2.5

Mac Johnson, writing for Right Wing News, has a proposal for those in the Libertarian Party who want to win elections: The Two and a Half Party System

He brings up several good points. For example:

(E)ach party, in an effort to win 50% of the population's votes in every election, in every district, in every state, among every race, gender, industry, and income group, has had to turn itself into a big tent coalition consisting of individually self-interested and organized components. In effect, both parties resemble the multi-party parliamentary coalition governments of Europe. The only difference is that the coalitions must be formed up before the election and are very stable for that reason. But other than that, they even function like coalition governments once in office. One interest group is promised trade policy, another gets dibs on civil rights law, a third is given farm policy, and so on. The subparties even threaten to leave the coalitions when ignored or hungry for more power: Reagan Democrats, Southern Dixiecrats, Buchananite Republicans etc.

Basically what he's saying is that, because of the entrenched nature of the two party system we have today, Libertarians at best generally collect a small portion of the vote and, at worst, siphon votes from the Republican candidate which results in a Democrat victory. He proposes an alternate way:

All it will take is for the Libertarians of this country to start thinking of themselves as The Libertarian Party and Caucus, rather than solely as The Libertarian Party. Like the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Labor Unions, and a gaggle of lobbying interests, the Libertarians of this country can leverage their dedication into an influence well beyond their numbers by forcing the two great coalition parties to begin competing for their votes, campaign work, and donations. The Libertarian Party can still run candidates under its own flag, but it can also begin acknowledging candidates of Libertarian beliefs running under other flags. Think of it as a Two and a Half Party system.

He fleshes it out quite a bit more so go read the whole thing.

Cars and trucks

Subaru has introduced the 2005 Outback which will be classified as a truck according to federal fuel economy and emissions rules. Environmental activists are charging that Subaru is exploiting a loophole in the regulations to avoid having to improve the overall fuel economy of its product line.

"Instead of making more gas guzzlers, Subaru should pledge to bring its fleet average fuel economy up to 40 miles per gallon," Katherine Morrison, an attorney with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said in a statement. "By using currently available technologies, they can start improving the fuel economy of their best-selling vehicles and reduce global warming pollution and oil dependence."

Actually, Suburu "should" not do anything of the kind provided it doesn't violate the rules. The company is in the business of selling vehicles and they will do what they legally can to maximize their sales.

Jim Murphy, general manager of governmental affairs for Subaru, said the change from car to truck was a consequence of other decisions to make the Outback wagons more closely resemble sport utility vehicles, and was not a goal for Subaru.

“If we had wanted to make it a truck, we would have made it much closer to the standards,” Murphy said. “In today’s world, there’s no benefit.”

Of course, he could be lying but he does have a point. It's the styling that people care about. I personally wouldn't take most SUV's off road. Dirt roads, sure, but not totally off the road. For that I'd use a vehicle that has been specifically designed to do that, a true 4x4. This is reflected in the fact that more and more "SUV's" are being designed to handle more like cars. The Outback and Outback Sport models were among the first to have this design philosophy. The Toyota RAV4, built on a car frame (the Camry as I recall), is another one.

I personally own my second Subaru vehicle. My current one is a 2002 Impreza 2.5 RS. It's the next step down from the WRX, the only differences that I know of are that it has the less-powerful, non-turbocharged engine, and the transmission is an automatic. Even so, it has plenty of performance. When I bought it, I traded in my 1997 Outback Sport, which is based on the Impreza wagon.

Murphy and Adcock said the new Outback will have about a 5 percent improvement in fuel economy over the current model and average about 27.5 mpg, despite an increase in horsepower.

That number is the average fuel economy for cars required by federal regulations. My Outback Sport had a very consistent fuel economy of about 25 mpg. My new car actually averages a bit less, about 23. I do a considerable amount of driving in town, though, and the mileage goes up noticeably if I go on a long trip; the Outback Sport once did 29. This new Outback, which is larger than both my Subarus, gets better average mileage. It sounds to me like Subaru is doing a good job. More and more people are becoming conscious about fuel economy and desire cars that get better mileage, if only because fuel costs are reduced. For Subaru, or any other company, to make a profit, they have to give the people what they want.

Military service and disservice

Mike over at Cold Fury compares and contrasts the military service, or lack thereof, of the following three people:

• Bill Clinton. He quotes heavily from the letter that Clinton wrote in 1969 to Col. Eugene Holmes, then Director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. He then includes excerpts from Col. Holmes 1992 affidavit, in which he addresses Bill Clinton and the draft. Mike sums up with:
  

  In summary, Clinton was then and remains now a duplicitous, conniving, self-seeking dirtbag, unfit to command a military he has little regard or respect for, as I said about a certain someone else at Bill’s joint last night. Unless you’re a Democrat, that is, in which case Clinton is the greatest President we ever had, an honorable man worthy of respect and high regard, and far less morally objectionable than George “AWOL” Bush.



• Al Gore. He presents documentation that Gore's service in Vietnam was likely not as dangerous as it has been portrayed.


• John Kerry. There's some question as to the actions for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. However, that's not what's important. It's Kerry's actions after he came home from Veitnam which are the real issue and Mike addresses them as many others have.

And then he wraps it up with this post. Some excerpts:

Kerry may have served with distinction, but his conduct after the war reveals him to be cut from the same cloth as Clinton and Gore. In my comment at DP I referred to Kerry as “Clinton V2.0 (or, maybe, 1.0.1)” and said that he seemed to be “the best the Dems could do, and the sanest, most mainstream of the lot of them.” But it ought to be plain to the meanest intelligence that if this is in fact the best the Dems can do, then their best is just not good enough. Not now, not in a dangerous age when we’re going to be relying on the US military for so much.

...

Clinton is by any standards indisputably a profoundly dishonest and dishonorable man. It’s my belief that he’s borderline sociopathic in his pursuit of his own interests, and regardless of what you may believe about the role of the federal government in the life of the individual, there were plenty of perfectly justified reasons to despise Clinton. Some on the Right may have taken their loathing of the man to ridiculous extremes, and the wish for vengeance against them on the part of the Left is understandable; but the kind of smear campaign mounted against Bush since day one of his presidency is hardly explained by that alone. (And Day One is really what it all comes back to with Bush, I think; they’re still so angry about losing the 2000 election it’s driven even some of the sanest among them right over the edge.)

...

The Dems and their supporters are now in the wholly unenviable position of having to hitch their rattletrap wagons to a dim and feeble star like Kerry because he at least has some claim on an honorable military record - and all the while they’re smearing a man who did a dangerous and perfectly respectable job in the Texas Air National Guard as a coward and a deserter. Their now-familiar desire to paint all conservatives as bloodthirsty megalomaniacs has come back to haunt them in an almost hilariously ironic way. The Dems’ election hopes now rest entirely on the ability of their lapdogs in the media to prevent the ugly truth about who and what Kerry really is from coming to broader notice. (That’s assuming Kerry will be the nominee, by the way, which is hardly a given but seems reasonable at this point.) They may well succeed, but anybody who truly cares about the nation’s future would have to hope that they do not.

The lie that Bush was AWOL from the Texas National Guard has been thoroughly debunked. It's amazing that this lie is still being disseminated by his opponents. I personally don't consider military service a prerequisite for being President. If you didn't serve, that's fine as long as your honest about it. And if you did serve, be honest about that, too.

Lileks rants

The incomparable James Lileks addresses a couple points in today's Bleat.

1) Actor Patrick Stewart's comments on space travel:

The 63-year-old British actor says manned missions are too expensive. "It would take up so many resources, which I personally feel should be directed at our own planet," he said.

Making movies takes up many resources which could be directed at our own planet. For that matter, millions of pounds are spent in England annually for theater productions – I propose a ten-year moratorium on all stage shows, with the money distributed directly to our own planet. And after we have gotten things right on this planet we can get back to such frivolous luxuries as theater. What’s that, you say – theater employs many people? Theater inspires imaginations, adds to our store of knowledge, helps us define what it means to be human?

2) John Kerry:

If Kerry wants to bring this era back, he’s demonstrated that his branch of the party are the modern-day Bourbons. They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. For them the great evil wasn’t communism, but America’s response to communism. And now the threat isn’t Islamic terrorism, but what we do to combat it. We act without French approval. We act after 170 UN resolutions instead of crafting a 171st which forbids us from acting. We deploy anti-missile defenses around the Korean peninsula instead of striking a deal to give them more food, more oil, more time. In short, we act as if we have a pair.

...

I’m waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.

I’m waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election? Who do you think will make Syria relax? Who do you think Hezbollah worries about more? Who would Iran want to deal with when it comes to its nuclear program – Cowboy Bush or “Send in the bribed French inspectors” Kerry? Which candidate would our enemies prefer?

Wisconsin: Victim disarmament zone

The Wisconsin assembly failed, by one vote, to override Governor Jim Doyle's veto of a bill that would allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. In a stunning display of political expediency at the expense of the public's safety and will, 34 representatives voted to uphold the veto. From the article:

(Executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Joe) Waldron singled out Rep. Gary Sherman, a National Rifle Association member and a Democrat, who just three months ago voted in favor of the concealed carry law. But on Tuesday, Sherman switched his vote -- "to protect his governor and what limited power the minority Assembly Democrats have," one newspaper quoted him as saying.

"Sherman's vote switch, placing the interests of Jim Doyle and his anti-gun Democrat cronies above public safety and the citizens' constitutional rights, was despicable, and should be remembered when he runs for re-election," Waldron said.

I hope that the citizens of Wisconsin remember this when it comes time to elect their state representatives. Until then, criminals are hereby notified that they have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens in that state. It is now open season.

Via Neal Boortz.

Quote of the day

"Financial considerations aside, we cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. This is a basic human desire that Americans understand, especially when so many immigrants are born into hopeless poverty in their own nations. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. More importantly, we expect immigrants to respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. After all, a lack of respect for the rule of law causes much of the poverty around the world that immigrants seek to escape. Problems arise when immigrants refuse to assimilate and show little interest in becoming American citizens. One hundred years ago, immigrants arrived in America after dangerous journeys fully prepared to embrace their new country. In most cases, returning home was not an option. Most led very hard lives, took pride in American citizenship, and asked for nothing but the opportunity to work. Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the President's amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem." --Ron Paul

Via The Federalist

Lies told by university professors

J.D. Cassidy, writing for PoliticallyRight.com, presents a list of eight lies that he was told by his college professors, and provides counter arguments.

I don't recall this being an issue during my college years. However, I was a Math/Computer Science student so the majority of my classes had nothing to do with politics or history (unless it was the history of computing). I did have to take various classes to satisfy my general university requirements, and that included a couple history classes, but I don't recall my professors being exceedingly leftist in any way. I guess I was lucky.

For example...

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to do this?

I'm not against art. I'm all for it. I think that the arts are a valuable part of our culture and should be encouraged. However, I do not think the government should be using my tax dollars for this purpose. If private individuals want to fund the arts, great. Should we return to the system of patronage that characterized previous centuries and which produced such works as the plays of Shakespeare and the paintings of Michelangelo? Maybe. That's a good topic for discussion.

One of the things you run into with government sponsorship of the arts is trying to figure out just which artistic endeavors merit such support. From the article:

Public support for the arts was hotly debated in the 1990's. Conservatives complained that the agency was financing obscene or sacrilegious works by artists like Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano. Former Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, repeatedly tried to eliminate the agency.

So who decides? I, for one, consider the works of Lorenzo Sperlonga to be very artistic. They're also, mostly, very erotic (i.e. Not Safe For Work), but you can't deny the talent behind them. Should the federal government be funding his work? I think it should be up to the public to decide what artists they want to support. The arts won't go away without the NEA.

The Tenth Amendment

Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States of America states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

First of all, we must keep in mind that governments (federal, state, local) do not have rights; they have powers. Only people have rights. The Tenth Amendment defines a class of powers and then defines their status.

"... not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,..." - This first clause of the definition excludes all powers that are specifically delegated to the United States, referring to the federal government. Most of these powers are described in the original text of the Constitution, some are described in later amendments.

"... nor prohibited by it to the states,..." - The second clause excludes all powers that the Constitution specifically says the state governments do not have. For the most part, these are listed in Article I, Section 10, which states:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The final clause, "... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," designates the status of these powers. They are reserved to the states or the people. The federal government does not have these powers. Period. For example, until the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 (and there is question as to whether it was properly ratified), the federal government could not assess an income tax. But the states could, and many still do. Should an amendment be added that says states can't do that, then that would become one of those powers prohibited by the Constitution to the states.

A strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment leads to the conclusion that a great number of the powers the federal government now exercises are unconstitutional. The amendment essentially says to the federal government, "You can do these things and no more." Unless it's something specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government shouldn't be doing it.

This, of course, is one of the reasons the amendment process was incorporated into the Constitution in the first place. The authors knew that they couldn't plan for all eventualities to come so they created a mechanism whereby the Constitution could be modified to deal with things they missed, or with things that would develop in the future. But they also made sure that amendments could not be passed easily. The Constitution is a "living" document in this sense but it grows and evolves slowly, not subject to the whim of the moment.

Quote of the day

"Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." --John Adams


Via The Federalist

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Check it:
Al Franken Knocks Down Dean Heckler

Excerpts:

Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.

and

Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

My response:
So Al Franken commits assault and justifies it by saying he's for freedom of speech. How did Al Franken arrogate to himself the role of Protector of Free Speech? The obvious question is whether or not he would have done the same thing if it had been a rally for Bush. The answer to that question cannot be known without that situation actually occurring, and I doubt it ever will. But it ultimately doesn't matter. What matters is that Al Franken took it upon himself to attack a person physically because he was making noise. I'm willing to bet that trying to shout down a speaker at a rally is not a crime in Exeter, New Hampshire. Even if it is, it certainly doesn't justify physical violence.

Quote of the day

"Leaders from both parties -- Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democrat Ted Kennedy -- have vowed to push through a new, wide-reaching federal 'hate crimes' bill before the end of the current session. A 'hate crimes' law would make crimes motivated by enmity toward blacks, gays or other protected groups into a special federal offense....The proposed law declares that criminals motivated by a government-designated set of intolerable ideas -- racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, anti-homosexuality -- deserve special prosecution and additional punishment. But to subject someone to trial and punishment on the basis of his ideas -- regardless of how despicable those ideas might be -- constitutes a politicization of criminal law.... A 'hate crimes' law would expand the law's concern from criminal action to 'criminal thought.' It would institute the premise that the purpose of our legal system is not to defend the rights of the victim, but to punish socially unacceptable ideas. This is a premise that should be abhorrent to a free society....It is an attempt to import into America's legal system a class of crimes formerly reserved only to dictatorships: political crimes. Instead, we should insist on the one principle that forms the foundation for the protection of all rights, i.e., that the purpose of law is to punish criminals for initiating force against others, not for holding bad ideas." --Robert Tracinski

Let's go over this again...

Mike over at Cold Fury reiterates some very important points regarding Iraq, Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, how intelligence works, and why we were justified in removing Saddam from power. You can read his post here.

Some choice excerpts:

And flawed interpretation of intelligence is simply not the point anyway. There are three facts pertaining here that evidently need to be stated and restated: 1) that the onus was on Saddam to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he had in fact destroyed the weapons that we knew he had - and not on the current administration to prove their continued existence; 2) that he do so within fifteen days of agreeing to the cease-fire; and 3) that he not actively pursue the development and acquisition of such weapons ever again.

Saddam did none of those things. He was in direct, clear violation of the terms of the cease-fire right from the beginning; Saddam was subject to perfectly legitimate and justified removal from power not merely since UN Resolution 1441 (which an alarmingly large number of people really ought to read again, apparently), but from April 3, 1991 - the date of the adoption of UN Resolution 687, which says in part:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Saddam was never in compliance with any of the multiple resolutions calling for his cooperation as demanded in 687 and all the others. And as far as I’m concerned, that’s not even the half of it.

Iraq was a member of the UN. That means it was legally bound to comply with UN resolutions. Failure to comply should have resulted in action by the UN, but they refused to do anything. So we, with help from various other nations, most notably Great Britain and Australia, did what the UN lacked the will to do.

if Saddam didn’t have them and had destroyed them according to the agreements he had made years ago, why would he risk a war he knew he couldn’t win to keep us all thinking he still had them? Why would Saddam have put himself into that sewer-smelling rathole he was found in when all he had to do to avoid that fate was invite the inspectors in with open arms and give them documentation of the destruction of the WMDs? He could have ended Iraq’s pariah-nation status, started to repair the damage done by years of sanctions, discontinued the no-fly zones, and gone blithely on with enriching himself at the expense of his own people for the rest of his natural life without so much as a murmur of protest from the saintly UN with one simple gesture. And he didn’t do it.

I think it ought to be obvious to anyone who’s not a fully paid-up member of the Bushate Brigade that Bush believed that Saddam still possessed WMDs. And I also happen to think that there’s more than ample reason for the sensible among us to believe that he did in fact have them, and that the stalling and dickering at the UN allowed him time to remove them to another location for safekeeping (best guess: Syria) until the pressure was off and the storm had blown over. Given the conduct of previous administrations, his apparent belief that Bush would eventually leave him be in the face of opposition to war from states like France and Germany - who had a proven vested interest in continuing the status quo in Iraq - was at least somewhat justified. The thing that really tripped Saddam up was 9/11, and his underestimation of the impact that those 3000 dead had not just on Bush but on all of us.

One current theory is that Iraq didn't have many, if any, WMD's but Saddam didn't know it. His top people mislead him for any number of plausible reasons. Even in this case, all the evidence available to us outside Iraq indicated that they existed. Assuming this is true, everyone else was deceived the same way Saddam was.

And what was the proper course of action to take to guarantee American security in the post-9/11 age?

The Left’s answer was the same thing it’s always been: to trust in the strength of negotiations and diplomacy in the face of abundant evidence of their failure, to rely on the UN to enforce its resolutions in the face of mounting evidence that it lacked the will, and to basically continue on as if 9/11 had never happened - to keep trying to kick that football after Lucy has pulled it away for the thousandth time.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result when all the previous attempts ended up the same is one definition of insanity. Sure, it would be nice if diplomacy and negotiation could solve all the world's problems. The problem with the belief that they will is that it is predicated on the assumption that the other guy wants the same thing.

Read the comments to the post as well. The first commenter makes a very good point:

To believe that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD abilities means giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussien but not G.W. Bush. It means you assume pure motives on Saddam's part and nefarious ones on Bush's. It means you believe that Saddam should be innocent until proven guilty but that the opposite standard applies to Bush. And let me tell you,9Zlabelieve such things is nothing short of demented.

This is a test

This is a test post to test commenting through HaloScan.

Update: Looks like it works.

Comments on the SOTU Address

There are already a ton of commentaries on the President's address so I won't be exhaustive in mine. I do, however, want to address a couple of points that he made.

First of all, the section of the speech where he talked about steroid use in sports seemed out of place. The general discussion about the problems of drug use among youth was appropriate but I've never heard steroids addressed specifically before by a president. Perhaps he put it in because the quarterback of the New England Patriots was in attendance. Still, it seemed to disrupt the flow of the speech.

Second, I want to address the section where he talked about marriage. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Note that he refers to the fact that President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. This could be taken several ways, I'll leave it up to you to determine which way(s) you take it. The last part is what made me cringe. Regardless of whether you support or oppose marriage, civil unions, or whatever between two people of the same gender, I oppose a Constitutional amendment. This is something that is properly left up to the states. The bit about "one state may not redefine marriage for other states" addresses Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

For example, this is why states recognize the driver's licenses of other states. It also applies to marriage licenses. The second sentence of this section is the authority under which the Congress passed the DoMA. This provides specific exception to how marriages are treated. Similar laws could be passed regarding driver's licenses or concealed weapon permits.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar but, on the face of it, the DoMA itself appears constitutional. As I interpret it, it says that, if one state allows marriages/civil unions between two people of the same gender, other states are not required to recognize them, although they can do so if they so choose. I think that's good enough. Now, I do think that there are activist judges out there that are using the bench to advance their own agendas. However, I also think that an amendment to the Constitution is like using a sledgehammer to pound a thumbtack. One comment I read speculated that the "constitutional process" Bush referred to is not that of amendment (he never actually said the word "amendment") but rather the process of impeachment. Assuming the charges are justified, my initial opinion is that it would be a better way to deal with judges that step over the line.

Massaging the numbers

According to this article:

A gun safety group says nearly one in seven guns linked to crimes or considered suspicious from 1996 through 2000 can be traced back to the same 120 gun stores.

Later in the article, it says:

Kessler says the 120 gun stores are located in 22 states and make up less than 1 percent of all individuals and stores licensed to sell guns during the five-year period. Yet the stores supplied nearly 15 percent of guns recovered in crime, according to Kessler's group.

This does sound alarming. And there may, in fact, be a problem. However, as Kim Du Toit points out, what if it's just because these stores simply sell that percentage of the guns sold in that 22 state area? From his post on the subject:

So if the sales from the 120 stores reflected, say, 20% of all handguns sold in the area, then the "guns used in crime" percentage is essentially meaningless. The number of "crime" guns is just a factor of their gross sales volume -- just as Chevrolets are used by many bank robbers, because more Chevys are sold than Audis.

He goes on to say:

All that said, there may a problem -- but it can't be solved by additional legislation (which is what those gun-controlling dickheads at AGS want).

If the salesmen at Don's, Chuck's and Badger are selling to "straw purchasers" -- people who buy guns and then resell them to criminals, then the ATF should go after the individuals, not the gun stores.

I've worked in a gun store before, and let me tell you, you can't tell whether the person you sell a gun to isn't going to turn around and sell or give it to someone else. You may have an idea, of course -- but you try to refuse a sale to Lakeesha Washington or Maria Lopez, just because they're poorly-dressed and fit the profile of a gang-banger's girlfriend. Can you say "ACLU", children? If they pass the NICS check, you are required to sell them the guns they want -- which is as it should be.

It's an insoluble problem. Even if the ATF manages to close down these three stores, or all one hundred and twenty, the scumbags will just go to other stores.

All very good points. As I and other proponents of gun rights say over and over again, laws that limit access to guns only do so for law-abiding people. Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law so they have no problem violating laws that say they can't have guns.

Lileks on space

I keep saying that nobody says it like James Lileks. I wish my writing could be half as creative and entertaining as his. Oh well, I'm still just starting out at this and I'm working on it. Who knows, maybe some day someone will look at what I write and say "I wish I could write like that." But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Someone wrote an article basically lambasting James. His response? See it here.

Most of the article talks about how he feels regarding the plan to return humans to the moon and why America is the country he feels is best suited to do so. Excerpt:

Yes, I know - cheap robots do the job just as well, and sometimes better. Our cosmological imaging programs have returned stunning results. It only seems like we’ve stalled because we don’t see grainy photos of men on another planet driving around and playing golf.

But we’re not driving around and playing golf. More to the point: It has been too long since a human hand put a flag on another planet, and I’d like to see that happen again. It will happen; it's just a question of who does it. I would prefer that the hand be American.

In other words, I’d rather that hand represent the world.

Huh? You say. Wha? A UN flag would represent the world.

No, a UN flag would represent bureaucrats and governments. When I think of an American astronaut on Mars, I can’t imagine a face for the event. I can tell you who staffed the Apollo program, because they were drawn from a specific stratum of American life. But things have changed. Who knows who we'd send to Mars? Black pilot? White astrophysicist? A navigator whose parents came over from India in 1972? Asian female doctor? If we all saw a bulky person bounce out of the landing craft and plant the flag, we’d see that wide blank mirrored visor. Sex or creed or skin hue - we’d have no idea.

This is the quintessence of America: whatever face you’d see when the visor was raised, it wouldn’t be a surprise.

To prove I am a rank sentimentalist: I say the first foot on Mars belongs to a Navajo. No: a Navajo from the Marine Corps. Just because. I can’t think of a reason why not. Can you?

In today's Bleat, Lileks talks more about the plan and addresses its detractors. In particular, he refers to an editorial cartoon which shows a little girl in a wheelchair reading the paper and saying, "They're prepared to spend how much so a man can walk on Mars?" Here's an excerpt:

Yes, we could make that little fictional girl walk if only we spent the money. But curing spinal cord injuries wouldn’t inspire us. Maybe it’s a stem-cell funding research reference - a valid jibe, I suppose, if this was an either-or thing, and people had deeply-held moral objections to a Mars mission. It just strikes me as the same old provincial jibe I dimly recall from the Apollo era: why are we going to the Moon when there are so many problems here?

Because there’s an entirely different set of problems up there.

And the answers might come in handy.

There are many things that it is worthwhile to do. I believe the exploration of space is one of them; apparently the artist does not. Certainly medical research to help people like this little girl is a worthwhile endeavor. But that doesn't mean that it's the only thing that we should be spending money on. Nor does it necessarily follow that redirecting the money intended for space exploration to medical research will make that much of a difference. Yes, we do need to have priorities. If I had to choose between putting a man on the moon by 2030 and curing cancer by the same date, it would be a no brainer. The nice thing is that these are not mutually exclusive options.

Quote of the day

"The 1998 missile strike on the Sudan was an unannounced, unprovoked attack that destroyed that Third World nation’s only medicine factory. Yet it provoked no opposition outcry on the left. The Clinton air strike violated every principle of the current liberal critique of Bush foreign policy. The target of the attack was an alleged chemical weapons factory (which the Administration subsequently was forced to concede contained no chemical weapons facility). Yet, there were no inspections, UN or otherwise, preceding the attack to determine whether the factory was actually producing chemical weapons, as the Clinton White House claimed. There was not even a presidential phone call to the head of a state with whom the United States had diplomatic relations to request such an inspection. The strike in the Sudan was ordered without a UN resolution, without a congressional authorization and without approval from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who actually opposed it). Yet no critic of the current Bush foreign policy on Iraq expressed concern over the aggression. This is in dramatic contrast to the present critique of a war policy that is based on 12 years of disregarded UN resolutions and thwarted UN inspections, and two congressional resolutions (under two Presidents) supporting a regime change by force." - David Horowitz

For many more quotes from Mr. Horowitz, click here.

Quote of the day

"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been...to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington

And then there's this view on immigration reform

The Federalist, which bills itself as "The Conservative e-Journal of Record" has its own take on the President's proposed immigration reform. The entire thing is here (it's under the heading "Top of the fold"). Here's an excerpt:

In the 48 hours since the announcement, the Bush immigration-reform plan has met with vehement resistance from every band of the political spectrum. Indeed, a sizeable majority of Americans are opposed to any expansion of existing immigration, or any legitimization of existing illegal aliens. While a great deal of this reticence was anticipated, and some of it justified, a number of qualifications on the issue of immigration reform must be brought to light.

First, this is not a new issue. Following a February, 2001, meeting between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, a U.S.-Mexico High Level Working Group on Migration was established. This group would be tasked with addressing the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., which is estimated to compose more than 60% of all such immigration into the U.S. On September 6, 2001, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to "match willing workers with willing employers" and "ensure migration takes place through safe and legal channels." Five days later, of course, the discussion of immigration reform, border policies and economic integration would come to an abrupt halt with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Second, the Bush plan is, in part, politically timed and motivated. With the ascendancy of Arnold Schwarzenegger, California will likely be hotly contested in the upcoming presidential race. As such, the Hispanic vote will become critical to either party's hopes of carrying the Golden State -- and its treasure trove of 54 electoral votes. Should President Bush carry California, his re-election would be assured. However, when seen alongside a strong economic recovery and significant progress in the war on terror, California is not essential to the President's prospects.

Consequently, charges of "hispandering" don't stand up to scrutiny. Rather, the Bush immigration-reform plan should be seen as a first step toward the more substantive reform we anticipate after this election cycle. Even congressional proponents of the measure do not anticipate a bill to pass in 2004, indicating that the Bush team is using this occasion to gauge and build public support for farther-reaching reform beginning in 2005 with the President's second term.

They sum up their analysis with this:

Summing up, the plan is intended to confront the realities of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are in the U.S. now -- between 8 million and 14 million of them, according to various estimates. Simply by being here, these illegals benefit from a wide array of social services at the local, state and federal levels; they do not, however, pay taxes on their earnings. A temporary-worker program like that proposed by the Bush administration will channel this immigrant labor into the tax base, rather than permitting it to siphon off government resources.

One thing I've noticed about The Federalist is that they are not prone to knee-jerk reactions about this kind of thing. They take their time and present careful, studied analyses which sometimes disagree with the rest of the Conservative establishment. This may turn out to be a case of the President and/or those who advise him being a lot more shrewd than they appear to be initially.

And another one

I've been hearing about this for a while now. I was hoping that there was a reasonable explanation for it, or that it was exaggeration by Bush's opponents. However, given the source of the article, and the number of reports I've heard about this, it looks to be pretty much true. As usual, someone else has already said what I would have said so I'll just link to their superior words. In this case, the irascible Kim du Toit doesn't hold back and has the added benefit of experience with a truly oppressive regime.

When the election comes around this November, I'm going to find myself in the position I found myself in last year, namely that of trying to decide which is the lesser of two evils. Last year I ducked the issue by voting for Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate. This year I'll probably go ahead and vote for Bush since the alternative (unless by some miracle the Democrats nominate Joe Lieberman) will be unthinkable.

For those that think I'm a total Bush fan

Bush the President, that is, not Bush the band.... As I've mentioned in the past, although I agree for the most part with how he's handling the war against terror and other foreign policy issues, I'm rather disappointed in his extreme lack of conservatism when it comes to domestic issues. For example, he apparently signed the campaign finance reform law in the hope that it would be struck down as unconstitutional. That plan backfired spectacularly with the recent Supreme Court ruling. He also signed the Medicare drug benefit into law, thereby hugely increasing government spending and expanding the power of the federal government. The most recent example is his proposed immigration reform. Since others have already detailed what is wrong with it, I'll save time and link to them.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News comments here and here.
Emperor Misha I, as usual, makes his point very well if very bluntly.
Joe Kelly at The Sake of Argument comments here and here.

This is a tough one, I admit. I'm not unsympathetic to those coming to this country trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. However, we have a process in place and those that bypass it and are subsequently rewarded for it rather than punished are metaphorically spitting in the eyes of those who take the time and effort to enter this country and achieve citizenship legally.

Faxes and spam

The FCC has fined Fax.com, Inc. 5.4 million dollars for faxing unsolicited advertisements to consumers.

From the article:

The commission said it rejected arguments from Fax.com that the ban on unsolicited faxes was unconstitutional and that the fine was excessive.

Whether or not the fine was excessive, their activities are not protected by the Constitution. You see, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "speech paid for by others against their will." When someone sends a junk fax, the recipient pays a significant portion, if not the majority, of the total cost in the form of electricity, paper, and toner. In addition, there's the cost of having their fax machine tied up receiving ads so it can't receive legitimate faxes.

When I get junk mail via the US Postal Service, I'm not paying anything to receive it. The sender has incurred the full cost. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if junk mail helps keep postal costs down for everyone else since it must represent a large amount of income for the USPS. Therefore, I don't mind receiving it, especially since I get a credit on my waste collection bill based on the weight of my recyclables.

Spam email has the same problems as junk faxes. If anything, the sender pays even less of the total cost. The cost to get the email to me is paid, in succession, by every system it passes through. And, ultimately, it's the consumers of Internet access that have the costs passed on to them. It is for this reason that I believe the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which gave the FCC authorization to enact rules about junk faxes, should be extended to cover spam email. The analogy between junk faxes and junk email is nearly exact.

The S Factor

In this guest column for the Seattle P-I you have it in a nutshell, the attitude of the liberal elite toward those who disagree with them. How can George W. Bush be so popular? There's only one possible explanation: His supporters are all stupid!

The S factor explains Bush's popularity

Or is it a parody?

Emperor Misha I has some choice invective in response: We're All Stupid, I Tell You, STUPID!
John Hawkins at Right Wing News also comments: Vote For The Democrats Or You're Stupid!.
Mike at Cold Fury has his usual incisive take on it: Hey, stupid!

Quote of the day

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States." --Thomas Jefferson

The last two sentences are interesting. If I'm reading them correctly, Jefferson was saying that state governments *could* make laws respecting an establishment of religion. In short, states could have official state religions. Only the federal government could not. This goes back to the phrasing of the First Amendment which starts with "Congress shall make no law...." This restricts this prohibition to the federal government. Others of the first ten amendments are blanket prohibitions. For example, the Second Amendment doesn't say that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress."

Of course, I would say it's a bad thing for *any* government at any level to have an official religion. And I expect that the constitutions of most, if not all, of the states have similar language to the First Amendment (haven't read them all, don't know for sure).

Some Democrats are unpatriotic

So says Orson Scott Card, himself a Democrat.

The Campaign of Hate and Fear

Some choice excerpts:

But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.

You hear about this all the time from the right, that the media is actively working to undermine the administration and bring about a Democrat win in 2004. To hear it from a Democrat only gives it additional weight.

But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.

In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.

Anyone who persists in comparing Iraq to Vietnam, or calling it a "quagmire" is just parroting a line that is demonstrably false.

It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.

This brings to mind the famous quote: "It's the economy, stupid!" Actually, it can be shown that presidents have a lot less real control over the economy than most people think they do. Yet that doesn't stop the detractors of the current administration. Though, to be honest, it doesn't stop the detractors of the Clinton administration from blaming him for the recession either.

The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.

This is the cold hard truth. I hate to see our men and women in uniform pay the ultimate price. But we must make sure that the price is worth paying. To do less, to cut and run, would be to render their sacrifices meaningless.

And the final paragraph:

And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.

I really do need to read more of Mr. Card's books and stories.

Like we didn't see this coming

Rep. Jim McDermott, who gained notoriety for his visit to Baghdad in 2002 where he said that President Bush would mislead the public to justify an invasion, had some comments about the capture of Saddam Hussein. Predictably, he is questioning the "timing" of the capture.

There is a phrase that I've been seeing a lot of recently. It is "drink the Kool-Aid" and various variants thereof. This is a reference to the 1978 Jonestown mass-suicide where they drank Kool-Aid (or some other similar drink) containing cyanide. The page linked above defines this term as:

v. To become a firm believer in something; to accept an argument or philosophy wholeheartedly or blindly.

In the current context, the argument or philosophy is that of the extreme Left who loathe President Bush with such a passion that they will say and do absolutely anything, including advocating the death of our troops and our failure in Iraq, in order to remove him from office.

I hereby declare that Jim McDermott has drunk the Kool-Aid. Or, it may be better to say that he drank it some time back and is now actively serving it up.

And, although this is not as current, Howard Dean has drunk deeply of the pitcher himself. And see my previous post on how Dennis Kucinich used the names of our honored dead for his own political gain, especially given that the first statement of the video is an outright lie.

Of all the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, the only one I have any respect for is Joe Lieberman. He actually gets it. Unfortunately, Dean and the others have pulled the Democrat Party so far to the left that Lieberman doesn't have a chance, especially not after Gore's endorsement of Dean over his former running mate.

Dogs, guns, and cops

A woman in Arizona was mauled and killed by three pitbulls owned by a neighbor.

Response in fatal dog mauling case questioned

This one article brings up several issues for me.

• Once again, the cops usually can't protect you at the time you are in danger. It took an hour and ten minutes for a sheriff's deputy to get there and, by that time, it was already far too late. It doesn't matter if your assailant is human or animal, a gun is still the most effective form of personal defense that currently exists.


• What is it with people who own animals like this? What do they get out of it? On the way to work yesterday, I was sitting at an intersection where I watched a man and his dog cross the street. The dog looked kind of like a pit bull, but I don't think it was, the head wasn't shaped right. It had bobbed ears and a pair as big as mine hanging down between his legs. I watched this guy and his non-neutered dog walk by and wondered why he had that particular dog. If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason was machismo. He had this very "masculine" dog because he wanted to show the world how manly he is, or compensate for a sense of inadequacy in that department. Oh, I'm sure the dog is friendly and he cares about it, but this particular type of dog provides him with something he wouldn't get from a small dog or a cat. Contrast that with the reasons Ali and I have our cat. We don't have him to show off and impress people. We have him because he's a sweet little guy who brings pleasure and a sense of fulfillment to our lives. It's our relationship with Calvin that's important. What other people think about him is not important. (Of course we want people to like him, but that's not a necessary factor.) This, of course, is not to say that he doesn't have the right to have that dog. However, in the case of this article, the dogs in question were actual pit bulls, which are known to be potentially dangerous. Which brings me to my next point.


• The woman whose dogs killed the victim should be charged, tried, and sent to jail. She is responsible for the actions of her dogs, even more so than the actions of her children should she have any. It's her responsibility to control the dogs and she let them get away. It's like having a trio of guns that can move around and shoot people on their own. This, by extension, makes these dogs far more dangerous than any actual gun. I don't know if she should be charged with murder, but at least manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Publicity stunt?

If you believe President Bush's visit to Iraq for Thanksgiving was just a glorified photo op, read this and then ask yourself if you still believe it.

Email from Participant at President Bush's Thanksgiving

Of course it was an opportunatity to have some good pictures taken. But I don't believe that's why he went. I believe he went because he genuinely cares about the troops that are serving in Iraq, and everywhere else. Like it says in the linked post, he spent 17 hours in the air, each way, to fly into the most dangerous airport in the world and spend a couple of hours with the troops.

I don't agree with everything the President has done (though in my case it's because he hasn't acted as enough of a conservative on certain issues) but, when it comes to acknowledging those to whom we owe our freedom, the man gets it.

Quote of the day

"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... [I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin

This includes the Second Amendment. Those who think that amendment guarantees only a collective right (i.e. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), simply haven't read the other writings of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights, or deliberately choose to ignore them.

*Update* The quote above was incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. The quote is actually from Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury. I have made the correction.

Pacifism and responsibility

A short essay on how pacifism (as defined by the author) is equal to the abdication of personal responsibility.

Pacifism and Personal Responsibility

One of the main reasons I carry a concealed pistol when I can is because it is the ultimate act of personal responsibility. I am taking my safety into my own hands and not depending on others to protect me. This is not to say that I deliberately go looking for a situation in which I will need to use my gun, quite the opposite actually. The knowledge that I have the capability to take a life by performing a series of uncomplicated actions ending with a simple movement of my right forefinger leads me to be more cautious and work even harder to avoid that type of situation.

But if it comes down to it, if I or someone else is being threatened with physical harm or death, I fully intend to draw my weapon, aim it, and, if necessary, pull the trigger. I used the word "intend" deliberately. I recognize that I've never done it before, so I can't say with 100% surety that I will be able to do it if and when the time comes. I hope I never have to find out.

Ultimately, the only person responsible for my safety is me. The police increase the safety of the population as a whole by serving as a deterrent to crime, and by capturing criminals. However, they can only capture criminals after the crime has been comitted. Only rarely are the police on hand to prevent the crime in the first place. As I've said before, the police have no legal obligation to prevent you from being the victim of a crime. This has been upheld time after time in court cases throughout the years. Only if you have a "special relationship" with the police (i.e. you're in protective custody) do they have such a responsibility.

If you don't want to carry or own a gun, that is your right. I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't try to take away my right to do so.

Natalie Maines speaks out

See the full article here.

This is a pretty short article, I'll excerpt some points and give my comments.

"I think people were misled and I think people are fighting a war that they didn't know they were going to be fighting," Maines said Friday in a television interview. "And I think they were misled by people who should have been asking questions and weren't."

This is more like it. She's being sincere and polite and not making disparaging comments about anyone.

The country stars faced criticism and even death threats after Maines said she and her bandmates were ashamed that President Bush was from Texas. She made the remark in London shortly before the war began.

If you think someone has made a stupid or incorrect statement, then criticism is perfectly acceptable. Death threats are not, and are in fact criminal acts last I heard.

As for the backlash, she said, "We like making music and we'll continue to do that whether people buy it or not."

Damn straight. Criticism of your dissent stifles it only if you let it. You just need to realize that free speech doesn't mean that you are free from any consequences of what you say. You accept those consequences like an adult. Responding to your critics with reasoned arguments is good. Childish antics like wearing a shirt with "F.U.T.K" on it is not (though it's still your right to do so). It looks like Ms. Maines is figuring that out and I'm glad to see it.

A couple of game reviews

Here are reviews of three computer games that I've played or am in the middle of playing.

Call of Duty

This is the latest WWII first-person shooter action game, from many of the same people who created the excellent Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. The similarities are obvious. I wouldn't say this game is revolutionary, but it is evolutionary. The game's tagline says "In the war that changed the world, no one fought alone." Almost all of the missions in this game involve you working with other, computer-controlled characters to achieve your objectives. The computer won't complete your mission for you, there are things you must do or else they won't get done, but your computer teammates do help you out quite a bit. Also, you play as three different characters, one American, one British, and one Russian.

The game was actually shorter than I thought it would be. I completed it in a week. As I usually did, I played it on the easiest difficulty level and didn't have any problem getting through it without resorting to cheat codes or walkthroughs. I would say the centerpiece of the game was the Battle of Stalingrad. It was this game's equivalent of the assault on Omaha Beach that was in Medal of Honor. If you've seen the movie Enemy at the Gates, about the duel between snipers in Stalingrad, this mission will be very familiar. It starts out with you on a boat crossing the Volga River into Stalingrad, being strafed by German fighter planes and shelled by German artillery.

I haven't played much of the multiplayer game yet, I'll probably do so soon. What I did play seemed comparable to Medal of Honor.

The levels are very well done and highly detailed, and the teamwork component is a nice change from the one man mowing down his enemies style of play you usually find. The game engine is pretty state of the art so you'll need a reasonably beefy machine to run it. My box is pretty hot so I can run it at high resolution with all the goodies turned on. The sounds are very well done, the guns are properly loud. There's also a neat effect that happens if an explosion goes off near you, such as from a tank shell. The game slows down, sounds get very muffled, and the visual display gets blurry and sorta psychedelic. You also get knocked off your feet and have to stand back up. This lasts about 5 or 6 seconds and then everything returns to normal.

I recommend this game, although with the brevity of the single-person campaign, I'd wait until the price comes down some or it's on sale.

Aliens vs. Predator 2

I haven't gotten very far in this one yet. I have a hard time playing it. Not because the game isn't good, but because it's nerve wracking. They have done an excellent job of recreating the suspenseful atmosphere of the movies, especially the second one. You never know when an alien is going to jump you and try to tear you a new one.

The game is actually three games. I think the events intertwine but I haven't gotten far enough to know for sure yet. There are three campaigns, you play as a Colonial Marine, an Alien, and as a Predator. I've played partway through the Marines campaign and have briefly tried the Alien and Predator campaigns. When playing as the Alien, you start as a facehugger and try to find someone to implant. You then follow the lifecycle of the Alien. As the Predator, you can cloak, and can use enhanced vision modes. I'm told you can also rip the spines out of your victims (yeah!). And, as the Marine, it's much like the second movie, with the weapons lovingly recreated including the pulse rifle and the smart gun.

As with most games, most of the gameplay is pretty much solo action, though there have been a couple missions for the Marine where you have some fire support from an APC. The levels are well done and detailed. It's pretty eerie to come across a couple of skinned corpses hanging upside down. Of course, you as the player know this is the work of a Predator (though at the point I've reached so far I've yet to see one directly, just Aliens).

The engine is the latest incarnation of the Lithtech engine from Monolith, the same engine used on No One Lives Forever 2. The Lithtech engine started out several years ago as a project called DirectEngine, which Monolith was doing for Microsoft. As I understand it, the idea was to make a general-purpose 3-D game engine that companies could use to make games. Microsoft decided not to continue with the project so Monolith continued on their own. The engine is pretty good, supporting many of the latest Direct3D features. One of the places it really shines is in the detail quality of the textures.

I do intend to complete the game, but I can only take so much before I just get exhausted from the suspense. That's the mark of a well-done game, though, and I highly recommend it.

Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne

One of the most highly anticipated games of the year, this game takes up after the first game ended. Max thought it was over, but it wasn't. I'm part way through the game and I'm loving every minute of it. The bullet-time physics have been modified somewhat and it makes it more useful and fun. The story is engaging, if somewhat overly melodramatic. But that's the point, it is noir after all.

This sequel continues the use of the "graphic novel" cutscenes, although some of the non-interactive action is rendered by the engine. The voice acting is pretty good, especially that for Max, who is voiced by the same actor as in the first game. I'm not sure but I think at least some of the other characters are played by the same voice actors as before as well.

Max Payne 2 uses the new, state of the art, ragdoll physics which basically means that bad guys, when they die, flop around realistically based on a model of how it would work in real life, as opposed to a set death animation. Also, many of the objects that exist in Max's world react realistically to being kicked or shot. For example, you can have a metal shelf with boxes and other stuff stacked on it. If you blow a bad buy back into it, it tips over and all the stuff falls off.

The levels have been lovingly crafted, which probably explains why the game, as some have commented, is somewhat short. The game is simply beautiful to look at. The characters move more realistically than I've ever seen and the facial expressions and movements are pretty good. The previews I've seen of Half Life 2 indicate that it will be even better but, for now, Max Payne 2 is probably the best looking game out there.

I definitely recommend this game although, again given the reported brevity, wait until it's on sale or the price comes down.

The 9th Circuit Strikes Again

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a wrongful death suit against the gun industry. Read about it here.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAU61BA9ND.html

There is no question in my mind that this lawsuit is without merit. This is like suing an auto manufacturer for wrongful death if someone uses a car to run somebody over. Although the death of one person and the injuries to others is tragic, the responsibility lies with the man who pulled the trigger. The gun industry is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in this country. These companies did not do anything illegal. They are not culpable.

From the article:

Survivors claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy. In addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

Excuse me? Since when is making more of something that can be sold a crime? It happens all the time. This makes it sound like they handed out surplus guns on the street to whoever walked up and held out their hands, or that the gun dealers deliberately sold surplus guns to non-legal buyers. If that's the case, then a crime has been committed, but that did not happen. As far as the bit about an underground gun market, that's a pretty incredible claim. Given the scrutiny that the gun industry is under all the time, I find it fantastically unlikely that this is the case. If there is strong proof of this, don't you think we'd have heard about it by now? Don't you think it would have been all over the news?

This is, in my opinion, an attempt by trial lawyers and the anti-gun movement working in concert to attack the lawful gun industry. The lawyers want the money. The anti-gun movement wants to kill the industry since they haven't been able to ban guns.

Historical accuracy vs. commercialism

This is kind of a tough one.

Legislators Protest Beer Logos on Museum Exhibit

The short version is that a well-known acrobatic aircraft, which is currently painted in a red-and-white color scheme with Bud Light logos, is to be displayed in the Smithsonian's new aviation museum at Dulles Airport. Several members of Congress have objected to this claiming that it's inappropriate and will influence underage people to drink beer.

My first reaction on hearing about this was that, since the sponsorship of Anheuser-Busch helped make the existence of this aircraft possible, then it's entirely appropriate that this be reflected in the display. However, upon reading further, I found out that the guy who built the plane and flew it in competition did so himself. The plane was originally painted blue and yellow. It was only after he retired from competition and started performing at airshows that Anheuser-Busch came on as a sponsor and the plane was repainted.

The argument can be made that either paint scheme is historically accurate. However, I think I'm going to come down on the side of saying that the plane should be left as is. It's in the state it was in when it was retired and in which it has spent most of its life (it was built in or before 1975 and was repainted in 1983). And, although A-B wasn't involved in the construction of the plane, they did help make it possible for it to continue as an exhibition aircraft at airshows. Corporate sponsorship in sports, especially motor sports, is a fact of life in this country and repainting the plane its original colors, or simply covering the logos, isn't going to change that. Most people will realize that this does not consitute an endorsement of Bud Light by the museum, or vice versa, and parents should be explaining to their children about the dangers of underage drinking anyway. However, if they want to do something, I would have no problem with there being a disclaimer on the display stating that the museum isn't endorsing Bud Light or vice versa.

Political linkage

Mark Steyn writes in the Telegraph:

If you're so inclined, you can spend the week listening to long speeches by George Galloway and Harold Pinter. Or you can cut to the chase and get the message from Maulana Inyadullah. In late September 2001 Mr Inyadullah was holed up in Peshawar awaiting the call to arms against the Great Satan and offered this pithy soundbite to the Telegraph's David Blair:

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death."

That's it in a nutshell - or in a nut's hell. And, like Mr Inyadullah, if it's Pepsi or death, the fellows on the streets of London this week choose death - at least for the Iraqis. If it's a choice between letting some carbonated-beverage crony of Dick Cheney get a piece of the Nasariyah soft-drinks market or allowing Saddam to go on feeding his subjects feet-first into the industrial shredder for another decade or three, then the "peace" activists will take the lesser of two evils - ie, crank up the shredder. Better yet, end UN sanctions so Saddam can replace the older, less reliable shredders, the ones with too many bits of bone tissue jammed in the cogs.

Read the entire article here:
It's 'peace' psychosis in a nut's hell

An Iraqi who is enjoying his new freedom to say what he wants has some words for the world that allowed Saddam to terrorize the Iraqi people for three decades:
You owe us an apology

QandO goes through the so-called "resume" of George W. Bush that has been circulating recently, which claims to show how he's abysmally unqualified to be president, and takes it apart piece by piece:
Resume of George W. Bush

What's interesting about this piece is that he fully admits that he can't make a comprehensive rebuttal of all the points in the "resume." As he writes:

I will make no attempt to give a comprehensive rebuttal, for now, because I simply don't know every answer and don't have time to research all of them. I do know enough to deal with many, and you are welcome to fill in the blanks. If you know more, I will post it.....

If the situation was reversed, would the author make that concession? I don't know.

Another rebuttal of the "resume" can be found here (note: it's a pdf file so you'll need Acrobat Reader):
The Truth About "The Resume"

In both of the above documents, I'd like to draw your attention to the refutation of the meme that Bush "went AWOL" from the Texas Air National Guard.

And, finally (for now), the news that you're probably not hearing about on the major news stations and sites (except for Fox News, of course). The Weekly Standard reports that:

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Read the entire article here:
Case Closed

I will admit that I'm not completely convinced of the accuracy of this report. It simply sounds too good to be true. I will reserve judgement on it until and unless I hear more.

Getting out

GeekWithA.45 writes an amazing essay about why he's finally leaving New Jersey.

New Jersey Voters, Redux

Fortunately, Washington State, even the rather liberal Seattle area, is not so bad that I feel the need to move away. I really hope it never gets to that point because I love it here, not least because I love working for this company. As far as gun rights go, Washington is pretty high on the list. I would say only Vermont and Alaska are higher (at least as far as I know), since they don't require a license to carry a concealed pistol. Washington does, but you only need to fulfill certain objective criteria and they have to give you one. There is no training requirement as many states have. (Please note that I do not advocate carrying a concealed pistol without having at least some training in the use of a firearm. However, requiring training, or even a license for that matter, to exercise a right means it's no longer a right, but a privilege. Driving on public roads is a privilege, hence you need a license. Owning and bearing arms is a right.)

However, the government of this state is controlled by the Democrat party, and both of our senators are Democrats. This is reflected in high sales taxes and (in my opinion) high property taxes. We have no state income tax but the idea is brought up every so often and there's always the chance it will come into being. Our licensing fees for cars were once among the highest, until the voters made it abundantly clear that that should no longer be the case. To their credit, the governor and legislature followed the will of the people even though the initiative which mandated lower fees was ruled unconstitutional and void after it passed. Attempts at broader gun restrictions crop up from time to time but haven't gone anywhere, probably due to the more conservative rural population.

But it's not as bad as, say California. And I hope it never gets that bad because I don't want to feel that I have to leave because of political reality. I hope I'm never pushed to the point that GeekWithA.45 was eventually pushed to.

Telegraphing punches (or not)

Stephen Den Beste's latest starts out talking about the browser war and the Java war and ties it all into the current real war.

Telegraphing your punches

After the lead in where he discusses the failure of Netscape and Sun, he ties it into his view of the US's strategy in the war:

Surprise is a major advantage. It doesn't last forever, but for a critical period tactical surprise can be the difference between victory and defeat. And strategic surprise operates over a period of years; it's always a mistake to let someone know that in a couple of years you expect to be gunning for them. That was the mistake Sun and Netscape made.

In the current war the US is fighting the long term strategy is, and I now think always was, to bring about democratic and liberal reform in most of the major Arab governments. After the attack on NYC and Washington in September of 2001, and after it became clear that al Qaeda was responsible, it was obvious that the Taliban were in the crosshairs and with few friends and no important patrons had no chance of survival. I think it wasn't too difficult for anyone to figure out that Saddam would be next, though it wasn't anything like as clear that those plans couldn't be derailed.

Some of the things that the president and his administration have done (especially Colin Powell and the State Department) have confused me. Things like playing up to the Saudi monarchy when there exists considerable evidence that it is not at all the ally it has been perceived to be. As Stephen writes:

Some have argued that the current war is actually a Saudi Civil War which they exported. As Dan Darling put it:

For the last 14 years, there has been something of a gentleman's agreement between House Saud and al-Qaeda: the latter will not target the former, in exchange for the Saudi government turning a blind eye towards al-Qaeda's activities in the Kingdom.

Those activities included fund raising and recruiting, and even turning a blind eye towards the occasional attack inside Saudi Arabia itself, which the government blamed on foreign liquor smugglers. It was also part of a larger devil's agreement that the House of Saud had long had with the Wahhabis that the Sauds would let the Wahhabists operate unhindered and let them persecute heretics and enforce "proper behavior". In exchange the Wahhabis would ignore the decadent lifestyles of the Saud Princes (who, for instance, reportedly import huge amounts of Scotch Whiskey) and let them continue to rule the nation and to skim off a large part of the national income for their own use.

Many accuse President Bush of not being very smart. However, I've been wondering for some time if he really is a lot smarter than he appears, or at least the people that help him make decisions are. I've certainly been hoping that that is the case. If what Stephen says is true, then my hope is justified:

Yet President Bush seemed to spend a lot of time cozying up to the Sauds, even inviting a group of high level Sauds to visit the Texas ranch. For that he's been criticized roundly, with veiled intimations by some that it's (whisper it) all about oil.

Actually, it was all about not telegraphing punches. It was all about not letting the Sauds, and other autocratic Arab leaders in the region many of whom were "allies", know that our long term plans required that they either drastically reform their own nations or be deposed. Had they understood the long term plan and its implications, they would have banded together and actively opposed us, representing a serious impediment and possibly making victory impossible.

As he has shown repeatedly, Bush doesn't cave in to political expediency and criticism. And it looks like he once again waited it out until the time is right:

Over the last few months the US has been colder towards the Sauds. We haven't demanded that they step down, but we're asking for more in the way of concrete action. And with the most recent attack of a couple of days ago, it's become clear that the militants in Saudi Arabia are beginning to actively work to depose the Sauds themselves. The tacit truce with al Qaeda is over, and the Sauds are going to be forced to choose sides at long last, and to fight the civil war they've been trying to avoid for the last few decades. If they do that, we might help them. But they no longer get a pass; there's no "special relationship" any longer, no more blind eye turned their direction.

It's good that it's out in the open now. It's good that it's now formal policy of the government. And it's good that Bush was in no hurry to announce it; it's good that he was willing to wait until that announcement would not do more harm than good. It's good that he wasn't willing to compromise execution of the strategy just to relieve political pressure and defuse criticism.

These excerpts, as usual, only give the flavor of his writing, but I recommend you go read the article in its entirety.

Race

An excellent essay on race over at VRWC, Inc. by James Finch.

Click here.

And now the female perspective

Kim Du Toit's essay, The Pussification of the Western Male, has caused quite a firestorm in (here's the catchword of the day, folks) the blogosphere. The responses range from "Right on!" to "You're a knuckle dragging neanderthal." However, the most revealing comments, I think, are those from the woman who knows Kim most intimately, his wife Connie. She supports him 100 percent, but don't tell her that she must have "let Kim write what he did" or that she is completely subservient to him. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Her comments can be found here and here.

The Governator

For the first time in California, and only the second time in the history of the United States, a state governor has been recalled. Gray Davis will be removed from office and will be replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Democrats who supported Davis have tried to paint this recall as a power grab by the Republicans. They claimed that Republicans were exploiting a loophole to undo the will of the people when the elected Davis for his second term. The problem with that is that there is no loophole. The process whereby the governor is recalled is spelled out very clearly and that process was followed correctly. If that's a loophole, it sure is a whopping big one.

There are some very important numbers to go with this. These are from this page on MSNBC, the numbers may change as the night goes on. Individual candidate percentages weren't given so I calculated them based on total reported votes.

• On the question of whether or not to recall Davis, 56% voted yes.


• On who should replace him, 47% voted for Arnold, 29% for Bustamante, and 12% for McClintock.


• This means that 59% voted for the top two Republican candidates.


• A turnout of 60% appears likely. This is a large percentage when talking about elections.

If the vote on whether to recall Davis was reversed, I believe the Democrats would be using words like "landslide" and "mandate from the people" to describe the victory. Similarly so if the recall had passed but Bustamante were elected to replace Davis. They would be right. So will Republicans be if they use the same words.

Do I think that Arnold will make a good governor? I think he'll be no worse than Davis, and probably better. He is actually fairly far to the left for a Republican. This may have been part of why he won so convincingly, he appealed to a broad base, both for his name recognition and for his political views.

In my opinion, the big winner was the Republican party as a whole. The most important number, to me, is the third one in my list. A full 59% of voters voted for the top two Republican candidates. Although only one of them can win, it shows that a convincing majority of voters did not want another Democrat in office. It's huge when you consider that this is in California.

It is also a convincing message that this isn't a right-wing power grab, or a loophole, but the will of the people.

Now and then

Read this: Listen to them now and see what they said then. The quotes on that page came from this page: Weapons of Mass Destruction. I linked to the first page so that people could read the comments, both supportive and not, that others have left.

I note this one in particular:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Note the *specific* reference to al Qaeda.

Since it's related to this, I would also like to take this opportunity to refer to a previous post of mine in my LiveJournal in which I linked to a summation of what the administration knew, what it alleged, and what it has found out since. An anonymous commenter left a comment and I responded to it. Since the commenter was anonymous, my response was not sent to him or her in email (unless LiveJournal has a way of doing that). So, in case he or she, or anyone else, missed my response, here it is with the original comment:

Commenter:

No links to Iraq or Saddam Hussein and Sept 11

"No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.

A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam probably was involved. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday, "I’ve not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

My response:

Nowhere in that article does it say that Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks. All it says is that there was a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. The only time September 11 is mentioned is in the following:

No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States.

Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N.

Just because Hussein wasn't involved in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks doesn't mean he didn't have contact with and supported al Qaeda. I can be friends with someone, even give them money, and have nothing to do with most of the actions they undertake.

Over there

Front Line Voices has officially launched. It is a website, basically a blog, that will feature letters from those serving in Iraq and other places overseas. From their introduction page:

There is no editing or commentary by those who run this site, and we will print any letter or story submitted by a legitimate source who has served overseas. Our only goal is to offer you the opportunity to read these stories and to find out what the reality is.

I highly recommend you check it out.

Power

Bill Whittle's latest essay, Power, has been posted. A couple of choice paragraphs:

History is crystal clear on one point, and that is that power – the exercise of raw military and political force – is the only effective cure for dictators and fascists, whatever flag they fly. It is not only morally justified to confront such evil; it is immoral not to do so.

...

We played the European game in the Philippines and stole a bit of empire. But we didn’t have the taste for it; more likely, didn’t have the stomach to do what was needed to keep it. We fought side by side with the Filipinos during World War II, and spent blood and lives regaining those islands. Then, on the 4th of July, 1946, we did what we should have done four decades earlier. We handed them back their country, as we have handed back every country and territory we have ever conquered with our globe-spanning power, and done it willingly, not as a parting shot after rebellion and failure. We shall soon enough do it with Iraq, once it awakens from its thirty year nightmare and gets back on its feet. It too, like the Philippines, is a nation we broke a promise to, and also one that we owe its freedom and independence by way of atonement.

Go read it. Now. Then read it again.

What's in a name? Plenty.

Think Bush is Hitler and the Republicans are Nazis? This post at Fraters Libertas, among other things, paints a not unreasonable picture of what the world would be like if that were truly the case.

Oh, and just so you know, the full official name of the Ba'ath party, the one Saddam belonged to, is the Arab National Socialist Party. And how is "National Socialist" usually abbreviated? Yep.