 1720 Beaufield,” police officer Kenneth Jaklic said in a report of the incident. “I ran after [Mr. Green], yelling at him to stop.” Instead, Mr. Green jumped over a fence behind a garage, and Mr. Jaklic immobilized him with two Taser darts in the back.

I was discussing this last year, the phenomenon of men “wearing looooooong shorts that extend past your knees, almost to your ankles, and the ass of those shorts dangles so low that you could zip up a cantaloupe in there.”

It is yet another thing I just don’t get. It’s like the Clintons’ marriage; you know, this world is fairly neck-deep in things of which I personally disapprove, but things that I, nevertheless, get. I don’t understand the baggy-pants look. You see it on one guy, and you think okay, hmm, well that’s kind of different. A little on the silly side. Just a little. But you see a room with a hundred guys in it, and ninety-nine of them look like they’re wearing their wearing daddy’s pants when they’re not big enough, and it looks ninety-nine times sillier.

Isn’t fashion supposed to start to look “more hip” when more people conform with it?

Now watch me get all confused and bollywonkers yet one more time — because in the world from which I come, if you have a widespread phenomenon of people getting tasered because their getaways don’t quite work, and their getaways aren’t working because they can’t run, and they can’t run because of the latest fashion fad, this is the beginning of the end of said fad. So I would expect the baggy-pants look to be starting its fifteenth minute right about now.

But better than even odds, I’ll be surprised one more time. Just watch what happens.

How do they keep those pants up, anyway? Do they use tape?

One Big Happy Family

This weekend I was in a pissy mood about California politics and, I think, justifiably so. I’ve spent fourteen years, my entire residence in this state, and her entire tenure in the Senate, writing to Dianne Feinstein. When she’s announces her position on something, I send a very tactfully-worded “Are You Out Of Your Freakin’ Gourd?” letter. And what I get back is a boilerplate letter thanking me for my inquiry, and proceeding to inform me of what her position is, as if I didn’t already know, and as if she was the constituent and I was the Senator.

It doesn’t cheese me off because it’s boilerplate; it doesn’t cheese me off because she won’t do what I tell her to do. I understand there are thirty million people in this state. What cheeses me off, is that the process of representation has been nibbled away, and nibbled away, to the point where it no longer exists anymore. Nobody ever seems to question this process. There is Feinstein; there are her advisors; there are who-knows-what: lobbyists, trusted advisors, confidants, cronies; they all get together and decide how things are going to be. And oh lookee lookee, she’s nice enough to tell me in case someone asks for my opinion, and I want it to be just like hers.

Occasionally an issue will surface and I will take the time to let her know how I, as a constituent, would like to see her vote, before she’s had time to form a position for herself. This was the case when Samuel A. Alito was nominated to fill the Supreme Court seat of Sandra Day O’Connor. Things get much worse then. In that case, as I recall, Feinstein was kind enough to send me a blurb letting me know that she hadn’t quite decided how she would vote, but she’d get it all figured out soon and be sure and let me know. Feinstein sits on the Senate Judicial Committee, so I was happy to see she’d have it figured out soon.

Well, it took about a month, give or take, and sure enough she decided to do everything she could to defeat Alito. Now, I suppose reasonable minds could disagree as to whether her reasons were logically sustainable. Were her opinions formed with a decent respect to the desires of her constituents, the rule of law, and a desire for civility, decorum, restraint, and a solid interpretation of law taking place on our nation’s highest bench? Suffice to say I have my doubts.

So I was pretty cynical when, coming off fourteen years of failing to have any influence at all, whatsoever, participating in the electoral representation process or seeing a decent opportunity accorded to my viewpoint for representation in the upper house of Congress, I come to learn a shocking thing: You can change Dianne Feinstein’s mind on something by blowing seven things up in a day when you’re not even a California resident. That came as a bit of a shock. I’m not about to blow up one thing, let alone seven, so I guess all you out-of-state people can keep your two senators and I’ll just make do with none.

Well, Gov. Scwarzenegger thinks she’s just doing a peachy job, and took the time to say so, or at least his spokesman did. They’re both up this year, you know. Maybe they sat down and figured out that like the Founding Fathers, if they don’t hang together, they’ll surely hang separately.

I’d just like to know what kind of peachy job she’s doing. Listening to her constituents?

While the governor didn’t name any names, Steve Schmidt, his campaign manager, wasn’t quite so circumspect.

“Like most Californians, (Schwarzenegger) thinks Dianne Feinstein is a great senator,” Schmidt said.

While Schwarzenegger has made a blanket endorsement of the other Republicans on the statewide ticket, he has pointedly left the Senate seat out of the mix.

The governor “has not made an endorsement in the Senate race,” Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger’s campaign, said Friday. “We have nothing to announce at this time.”

The governor’s reluctance to back Mountjoy has made a tough campaign even more of a longshot. The 74-year-old Monrovia (Los Angeles County) resident only jumped into the race after Republicans failed to recruit a better-known candidate and finds himself running far behind Feinstein in the polls and the quest for campaign cash.

“I realized this was an uphill battle from the start,” Mountjoy said in an interview.

Another thing I’d like to know, and it regards this facade of camaraderie between Republicans and Democrats. From whence does this dictate come? Who are all these voters who want to see Republicans and Democrats stop fighting and get along? And wherever this surfaces as a paramount issue, does any agenda ever win in the long haul, save for the most extreme left-wing liberal ones?

What has Feinstein done, exactly, to reach across the aisle, as conservatives are now prevailed to do so often that it’s become a routine expectation? She’s had fourteen years, remember. How long is the list of compromises she has actually made?

You know, to the extent I can recall the topic at hand, I think I made this point in the letter about Alito. I wanted to see if a Democrat could support a Bush nominee now that the nominee was extremely well-qualified, and the circumstances were ideal. If this thing is a two-way street and there’s some expectation on Feinstein to show some bipartisanship, that would have been a good time — she could have voted for Alito. There really wasn’t any sound reason not to. Well, she didn’t. And come to think of it, I can’t remember the last time a liberal Democrat did any compromising here, anywhere. Wherever Republicans and Democrats suddenly find ways to play nice together, it seems an off-the-charts liberal left-wing victory is about to be given life, or a renewed lease on it.

So as far as I’m concerned, it’s too late for this kind of go-along-to-get-along. Democrats and Republicans are far too incompatible to ever reconcile their differences. And that’s not my decision, it’s Dianne Feinstein’s.

Apologies To…

I had been trying to get around to making a list of other blogs that had linked back here. Somehow, I didn’t quite get around to it, but last night had satisfied myself that the Technorati listing was probably comprehensive. This morning I was supposed to do one more query, get everyone gathered up, and link back to you.

Well, the Technorati service is on the fritz. “High volume of requests right now.” Now, at three in the morning. Great minds think alike, I suppose.

I don’t like leaving people out in the cold after they’ve had the decency to give me a mention. We’ll get this done. Soon.

Update: For the record, this is who I’m talking about. I need a list somewhere, and what better place to stick it. After all, if Blogger is down too hard for me to read my list, Blogger will be down too hard for me to make any updates anyway. Better to depend on one link in the chain than two, right?

Philmon

Dean’s World (No sidebar reference, just a link from someone else’s material, but I’m getting significant traffic from it)

Aw what the heck…we threw a few punches last December, but my sparring partner Stephen VanDyke and I both got traffic out of it, more to my benefit than his. It’s the least I can do for the Hammer of Truth. Of course any time their name is mentioned I have to include the cool cartoon you see to the right.

Just Muttering, which is the whole point of the list. I keep forgetting this guy and I think he’s been waiting the longest.

Maggie’s Farm. No links from them just yet, but they were kind enough to answer my e-mail and they have some cool stuff. Like, for example, the cartoon below came from there.

The Pungeoning.

Building a Timerframe Home From Scratch. Just plain interesting.

Update 6/22/06: Done. You’re all in. Excuse my tardiness.

Update 6/23/06: I’m a silly-wicket. Poo on me. I forgot Mein Blogovault, who was good enough to link back to me earlier this month. I’ll get you.

Update: Okay, that’s done. This post is closed.

Vernon Robinson Commercial

Rightwingsparkle points us to the television ad everybody’s talking about, a spot for Vernon Robinson, running to represent the 13th district of North Carolina.

I heard my morning radio guys talk about this when it first came out. One of them mentioned this wouldn’t fly out here on the west coast. The other one agreed. This is one of those things of which I’m ignorant, although everyone else seems to be knowledgeable. I wonder who it would piss off, and why.

See, I come from that weird planet where if you’re ticked, and you’re so ticked you want to change something, being able to articulate the reason why ought to be Step One. Maybe that’s not the planet I’m living on anymore. If someone’s offended by this commercial, I’d sure love to watch them explain how.

Wimpy II

Via Feisty Republican Whore, yet another tale of responsibility comin’ a tumblin’ down, and once again all it takes is one more legal filing…

Girl sues MySpace because they didn’t hold her hand on the way to meet an older man

Today, officially, you, me, and everyone else is not personally responsible for anything we do. PARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

AUSTIN, Texas – A 14-year-old girl who says she was sexually assaulted by another user of MySpace.com sued the social networking Web site Monday, claiming it does not take sufficient steps to protect underage members.

The girl says a 19-year-old man lied in his profile about being a senior on a football team to gain her trust and phone number.

Pete Solis was arrested in May on a charge of sexual assault of a child. He could not immediately be reached Monday evening.

The suit alleges that MySpace has “absolutely no meaningful protections or security measures to protect underage users.”

That sucks and all. I wonder how much this girl’s lack of common sense and parental supervision should cost MySpace?

“(MySpace) has got to take this seriously,” said attorney Carl Barry, who is representing the girl and her mother. The suit seeks $30 million.

Oh, 30 mil eh? Sounds reasonable, given the fact that MySpace didn’t offer her Rightwingsparkle or a ju-jitsu specialist with a concealed carry permit.

I like The Whore. I’ve been meaning to link to her for a long time. Whether or not she really is a streetwalker, I don’t know, I don’t care, I’m on a budget at the moment and have to keep taking what I’m getting for free. But her sense of humor is wonderful and she fights the good fight.

My James Bond Drinking Game

My James Bond drinking game is much better than anyone else’s, because I’ve had the benefit of peeking at all the other ones and then sitting down in front of a “Spike TV 007 Days of Christmas” marathon with nothing else to do for days at a time, a few months back. Don’t ask.

The drinking game doesn’t start until Bond requests, or comments on, a drink by name. The drink is then a much cheaper version of whatever Bond mentioned. Dom Perignon ’55 (mentioned in Dr. No (1962)) becomes Andre Cold Duck. Mint Julep (Goldfinger (1964)) becomes Peppermint Schapps.

Take a drink when a bad girl turns out to be good, or when James Bond’s fantastic performance in bed persuades her to turn away from a life of crime. Take two drinks if she spares Bond’s life because of this. You might as well take another drink when a good girl turns out to be bad.

Take a drink when Bond engages in some kind of “friendly” competition with the bad guy, like golf, cards, horse racing, skeet shooting or fencing. Take two drinks if Bond loses.

Take a drink when the henchman dies. You know who it is. There’s always one.

Take a drink when Bond is escorted to, or stumbles upon, the villain’s inner sanctum.

Pour a drink when Bond arrives at the villain’s outer sanctum (corporate headquarters, sprawling mansion, chateau), and sip it slowly as he is escorted around.

Take a drink when the villain goes way out of his way to show Bond, other bad guys, his henchmen, his wench, or just the audience what an incredibly sadistic badass he is.

Take a drink when, in a rare moment of carelessness, Bond fails to protect an innocent woman or a female ally, and as the life drains from her body, silently vows revenge.

Take a drink when the bad guys sneak up on Bond’s right-hand-man, surround him, and kill him off in some highly unorthodox manner.

Take a drink when the scene is abruptly terminated because Bond is about to have sex with a woman. If it’s the woman Bond will be making-out with during the closing credits, take two drinks.

Take a drink when Bond is introduced to a foreign operative, such as Felix Liter. If this foreign operative is a complete stranger to Bond, and he trusts him/her implicitly even though he is not shown any paper credentials whatsoever (“I’m Harvey with the Portugese Secret Service!”), take two drinks.

Take a drink when Q and/or M explain to Bond the significance of a “Maguffin,” such as a weapons controlling device, decoding device, antiquity with clue hidden inside it, microfilm, etc.

Take a drink when Bond acquires the Maguffin.

Take a drink when Bond loses the Maguffin.

Take a drink when the villain has Bond over for dinner.

Take a drink when someone suffers a truly bizarre death about halfway through the movie, or when the villain shows off a highly unorthodox weapon that portends doom for the entire civilized world.

Take a drink when Bond meets a troubled young woman who has sworn revenge after the death of her parents, brother or boyfriend, and wisely counsels her to leave things to him or else take time to let her emotions cool.

Of course, you should take a drink when the bad guy plots an extraordinarily elaborate execution for Bond. Take two drinks if he tells Bond some vital detail of his dastardly plan, which of course he would never reveal if he thought there was the faintest chance Bond might survive.

Take a drink when Bond is rescued or assisted, quite unexpectedly, by “the cavalry” which is some branch of the United States or British military.

Take a drink when Bond appears before the bad guy with some outrageous pseudonym. Try to have the drink finished before the bad guy figures out who Bond really is, which he surely will, and of course you better drink fast.

Take a drink when Bond discovers a clue which will lead him to some other exotic locale.

Take a drink when M discusses the threat to national security.

Take a drink at the beginning of a chase.

Take a drink when Bond begins to defuse a bomb.

Take a drink when Bond is held in captivity.

Take a drink when Bond shows his dark side. Grrr!

Take a drink when Bond meets a girl from his past and sad, nostalgic/romantic music about the-life-that-might-have-been starts playing.

Take a drink when the bad guy begins to recite the significant events from his life-story to Bond, which can be used to help explain his twisted motivations.

Take a drink when the bad guy ridicules James Bond for his incompetence.

Take a drink when Bond collaborates with his superior officers and/or foreign intelligence officers, out in the field, right before a final assault.

Take a drink when the villain, or his henchman, has his personal scientist executed because the scientist has outlived his usefulness.

Kneel before the Porcelain God before the closing credits say “James Bond Will Return In…”

Memo For File VI

Normblog has a bunch of blogger profiles. I recognize a lot of these folks, some of them have extremely high visibility, others have very little. Van Der Leun is in there as #114, and it’s interesting to find out about his background. Read his interview first. Gerard Van Der Leun could explain how to scrape old paint off a fascia board, and make it fascinating.

Yet More Inconvenience

Via Dagney’s Rant, an analysis of what the “real scientists” have to say about Al Gore’s movie.

“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth”, showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Mmmm…yeah…that would be a little bit of a problem.

Update: Via Best of the Web, I see a request from ABC to any concerned viewer/citizens to share their personal stories about how global warming has affected their lives…

Global Warming Affecting Your Life? E-Mail Us
Send Us Your Stories and Video…Extend the Reach of ABC News’ Reporting by Sharing Your Observations

Witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?

ABC News wants to hear from you. We’re currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small � altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

Show us what you’ve seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam. Please fill out the form below, and be sure to include captions or other descriptive information if you’re sending video. We hope to hear from you. Thank you.

How messed up are things, really, when you have to go to these kind of lengths for your disaster reporting? Well, how messed up could they possibly be?

Union Seeks Ethics Probe of McKinney

Cynthia McKinney, from what I’m reading here, is not quite out of the woods yet.

Union seeks ethics probe of McKinney
By Jackie Kucinich

Members of national and local chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) expressed anger and disappointment yesterday with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General for refusing to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) for striking a police officer. The union chapters are calling on the House ethics committee to investigate the incident.

�Although she was not indicted by the grand jury, we hope that members of Congress will review her actions in light of their own rules within the ethics committee,� said Andy Maybo, chairman of the U.S. Capitol Police Fraternal Order of Police chapter.

Maybo said he plans to send a letter later this week to the ethics committee, known formally as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, requesting an investigation into the incident.

A spokesman for the ethics committee did not immediately return a call for comment. While it is unclear what House rule the FOP members believe McKinney violated, the first rule in the ethics manual states: �A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.�

�Congresswoman McKinney�s assault on Officer [Paul] McKenna was not only unprofessional for her position as a member of Congress, but we believe it puts out the wrong message across America, that it is OK to strike a police officer,� he said.

Cynthia McKinney went to Congress. Cynthia McKinney did not have her Member Of Congress pin on. Cynthia McKinney had a new hairstyle. Paul McKenna did not recognize her. Paul McKenna confronted Cynthia McKinney. Cynthia McKinney clocked Paul McKenna in the chest with her closed fist, and proceeded onward.

These are facts. They are undisputed. At least, so far as I know, they are undisputed.

What we have here, is a lawmaker refusing to abide by laws. The government can operate from the principle that laws are legislated and enforced out of allegiance and fidelity to We, The People; or, it can operate out of holy terror that if it doesn’t legislate and enforce in such a way that certain people are pleased, it will be called bigoted. Who is We? What kind of People?

Not both. Government cannot serve two masters; it cannot serve both all of us, and some of us. Either we have equal protection under the law, or we do not.

Time for a choice.

Godspeed to the FOP.

This Is Good IX

Dennis Prager starts out writing a column about global warming, and ends up writing a column about other stuff. The central topic is how, and why, liberals and conservatives go about confronting problems in different ways, and how it comes to pass that they end up confronting entirely different problems. His theory is that conservatives confront big meaningful problems like communism and totalitarianism, and liberals confront petty, meaningless bullshit.

People who don’t confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered — and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

It’s a good, logical, meaty article. If I could offer one critique, and it’s probably a critique that is meaningless once you factor in that Prager has to come in under a strict word-count for his material, whereas I labor under no such restriction — it would be good to analyze, further, how & why this came about. Our country, after all, is over two centuries old. It has always had a left and a right. And yet it didn’t always have Republicans and it didn’t always have Democrats. The left and the right, at one time or another, were each more concerned about equality between the races than their opposites. They have, at one time or another, each been more concerned about spreading democracy throughout the world than their opposites. Even today you can come up with some issues on which conservatives seem to be apathetic to issues related to privacy and freedom, and you can come up with some other issues on which liberals show equivalent apathy to equivalent concerns.

What’s the consistent theme, going all the way back to the days after Washington’s Farewell Address, when our First President’s words were promptly forgotten and the hobgoblin of partisan politics was born, when the Federalists were on the left and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were on the right?

I think it is this:

Throughout the 210-or-so years of partisan politics, people on the “right” labor under a theory that “evil” has a pinpoint-precise definition. It doesn’t represent malicious intentions, quite so much as a set of principles whose exercise results in policies deleterious to the harmony of mankind, and destined to be everlastingly so. And the core among these principles resulting in injury to the harmony of mankind, is that some people are masters, and other people are drones. The people we call “conservatives” are people who point out the simple dictum that when we proceed forward from this premise, that some people are masters and other people are drones, all the world over the ultimate result is always death, or at the very least, wasted human opportunity on a massive scale. The conservative axiom is that this must always be the case; it cannot turn out any other way.

Federalists wanted the federal government to have strong authority, via legislation such as the Alien and Sedition Act, while the opinions of people and the sovereign states were ignored. Southern Democrats wanted slavery to be kept in place, while the fundamental human rights of the slaves were ignored. Franklin Roosevelt wanted tailors to be thrown in jail if they charged more than 35 cents for hemming a shirt, while the principles of the free market were ignored. Lyndon Johnson wanted a Great Society in which the sovereign rights of the states were ignored. Throughout the eighties and nineties, liberals were all about raising taxes, which would mean the drones labor onward year after year, giving up huge pieces of their lives for the benefit of The Queen, who is kept in power making arbitrary decisions about how the lucre will be spent. Under Clinton we had “hate crime legislation,” so that now The Queen could make decisions about how these little drones should be thinking, punishing them if they didn’t think the right way.

It all has to do with whether we are Lord and Master of our destinies. All of us, right down to the lowliest among us. Are we cells of a larger organism, unable to make weighty decisions unless we’ve been vested into an office fit for such things, or are we sovereign beings as individuals, all of us, right down to the ugliest pariahs. People on the “right,” since the John Adams administration, say of course we are sovereign beings. If we are not, what was the point of America in the first place?

That is the “conservative” message — the “liberal” message is simply a lot of stuff that distracts from it. Hey look, 2500 dead soldiers in Iraq. Hey look, Al Gore has a movie out about global warming. Hey look, Bush has been spying on “ordinary Americans.” Hey look, Cheney worked for Halliburton. Hey look, our “allies” don’t look favorably upon us. Hey look, President Bush just choked on a pretzel because he’s so stupid. Hey look, Jesse Jackson says vicious attack dogs kept poor blacks from voting in Florida.

This, I think, is why Prager is seeing what he is seeing. His article is made all the more durable, because this is a situation that has remained unchanged for two centuries, while so much other substance has changed drastically. Conservatives believe we have God-given rights — because an important part of the conservative movement, is people who believe in God — including the personal right to make boneheaded decisions. Ronald Reagan famously said, and I believe this captures the spirit of the conservative movement, back to 1797: “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” Life is a car, and each person who owns that life, is the driver — let his hand, and his alone, be upon the steering wheel. Let the government get involved when he smacks into, or threatens the safety of, other cars — or when others vandalize his tires, gas tank or battery cables. Not one minute before.

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

There ya go.