The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.

Clayton Cramer's BLOG

Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).



Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Friday, June 25, 2004
 
They Do Things Differently Outside California

I just blogged this over at my Civilian Gun Self-Defense blog, but it's too good to leave off this one. From the June 25, 2004 Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard:
COBURG - Three robbers in a black Cadillac held up an Interstate 5 gas station and threatened to kill the clerk, but she drove them off by blowing out the car's back window with her handgun, police said Thursday.

Officers stopped a car minutes later on Belt Line Road and arrested two men and a woman late Wednesday.

Three people drove into the Fuel-N-Go gas station at 33100 Van Duyn Road about 11:35 p.m. in a Cadillac with California plates, police Chief Mike Hudson said. One man went into the store, simulated a gun in his sweatshirt pocket and demanded money.

After the clerk handed over about $200 in cash, the chief said, the robber threatened to kill her anyway. That's when the clerk pulled out her own handgun.

The robber ran out of the store, and a male attendant fought with the robber, who again simulated a weapon. The female clerk fired one shot, breaking out the car's rear window, the chief said. The bullet lodged in the dashboard of the car.
California plates? That explains it--they weren't expecting the victims to shoot back.


 
James Madison, Rifleman

We tend to think of James Madison as Father of the Bill of Rights, and a lawyer, but there is another way to think of him: rifleman. From a letter he wrote to a friend named William Bradford, June 19, 1775, in William T. Hutchinson and William M.E. Rachal, ed., The Papers of James Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), 1:153:
The strength of this Colony will lie chiefly in the rifle-men of the Upland Counties, of whom we shall have great numbers. You would be astonished at the perfection this art is brought to. The most inexpert hands rec[k]on it an indifferent shot to miss the bigness of a man's face at the distance of 100 Yards. I am far from being among the best & should not often miss it on a fair trial at that distance. If we come into an engagement, I make no doubt but the officers of the enemy will fall at the distance before they get withing 150 or 200 Yards. Indeed I believe we have men that would very often hit such a mark 250 Yds. Our greatest apprehensions proceed from the scarcity of powder but a little will go a great way with such as use rifles.
This claim is consistent with eyewitness accounts, on both sides, from throughout the Revolution, that riflemen were consistently capable of groups of several inches at distances of 100 yards, with some capable of comparable accuracy at distances of 300 yards.


 
Boston Catholics Grieving Over Churches Going Condo

This article from Fox News reports on how Boston Catholics are grieving as the Archdiocese sells off churches to pay the bills from the priest sex abuse scandal. I can understand their discomfort; it's a painful reminder that their church's leadership was not even as moral as the average secular person in America.

Some immoral acts are going to take place in those churches turned condos--but few will match the immorality of what took place before. I wouldn't compare these churches to brothels. That would be unfair. To the brothels. At least prostitutes in brothels are usually adults, and there by choice.

The leadership covered up criminal acts that damaged thousands (at least) of Catholic kids, destroying the morals of many, destroying the faith of others. In some cases, this depraved covering up of evil destroyed lives, by driving young men to suicide, because they did not know how to handle the conflict between what these perverts did, and their claim to be the earthly representatives of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic laity needs to clean up their clergy. I know that many are trying to do so, right now, and many others have been driven away by the conflicts that this evil caused. Don't stop until the last excuse-makers have stopped making excuses. There may well be a place for these people as laymen. That anyone could claim to be closer than the laity to Jesus Christ while covering up these sort of crimes just overwhelms me with disgust.


 
Bush Pulls Out Ahead

Fox News reports on a survey of 900 registered voters (which is the first of these polls that I have seen mention this limitation). In a two way race, Bush leads Kerry 48-42; in a three way race with Ralph Nader, Bush leads Kerry 47-40. Since the margin of error is +-3%, I think this means that a two race is still too close to call, but a three way race makes Bush the winner. (48-3=45; 42+3=45; 47-3=44; 40+3=43.)

Voters clearly think Bush is better able to handle security against terrorists, and Kerry is better able to handle domestic issues. This suggests to me that there is some significant number of Kerry voters who either:

1. Don't think terrorism is very likely.

2. Think it is likely, but it won't kill them.

3. Would rather be employed and dead instead of out of work and live.

I'm kidding about #3--but what else would you conclude?

The other interesting result is that a majority of Americans believe that there is a connection between al-Qaeda and Hussein--and the 9/11 Commission's apparent disagreement with that just damages the the Commission's credibility, instead of changing the minds of voters. Or at least you might come to that conclusion from reading the report.


 
Rebounding Economy

I was just able to buy some federal agency bonds due in May, 2006, with an annualized yield to maturity of a hair over 3%. Considering that federal agency bonds are just slightly less safe than Treasurys, that's pretty spectacular. They are callable bonds, which I tend to shy away from, but because they were selling below par (meaning that their face value is $10,000, but I actually paid $9,946 for them), even if they get called early, I will still get more than a 3% annualized yield.


 
Finally! Some Competition

The Hollywood Reporter tells us of something that I didn't think was possible: a film festival that isn't leftist!
Just as his "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works as well as other documentaries well to the right of Moore's films.

Scheduled Sept. 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some "big-time conservative donors."
Both of them? You understand my cynicism; I know lots and lots of multimillionaires (more than I count, even though I'm wearing open toed sandals today), and nearly all of them are leftists of the Michael Moore variety (although usually with better manners and more self-control). None of them are conservatives. I'm tempted to rewrite the classic joke about the Easter Bunny and the Honest Lawyer with a Rich Conservative Funder of Political Causes instead. (I have at least met a few honest lawyers, so I know that they do exist.)

Hubbard currently is negotiating to show two films critical of Moore.

The first is "Michael Moore Hates America," made by newcomer Michael Wilson and funded partially by Brian Cartmell, who made a small fortune when he sold his Internet domain registration company, eNic, to Verisign. The feature film, made for $200,000 and featuring appearances from Penn Jillette and John Stossel, among others, is looking for a theatrical and DVD distribution deal.


The second is the bigger-budget effort "Michael & Me" that was made by talk-radio star and soon-to-be TV host Larry Elder. The 90-minute documentary takes on Moore's 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," Elder said.

"My film is a defense of those who own guns and of the Second Amendment," said Elder, whose "The Larry Elder Show" from Warner Bros. Prods. starts Sept. 13 on CBS affiliates in most major markets.

Elder said that he borrows liberally from Moore, including a "Bowling"-like animated segment that has Elder interviewing an obviously tense Moore. "He's sweating and sweating to the point he's reed thin, then he pulls out a gun and shoots me."

Moore didn't agree to an interview for either Elder's movie or Wilson's. "I did ambush him at a book signing in Santa Monica, and that's in the film," Elder said. "I asked him how many times Americans used guns for defensive purposes. He had nothing. No blooming clue."
Remember, it doesn't have to be a documentary to be interesting, entertaining, and make money:
And the war on terror also is expected to be a dominant theme at the American Film Renaissance.

"Liberal Hollywood has basically ignored the subject," filmmaker Jason Apuzzo said. His entry to the festival is "Terminal Island" and stars his wife, Govindini Murty, with a cameo from Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Never Say Never Again." Kershner, who Apuzzo is careful to note that he doesn't share the same politics as Apuzzo and Murty, nevertheless mentored the couple in the making of their film.

"Conservative messages don't have a chance in contemporary Hollywood," Apuzzo said. "But there's another side in Hollywood. We are small in numbers but passionate."

"Terminal Island" is a black-and-white feature film about a woman being stalked by a Muslim terrorist who is himself being stalked by a bounty hunter.

"When you shop a script like this around," said Murty, "studio execs say, 'Is this about Muslim terrorists? We don't want to touch it.' "
Remember when the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears were transformed from an Muslim crazy into a Russian neo-Nazi? I hate to tell you this, but that PC change made a "ripped from tomorrow's headlines" movie into hokum.

The important point:
So why have a couple of lawyers from Texas created a film festival? "I've always been interested in the cultural and political messages in film," Jim Hubbard said. "To be frank, whenever there is such a message, it's liberal. For 40 years the left has had a near monopoly, and we're going to counter that."
Unfortunately, this will require conservatives with money (all four of you) to risk some capital, and invest in making some movies.

Mel Gibson demonstrated that you could make a Christian movie and an enormous amount of money. There are a lot of small movies that could be made for several million dollars, would almost certainly earn that investment back, make some money (maybe lots of money), and provoke some serious thought in the audience. I've mentioned before that Nat Brandt's The Town That Started the Civil War is a good example. Historical costume drama; action sequences with armed college students and professors surrounding the hotel; passionate figures insisting that "The laws of God take precedence over the laws of men"; swirling political intrigue; heart-warming reminders that the battle against racism is something that blacks and whites fight together.


 
Trying To Get Back To Your Roots?

I understand why some rappers get in trouble with the law over weapons, or drugs, or beating up their managers. Some of them were criminals before they became stars, and they don't have much reason to change their behavior, since they have turned those criminal personas into real wealth. But why would you feel the need to engage in an economic crime?
NEW YORK (AP) - Rapper and actor DMX was arrested on charges that he and another man tried to steal a car in a parking lot at Kennedy Airport, authorities said.

DMX, whose real name is Earl Simmons, and Jackie Hudgins were arrested Thursday night after Port Authority police interrupted a dispute between the two and another man whose car they allegedly tried to steal, authorities said.

A preliminary investigation indicated that Simmons may have identified himself as a federal agent, according to Tony Ciavolella, a Port Authority spokesman.

...

Simmons and Hudgins were arrested on charges of attempted robbery, criminal impersonation and criminal mischief, he said. They were in custody and were expected to be taken to central booking in Queens late Thursday.
DMX can't afford to buy any car he wants?


 
If This Is The Best The Left Can Do...

They have near complete control over the news media: all the television networks except Fox; most daily newspapers of any size; most of the wire services. In spite of genuine bad news, and a lot of careful editing to emphasize that bad news, while ignoring good news, consumer confidence is rising:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. consumer sentiment rose in June, according to a survey on Friday, on improved job prospects and a softening in soaring gasoline prices as the economy gained traction after a long period of weakness.

The University of Michigan's final survey of consumer confidence for June showed its sentiment index rose to 95.6 from a reading of 90.2 in May, according to sources who saw the subscription-only report.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast a rise to 95.5 with increased optimism due to an improved employment picture, a generally healthy economy and a moderate decrease in the record gasoline prices seen in late May.

...

"It was a bit surprising in the first place when initial June sentiment rose as much as it did from May," said Steven Wieting, senior economist at Citigroup in New York.

"To see confidence rise in a period where gasoline prices were moving up, the international and political news has not been confidence-building, for them to cite improvement in the labor market and income conditions is a pretty interesting sign," he said.

The expectations index rose to 88.5 in June from 81.6 in May, most likely in line with the pickup in the jobs market over the past few months.

The current conditions component rose to 106.7 from 103.6.
Here's more good news:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. home resales jumped unexpectedly by 2.6 percent to a record high in May as an improving job market fueled home buying while mortgage rates remained relatively low, a trade association said on Friday.

Sales of previously owned homes rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.80 million units in May from a downwardly revised 6.63 million unit pace in April, the National Association of Realtors said.

Analysts had been expecting a 6.50 million unit rate.

"You've got the best of all worlds -- you've got a growing economy that's creating jobs, you've got low interest rates. The stars are still aligned for the housing sector," said NAR chief economist David Lereah.
Oh yeah, there's some bad news in that report, which I expect Kerry to use as a sign of the failure of the Bush Administration's policies:
The median sales price of a pre-owned home also climbed 10.3 percent from the same period a year ago to $183,600.
Secretary of the Treasury Snow at least makes the right noises about the deficit:
TAMPA, Fla. (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Friday that over-sized government deficits were a potential threat to the economy but said the Bush administration was committed to cutting them.

Responding to questions from a small group of businessmen at a printing plant in Tampa, Snow said that Washington recognized the risk from excessive deficits but said: "We in the administration are committed to bringing the deficit down, and we will."

Snow added: "If it isn't dealt with, there's a real price to be paid in terms of ... confidence in the government."
I wish it were something that the President could do all by himself. But there is this problem with pork-barreling Congresscritters as well. I wish I had a solution to that. Unfortunately, pork-barreling is a bipartisan problem.


 
Too Much Whitney Houston

You are probably aware that the music industry settled a CD price-fixing suit by sending money out to consumers. What you may not be aware is that they also agreed to send out CDs to libraries and schools. What they sent has turned out to be rather comical:
SEATTLE (AP) - The Puget Sound Educational Service District, serving 35 school districts, received 1,300 copies of Whitney Houston's soaring rendition of the "Star-Spangled Banner," a disc that includes only one other song, "America the Beautiful."

...

Other discs have raunchy rap unsuitable for school libraries, and some librarians said it looked like the music companies were dumping stale inventory.

"Really, you can never have too many Whitney Houston CDs," joked district spokeswoman Karen Farley.

...

The Spokane-based educational service district is about halfway through its 5,900 CDs, which seem to lean heavily to classical music, including multiple copies of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro."

"It seems like a very diverse selection," said spokesman Steve Witter. "I suppose if you want them to appreciate the '60s - we have everything from Mel Torme to the Jefferson Airplane."

The CDs were selected by experts and educators for their lasting significance, and attorneys general for the states involved signed off on the list, said Gary Larson, a spokesman for Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire.

"We did not just give carte blanche to the recording industry to provide any CDs they had left over in their warehouse," Larson said. To qualify, CDs had to have been on industry charts for 26 weeks or to have peaked in the top half of the charts.

Librarian Lara Weigand from the Tacoma Public Library is dubious that even half of the 1,325 CDs sent to her 10-library system meet that criteria: She said she doesn't need 57 copies of "Three Mo Tenors," based on a 2001 PBS special about African-American tenors.

"It was well-received, but if you were making core lists of everything a library should have, the CDs shipped would generally not be on them," Weigand said.
Of course, another way of looking at this is to remember the situation some years ago when Canada shipped many tons of cheese to a refugee camp on the Cambodian border--where the local population did not know what cheese was. "Thank you for the soap, but it doesn't wash very well."


 
Even the New York Times Is Now Admitting Bin Laden/Iraqi Connections

From this morning's paper:
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

...

The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed.

At the meeting, Mr. bin Laden requested that sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric be rebroadcast in Iraq. That request, the document states, was approved by Baghdad.
And from part 2:
Mr. bin Laden "also requested joint operations against foreign forces" based in Saudi Arabia, where the American presence has been a rallying cry for Islamic militants who oppose American troops in the land of the Muslim pilgrimage sites of Mecca and Medina.

But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons.

The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states.
Now, this particular document doesn't provide later information, but to suggest that the connection wasn't on-going, in light of the other pieces of evidence that have popped up, is just partisan politics.



Thursday, June 24, 2004
 
This Is Really Quite Astonishing

The Saudi government is offering foreigners the right to carry arms for self-defense:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Foreign residents of Saudi Arabia will be allowed to carry guns, the police minister announced after a series of militant bombings, attacks and kidnappings targeting Western workers in the kingdom.
"In principle, a citizen has the right to carry a licensed weapon, and so does the resident. If he senses danger, he can carry a personal weapon as he does in his country," Prince Nayef said late Wednesday.

A Western diplomat had said some embassies and foreign companies had asked Saudi authorities to ease rules barring private security guards from carrying weapons. Nayef's comment appeared to be a response to the requests.

Under Saudi law, foreigners - even security guards - cannot have weapons, while Saudis must apply for a permit. Nayef's comments suggested foreigners would be allowed to seek permits, though he did not elaborate.
This is really an indication of how seriously the Saudis want to keep foreign workers.

There are those who think the best thing we can do is have American workers leave, and let the Saudi royal family stew in its own juices. To some extent, they helped to create the al-Qaeda mess by not pursuing bin Laden in exchange for bin Laden leaving Saudi Arabia alone. In addition, the cynical use of the Wahabbi form of Islam by the Saudi government to keep their masses hating the West--instead of the corrupt Saudi royal family--has played a major part in creating the problem we are fighting today. As my wife observed, "If we pull out and stop buying their oil, what will the Saudis do with it?"

The problem, unfortunately, is that even the U.S. went Green, stopped buying oil from the Saudis, this would not solve the problem. A collapsing economy would guarantee al-Qaeda success in overthrowing the Saudi government, and there are many nations that would be quite willing to buy al-Qaeda/Saudi oil. France, for example, would gladly sell nuclear weapon technology to them, if they got a good enough price on the oil, and a promise that its own Islamic population would be encouraged to be quiet.

I really don't want to see the Saudi royal family in power there--but we can't very safely let them get overthrown by al-Qaeda. That would give al-Qaeda something it doesn't have right now: a government; a multibillion dollar a month income stream; and a military. The Saudis have made noises about gradually approaching democracy; let's hope it happens.


 
Another Constitutional Right Has Been Found in Berkeley!

The beginning of the story I can't really argue with too much:
BERKELEY, Calif. — Residents of this left-leaning city will have a chance to vote in November on whether they think prostitution should be a crime.

An advocacy group announced Wednesday it had gathered nearly 3,200 signatures, about 1,000 more than needed to get the initiative on the ballot.

The measure would have little more than symbolic value, since it wouldn't undo laws against prostitution. But Robyn Few, head of the Sex Workers Outreach Project (search), said a win at the polls would send an important message.
I agree that it would be better for prostitution to be legal, and subject to regulation (as is the case in many Nevada counties), than to create the mess that is typical in many cities: prostitutes soliciting on the streets, thus creating a really disagreeable situation where customers assume that any woman out at night is looking for customers; prostitutes leaving discarded condoms on the streets; the increased risk of STD transmission by those who aren't bothering with condoms; pimps, the lowest scum of the universe, even below trial lawyers, in my opinion; corrupt vice cops taking bribes in cash and services.

But the story concludes with the discovery of a new right:
Few, who recently completed six months house arrest on federal charges of conspiring to commit prostitution, said decriminalizing prostitution is a civil rights issue.
Well, let's see, in the aftermath of the Lawrence decision, who can seriously argue that it isn't a civil rights issue?

What really ticks me off is that rights that are explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights--like the right to keep and bear arms--are regularly ignored or denied by the courts, and by most law professors. Yet suddenly, all sorts of rights that aren't explicit, and for which the evidence is pretty strongly that that they weren't even considered rights in 1789--are suddenly in vogue.


 
Not Just One Chemical Weapon Shell...

From FoxNews:
In an exclusive interview with FOX News’ Brit Hume, Charles Duelfer (search) — whose ISG is leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction — said terrorists in Iraq are “trying to tap into the Iraqi WMD intellectual capital.”

...

He also told Fox News that about 10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells have been found in various locations in Iraq.

The shells are all from the first Gulf War era and thus weakened, though intelligence sources say they’re still dangerous.

Labels:



 
Amusing Idaho Code Title

BURGLARY WITH EXPLOSIVES. Actually, they mean safecracking, and there are good reasons to treat this more seriously than simple burglary. Still, when I first saw the title of the section, my only thought was, "Burglary with explosives? Is that like an extreme sport version?"

Not funny, but somewhat interesting is the punishment for rape in Idaho: it can be as little as one year in prison--or life in prison, "in the discretion of the District Judge, who shall pass sentence." I don't know how often rape gets a life sentence here, but it's interesting that this is one of the options.

I do know that "Lewd conduct with minor child under sixteen" can get a life sentence, and I have read recent Idaho Supreme Court decisions where someone received life plus fifteen years for two counts. California, this obviously isn't (see California Penal Code 286 and 288, which each range from three to eight years).


 
Moral Decline on the Bench

I won't even hint at why this judge was removed from the bench; you'll have to click over if you are open-minded enough (the ACLU will doubtless file suit on behalf of the judge on "freedom of expression" grounds, and then file suit on behalf of the defendant in the murder case). It's repulsive at several levels: a lack of professionalism; a juvenile notion of what's important; general moral decline. My biggest surprise was that this wasn't one of Jerry Brown's appointees to the California courts.


 
If You Have Kids, You Probably Made The Same Mistake I Did On Your 2003 Taxes

I just received a notice informing me that I failed to account for the Advance Child Tax Credit on my 1040. Remember that little check you received part-way through 2003, as a way of getting the economy pumped up? Well, that was an advance on the child tax credit--it wasn't a gift. Somehow, TurboTax failed to alert me to the fact that I needed to record that, and I certainly wasn't thinking about it when I did my taxes.


 
The World Changes--And Often Not For The Better

Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University has written a couple of columns praising Bill Cosby for his willingness to address the self-destructive behavior of black culture in America:
Bill Cosby and I differ in age by one year -- I'm older. We both spent part of our youth, in the 1940s and 1950s, growing up in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project. Being poor then was different from being poor now. My sister and I were rare among Richard Allen's residents. Our parents were separated, but nearly every other kid lived in a two-parent household. Black teen pregnancy was relatively rare and just a tiny fraction of today's. During those days, many residents rarely locked their doors until the last person came home. Hot summer nights saw many people fearlessly sleeping in their yards or on their balconies.

Today, less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families, compared to 70 percent and 80 percent in earlier periods. Illegitimacy, at 70 percent, is unprecedented in black history. Between 1976 and 2000, over 50 percent of all homicides in the United States were committed by blacks, and 94 percent of the time, the victim was black. These are devastating problems, but are they caused by racism, and will spending resources fighting racial discrimination solve them?

Don't give me any of that legacy-of-slavery nonsense unless you can explain why all of these problems were not worse during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, at a time when blacks were much closer to slavery, were much poorer, faced more discrimination and had fewer opportunities.

With all the opportunities available today, unavailable when Cosby and I were youngsters, black youngsters who dedicate themselves to academic excellence are attacked both verbally and sometimes physically for "acting white" and for being "Oreos" and "brainiacs." California Berkeley professor John McWhorter says, "Insidious anti-intellectualism is the prime culprit in the school-performance gap between whites and blacks, which cuts across class and income lines." He adds that the rap music culture "retards black success by the reinforcement of hindering stereotypes and by teaching young blacks that a thuggish adversarial stance is the properly authentic response to a presumptively racist society."
Cosby's remarks at the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are really, really gutsy:
Cosby: "With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail. Brown vs. the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We have got to take the neighborhood back. We have to go in there -- forget about telling your child to go into the Peace Corps -- it is right around the corner. They are standing on the corner, and they can't speak English."

And on teen sex, Cosby said, "Hey, you have a baby when you are 12; your baby turns 13 and has a baby. How old are you? Huh? Grandmother! By the time you are 12, you can have sex with your grandmother, you keep those numbers coming. I'm just predicting."

Cosby went on to say, "What is it -- young girls getting after a girl who wants to remain a virgin? Who are these sick black people, and where do they come from, and why haven't they been parented to shut up? This is a sickness, ladies and gentlemen."
What no one wants to confront is that the self-discipline problems that Bill Cosby is concerned about in the black community are just more severe forms of the same problems that are now afflicting the entire American society.


 
This Makes The Laci Peterson Murder Case Seem Downright Normal

Why has the Scott Peterson trial received so much attention, while this far more disturbing and interesting case been ignored nationally?
When Glenn Taylor Helzer told Dawn Godman he wanted her to kill in God's name, she considered it a blessing.

Guardian angels circled, Godman recalled in court recently, as she sat with Helzer in a car outside the Mormon Temple in Oakland and listened to his plan to hasten Christ's return to Earth. She said he made her feel like a child in its parent's arms.

Such was the portrait of Glenn Taylor Helzer that emerged during his brother Justin Helzer's murder trial, which ended June 16 with his conviction on 11 counts, including murder, extortion and kidnapping, and will in all likelihood be presented as jurors, beginning today, consider Justin Helzer's state of mind when he killed.

...

Although it was Justin Helzer on trial, Glenn Helzer weighed heavily in the proceedings. Justin Helzer, 32, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Jurors, therefore, must consider whether he knew right from wrong as the "Children of Thunder" fatally bludgeoned and shot five people in 2000. Should they find Helzer was sane, they will then decide whether he should be put to death.

...

The trial also illuminated the bizarre relationships among the three people involved in the crimes, and those too are sure to be revisited during the sanity phase. Justin Helzer was portrayed as a shy, Spartan young man whose older brother often told him, "I'm No. 1, and you're No. 2." Godman was a lonely woman who as a child found comfort in the forests of the Sierra foothills and as an adult sought salvation for a speed habit, failed marriage and attempted suicide.

And then there was Glenn Helzer, a former stockbroker with a magnetic personality who wanted to defeat Satan and stretched beyond all reason the Mormon belief that people can communicate directly with God.

The Helzers met Godman on Memorial Day 1999 at a murder mystery dinner in a Mormon temple in Walnut Creek. The Helzers, raised by devout parents in Martinez but excommunicated in 1998 for drug use, were dressed entirely in black and didn't seem to fit in.

...

As he did with everyone close to him, Glenn Helzer forced Mendoza and Godman to attend self-awareness classes. He believed the program "began a process of breaking down people's walls ... so they would be more open to his ideas," Godman testified.

And so she spent four days in a windowless room with about 30 other people who confronted their demons with the help of a facilitator who Godman said reminded her of Glenn Helzer. She finished two of the program's three "levels" before Helzer said he'd take over the lessons.

That, she said, was when she realized Glenn Helzer was a prophet. She mentioned it to Justin Helzer, who agreed with her.

Before long, Glenn Helzer was laying ambitious plans. They included a bizarre plot to train Brazilian orphans to slaughter the leaders of the Mormon Church so he could become its prophet, and "Transform America," a self-help group to foster "a state of peace and joy" and defeat Satan, Godman recalled.

They needed money to carry out "Transform America." They decided to blackmail one of Glenn Helzer's former clients. Their first victim wasn't home, so they chose Ivan and Annette Stineman, a retired Concord couple. They extorted $100,000 from the couple and killed them.

The next day, they eviscerated and dismembered the bodies. Glenn Helzer let his brother do most of the dirty work, Godman said.


 
Fahrenheit 9/11 Ads Banned Under McCain/Feingold?

Apparently the Federal Elections Commission is considering banning advertising for Michael Moore's new pack of lies after July 30th, because it is, as Moore unabashedly admits, an attempt to influence the election. As I observed in my February 1, 2004 Shotgun News article, "Why This Supreme Court Can’t Be Trusted":
What was the First Amendment supposed to protect? First and foremost, its
purpose was to protect political speech. There have always been some gray areas on this, with questions as to what constitutes incitement to riot, what is obscenity, and what are the limits to libel. At least in the last few years, the Supreme Court has taken a very, very broad view of what is protected free speech. Last year, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), they ruled that virtual child pornography—-that is, computer graphics depictions of sex involving children, but in which actual children do not appear—-is protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.[2] Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law regulating tobacco advertising within 1000 feet of a school, again, on free speech grounds. The law, among other problems, was “overbroad” in the speech that it prohibited.[3] In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning of the American flag was constitutionally protected free speech.[4] With decisions like this, BCRA’s [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act] provision prohibiting political groups from running political ads should have been a no-brainer. Alas, it was a no-brainer: the majority of the Supreme Court did not use their brains. They decided that Congress has the authority to prohibit “issue advocacy” advertising on radio and television[5]-—in effect, the right to tell the NRA, the ACLU, and dozens of other political groups, to shut up and sit down.

So what is the effect of this change in the law? There are groups that can still run radio and television advertising just before the election. The candidates themselves can do so. Oh yes, there is one other group that also gets to run “issue advocacy” ads—-except this group doesn’t have to pay for the ads at all. That’s because they are called “news broadcasts.” That’s right. CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN—-four organizations that hate guns and hate gun owners—they get to broadcast news coverage for sixty days before the election, and their position on gun control is pretty obvious.

2 Ashcroft et. al. v. Free Speech Coalition et. al., 535 U.S. 234 (2002), available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-795; last accessed December 16, 2003.

3 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 535 U.S. 235 (2001), available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-596; last accessed December 16, 2003.

4 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=491&invol=397; last accessed December 16, 2003.

5 McConnell et. al. v. Federal Election Commission et. al. (2003), 85.
At least if the FEC is consistent on this, and treats ads for Moore's pack of lies like other forms of political advertising intended to influence the election, there will be some justice, as the left gets hoist by their own petard. But I have this odd feeling, since the Supreme Court has been taken over by a pack of leftists, that they will find some way to exempt advertising for Moore's movie from this ban.


Wednesday, June 23, 2004
 
Stem Cell Research

James Lileks again has a crisp and witty column, this time about Kerry's push for federal funding of stem cell research:
John Kerry doesn't just talk to foreign leaders; he counsels with Nobel science laureates as well. Kerry wants to lift the ban on federal money for experimenting on human embryos, and 48 of the nation's finest eggheads agree: President Bush's stance on the issue puts "ideology over science."

Ideology, in this case, means "a deeply held belief." It's peculiar, but true: Some people have a strange, amusing hang-up about the sanctity of human life, and they don't like vivisecting human embryos for any reason. Not even if the experiment brought Ronald Reagan back to life and restored his brain.

To these "ideologues," slicing and dicing embryos is almost like setting up baby farms so we have a steady supply of fresh organs. Silly ideologues! After all, if we'd listened to the superstitious fools in the 18th century no one would ever have dissected a human body, right?

Are these ideologues taking a page from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Earth First!, burning down labs, threatening doctors, setting the embryos free to live in the wild? No. They are declining to spend federal money on the matter. Private investors are perfectly able to throw billions into this field if they wish. John Ashcroft will not show up in his Cotton Mather costume and block the door.

...

In a speech in Denver, Kerry said, "We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear." What fear is the senator talking about? Does he think Bush is terrified that stem cells will grow 50 feet tall, stomp around and crush whole cities? What fear is the senator talking about? Kerry goes on:

"Franklin Roosevelt built great national laboratories. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences. President Eisenhower established the White House science adviser. President Kennedy started America on the path that ended up with a man setting foot on the moon. And President Clinton helped lead us to a map of the entire human genome."

That's right. He helped lead us to the map. "Over here, boys! I spy a sequencing pair that might govern the pineal gland! Shazaam!" And what has President Bush done? Besides put us on the path that will end up with Americans on Mars? Nothing!

Nothing! Granted, the latest budget increases science R&D by 7 percent. Take out the moneys targeted for defense and homeland security initiatives, and it's a 4 percent raise. But to hear Kerry talk you'd think Bush was sending everyone who wore a white lab coat and thick black glasses to Gitmo.
I've done my best to follow the stem cell research controversy, but I confess that I have a lot of other matters requiring my immediate attention, so perhaps I don't fully understand the problem, but as I understand it, Bush has decided that the 48 stem cell lines already in use are all that the federal government will allow to be used. They have already been taken, and rather than throw them away, we might as well use them--but no more.

Let me throw an analogy that strikes me about this. During World War II, the Nazis did all sorts of really evil things in the name of "science." A lot of it, especially the "ethnographic" research was garbage science, based on false premises, using nothing that was identifiably scientific method. A lot of it was just an excuse to cause pain and suffering, with no pretense of repeatability: How many blows with a rifle butt does it take to kill someone?

But some of the research, such as the experiments dunking people in freezing water, seeing how long it takes to rewarm them, what is the success rate by various methods, was actually pretty respectable science. It was morally reprehensible, because these were prisoners, and the Nazi scientists didn't care in the least whether their "test subjects" lived or died.

For a very long time, there has been controversy about whether to use the data or not. Some argue that to do so, considering the method by which this data was gathered, justifies evil.

Others argue that if the science was valid, because we have no way to morally repeat such experiments, we should use the data. It was horrible that people were tortured and murdered to perform these experiments--but it would be even more horrible if the suffering of the victims wasn't used by scientists today.

I share the "don't use it" crowd's horror. But I agree with the "this data was bought at a horrifying price, it's wrong not to use it" crowd's position. And that's where I stand on the stem cell issue.

Larry Niven wrote a number of "organlegger" stories, set in a future where serious criminals are executed by being disassembled for their organs, so that others may live. Of course, with time, the demand for replacement organs causes this penalty to be expanded to more and more crimes, eventually reaching the jaywalkers. Niven was making a mildly humorous point--until I saw some moron Ohio legislator introduce a bill requiring those executed by the state to turn over their organs for transplant. Then I got a little scared.

I am concerned that the pursuit of embryonic stem cells might well lead us down the road towards either economic pressures or social pressures to abort children (oops, I mean, "stem cell donor tissue"). That unnerves me a lot. I am reluctant to ban first trimester abortion (at least as long as it enjoys the level of support that it does), but I sure don't want to encourage it.

UPDATE: Ann Coulter has a column that isn't quite as funny as usual, but makes some important points about stem cell research:
Most peculiar, the passing of America's most pro-life president is supposed to be a clarion call for conservatives to support the disemboweling of human embryos -- in contrast to that heartless brute President Bush always prattling on about the value of human life. Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research.

Ironically, the always market-oriented Ronald Reagan would probably have asked his wife, "Honey, if embryonic stem cell therapy is such a treasure trove of medical advances, why isn't private research and development funding flocking to it?"

President Bush has never said that fetal stem cells cannot be used for research. He said "federal money" cannot be used to fund such research. If leading scientists believed fetal stem-cell research would prove to be so fruitful in curing Alzheimer's, why is the private money not pouring in hand over fist? Do you realize how many billions a cure for Alzheimer's would be worth, let alone all the other cures some are claiming fetal stem-cell research would lead to? Forget Alzheimer's -- do you know how much middle-aged men would pay for a GENUINE baldness cure? Then again, Porsche sales would probably fall off quite a bit if we ever cured baldness.

But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie. Of course, I thought it was cute and not creepy that she consulted an astrologer about Reagan's schedule after he was shot. That didn't make astrology a hard science. But liberals who once lambasted Nancy for having too much influence on Reagan's schedule now want to anoint her Seer of Technology.

Labels:



 
Germaine Greer At It Again

It's always fun to see what the world's most prominent feminist intellectual is up to, as part of her apparent campaign to utterly discredit feminism. From a Down Under newspaper:
GERMAINE Greer this week went on BBC television and appealed for help.

"It's about time, I reckon, we resuscitated the Communist Party."
No one on the panel with her blinked at this evil idea -- although whether because they agreed with it or thought Greer was crazy and best ignored, I can't tell.

I'd understand if some thought the latter. On the same show, Greer, famed for leading the feminist revolution with her The Female Eunuch, offered a nutty excuse for Saudi Arabia's ban on women driving cars.

"I get a bit worried about certain heavily veiled ladies driving because they have no peripheral vision at all," she said. "You can understand why in some countries they are not allowed to drive."
Now, like nearly all good leftists, Greer has spent much of the last two years arguing that overthrowing Hussein's torturocracy is evil, but it's nice to see that as part of her campaign for feminism, she has decided to support the most fiercely anti-woman wing of Islam.


 
Pay Careful Attention: I Am Going To Agree With a Labor Union Official

It appears that Chinese cars will be exported to the U.S. by 2010:
DEARBORN, Mich. (Reuters) - Cars built in China's low-cost labor market could start pouring into the United States in large volumes by the end of this decade, a senior U.S. trade official said on Wednesday.

Al Warner, director of the Office of Automotive Affairs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, made the prediction in a Reuters interview after speaking about China to an auto industry conference in this Detroit suburb.

"I don't think you can argue with the low-end cost equation, Warner said.

...

None of that is good news for the United Auto Workers, and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger made that clear at the Dearborn, Michigan, conference not long after Warner spoke.

The Detroit-based UAW, long considered one of the world's most powerful trade unions, has suffered steep declines in its membership in recent years as automakers shift manufacturing and other jobs overseas.

"No worker anywhere can compete with the painfully low wages and terrible working conditions endured by so many workers in China. And, as we all know, China is becoming a growing world power in the auto industry," Gettelfinger said.

...

"Workers around the world are suffering from a global race to the bottom," Gettelfinger added, saying auto workers all over the world faced a serious threat from China and its "reservoir of repressed, low-cost labor."
Competition and free markets are a good thing, but I will say, China is hardly an example of a free market. It is certainly freer than it was 30 years ago, but the transformation from socialism to kleptocracy means that the worst of socialism (corrupt government protection of industries and individuals with influence) and the worst of capitalism (greed) without the restraining influence of a representative government to restrain the governmental corruption, or the restraining influence of a competitive and free market to restrain abuse by employers.


 
Property Rights & Government

Cass Sunstein, visiting blogger at Volokh Conspiracy, asserts that property exists only because of government, and therefore the libertarian argument against the welfare state is untenable:
What Holmes is saying here is that even though property is exchangeable, it doesn't arise from value; it's a creation of law. And that's simply a matter of fact.
I would agree that at a certain high level of property, this is true. But property can exist in anarchy--large accumulations become rather difficult, however, as I argued a few weeks back. Some readers have disputed this, suggesting that there are economies of scale in protecting property. If so, one would expect that wealthy people would be among the bigger enemies of Big Government, instead of major political funders of it (think George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates).

I am not an anarchist or even a libertarian (although I have some sympathy for their concerns), but I do recognize that there is some merit to the idea that property, especially in large concentrations, is a result of government enforcing laws. I am also supportive of the concept of the welfare state--although not the form of it that leftists and liberals love so much. The reading list that I inflicted on my students for Constitutional History last fall included this selection from Blackstone's Commentaries , which includes among the rights of Englishmen:
The law not only regards life and member, and protects every man in the enjoyment of them, but also furnishes him with every thing necessary for their support. For there is no man so indigent or wretched, but he may demand a supply sufficient for all the necessities of life, from the more opulent part of the community, by means of several statutes enacted for the relief of the poor, of which in their proper places.

Not surprisingly, the legal realist critique that Sunstein dislikes was in its ascendancy as social Darwinism replaces the dominant Christian worldview in American society.

Libertarian critiques of the welfare state are fundamentally different from conservative critiques. The libertarian argues that it is not the government's job to redistribute income, even for a good purpose (preventing starvation, providing education, making everyone happy). The conservative argues that certain activities of the welfare state are legitimate governmental activities, because they reflect the shared Judeo-Christian values of our society. (Whoops! Make that "reflected"--they only reflect the shared values of the population, not the lawyers and judges who actually run the society now.)

The conservative disputes not the principle of the welfare state, but the implementation details. Preventing starvation is laudable; an implementation that ends up buying heroin instead of groceries is not. Preventing ignorance by educating the young is laudable; the public schools in many big cities are engaged in fraud if they have a sign that says "school." Providing a roof over the heads of a family with no money is a laudable goal; giving cockroach-infested hotels $2000 a month to put a family into a single room because the owners contribute heavily to the mayor's election campaign, is fiscally irresponsible, abusive to the "beneficiaries," and corrupt. Helping single mothers avoid prostitution is laudable; creating a system that encourages them to remain dependent creates enormous evil.


 
Student Evaluations

Eric Rasmussen has some thoughts about the problems of student evaluation of faculty. Many of his points make perfect sense to me--in particular, the problem of professors who make their students contented, rather than educated.

Evaluations from teaching Constitutional History this last fall finally got to me, and I am generally pretty pleased with the results. On a 4 point scale, the average was 3.51. (And this was my first semester teaching!) One evaluation complained about Boise State using too many adjuncts--but as I read the complaint, I realized it wasn't really a complaint about me, but about Boise State being too cheap to use adjuncts.

As it happens, I taught Constitutional History because the tenure-track professor who was going to teach it didn't feel completely comfortable doing so. As Clint Eastwood said in Magnum Force, "A man's got to know his limitations." It wasn't that Boise State was too cheap, but that they wanted the most qualified person to teach the class.

Another student was concerned that I was rather opinionated. (Really? Me? Can you imagine?) I will tell you that I worked very hard to make sure that I discussed a variety of points of view where particular lectures impinged on current political opinions. With respect to the Lochner decision, I found that some of my students were more prepared to defend the reasoning than I was--contrary to what you might think.

I will say that having been on the giving and receiving side of student evaluations, I do think that there is a real danger that a professor who demands a lot out of his students is going to get dinged by some of the students for that. But I demanded a lot out of my students, and it seems to have generated some respect, not revenge. (Of course, I had them turn in the evaluations before I returned their research papers.)

There are professors who get dinged pretty badly on student evaluations because they are disorganized, boring, or engage in blatant political activity in the classroom. I've had examples of all of these over the years, and I have never hesitated to express my opinion on student evaluations. I would hope that a professor would, if he heard this enough, spend a little time reconsidering how he is teaching.

Still, I think there is some merit to listening a bit more to other faculty, and a bit less to students. The students are there to learn, and learning isn't always fun. Sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it involves considerable effort.

My wife had one professor who, she suspected, was becoming a little senile. He was not just disorganized, he was forgetful, and sometimes it seemed as though he had completely lost his chain of thought. For the first time ever, there was a professor sitting in on his class. I believe that he retired soon thereafter.

That must be one of the hardest things to do--to have to tell a colleague that it's time to get evaluated for mental competence, especially since retirement, from what I have read, often accelerates the process of decline.


 
No Advertisers At The Moment--Time to Beg!

I guess my readers aren't buying products from my advertisers, so do your part to accelerate that glorious day that I can do this (and write history books) full-time, and make a PayPal contribution.


 
Reporting News, Or Making News?

Iraq the Model also reports this interesting item:
About a month ago, I was watching Al-Iraqyia TV. They were hosting a spokesman of the coalition and the secretary of the Muslim Sunni Cleric Council Harith Muthanna Al-Dhari. They were talking about the revolt in Falujah. That guy was an extremely anti-American fanatic cleric and he didn’t even try to hide his feelings. Still he had two valid points in his argument. They discussed the mutilation of the bodies of the four American contractors and the host asked the sheikh the following questions:

...

-Is it true that Fallujah harbor most of the ex-Baathists and Saddam followers and that these are the bulk of the so-called resistance?

-No, that’s absolutely not true. We were always against Saddam and his regime.

-Come on Saddam named Al-Anbar as one of the “white governorates” because its people didn’t take part in the uprising in 1991, and you have had many pro-Saddam demonstrations since the 9th of April there!

-Now that’s not true and let me tell you something you may not know. First there were only two demonstration supporting Saddam after he was caught and that’s how they happened: Soon after Saddam was captured, a reporter from one of the Arab satellite channels, and I don’t want to mention its name, came downtown, gathered a bunch of teenagers, handed each one of them 20US $ and gave them some pictures of Saddam. He then asked them to shout and dance and made a great report out of it. The same thing happened again in exactly the same manner!


 
You Aren't Going To See This On The Evening News

From the Iraqi blog Iraq the Model:
Here’s a story from David Zadel, a marine in Iraq:

I feel compelled to write of an experience that occurred a month ago. We had recently driven an insurgent force out of a small town north of Fallujah. The insurgent force left without fighting and the town was largely abandoned.

We had expended much effort clearing the town of the weapons and ammunition that the insurgent force had left behind. People in time occupied the town again and we were determined to provide security for those returning.

My platoon and I were on a security patrol in the countryside on the outskirts of the town when one of our vehicles became stuck on a narrow road bordered by a canal. It was in danger of rolling into the water. We had to stop our vehicles which can be very dangerous.

A family that lived nearby came out of their house and began to move toward our patrol. They were smiling and waving. There were children playing everywhere. The women prepared food and the eldest males met with us.

Our vehicle was badly stuck and we needed chains to remove it. At this point, the surrounding families joined us and showed us tremendous hospitality. This is remarkable because often times, local terrorists will sometimes intimidate those who help us or show us kindness.

Without prompting the men brought out shovels and began to dig out the wheels of our vehicle that were stuck. With much effort, working together, we succeeded in removing our vehicle from danger.

It then struck me. In the middle of the Al Anbar province, where so many Marines and Iraqis were dying together in such senseless violence, this one tribe reached out to us. During all that was transpiring around us, the maelstrom of violence in Fallujah, the negative reporting from self-righteous media, and mistrust that arises from unfamiliar cultures, there was this tribe that we shared smiles with and feelings of goodwill.

With a tremendous language barrier they acted without prompting, bribery and without fear of reprisals from terrorists. I believe what I witnessed was humanity in it's truest form. Through their actions alone they seemed to say "we know you are trying. You have shed blood for us and we thank you." When I return to America, I will tell all American civilians that ask: Iraqis are people of honor, compassion and strong family bonds. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.

A Marine

*David Zadel is a Lieutenant in the 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division in Iraq.
Make sure you visit Iraq the Model at least every week. It's good to know that there are Iraqis who appreciate what we are doing there.


 
On Bar Exams

See Doug Kern's column at Tech Central Station. He says what I have long suspected, but then again, he's passed the bar:
Congratulations, law school graduate! You've taken the first step on your path towards fortune and glory, and that throbbing sensation where your soul used to be won't bother you a bit in the years to come. (Remember: just a spoonful of humor helps the social parasitism go down.) With your J.D. degree in your case-briefing, note-taking hand, you now get to spend the summer cramming for that sixteen-hour, mind-numbing, cramp-inducing ordeal that all lawyers know and fear: the bar exam of your home state!

It's hard to say which is dumber: the fact that your law school failed to prepare you adequately for the bar exam, or the fact that you have to take such an absurd test at all.

After dropping as much as $100,000 and spending three years obtaining a law degree, you probably don't know enough law to practice it professionally; most law school graduates don't. Now perhaps you're wondering: if the point of law school was not to prepare you for the practice of law, just what was the point of law school? Easy: the point of law school was to make money for the law school. Mission accomplished! Oh, and as a secondary matter, the point of law school was to flatter the egos and delusions of the brainiacs who teach there. And that, young law school graduate, is why you can pontificate at endless length on theories of critical legal deconstructionist realism as touching upon Marxist feminist radical queer Afro-Latino post-structural comparative gender issues, but you still can't write a damn will.

...

Many an affluent lawyer would sink into the doldrums of mere middle-class comfort if the public learned the dirtiest secret of all: any intelligent, educated adult with a little exposure to the practice of law can perform about 60-75% of the legal tasks that lawyers now charge a fortune to perform. Most menial legal tasks aren't even performed by lawyers -- they're farmed out to legal secretaries, paralegals, and interns, with the lawyer's name attached as an afterthought.
Until a few years back, you didn't need to have graduated from law school to take the bar exam in California. This had to change, because too many paralegals were passing it, based on many years of experience.
In each state, the Grand Old Men of Law set the bar exam pass rates based on the influx of lawyers that they deem tolerable in any given year. The net result? Fewer lawyers than what the market would otherwise produce, and thus higher fees and salaries for accredited lawyers. What's the purpose of flunking the bottom 33% of test-takers, as opposed to 25% or 50% or 5%? The answer starts with an "M" and rhymes with "honey."
Which reminds me of a scandal some years ago in the Philipines, where the Supreme Court set the passing score each year--and one year, they set the score just low enough for the son of one of the justices to pass.


 
How Al-Sadr Won In Iraq

Whoops! How he lost! The Washington Times has an article explaining how what leftists were hoping last month would defeat the U.S. turned around:
"I've got to think this was a watershed operation in terms of how to do things as part of a counterinsurgency," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a West Point graduate and one of two 1st Armored assistant division commanders, in an interview last week as he moved around southern Iraq. "We happened to design a campaign that did very well against this militia."

When the division got word April 8 that Sheik al-Sadr's uprising meant most 1st Armored soldiers would stay and fight, rather than going home as scheduled, it touched off a series of remarkable military maneuvers.

Soldiers, tanks and helicopters at a port in Kuwait reversed course, rushing back inside Iraq to battle the Shi'ite cleric's 10,000-strong army. Within days, a four-tank squadron was rumbling toward the eastern city of Kut. And within hours of arriving, Lt. Col. Mark Calvert and his squadron had cleared the town's government buildings of the sheik's so-called Mahdi's Army.

...

Gen. Dempsey first needed the locations of Sheik al-Sadr's rifle-toting henchmen. Average Iraqis, fed up with the militia's kidnappings and thievery, quickly became spies, as did a few moderate clerics who publicly stayed neutral.

Once he had targets, Gen. Dempsey could then map a battle plan for entering four key cities — Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Diwaniyah. This would be a counterinsurgency fought with 70-ton M-1 Abrams tanks and aerial gunships overhead. It would not be the lightning movements of clandestine commandos, but rather all the brute force the Army could muster, directed at narrowly defined targets.

Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq.

Gen. Hertling said Mahdi's Army is defeated, according the Army's doctrinal definition of defeat. A few stragglers might be able to fire a rocket-propelled grenade, he said, but noted: "Do they have the capability of launching any kind of offensive operation? Absolutely not."

The division estimates it killed at least several thousand militia members.
Al-Sadr would have been better off to have not tried to fight. Those several thousand dead militia members are several thousand potential voters.


 
Rev. Moon Crowns Himself; Declares Himself Messiah in Dirksen Senate Office Building

I saw this on Fox this morning, and here's the Washington Post coverage of it. Too bizarre for summary.


 
A Lot Can Change From Monday To Tuesday

CNN's coverage of the question of whether Bush approved torture or not has some amazing admissions:
Meanwhile, a source told CNN that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld never approved a controversial interrogation technique called "water boarding." That source had told CNN the opposite Monday.
Huh?
"Look, let me make very clear the position of my government and our country," Bush said in the Oval Office.

"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

Bush's comments to reporters came as the White House released documents that administration officials say show there was no policy allowing the abuse of prisoners.

Bush accepted advice from the Justice Department that the Geneva Conventions governing treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan, but he ordered the military to follow the conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," according to one of the memos released by the White House.

"Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," Bush wrote in the memo dated February 7, 2002. "Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles."

...

The documents released Tuesday, as described by administration officials, help to show what ideas were discussed versus what was actually rubber-stamped by the White House in terms of the legal limits of interrogation.

"We want to drive home what was approved and what was speculated about. It is a distinction that has been lost," one official told CNN.

Senior administration officials say there were a lot of "academic" musings or "opinion" memos written after the terrorist attacks about how to apply interrogation laws and rules to the war on terrorism.

One official said it was "uncharted territory," and people at various agencies were trying to figure out how to deal with its legalities.
So why did CNN's source suddenly change his/her opinion? Was this "source" actually not knowledgeable about what Rumsfeld had approved? Or was this source trying to damage the Bush Administration, and had to reverse course when the memos were released exposing this source's claims as being wrong?
The memos to and from Rumsfeld show that though the water-boarding technique was on a list of requested aggressive tactics, Rumsfeld did not approve it, officials say.

The list of requested aggressive tactics included:

Convincing a detainee that death or severe pain could be imminent for him or his family

Exposure to cold weather or water

Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.

Mild, noninjurious physical contact such as grabbing someone's arm, poking them in the chest or light shoving.

Only the fourth tactic -- mild, noninjurious physical contact -- was approved.
Thanks to the Captain's Quarters for the link.

UPDATE: What's bizarre is to read the AP description of this information. It sounds like they are reading an entirely different set of documents.