Tuesday, October 31, 2006
KFC was able to do the job on its own - but they did it right. They made sure that it wouldn't compromise the product. Now, we could have cops pulled from important things - like putting away criminals, to go after chefs who use the wrong oil to fry food in.
At that point, the judges will have to decide if they will override the elected representatives of the people - or if they will avoid making laws from the bench.
Monday, October 30, 2006
And how about Mark Anderson, who seems to be the steal of the NFL draft? 7.5 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, one fumble recovery, 1 pass deflected - in seven games. Houston fans must be in agony knowing that the Texans passed on Reggie Bush to get Mario Williams (3.5 sacks, 1 fumble recovery). The Texans could have taken Bush first overall, and grabbed Anderson before the Bears, and they would be in much better shape as a team.
Expect GM/coaching changes for the Texans soon if this keeps up.
This leads me to wonder - how many other famous faces lend the publicity they can generate to causes they do not understand? How many people get misled as a result?
This is one place where COTS could really cut down on expenses. My latest cell phone has a camera, plenty of storage with a mini-SD card, and would be almost perfect for virtually any mission. It even fits into a shirt pocket. The traditional radioman (like Luz in Band of Brothers) may be obsolete. now a days, the CO may have his cell phone and a Bluetooth headset.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Because what will happen in 2007 is that the President will push for other critical components:
We must reduce pressure on our border by creating a temporary worker plan. Willing workers ought to be matched with willing employers to do jobs Americans are not doing for a temporary -- on a temporary basis.
We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship; that is amnesty. I oppose amnesty. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic pass to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation.
But then, Tom Tancredo, Michelle Malkin, and others will immediately begin to claim that what he wants is an amnesty - never mind what the President has actually proposed, or the penalties that would have to be paid. They will falsely claim there is no middle ground, they will insist upon the "rule of law" (albeit on a selective basis as opposed to general principle). And they will probably succeed again - after having done so in the past.
If it weren't for how bad the Democrats are, I'd want to stay home.
OK, let me get this straight, you are defending a guy's by linking to sites that demean that religion. With a defense like that, a person would not need to be attacked.
Does John McCain approve of this? If he doesn't will he act to clean up the acts of his supporters? Because this is not going to go over well with a lot of folks.
Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of The Weinstein Company stated, “It’s a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American.”
The Weinstein Company is exploring taking legal action.
Harvey, Harvey, Harvey...
The First Amendment only applies to government, not NBC or the CW network. If they do not want to run the ads, that is their decision.
But I guess free speech only goes your way.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Never mind the fact that the elected representatives of the people had already decided what marriage means - four justices of the New Jersey supreme court decided they knew better and gave the legislature six months to come up with a law that is acceptable to them.
The people? They'll have no say in it at all. How do they vote out the New Jersey Supreme Court?
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
I have to disagree with her on "the Stakes". The "Daisy" ad and "the Stakes" have somewhat different audiences. "Daisy" was aimed at the general public in 1964. "The Stakes" is aimed at two smaller portions of the general public - undecided voters, and the petulant crybaby conservatives who have thought about sitting 2006 out over immigration/Foleygate/spending/etc.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
In the fifth round of the NFL draft, the Bears drafted Mark Anderson, a player from Alabama. Anderson has 6.5 sacks, two forced fumbles, and a fumble recovery in six games.
They could have had Reggie Bush and a good defenseive end. Instead, they paid a lot for Mario Williams, and Reggie Bush is on another NFL roster.
Houston is currently 2-4 and on a pace to lose more than they win. Again.
Memo to Houston Texans: Make bad draft-day decisions, and you have a bad football team.
This is a sign of just how bad things are. Sudan's commiting genocide - and the UN can only send a blogger?
Send a lot of second-hand guns (AK-47s, SKS carbines, M16s) to Darfur. Teach people to use them - get 40 guys from Blackwater, DynCorp, or Vinnell to do that, and a couple of C-130s to handle the airlift needs - and train additional instructors, to help Darfur defend itself. As Strategypage reports, the NRF is already able to inflict defeats on the Sudanese Army. That is a good base of support.
And to deal with the Sudanese Air Force's bombing raids, well, we handled that before in a place called Afghanistan. The Stingers helped drive the Soviet Union out of that country.
These guys had to hang - and they had to be hung high. We cannot tolerate cops who try to cover up what is obviously a bad shoot. The bad shoot is bad enough - but the cover-up is unforgiveable.
When they tried to cover up - it was an admission that they never should have fired their guns in the first place. It was an unjustified use of force - and it was as bad as can be imagined. This never was about appeasing Mexico. It was about making sure that those badges don't become hunting licenses.
The misuse of force by police - particularly lethal force (and that is what you are using when you fire a gun) - is something that can never be tolerated in a free society. Because once cops start thinking they can do that, we lose trust. And when people don't trust the cops, there are very big problems coming down the pike.
Yes, the present situation on the southern border is unacceptable. Yes, there are dangers out there. But if we tolerate bad cops of one variety, what other varieties of bad cops will we get? The ones who accept bribes to look the other way when stuff is smuggled in, perhaps? Or maybe they'll decide who did it and then plant the evidence to "help" the case along. How does that sound?
To tell you the truth, I feel pretty sick just thinking about it.
EDIT: I will note that in the past, when it ws the IRS of BATF that was the subject of accusations involving abuses of people, conservatives were all over this. Is there a reason that the Border Patrol should be held to a lower standard?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Ruben Navarette's response is worth reading. Sadly, the responses by the commentors are just the typical knee-jerk reactions one sees on immigration.
These conservatives have, quite frankly, decided that personal responsibility has variable applicability. You make bad choices, you need to deal with the consequences.
But Lou Dobbs is trying to abrogate that - instead, it's the fault of those Mexicans stealing our jobs. To the extent conservatives go along with that - it speaks poorly for them.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Let's just get used to it. There are going to be some serious arguments in the future. But at least the GOP is willing to have an internal debate and doesn't purge its members over disagreements, unlike the Democrats.
Surprise, surprise. The leaker was a Democrat.
Quite frankly, if other leaks are determined to be due to Congressional staffers or members of congress, anyone who decides to lie to Congress in order to protect classified information is justified.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Since the media is more interested in discussing naughty IM sessions than the primary issue of our generation, it is only fair that the RNC run this ad.
I expect the howling and screaming from the Democrats will be coming soon.
Quite frankly, reading the article from the Washington Times he linked to, I just have to shake my head. It seems that they want ideological purity over results.
And they will get neither in a Senate controlled by Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, and Ted Kenendy - or a House controlled by Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and John Murtha.
One quote worth emphasizing:
America cut and ran in Vietnam. It still pays the price for that. Evil-doers still look upon this nation as cowards.This is why Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi should not be in power come November 8, 2006.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
FCC data show that the lion's share of indecency complaints lodged at the agency are generated by two groups: the Parents Television Council and the American Family Assn.
How are these complaints generated? Well, the PTC and AFA have links to the FCC. Someone can send it in from there - and the complaint is filed. There is no proof that the person who filed the complaint even saw the offending TV series. For all we know, they're just complaining based on what the PTC and AFA has said about the shows.
TVs these days come with these things called remotes. Parents have a responsibility to learn how to use them and to keep control of them - and not let the TV stand in as a babysitter.
Haven't people heard of personal responsibility?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Unlike some, who wanted the max, I'm not as disappointed. She's 67 and has cancer. She'll probably get a book tour when all is said and done, but she probably won't be able to represent any more terrorists (felony convictions usually result in disbarment).
It looks like the mission has been accomplished.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Yes, the Israelis made some huge errors. Yeah, they failed to get any of the hostages Hezbollah took back right away.
But aside from some good reviews in the mainstream media, what did Hezbollah get? Well, they fired a lot of rockets for very little effect. They also lost a lot of infrastructure, as many as 700 of its personnel, and a lot of good will among other factions in Lebanon.
Even an attack filled with mistakes and problems is far better than doing nothing. This is why going into Iraq and Afghanistan was a good move. Because even when we err, we do a lot more damage to them than they do to us.
I think there is some truth to her comparison to a psoriaisis outbreak. There has been growing tension among the social conservatives and the small government wing of the GOP. Quite frankly, I have been less than thrilled about some things lately. With the war on terror going on, and the need to re-capitalize our force of cargo planes, aerial refuelling tankers, maritime patrol aircraft, and air-superiority fighters, you would think that Congress would be dealing with that. Instead, our officials were debating bills about the slaughter of horses for meat and internet gambling.
Furthermore, I have seen cases where some conservatives have begun acting as if they were a Soviet-era zampolit as opposed to trying to deal with some very thorny problems. One of the worst offenders has been Tom Tancredo on immigration (but there have been others on different issues - look at how some have treated Mitt Romney's health-care plan). If a solution does not comport with what they deem conservative thinking, the vitriol and venom spew out - and facts are often ignored.
The resentments build... and build... and soon things explode.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Give him a trial, then give him the death penalty that he so richly deserves.
Apaprently, the final version of the defense appropriations bill contains earmarks for 10 more C-17s for FY2007 and up to 60 F-22s over the next three years.
These earmarks have John McCain, John Warner, and Tom Coburn throwing hissy fits.
Well, in this case, they are wrong - and their efforts are, quite frankly, one reason why I was against this anti-pork crusade. It had the potential to go too far, and in denying new cargo planes and fighters to the Air Force, it is placing national security at risk - especially if the C-17 production line closes.
The C-17 replaced the old C-141 cargo plane. However, we also have 77 C-5s built from 1968-1973 that are getting up there in years. Those might need to be replaced, much the way the C-130E is in need of replacement (and earmarks for new C-130Js got called pork, too). Another pressing priority is replacing 157 KC-135Es (and hopefully, all of the KC-135s, which were first purchased in 1954, with the last being bought in 1965).
The F-15 is also old - having been in service for three decades. Yes, it is still a good plane, but it is outclassed by the Eurofighter and Rafale, and the Su-27 family is very close. The F-22, on the other hand, assures dominance of the air for years to come. Our fighter pilots will have a better chance with the Raptor, and it needs to be bought - preferably in number to allow it to replace the F-15 on a one-for-one basis. It is already proving its ability to take on multiple opponents and win.
The porkbusters are being penny-wise, but extremely foolish. Shutting down a production line can be a very permanent thing. The workers will retire, or move on to other work. The equipment will be re-used, possibly even destroyed (as was the case with the MD-11 tooling). Senators McCain, Warner, and Coburn need to back off on this fight for the good of the country.
There is pork in the federal budget, but the C-17 and F-22 are not oinkers. If anything, I wish whoever inserted those provisions had earmarked funds for building more of them.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Crichton, and Senator James Inhofe would be among those standing in the dock - because they wanted to pursue science rather than allow themselves to be stampeded by dire predictions. Those who ask questions are to be placed on trial for crimes against Earth - or something like that.
So much for scientific debate and free speech.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
I say extradite him. We signed the treaty, and treaties are part of the law of the land. It's about the rule of law, Congressman, the very same reason you claim to be opposing the President's approach to immigration - you claim his approach rewards people who have broken the law.
Well, Duane Chapman entered Mexico, where bounty hunting is illegal. He and two of his employees detained a person, and took him to the USA. He broke the law.
So, shouldn't he be extradited to face justice, like any other lawbreaker? Or are you only interested in the rule of law for some and not for others?
If it's the latter, then there's a word to describe Tom Tancredo: Hypocrite.
A North Korean official threatened that communist nation could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday.
"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," the unnamed official said on Monday, according to a Yonhap report from Beijing. "That depends on how the U.S. will act."
We now have a threat to use nuclear weapons on the table from the Dear Leader's regime.
It's time to get Looking Glass back on continuous airborne alert, just like the Bad Old Days. It's also time to turn Pyongyang into a large smoking hole, screw what China has to say about it.
No, I am not eagerly looking forward to doing that. This would the geopolitical equivalent of putting down a rabid dog. Nobody in their right mind likes the prospect of doing so; nobody in their right mind would refrain from doing so if one was loose in their community.
McCain has too many fights with the base to really make it to the nomination... campaign finance reform, detainees, tax cuts, and immigration (that one he was right on) are all areas where he's butted heads with conservatives on a very public basis. Unless Romney, Giuliani, and other candidates split the "not-McCain" vote enough, McCain's an also-ran.
Because as this report from Harper's indicates, the Democrats seem to have had these e-mails months earlier and had been shopping the story.
In May, a source put me in touch with a Democratic operative who provided me with the now-infamous emails that Foley had sent in 2004 to a sixteen-year-old page. He also provided several emails that the page sent to the office of Congressman Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican who had sponsored him when he worked on Capitol Hill. “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously, This freaked me out,” the page wrote in one email. In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to The Miami Herald—both which decided against publishing stories.
Folks, this is the real damning evidence. The Democrats were holding on to this story for months - and shopping it around. They never took these e-mails to the FBI. CREW provided them - in July, and even then, only redacted versions. When the FBI asked for the original copies, CREW did not provide them. Some concern for the safety of pages. /sarcasm
I'd rather not talk about this. Bianca's return to Pine Valley would be more interesting. So are the baseball playoffs (the Yankees lost again, and Steinbrenner will go on a shopping spree). Or the NFL (Bears are 5-0). But we have to.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, there are some worrisome aspects that will come into play.
First, testing is not a friendly act in the post-Cold War era. It's one thing to walk into a bar with a concealed weapon. It's another thing to haul it out, fire a shot into the ceiling to verify that it's loaded, and yell, "WHO WANTS A PIECE OF THIS?" Li'l Kim has just done that, and now everyone is discreetly reaching for their hardware. (UPDATE: Apparently, Li'l Kim's pistol may have had a blank chambered. H/T to my partner in crime for finding this.)
Second, there is the question of "who's next?" Japan is a shake-and-bake nuclear power--one estimate I've read puts Japan having a credible nuclear deterrent within six months of the Japanese government giving the go-ahead. They have a breeder reactor that manufactures large amounts of plutonium (Reactor-bred "Ploot" is, by definition, bomb-grade), and they have a first-rate technical infrastructure; the rest is merely a matter of money, man-hours, and political will.
South Korea and Taiwan are not in that league--they do not have breeder reactors--but they have good technicians, and they can always whip out hard currency for what William Burroughs called "The Yard Sale at the End of History." So they could probably have nukes inside of two years.
Now, the second-order effects:
South Korea and Japan don't like each other overmuch. If one goes nuclear, the other will. If Japan goes nuclear, Taiwan will (assuming that they are not already practicing what I call "CCWMD"), simply because nobody in eastern Asia trusts the Japanese (the 1931-1945 period may seem to be ancient history to an upstart nation like the United States, but to the cultures of the Pacific Rim, it's just last week). The People's Republic of China will be extremely unhappy if Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan go nuclear.
Some sort-of good news: multilateral (as opposed to bilateral) nuclear stability has never been tested in an international crisis, only in RAND political-military games. Some really bad news: in those RAND games, multilateral nuclear stability seems to be a figment of everyone's imagination; it "fails deadly" about 95% of the time as players pursue their victory conditions vis-a-vis Country A without thinking about how Countries B, C, D, and E view their actions. It seems to be a natural human blind spot--because the same players, with their experiences from earlier games to inform and admonish them, did the same damn thing in subsequent games.
Moving from the purely geopolitical to the tactical end of nuclear warfighting ("It's all fun and games until somebody gets their eyes melted out!"):
One thing that Japan, the Koreas, and Taiwan would need is early warning (and, in that theater, it would be not-so-early warning due to the short distances times of flight involved) in order to maintain some minimal level of crisis/prompt launch stability (the old "use 'em or lose 'em" issue from the late Cold War). Early warning systems tend to be incredibly expensive; the best solution may be for these nations to buy access to our own warning net. (Pay-per-view launch detection: the new growth market for the United States Strategic Command.) We spent billions per year during the Cold War just to buy an extra 10-15 minutes of tactical warning time against the USSR. The same amount of money (after indexing for inflation) would give 30 seconds to 2 minutes additional in northeast Asia--which would just about enough time to execute one predetermined nuclear strike option on initial alert.
Because of the short timelines involved, a lot of "early warning" would be strategic (i.e., intelligence of possible intent to attack) as opposed to tactical (detection of missile launches). Strategic warning is ambiguous at best. With relatively small forces on all sides, generation stability (the sensitivity of force survivability to whether the force is on day-to-day alert or generated alert) assumes critical importance.
On the one hand, generated forces may be more survivable (additional mobile missiles on the move or in hide sites away from the main garrisons, additional command and control assets deployed, et cetera). On the other hand, generating forces to increase their survivability may convince the other side that you intend to launch a first strike.
One potential response to this concern is to design a missile force whose day-to-day posture is more or less indistinguishable from its generated posture. This, however, will tend to make even minor crises into nuclear ones, as there would be no way to know if the other side's nuclear forces are cocked and locked or not.
So, if America does nothing:
At some point in the not-too-distant future, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, North Korea, and China will be in a multidirectional Mexican stand-off, most likely with relatively accurate nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. All sides would be able to deliver a signifcant strike from a day-to-day alert posture and would have next to no tactical warning available. The only thing missing would be the spark.
How does one say "Able Archer" in Japanese, Hangul, or Mandarin?
Inaction is failure; failure is not an option. We must lead.
But the important post for today comes from Strata-Sphere.
Personally, any conservative who fails to push through election day is one we can affort to go without.
I do hope certain conservatives who have been throwing temper tantrums over a possible Bush pocket veto of the border fence (which I would support due to reasons Big Lizards has enunciated) keep that in mind. If they want to be petulant crybabies, they had better think through the consequences.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Strata-Sphere has more.
The real big deal is the "gaymail" ring. What we have here are people who are snooping into the private lives of Republican staffers - and threatening to air their private lives out in public because they do not back a certain agenda.
Here's the scary part folks - staffers often provide the information - and make recommendations - to a Senator or Congressman. This is something very serious. If it can be done on one issue, why not others? And who says it will just be limited to activists? What would keep other Senators or Congressman from doing such a thing? Or even a President?
And if they even think of another missile test, send a B-2 to drop a few JDAMs on the site. Talking will do nothing to stop the North Korean missile program. Decisive action will.
The thing is, Hugo has a militia that is loyal to him. He ordered as many as 100,000 AK-103 rifles for them. What means of self-defense will be available to his opponents? I fear we could be headed for a Caracas variant on Tiananmen Square.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Speaking of which, on these latest IMs, why were they kept for 4-8 years? Why didn't those former pages use the "block" feature on their instant messenger?
I'd like to know...
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The judge should have given him the 60 years. The law should have allowed for the death penalty. Anyone who breaks into a house and rapes a 9-year-old needs to be dealt with decisively. Ideally, said decisive dealing will involve borrowing the GRU's blast furnace, but lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber, or hanging will do.
The death penalty, in my view, is appropriate for those who rape children or rapists who give thir victims HIV. In the latter case, the victim is dead, it just will take as long as two decades for AIDS to claim their life.
This is not about proportionate punishment. I want deterrence via a sentence that is disproportionate - and which will be capable of decisively dealing with this kind of scum. As one death-penalty opponent said, "Still, if it's deterrence you want, nothing better prevents recidivism than capital punishment. Ted Bundy can't bother co-eds anymore."
Two paragraphs from MacsMind's latest post on this warrant attention:
Besides Foley two names that have come into play are Rogers and John Aravosis of America’s Blog. Both are gay activists who on many occassions have threatened not only Foley and Fordham with outing, but others as well. These guys are what we call “Political Thugs”, the only thing they don’t use is guns, but they do nearly as much damage. Others call it by it’s real name - blackmail.
Again, the FBI - and I have this on good source - are aware of both individuals and looking into their involvement as well. As I said before we cops aren’t so stupid as to just look at an IM log or an email and say, “Oh look at that?, case closed!”
This is the real scandal. Not that Mark Foley has not been innocent, but the real scandal is that certain people are trying to dig up information on the private lives of Republican congressman in order to affect their votes on certain issues. This is something that is serious - and needs to be hammered. Petitioning for a redress of grievances is one thing. Blackmail is another.
It's increasingly obvious that the safety of the pages and former pages was of secondary concern to scoring political points via blackmail. This is something that needs to be exposed.
Check Macsmind and Strata-sphere for updates. They are on top of this - and know of others who are as well.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
He's wrong, it already exists in the form of Google and other search engines. It's the Age of Google, and people who peddle phony stories, like fake memos purporting to show someone was AWOL, won't be able to do so. You also can't hide stories, either, like the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (500 shells with sarin and mustard gas). You can also find out the background of a person who makes a scene with a politician.
The truth can be found - and revealed - setting everyone free.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
RegimeofTerror.com discusses Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism.
Meanwhile, www.iraqdocs.blogspot.com has translations of recovered documents. One, from September 25, contains significant exculpatory evidence concerning the "no WMD" claims. Six days is a long time if you really want to hide something.
The truth is out there, and the MSM is refusing to give this evidence any exposure.
Monday, October 02, 2006
In a very real sense, she has hit on something. I suspect that part of the heavy fire on Allen and President Bush may be because they did not play the victim, but instead confronted their demons head-on. If they could do it, then perhaps others could do so as well - by accepting responsbility for their lives. And for some in politics, having people feeling like victims is vital. It means that they can push their agenda by blaming the problems the victims have on big business/immigrants/neo-cons/racists/Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld/Wal-Mart. They'd probably find a way to blame Santa and the Easter Bunny if it would help them get votes.
But a self-help/self-improvement story turns all that on its head. It tells people that they might have it rough, but they can get out of it. The victimhood pimps on the left and the right can't have that. If people began to think that they were responsible, the scapegoating of immigrants and big business carried out by Pat Buchanan - as well as the race-baiting of Al Sharpton - would lose a lot of its appeal. Buchanan and Sharpton might actually have to do some real work for once.
Perhaps we need more self-improvement stories from politicians, not fewer.
I guess the cops are looking to avoid budget cuts or something...
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Now this goes too far. The AKC and Petland, if one believes this, are actually trying to hurt the dogs that are the source of their livelihoods. Never mind how irrational that is on its face, but that is what is being claimed.
If animal cruelty is going on, it needs to be handled decisively. That said, can someone please give me an objective definition of "puppy mill" that doesn't boil down to "I know it when I see it"? We do not need to add some vague law when there are already exisiting laws that can do the job.