Global Warming - Not As Bad As It Was In The 40's

If increasingly powerful hurricanes are proof that global warming is real and that it's a threat, as opposed to cyclical cycles that have only been able to be adequately studied since we've been able to launch satellites, does that mean that this year's less severe season is proof that the planet is getting cooler? (By the way, the Washington Post article linked in the last sentence talking about the 2006 Season revisions didn't mention Global Warming. They merely noted the Atlantic temperatures were cooler than expected. How very, very odd.)

It's the exact same logic. 5 years of increased hurricanes = runaway global warming. Reduced hurricanes SHOULD = global cooling. Except when it hurts funding requests and tenure applications.

China's getting into the act, too:

[Chinese Vice Minister of Water Resources] E [Jingping] said the typhoon season in China normally starts around July 27, but this year the first typhoon hit the southern province of Guangdong on May 18.

"This is the earliest typhoon to hit Guangdong since 1949," he said in a speech.

Emphasis mine. So does that mean that global warming was worse in 1949? And how long have exact stats been kept on typhoons?

If Al Gore wants to convince me to implement socialism and tank our economy to prevent us from becoming nothing more than a few "breeding pairs at the poles" in 100 years (excepting him and his three mansions, of course), his and his ilk's science is going to have to go beyond hysteric and unsubstantiated post hoc ergo propter hoc scare mongering. And. It. Hasn't.

And I thought it was the conservatives who were supposed to be anti-science to serve their political agenda...

So There WAS Ohio Voter Fraud...

The liberals were right. And I guess they would know. Because they were the ones who committed the fraud.

Somehow, though, it'll all be Karl Rove's fault...

Why Is Israel Not Pressing Their Advantage?

The UN, in their latest resolution, has once again condemned Israel to decades more of attacks by an entrenched enemy. Israel, by accepting it, has guaranteed that she will once again be brutally attacked as soon as the Iranian/Syrian forces have a chance to regroup. What are they thinking?

Every time Israel has made a good faith concession in the name of peace, the other side has exploited it and used it against them. Israel originally occupied Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Southern Lebanon precisely because those places were being used as bases of operations to attack Israeli citizens, not because they were being "imperialistic." (Which the moronic "peace" activists who talk about "ending Israeli occupation" willfully neglect to think about.)

I recently read some liberal commentator snidely say that Israel should stop their "aggression," because their violent past hasn't brought them security. But what would have been the result had they not so unflinchingly defended themselves? They wouldn't exist. Each and every Jew in Israel would have become either a refugee or a statistic. The UN would have wrung their hands, but done nothing. The US would have been exhorted to not get involved.

For all their love of death and ruthlessness (perhaps because of it), the Iranian/Syrian units are still far inferior military force that has exposed themselves. Once out in the open, the superior Israeli forces would normally press their advantage, routing and destroying the enemy, not giving them the chance to get re-dug in. There could be no more welcome gift imaginable for an overextended and weakened military force about to be decimated than to be able to have some vast super power call a "time-out" so they can regroup and rearm - which is exactly what the UN does. (Does anyone seriously think Hezbollah and Hamas will use those time-outs for any other purpose? Their lack of good faith has been amply demonstrated.) The ONLY side a cease fire helps is the weaker side. In this case, that's the evil side. Whatever the different intentions of the UNSC member states, their resolution will serve to postpone - at best - the conflict, and give the side sworn to kill every last Jewish man, woman, and child a chance to recover and kill again more quickly. Time favors guerrillas.

Most UN resolutions are merely useless. This one is deadly. The UN resolution is not the path to peace, it is the strategy of the enemy. By seeking a cease fire, we are killing future Israelis and helping our shared Islamo-fascist enemy.

Israel can never "win" in the sense that the only way to make the current Islamo-fascist Bloc happy is to die. (We don't need anymore "understanding" of this enemy - they've been quite clear, in writing, about their intentions.) Thus, Israel and all free nations will always find themselves under attack. They will never have complete security until democracy takes root in the wider Middle East, and Arabs taste freedom and find it sweeter than their hatred of Jews.

But they can achieve secure borders. They can carry a stick big enough to give her enemies pause. They can kill thousands of evil men. They can make it known that an attack on Israel will be a painful affair to the attacker. They can keep their country alive and prosperous and abloom, even while the barbarians are at the gates. They can ignore UN resolutions that allow their enemy to rest and re-prepare for attacks on their civilians.

And they should.

Reading Between the Lines

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.'"

- Autobiography of Mark Twain

I first learned this lesson my sophomore year of high school in beginning Debate, when the topic was Homelessness. Every advocacy group and most media outlets repeated, citing multiple sources with authority, that there were about 3 million homeless people in the United States. But when you did a little research and drilled down, every single one of those sources derived from just one person - a homeless advocate named Mitch Snyder who testified before Congress in 1982 the results of a study that was later discredited. He later admitted to fully making the number up out of whole cloth. The 1990 census, the first to do a full scale "find 'em and count 'em" study, could only find about 250,000. Still a problem, but 1/12 of the problem advocates claimed. Of course, that was far more about attacking Ronald Reagan than addressing the homeless issue, but then, that's no surprise to anyone.

No one who claims to be serious about trying to responsibly prioritize and address society's problems with other people's money can do so without understanding how organizations from scientists to NGOs to PACs to governmental departments themselves warp their data to support their preconceived notions. One of the few valuable things I learned while getting my political science degree was how polls work and how they don't work, and how questions can be skillfully asked and the pool carefully chosen to arrive at The People's ("correct") Opinion.

We see it all the time in global warming scares, economic statistics, polls, Jihadist propaganda, military stories, education studies demanding more money, affirmative action stories, race relations, etc. It colors everything we read.

To that end, Thomas Sowell recently published a three part must read on how pervasive the problem is, and how important it is to truly understand any news article from any source. (Part I | Part II | Part III)

Drilling skepticism is crucial to good science (which is why global warming is not), good legal reading and writing, good journalism, and most importantly, good citizenship.

What the ABA Talks About

The American Bar Association just finished up its conference in Honolulu. Thanks to the Federalist Society keeping tabs on them and keeping its membership updated, here's a sample of what the conversation is:

Professor Elaine Chiu of St. John's School of Law discussed "The Criminal Law in an Age of Multiculturalism." Chiu bemoaned that, right after 9/11, race relations dropped into the "dark ages" due in part to an "unassailable public support" for racial profiling and deportation. This was due to an increased commitment toward national security at the expense of "equality, respect, and dignity." However, changing demographics will lead to an "age of multiculturalism" that will in turn lead to other, new questions about the substantive criminal law. According to Chiu, "As awful as selective enforcement and racial profiling are, their effects are compounded if individuals are prosecuted on the basis of laws that are themselves inherently unequal and unjust."

Chiu describes current criminal law as "assimilationist," as it "expresses the values and norms of the dominant Anglo-American culture to the exclusion of other minority cultures." Although some may protest this characterization, "their failure to appreciate the presence of culture in our penal codes is the result of their moral absolutism and legal centralism." An example of this phenomenon is the use of deadly force to defend a home from a burglar. Chiu describes this as an "alarming trend of valuing self-defense over retreat." Not all cultures, she emphasized, value property over life. Property rights are a very Anglo-American concept. This "assimilationist" approach leads to outdated criminal laws out of step with the American populace. To have criminal laws (based on British laws) that reflect the beliefs of only half of the American populace is "preposterous." A second consequence is the "loss of justice and equality for defendants of minority descent." Ultimately, "assimilationism is a recipe for disaster."

Instead, Chiu advocates a combined pluralistic/individualistic approach to criminal law. Minorities would be able to receive a hearing for their side of the case. Chiu maintains that a "respect for a defendant's culture is respect for the defendant itself." She supports a "cultural defense." Minorities must demonstrate that they are "deadly serious in their cultural commitments...The majority's refusal even to consider minority practices as an alternative is intolerable."

So. A "cultural defense." Does that mean that white culture is different than black culture, and that we should treat black people differently in court than whites? What was the civil rights struggle all about anyway?

This kind of talk is profoundly anti-American. (Yeah, I said it.) We are a nation of laws, not of people. Lady justice is blind to color and "culture," and rightfully so. America is about taking personal responsibility for our actions, and about being treated equally under the law. We are an exceptional nation, and our "Anglo-American" culture, which respects property rights and personal liberty, is demonstrably supreme over any other in the world.

The American culture, economy, and way of life has produced the most successful and prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth. People from all over the world come to this country because they have rejected their culture and have chosen to become a part of ours. Why on earth would we want to backslide and make our laws conform with whatever defective cultures people have expended so much energy to escape?

Imagine if Professor Chiu were to get her way. Does that mean domestic violence among certain cultures should be excused? What if a Muslim killed a Jew? What counts as "black culture?" Should we allow slavery? Polygamy? Cannibalism? Bribery? Forced female circumcision of teenage girls? Arranged marriages of 12 year olds? (So much for international feminism...) I doubt that any Chinese immigrant, despite their Communist upbringing, respects property rights so little that they wouldn't think it was a big deal if someone broke into their home.

The ABA will always lean left. Most people go to law school because they want to save the world using government, and are thus big believers in big government. Fair enough. But this kind of thing (and there was plenty more ridiculousness) is beyond the pale. Until this stupidity is rejected, the ABA will never get one thin dime of mine.

By the way, one of the benefits of the $5 per year Federalist Society membership is that they have a reporter at all such ABA events, and E-mail out updates to the membership. (If anyone missed the last round and wants them forwarded, just shoot me an E-mail.) They also publish the ABA Watch, which keeps you apprised of what lobbying efforts they're spending the dues they're asking you for on.

Moral Equivilancy

I have a lot to say about the terror attacks on Israel and their righteous response, but alas the summer has been busy. (That and I had a great post I didn't save - stupid rookie blogger mistakes...)

But it really all boils down to this. There is a clear good guy, and a clear bad guy.

One of the parties has the capability to annihilate every last man, woman, and child on the other side. They chose not to.

The other side has stated expressly, in writing, that they want nothing more than to annihilate every last man, woman, and child on the other side and around the world. They do not have the capability, but if they did, they would make good on their promise.

Do we get it now? No reasonable person can draw moral equivalence here.

Despite Israel's capability, they do not intentionally target non-combatants. They isolate and cut off supply routes, and spend millions of dollars on precision munitions so they can get the enemy rocket battery that has been purposely set up next to the school without killing children. Their army wears uniforms to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. They pamphlet target zones before they attack to warn people to take cover and to get away. Their army attacks from positions far away from the civilians they protect, in an attempt to draw the violence of war away from homes and children. They try to protect their people, despite the propaganda value dead Israelis might have. They show their faces. Their names are embroidered on their uniforms.

And all this even though their very survival is at stake. Only a just and moral nation acts this way.

The Hamas and Hezbollah units of the Iranian and Syrian military, on the other hand, intentionally target civilians. The only good Jew is a dead Jew, after all, and because they're only apes, there's no difference between killing a soldier and a Jewish baby. And because their own people are worth less than scoring points with the UN, they go out of their way to make sure their own civilians are killed for the cameras. They do this by intentionally placing military batteries in and around schools, markets, and houses. They don't wear uniforms, and hide behind civilians to fire their rockets. When they do come out in the open, they wear masks. The men running the war claim neutrality like cowards while they pull the strings from afar, and the complicit international community goes out of their way to participate in the lie.

Not since the Third Reich has there been such a clear and aggressive bad guy. And all parties who talk about "disproportionate responses" and "killing on both sides" are complicit in the evil of the Islamo-fascists.

CPS - Looking Out For You Whether You Need Them Or Not

There's a lot to scoff at about a family who names their kid "Starchild," and when he gets sick rejects conventional cancer treatments and send him to take herbal supplements in a Mexican clinic.

But should it be illegal? Is it neglectful? Is it child abuse? Is it the government's role to step in?

Virginia CPS and a state judge says it is. Shame on them.

The boy is 16. He has already attempted conventional therapy, and it wasn't working for him. He and his parents made an intelligent, knowing, and informed decision, weighing the risks and making the decision together. Now, it's not the decision most of us would have come to. In fact, I'm not afraid to call it a painfully stupid decision that only a South Park episode can adequately mock. But in a free society, we should let him make that choice.

This isn't a case where a 2 year old is dying from an easily curable condition, but religious fundamentalist parents let her die because they only believe in the medicine of prayer. Even then, I'm troubled that a parent's good faith efforts to do what they think is best for the child's physical and spiritual well being within the tenants of their religion (even if it's not what I would do) is so easily dismissed. But here, had he waited another year and a half to make the decision, it would have been totally legitimate. He is old enough to participate in the decision making process. And it's not like the conventional medical will guarantee his health. His wishes, and those of his parents, should be respected.

If he shot and killed someone, Starchild surely would be would be tried as an adult, and held responsible for those actions. Why can he not make decisions concerning his health?

Surely, there are plenty of cases in Virginia where actual abuse, parental drug use, and neglect is going on. Surely, CPS is not overburdened with social workers just lounging around the office with not enough to do. In Washington State, 45 children within the CPS system have been murdered since 2001 by someone in their foster home. Has Virginia solved all of those problems? Is this really the best way to be using Department of Social and Health Services resources?

I am currently working largely within the juvenile justice system, working with dependency cases where abuse and neglect have been found. I've worked with those parents and those children. I've seen what abuse and neglect are. This isn't it.

I've also worked with enough social workers to be frustrated with what only can be described as their "busibodiness." They work with enough deadbeats to think that's the norm, and as a result their default position is to step in. I've learned how fine the line really is between genuine social conscience and smug, self-righteous paternalism. And as if state paternalism wasn't bad enough, it's totally inconsistent paternalism. I've seen the State declare washing a child's mouth out with soap "abuse," and then pish-posh a child's reluctance to return home to her mother because, "she stopped the pot smoking and pill popping months ago." It can be frustrating. But nothing I've seen approaches this story's absurd level of state overreach.

The tragedy is that the kid will be dragging his feet with the treatment, lessening its impact. And it will divert medical resources from other people who need - and actually want - the help of a modern hospital. The court's order doesn't help the child, the parents, or the community. In the State's attempt to rescue people from themselves, they have made everyone worse off and less free. And that, in a nutshell, is why Big Government, whatever its intentions, should be avoided whenever possible.

Good faith decisions made by parents, especially when done with the input of a near-adult who is fully capable of participating in decisions that will affect his life and health, should be respected. If the state can make this decision for this family, there is no longer any true family or home sanctity.

There is a side irony that's interesting, though. A family of hippies having trouble with Big Government. Hmmm....

Tax Cuts = Deficit Reduction: Told You So!

Conservative economic policy works. According to the New York Times (which I'm surprised printed it at all):

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

It might be unexpected to the New York Times and other liberals who don't understand that wealth must be grown (including government wealth), but not to those of us who supported the tax cuts from the beginning.

In one fell swoop, this article demonstrates the laughable falsity of "tax cuts for the rich," or the charges that "tax cuts during a war are irresponsible." And the runaway economic growth we're enjoying at the same time likewise is no coincidence.

The GOP still spends far too much of our money. But with a Democratic Congress, we would not only have more spending, but we would not have the growth that is a direct result of more money in the pockets of American business, individual investors, and of course, that Great Liberal Boogey Man: The Corporations.

How anyone can still support liberal economic policy in the face of these many years of raging success is completely beyond me.

Worst Economy Since Hoover

Record low unemployment. Rising wages. Runaway economic growth.

Kerry was sooooo right. Definitely just like the Great Depression. I'm just sayin'.

Homeless Vet Stories - Grains of Salt Required

Just after the 4th of July, this story about homeless Iraq/GWOT veterans appeared in the local paper. Y'know, just in case we were feeling too good about our country after our nation's birthday.

It's frustrating to read articles like this, because it's clear that the journalist (a) has no military experience, (b) fully expects that this is par for the course in the military, and (c) wants to further develop the idea that military people are victims who have no responsibility for anything that happens in their lives - and are, in fact, completely incompetent to exert responsibility even if they wanted to.

A more competent reporter would have asked questions like, "What does your Platoon Leader/Commanding Officer/Sergeant think about your situation? What about the Commanding Officer of the Reserve Center you drill with? What about the VA? The Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society? Your Congressman?" And then the competent reporter would have had the courtesy to actually call a military official in the know and ask them about what services they do and do not provide.

The military has never in the history of the nation been better about taking care of soldiers returning home from service than it is today. Destitute World War I soldiers marched on Washington, setting up camp to demand promised benefits they literally needed to survive. For their efforts, they were shot at, first by police, and then attacked by military forces. WWII vets were treated better, but in a time where mental illness and PTSD were seen as merely being weak, plenty of them failed to successfully reintegrate into society without anyone saying the war effort was wrong. Vietnam vets, despite the false popular image of them as depressed, drug addled failures torn by guilt over acting like "Jen-jis Kahn," have fared as well or better than the general population. Since then, programs and services, both public and private, have only gotten better.

We as a nation have gotten and continue to get better in the way we treat vets, and that's a good thing. But we need to take some care to be honest about what the problems actually are, and what we should expect of people when it comes to expending a little effort to ensure they get the benefits they deserve.

I spent two years working at a Naval Reserve Center before I started law school in 2004, the last six months of which was as the Commanding Officer. I can assure anyone that plenty of services are available to people who are having a hard time transitioning. There are dozens of people to whom demobilizing vets can turn if they are having a difficult time accessing those services. Here's an example.

One of my people, a senior enlisted sailor who frankly should have known better, was mobilized for a period of time in 2003. He was a cop in his civilian life. Just before he demobilized, he injured his ankle. During the demobilization process, the record of his injury didn't get from the active duty command he was supporting to the Naval Reserve folks processing him out, and he didn't bother to tell them he had hurt himself - he just assumed they knew or would find out eventually. He didn't inform his reserve unit or my own medical staff that he had any issues.

Instead, he showed up for work and told them he couldn't do his job, and applied for medical bennies through his civilian employer. His claim was denied, because they rightly told him that the Navy needed to pay for that care. Still, he never informed us of the problem, apparently assuming we were just handling it. I didn't find out about it until he came in nearly a month later asking me to sign a letter so he could get food stamps. One phone call to any one of half a dozen people at any point in that last month would have gotten him the care he needed, and he could have easily avoided the financial situation he found himself in. That's not too much to ask of anyone, veteran or not. The US Military and the VA are enormous and inefficient bureaucracies (often made larger and usually more cumbersome when well meaning politicians try to "support the troops").

As soon as we did find out, we dropped everything to get him what he needed, which by then was harder because of the time that had lapsed. Of course, that didn't stop him from going to a town hall meeting with one of our Senators and telling his tale of woe about how the country he served wasn't serving him, which was then dutifully picked up by the local media. I never did see a follow up story when he got the care he needed, although if there had been, the media surely would have taken credit for it, falsely assuming it wouldn't have happened without them.

Our veneration for veterans in this country, while proper, sometimes spills over to sacred cow status, which is improper. Conservatives are often the worst about this, frankly.

Veterans are well trained and well educated adult Americans who, while they deserve to be treated respectfully and well and shouldn't have to jump through 5 million hoops to obtain promised benefits, also have a responsibility to, at the very least, keep their chain of command informed about issues that they might have. They also have a responsibility not to marry their girlfriend of 2 months just prior to deployment, or worse, give them a durable power of attorney and access to all of their bank accounts. They have a responsibility to actively look for a job upon return, and contact their VA, VFW, or USERRA rep if they're having a difficult time getting work or if their employer violates federal law by not rehiring them. They have a responsibility not to do drugs.

It's never perfect and often frustrating. Pay issues do happen, and can be crippling. National Guard and Reserve forces are much worse about ensuring a smooth transition home than the active duty side, although it is a HUGE focus of the senior leadership of all the services now. Mental health issues are still inadequately addressed.

But I will go out on a limb and say that no veteran is actually homeless without a significant pattern of poor choices on behalf of the veteran him or herself.

I would be curious to see how many of those homeless vets were kicked out when the military got tough on drugs in the service. I'd be curious to know how veteran status is verified by the keepers of those statistics. Every roadside panhandler claims to be a vet because it increases the sympathy factor and generates more cash - I hope they aren't simply taken at their word.

Sometimes our vets are not treated as well as they deserve to be by the Nation that they served. But it's the rare exception, not the rule. And when it does happen, it takes more than that to lead to homelessness. The stories that appear in local, liberal media are quite simply not telling the story of these people completely or accurately.

Social This Thursday

This Thursday (July 6th) the Seattle University Chapter is hosting a social at the Garage in Capitol Hill. Click here for directions and general info about the Garage. Things get started at 7:30 PM. See you there!

Hamdan - interfering With National Security?

Here is the opinion (pdf). I haven't had a chance to read it yet (stupid having to work...), but from what I can tell so far, it seems like the wrong call. The news coverage is all over the map, and I can't get a good sense about what the actual implications are.

If it's merely a separation of powers issue, then OK - have Congress give the president the authorization he needs to give these people a fair hearing to determine their status. And do it today. They clearly have plenty of time and patriotic fervor to toss around, if they can be bothered with such inanity as a flag burning amendment.

But if indeed Justice Stevens has extended Geneva Convention rights to these people, then the Court will have gotten it profoundly, deeply, and (literally) fatally wrong. The Convention protects those who also agree to respect its provisions. When you don't wear a uniform or represent a nation state, and then target civilians besides, you don't get to enjoy the niceties of a world civilization you're trying to bring down. That's the only incentive we have to get people to follow such conventions in the first place!

More when I've actually read it. I'm not going to rely on news reports on this one.

Hitler Cats

This has nothing to do with Federalism, politics, or anything else, but it was too damn funny not to share. And hey - it's summertime!



It's cats. That look like Hitler. Seriously. I don't know why it's so funny, but it just is.

Updated Links

I've updated the links to the right of the blog. I've separated out general links of interest and conservative and libertarian blogs. I've also added a humor section - there's some freakin' hilarious stuff on there. And finally, there's a list of other FedSoc chapters. Some of the sites are blogs like ours, and some of them are just informational sites. A lot of them are pretty out of date, so if any of you folks reading this are from those schools, please let us know.

If you have any good conservative/libertarian blogs or links you think should be on our list, please let me know.

Interesting New Blog

The Pacific Legal Foundation just launched a new and interesting blog about eminent domain that might be of interest to some of our readers:

http://eminentdomain.typepad.com/

It seems to be providing some good information concerning the movement against the usage of eminent domain, especially in cases similar to Kelo. If I remember correctly, one of PLF's lawyers came to the career session we had during winter quarter.

Flag Burning Amendment Thankfully Fails

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

So reads the flag burning amendment the Senate rejected today by one vote today, deservedly killing the measure.

I hate flag burners. I hate the dirty, snot-nosed hippies who so hate our country, but can afford to be professional protesters leaching off of society and accomplishing nothing at all because of what our country is. I hate the childishness of it, and the utter inanity of the gesture. Who are they trying to impress or emulate - Jihadists? Nazis? (They liked to burn all kinds of things.) North Koreans? Iranian theocracy-sponsored demonstrators? Short of Jimmy Carter, has there ever been any American in power who would be moved by such an act?

But despite my strong feeling towards those who do it, there is simply no other reason in the world to burn a flag other than as a political statement. None. And political speech was what the Founders had in mind most when they limited the government from abridging free speech. There is no good reason to restrict such expression - no safety concerns, no national security issues, nothing. The only reason people want to make this particular form of expression illegal is because the content offends them. And that's not a good enough reason to suppress free expression, even in a small way, in a free society. After all, we are conservatives - we understand that we don't have a right not to be offended! Don't we?

And what is a "flag," anyway? A design on a shirt? A drawing? A painting? A cap? A mural? A bumper sticker? And what does it mean to "desecrate" the flag? Carelessly letting it trail in the mud? Sewing a peace sign over the star field? Getting into a fender-bender with someone with a flag bumper sticker?

I am deeply, deeply offended by flag burning, but I am not harmed by it. The physical flag is only a piece of cloth - it is precisely because you can burn it without being thrown in jail by the government that makes it so special and so unique. Because of that, this amendment would have diminished our flag that I hold so dear, and in doing so, would have been the ultimate desecration of Old Glory.

Some Things Never Change

I've been busy learning my new Rule 9 jobs at work, but even though I've been out of the bloggosphering loop for a little bit, it's nice to know I haven't really missed anything. Since I've been gone:

• The sun still rises in the east,
• My cat is still really fat,
  
• John Kerry changed his mind a couple times on Iraq, and
• The New York Times still thinks scoring political points against President Bush is more important than national security.

Andrew McCarthy breaks it down:

The effort, which the government calls the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program"” (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller (1976) that there is no right to privacy in financial-transaction information maintained by third parties. Here, moreover, the focus is narrowed to suspected international terrorists, not Americans, and the financial transactions implicated are international, not domestic. This is not data mining, and it does not involve fishing expeditions into the financial affairs of American citizens. Indeed, few Americans even have information that is captured by the program — though there would be nothing legally offensive even if they did.

The New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller said that he made the decision to run the story because it was in the "public interest." Well, gosh, Bill - you know what else is in the public interest? KILLING TERRORISTS! Except that if Bush is the world's biggest terrorist, then I guess it makes sense... Sigh.

Other papers reported on the story of course, but it was NYT reporters who did the investigation and had apparently had the inside sources. Without them, the program would not have come to light.

There's just no excuse for this. None. Bill Keller, the leakers inside the intel agencies, and the reporters involved are American citizens, and they have responsibilities as such. Why is it too much that they root for the good guys? It's one thing to not think President Bush is prosecuting the war on terror correctly, and to say so publicly. It's another thing entirely to actively work for his failure in keeping Americans safe. But hey - don't you dare question their patriotism.

If the terror cell this program would have caught next year succeeds in a bio attack on the NYC subway, the Times and its far left readership will without any question scream bloody murder about "incompetence," "not connecting the dots," etc. What world do these people live in? Can they not see the consequences of their actions?

We cannot live in safety without SOME clandestine operations, SOME ability to gether data and follow the money to the terror financiers, and SOME state secrets. It doesn't equal police state to have these types of programs in place. It equals survival.

To be fair, though, some good press about the war on terror HAS been leaking through. What, really, did we expect?

No More Knock & Announce

The Supreme Court ruled today in the case of Hudson v. Michigan that if police officers have a warrant, they no longer have to knock and announce themselves as police before entering a home. This is a shift made possible by the retirement of Justice O'Connor.

I don't really understand why this is controversial. The sanctity of the home must be protected, but that's why there's a warrant process. But in case I had any doubt, Justice Breyer reminded us why we need more Alitos and Robertses on the court:

It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection.

The Constitution has a "knock-and-announce protection?" That must be in the Eleventeenth Amendment.

The only "practical value" I can see in the old rule is the value to the criminal who has extra time to hide or destroy evidence, or even escape. Once the warrant is issued, due process has been upheld. The ONLY benefit to requiring an announcement is to the criminal flushing drugs down the toilet.

---

UPDATE: Here's the opinion itself (PDF). And I was wrong initially, as I should have suspected I would be when relying on the Seattle Times for legal analysis. The knock-and-announce rule is still in effect, but the exclusionary rule is not applicable to it under these circumstances.

Check out the facts behind the arrest in particular. The door was unlocked, not broken down. There were large quantities of drugs and firearms, including a loaded gun hidden in the cushions of the chair in which the suspect was sitting. I just can't see how this is unreasonable.

More Leftist Reaction to Zarqawi - No Surprises

But they are almost as funny as they were predictable.

Blogging and Professional Responsibility

One of the "guest diarists" at the Daily Kos quit in a huff yesterday after he claimed to have had his secret identity "outed" by National Review in a typical Right Wing Conspiracy plot. Of course, his identity wasn't that secret, and his real reason for quitting might have more to do with the Kossack Crowd being unimpressed with his ties to something that rhymes with "Bal*Mart":

Apparently, [Daily]Kos diarist Armando Lloréns-Sar isn't comfortable with too many people knowing about his day job as an attorney at McConnell Valdés (it's clearly the same guy):

...Lloréns-Sar might be uncomfortable with too many people knowing about his professional activities (he threatened to ban one commenter for getting too close to his "personal circumstances"):

During his time filling in for Kos as the "front page diarist" he wrote a number of pro-corporate articles, of course without disclosing that he is a corporate attorney promoting these same issues for his clients. For example, in this post he takes the pro-corporate position that modern anti-trust law is based on activist judges' rulings and not as the law as written. He fails to mention that he recently represented Wal-Mart in an anti-trust capacity in Puerto Rico.

H/T WuzzaDem, whose emphases those are.

As much fun as it is to gloat at the silliness of the Kos types, the story really made me think in broader terms of what's acceptable for an attorney who, say, might want to blog about legal issues. What obligations do you have to your clients? To your firm? What duties of disclosure do you have towards your blogging audience? What does the crusty old judge at the ethics board of inquiry who's never heard of a blog think? Does it matter that you do it on your own time? Or anonymously?

I did some research earlier this year on "Doocing," the firing of an employee for un-careful blogging. It's amazing how easy it is for someone to find your real identity, either by doing a little digging, or by simply getting a subpoena for the ISP. A corporate client who happens to run across something unflattering on a hugely popular website (or unpopular, but still public) would seem to me to be a danger, and something to think about.

But what if it's just a more general legal issue, one that you were inspired to muse about because a case you were working on dealt with that issue? Is that allowed? Should it be? How general does the issue have to be? Does it impact your ability to represent your client? Can a client trust a blogging attorney not to tell their story on line with a, "for example, I had a client once..."? How much detail can you go into about your work day on a blog without violating the PR rules? Does a pseudonym protect you?

This is actually one of the reasons I post here under my real name - I don't want to lull myself into a false sense of anonymity. And it makes clear that what I write I have to answer for, which (usually and hopefully) makes me a little more cautious about what and how I write. That's not to say a nomme de plume doesn't have a time or place - the Federalist Papers weren't written by 1800 year old Romans, after all.

The Kossack writer was a fool, though. He was indiscreet, apparently bitterly acerbic and rude (even to his fellow travelers), used his real first name, and littered the internet with personal details that made him easy to find, including his E-mail address when he tried to edit some Wikipedia entries about the Daily Kos. I don't know the answers to all of this, but one things for certain - Armando is a great example of what a lawyer should NOT do on line.

Just a Stunt

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war. "This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat.

How eloquent. I of course have to ask - what SHOULD President Bush have done, in Rep. Stark's world? NOT killed Zarqawi? I only wish the Washington Times would have ran his full quote, just so there would be no doubt he was talking about the U.S. Military's widespread atrocities. (Hey - they have a lot to cover their [asses] for, too. The conspiracy widens...) But I forgot - we don't elect these guys because they can't "get their message out." Otherwise, everyone would be on board, we'd have a Department of Peace, and life would be gum drop kisses on lollipop lane. If you were going to write a parody ridiculing far left Democrats, you couldn't do any better than that.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if President Bush single handedly killed cancer, the far lefties like Congressmen Stark and Kucinich would decry the fact that he put all those doctors and researchers out of work. If Bush flung himself on a broken railroad track so the runaway train full of orphans could safely pass over, they would call it a cheap political ploy. When the water goes cold in their shower, they probably mutter with angry sarcasm, "Thanks, Bush!"

What the color of the sky must be in their world...

(Thanks go to Publius for the shower joke.)

Meet Up at Fado This Friday

The SU Chapter has invited us to a meetup this Friday at Fado Irish Pub down town at 7.

It's one of my favorite bars in Seattle, and should be a great time! See you there.

Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead! - Some Thoughts on the Death of Zarqawi

He's dead.


Awesome. This is a fantastic day. Everyone who wants to see America and Iraq succeed together is rejoicing. Some thoughts:

Our Warriors: This will be a huge moral booster for our troops, who must surely be frustrated by the constant second guessing and harping from the news media back home about the job they're doing and how they do it. This is a great victory for them.

Iraq's Heroes: I think the happiest people on the planet today are the Iraqi police who have been dancing in the street. They've risked more than anyone else for the freedom of Iraq, and for their courage, were poorly paid and were THE target of choice for the fascists. God bless them. They are heroes of a kind I can barely imagine. Their courage is beyond description.

The Bad Guys: This will be a huge morale killer for the insurgency. And not just because their leader was killed (although that matters, too), but because he was betrayed by people he associated with. The fascists will begin a self-destructive purge and the accusations of who is helping the infidels will help further tear them apart.

The Iraqi Street: Iraqis are growing more and more bold about ratting out insurgents, and this is a huge sign. It means they're betting their lives that we will succeed. The least we can do is have a little patience and NOT betray that faith by declaring defeat and leaving. This is a victory for Joe Iraqi who just wants to build his country and truly give democracy and freedom a chance.

Bush's Polls: It cannot go without saying that this is a victory for President Bush politically. The post-Zarqawi polls are being commissioned now, and I predict in a couple days we'll see a major boost in Bush's approval ratings.

Iraqi Democracy: One can scarcely imagine a better day for the Iraqi government. They have completed their unity government, and a Sunni is the Defense Minister, which the nay-sayers said was an impossibility. They also took part in this attack, and will gain a tremendous amount of credibility as an organ capable of securing the country - especially now that their Defense and Interior Ministries now have heads.

The Media: The MSM reaction has been interesting. It reminds me of the reaction after the first Iraqi election, when all the liberal papers were asking, "What if Bush was right?" Jon Stewart famously said he thought his head might explode at the success of Bush's Iraq policies. They of course then did their level best to ignore the next two elections, and to run stories right before they happened they hoped would eclipse the good news of the purple fingers. But once again, they have been caught off guard. Good. It's harder to shape the news to fit your political notions when you don't have time to think about how to filter and spin it.

Speaking of, three news channels this morning provided interesting contrast. Fox News was unapologetically gleeful. They reported the news, talked about what it meant and didn't mean, noted the grains of salt with which it should be taken, but you could see they were Americans first, knew who the good guys were, and weren't afraid to enjoy the moment. I love Fox News because to them, American soldiers are "our troops." Their bias is pro-American, and I'm perfectly OK with it. CNN's anchors looked like they were happy, but embarrassed about it, and so tried to hide it. But a woman on MSNBC looked downright sour, as if she was reporting on the second Bush inauguration. I wonder if Katie Couric will wear black tonight on CBS News?

Help from Middle Eastern Allies: Jordan provided invaluable information to help us kill this thug. So much for "alienating moderate Muslims." This kind of high profile cooperation is further proof of how wrong the left is when they talk about our "unilateralism."

Haditha and The Responsibility of Command: This has knocked Haditha from the headlines, and that's a good thing. It also puts it in perspective, reminding us that the people we fight commit dozens of Haditha's every day, and do it as a matter of policy. It makes me wonder, too: The left holds Bush responsible for Haditha and Abu Ghraib, and think the troops involved in those things are mere victims. This is in spite of the fact that AB and Haditha were NOT official policy, and there is no evidence that any high level sanction was given to those activities. But still, it's Bush's fault. So by the same logic, will they give Bush credit for Zarqawi's death, and dismiss the troops' participation in it? Or will following Bush's official policy be seen as "troops doing their best despite Bush?" Wesley Clark made that insinuation this morning, right after he lied about "never supporting the invasion of Iraq."

Predictions about the leftist reaction: They will say that his death will only recruit more terrorists. They will say that showing his dead face on TV violates the Geneva conventions, ignoring that Zarqawi renounced those protections when he started targeting civilians and not wearing a uniform. They will say he was only a bit player in al Qaeda, and that the bomb that killed him should have been spent on bin Laden. They will say that he will be easily replaced. They will say that this was an internal coup which used the US as unwilling dupes to knock off an unpopular leader, thus consolidating their strength. They will lie about Bush's reaction, and every bad thing that every happens in the GWOT will be proof positive that Zarqawi's death was without impact. Their commentary will be filled with countless "but"s. Nick Berg's dad is already running around talking about how Zarqawi only sawed his son's head off because he was forced to do it by Bush, and that he grieves for the fact that Zarqawi is dead. They will say this would have happened sooner had Kerry been in charge. They will say that this does not excuse the widespread atrocities our troops routinely commit, of which Haditha is only symbolic. They will say that killing him will only continue the cycle of violence, and that there will be counter attacks (which there surely will, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a blow to the fascist enemy). They will say that it is wrong to celebrate any death, even the death of one such as Zarqawi. They will demand that we leave Iraq immediately, instead of pressing our advantage.

Our Intel: This was a badly needed boost for our intelligence services. They have a long way to go to fix themselves, but they deserve praise for this.

Ahmadinejad on Notice: Today the Iranian president announced he's ready to talk. Reminds me of how Qadaffi gave up his WMD programs after we pulled Saddam out of his hole. I don't know what news happened first, but it seems unlikely that it would be coincidental. What we do in Iraq impacts evil men world wide, and makes the world safer. This isn't to say that all is sunny in Persia, or that we should take him up on his offer until he's willing to stop enriching uranium, but it we need to understand that these people respect our aggressiveness, not appeasement.

Israel Kills Hamas Terror Mastermind: I don't know if it's in any way related, but this day has seen a lot of dead and evil men. And that just makes me happy.

The USS Cole: The Cole got underway today for their first Middle Eastern deployment since al Qaeda tried to sink them in Yemen. Delicious. What a perfect way to start a deployment. What a way to kick the enemy when they're down. What a way to say, "You can't keep us out, fascists." What an inspiring feeling to get underway with. Leaving for deployment is tough, as you leave your friends and family for dangers unknown. It helps to know you're headed to support a winning fight.

The Press Haditha Feeding Frenzy Continues

Shameful. Just shameful. But don't question their patriotism. And their slander proves they support the troops!



Is it too much to ask that the American press at least pretend to hope we succeed in Iraq?

Internet Datamining Prevents Terror Attacks

There it is. Not hypothetical. Not Bush tricking us into a police state. Hell - not even Bush.

I take back some of the things I've said about Canada.

Whatever the conflicting concerns about the NSA datamining programs, it must be part of the calculus that these programs are, in fact, making us safer and preventing terror attacks. If the decision is that a governmental "hands off" policy (beyond even the constraints of the Constitution) is worth the dead Americans (and Canadians), then OK. But I, for one, am pretty OK with the balance we're striking, considering the cost-benefits we seem to be enjoying.

Iraq: A War to Be Proud Of

I wish I had seen this piece by Victor David Hanson earlier, and posted it on Memorial Day. But it's no less true or meaningful now.

Haditha, Due Process, and the Disgusting Smugness of the Anti-War Press

Daniel Shorr has always been one of the more insidious voices in the press rooting for American defeat, at least since I've been aware of him, and he embodies the argument for why NPR shouldn't receive a dime of tax money. The last time I heard him on the radio, he was calling Hamas a humanitarian organization and lamenting that those big mean neo-con Bushies designated them as terrorists and wouldn't give them any money just because they wouldn't march lock step with the villainous land thieves in Israel. But his latest slander piece on the Haditha investigation really got my blood boiling. First, Mr. Shorr, who I know is not privy to the as-yet-to-be-completed investigation report, and who CERTAINLY wasn't there, somehow knows with clarity what happened:

It seems clear now that in Haditha, northeast of Baghdad, a Marine lance corporal was killed by a roadside bomb. And his enraged buddies swept through three nearby houses shooting point-blank at residents, men, women, children, old, young. It didn't seem to matter.

Wow. Really? I seems clear? A squad of Marines is a town teeming with terrorists, terrorists who think nothing of hiding in and among innocents, terrorists who aren't exclusively male or adult, terrorists who wear no uniforms and are perfectly willing to sacrifice innocent Iraqi lives for their fascist cause. A bomb had gone off just minutes before, killing one of them. They are trying to catch who set the explosive, because there may be more. They must act quickly, before the trigger man who set off the IED can escape. Clarity, it seems, is not something that we can count on in such a situation, even from the men who were there. Shorr, an Army intelligence officer in WWII, ought to know better about the fog of war.

How about a little benefit of the doubt here, for people who deserve it the most and are in a situation we can understand the least? No one has even been charged yet. We don't know what happened. To do otherwise, especially when it's a government official (equally sans investigation report) recklessly throwing out the accusations of "murder in cold blood," represents a deep and unforgivable betrayal. The only thing worse is when that official had also once been a Marine, and knows better. (He's now that rarest of animals, an Ex-Marine.) Semper fi, indeed.

But as bad as all of this is, Mr. Shorr takes it to the next, unpardonable level:

Although on a much smaller scale, Haditha brings back My Lai, 1968, the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese villagers, which came to symbolize American disregard for innocent human life.

(Emphasis mine.) "American disregard for innocent human life." Wow. He doesn't qualify this statement. He simply states it as a given. And just in case you think he meant only that it left people with the incorrect symbolism, he ends his piece with a backhanded assertion that we've been the bad guy all along:

And, undoubtedly, Haditha will add to the pressures for withdrawal from Iraq among Americans, many of whom are already dubious about the assertion that the American mission is liberation.

The only people who are dubious that our mission is liberation are the unhinged lefties who can only see the worst in America and her defenders. He doesn't remind people that the vast majority of soldiers, however fatigued, would never think of doing such a thing. He doesn't note that My Lai was a gross anomaly (despite what John Kerry said), still remembered today because what it represents is so rare and shameful to Americans. He doesn't mention how hard OIF Marines and soldiers work to prevent civilian casualties at great risk to themselves, despite the fact the enemy hides behind them. And he ignores that it is our enemies who target innocent civilians as a matter of policy, sawing off heads in the name of Allah. If our soldiers commit an atrocity, they are court martialed. When theirs do it, they're promised virgins in heaven and lauded as martyrs. And that includes Shorr's "humanitarians," Hamas.

In other words, this knee jerk reaction is a revealing look at how the far left REALLY views our folks in uniform. A quick perusal through the left side of the blogosphere contains barely contained glee at the revelations.

If we lose this war and run home with our tail between our legs because we were not at all times perfect, the innocents Shorr and his fellow travelers have such empathy for will find themselves subject to a fascist failed state, where terror is official policy, political dissent is answered with wood chippers, and purple fingers are cut off. And that's before the innocent Americans start dying here at home because the terrorists have regained a training ground. Spare us your moral cluck-clucking, Mr. Shorr.

Let me be clear. No one will hate these Marines more than me if the investigation reveals "cold blooded murder." Such an act, like that at Abu Ghraib, is not only deeply immoral for its own sake, but it's a sin against history and humanity as it stalls the progress of freedom and security, and helps the fascists in their evil cause. But in our zeal to stay on the high road, sometimes innocent warriors are accused of war crimes, only to be acquited at trial. So until the court martial, how about we let the system work, ignore the Dan Shorrs of the world who root for our defeat and wantonly slime our troops for the sake of "I told you so," and not hope for or see the worst in the best of our citizens.

"It was kind of almost like the enemy was using me for propaganda."

Sergeant Peter Damon is suing Michael Moore for using pieces of an NBC television interview without permission in "Fahrenheit 9/11," saying it twisted what he was saying into anti-war and anti-Bush propaganda. Shockingly, the twist of the words was given the assist by our very own Saddam-supporting Representative Jim McDermott. Sgt. Damon was discussing his injuries, when Congressman McDermott was spliced in to talk about all the people we've "left behind." Nothing could have been further from the truth (not that the truth has ever bothered Mr. Moore).

I hope he wins. I hope he doesn't settle. What Michael Moore did by using this guy's words out of context is disgusting and exploitive. This is how the hard core anti-war left supports the troops. And I imagine Sgt. Damon has some time on his new artificial hands now days, and plenty of lawyers willing to gamble some of their time to take down this piece of garbage.

But I do have to wonder. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to sue over this "documentary." I hope there isn't a statute of limitations that has run, or that the wait will hurt Sgt. Damon's showing of actual damages.

And because the clips were from and interview with NBC, I hope that Sgt. Damon didn't sign some kind of full release and license to them, so they could use and distribute the clip however they want. On the other hand, even if that is the case, I don't know if NBC would really want the kind of publicity that places them on the same level of journalistic integrity as Moore.

I'm assuming that these questions were already asked and answered by the attorneys bringing suit. Hopefully it's not a settlement bluff.

Good luck, Sgt. It's an interesting legal question, too - I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out.

New Look, New Writers

We've expanded the blogging contributors to the general membership of our chapter (as opposed to just the executive board). I'm very excited to hear from the new voices out there, and to get more readership and conversation.

I've also put a subscribe button on the right sidebar to our Yahoo Newsgroup - if you're not already on the list, please sign up. It's the best way to communicate with the membership about upcoming events, social activities, etc.

Also, I've put a hit counter at the bottom of the side bar. Don't forget to advertise the blog when you can, and to encourage people who disagree (or agree) to join the discussion. Good ideas are made great through the forge of debate.

If you're a member and haven't received an invitation to the blog, please contact Ranjit or me.

Olympia Protesters Earn Richly Deserved Pepper-Spraying

Hundreds of protesters in Olympia demanded to be taken seriously this week by breaking in to the port of Olympia, disrupting traffic, destroying gates and fences (public property), tresspassing, and assaulting 60 - 70 police officers by throwing bottles and rocks at them. 22 were arrested, and many were pepper-sprayed for their efforts. Having been pepper-sprayed myself, I can attest to its painful effects, and I can think of no group of people who deserve this treatment so richly.

For what noble cause were these people acting so violently? Peace, of course. You see, the port was being used to onload equipment to ship to the deploying Ft. Lewis Stryker Brigade. They had to stop the baby-killers from murdering the Iraqi Minute Men, after all.

It's interesting that two of the criticisms on the left against President Bush's handling of the war on terror has been that he (a) hasn't gotten troops necessary equipment, and (b) that port security is inadequate. And yet these protesters are (a) trying to disrupt supply flow to the troops of their necessary equipment, and (b) are making the port less secure and criticizing the police who are trying to keep it safe. Oh, well - no one has ever accused violent protesters of being smart, consistent, or logical. I can't wait for the loud denunciations from the pro-troop Democrats about this. (Cue the crickets chirping.)

And really - is there any possible way to have a less effective protest? Really? I mean, do they seriously think the longshoremen are going to look at them acting like imbeciles, get out of their cranes, and say, "Gosh, those guys are right." Do they think the master of the ship is going to look at them and say, "Man - why didn't I think about this before? I'm helping the imperial fascist Bush sell blood for oil. That's it - shut down the engines. We're not going anywhere."

One of good folks who felt the cyan pepper burn was Olympia City Councilman T.J. Johnson (no relation, thank God). Mr. Johnson was the troop-supporter who drafted a resolution in 2004 to block the USS Olympia, a fast attack submarine named for our capital city, from docking in the Port of Olympia for a port visit. The resolution was successful, not through any force of law, but because the Captain of the boat canceled his request for the visit. Nice. But don't you dare question his patriotism...

The protesters, including Councilman Johnson, say they're just trying to stop the war as soon as possible. Well, then, how about let's all push for victory together? What these red-faced fools don't understand is that every one of these demonstrations gives hope to the enemy that our government will capitulate and leave, and allow the rape-room aficionados back into power. The fascists we fight have continually told their people, devastated by our military might, that if they just hold on a little bit longer, the protesters will win, the weak Americans will get bored, and they can go back to oppressing women and reversing the tide of freedom in the Middle East. So the reality is that their protest activities will actually prolong the war and cause more deaths.

But dissent is the highest form of patriotism. And they're committed to peace and freedom. Got it.

Thank-you Seattle

Seattle is selling off all of the land taken through eminent domain seizures for the monorail so that they can stop taxing us for a project that will never happen. Of the 33 lots being sold back 4 original owners attempted to buy back their lots. Only 3 were successful and at a significant premium on what the state paid them a short time ago. It is a sad state of affairs when the state can condemn land, then sell it at a profit and never accomplish a legitimate purpose with the land in the interim.

Holocaust Rising

Iran is about to pass a law that requires Jews to wear yellow strips of cloth. Other minority religions, like Christians, have their own designated colors. Think about that for a minute, and what it means. It chilled me right down to my bones. And then this reaction frightened me even more:

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was "stunned" by the measure. "We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," he said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."

Stunned? STUNNED?!?!? Why the hell are you stunned, Mr. Farber? Why is anyone surprised in the least? Iran has been promising to exterminate Jews and other assundry infidels for years now. When will we learn to take these people at their word?

This isn't a government that can be persuaded by diplomacy, or stopped with sanctions Russia and China aren't willing to participate in (or will surely subvert to meet their energy needs, just as they along with France did all through the 90s with Iraq).

I don't know what the answers are for Iran. But I do know that the longer we wait, the fewer options we will have. There is simply no serious person who can honestly believe they are not developing nuclear weapons. They are more than willing to sponsor terrorism and kill as many innocents as they possibly can. They are desperately trying to subvert the infant Iraqi democracy, and if we leave, they will succeed. When Ahmadinajad promises to wipe Israel off the map, he's serious.

And I know that the longer we hide our heads in the sand, rely on the UN for anything, and pretend that they're a rational government that values peace and international comity, the harder it will be to stop them, and the more people will die before it ends.

After the Holocaust, we said "Never Again." I used to think we meant it.

---

UPDATE: There are some who are expressing skepticism over whether or not this story is true, because it hasn't been independently confirmed yet. But we DO know that the Iranians passed a very strict "Muslim uniform" law, which will identify the non-Muslims just as easily. And the story isn't being denied by Iran, either. The fact still remains that anyone who thinks it's somehow unrealistic to think the Iranians would do such a thing simply hasn't been paying attention.

Congratulations to Next Year's Executive Board!

Congratulations to next year's executive board:

President: Ranjit Narayanan
Vice President: Alex Chan
Secretary: Arleta Young
Treasurer: Martin Bingisser

It's going to be a great year for the University of Washington Federalist Society! If you want to participate, contact Ranjit - the more people we have involved, the more things we can do.

Also, as the outgoing President, I'd like to say thanks to everyone who's made this such a successful year, and who have put so much effort into our events. This year's E-board has been fantastic, and it's been a real pleasure to work with all of you.

Legal Debate on Terrorism Surveillance

The National Federalist Society has just put out a monograph on domestic surveillance and counter-terrorism, with both the ABA's take on what it (shockingly) considers the illegalities of these programs, and an alternate point of view. I've only had the chance to skim it, but it's very interesting stuff. Most of the other things I've seen so far, like Ranjit's nod to Orin Kerr, has focused on statutory concerns, but this looks like it addresses broader inherent power concerns.

Elections Tomorrow

Please don't forget the end of the year meeting tomorrow at 12:30 in room 118. Lunch will be served. Ranjit has thrown his hat into the ring for president, but while I've gotten general interst for other E-board positions, people have not been specific. Please let me know what you would like to do (positions can be adjusted later) if you would like to participate. You, of course, need not have been on the E-board this year to run for a position for next year.

This will be a short meeting, but it's a very necessary one. See you there!

Today's Media in WWII

I recently started reading Stephen E. Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers, which follows the progress of American GIs in WWII from the end of D-Day through to V-E Day. I'm constantly struck by how differently it would have been seen in today's media, and how much more successful our Herculean efforts in the Middle East would be if we had that kind of commitment and sense of perspective today. One example - they had NO problems blowing up churches, some of which must have been centuries old, if the Germans were using them as spotting towers or hiding weapons there. Contrast that with mosques, which a regularly used to hide terrorists and their munitions, but which we leave alone.

The biggest failure of the Iraq war is the lack of perspective with which we view it. I've read other pieces that remind us of how historically successful we have been and continue to be, and that remind us that lasting victory over determined fascists isn't easy, but this is one of the best I've seen in awhile.

NSA call records program

Orin Kerr has a couple of great posts (here and here) on the legality of the NSA's call record program.

Is the ABA Partisan? Nah...

Apparently, working for the Bush Administration is all it takes for the ABA to lower a judge's qualification from "well qualified" to "qualified". Nice.

Whatever it may once have been, the ABA is a political organization, and a very liberal one. They have no business being the sole organization evaluating judges for future nominations any more.

Higher Taxes on Gases?

Orrin had an interesting post a few weeks ago on the benefit of higher gas prices. We had a short discussion in the comments on whether higher gas taxes would be a good idea in terms of creating incentives for development of alternate sources of energy.

Posner weighs in on this very issue on his blog. Interesting read ...

Heroes of Free Speech

Yesterday the far left-leaning Seattle Post-Intelligencer published this column which echoed many liberal bloggers in proclaiming Stephen Colbert "my hero" for speaking "truth to power" to Bush at the Correspondent's Dinner last week. I just can't stand it any more.

Yes. Such undaunted courage! To take cracks at a man knowing there will be absolutely zero consequences, that your life or family is in no way in danger, and that the object of your sarcasm will just sit there and smile and take it, and because he is a man of class and decorum, won't even stand up and walk out in disgust. Think of how many minds he must have changed! Think of how many red state hicks woke up to the TRUE man they voted for, and will now vote for Democrats this November! What juevos! What moxie!

What a joke.

In the worker's paradise of Venezuela, that stunt would have earned Colbert a year or two in the joint (if he was lucky). Go find me a Cuban newspaper with an anti-Fidel editorial staff. A modicum of real courage would be showing the Danish Muhammad Cartoons on the Colbert Report. Or picking civility over liberal cred for ratings. Or doing that bit in Iran. (Warning - that last link is funny as hell, and may cause snickering in class.)

I'll save my free speech "hero" worship for Atwar Bahjat, an al Arabia TV journalist who had been risking her life to bring truth to the thuggery and evil of Michael Moore's "Minute Men" in Iraq, and was murdered in the most brutal possible way by opponents of a free press. She reminded us that this type of murder and censorship used to be public policy in her country, but that now good people are risking their lives by speaking out publicly against them.

That's courage. But then, the P-I has never really been threatened with real threats of censorship, save the threat of bankruptcy because their readership has continued to fall. And I doubt any of their columnists seriously thinks they are writing under threat of torture. The fact that they openly write about how they can't openly express their views is a self defeating statement that points to the total lack of insight, logic, thought, perspective, or any other indicia of reason that pervades their narrow world view.

The House Is Safe for the GOP in 2006

I am boldly making a prediction here, at risk of future ridicule and several dollars (the actual amount will remain secret as my wife occasionally reads this blog) to Publius Rex.

The Republicans will retain the House of Representatives this November.

(Along with this comes the related but less bold prediction that liberal Democrats will react with disbelief, shock, awe, etc., closely followed by conspiracy theories/excuses like the "Diebold Effect", that their candidates weren't liberal enough, or that Chimpy McBushitler prevents the unwashed masses from voting in their economic interests and hearing the truth because of all the right wing corporate media bias. There, I said it.)

Pundits everywhere (even conservative ones) are saying different, of course. Even Ken Mehlmen has raised the panic alarm. But pundits are pundits, and so far every single one of them has relied exclusively on "generic ballot" polls, which say that people are dissatisfied with Republicans and want a change. What they don't do is actually look at the individual races and add up the numbers. They've done it for the Senate, and have rightly concluded the Democrats cannot take it. But 33 races = easier math and more digestible 10 minute TV news segments than 435. And they don't take into account people like me who are "dissatisfied with the Republicans and want a change" but would rather grouse about the status quo than see Nancy Pelosi with any real power.

A few weeks ago, Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics engaged in some actual political science (a rarity I've hardly ever seen, even while I was getting my degree in that discipline), and determined that it was highly unlikely for the House to flip. His main reasons:

• The incumbency advantage is a powerful one, and less than 5% of House members are not seeking reelection in 2006. Even people who don't like generic Democrats like their Democrat, and vice versa. Look at how long Tom Daschle was able to hold on in conservative South Dakota, and how tenuous his ouster really was.
  
• House members have the advantage of controlling their districts to a degree. The Senate is actually more receptive to national moods than the house, because they don't have the advantage of gerrymandering their legislative districts. Thus, House seats tend to be safer for incumbents than Senate seats. And if the Senate isn't at risk...
• The first two points are backed up by the historical fact that ever since Senators started being popularly elected in 1914, control of the House has never changed parties without a corresponding switch in the Senate.
  
• In looking at several different regions of the country and their actual races with the actual candidates, things just don't look that gloomy for Republicans.
  

His logic is hard to refute. And I think that there's yet another issue he's missing. The issues still favor Republicans, especially if they do ANYTHING but squabble through to November. Consider:

• Immigration: It's not right wingers who were out in the streets last week demanding amnesty of illegals. And if Republicans wake up and finally exert some leadership on this issue, this issue alone will secure their victory. It's the Democrat's only chance, but I just don't see their current leadership taking advantage of it in the right direction.
  
• Iraq and the GWOT: Democrats have dreams and platitudes, but no plans. They speak of "re-engaging our international allies" (unless it's "outsourcing diplomacy" with Iran), "catching bin Laden", and somehow forcing North Korea to give up its nukes (like Bill Clinton did, I guess), but have yet to explain how. Whatever dissatisfactions people have with the status quo, people are concerned about national security and don't want to replace something with nothing.
• The economy: The economy is blazing away, and unemployment is still incredibly low. Personal income and consumer spending is up, despite gas prices. People are doing well economically, and people vote their pocketbooks.
  
• Gas prices: The party blocking drilling in ANWR, championing high gas taxes, and containing rabid environmentalists has very little credibility on this issue. And because the economy is otherwise on fire, and real incomes are up, the impact is just not substantial enough.
  
• Taxes: Democrats have repeatedly said they want to axe the tax cuts "for the rich". The problem is that a lot of people who don't consider themselves "rich" would see their taxes shoot back up if the tax cuts are not made permanent. It's hard to not call this a tax hike and still keep a straight face, and harder still to justify to people when they're already paying a lot for gas.
• The "Culture of Corruption": The legal attacks on prominent Republicans have been transparently political (with a few exceptions). But the Abramoff scandal was an equal opportunity, bi-partisan affair. And the Democrats have had their own high profile power-hubris issues of late that in very large part nullify this clumsily offered non-issue.
  
• Spending: The Republicans have been atrocious on this issue, but does anyone really believe the Democrats will spend less? Each Republican running for Congress will pledge to cut spending, and/or will highlight his/her own record on "limiting Congressional spending." This line of attack favors Republicans attacking Democratic incumbents more than Democrats attacking Republican ones, and let's not forget that Dems have seats to defend, too. Once again, a side by side comparison will not favor Democrats.
  

If the Democrats had real plans to address these issues, they could re-take both houses of Congress. But they don't. (In fact, they're actively trying to prevent progress on any of these issues so the GOP won't get credit - a transparent and short-sighted calculus that will burn them.) "Goals" and "platitudes" don't count - the success of the 1994 Contract with America was its specificity and smaller, realistically achievable legislative agendas. When actual candidates are held up side-by-side, the Democrats will look weaker on each one of these issues that are weighing on voters' minds. And their continued flirtations with the far, far, far lefties like the Daily Kos have been and will continue to be self-sabotaging acts.

And there are issues to motivate the Republican base. Nancy Pelosi is already hinting at what their real focus will be if they regain power - politically motivated attacks on President Bush and Republicans. It's a true testimonial to the stunning political flat-footedness of the Democrats that their leadership says things like this out loud. Americans want serious people addressing their problems, not slap-fighting over their own self-importance, even if they disagree with the proffered solutions. (Look how Clinton's impeachment helped him and hurt Congress in the polls.) And right now, the Democratic leadership simply aren't serious people.

The Republicans will lose some seats, there is no question. People are frustrated with their lackluster leadership, and rightfully so. And Republicans can lose if they try, and don't take Mr. Mehlman's warnings seriously. But absent some huge, unexpected happening, the stars are simply not aligned for them to lose enough seats to actually lose control. And dissatisfaction with the current Republicans does not, fortunately, signal a yearning by Americans for a leftward shift.

New blog over at Cato

Mandatory reading for Libertarians! The Cato Institute has a new blog.

The True Impact of Yesterday's March

After thousands of people who went to great effort to escape their socialist and lawless crappy homelands and sneak into this one protested that our country isn't socialist and doesn't ignore laws on the International Day of Communism, the real impact is summed up in a single image.


Yawn.

The impact would have been a net positive if the illegals actually dropped out of our country for a while day.

Let the backlash begin. Build a wall, and punish the companies who exploit poor workers who can't seek legal protection. Tyson Foods didn't close their plants because they actually give a damn about "illegal immigrant rights" - they did it because they desperately want to keep their cheap labor.

(And by the way, where are all the "labor and justice" liberals who are all fired up about the plight of the worker?)

This is the most capitalist, and as a result, the most successful, country in the world. We have a culture and tradition I am very, very proud of. I'm proud that millions of people desperately want to be part of it, and I welcome them (to come legally). It's a better, more successful culture and tradition than Mexico's (or any of the other places illegals come from) which is why they come here in the first place. If they're truly here to become Americans, let's at the very, very least honor that by ensuring it's still America that they're coming to.