It's a good thing we don't split the check this way...
American RealPolitik has the simplest explanation of how progressive taxation works that I've ever seen. Those folks who think that 'tax cuts for the rich' are a bad thing would do well to read it.
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
"Segre-gate" has nothing to do with religion
At least for me.
Clayton Cramer poses the question: Is the libertarian wing of the Republican Party hoping to push Lott out as Senate Majority Leader so that someone less identified with the Christian Right ends up in that capacity?
I identify as libertarian, and I fully admit that my desire to be rid of Lott is not soley founded in his most recent comments. It has nothing to do, however, with his identification as a member of the religious right. It is because I believe that as a leader for the republican party, he has been an abject failure. He botched the impeachment mess. He agreed to 'power-sharing' with the democratic party. He let Jim Jeffords hand the majority over to the democrats. In a time when republicans are doing their best to prove that they aren't all segregationists wearing sheep's clothing, he's an embarrassment as the majority leader, with a healthy history of espousing segregationist views, and supporting segregationist causes. He'll remain a pimple that the democrats will pick at for so long as he retains party leadership... and he has a history of deal-making with them that I suspect will only worsen now that he's lost so much credibility.
At least for me.
Clayton Cramer poses the question: Is the libertarian wing of the Republican Party hoping to push Lott out as Senate Majority Leader so that someone less identified with the Christian Right ends up in that capacity?
I identify as libertarian, and I fully admit that my desire to be rid of Lott is not soley founded in his most recent comments. It has nothing to do, however, with his identification as a member of the religious right. It is because I believe that as a leader for the republican party, he has been an abject failure. He botched the impeachment mess. He agreed to 'power-sharing' with the democratic party. He let Jim Jeffords hand the majority over to the democrats. In a time when republicans are doing their best to prove that they aren't all segregationists wearing sheep's clothing, he's an embarrassment as the majority leader, with a healthy history of espousing segregationist views, and supporting segregationist causes. He'll remain a pimple that the democrats will pick at for so long as he retains party leadership... and he has a history of deal-making with them that I suspect will only worsen now that he's lost so much credibility.
Monday, December 16, 2002
Put down your coffee cup before you follow this link
Rand Simberg has turned the tired old 'some of my best friends are black' riff into the funniest commentary on Trent Lott I have ever seen.
"I know that many of you will be surprised to learn that I was 'passing' all of these years. It was a deep, dark family secret."
"My great-great grandmother was a house nigra on a plantation outside of Biloxi. My great-grandfather was a mullatto, my grandmother was a quadroon, and my mother was an octaroon, which makes me a hexidecaroon..."
It just gets better.
Rand Simberg has turned the tired old 'some of my best friends are black' riff into the funniest commentary on Trent Lott I have ever seen.
"I know that many of you will be surprised to learn that I was 'passing' all of these years. It was a deep, dark family secret."
"My great-great grandmother was a house nigra on a plantation outside of Biloxi. My great-grandfather was a mullatto, my grandmother was a quadroon, and my mother was an octaroon, which makes me a hexidecaroon..."
It just gets better.
Thursday, December 12, 2002
Too close to home...
Ouch! The Onion's article, Area Mom Could Have Made Same Meal At Home For Much Cheaper was just a little too close to the bone there.
"For what we're shelling out on [son] Eric's cheeseburger and fries alone, I could have made dinner for the entire family," Wiersma said. "We all could have had nice cheeseburgers and fries, with plenty left over for baked beans and cole slaw. Plus, I would have toasted the bun just the way Eric likes it."...
Anxious to avoid such situations in the future, Bob said he will make an effort only to bring the family to restaurants that serve foods his wife does not know how to prepare. "Next time, we'll go to a foreign place and try to pass it off as a 'family-enrichment night,'" Bob said. "There's a Chi-Chi's over in Downers Grove I've always wanted to go to, and I'm pretty sure Sandy doesn't know how to make Mexican, so it should be a more relaxed evening for us all."
Since I moved so far out to the boonies, and can't even get pizza delivered, I've been doing a lot more cooking. Since I've had to do a lot more cooking and grocery shopping, I've noticed the contrast in prices for restaurant food compared to home-made a lot more than I used to. And it is kind of frustrating for a woman to sit down in one of those obnoxious chain restaurants, have everyone order dinner, and have the tab equal the cost of delmonico steaks and a decent wine for dinner for eight at home... but I really just linked to the article because I thought it was hilarious. :)
Ouch! The Onion's article, Area Mom Could Have Made Same Meal At Home For Much Cheaper was just a little too close to the bone there.
"For what we're shelling out on [son] Eric's cheeseburger and fries alone, I could have made dinner for the entire family," Wiersma said. "We all could have had nice cheeseburgers and fries, with plenty left over for baked beans and cole slaw. Plus, I would have toasted the bun just the way Eric likes it."...
Anxious to avoid such situations in the future, Bob said he will make an effort only to bring the family to restaurants that serve foods his wife does not know how to prepare. "Next time, we'll go to a foreign place and try to pass it off as a 'family-enrichment night,'" Bob said. "There's a Chi-Chi's over in Downers Grove I've always wanted to go to, and I'm pretty sure Sandy doesn't know how to make Mexican, so it should be a more relaxed evening for us all."
Since I moved so far out to the boonies, and can't even get pizza delivered, I've been doing a lot more cooking. Since I've had to do a lot more cooking and grocery shopping, I've noticed the contrast in prices for restaurant food compared to home-made a lot more than I used to. And it is kind of frustrating for a woman to sit down in one of those obnoxious chain restaurants, have everyone order dinner, and have the tab equal the cost of delmonico steaks and a decent wine for dinner for eight at home... but I really just linked to the article because I thought it was hilarious. :)
Baptisms for the dead = knock on the door
Eugene Volokh has some interesting commentary regarding this AP News piece on Jewish objections to Mormon baptisms for the dead.
I have to agree with Eugene, this is a mountain out of a molehill, but my agreement stems from personal experience, and an understanding of what "baptism for the dead" actually is and means. When the LDS church performs baptisms for the dead, their intent is to offer LDS salvation to folks who didn't have the chance to convert to the LDS church during their life-times (either because they didn't know of it, or were dead before its founding). This is the equivalent of the missionaries showing up at your door, and asking if you'd like to join up. If you believe that humans continue to exist after their deaths, then these souls are welcome to say "No thanks, not interested," just like people do when the missionaries come to their door in this life. There is no disrespect meant to jews, and no one is making the claim that those people the LDS church have baptised after their deaths are now mormons... unless they wanted to be.
And now that I think of it, that's a hell of a lot nicer, in terms of religious tolerance than a lot of other sects can claim. One of the reasons I turned away from organized religion was that I could not stand the holier-than-thou-we're-saved-everyone-else-is-going-to-hell attitude prevalent in organized religion. At least the mormons don't condemn you to burning hellfire for all eternity if you don't join their team.
Too bad the mormons are also incredibly insular, sexist, and in my experience there is a shockingly high rate of child and spousal abuse within the devout community. The stories you can find on exmormon.org mirror the experiences of everyone else I know who left the church (including me) - either someone was being physically or sexually abused, and received zero support from the priesthood for it, or they started questioning church history and the scriptures too closely.
This isn't to say that the LDS church is all bad, or even mostly bad. It's just not for any woman who believes in equal rights or self-determination.
If you're curious about mormons, you might find this weird little indy thriller I watched the other week worth watching. It actually gives a remarkable picture of what non-sicko mormons are like. The movie is Brigham Town, and Wilford Brimley, of all people, is in it. Pick up the box, and there is no indication that the movie is about a predominantly LDS small town, just that it's a "small town serial killer murder mystery." The pacing is a bit slow, but the movie is remarkably well constructed, and kept my interest throughout... and the scenes shot during sunday services are exceptionally accurate; it felt like I was having a flashback.
Eugene Volokh has some interesting commentary regarding this AP News piece on Jewish objections to Mormon baptisms for the dead.
I have to agree with Eugene, this is a mountain out of a molehill, but my agreement stems from personal experience, and an understanding of what "baptism for the dead" actually is and means. When the LDS church performs baptisms for the dead, their intent is to offer LDS salvation to folks who didn't have the chance to convert to the LDS church during their life-times (either because they didn't know of it, or were dead before its founding). This is the equivalent of the missionaries showing up at your door, and asking if you'd like to join up. If you believe that humans continue to exist after their deaths, then these souls are welcome to say "No thanks, not interested," just like people do when the missionaries come to their door in this life. There is no disrespect meant to jews, and no one is making the claim that those people the LDS church have baptised after their deaths are now mormons... unless they wanted to be.
And now that I think of it, that's a hell of a lot nicer, in terms of religious tolerance than a lot of other sects can claim. One of the reasons I turned away from organized religion was that I could not stand the holier-than-thou-we're-saved-everyone-else-is-going-to-hell attitude prevalent in organized religion. At least the mormons don't condemn you to burning hellfire for all eternity if you don't join their team.
Too bad the mormons are also incredibly insular, sexist, and in my experience there is a shockingly high rate of child and spousal abuse within the devout community. The stories you can find on exmormon.org mirror the experiences of everyone else I know who left the church (including me) - either someone was being physically or sexually abused, and received zero support from the priesthood for it, or they started questioning church history and the scriptures too closely.
This isn't to say that the LDS church is all bad, or even mostly bad. It's just not for any woman who believes in equal rights or self-determination.
If you're curious about mormons, you might find this weird little indy thriller I watched the other week worth watching. It actually gives a remarkable picture of what non-sicko mormons are like. The movie is Brigham Town, and Wilford Brimley, of all people, is in it. Pick up the box, and there is no indication that the movie is about a predominantly LDS small town, just that it's a "small town serial killer murder mystery." The pacing is a bit slow, but the movie is remarkably well constructed, and kept my interest throughout... and the scenes shot during sunday services are exceptionally accurate; it felt like I was having a flashback.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Send them to Stanford!
... but put an electrified fence around it.
Clayton Cramer has some interesting commentary on capital punishment and death penalty appeals. I think he's spot on, but then again, my response to people who oppose capital punishment is: "We shoot rabid dogs, don't we?" This paragraph, however, is priceless:
Because death penalty opponents are overwhelmingly people that don't believe in prison, either (because all criminals are victims, too), it is hard to have much confidence that life in prison would actually happen. Once the death penalty was repealed throughout the country, the ACLU's full energies would be devoted to proving that life in prison was cruel and unusual punishment; that it destroyed any incentive for criminals (excuse me, the differently valued victims of capitalism) to reform; and that it was cheaper to send them to Stanford. (emphasis mine)
I think that Clayton may be dismissing such an idea too quickly... given the cost of prison guards, wardens, food and water, legal representation, etc, it would be cheaper to send them to Stanford. It would be especially cost effective if we built a nice big wall around Stanford, first, then renamed it Coventry. It's not a new idea, in any sense of the word. Robert Heinlein set his version of Coventry in the northern US; Robert Anton Wilson just fenced off the state of Mississippi and called it Hell; John Carpenter set it smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles; Australia and Georgia both have their roots in the concept. Nowadays, we've got much better security and construction technologies, so it's far more feasible. I'd be willing to give up Disneyland if the trade involved dumping anyone who had been deemed so dangerous they could never be set free again (life sentences, death row inmates) in one place, shutting the gates, and then tossing the key... and I never thought Berkeley was really part of the U.S. anyway. They can be free to violate, attack, and do whatever it is rabid humans do to each other, and we'll be left alone.
Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, and there are all sorts of legal and moral concerns over such a project... but I don't see how exiling someone and leaving them to their own devices is any crueler than imprisoning them and leaving them to Bubba the mad-dog rapist's tender mercies.
... but put an electrified fence around it.
Clayton Cramer has some interesting commentary on capital punishment and death penalty appeals. I think he's spot on, but then again, my response to people who oppose capital punishment is: "We shoot rabid dogs, don't we?" This paragraph, however, is priceless:
Because death penalty opponents are overwhelmingly people that don't believe in prison, either (because all criminals are victims, too), it is hard to have much confidence that life in prison would actually happen. Once the death penalty was repealed throughout the country, the ACLU's full energies would be devoted to proving that life in prison was cruel and unusual punishment; that it destroyed any incentive for criminals (excuse me, the differently valued victims of capitalism) to reform; and that it was cheaper to send them to Stanford. (emphasis mine)
I think that Clayton may be dismissing such an idea too quickly... given the cost of prison guards, wardens, food and water, legal representation, etc, it would be cheaper to send them to Stanford. It would be especially cost effective if we built a nice big wall around Stanford, first, then renamed it Coventry. It's not a new idea, in any sense of the word. Robert Heinlein set his version of Coventry in the northern US; Robert Anton Wilson just fenced off the state of Mississippi and called it Hell; John Carpenter set it smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles; Australia and Georgia both have their roots in the concept. Nowadays, we've got much better security and construction technologies, so it's far more feasible. I'd be willing to give up Disneyland if the trade involved dumping anyone who had been deemed so dangerous they could never be set free again (life sentences, death row inmates) in one place, shutting the gates, and then tossing the key... and I never thought Berkeley was really part of the U.S. anyway. They can be free to violate, attack, and do whatever it is rabid humans do to each other, and we'll be left alone.
Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream, and there are all sorts of legal and moral concerns over such a project... but I don't see how exiling someone and leaving them to their own devices is any crueler than imprisoning them and leaving them to Bubba the mad-dog rapist's tender mercies.
A Point For Slobs...
For all of the folks who have teased me in the past with remarks like:
Is your car a surveillance vehicle?
Do you live in your car?
Have you ever cleaned your car?...
I can only point to this article: Messy Car Helps Man Survive Snow
Assorted food packets, a peanut butter jar and other items are being credited for Ward's surviving six and a half days trapped in subfreezing weather after he crashed his car last week. A broken hip suffered in the accident prevented him from climbing out of the vehicle.
For all of the folks who have teased me in the past with remarks like:
Is your car a surveillance vehicle?
Do you live in your car?
Have you ever cleaned your car?...
I can only point to this article: Messy Car Helps Man Survive Snow
Assorted food packets, a peanut butter jar and other items are being credited for Ward's surviving six and a half days trapped in subfreezing weather after he crashed his car last week. A broken hip suffered in the accident prevented him from climbing out of the vehicle.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
On Unemployment again...
An issue on my mind today, since my company is showing up in the layoff news... When I said 'boo hoo' with regards to laid off workers' unemployement benefits ending, I wasn't making any sort of comment on the value of unemployment benefits, but on the complaints of people who have already gotten extra help, and are whining for more special treatment.
An issue on my mind today, since my company is showing up in the layoff news... When I said 'boo hoo' with regards to laid off workers' unemployement benefits ending, I wasn't making any sort of comment on the value of unemployment benefits, but on the complaints of people who have already gotten extra help, and are whining for more special treatment.
Tuesday, December 03, 2002
Bad Girls may like good contracts, but Smart Girls get a better-paying job
Best of the Web today carried 'Dispatch from the Porn Belt', detailing a strike of unionized strippers out in San Francisco.
"We want respect," said Vivian, 27, who has worked at the Lusty Lady, in San Francisco's touristy North Beach district, for a year and a half.
Hrm... maybe you'd get more 'respect' if you didn't work as a stripper at place called the Lusty Lady. Hate to break it to you, but stripping isn't considered a 'respectable' job. Sure, if you aren't a total moron, and are capable of pinning a smile on your face, it can be quite lucrative, but it isn't respectable. There's nothing about taking your clothing off in front of a bunch of drunken or lonely men (and women) that you wouldn't even smile at if they weren't holding a sweaty fistful of singles that's respectable. You aren't a nurse.
The dancers are complaining the club's latest contract offer cuts hourly wages and eliminates their one day of sick pay. Sick pay was one of the victories the union won when workers approved their first contract with management in 1997, a year after unionizing.
The Exotic Dancers Union, a chapter of the Service Employees International Union, Local 790, wants management to restore $3 an hour in pay cuts made during the past 20 months, back to a top scale of $27 an hour. The club said the cuts were "revenue-based," but dancers say management has failed to justify the cuts financially by opening the club's books.
Sounds like the club really is behaving badly, but I'd say the strippers managed to screw themselves if their 'good' contract gave them a top rate of $27/hr with 1 day of sick pay. A top rate of $27/hr? Even the ugliest, surliest, strippers in the DC area pull in better than that in tips on average. If you're friendly (and I'm not referring to the illegal sort of friendly) you can pull in thousand dollar nights around here.
Here's a clue. Stop striking, and find a job at a club where you'll make better money. If you can't make better money elsewhere, then you either shouldn't be in that line of work, or should be content with what you're making.
Best of the Web today carried 'Dispatch from the Porn Belt', detailing a strike of unionized strippers out in San Francisco.
"We want respect," said Vivian, 27, who has worked at the Lusty Lady, in San Francisco's touristy North Beach district, for a year and a half.
Hrm... maybe you'd get more 'respect' if you didn't work as a stripper at place called the Lusty Lady. Hate to break it to you, but stripping isn't considered a 'respectable' job. Sure, if you aren't a total moron, and are capable of pinning a smile on your face, it can be quite lucrative, but it isn't respectable. There's nothing about taking your clothing off in front of a bunch of drunken or lonely men (and women) that you wouldn't even smile at if they weren't holding a sweaty fistful of singles that's respectable. You aren't a nurse.
The dancers are complaining the club's latest contract offer cuts hourly wages and eliminates their one day of sick pay. Sick pay was one of the victories the union won when workers approved their first contract with management in 1997, a year after unionizing.
The Exotic Dancers Union, a chapter of the Service Employees International Union, Local 790, wants management to restore $3 an hour in pay cuts made during the past 20 months, back to a top scale of $27 an hour. The club said the cuts were "revenue-based," but dancers say management has failed to justify the cuts financially by opening the club's books.
Sounds like the club really is behaving badly, but I'd say the strippers managed to screw themselves if their 'good' contract gave them a top rate of $27/hr with 1 day of sick pay. A top rate of $27/hr? Even the ugliest, surliest, strippers in the DC area pull in better than that in tips on average. If you're friendly (and I'm not referring to the illegal sort of friendly) you can pull in thousand dollar nights around here.
Here's a clue. Stop striking, and find a job at a club where you'll make better money. If you can't make better money elsewhere, then you either shouldn't be in that line of work, or should be content with what you're making.
Blackface merits a red face
UVA's Inter-Fraternity council has quite correctly decided that dressing up in blackface may be rude, but it is protected speech.
The panel, convened by the university's Inter-Fraternity Council, determined Monday that Kappa Alpha and Zeta Psi could not be punished because the partygoers' actions were constitutionally protected speech.
I'm still wondering, though, if it's always 'blackface' to dress up as a black person, even if you're costumed as an actual person (like Venus Williams), does this mean that we have to institute racial segregation in Halloween costumes? ... "I'm sorry, Billy, but you can't dress up like Booker T because you're too white." "But mom! Booker T is my favorite wrestler!" "I know, darling, but you're white, so you only get to dress as a white wrestler. How about this nice Chris Jericho costume?"
I thought people who counseled you to 'stick to your own kind' were considered racist.
UVA's Inter-Fraternity council has quite correctly decided that dressing up in blackface may be rude, but it is protected speech.
The panel, convened by the university's Inter-Fraternity Council, determined Monday that Kappa Alpha and Zeta Psi could not be punished because the partygoers' actions were constitutionally protected speech.
I'm still wondering, though, if it's always 'blackface' to dress up as a black person, even if you're costumed as an actual person (like Venus Williams), does this mean that we have to institute racial segregation in Halloween costumes? ... "I'm sorry, Billy, but you can't dress up like Booker T because you're too white." "But mom! Booker T is my favorite wrestler!" "I know, darling, but you're white, so you only get to dress as a white wrestler. How about this nice Chris Jericho costume?"
I thought people who counseled you to 'stick to your own kind' were considered racist.
Monday, December 02, 2002
They're missing the joke...
The AP's headline is Reverse Racism Nets Indian Scholarships.
The effort began last winter when a group of Indian students at the University of Northern Colorado asked officials at nearby Eaton High School to change the school's mascot from "Fighting Reds" because the name was offensive.
When the school refused, members of the UNC intramural basketball team, made up of Indians and whites, decided to get even.
They named themselves the "Fightin' Whites" and began wearing T-shirts bearing the name. After getting national media attention they began selling the shirts, which also bear the slogan "Everythang's going to be all white," from their Web site.
More than 15,000 shirts and hats have been sold, raising at least $100,000.
I think its great that they've managed to raise that much money for scholarships, but I have a deep-seated suspicion that the reason they've done so is not out of sympathy for their cause. It's because only native americans find the use of racially themed names for sports teams offensive. You don't hear norse-americans protesting the Minnesota Vikings, and you won't see the DAR protesting the New England Patriots. People bought 'Fightin' Whites' t-shirts because they thought they were fun, and in some cases, because it's nice to see someone using the word 'white' in a positive light for once. It's not an effective protest of native american sports names, it's a case of "If you Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em."
The AP's headline is Reverse Racism Nets Indian Scholarships.
The effort began last winter when a group of Indian students at the University of Northern Colorado asked officials at nearby Eaton High School to change the school's mascot from "Fighting Reds" because the name was offensive.
When the school refused, members of the UNC intramural basketball team, made up of Indians and whites, decided to get even.
They named themselves the "Fightin' Whites" and began wearing T-shirts bearing the name. After getting national media attention they began selling the shirts, which also bear the slogan "Everythang's going to be all white," from their Web site.
More than 15,000 shirts and hats have been sold, raising at least $100,000.
I think its great that they've managed to raise that much money for scholarships, but I have a deep-seated suspicion that the reason they've done so is not out of sympathy for their cause. It's because only native americans find the use of racially themed names for sports teams offensive. You don't hear norse-americans protesting the Minnesota Vikings, and you won't see the DAR protesting the New England Patriots. People bought 'Fightin' Whites' t-shirts because they thought they were fun, and in some cases, because it's nice to see someone using the word 'white' in a positive light for once. It's not an effective protest of native american sports names, it's a case of "If you Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em."
Monday, November 25, 2002
Surge in Crimes Against Muslims...
... mirrors gun-ownership rates in colonial America!
The AP headlines the release of the FBI's 2001 Hate Crimes report with FBI: Surge in Crimes Against Muslims.
Incidents targeting Muslims, previously the least common involving religious bias, increased from just 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001 - a jump of 1,600 percent...
Overall crime motivated by hate rose just over 17 percent from 2000 to 2001, from 8,063 to 9,730 incidents. Part of the increase, however, is a result in an increase in the number of law enforcement agencies voluntarily supplying hate crime data to the FBI from year to year...
Most incidents against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern ethnicity also involved assaults and intimidation, but there were three cases of murder or manslaughter and 35 arsons...
I checked out the FBI's report, and the APs figures are not only selective, they're lies.
For instance, while there was a surge in reported hate crimes against muslims, up to a total of 481 in 2001, for the same year, there were 1,043 anti-jewish hate crimes, making up 55.7% of all anti-religious hate crime victims in 2001, compared to the muslims' 27.2%. (If you're breaking it down by incidents, the jews get 57% and the muslims 26%.)
Also, according to Table 4 of the report, there weren't any anti-muslim murders or manslaughters reported for 2001, in direct contradiction to the AP's contention that there were 3 cases. There were also only 18 anti-islamic arsons noted, not the nearly doubled figure of 35 that the AP is using. Thirty five is one more arson than there was reported for all anti-religious hate crimes for the year. There also isn't a category for middle-eastern ethnicity, so I don't know how they arrived at their figures for that either.
The tables in this report are quite easy to read. This sort of sloppiness makes me suspect the writer is trying to sway our sympathies in a certain direction. Did Michael Bellesiles get a career as a writer for the AP?
... mirrors gun-ownership rates in colonial America!
The AP headlines the release of the FBI's 2001 Hate Crimes report with FBI: Surge in Crimes Against Muslims.
Incidents targeting Muslims, previously the least common involving religious bias, increased from just 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001 - a jump of 1,600 percent...
Overall crime motivated by hate rose just over 17 percent from 2000 to 2001, from 8,063 to 9,730 incidents. Part of the increase, however, is a result in an increase in the number of law enforcement agencies voluntarily supplying hate crime data to the FBI from year to year...
Most incidents against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern ethnicity also involved assaults and intimidation, but there were three cases of murder or manslaughter and 35 arsons...
I checked out the FBI's report, and the APs figures are not only selective, they're lies.
For instance, while there was a surge in reported hate crimes against muslims, up to a total of 481 in 2001, for the same year, there were 1,043 anti-jewish hate crimes, making up 55.7% of all anti-religious hate crime victims in 2001, compared to the muslims' 27.2%. (If you're breaking it down by incidents, the jews get 57% and the muslims 26%.)
Also, according to Table 4 of the report, there weren't any anti-muslim murders or manslaughters reported for 2001, in direct contradiction to the AP's contention that there were 3 cases. There were also only 18 anti-islamic arsons noted, not the nearly doubled figure of 35 that the AP is using. Thirty five is one more arson than there was reported for all anti-religious hate crimes for the year. There also isn't a category for middle-eastern ethnicity, so I don't know how they arrived at their figures for that either.
The tables in this report are quite easy to read. This sort of sloppiness makes me suspect the writer is trying to sway our sympathies in a certain direction. Did Michael Bellesiles get a career as a writer for the AP?
TIA really is scary
My initial reaction, on hearing of the existance of the Total Information Awareness program, headed up by John Poindexter, was not to jump to conclusions. I guess after reading all of the panicky reactions from privacy advocates, I figured they were all making mountains out of molehills. Until I read the following scripts from the DARPATech 2002 Symposium: Transforming Fantasy:
John Poindexter's overview of the Information Awareness Office, where he describes their multi-pronged approach to 'total information awareness.'
LtCol Douglas Dyer's overview of the Genisys program, which is researching methods to integrate their existing databases, and add new datasources. The scary part of the text is excerpted here:
"To address these issues, we've created the Genisys Program. Genisys has three goals: First, we'd like to be able to integrate and, if desirable, restructure legacy databases."
This is a noble goal, and my past work with the federal government's intel databases indicates that they are badly in need of an overhaul, but I worry that they'll do as bad a job as they did on the one I worked on.
"Second, we want to dramatically increase the coverage of vital information by making it easy to create new databases and attach new information feeds automatically. This is new, multimedia, broad-spectrum information that doesn't exist in any structured database."
Further reading indicates to me that the sort of information feeds they're looking at attaching include: credit card transactions, airline ticket purchaces, cel phone communications, medical records...
"Third, we want to create brand new database technology based on simple, scalable, distributed information stores we call repositories. In contrast to today's databases, repositories will be able to represent a broad array of information that varies in terms of structure, certainty, and format, and accessing information will be easier... Initially, repositories will be populated with synthetic data to support experimentation and rapid prototyping, but our intention is to iteratively develop and transition the technology, using operational feedback to focus future research."
Mr. Ted Senator's presentation on the Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery program which is the part of the system that folks were, rightly, scared of.
"Traditional fraud detection techniques look for outliers, i.e., behavior by individuals that is unusual according to some statistical measure... Metaphorically, these techniques aim to find a needle in a hastack, or viewed another way, to construct a jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the box.
...our task is akin to finding dangerous groups of needles hidden in stacks of needle pieces. This is much harder than simply finding needles in a haystack... we have many ways of putting the pieces together into individual needles and the needles into groups of needles; and we can not tell if a needle or group is dangerous until is it at least partially assembled. So, in principle at least, we must track all the needle pieces all of the time and consider all possible combinations."
You should read his entire presentation, but at heart it appears that his office is engaged in developing ways to troll databases for indicators, which would in turn grant the government access, based on these indicators, to do a full data collection on your life, and attempt to link you up to any possible terrorist activity.
This approach starts with the entire population, and attempts to filter down to the real dangers to our security. Even if it is less safe, I prefer an approach that makes the assumption that the general population are law-abiding, and focuses their attention on people they have sufficient evidence to suspect they will engage, or have engaged in a crime.
I fear also, that the reporting capabilities of a data repository like this will be too irresistable to pass up. Already, in the presentations, there were comments suggesting statistical information from medical records would be made available to the CDC... who might have a legitimate need for such information, but what's to stop the IRS from determining they should have access to this database, to monitor possibly suspicious financial activity as well? And so on, down the line...
Aside from the fact that I pay my taxes each year, I'd really rather the government knew as little about me as possible. I don't trust them with that kind of information.
My initial reaction, on hearing of the existance of the Total Information Awareness program, headed up by John Poindexter, was not to jump to conclusions. I guess after reading all of the panicky reactions from privacy advocates, I figured they were all making mountains out of molehills. Until I read the following scripts from the DARPATech 2002 Symposium: Transforming Fantasy:
John Poindexter's overview of the Information Awareness Office, where he describes their multi-pronged approach to 'total information awareness.'
LtCol Douglas Dyer's overview of the Genisys program, which is researching methods to integrate their existing databases, and add new datasources. The scary part of the text is excerpted here:
"To address these issues, we've created the Genisys Program. Genisys has three goals: First, we'd like to be able to integrate and, if desirable, restructure legacy databases."
This is a noble goal, and my past work with the federal government's intel databases indicates that they are badly in need of an overhaul, but I worry that they'll do as bad a job as they did on the one I worked on.
"Second, we want to dramatically increase the coverage of vital information by making it easy to create new databases and attach new information feeds automatically. This is new, multimedia, broad-spectrum information that doesn't exist in any structured database."
Further reading indicates to me that the sort of information feeds they're looking at attaching include: credit card transactions, airline ticket purchaces, cel phone communications, medical records...
"Third, we want to create brand new database technology based on simple, scalable, distributed information stores we call repositories. In contrast to today's databases, repositories will be able to represent a broad array of information that varies in terms of structure, certainty, and format, and accessing information will be easier... Initially, repositories will be populated with synthetic data to support experimentation and rapid prototyping, but our intention is to iteratively develop and transition the technology, using operational feedback to focus future research."
Mr. Ted Senator's presentation on the Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery program which is the part of the system that folks were, rightly, scared of.
"Traditional fraud detection techniques look for outliers, i.e., behavior by individuals that is unusual according to some statistical measure... Metaphorically, these techniques aim to find a needle in a hastack, or viewed another way, to construct a jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the box.
...our task is akin to finding dangerous groups of needles hidden in stacks of needle pieces. This is much harder than simply finding needles in a haystack... we have many ways of putting the pieces together into individual needles and the needles into groups of needles; and we can not tell if a needle or group is dangerous until is it at least partially assembled. So, in principle at least, we must track all the needle pieces all of the time and consider all possible combinations."
You should read his entire presentation, but at heart it appears that his office is engaged in developing ways to troll databases for indicators, which would in turn grant the government access, based on these indicators, to do a full data collection on your life, and attempt to link you up to any possible terrorist activity.
This approach starts with the entire population, and attempts to filter down to the real dangers to our security. Even if it is less safe, I prefer an approach that makes the assumption that the general population are law-abiding, and focuses their attention on people they have sufficient evidence to suspect they will engage, or have engaged in a crime.
I fear also, that the reporting capabilities of a data repository like this will be too irresistable to pass up. Already, in the presentations, there were comments suggesting statistical information from medical records would be made available to the CDC... who might have a legitimate need for such information, but what's to stop the IRS from determining they should have access to this database, to monitor possibly suspicious financial activity as well? And so on, down the line...
Aside from the fact that I pay my taxes each year, I'd really rather the government knew as little about me as possible. I don't trust them with that kind of information.
Thursday, November 21, 2002
Boo Hoo
The AP news has the heartrending headline 1M to Lose Unemployment Benefits, with lovely little case studies like this:
Shirley Deane, 53, said that last December she lost her $25,000-a-year job as an administrative secretary at Howard University in Washington and still can't find work. She ran out of unemployment benefits in August, and has no health insurance and no retirement savings. The future looks bleak, she said.
"I've been taking tests, going on interviews," she said. "I've never had this hard a problem finding a job. Never."
Gee that's a shame, but these workers aren't losing their unemployment benefits, they're ending. That's like me saying that I'm losing my house when the lease runs out. Even worse, its like me saying I'm losing my house when the lease runs out after my landlord already extended it for an extra three or four months, rent free. They aren't losing a damned thing. In fact, they already received an extra 13 weeks in unemployment welfare over what everyone else normally gets.
"All the money that's being spent on homeland security and we're left stranded," said Hurlston, 47, a single mother with a 12- year-old daughter. "If they want more money for homeland security, we have to be able to work to pay taxes."
This is what you call irrelevant. If congress grants an extension on unemployment benefits, it will have zero to do with your ability to work and pay taxes. The likelihood of your working and paying taxes would increase dramatically if you spent your time trying to find a job - any job, not just something as good as you had - instead of whining to the press.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my boyfriend the other day. He commented "I have no pride. I'll work at a 7-11 if I have to."
I countered with, "Wrong. It takes pride to work at a 7-11, rather than collect money from welfare or live off your parents. It takes pride to find a job and support yourself, even if it isn't what you want to do for a living, or it pays less than you are worth. But you do it anyway, because you want to stand on your own two feet, not be a burden to society. The person who would rather go on welfare, or leech off of someone else, than dirty their hands with work they consider menial, is the one who has no pride." (I'm sure I wasn't nearly that succinct in real life... but you get my drift.)
Shut up. Quit whining. Find a job. I live in the DC area, and there are help wanted signs all over the place, and plenty of job listings. You do what you have to to pay your bills, and keep looking for a better job. Hell, given that my company is in the midst of layoff plans, I'll probably be looking right there with you.
The AP news has the heartrending headline 1M to Lose Unemployment Benefits, with lovely little case studies like this:
Shirley Deane, 53, said that last December she lost her $25,000-a-year job as an administrative secretary at Howard University in Washington and still can't find work. She ran out of unemployment benefits in August, and has no health insurance and no retirement savings. The future looks bleak, she said.
"I've been taking tests, going on interviews," she said. "I've never had this hard a problem finding a job. Never."
Gee that's a shame, but these workers aren't losing their unemployment benefits, they're ending. That's like me saying that I'm losing my house when the lease runs out. Even worse, its like me saying I'm losing my house when the lease runs out after my landlord already extended it for an extra three or four months, rent free. They aren't losing a damned thing. In fact, they already received an extra 13 weeks in unemployment welfare over what everyone else normally gets.
"All the money that's being spent on homeland security and we're left stranded," said Hurlston, 47, a single mother with a 12- year-old daughter. "If they want more money for homeland security, we have to be able to work to pay taxes."
This is what you call irrelevant. If congress grants an extension on unemployment benefits, it will have zero to do with your ability to work and pay taxes. The likelihood of your working and paying taxes would increase dramatically if you spent your time trying to find a job - any job, not just something as good as you had - instead of whining to the press.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my boyfriend the other day. He commented "I have no pride. I'll work at a 7-11 if I have to."
I countered with, "Wrong. It takes pride to work at a 7-11, rather than collect money from welfare or live off your parents. It takes pride to find a job and support yourself, even if it isn't what you want to do for a living, or it pays less than you are worth. But you do it anyway, because you want to stand on your own two feet, not be a burden to society. The person who would rather go on welfare, or leech off of someone else, than dirty their hands with work they consider menial, is the one who has no pride." (I'm sure I wasn't nearly that succinct in real life... but you get my drift.)
Shut up. Quit whining. Find a job. I live in the DC area, and there are help wanted signs all over the place, and plenty of job listings. You do what you have to to pay your bills, and keep looking for a better job. Hell, given that my company is in the midst of layoff plans, I'll probably be looking right there with you.
Hope for reducing HPV
This is really good news. Given the extremely high infection rates for HPV, the difficulty in screening potential mates for it, and its incurability, a vaccine that could prevent HPV infection is the next best thing imaginable.
This is really good news. Given the extremely high infection rates for HPV, the difficulty in screening potential mates for it, and its incurability, a vaccine that could prevent HPV infection is the next best thing imaginable.
Playing the 'For the Children' Card Again...
As if it isn't bad enough that there are adults out there shameless enough to blame their lardbutts on the companies they buy from, rather than their own sorry lack of self control, now the jackals are trotting out the poor little fat kids to try to make a buck off of McDonalds.
In federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday, a lawyer alleged that the fast-food chain has created a national epidemic of obese children. Samuel Hirsch argued that the high fat, sugar and cholesterol content of McDonald's food is "a very insipid, toxic kind of thing" when ingested regularly by young kids.
If Hirsch is trying to claim that fast food is toxic, then why is he also describing it as insipid?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
As if it isn't bad enough that there are adults out there shameless enough to blame their lardbutts on the companies they buy from, rather than their own sorry lack of self control, now the jackals are trotting out the poor little fat kids to try to make a buck off of McDonalds.
In federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday, a lawyer alleged that the fast-food chain has created a national epidemic of obese children. Samuel Hirsch argued that the high fat, sugar and cholesterol content of McDonald's food is "a very insipid, toxic kind of thing" when ingested regularly by young kids.
If Hirsch is trying to claim that fast food is toxic, then why is he also describing it as insipid?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Halloween costumes are dangerous to college students...
First there was the University of Tennessee when a bunch of guys dressed up as the Jackson 5 for Halloween, but that seemed to have been resolved in a rational manner.
Now it's the University of Virginia, and they've suspended two fraternities because a couple of guys showed up at a frat party dressed up as Venus and Serena Williams.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - Two predominantly white fraternities at the University of Virginia were suspended by their national organizations after students showed up at a Halloween frat party in blackface.
According to news reports, fraternity members were dressed as tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
So impersonating an actual person of another race during a Halloween party is racist. Does that mean that we get to suspend every guy who ever dressed up in drag for being sexist? Especially every fella who ever dressed up as Madonna? Sheesh.
First there was the University of Tennessee when a bunch of guys dressed up as the Jackson 5 for Halloween, but that seemed to have been resolved in a rational manner.
Now it's the University of Virginia, and they've suspended two fraternities because a couple of guys showed up at a frat party dressed up as Venus and Serena Williams.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. - Two predominantly white fraternities at the University of Virginia were suspended by their national organizations after students showed up at a Halloween frat party in blackface.
According to news reports, fraternity members were dressed as tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.
So impersonating an actual person of another race during a Halloween party is racist. Does that mean that we get to suspend every guy who ever dressed up in drag for being sexist? Especially every fella who ever dressed up as Madonna? Sheesh.
Leahy and Grassley are getting it right...
Here is something democrats and republicans both can 'work across the aisle' on, and Leahy and Grassley together appear to be heading the charge.
"The FBI's discipline system still needs serious reform - it's not equitable or fair," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican committee member. "It still allows a clique of top officials to judge one another and change punishment without explanation or accountability."
In the report, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that perception was fostered by the existence of a dual system of discipline that existed before August 2000, in which FBI Senior Executive Service supervisors were judged in pending discipline matters only by other SES members.
It also cited "several troubling cases" in which the discipline imposed on SES employees "appeared unduly lenient and less severe" than discipline in similar cases involving non-SES employees.
I'm glad to see someone might actually be making an effort to clean up some of the FBI.
Here is something democrats and republicans both can 'work across the aisle' on, and Leahy and Grassley together appear to be heading the charge.
"The FBI's discipline system still needs serious reform - it's not equitable or fair," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a senior Republican committee member. "It still allows a clique of top officials to judge one another and change punishment without explanation or accountability."
In the report, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that perception was fostered by the existence of a dual system of discipline that existed before August 2000, in which FBI Senior Executive Service supervisors were judged in pending discipline matters only by other SES members.
It also cited "several troubling cases" in which the discipline imposed on SES employees "appeared unduly lenient and less severe" than discipline in similar cases involving non-SES employees.
I'm glad to see someone might actually be making an effort to clean up some of the FBI.
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Embarrassed for the rest of your life...
Matt George, 21, narrowly escaped being thinned from the herd for abject stupidity on Sunday, when the rattlesnake he was kissing in front of his friends bit him on the lip.
George was showing friends the snake he had caught on a recent trip to Arizona. Holding the 2-foot snake behind the head, he kissed it.
"I said, 'OK, man, you're being stupid, put it away,'" recalled Jim Roban. "He said, 'It's OK, I do it all the time.'"
After the second kiss, the snake bit him under his mustache.
Matt George, 21, narrowly escaped being thinned from the herd for abject stupidity on Sunday, when the rattlesnake he was kissing in front of his friends bit him on the lip.
George was showing friends the snake he had caught on a recent trip to Arizona. Holding the 2-foot snake behind the head, he kissed it.
"I said, 'OK, man, you're being stupid, put it away,'" recalled Jim Roban. "He said, 'It's OK, I do it all the time.'"
After the second kiss, the snake bit him under his mustache.
Being Insensitive...
Barbara Horton, of Hyattsville, MD had some excellent comments to make about the idea of mixing developmentally challenged and normal children in the classroom, in today's Washington Times letters to the editor.
Contrary to "Everyone learns from Inclusion" (Family Times, Sunday), inclusion is one of those concepts that sounds as if it should work but doesn't. Inclusion is a well-meaning but misguided attempt to democratize the schools by mainstreaming disabled children with non-disabled ones. I can state from personal experience that mixing children of vastly different developmental abilities only slows and frustrates normal students while reminding disabled children that they are not normal and don't have a hope of becoming like the others.
I remember my mom telling me about her mother's response when the public school system decided to mainstream retarded kids. She said "If you mix clean water and dirty water together, you just get more dirty water." My own experiences with mainstreaming say the same. You cannot expect your standard 14 year old kid to deal well with an overexcited mentally retarded student. Being assaulted in the hallway by a developmentally disabled student is both upsetting to normal students, and also exposes the developmentally disabled student to pain and humiliation. One of the mainstreamed students at my high school was in the habit both of hitting random people for no reason, and for taking your food from you. Needless to say, this didn't teach us a lot of compassion for developmentally disabled students, especially when such behavior was never punished. We were instead told by administrators that there was nothing they were allowed to do about it, and we would just have to learn to put up with it.
In addition, regular classroom teachers already have enough trouble keeping their normal students in line, and quiet enough to learn their subjects. If you add into the mix, students who need additional attention and time - and frequently specialized instruction - to learn half the subject matter, all you are doing is shortchanging every other student in that class, for the sake of patting yourself on the back because you're so lily-white you're even blind to the difference between a child with an IQ of 70 and the freshman class of Harvard.
I'm not suggesting that anyone 'different' be kept in a barrel and fed through the bunghole... but you wouldn't put a student who hadn't mastered algebra in a calculus class, would you? If you will not hold developmentally disabled students to the same behavioral standards as the rest of the class population, then they do not belong in that class. If they cannot learn the material at roughly the same pace as the rest of the class, then they do not belong in that class. Teaching children how to socialize with different sorts of people may be a noble goal, but it isn't what elementary and high school are supposed to be for.
Barbara Horton, of Hyattsville, MD had some excellent comments to make about the idea of mixing developmentally challenged and normal children in the classroom, in today's Washington Times letters to the editor.
Contrary to "Everyone learns from Inclusion" (Family Times, Sunday), inclusion is one of those concepts that sounds as if it should work but doesn't. Inclusion is a well-meaning but misguided attempt to democratize the schools by mainstreaming disabled children with non-disabled ones. I can state from personal experience that mixing children of vastly different developmental abilities only slows and frustrates normal students while reminding disabled children that they are not normal and don't have a hope of becoming like the others.
I remember my mom telling me about her mother's response when the public school system decided to mainstream retarded kids. She said "If you mix clean water and dirty water together, you just get more dirty water." My own experiences with mainstreaming say the same. You cannot expect your standard 14 year old kid to deal well with an overexcited mentally retarded student. Being assaulted in the hallway by a developmentally disabled student is both upsetting to normal students, and also exposes the developmentally disabled student to pain and humiliation. One of the mainstreamed students at my high school was in the habit both of hitting random people for no reason, and for taking your food from you. Needless to say, this didn't teach us a lot of compassion for developmentally disabled students, especially when such behavior was never punished. We were instead told by administrators that there was nothing they were allowed to do about it, and we would just have to learn to put up with it.
In addition, regular classroom teachers already have enough trouble keeping their normal students in line, and quiet enough to learn their subjects. If you add into the mix, students who need additional attention and time - and frequently specialized instruction - to learn half the subject matter, all you are doing is shortchanging every other student in that class, for the sake of patting yourself on the back because you're so lily-white you're even blind to the difference between a child with an IQ of 70 and the freshman class of Harvard.
I'm not suggesting that anyone 'different' be kept in a barrel and fed through the bunghole... but you wouldn't put a student who hadn't mastered algebra in a calculus class, would you? If you will not hold developmentally disabled students to the same behavioral standards as the rest of the class population, then they do not belong in that class. If they cannot learn the material at roughly the same pace as the rest of the class, then they do not belong in that class. Teaching children how to socialize with different sorts of people may be a noble goal, but it isn't what elementary and high school are supposed to be for.
Monday, November 18, 2002
And just for the record...
Since I've been seeing comments lately on anti-male attitudes from Instapundit and Clayton Cramer and others I'm too lazy to hunt up the link to, I thought I'd just put this out there:
What a wonderful world it is that has men in it!
As a local example, if it weren't for my man, I'd have to: clean the rain gutters, bring in the firewood, build the fires, maintain my automobiles, do the yard work, load up and haul the trash to the dump, lift heavy objects, make repairs around the house... and if I was feeling tired and stressed out, I'd be SOL trying to find a warm and sympathetic shoulder that would make me feel like things aren't really all that bad. And I'd have to buy a vibrator too.
In return: I cook dinner from scratch at least 4 nights a week, do the grocery shopping, do the bookkeeping, and if I weren't living in a modified commune, I'd be doing the housework as well (right now, in exchange for cooking, I don't have to do any cleaning... damn I have life easy).
To hell with equal rights, I'm downright privileged.
Since I've been seeing comments lately on anti-male attitudes from Instapundit and Clayton Cramer and others I'm too lazy to hunt up the link to, I thought I'd just put this out there:
What a wonderful world it is that has men in it!
As a local example, if it weren't for my man, I'd have to: clean the rain gutters, bring in the firewood, build the fires, maintain my automobiles, do the yard work, load up and haul the trash to the dump, lift heavy objects, make repairs around the house... and if I was feeling tired and stressed out, I'd be SOL trying to find a warm and sympathetic shoulder that would make me feel like things aren't really all that bad. And I'd have to buy a vibrator too.
In return: I cook dinner from scratch at least 4 nights a week, do the grocery shopping, do the bookkeeping, and if I weren't living in a modified commune, I'd be doing the housework as well (right now, in exchange for cooking, I don't have to do any cleaning... damn I have life easy).
To hell with equal rights, I'm downright privileged.
Partial Human Extermination
I was talking to my sister at lunch today, and we somehow got onto the highly appropriate meal-time topic of partial birth abortion.
To our eyes, we really can't see any reason why someone would have a problem with making this procedure illegal. My sister brought up the standard 'slippery slope' argument, but then I had a disturbing thought... the slippery slope works both ways. Partial-birth abortion, since it kills a fetus that is actually far enough along in its development to survive outside of the womb - we're talking 3rd trimester babies here, folks - essentially makes infanticide legal. Or it could. If viability outside of the womb is not the determining factor in wether abortion is a medical procedure or murder - then what's wrong with killing a 2 month old baby? If the mother is the sole judge of wether or not to bear her child - and she retains that decision even past the time when the child could be born and survive to be given away - then what is so much more wrong about a mother deciding two months after the fact that she didn't really want to be one?
I think people who reflexively fight back against any attempt to restrict abortion should take a minute to think about that. If a woman's right to choose trumps the right of a seven-month fetus to be born, then why should a 2 month old's right to life trump a woman's right to choose?
I was talking to my sister at lunch today, and we somehow got onto the highly appropriate meal-time topic of partial birth abortion.
To our eyes, we really can't see any reason why someone would have a problem with making this procedure illegal. My sister brought up the standard 'slippery slope' argument, but then I had a disturbing thought... the slippery slope works both ways. Partial-birth abortion, since it kills a fetus that is actually far enough along in its development to survive outside of the womb - we're talking 3rd trimester babies here, folks - essentially makes infanticide legal. Or it could. If viability outside of the womb is not the determining factor in wether abortion is a medical procedure or murder - then what's wrong with killing a 2 month old baby? If the mother is the sole judge of wether or not to bear her child - and she retains that decision even past the time when the child could be born and survive to be given away - then what is so much more wrong about a mother deciding two months after the fact that she didn't really want to be one?
I think people who reflexively fight back against any attempt to restrict abortion should take a minute to think about that. If a woman's right to choose trumps the right of a seven-month fetus to be born, then why should a 2 month old's right to life trump a woman's right to choose?
Thursday, November 14, 2002
Speaking of Perceptions and Guns...
Is anyone else annoyed with the latest offering from the Partnership for a Drug Free America? I'm talking about the commercial where a pair of teenage boys are sitting in one of their parents' dens, smoking a bong. They ask a bunch of stupid questions of each other, and then one of the kids takes a revolver that was just sitting on top of the desk, aims it as his friend, and as he's saying "I don't think its loaded" pulls the trigger.
This is supposed to teach us that teenagers smoking pot have poor judgement.
I'd like to know what you could say about the judgement of adults who leave a loaded revolver on the desk of their den, when they have kids in the house. Were this a real life situation, not government propaganda, the parents would be brought up on charges of negligence, and probably child abuse.
Is anyone else annoyed with the latest offering from the Partnership for a Drug Free America? I'm talking about the commercial where a pair of teenage boys are sitting in one of their parents' dens, smoking a bong. They ask a bunch of stupid questions of each other, and then one of the kids takes a revolver that was just sitting on top of the desk, aims it as his friend, and as he's saying "I don't think its loaded" pulls the trigger.
This is supposed to teach us that teenagers smoking pot have poor judgement.
I'd like to know what you could say about the judgement of adults who leave a loaded revolver on the desk of their den, when they have kids in the house. Were this a real life situation, not government propaganda, the parents would be brought up on charges of negligence, and probably child abuse.
Stupidly Vague...
The AP's headline for the scheduled execution of Mir Amil Kasi - the terrorist thug who randomly executed people waiting to enter the main gates of the CIA - is: Pakistani Faces Execution In Va.
Isn't that a bit like headlining a story on the execution of Ted Bundy with "Seattle Man Faces Execution in Florida"?
And why, exactly, was it necessary to headline this bastard's nationality, when no mention of his crime is in the headline? Wouldn't it make more sense - and be more accurate - to say "Convicted Multiple Murderer Faces Execution in Va"?
The AP's headline for the scheduled execution of Mir Amil Kasi - the terrorist thug who randomly executed people waiting to enter the main gates of the CIA - is: Pakistani Faces Execution In Va.
Isn't that a bit like headlining a story on the execution of Ted Bundy with "Seattle Man Faces Execution in Florida"?
And why, exactly, was it necessary to headline this bastard's nationality, when no mention of his crime is in the headline? Wouldn't it make more sense - and be more accurate - to say "Convicted Multiple Murderer Faces Execution in Va"?
Are you sure it's a parody?
I can't decide if this article from The Onion is more parody or more real-life...
AMHERST, MA-The filthy, disorganized apartment shared by three members of the Amherst College Marxist Society is a microcosm of why the social and economic utopia described in the writings of Karl Marx will never come to fruition, sources reported Monday. ...
"I brought up that I thought it was total bullshit that I'm, like, the only one who ever cooks around here, yet I have to do the dishes, too," said Foyle, unaware of just how much the apartment underscores the infeasibility of scientific socialism as outlined in Das Kapital. "So we decided that if I cook, someone else has to do the dishes. We were going to rotate bathroom-cleaning duty, but then Kirk kept skipping his week, so we had to give him the duty of taking out the garbage instead. But now he has a class on Tuesday nights, so we switched that with the mopping." ...
The roommates have also tried to implement a food-sharing system, with similarly poor results. The dream of equal distribution of shared goods quickly gave way to pilferage, misallocation, and hoarding. "I bought the peanut butter the first four times, and this Organic Farms shit isn't cheap," Eaves said. "So ever since, I've been keeping it in my dresser drawer. If Kirk wants to make himself a sandwich, he can run to the corner store and buy some Jif."
Anyone who has ever had to share a living space with someone who won't pull their weight knows socialism is a dumb idea.
I can't decide if this article from The Onion is more parody or more real-life...
AMHERST, MA-The filthy, disorganized apartment shared by three members of the Amherst College Marxist Society is a microcosm of why the social and economic utopia described in the writings of Karl Marx will never come to fruition, sources reported Monday. ...
"I brought up that I thought it was total bullshit that I'm, like, the only one who ever cooks around here, yet I have to do the dishes, too," said Foyle, unaware of just how much the apartment underscores the infeasibility of scientific socialism as outlined in Das Kapital. "So we decided that if I cook, someone else has to do the dishes. We were going to rotate bathroom-cleaning duty, but then Kirk kept skipping his week, so we had to give him the duty of taking out the garbage instead. But now he has a class on Tuesday nights, so we switched that with the mopping." ...
The roommates have also tried to implement a food-sharing system, with similarly poor results. The dream of equal distribution of shared goods quickly gave way to pilferage, misallocation, and hoarding. "I bought the peanut butter the first four times, and this Organic Farms shit isn't cheap," Eaves said. "So ever since, I've been keeping it in my dresser drawer. If Kirk wants to make himself a sandwich, he can run to the corner store and buy some Jif."
Anyone who has ever had to share a living space with someone who won't pull their weight knows socialism is a dumb idea.
A Great Example...
This is the sort of story you don't hear about often enough.
The general impression seems to be that children with guns are either highly dangerous, and likely to kill a bunch of unsuspecting jocks who bullied them - or - so stupid they point the gun at their friends and pull the trigger as a joke. That isn't always the case, as this 15 year old boy has demonstrated.
KALISPELL, Mont. - A father's advice paid off when a 15-year-old Eagle Scout obediently grabbed a firearm before going to look for his dog and ended up shooting a charging grizzly bear behind the family chicken coop.
This is the sort of story you don't hear about often enough.
The general impression seems to be that children with guns are either highly dangerous, and likely to kill a bunch of unsuspecting jocks who bullied them - or - so stupid they point the gun at their friends and pull the trigger as a joke. That isn't always the case, as this 15 year old boy has demonstrated.
KALISPELL, Mont. - A father's advice paid off when a 15-year-old Eagle Scout obediently grabbed a firearm before going to look for his dog and ended up shooting a charging grizzly bear behind the family chicken coop.
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
Only Reuters would think this 'Odd'...
Yahoo News' Reuters Oddly Enough section contained this article: Women Enjoy Best Sex Within Marriage.
"This survey turns on its head the idea that the best sex is when we are footloose, fancy free and single," Juliette Kellow, Top Sante's editor, said.
"The truth is truly great sex and deep intimacy are most likely to happen within the trusting, committed environment of marriage or a long-term relationship."
Sad that someone had to do a study to figure out that "deep intimacy" is most likely to happen within a "trusting, committed environment..."
Yahoo News' Reuters Oddly Enough section contained this article: Women Enjoy Best Sex Within Marriage.
"This survey turns on its head the idea that the best sex is when we are footloose, fancy free and single," Juliette Kellow, Top Sante's editor, said.
"The truth is truly great sex and deep intimacy are most likely to happen within the trusting, committed environment of marriage or a long-term relationship."
Sad that someone had to do a study to figure out that "deep intimacy" is most likely to happen within a "trusting, committed environment..."
Privacy Issues Aside...
Jacob Sullum makes some excellent points regarding the current sex offender registration laws. I feel that the registries are a dumb idea because they expose to public scrutiny, threats and scorn, people who in many cases are no danger to the public, and are unlikely to commit their crime again. Jacob Sullum has other arguments against registration:
These laws - which require sex offenders who have served their sentences to report their whereabouts to the government, which passes the information on to the public - are both too narrow and too broad.
They are too narrow because they do not cover a wide range of potentially dangerous characters whom citizens might want to avoid. They are too broad because the sex offender label sweeps together serial predators with individuals who pose little or no threat to the public.
I can empathise with parents who are terrified that their neighbor might turn out to be a child-raping psychotic, but I'm terrified my next door neighbor might turn out to have been locked up for violent assaults numerous times, and the next time I ask him to turn down his music, he'll take a shotgun to me. If violent felons and murderers have sufficient right to privacy that we don't post their names, addresses, and employers on the internet, why don't sex offenders?
Jacob Sullum makes some excellent points regarding the current sex offender registration laws. I feel that the registries are a dumb idea because they expose to public scrutiny, threats and scorn, people who in many cases are no danger to the public, and are unlikely to commit their crime again. Jacob Sullum has other arguments against registration:
These laws - which require sex offenders who have served their sentences to report their whereabouts to the government, which passes the information on to the public - are both too narrow and too broad.
They are too narrow because they do not cover a wide range of potentially dangerous characters whom citizens might want to avoid. They are too broad because the sex offender label sweeps together serial predators with individuals who pose little or no threat to the public.
I can empathise with parents who are terrified that their neighbor might turn out to be a child-raping psychotic, but I'm terrified my next door neighbor might turn out to have been locked up for violent assaults numerous times, and the next time I ask him to turn down his music, he'll take a shotgun to me. If violent felons and murderers have sufficient right to privacy that we don't post their names, addresses, and employers on the internet, why don't sex offenders?
Monday, November 11, 2002
Kevin Smith Gave Me Nightmares...
I live about an hour from Alexandria, so I can't get to my favorite video store more often than on the weekends these days. When I went this weekend, I picked up some real winners (both literally, and sarcastically speaking).
Vulgar caught my eye because it's a ViewAskew production, and a lot of the cast of Clerks and Mallrats are in it. The back description of the movie, however, is deceptively vague. Roughly, it said that the movie was about a down-on-his-luck clown that is elevated to celebrity status when he saves a child during a hostage situation... but that fame brings 'dark secrets' out of his past to light. I really wish I'd known that the 'dark secret' they were referring to was a graphically detailed gang-rape of said clown by a father and two-son team. This was the sort of film, that, after having watched it, I wished instensely for some Fantastik for the soul. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't get off on watching films like Faces of Death.
Fortunately, Pumpkin may not be industrial strength soul-restorer, but it comes close. The movie's style and characters are so similar in tone to But I'm a Cheerleader, with a feeling of earnest lunacy, that I would have sworn that they were by the same writer or director. They aren't, Pumpkin is by the same guys that brought us Dead Man on Campus instead, but Pumpkin and Cheerleader are ideological twins. The movie is sure to tweak a lot of noses, since the premise - a sorority girl falls in love with a retarded kid she's helping train for a special olympics style event - is far from politically correct. But, the actors in the film play their roles so straight, even though their characters are ridiculous, that you can't can't help but like them. The movie manages to walk a perfect line, avoiding the sort of over-the-top fun to be made of people with disabilities that you can see in Something About Mary, but also avoids the syrupy sort of "our poor broken angels" treatment of disabled folks that so many movies that aren't flat out mean fall into. I liked it enough, I'll probably buy it.
I live about an hour from Alexandria, so I can't get to my favorite video store more often than on the weekends these days. When I went this weekend, I picked up some real winners (both literally, and sarcastically speaking).
Vulgar caught my eye because it's a ViewAskew production, and a lot of the cast of Clerks and Mallrats are in it. The back description of the movie, however, is deceptively vague. Roughly, it said that the movie was about a down-on-his-luck clown that is elevated to celebrity status when he saves a child during a hostage situation... but that fame brings 'dark secrets' out of his past to light. I really wish I'd known that the 'dark secret' they were referring to was a graphically detailed gang-rape of said clown by a father and two-son team. This was the sort of film, that, after having watched it, I wished instensely for some Fantastik for the soul. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who doesn't get off on watching films like Faces of Death.
Fortunately, Pumpkin may not be industrial strength soul-restorer, but it comes close. The movie's style and characters are so similar in tone to But I'm a Cheerleader, with a feeling of earnest lunacy, that I would have sworn that they were by the same writer or director. They aren't, Pumpkin is by the same guys that brought us Dead Man on Campus instead, but Pumpkin and Cheerleader are ideological twins. The movie is sure to tweak a lot of noses, since the premise - a sorority girl falls in love with a retarded kid she's helping train for a special olympics style event - is far from politically correct. But, the actors in the film play their roles so straight, even though their characters are ridiculous, that you can't can't help but like them. The movie manages to walk a perfect line, avoiding the sort of over-the-top fun to be made of people with disabilities that you can see in Something About Mary, but also avoids the syrupy sort of "our poor broken angels" treatment of disabled folks that so many movies that aren't flat out mean fall into. I liked it enough, I'll probably buy it.
Friday, November 08, 2002
The Irony of It All...
Apparently, this guy is too involved with his own work.
The author of two books on stupidity has been charged with trying to meet a teenager on line for the purpose of sex...
Welles now faces a charge in Lantana, Florida, with using the computer to set up a date with a 15-year-old girl. But the "girl" was really a 40-year-old undercover detective.
Apparently, this guy is too involved with his own work.
The author of two books on stupidity has been charged with trying to meet a teenager on line for the purpose of sex...
Welles now faces a charge in Lantana, Florida, with using the computer to set up a date with a 15-year-old girl. But the "girl" was really a 40-year-old undercover detective.
Friday, November 01, 2002
Interesting Idea...
I like an approach like this much better than I do sex offender registries, and such.
NORFOLK, Va. - Thanks to their parole officers, more than 200 sex offenders were kept away from children during Halloween trick-or-treating hours.
Under Operation Trick No Treat, sex offenders in Norfolk and Virginia Beach were ordered to spend 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday in parole and probation offices.
What I found most interesting, however, was reaction reported from the offenders themselves:
Many sex offenders said they understood why they were told to stay off the streets.
"It makes sense," said Charles E. Davis, 64. "When you're not supposed to be around children, and they do come around your home ... that's the reason." Others said they felt that attending the session protected them from being falsely accused.
I like an approach like this much better than I do sex offender registries, and such.
NORFOLK, Va. - Thanks to their parole officers, more than 200 sex offenders were kept away from children during Halloween trick-or-treating hours.
Under Operation Trick No Treat, sex offenders in Norfolk and Virginia Beach were ordered to spend 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday in parole and probation offices.
What I found most interesting, however, was reaction reported from the offenders themselves:
Many sex offenders said they understood why they were told to stay off the streets.
"It makes sense," said Charles E. Davis, 64. "When you're not supposed to be around children, and they do come around your home ... that's the reason." Others said they felt that attending the session protected them from being falsely accused.
Swimming against the tide...
Michelle Malkin has another great piece in the Washington Times today, titled Just Following 'Standard Procedure' that outlines in grim detail the callous disregard for the law that the INS habitually displays. This is not just kindness to illegal aliens struggling to make a fresh start in the promised land; this is releasing obviously violent illegal aliens back into society who go on to commit further brutal crimes.
And all we'd have to do to fix this is enforce current laws.
Michelle Malkin has another great piece in the Washington Times today, titled Just Following 'Standard Procedure' that outlines in grim detail the callous disregard for the law that the INS habitually displays. This is not just kindness to illegal aliens struggling to make a fresh start in the promised land; this is releasing obviously violent illegal aliens back into society who go on to commit further brutal crimes.
And all we'd have to do to fix this is enforce current laws.
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Harsh Policies
LGF has linked to a bit of news: Russian security forces are going to bury the terrorists from the Moscow theater siege wrapped in pigskin.
Mean... but maybe it'll be effective. And what a contrast to our treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray!
LGF has linked to a bit of news: Russian security forces are going to bury the terrorists from the Moscow theater siege wrapped in pigskin.
Mean... but maybe it'll be effective. And what a contrast to our treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray!
Synchronicity...
Strange... was reading Lilek's wonderful piece on generations' music this morning... while I listened to disc 2 of the Jimmie Driftwood - Americana boxed set. It just arrived from Amazon the other day. I'd bought two copies of the boxed set, one to give to my mother for her birthday, and one for myself, out of a sudden desire to remember something very nice from my childhood.
Why are top 40 tunes from sixty years ago considered children's songs today? I know why they have an appeal for me: these were songs my Mom liked. These were the songs from her girlhood. To my ears they sound like kid's songs because they were part of the household aural furniture when I very young; my Mom listened to these tunes just like modern Moms turn the radio to a station that plays Prince and Sade and Lionel Richie. I happily sang along - and I still remember her smiling as we sang to a Shari Lewis version of "Would you like to swing on a star." I had no idea were were forming a cross-generational pop-cultural bond. But few kindergarteners do.
I can remember helping my mother in the kitchen while she would sing "Mercedes Benz" or old Beatles tunes ("Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was a favorite of hers). I'll probably be singing along to the Cowboy Junkies, the Stray Cats, and Remy Zero while my children help me in the kitchen someday as well.
And Jimmie Driftwood... well if you haven't listened to him before, you should try and hunt some of his music down. If you have, you should listen to it again, just for the sheer pleasure of hearing such wonderful, heartfelt and fun music. I get sentimental when I listen to Jimmie Driftwood... he is an integral part of my associations with my maternal grandfather. Now, whenever I hear 'Soldier's Joy', I happily recall singing along to the song at the age of 8, when my grandfather would play these scratchy old recordings of Jimmie Driftwood he'd made off of the radio. How strange to pop a CD into the stereo of my car now, start the drive into work, and find that I remember the lyrics to each of the songs on the first album of the collection... music I haven't heard since I was 12 years old at the most recently.
If you haven't done it in a while, try digging up some old music you associate with your childhood.... I guess next I'll be hunting down CDs of Wee Sing Silly Songs...
Strange... was reading Lilek's wonderful piece on generations' music this morning... while I listened to disc 2 of the Jimmie Driftwood - Americana boxed set. It just arrived from Amazon the other day. I'd bought two copies of the boxed set, one to give to my mother for her birthday, and one for myself, out of a sudden desire to remember something very nice from my childhood.
Why are top 40 tunes from sixty years ago considered children's songs today? I know why they have an appeal for me: these were songs my Mom liked. These were the songs from her girlhood. To my ears they sound like kid's songs because they were part of the household aural furniture when I very young; my Mom listened to these tunes just like modern Moms turn the radio to a station that plays Prince and Sade and Lionel Richie. I happily sang along - and I still remember her smiling as we sang to a Shari Lewis version of "Would you like to swing on a star." I had no idea were were forming a cross-generational pop-cultural bond. But few kindergarteners do.
I can remember helping my mother in the kitchen while she would sing "Mercedes Benz" or old Beatles tunes ("Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was a favorite of hers). I'll probably be singing along to the Cowboy Junkies, the Stray Cats, and Remy Zero while my children help me in the kitchen someday as well.
And Jimmie Driftwood... well if you haven't listened to him before, you should try and hunt some of his music down. If you have, you should listen to it again, just for the sheer pleasure of hearing such wonderful, heartfelt and fun music. I get sentimental when I listen to Jimmie Driftwood... he is an integral part of my associations with my maternal grandfather. Now, whenever I hear 'Soldier's Joy', I happily recall singing along to the song at the age of 8, when my grandfather would play these scratchy old recordings of Jimmie Driftwood he'd made off of the radio. How strange to pop a CD into the stereo of my car now, start the drive into work, and find that I remember the lyrics to each of the songs on the first album of the collection... music I haven't heard since I was 12 years old at the most recently.
If you haven't done it in a while, try digging up some old music you associate with your childhood.... I guess next I'll be hunting down CDs of Wee Sing Silly Songs...
Monday, October 28, 2002
Well, actually...
Clayton's comments on the U of Arizona shooting spree are spot on, with one quibble:
Unfortunately, mass murderers don't pay attention to those signs. Only their victims do.
Personally, I'd bet mass murderers pay plenty of attention to those signs... when they see one, they know it means that they'll be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest benefits of arming a society, is that even the unarmed are protected from criminals, precisely because the criminals do not know which of their potential victims is armed. Putting up a sign that says that such and such a place is a 'gun-free zone', is the equivalent of putting up a sign that says "everyone in this area is unarmed and defenseless."
Here's a challenge to 'gun-free school zone', and other 'gun-free' area proponents: put a sign up outside of your home that says "Gun-free Household."
Clayton's comments on the U of Arizona shooting spree are spot on, with one quibble:
Unfortunately, mass murderers don't pay attention to those signs. Only their victims do.
Personally, I'd bet mass murderers pay plenty of attention to those signs... when they see one, they know it means that they'll be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm of the opinion that one of the greatest benefits of arming a society, is that even the unarmed are protected from criminals, precisely because the criminals do not know which of their potential victims is armed. Putting up a sign that says that such and such a place is a 'gun-free zone', is the equivalent of putting up a sign that says "everyone in this area is unarmed and defenseless."
Here's a challenge to 'gun-free school zone', and other 'gun-free' area proponents: put a sign up outside of your home that says "Gun-free Household."
Why don't we just give ALL of our money to the government and let them take care of everything?...
James Frogue has an excellent piece in the Washington Times, describing socialism in layman's terms. Any Oregon voter - or anyone else faced with the idea of 'single-payer' health care - should take note.
Look at Canada where single payer health care has been in effect for nearly 20 years. Among the world's 29 richest countries, Canada consistently ranks above only Mexico, Poland and Turkey in terms of medical technology. Months-long waiting lists for critical services and referrals to specialists are common. Cancer survival rates are well below those in the United States and prescription drugs are rationed. Of course, the rich and the political elite use their resources to skip the lines and head south to the United States for treatment, or pay privately, but illegally, for expedited service.
.... oh yeah, that's why.
James Frogue has an excellent piece in the Washington Times, describing socialism in layman's terms. Any Oregon voter - or anyone else faced with the idea of 'single-payer' health care - should take note.
Look at Canada where single payer health care has been in effect for nearly 20 years. Among the world's 29 richest countries, Canada consistently ranks above only Mexico, Poland and Turkey in terms of medical technology. Months-long waiting lists for critical services and referrals to specialists are common. Cancer survival rates are well below those in the United States and prescription drugs are rationed. Of course, the rich and the political elite use their resources to skip the lines and head south to the United States for treatment, or pay privately, but illegally, for expedited service.
.... oh yeah, that's why.
What will it take before the government listens?
Michelle Malkin is watching the INS as closely as Joel Mowbray is watching the Department of State. Thanks guys, those groups bear watching.
Who Let Lee Malvo Loose? she asks, and the answer, unsurprisingly, is the INS.
Eugene Davis, a retired deputy chief Border Patrol agent in Blaine, Wash., told me: "This is another classic example of how our catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens remains a danger to us all. What's it going to take for the American people to demand that we fix the system?"
From what I can tell, we're already demanding that the system get fixed. The problem appears to be that the government is staunchly ignoring us. From the Department of State, which willfully turns a blind eye to the terrorist threat presented by islamists wishing to enter our country, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which willfully ignores the same laws they are sworn to uphold, and allows blatant scofflaws to wander our country free of fear.
We're yelling. But the government is so busy pandering to the minority and illegal immigrant vote, they're turning a deaf ear to the cries of their own citizens.
Michelle Malkin is watching the INS as closely as Joel Mowbray is watching the Department of State. Thanks guys, those groups bear watching.
Who Let Lee Malvo Loose? she asks, and the answer, unsurprisingly, is the INS.
Eugene Davis, a retired deputy chief Border Patrol agent in Blaine, Wash., told me: "This is another classic example of how our catch-and-release policy for illegal aliens remains a danger to us all. What's it going to take for the American people to demand that we fix the system?"
From what I can tell, we're already demanding that the system get fixed. The problem appears to be that the government is staunchly ignoring us. From the Department of State, which willfully turns a blind eye to the terrorist threat presented by islamists wishing to enter our country, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which willfully ignores the same laws they are sworn to uphold, and allows blatant scofflaws to wander our country free of fear.
We're yelling. But the government is so busy pandering to the minority and illegal immigrant vote, they're turning a deaf ear to the cries of their own citizens.
Friday, October 25, 2002
Can't say it better...
Rand Simberg has managed to express my feelings on Sen. Wellstone's death precisely.
Rand Simberg has managed to express my feelings on Sen. Wellstone's death precisely.
A dumb idea that doesn't work... and if it worked? It would still be dumb.
Clayton's takedown of the benefits of ballistics 'fingerprinting' is worthwhile reading.
Using current crime statistics, he has done some math, and assuming that we lived in a fantasyland where:
- ballistics 'fingerprinting' works perfectly
- every single legal firearm in the country has been registered, and the information is regularly updated
- even firearms that have been stolen are in the database
- every bullet used in a crime is recoverable, and in good enough shape for the police to run a match...
If all these most unlikely circumstances were achieved, we would get the following improvements in clearance:
78 additional rifle murders solved;
2033 additional handgun murders solved;
0 additional murders solved with all other weapons.
In other words, even if ballistics fingerprinting worked, it still wouldn't be worth the money and effort involved. And it doesn't work. So its just a waste of money that could be used towards better things...
Clayton's takedown of the benefits of ballistics 'fingerprinting' is worthwhile reading.
Using current crime statistics, he has done some math, and assuming that we lived in a fantasyland where:
- ballistics 'fingerprinting' works perfectly
- every single legal firearm in the country has been registered, and the information is regularly updated
- even firearms that have been stolen are in the database
- every bullet used in a crime is recoverable, and in good enough shape for the police to run a match...
If all these most unlikely circumstances were achieved, we would get the following improvements in clearance:
78 additional rifle murders solved;
2033 additional handgun murders solved;
0 additional murders solved with all other weapons.
In other words, even if ballistics fingerprinting worked, it still wouldn't be worth the money and effort involved. And it doesn't work. So its just a waste of money that could be used towards better things...
Thursday, October 17, 2002
Saturn: Rape Sells SUVs
I was watching television last night, when a commercial for a Saturn SUV came on. In it, a bunch of guys head out for a camping trip to the woods, and while the announcer is extolling the virtues of the vehicle, music comes on in the background. It's the dueling banjoes from the movie, Deliverance, and the guys in the commercial predictably become terrified, pile into the vehicle, and drive away. The announcer says something to the effect of "..and with electric power steering, you can really get away..."
I admit, I giggled. But am I the only one who doesn't think that fear of rape by backwoods hicks is a good marketing hook for a car? And tasteless? I can only imagine the outrage that would follow were Saturn to make a similar commercial for women. So why is it acceptable to make jokes about raping men?
I was watching television last night, when a commercial for a Saturn SUV came on. In it, a bunch of guys head out for a camping trip to the woods, and while the announcer is extolling the virtues of the vehicle, music comes on in the background. It's the dueling banjoes from the movie, Deliverance, and the guys in the commercial predictably become terrified, pile into the vehicle, and drive away. The announcer says something to the effect of "..and with electric power steering, you can really get away..."
I admit, I giggled. But am I the only one who doesn't think that fear of rape by backwoods hicks is a good marketing hook for a car? And tasteless? I can only imagine the outrage that would follow were Saturn to make a similar commercial for women. So why is it acceptable to make jokes about raping men?
Belated Justice
Ira Einhorn has been declared guilty of murdering his girlfriend.
Update: Here's an AP article announcing the verdict.
Ira Einhorn has been declared guilty of murdering his girlfriend.
Update: Here's an AP article announcing the verdict.
Monday, October 14, 2002
What's gun control got to do with it?
Clayton makes very good points about those trying to score political points for their argument off of the recent 'sniper-style' attacks in my area... both pro and con.
Clayton makes very good points about those trying to score political points for their argument off of the recent 'sniper-style' attacks in my area... both pro and con.
Friday, October 11, 2002
Thinning the Herd...
I shouldn't get a giggle out of this, but what an ignominious what to die.
People who live in trees, lie down in the middle of the road, chain themselves to structures, stage hunger-strikes, etc. are engaging in adult-style temper-tantrums. We shouldn't coddle them, we should treat them in a manner consistent with the maturity of their actions. Since they're acting like 4 year olds, we should send them to their room without supper.
The key sentence in this article came at the end:
In perhaps the most famous tree sit, Julia "Butterfly" Hill spent two years 180 feet up in a 1,000-year-old redwood in Northern California to save it from being cut down for lumber.
She came down in 1999 after Pacific Lumber Co. agreed to leave the tree standing in return for $50,000 to make up for lost logging revenue.
Yep. Don't want someone who owns a tree to cut it down? Why not try buying it?
I shouldn't get a giggle out of this, but what an ignominious what to die.
People who live in trees, lie down in the middle of the road, chain themselves to structures, stage hunger-strikes, etc. are engaging in adult-style temper-tantrums. We shouldn't coddle them, we should treat them in a manner consistent with the maturity of their actions. Since they're acting like 4 year olds, we should send them to their room without supper.
The key sentence in this article came at the end:
In perhaps the most famous tree sit, Julia "Butterfly" Hill spent two years 180 feet up in a 1,000-year-old redwood in Northern California to save it from being cut down for lumber.
She came down in 1999 after Pacific Lumber Co. agreed to leave the tree standing in return for $50,000 to make up for lost logging revenue.
Yep. Don't want someone who owns a tree to cut it down? Why not try buying it?
Hear! Hear!
Clayton has it right.
Spongebob is a children's character, and as such, his sexuality or lack thereof should never be an issue.
In this case, the news seems to be that Spongebob is popular among the gay community. The last time I recalled, so was Judy Garland -- does that mean we should look for gay overtones in the Wizard of Oz? More importantly, what does that have to do with the show itself? I'd be willing to bet that Spongebob is as popular among potheads as the Teletubbies were, but I wouldn't say that either show encourages drug use. It's just that these shows, having been targeted at a very young and innocent audience, are also ideal fare for someone who is stoned.
There is evidence that indicates that children's stories (and I would say, with the advent of television, their shows as well) have long been used as a teaching tool to instruct or warn children. Jack Zipes' excellent book "The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood" gives an excellent example of how children's tales have evolved over time to suit the lessons that grownup society wishes to impart. I don't, therefore, think that it's a bad thing to examine the content of a show with an eye to what lessons it teaches our children, rather than its entertainment value. So were Spongebob to invite the Pink Teletubbie over for an olive-oil wrestling party, I'd be offended.
However, Spongebob as he is now, is just a fantasy children's character who happens to also appeal to folks with an (stereotypically) effeminate bent. Shocking that something cutesy would be popular among people stereotyped for being cutesy.
Update: I've been angrily informed by my 23 year old little sister (not a pothead) that there is no 'pink' teletubbie, and that I should change my reference to Tinky Winky instead. Just goes to show how much childrens' programming I watch these days.
Clayton has it right.
Spongebob is a children's character, and as such, his sexuality or lack thereof should never be an issue.
In this case, the news seems to be that Spongebob is popular among the gay community. The last time I recalled, so was Judy Garland -- does that mean we should look for gay overtones in the Wizard of Oz? More importantly, what does that have to do with the show itself? I'd be willing to bet that Spongebob is as popular among potheads as the Teletubbies were, but I wouldn't say that either show encourages drug use. It's just that these shows, having been targeted at a very young and innocent audience, are also ideal fare for someone who is stoned.
There is evidence that indicates that children's stories (and I would say, with the advent of television, their shows as well) have long been used as a teaching tool to instruct or warn children. Jack Zipes' excellent book "The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood" gives an excellent example of how children's tales have evolved over time to suit the lessons that grownup society wishes to impart. I don't, therefore, think that it's a bad thing to examine the content of a show with an eye to what lessons it teaches our children, rather than its entertainment value. So were Spongebob to invite the Pink Teletubbie over for an olive-oil wrestling party, I'd be offended.
However, Spongebob as he is now, is just a fantasy children's character who happens to also appeal to folks with an (stereotypically) effeminate bent. Shocking that something cutesy would be popular among people stereotyped for being cutesy.
Update: I've been angrily informed by my 23 year old little sister (not a pothead) that there is no 'pink' teletubbie, and that I should change my reference to Tinky Winky instead. Just goes to show how much childrens' programming I watch these days.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
If the shoe fits...
Terrible piece in the Washington Times Editorial Page today, titled "Who are you calling a Terrorist?".
Steven Zak blathers about how right-wing types, the Washington Times and the National Review Online have been unjustly saying that animal rights activists commit terrorism...
"Granted, some radical animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes."
I don't think people are so worried about the serious acts of vandalism as they are the serious acts of arson that groups like the ELF and the ALF have been engaging in. Fireboming a ski lodge in Vail is not vandalism, it's attempted murder. Fireboming a Forest Service laboratory in Pennsylvania isn't vandalism either. And I'm sure the owners of the various car dealerships the ELF/ALF has fire-bombed wouldn't call their activities 'vandalism' either. Hell, kidnapping a british reporter and branding your organization's letters on his stomach isn't vandalism either, its torture, you twit. It's disengenious to point to something minor, like vandalism, and lump the actual, valid complaints we have against animal rights nutjobs into something as vague as 'other crimes'.
But the wrongers' wrath isn't directed solely at them. Mr. Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.
That wouldn't have something to do with PETA's material and moral support for animal rights terrorists, would it? Especially when officials in their organization, like Bruce Friedrich, make statements like:
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
... but back to Zak.
"Do such expressions of concern and caring for animals make you worry that animals will soon get the vote, or that shared restrooms for them and us can't be far behind? Of course not. But they apparently do worry the animal wrongers, who fear the slippery slope that we've all stepped onto long, long ago.
But they're worse than just silly reactionaries. By equating vandalism and other property crimes with terrorism, the wrongers trivialize the real thing and insult its victims. Which, come to think of it, sort of makes them terrorists."
Of course! How could I have never seen it before? Firebombing a forest service lab = vandalism. Criticizing the people who do it = terrorism.
Gas Station Attendant jumps in: "I'm picking up on your sarcasm here."
David Spade kindly replies for me: "That's good, cos I'm laying it on pretty thick."
- Tommy Boy
No, I don't worry that animals will get the vote. And some people have been clever enough with training their house pets that they already share restrooms. I only wish I could teach my cat to use the toilet.
We're not afraid of the slippery slope. We're afraid some more of you childish little hoodlums will show up in our neck of the woods and decide to burn something else down to make an incoherent and obviously not well thought out point.
I thought about removing the 'twit' and 'nutjob' remarks, but since calling me an 'animal-wronger' is about as mature as calling a pro-choice person a 'pro-deather'... well... nanny nanny boo boo! I'm going home and grilling up a great big bloody steak.
Terrible piece in the Washington Times Editorial Page today, titled "Who are you calling a Terrorist?".
Steven Zak blathers about how right-wing types, the Washington Times and the National Review Online have been unjustly saying that animal rights activists commit terrorism...
"Granted, some radical animal activists have committed serious acts of vandalism and other crimes."
I don't think people are so worried about the serious acts of vandalism as they are the serious acts of arson that groups like the ELF and the ALF have been engaging in. Fireboming a ski lodge in Vail is not vandalism, it's attempted murder. Fireboming a Forest Service laboratory in Pennsylvania isn't vandalism either. And I'm sure the owners of the various car dealerships the ELF/ALF has fire-bombed wouldn't call their activities 'vandalism' either. Hell, kidnapping a british reporter and branding your organization's letters on his stomach isn't vandalism either, its torture, you twit. It's disengenious to point to something minor, like vandalism, and lump the actual, valid complaints we have against animal rights nutjobs into something as vague as 'other crimes'.
But the wrongers' wrath isn't directed solely at them. Mr. Smith, for instance, condemns groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and even the moderate Humane Society of the United States.
That wouldn't have something to do with PETA's material and moral support for animal rights terrorists, would it? Especially when officials in their organization, like Bruce Friedrich, make statements like:
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities. I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows. ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
... but back to Zak.
"Do such expressions of concern and caring for animals make you worry that animals will soon get the vote, or that shared restrooms for them and us can't be far behind? Of course not. But they apparently do worry the animal wrongers, who fear the slippery slope that we've all stepped onto long, long ago.
But they're worse than just silly reactionaries. By equating vandalism and other property crimes with terrorism, the wrongers trivialize the real thing and insult its victims. Which, come to think of it, sort of makes them terrorists."
Of course! How could I have never seen it before? Firebombing a forest service lab = vandalism. Criticizing the people who do it = terrorism.
Gas Station Attendant jumps in: "I'm picking up on your sarcasm here."
David Spade kindly replies for me: "That's good, cos I'm laying it on pretty thick."
- Tommy Boy
No, I don't worry that animals will get the vote. And some people have been clever enough with training their house pets that they already share restrooms. I only wish I could teach my cat to use the toilet.
We're not afraid of the slippery slope. We're afraid some more of you childish little hoodlums will show up in our neck of the woods and decide to burn something else down to make an incoherent and obviously not well thought out point.
I thought about removing the 'twit' and 'nutjob' remarks, but since calling me an 'animal-wronger' is about as mature as calling a pro-choice person a 'pro-deather'... well... nanny nanny boo boo! I'm going home and grilling up a great big bloody steak.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Padding the Facts on Obesity
CHICAGO -- Americans are even fatter than they think they are, with nearly a third of all adults - almost 59 million people - rated obese in a disturbing new government survey based on actual body measurements.
One in five Americans, or 19.8 percent, had considered themselves obese in a 2000 survey based on people's own assessments of their girth.
The new 1999-2000 survey puts the real number at 31 percent - a doubling over the past two decades. The new number is considered more reliable since people consistently underestimate their weight.
So basically, the AP has succeeded in manufacturing news by comparing an opinion survey based on personal assessments of one's weight, and a survey that takes into account their actual weight. That's like asking someone to guess how much they weigh, getting an answer of 125lbs, then putting them on the scale and claiming that they gained 10 pounds when they actually weigh in at 135.
In addition, a measurement-based survey of young people found that 15 percent of youngsters ages 6 to 19 were seriously overweight. That is nearly 9 million youths and triple the number in a similar assessment from 1980.
Just keep in mind that the Government's definition of obesity has no correlation whatsoever to actual percentage of body fat. See Junk Science's excellent explanation of just who falls into the category 'obese'.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys have been conducted periodically for several years. Twenty-three percent of adults were obese in 1994 and 15 percent in 1980. ... Obesity is defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or above. The index is a measure of weight relative to height.
The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.
Of course, the article neglects to mention that the jump from 23% to nearly 66% has much to do with the Government's redefinition of obesity in 1998, when they abandoned the concept of percentage body fat and embraced the wholly stupid idea of just comparing height to weight.
"The numbers are pretty shocking," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"They need to put into place real policy," such as offering more healthful foods in government meal programs and requiring fast-food restaurants to list calories on menus, she said.
If by 'shocking', you mean: alarmist, dishonest, scaremongering, deceptive...
If you're wondering who the Center for Science in the Public Interest is, they're an advocacy group that campaigns for organic and vegetarian diets, not a disinterested group of scientists. And if you're wondering about some of the policy iniatives CSPI is campaigning to put in place, we can start with their most popular crusade, the 'twinkie tax'. CSPI thinks that food that they don't consider healthy should be punitively taxed in order to force people to eat to their standard of 'healthy'. If you'd like more information on them, check Activist Cash.com and look at CSPI's profile.
CHICAGO -- Americans are even fatter than they think they are, with nearly a third of all adults - almost 59 million people - rated obese in a disturbing new government survey based on actual body measurements.
One in five Americans, or 19.8 percent, had considered themselves obese in a 2000 survey based on people's own assessments of their girth.
The new 1999-2000 survey puts the real number at 31 percent - a doubling over the past two decades. The new number is considered more reliable since people consistently underestimate their weight.
So basically, the AP has succeeded in manufacturing news by comparing an opinion survey based on personal assessments of one's weight, and a survey that takes into account their actual weight. That's like asking someone to guess how much they weigh, getting an answer of 125lbs, then putting them on the scale and claiming that they gained 10 pounds when they actually weigh in at 135.
In addition, a measurement-based survey of young people found that 15 percent of youngsters ages 6 to 19 were seriously overweight. That is nearly 9 million youths and triple the number in a similar assessment from 1980.
Just keep in mind that the Government's definition of obesity has no correlation whatsoever to actual percentage of body fat. See Junk Science's excellent explanation of just who falls into the category 'obese'.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys have been conducted periodically for several years. Twenty-three percent of adults were obese in 1994 and 15 percent in 1980. ... Obesity is defined as having a body-mass index of 30 or above. The index is a measure of weight relative to height.
The latest survey also found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were overweight, or had a body-mass index of between 25 and 30.
Of course, the article neglects to mention that the jump from 23% to nearly 66% has much to do with the Government's redefinition of obesity in 1998, when they abandoned the concept of percentage body fat and embraced the wholly stupid idea of just comparing height to weight.
"The numbers are pretty shocking," said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"They need to put into place real policy," such as offering more healthful foods in government meal programs and requiring fast-food restaurants to list calories on menus, she said.
If by 'shocking', you mean: alarmist, dishonest, scaremongering, deceptive...
If you're wondering who the Center for Science in the Public Interest is, they're an advocacy group that campaigns for organic and vegetarian diets, not a disinterested group of scientists. And if you're wondering about some of the policy iniatives CSPI is campaigning to put in place, we can start with their most popular crusade, the 'twinkie tax'. CSPI thinks that food that they don't consider healthy should be punitively taxed in order to force people to eat to their standard of 'healthy'. If you'd like more information on them, check Activist Cash.com and look at CSPI's profile.
Slipping further into Socialism
I have no idea if this stands a chance of passing, or not but it's scary... there's an initiative on the Nov. 5th ballot in Oregon that would create a Universal State Health Care system that would have no premiums or copays... and that would be generous enough that the article reports it would cover massage and acupuncture.
The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.
Glad I'm on the East, not the Left coast.
I have no idea if this stands a chance of passing, or not but it's scary... there's an initiative on the Nov. 5th ballot in Oregon that would create a Universal State Health Care system that would have no premiums or copays... and that would be generous enough that the article reports it would cover massage and acupuncture.
The Oregon plan would be financed by a new payroll tax of up to 11.5 percent on businesses and an increase in personal income taxes. The top rate would rise from its current 9 percent to as high as 17 percent.
Glad I'm on the East, not the Left coast.
Mmmm... Mmmmm... Good
Last night my boyfriend built up a roaring fire as soon as he got home from work, and as soon as I made it home, I marinated some really thick butterfly pork chops in a little sherry, soy sauce, mirin and some Melinda's. Once he got enough coals together out of the fire, we dumped them in our grill, and I cooked the pork chops over that... slowly. The result was the juiciest, most flavorful (but without obscuring the flavor of the meat) pork chop I have ever had. Yummy. I'll just remember to do it on a weekend next time... it takes a while to cook them this way (I had them on the grill for 45 minutes).
Last night my boyfriend built up a roaring fire as soon as he got home from work, and as soon as I made it home, I marinated some really thick butterfly pork chops in a little sherry, soy sauce, mirin and some Melinda's. Once he got enough coals together out of the fire, we dumped them in our grill, and I cooked the pork chops over that... slowly. The result was the juiciest, most flavorful (but without obscuring the flavor of the meat) pork chop I have ever had. Yummy. I'll just remember to do it on a weekend next time... it takes a while to cook them this way (I had them on the grill for 45 minutes).
Thursday, October 03, 2002
Did you know the word 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary?
One of the most beautiful things about the blogosphere is that when a blogger makes an error, they're normally quick to correct it. .... or everyone else will for them. The phrase 'fact-check your ass' comes to mind.
So maybe major media organizations should do themselves a favor and hire some bloggers to fact-check their reporters before they report, in all seriousness, that "the WHO says blondes are going extinct."
... no really, its by the same scientist who wrote the study proving that a guy really can die from blue-balls.
One of the most beautiful things about the blogosphere is that when a blogger makes an error, they're normally quick to correct it. .... or everyone else will for them. The phrase 'fact-check your ass' comes to mind.
So maybe major media organizations should do themselves a favor and hire some bloggers to fact-check their reporters before they report, in all seriousness, that "the WHO says blondes are going extinct."
... no really, its by the same scientist who wrote the study proving that a guy really can die from blue-balls.
I don't give a damn how you feel... I care about what you do
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
The New York Times has an excellent article on self-esteem, and its effects that, while I enjoyed reading it, I spent a good deal of time saying to myself "someone had to do a study to find this out?"
In an extensive review of studies, for example, Dr. Nicholas Emler, a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found no clear link between low self-esteem and delinquency, violence against others, teenage smoking, drug use or racism, though a poor self-image was one of several factors contributing to self-destructive behaviors like suicide, eating disorders and teenage pregnancy.
High self-esteem, on the other hand, was positively correlated with racist attitudes, drunken driving and other risky behaviors, Dr. Emler found in his 2001 review. Though academic success or failure had some effect on self-esteem, students with high self-esteem were likely to explain away their failures with excuses, while those with low self-esteem discounted their successes as flukes.
It always perplexed me that it never seemed to occur to academics and touchy-feel-good sorts that telling child that they're perfect and wonderful, no matter what a screw-up they are, might have bad results. With the loss of concepts like shame and personal responsibility, we have also lost useful tools in constraining bad behaviour in society.
Yet more old-fashioned strategies for making one's way in the world, like learning self-control, resisting temptation or persisting in the face of failure have received little study, in part because the attention to self-esteem has been so pervasive.
"My bottom line is that self-esteem isn't really worth the effort," Dr. Baumeister said. "Self-control is much more powerful.
There's the kicker, right there. We've been paying so much attention to how children FEEL, we've forgotten to pay any attention to how they're DOING.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
The Shabby Truth is...
Perhaps Josh Marshall hasn't had time to update his post yet, but I think his comments on the Torricelli race are off the mark.
With regards to whether the Democrats should be able to put a new name on the ballot, he says that "The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate."
I'm of the opinion that the shabby truth was that the DNC had such a low opinion of New Jersey voters, they thought Torricelli would win the election despite his ethical handicaps. Since it has become obvious he won't, the democrats have embarked on a desperate struggle to put a democrat who isn't bound to lose the race into the election. Too bad they waited way past the deadline, because now they have to make themselves like bigger assholes by taking the whole issue to court, and litigating their way through yet another election, rather than facing defeat. If the democrats had any real concern for the voters, they would have demanded Torricelli step down from his post long ago (and before the ballot deadline had passed), and put a 'cleaner' candidate in Torricelli's place. But the democrats aren't concerned with voter choice, they're concerned with winning. And as this latest debacle has shown, they're interested in winning at any cost.
Perhaps Josh Marshall hasn't had time to update his post yet, but I think his comments on the Torricelli race are off the mark.
With regards to whether the Democrats should be able to put a new name on the ballot, he says that "The rather shabby truth here is that Republicans understand that Forrester could only get elected in a state like New Jersey not simply if he were facing a bad candidate but essentially no candidate."
I'm of the opinion that the shabby truth was that the DNC had such a low opinion of New Jersey voters, they thought Torricelli would win the election despite his ethical handicaps. Since it has become obvious he won't, the democrats have embarked on a desperate struggle to put a democrat who isn't bound to lose the race into the election. Too bad they waited way past the deadline, because now they have to make themselves like bigger assholes by taking the whole issue to court, and litigating their way through yet another election, rather than facing defeat. If the democrats had any real concern for the voters, they would have demanded Torricelli step down from his post long ago (and before the ballot deadline had passed), and put a 'cleaner' candidate in Torricelli's place. But the democrats aren't concerned with voter choice, they're concerned with winning. And as this latest debacle has shown, they're interested in winning at any cost.
Thursday, September 26, 2002
"Because It Is Hard" is only justification for Porn Stars...
Rand Simberg makes an excellent case for changing the mindset we have towards space exploration.
Rand Simberg makes an excellent case for changing the mindset we have towards space exploration.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Hear! Hear!
I'm thinking I don't read the VodkaPundit nearly often enough. He quite nicely writes:
What, right now, prevents any nation, other than the US, from doing exactly what they please?
Serbia invaded Croatia and Bosnia. Palestinians blow up Jews. Libya thrusts into Chad (which could be a gay porn title). India and Pakistan wave nukes at each other, while encouraging one another's minorities to commit barbarous acts. Turkey invades Cypress. China and Vietnam have at it. North Korea lobs missiles over the South. Eritrea and Ethiopia go their separate ways, then go after each other's throats. Morocco annexes Western Sahara. Russia bombs Georgia. Iraq invades Kuwait. Iraq invades Iran. Damn near everybody invades Congo. And everybody kills the Jews, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer.
We must be the only nation in the world to ever bother first asking for permission before defending our interests.
I'm thinking I don't read the VodkaPundit nearly often enough. He quite nicely writes:
What, right now, prevents any nation, other than the US, from doing exactly what they please?
Serbia invaded Croatia and Bosnia. Palestinians blow up Jews. Libya thrusts into Chad (which could be a gay porn title). India and Pakistan wave nukes at each other, while encouraging one another's minorities to commit barbarous acts. Turkey invades Cypress. China and Vietnam have at it. North Korea lobs missiles over the South. Eritrea and Ethiopia go their separate ways, then go after each other's throats. Morocco annexes Western Sahara. Russia bombs Georgia. Iraq invades Kuwait. Iraq invades Iran. Damn near everybody invades Congo. And everybody kills the Jews, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer.
We must be the only nation in the world to ever bother first asking for permission before defending our interests.
Words fail me...
Clayton has posted a letter he wrote to California Governor Gray Davis regarding the plight of the mentally ill in California. All I can add are my sympathies, and my full agreement. This is a national problem that rarely gets any attention unless it ends in tragedy, like the case of Russell E. Weston.
Clayton has posted a letter he wrote to California Governor Gray Davis regarding the plight of the mentally ill in California. All I can add are my sympathies, and my full agreement. This is a national problem that rarely gets any attention unless it ends in tragedy, like the case of Russell E. Weston.
Finally... Just Desserts
Mir Aimal Kasi, the islamic terrorist bastard that murdered two people in a cold-blooded shooting at the front light for the CIA is finally scheduled to be executed. Mark your calendars. On Nov. 7, the murders of Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett will finally be punished.
This does NOT however, detract from what I consider one of the CIA's more devastating security failures. The reason Kasi was able to stand outside the front gates of the CIA with an AK-47 and open fire on the helpless drivers trapped at that light was because the CIA did not install guards at this very vulnerable point. Rumor has it that the ritzy residents of McLean, VA (avg income: $183,381), did not like to be reminded that the nation's chief spy agency was sitting right in the midst of their million dollar homes - so no guards out front. If you drive down 123, past the main entrance now, you can see a cute little white gazebo at that light, a gazebo that was paid for with the lives of two Americans.
The CIA, and other intel agencies are rotten with this "it takes an incident" attitude. People have to die. Secrets have to be lost. Sources have to executed. Terrorists have to slam passenger planes into occupied office buildings... before government agencies will be moved to do anything about it. When government agencies move from a reactive to a proactive stance on security, then perhaps these sorts of failures will occur less often.
Mir Aimal Kasi, the islamic terrorist bastard that murdered two people in a cold-blooded shooting at the front light for the CIA is finally scheduled to be executed. Mark your calendars. On Nov. 7, the murders of Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett will finally be punished.
This does NOT however, detract from what I consider one of the CIA's more devastating security failures. The reason Kasi was able to stand outside the front gates of the CIA with an AK-47 and open fire on the helpless drivers trapped at that light was because the CIA did not install guards at this very vulnerable point. Rumor has it that the ritzy residents of McLean, VA (avg income: $183,381), did not like to be reminded that the nation's chief spy agency was sitting right in the midst of their million dollar homes - so no guards out front. If you drive down 123, past the main entrance now, you can see a cute little white gazebo at that light, a gazebo that was paid for with the lives of two Americans.
The CIA, and other intel agencies are rotten with this "it takes an incident" attitude. People have to die. Secrets have to be lost. Sources have to executed. Terrorists have to slam passenger planes into occupied office buildings... before government agencies will be moved to do anything about it. When government agencies move from a reactive to a proactive stance on security, then perhaps these sorts of failures will occur less often.
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Someone at TSA got a Clue!
Bravo to James Loy, who appears to be taking a more logical approach to airport security.
He calls the random gate screenings "hassle checks."... Has Mr. Loy been listening to Israel's airline officials? Sounds like it.
Bravo to James Loy, who appears to be taking a more logical approach to airport security.
He calls the random gate screenings "hassle checks."... Has Mr. Loy been listening to Israel's airline officials? Sounds like it.
Monday, September 23, 2002
Mixed Feelings...
Attorney General Ashcroft has taken Oregon's assisted suicide law to court. The federal government's position being that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors are forbidden to prescribe drugs except for 'legitimate medical purposes', and prescribing drugs with the intention of ending someone's life does not fall under 'legitimate' in the eyes of Ashcroft.
I have mixed feelings on this. In general, I'm a states' rights fan, and from that viewpoint, would take Oregon's side. A majority of voters said 'Yes' to this measure, and I believe that it's aim was compassionate, especially when you consider that it has been only in the past few years that hospitals have taken a more proactive approach to pain management. However, and this is a big however, I believe that keeping suicide illegal has a legitimate basis, in this case to avoid nasty eugenics or euthanasia overtones (see Holland).
So I guess I object that Ashcroft is stepping in, and it seems to me that his interference in this case - and in medical marijuana initiatives - reflects his personal beliefs far more than it might be an attempt to address an national problem. But, since the thought of getting rid of our old and undesireables makes me feel queasy, I can't be too angry with Ashcroft in this instance.
Attorney General Ashcroft has taken Oregon's assisted suicide law to court. The federal government's position being that under the Controlled Substances Act, doctors are forbidden to prescribe drugs except for 'legitimate medical purposes', and prescribing drugs with the intention of ending someone's life does not fall under 'legitimate' in the eyes of Ashcroft.
I have mixed feelings on this. In general, I'm a states' rights fan, and from that viewpoint, would take Oregon's side. A majority of voters said 'Yes' to this measure, and I believe that it's aim was compassionate, especially when you consider that it has been only in the past few years that hospitals have taken a more proactive approach to pain management. However, and this is a big however, I believe that keeping suicide illegal has a legitimate basis, in this case to avoid nasty eugenics or euthanasia overtones (see Holland).
So I guess I object that Ashcroft is stepping in, and it seems to me that his interference in this case - and in medical marijuana initiatives - reflects his personal beliefs far more than it might be an attempt to address an national problem. But, since the thought of getting rid of our old and undesireables makes me feel queasy, I can't be too angry with Ashcroft in this instance.
Friday, September 20, 2002
News from the Dept of the Obvious
One of the front page articles in the Washington Times this morning carries the headline "Monsignor says gays shouldn't be priests. Now, I was never a catholic, but I was under the impression that homosexuality was considered sinful in the eyes of the church. It would follow, then, wouldn't it, that the church wouldn't want their appointed spiritual leaders to be sinners?
And how is this front page news?
One of the front page articles in the Washington Times this morning carries the headline "Monsignor says gays shouldn't be priests. Now, I was never a catholic, but I was under the impression that homosexuality was considered sinful in the eyes of the church. It would follow, then, wouldn't it, that the church wouldn't want their appointed spiritual leaders to be sinners?
And how is this front page news?
When you put it that way...
If you characterize the marijuana debate as an issue of states' rights vs. the feds, then Clayton's analogy makes perfect sense. I didn't think to characterize it in terms of liberal hypocrisy, though, since I see that so often (see the percentage of congressman who consistently vote against school choice/vouchers, but send their own children to private school; the lefty support for the arabs in palestine, despite arabic attitudes towards womens' rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... ).
"But you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, right?"
"Well, I guess so."
"Good! Then we're back in agreement!"
- Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy
If you characterize the marijuana debate as an issue of states' rights vs. the feds, then Clayton's analogy makes perfect sense. I didn't think to characterize it in terms of liberal hypocrisy, though, since I see that so often (see the percentage of congressman who consistently vote against school choice/vouchers, but send their own children to private school; the lefty support for the arabs in palestine, despite arabic attitudes towards womens' rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc... ).
"But you would agree that Paris is the capitol of France, right?"
"Well, I guess so."
"Good! Then we're back in agreement!"
- Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy
Someone who isn't related to me is actually reading this!
Wow. My heart skipped a beat when I saw that Clayton Cramer had actually responded to one of my posts on his weblog. I don't track traffic to this, so I had no idea anyone but my sisters were ever reading this. I'm honored.
And in response, I'd like to say that I agree with Clayton here. I'm all for abstinence in teens, and discouragement of promiscuity. I'm not so long out of my teens myself that I don't know the damage that sleeping around can do to your health, your sense of self-worth, or your reputation (and yes, reputation still is important). And yes, your chances of contracting an STD does increase with the number of people you sleep with... had I been lucky enough to find the guy I really wanted to stay with forever, I would have stopped right there. Unfortunately, relationships do end, or don't work out. Outside of celibacy until marriage (and even then, there's a risk, since you can't know for sure if the fella you're marrying is an untouched virgin), the best way to protect yourself from STDs is to be choosy, and careful.
Wow. My heart skipped a beat when I saw that Clayton Cramer had actually responded to one of my posts on his weblog. I don't track traffic to this, so I had no idea anyone but my sisters were ever reading this. I'm honored.
And in response, I'd like to say that I agree with Clayton here. I'm all for abstinence in teens, and discouragement of promiscuity. I'm not so long out of my teens myself that I don't know the damage that sleeping around can do to your health, your sense of self-worth, or your reputation (and yes, reputation still is important). And yes, your chances of contracting an STD does increase with the number of people you sleep with... had I been lucky enough to find the guy I really wanted to stay with forever, I would have stopped right there. Unfortunately, relationships do end, or don't work out. Outside of celibacy until marriage (and even then, there's a risk, since you can't know for sure if the fella you're marrying is an untouched virgin), the best way to protect yourself from STDs is to be choosy, and careful.
How is a Machine Gun like a Joint?
I normally respect Clayton Cramer's arguments, but this time, he's really making a false comparison.
Clayton asks "Imagine the reaction if, say, Salmon, Idaho, started to buy machine guns using its police department exemption from machine gun rules, and selling them to their citizens with some rationalization equivalent Santa Cruz's compassionate help argument. Do you suppose that liberals would be upset about BATF prosecuting this violation of federal law?"
No, Clayton, of course they wouldn't. But there's a really big difference between giving someone with cancer a joint, in defiance of federal law, and giving someone a machine gun, in defiance of federal law. You cannot kill someone with marijuana, but a machine gun can be pretty damned effective. Marijuana is relatively harmless. It's certainly less dangerous to smoke pot than it is to drink alcohol. A machine gun is a useful tool that, in the wrong hands, can kill any number of people. Big difference. I expect better reasoning out of you, Clayton.
Yes, people should obey the law, but when the law is an ass, as it is in the case of the war on some drugs, they should follow the 11th commandment.
I normally respect Clayton Cramer's arguments, but this time, he's really making a false comparison.
Clayton asks "Imagine the reaction if, say, Salmon, Idaho, started to buy machine guns using its police department exemption from machine gun rules, and selling them to their citizens with some rationalization equivalent Santa Cruz's compassionate help argument. Do you suppose that liberals would be upset about BATF prosecuting this violation of federal law?"
No, Clayton, of course they wouldn't. But there's a really big difference between giving someone with cancer a joint, in defiance of federal law, and giving someone a machine gun, in defiance of federal law. You cannot kill someone with marijuana, but a machine gun can be pretty damned effective. Marijuana is relatively harmless. It's certainly less dangerous to smoke pot than it is to drink alcohol. A machine gun is a useful tool that, in the wrong hands, can kill any number of people. Big difference. I expect better reasoning out of you, Clayton.
Yes, people should obey the law, but when the law is an ass, as it is in the case of the war on some drugs, they should follow the 11th commandment.
Got Brains?
PETA has revived its Got Beer? campaign, aimed at turning college age students off of drinking milk, by claiming that beer is actually healthier. Never mind that any dietician you talk to would laugh in your face at such a claim; facts were never meant to stand in the way of a lunatic fringe organization that hates humans.
There's a movement going around right now, to revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, using as justification is financial support for terrorist groups. I'm all for it. If you want some good reasons, check out PETA's page on ActivistCash.com...
According to a July 26, 2000, Associated Press story, out of the 2,103 animals that PETA “rescued” during 1999, a whopping 1,325 of them were euthanized (put to sleep) anyway. Considering the organization’s budget during that same year (over $17 million), its cash reserves at the time (over $4 million), and its history of rushing to the defense of even the scrawniest laboratory rat when TV cameras are rolling, it’s shocking that the group would sentence all of those cats and dogs to the needle.
While PETA and the other groups condemn scientific research involving animals (90 percent of which are rodents, according to Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-research foundation), they spend a pittance on animal shelters. Eleven million animals are destroyed annually for lack of facilities. Yet PETA spent less than $3,955 of its $12 million in fiscal year 1995 and $6,100 of its $10.9 million in fiscal 1996 for shelter programs, according to its nonprofit tax forms filed with the IRS.
In contrast, PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.
Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization.
PETA has revived its Got Beer? campaign, aimed at turning college age students off of drinking milk, by claiming that beer is actually healthier. Never mind that any dietician you talk to would laugh in your face at such a claim; facts were never meant to stand in the way of a lunatic fringe organization that hates humans.
There's a movement going around right now, to revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, using as justification is financial support for terrorist groups. I'm all for it. If you want some good reasons, check out PETA's page on ActivistCash.com...
According to a July 26, 2000, Associated Press story, out of the 2,103 animals that PETA “rescued” during 1999, a whopping 1,325 of them were euthanized (put to sleep) anyway. Considering the organization’s budget during that same year (over $17 million), its cash reserves at the time (over $4 million), and its history of rushing to the defense of even the scrawniest laboratory rat when TV cameras are rolling, it’s shocking that the group would sentence all of those cats and dogs to the needle.
While PETA and the other groups condemn scientific research involving animals (90 percent of which are rodents, according to Americans for Medical Progress, a pro-research foundation), they spend a pittance on animal shelters. Eleven million animals are destroyed annually for lack of facilities. Yet PETA spent less than $3,955 of its $12 million in fiscal year 1995 and $6,100 of its $10.9 million in fiscal 1996 for shelter programs, according to its nonprofit tax forms filed with the IRS.
In contrast, PETA sent $70,500 in 1995 to Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist and avowed member of the domestic-terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front. Coronado served a five-year federal prison sentence for a 1992 animal-rights-related firebombing at Michigan State University.
Unapologetic about its ties to domestic terrorism, PETA also made a cash donation in 2001 to the North American Earth Liberation Front, a group that the FBI has called a domestic terrorist organization.
Thursday, September 19, 2002
HPV and other STDs people tend to ignore
Clayton Cramer has a very good post on STDs and makes the point that HPV isn't perceived to be the problem that HIV is, in part, because the real victims of HPV are women. He makes good points. But...
there are other reasons why HPV and, say, herpes, don't get the same press attention that HIV does. For one, HPV and herpes are not generally fatal. For another, they're incurable. So is HIV, but incurable in that case means a death sentence. And finally.... the incidence of HPV among the general population is at something like 50% and there's isn't any reliable way to tell is someone has HPV or herpes or not, unless they are showing warts or open sores.
And finally, its not quantity that increases your risk of contracting an STD, despite what folks would like you to think. It's the quality of your lovers. The best way to avoid contracting an STD is to be very very picky about who you're willing to sleep with. Who's at more risk of contracting an STD, the teenage virgin who's going to give it up to the most popular jock in school? Or the twenty-something woman who's had a number of boyfriends, all in committed relationships?
Clayton Cramer has a very good post on STDs and makes the point that HPV isn't perceived to be the problem that HIV is, in part, because the real victims of HPV are women. He makes good points. But...
there are other reasons why HPV and, say, herpes, don't get the same press attention that HIV does. For one, HPV and herpes are not generally fatal. For another, they're incurable. So is HIV, but incurable in that case means a death sentence. And finally.... the incidence of HPV among the general population is at something like 50% and there's isn't any reliable way to tell is someone has HPV or herpes or not, unless they are showing warts or open sores.
And finally, its not quantity that increases your risk of contracting an STD, despite what folks would like you to think. It's the quality of your lovers. The best way to avoid contracting an STD is to be very very picky about who you're willing to sleep with. Who's at more risk of contracting an STD, the teenage virgin who's going to give it up to the most popular jock in school? Or the twenty-something woman who's had a number of boyfriends, all in committed relationships?
It's Nice To See Someone Gets It
Rep. Tom Tancredo has been making waves lately, primarily for taking an anti-idiotarian stance on illegal immigration. I don't care if an illegal immigrant is an honor student. He shouldn't be here. Follow the rules when you try to come to this country, because Rep. Tancredo is right when he says "These people are telling everyone else who's doing it right that they're suckers." He is also quite right when he says "How can the Mexican consul be so brazen about telling people to take our laws and shove them? ... If my son showed up illegally at the University of Mexico and asked them for in-state tuition, not only would they refuse, they'd throw him in a detention center. They take illegal immigration seriously there."
And we should, too.
Rep. Tom Tancredo has been making waves lately, primarily for taking an anti-idiotarian stance on illegal immigration. I don't care if an illegal immigrant is an honor student. He shouldn't be here. Follow the rules when you try to come to this country, because Rep. Tancredo is right when he says "These people are telling everyone else who's doing it right that they're suckers." He is also quite right when he says "How can the Mexican consul be so brazen about telling people to take our laws and shove them? ... If my son showed up illegally at the University of Mexico and asked them for in-state tuition, not only would they refuse, they'd throw him in a detention center. They take illegal immigration seriously there."
And we should, too.
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Stupid Teenagers...
Katie Sierra apparently doesn't see the humor in her attempts to start an 'anarchy club'. Especially when you consider the following statement: On the morning of Oct. 23, 2001, Katie asked Mann if she could start an anarchy club, so that like-minded or curious students could gather, have reading and discussion groups and do community service. She'd spent all weekend working on a Constitution and Manifesto for the club. "This anarchist club will not tolerate hate or violence," says her Manifesto. "It is our final goal to dispel myths about anarchism, especially the belief that anarchy is chaos and destruction." (Italic emphasis mine)
Katie, I'm sure someone has asked you to already, but could you please read the definition of an anarchist? You can say all you like that anarchy isn't about chaos and destruction, but if you do so, you are no longer talking about anarchy. It's hard enough to get concepts across in a language like English, its even harder when today's kids (and a lot of leftists... see the lefty definition of handgun control) refuse to actually pair the words they use with their accepted definitions.
I can say that I'm a pedophile, and that I support pedophilia, but that pedophilia isn't about the sexual exploitation of young children... but then I'd sound dumb. Think about it, Katie.
Katie Sierra apparently doesn't see the humor in her attempts to start an 'anarchy club'. Especially when you consider the following statement: On the morning of Oct. 23, 2001, Katie asked Mann if she could start an anarchy club, so that like-minded or curious students could gather, have reading and discussion groups and do community service. She'd spent all weekend working on a Constitution and Manifesto for the club. "This anarchist club will not tolerate hate or violence," says her Manifesto. "It is our final goal to dispel myths about anarchism, especially the belief that anarchy is chaos and destruction." (Italic emphasis mine)
Katie, I'm sure someone has asked you to already, but could you please read the definition of an anarchist? You can say all you like that anarchy isn't about chaos and destruction, but if you do so, you are no longer talking about anarchy. It's hard enough to get concepts across in a language like English, its even harder when today's kids (and a lot of leftists... see the lefty definition of handgun control) refuse to actually pair the words they use with their accepted definitions.
I can say that I'm a pedophile, and that I support pedophilia, but that pedophilia isn't about the sexual exploitation of young children... but then I'd sound dumb. Think about it, Katie.
Stupid Women...
Ira Einhorn, an environmentalist activist who brutally murdered his girlfriend over 20 years ago, is finally set to stand trial for his evil deeds. This man beat nearly to death, and then locked in a steamer trunk and left for dead, his girlfriend, who was trying to end their five year relationship at the time.
This is all old news, obviously... but I saw an article in the Washington Post titled Judge: No Immunity for Einhorn Wife that gave me pause.
This monster has a wife? Some stupid woman, knowing that he was a violent, convicted murderer - whose victim was a woman he was in a love relationship with - married him?!? The article doesn't say, but I hope to god that they never bred. Such a combination of violent evil, with willfull stupidity would only pollute the gene pool further.
Ira Einhorn, an environmentalist activist who brutally murdered his girlfriend over 20 years ago, is finally set to stand trial for his evil deeds. This man beat nearly to death, and then locked in a steamer trunk and left for dead, his girlfriend, who was trying to end their five year relationship at the time.
This is all old news, obviously... but I saw an article in the Washington Post titled Judge: No Immunity for Einhorn Wife that gave me pause.
This monster has a wife? Some stupid woman, knowing that he was a violent, convicted murderer - whose victim was a woman he was in a love relationship with - married him?!? The article doesn't say, but I hope to god that they never bred. Such a combination of violent evil, with willfull stupidity would only pollute the gene pool further.
Stupid Parenting Ideas 101
Richard and Jennete Killpack are victims of the weird ideology that rejects anything traditional, instead substituting unproven, unconventional methods to achieve results. So, when their adopted daughter was apparently having trouble 'bonding' with them, they adopted a policy of forcing her to request everything, even food and water. As if that policy weren't loony enough, they also would force an excess of anything she 'snuck' from them without requesting it... like water. Key passage in the article:
"She had a very severe problem of sneaking and lying ... to the point of even damage to herself," he said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "They made the suggestion that whatever she sneaked or wanted, that you would do that in excess."
After she took water in June, he said they asked her to drink three 8 ounces glasses of water. After about 12 ounces, he said, she threw temper tantrums, and then followed their request to do exercises and take a time out.
"She started to complain her head was dizzy. I asked her to come over to me, and she basically passed out in our arms," he said on NBC's "Today" show.
"Her death was a tragic, tragic accident," Jennete Killpack said.
But prosecutors said evidence shows Cassandra was forced to drink so much water it lowered the concentration of sodium in her blood, causing fatal brain swelling. The Killpacks' lawyer, Philip Danielson, said unbeknownst to her parents, Cassandra's sodium level was depleted before she drank the water.
So they forced her to drink so much water that it killed her, because she didn't ask for a glass of water first. The real tragedy in this story is that Cassandra was four years old. That's right, they were doing this to a four year old girl. Who cares if a child at the age of four lies? They don't even make much sense, that young! Just as sad is that there are people out there who are ignorant enough to try a whackjob theory like this on their children. And because bad things work in threes... its truly sad that someone decided they were fit to adopt children in the first place, when they treat their children as less than humans, to be experimented on.
These people obviously aren't fit to be responsible for any living creatures. The other two children in their care (one adopted, one biological) are in foster care now, and even as messed up as the foster care system tends to be, I'm thinking they're better off than with these morons.
Richard and Jennete Killpack are victims of the weird ideology that rejects anything traditional, instead substituting unproven, unconventional methods to achieve results. So, when their adopted daughter was apparently having trouble 'bonding' with them, they adopted a policy of forcing her to request everything, even food and water. As if that policy weren't loony enough, they also would force an excess of anything she 'snuck' from them without requesting it... like water. Key passage in the article:
"She had a very severe problem of sneaking and lying ... to the point of even damage to herself," he said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "They made the suggestion that whatever she sneaked or wanted, that you would do that in excess."
After she took water in June, he said they asked her to drink three 8 ounces glasses of water. After about 12 ounces, he said, she threw temper tantrums, and then followed their request to do exercises and take a time out.
"She started to complain her head was dizzy. I asked her to come over to me, and she basically passed out in our arms," he said on NBC's "Today" show.
"Her death was a tragic, tragic accident," Jennete Killpack said.
But prosecutors said evidence shows Cassandra was forced to drink so much water it lowered the concentration of sodium in her blood, causing fatal brain swelling. The Killpacks' lawyer, Philip Danielson, said unbeknownst to her parents, Cassandra's sodium level was depleted before she drank the water.
So they forced her to drink so much water that it killed her, because she didn't ask for a glass of water first. The real tragedy in this story is that Cassandra was four years old. That's right, they were doing this to a four year old girl. Who cares if a child at the age of four lies? They don't even make much sense, that young! Just as sad is that there are people out there who are ignorant enough to try a whackjob theory like this on their children. And because bad things work in threes... its truly sad that someone decided they were fit to adopt children in the first place, when they treat their children as less than humans, to be experimented on.
These people obviously aren't fit to be responsible for any living creatures. The other two children in their care (one adopted, one biological) are in foster care now, and even as messed up as the foster care system tends to be, I'm thinking they're better off than with these morons.
Welcome home, boys...
On Friday, we added the newest members to our family, Sweeney Todd and Bullseye, a pair of maine coon kittens. Sweeney has an orange and brown mustache and a white throat with a dark brown slash on it, and Bullseye is grey and white with a dark grey 'RCA Victor' ring around his left eye. Both are settling in nicely, but they're distracting me from other things... like being on time for work.
On Friday, we added the newest members to our family, Sweeney Todd and Bullseye, a pair of maine coon kittens. Sweeney has an orange and brown mustache and a white throat with a dark brown slash on it, and Bullseye is grey and white with a dark grey 'RCA Victor' ring around his left eye. Both are settling in nicely, but they're distracting me from other things... like being on time for work.
Monday, September 16, 2002
The clearinghouse of Bad Ideas...
Rep. Mark Foley, a republican from Florida, is incapable of distinguishing between making actions, vice thoughts, illegal. His latest offering from the clearinghouse of Bad Ideas is a bill that would make it a crime - punishable by up to 10 years in prison - to make available photos of fully dressed attractive children. Mr. Foley is apparently so concerned that a pedophile might be feeding his perverted interests by looking at pictures of these children...and he's right, they probably are, that he's willing to make it illegal to take pictures of your kids. That pedophiles find children attractive is not sufficient reason to make it illegal to take such photos... I, for one, would not like to face prison time for posting pictures of my children's day at the beach on my website for my friends to see.
Rep. Mark Foley, a republican from Florida, is incapable of distinguishing between making actions, vice thoughts, illegal. His latest offering from the clearinghouse of Bad Ideas is a bill that would make it a crime - punishable by up to 10 years in prison - to make available photos of fully dressed attractive children. Mr. Foley is apparently so concerned that a pedophile might be feeding his perverted interests by looking at pictures of these children...and he's right, they probably are, that he's willing to make it illegal to take pictures of your kids. That pedophiles find children attractive is not sufficient reason to make it illegal to take such photos... I, for one, would not like to face prison time for posting pictures of my children's day at the beach on my website for my friends to see.
Saturday, September 14, 2002
They just don't get it
For once, I have to take exception to Best of the Web's editorial content. For Friday, the 13th of September, the top piece on the page is titled "Spies Like Us -- II" and uses this incident as an example of why we were all being silly hysterics for objecting to Operation TIPS. They say that "Presumably these same folks are now outraged at the actions of Eunice Stone." Well, no, actually, we aren't at all. In fact, the actions of Eunice Stone are exactly why we don't want TIPS in place. Any citizen who witnesses suspicious activity is free to call the Police, the FBI, the CIA or whomever they please to report it. It is not necessary for us to employ a citizen corp of spies. That sort of expansion of the federal government... to where we'd employ citizens as paid informants on other citizens is what we object to.
For once, I have to take exception to Best of the Web's editorial content. For Friday, the 13th of September, the top piece on the page is titled "Spies Like Us -- II" and uses this incident as an example of why we were all being silly hysterics for objecting to Operation TIPS. They say that "Presumably these same folks are now outraged at the actions of Eunice Stone." Well, no, actually, we aren't at all. In fact, the actions of Eunice Stone are exactly why we don't want TIPS in place. Any citizen who witnesses suspicious activity is free to call the Police, the FBI, the CIA or whomever they please to report it. It is not necessary for us to employ a citizen corp of spies. That sort of expansion of the federal government... to where we'd employ citizens as paid informants on other citizens is what we object to.
Friday, September 13, 2002
Lileks is always worth reading...
... but today's piece is particularly good.
My favorite quote:
I've been reading reactions to the President's UN speech, and I'm amused at how people don't seem to get it. Oh, now he's being a multilateralist? Now he believes in the UN? No. That speech was the equivalent of that fabled kung-fu move that removes your opponent's heart and shows it to you, just before you crumple. It's of a piece with the administration's behavior since 9/11: Let all the carpers and obstructionists gather on the tip of the thinnest branch, then show up with a saw and announce they have five minutes to come hug the trunk, which incidentally is covered with sap and stinging ants. It was sheer malicious brilliance to cast the entire case in terms of UN resolutions, because now the UN has to chose: either those resolutions mean something, or the UN means nothing. Why, it's almost as if the UN painted itself into a corner - and woke up to find this rude simple cowboy holding the brush. How the hell did he do that?
... but today's piece is particularly good.
My favorite quote:
I've been reading reactions to the President's UN speech, and I'm amused at how people don't seem to get it. Oh, now he's being a multilateralist? Now he believes in the UN? No. That speech was the equivalent of that fabled kung-fu move that removes your opponent's heart and shows it to you, just before you crumple. It's of a piece with the administration's behavior since 9/11: Let all the carpers and obstructionists gather on the tip of the thinnest branch, then show up with a saw and announce they have five minutes to come hug the trunk, which incidentally is covered with sap and stinging ants. It was sheer malicious brilliance to cast the entire case in terms of UN resolutions, because now the UN has to chose: either those resolutions mean something, or the UN means nothing. Why, it's almost as if the UN painted itself into a corner - and woke up to find this rude simple cowboy holding the brush. How the hell did he do that?
One less tourist...
Humph. Remind me never to go to Virginia Beach again. No, I'm not a criminal, and I resent having the police essentially put me in a criminal lineup every time I walk down the street.
Humph. Remind me never to go to Virginia Beach again. No, I'm not a criminal, and I resent having the police essentially put me in a criminal lineup every time I walk down the street.
Thursday, September 12, 2002
Conspiracy, anyone?
Instapundit, and Jane Galt linked to this story about apparent foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks that I haven't seen before. I know I'm paranoid, but I'd also like to see the media give this a thorough investigation/debunking.
The article has all the elements of an urban legend, but then again, there were all those liars claiming that pictures of so-called 'Palestinians' (really squatting Arabs) celebrating the 9/11 attacks were really old clips of them celebrating the invasion of Iraq... could it be another whitewash to try and keep the enraged American public from getting pissed off enough to burn down the local mosque? (Yes, friends, that's right. The splodeydopes really were celebrating when we got attacked. They only started lying about it when they realized that wasn't good for their 'victim' image.)
Instapundit, and Jane Galt linked to this story about apparent foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks that I haven't seen before. I know I'm paranoid, but I'd also like to see the media give this a thorough investigation/debunking.
The article has all the elements of an urban legend, but then again, there were all those liars claiming that pictures of so-called 'Palestinians' (really squatting Arabs) celebrating the 9/11 attacks were really old clips of them celebrating the invasion of Iraq... could it be another whitewash to try and keep the enraged American public from getting pissed off enough to burn down the local mosque? (Yes, friends, that's right. The splodeydopes really were celebrating when we got attacked. They only started lying about it when they realized that wasn't good for their 'victim' image.)
Don't we still have terrorists to catch?
Further resistance to the US government's silly stance on marijuana.
The state says it's okay, the town says it's okay, the measure passed by an overwhelming margin. So the residents of Santa Cruz obviously don't care if someone in their town is growing or using pot. Shouldn't the government concentrate its drug enforcement efforts in a town that wants it then?
Further resistance to the US government's silly stance on marijuana.
The state says it's okay, the town says it's okay, the measure passed by an overwhelming margin. So the residents of Santa Cruz obviously don't care if someone in their town is growing or using pot. Shouldn't the government concentrate its drug enforcement efforts in a town that wants it then?
I'd forgotten how powerful it is...
Clayton Cramer was kind enough to link to the lyrics for the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I used to know every verse (it was a favorite of mine in Sunday school), but had long since forgotten more than the first and last verses. Thanks to Clayton for linking to it; I'd forgotten how truly a powerful song it is.
Clayton Cramer was kind enough to link to the lyrics for the Battle Hymn of the Republic. I used to know every verse (it was a favorite of mine in Sunday school), but had long since forgotten more than the first and last verses. Thanks to Clayton for linking to it; I'd forgotten how truly a powerful song it is.
In your heart, you know its flat.
Kudos to Rand Simberg for exposing a shocking hoax attempting to tarnish the image of one of our nations heroes.
It all makes so much sense. Rand is absolutely correct. How could I be expected to believe that a 72 year old man would attack a 37 year old? Especially when the alternative... that a 37 year old film producer with an insatiable desire for attention doctored up a video to make it look like Buzz was punching him is so much more logical. To turn things back on that twit Sibrel, it was all obviously as doctored as the film of the lunar landing. Nice try though.
Kudos to Rand Simberg for exposing a shocking hoax attempting to tarnish the image of one of our nations heroes.
It all makes so much sense. Rand is absolutely correct. How could I be expected to believe that a 72 year old man would attack a 37 year old? Especially when the alternative... that a 37 year old film producer with an insatiable desire for attention doctored up a video to make it look like Buzz was punching him is so much more logical. To turn things back on that twit Sibrel, it was all obviously as doctored as the film of the lunar landing. Nice try though.
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
Anniversary
Tonight, I'll light one candle for the innocents who were murdered on September 11th, and a second candle for the rough men who are visiting violence on those who have so greviously harmed us, and on those who would do us harm. No TV. No News (unless the unspeakable happens). Just my family, and reverence, on a day I will never be able to forget.
Tonight, I'll light one candle for the innocents who were murdered on September 11th, and a second candle for the rough men who are visiting violence on those who have so greviously harmed us, and on those who would do us harm. No TV. No News (unless the unspeakable happens). Just my family, and reverence, on a day I will never be able to forget.
Yowsa!
Clayton Cramer has a weblog.
For those unfamiliar with his work, Mr. Cramer is probably best known for his remarkably thorough debunking of Michael Bellesilles' made up sources, figures, and facts in his best-selling 'history' Arming America. Cramer is definitely worth reading.
Clayton Cramer has a weblog.
For those unfamiliar with his work, Mr. Cramer is probably best known for his remarkably thorough debunking of Michael Bellesilles' made up sources, figures, and facts in his best-selling 'history' Arming America. Cramer is definitely worth reading.
Way to go, Buzz!
Buzz Aldrin was simply giving the only answer a snoopy or rude question deserves. Note also, that the twit, Sibrel, is 37. Buzz Aldrin is 72 years old.
Buzz Aldrin was simply giving the only answer a snoopy or rude question deserves. Note also, that the twit, Sibrel, is 37. Buzz Aldrin is 72 years old.
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
One less customer...
I live and work in Loudoun county. I have approximately a 30 mile drive from my rural home to my office, and using the Dulles Greenway, it normally takes me about 30 minutes each way, and costs me 858 dollars a year (at a rate of 1.65 each way, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year) for the convenience. I used to think it was worth it, since any of the 'free' routes I use to drive to work, normally add up to 15 minutes to my commute time.
But they just raised the rates from 1.65 to 1.90 on my toll. That means instead of the gagging 858 dollars I have deducted from my pay check each year for transportation has increased to a confiscatory 988 dollars each year, just to save 15 minutes travel time. To hell with that. I'll take the 15 extra minutes, quit using the toll road, and save myself nearly 1000 dollars a year.
I live and work in Loudoun county. I have approximately a 30 mile drive from my rural home to my office, and using the Dulles Greenway, it normally takes me about 30 minutes each way, and costs me 858 dollars a year (at a rate of 1.65 each way, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year) for the convenience. I used to think it was worth it, since any of the 'free' routes I use to drive to work, normally add up to 15 minutes to my commute time.
But they just raised the rates from 1.65 to 1.90 on my toll. That means instead of the gagging 858 dollars I have deducted from my pay check each year for transportation has increased to a confiscatory 988 dollars each year, just to save 15 minutes travel time. To hell with that. I'll take the 15 extra minutes, quit using the toll road, and save myself nearly 1000 dollars a year.