The Dixie Chicks ride again, down the same trail as before

The Dixie Chicks are back in the news now that they've released a new album and the first single, titled Not Ready to Make Nice, is climbing the charts. But the furor over what happened three years ago hasn't fully died down. First, the background: During a show in Germany in 2003, lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush. The result?

When Maines made her comment on March 10 2003, 10 days before Operation Iraqi Freedom unleashed "shock and awe" over Baghdad, the Dixie Chicks were probably the biggest act in country music. Yet within days, their music vanished from the charts and the airwaves, apoplectic rednecks crushed piles of their CDs with tractors, and the FBI was feverishly monitoring death threats against the trio. It was the most heinous pop-star outrage since Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo.

For me personally, it wasn't so much what she said, it was where she said it, and how they reacted to the response. Let me be clear: I do not condone threats of death, bodily harm, vandalism of property, or any other action that is against the law. If you disagree with something someone said, you have no right to threaten a crime, let alone commit one. However, much of the response was entirely legal. Many radio stations stopped playing their music. Sales of their records went down. People even destroyed Dixie Chick's CD's as a sign of protest. All of these acts are perfectly legal and legitimate reactions.

What got me was that the attitude of the Dixie Chicks was that these legal actions constituted censorship. At no point did any government entity do anything in response to Maines' statement so no censorship existed. Nobody is under any obligation to buy their albums. Radio stations are under no obligation to play their songs, unless they have a contract which says they are. The Dixie Chicks failed to realize that, even though you have freedom of speech, you do not have freedom from consequences. And the thing is, I think they still haven't learned.

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

The only country artist I know of who made his opinion public was Toby Keith. There may have been others, I don't know. And Natalie certainly didn't sit there and take it, wearing a shirt with the letters "FUTK" on it during the Dixie Chicks' performance at the Country Music Awards. Ultimately Toby decided he just didn't want to deal with it anymore and backed off. As for other artists not supporting them, well I guess that depends on your definition of support. If they disagreed with her statements, then they were certainly under no obligation to support her opinion. On the other hand, they certainly should have spoken out against the more extreme reactions that some people had, such as the death threats. Whether they did so I can't say; I don't remember one way or the other.

The next two paragraphs in the article are probably the most important in understanding just why things happened the way they did.

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

I need make no additional comment.

More MSM hypocrisy

Via Boortz comes further evidence of the mainstream media's double-standard. On June 9, Isreal was alleged to have fired a rocket onto a Gaza beach, resulting in the deaths of seven Palistinian civilians. The story was everywhere; the New York Times printed a picture of a young girl searching for her father, presumably one of those killed in the explosion.

Just another brutal attack on civilians by the Israel Defense Forces? So we are invited to conclude. But the IDF, after initially apologizing and offering assistance to the families of those killed, has now investigated and concluded that the explosion was not caused by an Israeli shell. Full stop.

The deaths were tragic, but the IDF was not at fault. Read the whole article as Ms. Charen presents considerable evidence of the mainstream media's selective reporting. In the end, she sums it up perfectly:

Two weeks ago, I was critical of those who leaped to conclusions about what happened at Haditha. It now looks as though news from Haditha may have been manipulated -- just as news from the Palestinian territories routinely is. The western press falls for these scams again and again. Their credulity betrays their partiality and it dishonors them.

By their lies shall they be known

I tried to post this yesterday but Blogger ate my post and I didn't have time to type it back in.

As a followup to my previous post, we have some commentary from someone on the other side of the debate, which comes near the end of this article:

Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office unsuccessfully defended the law before Warren, said the city was mulling whether it was going to appeal.

"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence."

This legislation was in no way reasonable, nor was it in any way narrowly tailored. It banned possession of handguns in the city, period. It banned the sale and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition within the city, period. No, it didn't ban the possession of rifles but, if I may be so bold, I'm willing to bet that such a ban was already in the planning stages.

I understand that the City Attorney is required to defend any legislation that is passed and then becomes the target of a lawsuit, regardless of the political views of the attorney and his staff. However, Mr. Dorsey is clearly a supporter of the legislation. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what he believes because he lost.

As a side note, while reading the article, this paragraph caught my particular attention:

The ordinance targeted only city residents, meaning nonresidents in the city or even tourists were not banned from possessing or selling guns here.

So it wasn't as complete a ban as I indicated above. It didn't apply to everyone in the city, just people who live there. Why this makes this legislation even more ridiculous I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Hat tip to The GeekWithA.45 for the link.

I wonder if Satan is skating to work this morning?

Once upon a time, the voters of the city of San Francisco passed an initiative:

Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

However, there are some areas of the law that are outside the control of local governments regardless of how many people voted for a particular law. This is one of them:

The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. The NRA argued that Prop. H overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The city agreed to delay enforcement of the measure while the suit was pending.

In today's ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

That law "demonstrates the Legislature's intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,'' Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

The truth is that this is even outside the control of state governments. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps all. Kim du Toit, who provided the link to this article, sums it up thusly:

I would, just once, like to hear a judge overturn one of these horrible gun ban laws with a simple, declarative sentence like: “This law is just flat-out un-Constitutional. What part of shall not be infringed was unclear to you when you formulated this nonsense?”

Words of wisdom

I'm going to include the entirety of this Usenet post(via Google Groups) since you really need to read it all, and I can't pick just a portion to excerpt.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:52:18 +0000 (UTC), Randolph Fritz <rando...@panix.com> wrote:

>On 2006-06-12, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

>> I have no idea how old you are, but when I was a college student in the
>> early sixties, the then dominant intellectual view was that conservative
>> views were held by people because they were ignorant or stupid, or
>> possibly crazy.

>And those were the sympathetic views. After 'nam, Iraq, Guantanamo,
>the national debt explosion, universal surveillance, I am much less
>sympathetic.

You have a strange definition of "sympathetic."

You know, Viet Nam was the brainchild of those famous
conservatives Lyndon Johnson and Robert MacNamara. You don't
have universal surveillance, not by a long shot, and you,
personally, are probably not even on anybody's radar screen, the
national debt first exploded under that famous conservative
Franklin Roosevelt, and did so again under Lyndon Johnson, before
moving on to Reagan's and Bush II's versions of explosion, and
all except Johnson had inherited a depression or recession. Given
the existence of Al Quaeda, something like Guantanamo was going
to have to exist _somewhere_ and turning over the inmates to the
tender mercies of say, Saudi Arabia, would not be an improvement
from the inmates' point of view.

You may have a point about Iraq, but it was the established
policy of the Clinton administration to bring down Saddam
Hussein. Bush II actually _did_ it. His only real mistake was
assuming he could keep the peace with the same number, or fewer
troops than necessary to defeat Saddam. And even _then_ he was
getting different answers, depending on whom he asked. Can you
blame him, really, when the "expert" opinions varied so widely
for choosing the one that most appealed to him?

The world is a bigger, more diverse, and more complex place than
you or I are capable of imagining. Where I'm starting to see a
difference between us, is that I _know_ I don't understand
things.

Those who disagree with you may or may not be mistaken. They may
or may not be misinformed. They are certainly _differently_
informed, and this comes of living different lives in different
places from you. I expect a Kansas wheat farmer has a lot better
understanding of what goes on in New York than a New Yorker has
of understanding what it's like trying to make a living raising
wheat for which the farmer is paid the same as he was in 1955,
while the price of bread keeps going up every year, and the only
way he can survive at all is to squeeze ever higher production
out of the same fields, while wondering where he's going to get
the money to plant next year's crop and in the meantime dodging
several tornadoes a season. The stupid don't succeed under those
conditions, they fail spectacularly. Only you don't see it
because it didn't get so much as a column half-inch in the New
York Times, only an auction announcement in the Manhattan
Mercury, because farmers going broke isn't news, even in Kansas
-- especially in Kansas.

He knows there's something wrong with his world, and he sees your
contempt for him, and he makes a link between your attitude and
some of his problems, and he votes his conscience, just like you
do yours. Only he has a religion he practices, and a God he
believes in, and because he does, you show even _more_ contempt
for the only stable part of his life, and you try to make him
accept things that he knows, down to the bottom of his soles and
his soul are _wrong_. And you do it while sneering at him. And
he sees you sneer. And he decides if that's liberalism, he wants
nothing to do with it or you, and you can by God grow your own
wheat before he'll ever listen to a thing you have to say, ever
again.

If you want to convince that Kansas wheat farmer of the
righteousness of your position, stop sneering at him and start
talking to him like he's a human being with dignity who disagrees
with you because he has a different point of view, not like he's
a village idiot who disagrees with you because he's ignorant or
just plain stupid. Because he's not ignorant, and he's not
stupid. But he sees a lot of ignorance and stupidity in that
sneer of yours.

Quotes of the day

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

THE FOUNDATION
"Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors." —Joseph Story

INSIGHT
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." —John Stuart Mill

CULTURE
"So much of the language in the Constitution has been exaggerated from its initial meaning, or else reinterpreted with ideology in mind, that there is public mystification about what it is that is truly guaranteed, or truly prohibited. The question of interpretation came up early in after the FBI searched the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., finding evidence that the gentleman had been accepting and paying bribes and falsifying his tax returns... The issue was almost immediately raised that the FBI agents were exercising themselves outside their constitutional competence. This vague point has affected the thinking of those who are attracted to theoretical extrapolations on the Bill of Rights, taking its provisions to lengths that would surely have surprised the Founders. If the Constitution's rule separating church and state can be held to mean that a replica of the scene at Bethlehem cannot be constitutionally displayed on state property, then maybe Mr. Jefferson is indeed protected, giving credibility to the new Hastert-Pelosi exegesis of the Constitution. But stare down hard at the language. The Constitution holds that lawmakers are 'privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.'... This has nothing to do with Mr. Jefferson's case. Which means that those who say that the FBI should not have had access to the congressman's home or office are extending that constitutional provision to the point of immunity from search... What the defense will plead in the case of Rep. Jefferson we cannot know for certain. But to plead the procedural point—that the FBI had no business in his freezer—is cartoon constitutional reductionism." —William F. Buckley

LIBERTY
"[T]he threat to liberty in the 21st century is the same as it has been throughout mankind's history. That threat is use of the coercive powers of government, under the color of law, to take the rightful property of some people and give to others, and the forcible imposition of the will of one group of people on another group. Such acts, most often done in the name of good, explain the ugliest portions of human history. The question is whether America will degenerate into what has been mankind's standard fare throughout history. We have yet to see the kind of arbitrary control, abuse and violation of basic human rights seen elsewhere. But if we ask ourselves which way are we heading, tiny steps at a time: toward more personal liberty or toward greater government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter. We Americans face an awesome challenge and responsibility because if liberty dies here, it's probably dead for all places and all times." —Walter Williams

THE GIPPER
"Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it." —Ronald Reagan

OPINION IN BRIEF
"Without baby boomers, there is no global warming. Not because boomers are uniquely gaseous, but because they are uniquely egotistical. The notion that, as Al Gore put it on my radio station last week, humans are 'baking the planet to death' can only be swallowed whole by those whose appetite for self-importance has reached global proportions. For boomers like Al Gore, nothing ever happened in the world until it happened to them. The first president ever assassinated was JFK; no war had ever been protested or opposed before Vietnam; government corruption was invented by Nixon and Bill Clinton proved the boomers could all still get laid." —Michael Graham

GOVERNMENT
"Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low. The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they're closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people—between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there." —Peggy Noonan

RE: THE LEFT
"The Marine incident, and its aftermath, at Haditha tells us much more about the media than it does about the Marines. And what it tells us ought to outrage us to the core. On every radio and television show I appeared on last week (and all I observed) in which this topic came up, without exception at least one of the media people immediately attempted to implicate not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines, but the American military's leadership and methods in general... The [media] has already started to report this story in a manner that is likely to do vast damage that may last for several years to the morale (and possibly recruitment) of our military. It will create a propaganda catastrophe of strategic proportions in our mortal struggle with radical Islam and its terrorist spear point. And all this is being done by journalists who are seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their acts... To see the gleam in the eyes of reporters happily cackling on about 'other possible incidents' —about which they know not whether they even exist—is to be filled with a fury that we have a system of journalism that permits people with such mentalities to poison the minds of the world with their malice... [I]n the lunatic asylum that is today's America-at-war journalism, one possibly unfortunate event opens a floodgate of over-reporting, misreporting and just plain lying. Nothing is too harsh or too untrue to say about our military by these (fill in the blank)... [T]he journalists today are too swept up in their own danse macabre to even notice the murderous consequences of their own malfeasance—or to hear the demands of simple decency." —Tony Blankley

POLITICAL FUTURES
"Reaganite conservatives have been the mainstay of the GOP for more than 20 years, and many of them are disgusted with the abandonment of Reaganite principles at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. If they had wanted skyrocketing budgets, new federal bureaucracies, more regulation of political speech, and stalemates on immigration, energy, and Social Security, they say, they would have voted for Democrats. Instead they voted for Republicans—and what did they get? Skyrocketing budgets, new federal bureaucracies, more regulation of political speech, and stalemates on immigration, energy, and Social Security. Though the conservatives' exasperation isn't new, it was muted after Sept. 11 to preserve a common front in the war on terrorism. But now the pot is boiling over. Conservatives are shifting into Howard Beale mode: They're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Many may simply sit out the election this November, even if that means letting Democrats take over Congress." —Jeff Jacoby

FOR THE RECORD
"Actually, My Lai was not evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the Vietnam War. It was exactly what America-haters here and abroad claimed it was not—an aberration. It is endlessly frustrating to see those who were so wrong about the Cold War, starting with Vietnam, invoke the memory of that conflict to stand for the opposite of what it should. The principal 'lesson' of Vietnam that our enemies learned was that America could be driven from the battlefield by psychological warfare aimed at the home front. They always flee, teaches Osama bin Laden. The lessons our liberal professors and editorialists learned was that the war was immoral. And no amount of experience—a million boat people, genocide in neighboring Cambodia, the collapse of Communism nearly everywhere—has been sufficient to alter their view." —Mona Charen

THE LAST WORD
"You're an enlightened world citizen. Your T-shirt says '9/11 was an inside job.' You're pretty sure we're living in a fascist state, that President Bush taps the Dixie Chicks' phones, Christian abortion clinic bombers outnumber jihadis, and the war on 'terror' is a distraction from the real threats: carbon emissions and Pat Robertson. Then you learn that 17 people were arrested in a terrorist bomb plot. How do you process the information?... Wait a minute: The 'terrorists' were Canadian? You can understand someone blowing up trains in Spain and London. They sent troops to an illegal war cooked up by neocons who want to kill brown people for Exxon and Jesus, or something. You can understand, reluctantly, blowing up teens in an Israeli pizza parlor, because the Jews took the West Bank from the sovereign, ancient nation of Palestine. But Canada? Isn't Michael Moore from Canada? You can get medical marijuana from married gay doctors in Canada, and no one has guns. You console yourself: Maybe they were really planning to attack the U.S. You realize the suspects were all Muslim, and you dread the inevitable pogroms. Haven't been any yet, but any day now. You read that a mosque was vandalized in Toronto after the arrest, and you feel a certain grim relief. Finally, racism!... You find yourself almost wishing there was another real attack, so people could see the logical consequences of 'fighting back' after 9/11. Yes, it would be bad, but sometimes you have to break an egg to show people the health impact of omelettes. Is it wrong to wish the Canadian terrorists might have succeeded? Shouldn't you know the answer to that question?" —James Lileks

Zarqawi and Watada

If you're reading this you doubtless already know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's top man in Iraq, was taken out by a couple of 500-pound bombs the other day. So I'm a little slow, what're ya gonna do? This is a cause for celebration. However, I do not celebrate the death of a man (though assigning him the status of human being is being generous). Rather, I celebrate what that death represents, and the death of what his continued existence would have represented. No, it's not the end of the war. The power vacuum will be filled. But hopefully the organization will be that much less capable and, when we get the guy who takes Zarqawi's place, that cycle will continue until Al Qaeda is finally rendered impotent and irrelevant.

Still, I can't help but smile wickedly when I hear that, not only did Zarqawi know what hit him, his dying sight was of his enemy surrounding him. It is telling that, despite this man's horrific acts in life, the enemy he swore to destroy tried to save his life, and then cleaned his body after he died.

And perhaps as important as cutting off the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq is the treasure trove of intelligence we obtained from the target house. This war is about information as much as it is about people and we just scored a major victory on both fronts.

In slightly older news which pretty much got blown away metaphorically as Zarqawi did literally, 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada is refusing his orders to deploy to Iraq stating that he believes the war to be illegal.

"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

Of course, he's not making his stand alone.

In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq.

"There has been an outpouring of support in the Puget Sound area," said David Solnit, who works with the anti-war group Courage to Resist. The group and others are helping organize a press conference today in Tacoma to launch the support campaign.

The press conference happened already, but Lt. Watada was ordered not to attend since it was during his duty hours. Instead, he provided a videotaped statement.

Here's what it comes down to. As an officer in the United States Military, you do not get to pick and choose where you go and what you do. You follows the orders of superior officers. If you believe an order to be illegal, you can refuse to obey it, but you invite a court martial to determine whether or not you were right to do so in that case. Unless he relents and obeys his order, I hope and expect that he will face a court martial. In any event, his career is effectively over.

I've heard the theory that this was his intention all along, that he enlisted in the Army, went through OCS, and became a 1st Lt. all for the purpose of pulling a political stunt. My tendency is to discount this theory because someone who would want to do that probably wouldn't have the right personality to endure basic training, OCS, etc. and be convincing enough to make it all the way through. I think it's more like a case of "buyer's remorse." He went in with good intentions but changed his mind along the way. Unfortunately for him, it's not like buying a car and then changing your mind.

In any case, he also made the choice to associate with individuals and groups opposed to the war effort and has allowed them to use him to advance their cause. I think that is the most telling fact of all. He's a godsend to them. After all, it's perfectly okay to criticize the opinions of a civilian who opposes the war effort. But when it's an officer in the armed forces, the perception is that he is somehow immune to criticism, just like people who lost loved ones in 9/11 or in combat (i.e. Cindy Sheehan). Well they're not. And I refuse to refrain from such criticism if I believe it to be warranted.

Lt. Watada has made his choice. Now he must face the consequences of that choice.

Some folks you just can't reach (or can you?)

Remember how, during the aftermath of last year's hurricanes in the Gulf, some citizens had their firearms confiscated by local law enforcement? The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit that resulted in a restraining order and then an injunction. New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley apparently had forgotten about it already:

During a live interview with a New Orleans radio station, Riley acknowledged that citizens may, under state law, carry firearms. He said, however, that police will confiscate firearms, and may arrest people, arguing that "During an exigent circumstance like that, we cannot allow people to walk the street carrying guns.”

In response, the Second Amendment Foundation is calling on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate Riley.

"We believe Riley’s decision is a flagrant disregard of the federal court action, Louisiana state law and both the Louisiana and federal constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms,” [SAF Founder Alan] Gottlieb said in his letter to Gonzales.

"We’re writing to General Gonzales in an effort to prevent Riley and officers under his command from committing the same egregious civil rights violations they did last year,” Gottlieb explained. "It is outrageous that Riley would plan such actions when he knows they violate both state law and the state and federal constitutions. His claim that ‘exigent circumstances’ would allow such confiscations is preposterous.

"We are forced to address this issue to Attorney General Gonzales because we know that anti-gun Mayor Ray Nagin would never tell Riley to relay that order, nor would the mayor fire Riley for willfully violating the firearms civil rights of his constituents,” he said.

I said "had forgotten" because, while writing this post, I checked out the SAF website and found this press release:

Within two hours of an announcement that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) was calling for a Justice Department investigation of New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley’s plan to confiscate guns again if a major storm hits the city this year, SAF learned that Riley has backed off.

“Somehow,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “I don’t believe this is a coincidence. Earlier this year, as our attorneys were about to enter a motion for contempt against Riley and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin in federal court, the city finally admitted that it did have hundreds of seized firearms in its possession. That came after months of denial the city had taken guns from anybody.

“Now, days after Riley told a New Orleans radio station that he was planning another gun grab,” Gottlieb continued, “we have him suddenly back pedaling almost immediately after we announce our complaint to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Kudos to the Second Amendment Foundation and let this be a wakeup call to law enforcement officials everywhere.

Clarification

Just to be absolutely clear, lest anyone get the wrong impression from yesterday's post, I do not in any way condone the actions that the Marines are accused of doing. Should it be determined that they murdered those civilians, I expect them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of military law. Atrocities are not the norm, but that is certainly no excuse. Any such actions by our soldiers should not be tolerated.

But then, neither should we tolerate nor excuse such actions by our enemy.

The Double Standard

An investigation is ongoing regarding the deaths of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. Some, such as Representative John Murtha, have already condemned the Marines involved in this incident as cold-blooded murderers. This despite the fact that the investigation is ongoing and, given the potential volatility of the situation, the military doubtless wants to make sure it is conducted thoroughly and properly.

Is it possible that these Marines, distraught over the death of a colleague in the explosion of a roadside bomb, snapped and killed these people? Certainly. However, it is by no means certain that is what happened, the statements of John Murtha to the contrary notwithstanding. And lost in this debate is the double standard our military is subject to in the court of public opinion, as the words of Marine Captain Andrew Del Gaudio amply illustrate:

Del Gaudio said he made a tough call after a roadside bomb killed four of his men in April. While securing the scene, he was shot at by a machine gun in a follow-up attack. When he aimed his weapon to return fire, he saw that the gunmen had a line of children standing in front of them and two men filming with video cameras. He held fire until the children moved out of the way but was shot in his hand, which was only inches from his face.

"Restraint almost cost me my life," he said.

What it comes down to is that, with our troops, any atrocities that occur are aberrations. With our enemy, such actions are standard operating procedure. We're expected to be perfect in every way. Any slip, anything at all, is seized upon as prima facie evidence that our troops are nothing more than rapacious dogs and that we simply cannot continue in Iraq. All the while the actions of the terrorists are excused or glossed over. After all, it's not their fault that they are forced to commit these acts. It's all the fault of the US, Bushitler and, well you know the rest.

Hat tip to Sisu.

Walter Gaya, American

Walter Gaya is an immigrant from Argentina. He served as a sniper in Iraq where he was wounded and his good friend was killed. Michael Yon has a piece up about what Walter is up to these days. The ever-irascible Kim du Toit knows Walter as well and adds his comments.

Michael Moore is an <insert insult of choice here>

We don't need further proof that Michael Moore is a prevaricator of the first order. Nevertheless, here it is. From this article at FOX News:

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming he recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

Given that the clip used in the movie is part of a longer interview that is on record, there really isn't any question about what Moore did. The case will decide whether or not Sgt. Damon and his wife are entitled to compensation. In any event, it just goes to show how low Moore was willing to stoop to advance his agenda and is yet another example of how his so-called "documentary" is really nothing of the kind.

Back in Black

Okay, I've been away from this blog for several months. It's been a pretty busy time, what with getting married and all, and I just haven't had the energy or the inclination to post for a while. I'm going to try to get back in the habit of regular posting though don't be surprised if a lot of my posts are merely pointers to articles or posts on other blogs that I find interesting rather than in-depth commentary. We'll see how this goes.

More government follies

Via Boortz comes this latest tale of a government project that didn't quite turn out the way it was intended:

At first glance, MARTA's new electronic train station gates seem more than up to the task of preventing fare evasion.

The gates stand nearly 6 feet tall and are made of stainless steel and a super-hard, virtually unbreakable form of plastic. It's a formidable barrier — especially compared with the creaky, thigh-high turnstiles they are replacing that were a breeze to hop over.

There's only one problem: The gates stop about 15 inches shy of the ground, making it far too easy for those seeking a free ride to scoot underneath, some MARTA board members say.

Did anyone actually take a look at the hardware before it was installed? No problem, you may think, just replace the doors with ones that are longer thereby reducing the gap. Well...

It might be difficult to revamp the gates to eliminate or reduce the gap, Thoms said, noting that the design limits how long the arms can be.

"We went as low as we possibly could with these gates," she said.

Looking at the picture of the gate included on the article page, the gap does appear to be big enough to crawl under, but you're really going to have to *crawl*, going flat on your belly or your back. So I will say that the new gates will probably reduce fare evasion noticeably. Also, upon further examination, it looks like it would not be a problem to mount some sort of extension to the bottom of the gate doors to cover most of the gap.

The job of the executive

When Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed by the State of California a couple of weeks ago there were the expected protests. One such came from the leadership of the city of Graz, Austria, hometown of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Politicians in the city who oppose the death penalty launched a petition drive to remove Schwarzenegger's name from the city's sports stadium. In response, the Governor sent a letter to the city's mayor, "telling him that he is rescinding the city's right to use his name, effective immediately." In addition, he is returning the city's ring of honor that he received in 1999.

This situation nicely illustrates a point which a lot of people don't understand about how the different branches of government work. To begin, here are a couple of excerpts of the above-linked article with additional emphasis added by yours truly:

Death penalty opponents argued the prisoner's authoring nine children's books detailing the dangers of gang life meant he deserved to have his sentence commuted to life in prison. Schwarzenegger said he found no legal grounds for changing the sentence, particularly since Williams did not show any remorse for the killings.

...

"I rejected the clemency plea of a rightfully condemned four-time murderer after thorough review and as a result, he was executed according to the laws of the state," Schwarzenegger wrote.

Article 5, Section 8, subsection a of the California State Constitution provides the Governor's power to affect criminal sentences:

Subject to application procedures provided by statute, the Governor, on conditions the Governor deems proper, may grant a reprieve, pardon, and commutation, after sentence, except in case of impeachment. The Governor shall report to the Legislature each reprieve, pardon, and commutation granted, stating the pertinent facts and the reasons for granting it. The Governor may not grant a pardon or commutation to a person twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring.

Just as the President is the chief executive of the Federal Government, the Governor is the chief executive of the State Government. Their job is to implement the law, not create or negate it. The people of California, as represented by the state legislature, have decided that certain crimes merit the ultimate sanction. Williams was convicted of such a crime, the sentence was handed down, and it was carried out. People who oppose the death penalty doubtless want the Governor to commute every death sentence that comes to him for review. He theoretically has the power to do this, but from the quotes above it's clear that he understands that doing so would be defying the will of the people and an abuse of power. He understands that it would be de facto outlawing the death penalty and, regardless of his personal opinion of whether or not the death penalty should be legal, it is not his place to override the legislature.

Driving the economy into the ground

This chart shows just how disastrous the Bush tax policy over the last couple of years has been to the economy and to federal government tax revenue. (Hat tip Acidman.)

All sarcasm aside, this shows that you really can grow federal tax revenue with tax cuts, at least as long as they're the right ones and work to stimulate the economy. As Rob notes, however, there's still a problem with runaway federal spending. Note that I'm not talking about what we're spending on the war, which is one of the few things that the federal government is actually authorized to do under the Constitution. It's time for the President and the Republican Congress to remember what it's like to be fiscal conservatives.

On the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Early this morning, the execution of Stanley Williams, convicted of four counts of first-degree murder, was carried out by the State of California. I will not here argue for or against the use of the death penalty. Suffice it to say that it is legal in California and that the process was carried out according to the law.

When the state, through the instrument of the criminal justice system, determines that a human being has committed a crime which warrants the ultimate sanction, it is not a time to rejoice or celebrate. It is instead a most solemn occasion. It leads us to think about redemption, retribution, justice, and a host of other concepts that we often take for granted in our lives. It's one thing for a person to murder another. That person is acting on his own and must take responsibility for his actions. But when a criminal is executed, it is society as a whole that is taking this action. In a sense, we are all doing it since we live in a nation where the power ultimately resides in the people who directly through the initiative and referendum processes, or indirectly through electing legislators, determine the laws under which we live.

Many have said that Williams deserved to have his sentence commuted to life in prison because he had done positive works since his conviction. He had written children's books and written and spoke against the dangers of gangs and gang violence. However, one of the principles of our justice system, regardless of how consistently it is applied in practice, is that of equal justice under the law. If a person can avoid the death penalty through performing good works and/or showing believable remorse between the time of his conviction and the scheduled date of his execution, then it should be made a part of the law so that everyone who is sentenced to die can have this opportunity. It should be applied objectively not subjectively.

Ultimately it comes down to the difference between punishment/reformation and redemption. Rather than attempt to differentiate the two myself I will instead point you toward a very good essay over at From the Grand Stand contrasting the two and how they apply to death penalty cases. (Hat tip to Kim)

Building the HTPC, part IV

It's done. I actually stayed up until 4:00 am Saturday morning configuring it. I placed it on the rack and connected it to the tv and the amplifier and it just worked. At first I disconnected the coax that connects the wall socket and the cable tuner box and from the back of the box and connected it to the computer. This allowed the computer's tuner to receive channels up to 99 but none of the digital channels. Yesterday I put it back the way it was and then used three cables with RCA connectors to connect the left and right audio outputs and the composite video output on the cable box to the corresponding jacks on the computer's tuner card. The Media Center remote came with an IR emitter (what I earlier referred to as an IR Blaster) which allows the computer to control the cable box. I'll eventually end up splitting the coax from the wall so that one side will connect directly to the computer, thus allowing it to record two analog channels, or one analog and one digital, at the same time, or allow me to watch one while it records the other.

There was one other snag I encountered while setting up the system. Since I'm using SATA drives instead of IDE, the Windows installer wasn't able to work with those drives without using a separate driver. Fortunately, it has the ability to load such a driver during installation but it requires that the driver be on a floppy disk. I still have a floppy drive so I was able to get past it. Once Windows was installed, the floppy drive was no longer necessary.

I'm using a program called LCD Smartie to drive the VFD on the front of the case. It's amazingly flexible and I've just barely started playing with its capabilities. One thing it can do is interface with Motherboard Monitor which is what I'm using to monitor the temperature of the computer. So far it doesn't appear to be running much, if any, hotter than it was when I was using it as my desktop system.

There are a few more tweaks I'll probably perform but as of now the system is basically done and in place. It has replaced my DVD player which I'll probably move to the bedroom and connect to the tv there. I dunno how often we'll use it, though.

If anyone out there is planning on building their own home theater PC, especially if you are planning on using Windows Media Center Edition as your OS, a very good resource is The Green Button, named after the large green button on the Media Center remote control that launches the Media Center software.

Building the HTPC, part III

It's up and running, and I'm using it to make this post. Right now it's sitting on my dining room table with the mouse, keyboard, and monitor from my regular computer hooked up to it. The next step is to take it over to the rack by the tv and hook it up there. I may have to connect the monitor to it if the system doesn't automatically detect that it's connected via S-video to the television and automatically route the display accordingly. Either way I should be able to configure Windows and the Media Center software to use the tv for the primary display.

I did run into one snag while putting it all together. The power supply has two fans, one that sucks air into the power supply from within the case, and one that blows air out the back. Both fans have a grill over them, or at least they used to. The Zalman cpu cooler's heatsink was just wide enough that it was up against the internal fan grill and I couldn't mount it without seriously bending the fins. I figured I'd go ahead and put the old cooler back on, but then decided to see what happened if I removed that grill. Once it was removed, everything just barely fit. It shouldn't be a problem as long as I don't stick my fingers in the fan while it's running. Somehow, I don't foresee myself doing that.

Other than that, everything fit although it's pretty tight in a couple of places. I'll need to watch the system temperature to make sure that there's adequate airflow. The case has the capacity for an additional 80mm fan mounted on the bottom so I can put one there if I decide it needs additional air circulation.

The AP steps in it yet again

Via The GeekWithA.45, we see yet another example of a "reporter" writing a "story" that is nothing but falsifications and regurgitation of anti-gun propaganda. Under the pretense of researching a "business feature" on Barrett Rifles, Rose French came to the company and was able to interview Ronnie Barrett and others. However, if you read the article, you will see that it isn't remotely a "business feature." SayUncle posts, with permission, the content of an email sent to the AP's Nashville bureau by Dan Goodwin, Media Relations Manager for Barrett Rifles. He also links to a scathing response by Michael Marks of the Fifty Caliber Institute.

The AP has since published a "correction" which does admit and correct inaccuracies in the original article. However, nothing is said about Ms. French misrepresenting herself to Barrett Rifles.

Building the HTPC, part II

After a bit of a snafu, I picked up the case yesterday evening on the way home from work. I bought it from a local computer shop but, when I went in a few days ago, they didn't have any in the store. However, they did have a few in the warehouse so they said they'd have one sent to the store. The next day, which was the day before yesterday, I went in to pick it up but it turns out that it was the wrong one. The model I wanted comes in two variants. One has a vacuum flourescent display (VFD) while the other does not. Both come in the same box which has graphics and text for each on opposite sides. A sticker on the box denotes which one is actually inside. The folks at the warehouse apparently didn't realize this and sent the LC03 without the VFD.

Yesterday they got the correct unit in and I picked it up. I now have everything I need. I plan to assemble the machine this weekend.

The new project

I've been kicking around the idea for a while that I'd like to build a home theater PC (HTPC). I'm going to do it as my Christmas present to myself. As I put it together and set it up, I'll chronicle the process here.

The majority of the system will come from the computer that preceded my current rig. However, in order for it to serve as the new centerpiece of the home entertainment system, some changes are in order:

First, and probably most important, will be the new case. I've ordered a SilverStone LC03V in black to match the rest of the system. A good friend of mine built an HTPC using this case and is very happy with it.

Second is the TV tuner/capture card. I picked up a Hauppauge Win TV-PVR-500 MCE which has two tuners and can either record two shows simultaneously, or record one show while you watch another. Of course, given that we have digital cable with a tuner box, there are limitations. I'll discuss those later.

Next up is the fat hard drive that will store my recorded shows. I'm going with the Western Digital Caviar SE16 250GB drive. This is the WD2500KS model rather than the WD2500JS that's in my desktop machine. It was only a few bucks more but it has a 16MB cache instead of 8MB and is designed to run at a higher duty cycle which it will be doing as the storage drive of an HTPC. If I find I need more space, I'll add another one and set up a RAID array with the two drives.

For the OS drive, I'll be using a Western Digital Caviar 80GB drive. That should provide plenty of space for the OS and any applications that I might want to run on this system. As it will be pretty much dedicated to its HTPC duties, I won't be installing large numbers of apps such as games or Office on it.

The current CPU cooler is a brand that I don't even remember. It's a basic copper-finned heatsink that originally had a 60mm fan on it. Since that fan was rather loud, I replaced it with an 80mm fan and an adapter. However, the design of the adapter is such that a good portion of the air does not flow through the heatsink and it's not as efficient as it could be. So, to keep the processor cool, and keep it quiet as well, I'll be using a Zalman CNPS7000B-AlCu. I have the all-copper version of this cooler in my desktop system but the reviews I've read have indicated that there is little difference in the cooling effectiveness of the two. The aluminum/copper cooler is lighter, was less expensive, and should keep the AthlonXP 2800+ cpu plenty cool.

The power supply, video card, RAM, and optical drives will come from the old system, though I may replace one of the optical drives with a DVD burner in case I want to burn some recorded shows to DVD.

Although there are several software packages that will do the job, I'm going to use Windows Media Center Edition. I'll also need to pick up a Media Center remote and IR receiver. Microsoft makes a wireless infrared keyboard that is designed to work with Media Center, although I would need to buy a regular remote as well since the keyboard doesn't come with the necessary IR receiver. Alternatively, a company named Gyration makes a keyboard and remote set that uses radio rather than infrared so it has a longer range and doesn't require line-of-sight.

As for using the HTPC with the cable box, here's how it will probably work. Even though we have digital cable, the channels up to 99 are actually still analog and any cable-ready tv, vcr, or tuner card can receive them. Channels 100 and higher are digital and some of those are in high-definition. We don't currently subscribe to the high-def channels as we don't have an HD television. Also, support for high-def cable channels isn't currently available in a tuner card although I'm told that support is on the way.

The way I envision hooking it up is that I will split the cable and connect one line to the cable box and one line to the coax input on the Hauppauge card. The composite video and stereo outputs from the cable box will then connect to the corresponding inputs on the Hauppauge card. I'd prefer to use S-Video but the cable box doesn't support it. With this arrangement, the computer will be able to record one analog channel directly, and record any channel from the cable box. The computer will be able to change the channel on the cable box using a small module called an IR blaster. One didn't come with the tuner card so I'll either get one with the Media Center remote or may have to buy one separately. The cable box also has what appears to be standard 9-pin serial port on the back so I may be able to connect the computer to that instead. I'll have to do some research.

The video output from the computer will be via the S-Video connector on the video card (ATi Radeon 9800 Pro) connected to the input on the TV. Audio will be via the S/PDIF connector on the motherboard which will transmit digital audio directly to the Pioneer receiver/tuner/amplifier unit which supports Dolby Digital and DTS decoding. The cool thing is that the sound hardware on the motherboard can encode any audio into Dolby Digital so I should theoretically not require any analog audio connection between the computer and the receiver.

And that's the plan. I imagine I'll run into at least one snag along the way but I should be able to get this working as I'm not using any obscure hardware and the tuner card, the part most likely to be an issue, is one that is specifically designed to work with Windows Media Center Edition. Still, it will almost certainly be a learning experience.

Back in black

After taking a well deserved vacation, in my opinion at least, I'm back home and back to the blog. The weekend before last the Geekette and I spent four days and three nights in Victoria, British Columbia, where we basically just unwound from our lives. I took all last week off and we spent Thanksgiving in the company of some good friends. But now it's time to write again. I'm going to take a break from the politics for a bit and do something else. I'll start it in the next post.

San Francisco is dead to me

San Francisco has demonstrated irrefutably that is no longer a part of this country:

Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.

The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.

Only two other cities in the country -- Washington, D.C., and Chicago -- have similar bans.

One of the sponsors of the bill displayed his appalling ignorance and supreme incapacity for rational thought:

"San Francisco voters are smart and believe in sensible gun control," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who was among the four board members who placed the measure on the ballot. "If Prop. H gets some handguns out of San Francisco and mitigates some of the violence, then it's a win."

I'm not going to go through why this is so wrong for the umpteenth time. Just read my past writings on the subject, or browse the links on my blogroll. I will only say this: I will never voluntarily visit San Francisco again unless and until it returns to the world of reality. To me, it simply no longer exists.

Washington State election results and commentary

There were several important initiatives on the ballot here in Washington State. Here's how the vote is being called at this time.

Initiative 330

The main feature of this initiative is a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases of $350,000. It also provides for a cap on lawyers' fees, addresses the statute of limitations, affects how delayed payments are handled and several other issues.

Current status: Failing, 54% to 46%

How I voted: No

I voted against this initiative because it would allow healthcare providers to require that all disputes be settled through arbitration. Perhaps they should be allowed to do so, and then the market will make its own decision on whether that's a good idea or not. However, I considered it likely enough that the entire industry in this state would choose that option and the thought of the right to a jury trial being denied was too scary.

Initiative 336

The main features of this initiative are that it would require notices and hearings on insurance rate increases, establish a supplemental malpractice insurance program, require license revocation proceedings after three malpractice incidents, and limit numbers of expert witnesses in lawsuits.

Current status: Failing, 59% to 41%

How I voted: No

It was the part about establishing a supplemental malpractice insurance program that did it for me. It would be a program managed by the state, yet another government program that increases the size and scope of government. No thanks.

Initiative 900

This would direct the state auditor to conduct performance audits of state and local governments.

Current status: Passing, 57% to 43%

How I voted: Yes

Currently there is too little accountability in how governments and their agencies spend our money. Recent legislation passed by the state legislature is better than nothing, but this initiative would provide even better accountability.

Initiative 901

This initiative would prohibit smoking in buildings and vehicles open to the public and places of employment, including areas within 25 feet of doorways and ventilation openings unless a lesser distance is approved.

Current status: Passing, 63% to 37%

How I voted: No

I hate cigarettes. Smoking has killed several relatives, including my mother. I would dearly love to see all cigarette smoking cease. However, as much as I hate smoking, I love individual choice, responsibility, and property rights even more. This initiative would take away the right of business owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments. I believe this is a choice for the free market to make. If you don't like to breathe smoke, then don't go to a place that allows smoking. This is yet another expansion of the nanny state; a further increase in government control of our lives.

Initiative 912

This initiative would repeal the recently legislated motor vehicle fuel tax increases of 3 cents in 2005 and 2006, 2 cents in 2007, and 1.5 cents per gallon in 2008.

Current status: Failing, 53% to 47%

How I voted: Yes

This one was probably the toughest. Living in Western Washington, and driving to work every day, I know that our highway and freeway system is in need of some serious work. I know that these taxes can only be used for roads and cannot be diverted anywhere else. Opponents of the initiative do have some valid arguments. The aging Alaskan Way Viaduct, an elevated double-decker structure similar to the one that collapsed in San Francisco in the 1989 earthquake, is badly in need of replacement, especially after the damage it took during the smaller but still powerful Nisqually earthquake in 2001.

But this state already has one of the highest fuel taxes in the country. Also, I see so many projects that really don't serve to increase safety or reduce congestion. Recently, several on- and off-ramps were constructed which lead directly to park-and-ride facilities for use by buses and carpools only. While this improves the situation somewhat for buses and carpools, it doesn't help everybody. It should be about priorities. If something has to be done now, it should be given top priority and less-important projects should wait.

When it comes to the Alaskan Way Viaduct specifically, there are other ways to pay for it. I seem to recall hearing somewhere that governments used to fund large civil works projects by selling bonds. There's also the option of making it a toll road, at least until it's paid off. It does not affect the entire state, so why should the entire state pay for it? I suppose that someone living in Spokane might realize an indirect benefit since he would be buying products and services from companies located in Seattle but it would pale before the benefit realized by someone who drives on that road every day.

And, to be honest, I think we need to send a message to Olympia that, even though the legislature and the governor's office are both controlled by Democrats, that they do not have free reign to raise taxes. Governor Gregoire, almost as her first official act, signed this legislation despite running on a platform of not raising taxes.

In short, while I agree that the roads need work, I believe we can re-prioritize the projects and come up with more targeted ways of paying for them.

More on oil profits

In a column for Townhall.com, Neal Boortz expands on what I linked to in an earlier post in response to the latest Senator to weigh in on the oil industry's recent profit announcements:

[Senator Charles] Grassley [R-IA] has apparently decided that free enterprise no longer works for America. (The truth here is that Grassley discovered that free enterprise doesn’t serve the goal of empowering politicians.) It is Grassley’s view that American businesses must now seek the favor of the imperial federal government of the United States as to just how business profits must be disbursed. No longer, in Grassley’s economic world, will corporate boards decide on the distribution of profits. No longer will the private businessman be the captain of his entrepreneurial ship. Grassley apparently wants the government to have a de facto seat on every corporate board and a share of control in the spending decisions of every private business.

He also provides a clear and concise definition of fascism:

Sheldon Richman writes in “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” that fascist thought acknowledge(s) the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.” In other words, state approval must be sought before important business decisions can be implemented. I think I can simplify Richman’s definition of fascism so that even Americans educated in state schools can understand: Free enterprise (capitalism) is private ownership and control of the means of production. Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production. Fascism is private ownership of the means of production, with government control. Private ownership with government control? There’s a somewhat familiar ring to that, isn’t there?

He follows it up with some additional commentary in today's Nuze:

Now ... here I am to expand on one train of thought presented in that column. If this Republican senator thinks that it is the role of government to tell privately owned businesses just how they must distribute their profits, here are a few suggestions:

• Automobile manufacturers could be required to spend a portion of their profits on public transit projects.


• Broadcasters, who, after all, are government regulated businesses, should donate a portion of their profits to buy radios for poor people so that they can get the information they need to prepare for disasters like hurricanes .... as if the poor were actually going to prepare.


• Homebuilders could be required to donate profits to low income housing projects.


• Pfizer could be required to donate profits from the sale of Viagra to fertility clinics for the poor. Just what we need, more pregnant poor people.


• Financial institutions could be required to donate profits to a federally subsidized loan program for low-income Americans with bad credit.


• Food processors and manufacturers could be required to donate profits to community food banks.

Ahhh .. the list is endless. Once we establish the concept of the government telling businesses how their profits must be spent and invested .. the way is clear for our political class to further consolidate it's power.

In another section of today's Nuze, Neal links to this article at Townhall.com by Alan Reynolds who tears apart radio talk-show host Bill O'Reilly's recent blasting of the oil industry:

When the unsurprising news came out that big oil companies had big profits, Bill O'Reilly of Fox TV concluded: "My contention is the oil companies don't have to double their profits. They can maybe make them two-fifths (40 percent). Take a little less for the good of the nation."

Exxon-Mobil's recent profit margin was up to nearly 9 percent of sales. Suppose they tried to cut that to a nickel out of every dollar by offering to sell crude oil for $3 a barrel less than the going price on the Chicago mercantile exchange. Refiners around the world would instantly commit to buying every drop. By the next day, the world price of crude would be same as before.

Suppose the Big Five oil companies got together and agreed to cut retail gasoline prices at their company-owned stations by 20 cents a gallon. Motorists would soon drain those stations dry, leaving the much larger number of independent gas stations in a position to charge even more. Meanwhile, independent station owners would file a complaint with the antitrust division of the Department of Justice accusing the majors of collusive predatory pricing to drive them out of business.

He also provides a good explanation of "inventory profits":

If you sell your house for much more than you paid for it, you will receive a "windfall profit." When you take that windfall from selling your old home and go out shopping for a new one, however, you'll discover prices of replacement homes have gone up, too. That may explain why the Senate has not yet contemplated imposing an extra "windfall profits tax" on windfalls homeowners receive when selling their homes. Since 1997, in fact, couples can pocket half a million dollars of such windfalls tax-free.

Aside from the tax break on homes, something very similar happens in any business whenever the price goes up for something bought earlier at a lower price. Businesses that process raw materials hold inventories of those materials, for example, and those inventories may have been purchased for much less than the current price. When the book value of those inventories is adjusted to reflect today's higher price, accountants add that difference to the firm's profits. But this is called "inventory profit," because those paper gains will soon be needed to replace the raw materials at the new, higher price. Then they vanish.

So what do you think? I'm of the opinion that this is merely the market at work, that it's not as simple as most people think, and that messing with the industry like Senator Grassley is calling for may make us all feel good in the short term, but it will have unintended consequences in the long term that far outweigh that. Sure, it would be nice if oil companies voluntarily donated to a fund to help poor and low-income folks afford the fuel to keep warm but the government taking it by force is just another form of income redistribution, and would be another step toward socialism or, yes, even fascism.

Keurig single-cup coffee maker

In today's installment of "Stuff We Like," I would like to present the Keurig single-cup coffee brewing system.

A coworker of mine brought one to work and introduced me to the concept. I had been aware of "coffee pod" brewers such as the Senseo brewer and others but this was the first time I'd heard of the K-cup. Each cup is a sealed container of ground coffee, just enough to make a single cup of coffee. You insert the cup in the system which punctures the top and bottom and then forces heated water under pressure through the coffee grounds. Once it's done, you remove the cup and toss it in the trash. It has a large water reservoir so you don't have to worry about filling it up every time you want some coffee. Although the coffee is pre-ground, the cups are sealed so they stay fresh much longer.

The Keurig K-cup isn't the only single-cup coffee system. The second major type is the coffee pod which is much like a large tea bag. Since the bag is not sealed, they probably don't retain their freshness as long, though I would imagine they come in plastic wrappers which help alleviate that somewhat. The third major type I'm aware of is Senseo. However, as far as I know Senseo is the only company which produces pods for their brewers so you don't have the same variety as with the other two systems.

Prior to this I had been reluctant to purchase a single-cup brewer of any type because I was concerned about the expense. For some time I had a standard coffee maker both at home and at the office. But after talking with my coworker I realized that I very seldom brewed my own coffee either at home or at work. The main deterrent was the time required to grind the coffee, brew it, and clean up afterward. Lately I've been either drinking the engine degreaser which passes for the free coffee, or going to the cafeteria where they serve one of the big name brands and buying a cup. My coworker and I did some math.

The Keurig B50 coffee maker was 150 bucks and the K-cups work out to be around 40 cents or so each if you order them online. If you figure that I spend between $1.20 and $1.60 for a cup of good coffee anyway, this brewer would pay for itself in a year or less. And the variety available is quite large. I recently received my first order from Coffee Whiz. Check out the varieties available. They deal in both K-cups and coffee pods and have a great page which compares and contrasts the two technologies.

I currently have my Keurig brewer at work though I'm seriously considering getting one for home as well, or getting a lesser model for work and taking this one home. Another option would be to get a coffee pod brewer for work since I drink more coffee here and the potentially shorter freshness duration would be less of an issue.
Another nice thing about single-cup brewers is that you don't have to worry when entertaining friends and family that one or more will only drink decaf. With a single-cup system, you can give everybody what they want without worrying about wasting a significant portion of a regular pot.

The price of oil

Many people from across the political spectrum are up in arms over the recently announced profits of the oil industry. We expect this from the Democrats but even Republicans have joined the cry:

The frustration is so great that even top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., are demanding answers from Big Oil.

“We need to make sure that there's no abuse in the current system,” he said. “We need to make sure there's full transparency, and if there's any price gouging, we need to cut it out.”

When I first heard of these seemingly incredible profits, my first reaction was along the lines of what we're hearing from politicians. But then I started thinking about it some more. You see, what we have here is a global market and, in general, the market is best left to regulate itself. There is likely more to this than the sound bites would indicate.

Once again, Neal Boortz comes to the rescue and puts it all into better perspective, explaining the difference between profit and profit margin:

Now ... for those of you who went to government schools, let's expand on the explanation. Let's say that the total gross revenues for a company for one year equal $1,000,000. That's a million bucks. This company spends $930,000 to bring in that million. The difference between the one million and the $930,000 is $70,000. That's your profit. Divide the $70,000 by the one million and you get 0.07, or 7%. That's your profit margin. Now let's say that the very next year the company sells twice as much product the second year and brings in two million bucks. Let's also say that the cost of making those products doubles as well .. to $1,860,000. How much money did you have left over? Those of you who went to government schools get out your calculators .. the rest of you can figure it out in your head. You have $140,000 left over. That's your profit.

Wait! Your profits have doubled! How dare you? What are you doing, price gouging? These are excess profits -- windfall profits -- and the government ought to step in immediately and take them away from you, you greedy capitalist pig!

Hold on ... before we get carried away with our little price gouging rant here, let's grab those calculators again. Divide the $140,000 in profits by the $2,000,000 in gross receipts and what do we have? Why, it seems the answer is once again 0.07, or 7%! The profits have doubled, but the profit margin remains exactly the same!

He goes on to address a suggestion that the junior Senator from New York has made:

Hillary's brilliant idea of seizing profits does not come as a surprise to many. After all, Hillary was identified by her college professors as a budding young socialist many years before she achieved fame as Bill's "wife." Hillary's idea is for the oil companies to hand over about $20 billion a year to the government to be used for "research" and to subsidize consumers. The subsidies, of course, would become just another government entitlement that Democratic politicians would use to buy votes. The research? Well, sad to say there are actually people out there who think that the government can do a better job conducting research to insure our future energy needs than can the private sector. The impact of state education is widely felt.

Let's explore Hillary's profit-seizure idea a bit more. Another source of funds for oil companies to use for exploration and the development of additional energy resources would be the money that comes from investors. These investors purchase shares of stock in oil companies because they believe that their investments will appreciate in value and, in some cases, will pay dividends. If the government bows to the paranoia and anti-capitalist ignorance of the state-educated masses and seizes those profits, what then will be the reason to invest in these oil companies?

While price gouging does occur, for the most part high prices as a result of scarcity are not gouging but the natural operation of the free market in the efficient and effective allocation of resources. If prices for scarce resources are held artificially low, you then run into a shortage of said resources.

Maybe we should have some sort of investigation. However, like Neal, I'm going to assume that what we're dealing with here is simply the law of supply and demand and not any deliberate attempt at price gouging unless and until it is proven otherwise.

Who are we?

A question I've been mulling over for some time is this: Who are we to make judgements on other cultures and societies, and go so far as to attempt to bring them to freedom and democracy? Mike, in his own inimitable style, provides the answer:

As for that last bit, here’s who we are to judge other cultures: we’re the creators - not just the inheritors, the creators, every single day, by a bazillion different actions and in a bazillion different ways — of the most successful, benevolent, and all-around right nation this poor sad planet has yet produced, and the world would do well to profit from our freely-offered example rather than merely jealously carping about some detail we may have gotten slightly wrong. If that sounds arrogant, insensitive, or jingoistic, well, tough shit, Poindexter; I just don’t care.

And for the rest of us, we would do well to always remember not how lucky we are to have had so grand a birthright handed to us, but how serious the responsibility for maintaining, respecting, defending, and advancing that birthright is. And what that means in turn is not that we should ignore or shout down honest and legitimate discourse over how best to live up to that responsibility, but that we must acknowledge valid criticism and work to correct what mistakes we can, without denigrating or debasing the very foundations of our society as so many on the Left seem so eager to do. As Americans, we must respect honest dissenting opinion; however, the hateful tripe offered up by the present-day Left is, for the most part, nothing of the sort, and needs to be vigorously countered.

The United States is simply the greatest, the most free, the most successful nation this world has ever seen. Period. Obviously we're doing something right. Recognizing this is not being racist, culturalist, or any other word ending in -ist; it's merely stating objective fact. Just because we're the ones saying it doesn't mean it isn't true.

So if we've determined that the best way to secure the future safety of the United States, and all the other nations that share our love of freedom, from the depradations of a fascist theocratic ideology that calls for our complete destruction - simply because we are successful and are not under their dictatorial bootheels - is to attempt to remake their society and show them there's a better way, why not adapt what has worked well for us? The key word here is adapt. The recently approved Constitution of Iraq is not the same as the Constitution of the United States. It reflects that there are certain cultural differences between us and them. But those differences do not preclude a common desire for freedom and democracy, the desire for a nation where government is by the consent of the governed, the aspiration to the dignity of free people. They do not, and the approval of the Constitution of Iraq should be all the proof anyone needs that this is so.

On with the show!

It's Sam Alito, folks, and I couldn't be happier. Well, that's not entirely correct. I was really hoping for Janice Rogers Brown. It would have been most entertaining to watch the Democrats cope with the cognitive dissonance of opposing a black woman. But, ah well. Alito is a fine choice and certainly reinforces the theory, held in some circles, that the initial choice of Miers was deliberate and that the President and his people intended for it to come out the way it did. For now we have a real judge as a nominee, someone the Republicans can rally around.

Adding to the euphoria is the reaction from leading Democrats. For example:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that he is "disappointed" in the pick of Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee" and said one day earlier that that nominee would "create a lot of problems."

And:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also blasted Bush for not picking someone in the "mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

"The president seems to want to hunker down in his bunker" and "soothe the ruffled feathers of the extreme wing of his party," Schumer said. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Hallelujah! This is the contest we've been waiting for, folks. Fact: Judge Alito has twice previously been confirmed by the Senate by votes of 100 to 0. Fact: Judge Alito would bring to the Supreme Court more experience than any other nominee in the past 70 years. Of course this will mean nothing to the idealogues on the left. They will oppose him because he's Bush's rational choice and because they fear that he will interpret the law and the Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice should. They wanted someone who at least had a chance of going along with the legislation of their agenda from the bench. If they really want to fight this, they will have no choice but to reveal their true colors to the American people. They're caught between a rock and a hard place and it's about damn time.

Will they filibuster? I can't say. I will, however, predict that if a filibuster occurs, Frist will push the button. Either way, Alito will be confirmed and a grand step in restoring the Supreme Court to their proper, Constitutionally-mandated role will be taken.

Rebirth (hopefully)

If you've been stopping by occasionally over the last few months, you've doubtless noticed that posting has been rather infrequent. I've been thinking about what to do with this blog for a while and I've decided to make some changes. First, a new template. This is one of Blogger's stock templates which I've modified to suit. Second, a new name. "Musings of a Techno-Geek" was the first name I came up with when I created the blog in the first place and, admittedly, it wasn't very original. I wanted something a bit more unique, and one that fit my personality and interests better. The result is what you see at the top of the page.

In the past I've wanted my posts to have some sort of original contribution, rather than just a collection of links. But writing essays takes time and I'm not one of those who can always come up with several paragraphs on a moment's notice. I need time to think about things and, by the time my thoughts are more-or-less in order, other bloggers have already made posts which would render mine redundant. Going forward, my plan is for the posts to be more numerous, although they will be correspondingly shorter. I may just post a link with a one-sentence comment. Or just pose a question. If something warrants additional commentary, I'll make it a followup post. The idea is to keep the blog going forward and, hopefully, prompt more comments from readers.

Bring your gun to work day

I just couldn't resist the subject line even though it may give the wrong impression.

Legislation has been introduced in the Florida State Legislature that would force Florida companies to allow their employees to bring guns to work, as long as the weapons remained locked in their cars.

The legislation is modeled after an Oklahoma law that drew national attention when a number of major companies, including energy giant ConocoPhillips and oil-services conglomerate Halliburton, sued to have it overturned.

A Florida version could have similarly sweeping effects, particularly in Central Florida, where the region's largest employer -- Walt Disney World, with more than 57,000 workers -- does not allow its employees to bring guns onto park property. Universal Orlando, which employs 13,000 people, has a similar policy.

The legislation is backed by the NRA.

Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist, said the group will make the parking-lot bills (HB 129 and SB 206) a priority in 2006.

"For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong," Hammer said.

Florida businesses are opposed to the legislation, despite an attempt to make it more palatable.

In an effort to blunt opposition from businesses, Baxley and Senate sponsor Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, included provisions that would shield companies from lawsuits should an employee commit a crime with the gun kept in a car on company property.

"I would think that business folks would embrace this readily because it gives them immunity from liability," Hammer said. "They should be happy as clams."

But businesses are unimpressed.

"If they have to get in the car and drive home to get a gun, chances are they are going to cool down a little bit," said Frank Mendizabal, a spokesman for Weyerhaeuser, which owns the Oklahoma mill that fired employees found with guns in their cars.

That the law could protect companies from lawsuits is irrelevant because immunity "doesn't prevent someone from being shot," he said.

This is a tough one since it is a conflict between the right of self-defense and private property rights. When in doubt consult the final authority, which is the Constitution. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My first inclination was to side with the businesses. Private property rights are of paramount importance in this country and I believe that property owners have the right to say what does and does not come onto their property. However, the Second Amendment is an absolute. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. It does not limit itself to restricting the US Congress, as does the First Amendment. It simply says, in effect, "this action is prohibited." The question then becomes whether or not this applies to private entities such as businesses or individuals and not just governments.

My personal opinion, as you may surmise, is that businesses should allow their employees to bring their personal weapons to work. Ideally, they would be allowed to carry their concealed weapons while on the job, provided it is legal for them to carry the weapons at all. As for Mr. Mendizabal's statement that having to drive home to get a gun would allow the person to cool down, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the workplace homicides he cites occurred when the person came to work and brought their weapon into the workplace with them to begin with, rather than the person leaving the weapon in their vehicle and retrieving it when they decided that it was time for the lead to fly.

And don't forget that the number of criminal shootings committed by people with concealed weapon permits, as opposed to those that were in self-defense, is an extremely small percentage. Folks with CCW's are not the ones you should fear. If someone is going to shoot up the place, corporate policies against bringing guns to work won't stop them. And if that should happen, it seems to me that law-abiding armed employees would provide the best defense, unless you happen to have armed security which is rare.

But should companies be required by law to allow something on their property that they don't want, regardless of the wisdom of such prohibitions? What do you think?

Quotes of the day

From the usual source.

"The principle of free speech is no new doctrine born of the Constitution of the United States. It is a heritage of English-speaking peoples, which has been won by incalculable sacrifice, and which they must preserve so long as they hope to live as free men." —Robert Lafollette, Sr.

"What if I told you that there was a magic bullet—something that would improve the quality of your daily life, your children's chances of success in the world, your family's health, our values as a society? Something that is inexpensive, simple to produce and within the reach of pretty much anyone? Miriam Weinstein begins her book 'The Surprising Power of Family Meals' with those two questions and then suggests that the 'magic bullet' missed by so many families is as simple as a shared meal. A 2003 survey indicated that children and teens who share dinner with their families five or more nights a week were far less likely to have tried alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. 'Those who eat lots of family dinners are almost twice as likely to get A's in school as their classmates who rarely eat as a family.' Now that's something to chew on. Launch a revolution. Have dinner as a family." —Albert Mohler

"I was a Democrat once...for a long time, a large part of my life. But in those days, its leaders didn't belong to the 'blame America first' crowd. Its leaders were men like Harry Truman, who understood the challenges of our times. They didn't reserve all their indignation for America. They knew the difference between freedom and tyranny and they stood up for one and damned the other. To all the good Democrats who respect that tradition...and I hope there are many...you're not alone. We're asking you to come walk with us down the new path of hope and opportunity, and we'll make it a bipartisan salvation of our country." —Ronald Reagan

"Establishment Republicans all pretend to have seen Reagan's genius at the time, but that's a crock. They wanted to dump Reagan in favor of 'electable' Gerald Ford and 'electable' George Herbert Walker Bush. Newsweek reported in 1976 that Republican 'party loyalists' thought Reagan would produce 'a Goldwater-style debacle.' This is why they nominated well-known charismatic vote magnet Jerry Ford instead. Again in 1980, a majority of Republican committeemen told U.S. News and World Report that future one-termer George 'Read My Lips' Bush was more 'electable' than Reagan. The secret to Reagan's greatness was he didn't need a bunch of high-priced Bob Shrums to tell him what Americans thought. He knew because of his work with General Electric, touring the country and meeting real Americans. Two months a year for eight years, Reagan would give up to 25 speeches a day at G.E. plants—a 'marination in middle America,' as one G.E. man put it. Reagan himself said, 'I always thought Hollywood had the wrong idea of the average American, and the G.E. tours proved I was right.' Because of these tours, Reagan knew—as he calmly told fretful advisers after the Grenada invasion—'You can always trust Americans.' The G.E. tours completely immunized Reagan from the counsel of people like Karl Rove, who think the average American is a big-business man who just wants his taxes cut and doesn't care about honor, country, marriage or the unborn. Reagan knew that this is a great country. If only today's Republicans would believe it." —Ann Coulter

"[B]oth compassionate conservatism and welfare-state liberalism alike are uncompassionate. Inheriting from the neocons a basic philosophical comfort with the concept of the welfare state, compassionate conservatism—which also goes by 'big government conservatism' —sees no pressing need to pare government down to its core functions. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand, considers a lean government essential to the task of fulfilling its core responsibilities... Ultimately, this is the core problem with all ideologies that try to make government an extension of the family. Welfare-state liberalism wants the government to act like your mommy. Compassionate conservatives want the state to be your daddy. The problem: Government cannot love you, nor should it try. Love empowers us to do some things government must never have the power to do and other things the government can almost never do well." —Jonah Goldberg

"If you want to understand the Left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics. Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria... America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are common accusations of the Left. No event is free of leftist hysteria. On the third day after Katrina, civil rights activist Randall Robinson reported that blacks in New Orleans were resorting to cannibalism. Indeed, most of the news media coverage bordered on the hysterical. Not to mention the hysterical predictions of 10,000-plus dead in New Orleans... [T]he irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally. And that is hysterical." —Dennis Prager

"Nobody doubts that [John] Roberts is a conservative. Presumably he has 'feelings,' conservative ones. The record is pretty clear on that. But this doesn't mean he's playing possum and waiting for the chance to give these feelings the force of law. That's the liberal racket. Liberals celebrate precisely those justices who love women and minorities not wisely, but too well—the ones whose 'feelings' impel them to overturn law and precedent and tradition in search of penumbras formed by emanations unsuspected by the authors of the Constitution. So when liberals ask you if you recognize the constitutional right to 'privacy,' the last thing they want to hear is a politely skeptical, 'Well, it depends what you mean.' Have you no feelings, man? Hence liberals are forever complaining that conservatives 'lack compassion' and are 'mean-spirited.' The only feelings they can imagine conservatives having are nasty ones, primarily 'hate.' Ignoring such childish spite, Roberts has taken a quiet and dignified stand for the sovereignty of reason." —Joseph Sobran

"[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg [doesn't] like the idea that she might be the only woman on the Court. She said that the president should nominate a 'fine jurist' to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and that she—Ginsburg—had 'a list of highly qualified women,' but, she continued, 'the president has not consulted me.' I wonder under which penumbra she fits this idea... Ginsburg has her list of prospective women nominees, because, as she said, the president must be particular to choose which woman, and just 'any woman will not do.' She said there are 'some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights.' Advance. Not interpret. Not apply the Constitution according to its principles to protect. Advance... Because Ginsburg believes her job is to 'advance human rights [and] women's rights,' she is, [under Title 28, US Code, Section 455], disqualified from ruling on those cases. Which means that she may not legally vote on any case that may affect Roe v. Wade or—for example, in the 'human rights' arena—any case that might affect the manner in which America treats terrorist prisoners in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." —Jed Babbin

"One of the many negative consequences of America's defeat in the Vietnam War has been the uncontrolled proliferation of Vietnams since then. Nicaragua threatened to become another Vietnam. Lebanon nearly became another Vietnam. Had Grenada been only slightly larger than a manhole cover and lasted one more hour, it would have become a Caribbean-Style Vietnam. The invasion of Panama was rapidly degenerating into a Narco-Vietnam, right up until we won. Likewise, the First Gulf War was certainly developing into another Vietnam, but then sadly, it ended quickly and with few casualties. For people of a certain age or political stripe, Vietnam is like Elvis: it's everywhere. For example, during a long wait at a Chinese Buffet in Georgetown in 1987, Ted Kennedy was reported to have exclaimed 'QUAGMIRE!' and attempted to surrender to a Spanish-speaking busboy. And that was probably the smart thing to do, because the lesson of Vietnam is: it is best to lose quickly, so as to avoid a quagmire... If you liked what our quick, casualty-saving withdrawal from Somalia did for us at the Khobar Towers, at our embassies in East Africa, at the waterline of the U.S.S. Cole, and at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then you'll love what a quick 'casualty-saving' withdrawal from Iraq will do for us for the next twenty years. It'll finally make you stop worrying about Vietnam." —Mac Johnson