Tuesday, May 31, 2005

France Votes Down Euro -Constitution

AP-Paris

In a blow to unified Europe, French citizens voted 55-45 against the European Constitution. While widely expected during the countdown to the election's final days, the strength of bitterness and anger on the part of French citizens was shocking to the Chirac government.

According to interviews conducted by LeMonde, over half of those opposed to the Constitution agreed with this sentiment:

I am concerned that we as Frenchmen will be ceding sovereignty to Brussels.

But even more disturbing was that 65% of citizens on both sides of this issue agreed with this statement:

So long as France is a sovereign nation, we will not need to bathe.

Apparently, much of the split in the electorate was about whether bathing is a good thing.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Media Bias Watch Part 2:

Same Deal from AP:

Tenn. state senator resigns after arrest

By ROSE FRENCH
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- State Sen. John Ford, a member of one of Tennessee's most powerful political families, has resigned after being placed under house arrest facing charges from a two-year FBI sting, the lieutenant governor said Saturday.

Ford announced his resignation in a letter Lt. Gov. John Wilder read to the Senate.

"I plan to spend the rest of my time with my family clearing my name," he wrote.

A member of the Senate for more than 30 years, Ford was arrested Thursday following the sting operation nicknamed "Tennessee Waltz." He is charged along with four other current and former state lawmakers with taking payoffs, and he is also accused of threatening to kill a witness.

Prosecutors played a videotape Friday of Ford watching an undercover agent count out $10,000 and an audiotape of him allegedly threatening a potential witness. His lawyer suggested the purported threat was meant as a joke.

For the sting, the FBI set up E-Cycle Management Inc., a sham recycling firm with business cards, a Web site, and a chief executive who lobbied lawmakers over wine and finger food.

"This was a major-league effort," said Neil Cohen, a former state prosecutor. "It's not uncommon - it's ongoing all the time all over the country - but there aren't many at this level where there's this much effort and resources and time devoted to one particular sting."

The FBI even went so far as to register E-Cycle as a corporation with the Georgia Secretary of State, listing its chief executive officer as "J Carson." E-Cycle had a storefront office in Memphis, not far from the Beale Street entertainment district.

Undercover agents, posing as executives of E-Cycle, offered lawmakers free trips to Florida and wined and dined them at a reception at a Nashville hotel in January.

"I think it's fair to say this type of thing is expensive," said George Bolds, spokesman for the FBI office in Memphis, who said he could not reveal the exact cost of the sting. "It's kind of an extraordinary and sensitive technique used."

Ford's brother is Harold Ford, who served 11 terms in Congress. His nephew is Rep. Harold Ford Jr.

During his tenure in the state Senate, John Ford has lost paternity lawsuits, given a political job to a girlfriend, used campaign money for his daughter's wedding and been successfully sued for sexual harassment.

Republican Senate leader Ron Ramsey said the Ethics Committee he chairs was getting ready to file a six-count charge against Ford for violating Senate rules stemming from a separate investigation into allegations he was paid by a consulting company with financial ties to the state's Medicaid program.

"I believe we would have had the votes to remove Senator Ford from office," Ramsey said.

Sen. Tim Burchett, a Republican, said he was a little surprised by the resignation, "but I think he realized a cat only has nine lives and he's on about life 10."

Ford, Sens. Kathryn Bowers and Ward Crutchfield, and state Rep. Chris Newton were all sponsors of a bill proposed by E-Cycle that would have given the state the option of getting rid of old computer equipment by selling it to a "qualified electronic recycling company."

According to the indictments, the lawmakers and two other men took $92,000 to usher bills for E-Cycle through the Legislature. Ford is accused of taking $55,000.

Bowers, one of the other lawmakers arrested with Ford this week, said she is not guilty and does not plan to resign. "Everybody that knows me knows I'm a fighter," she said.

Media Bias Watch

How come the only party identified by the Associated Press in this article is Republican, yet it was a Democrat who was actually charged? And at no point do we identify the parties of the other four charged...

Tennessee state senator placed under house arrest

Prosecutors use video to try to keep state lawmaker in jail

Saturday, May 28, 2005 Posted: 4:12 AM EDT (0812 GMT) MEMPHIS, Tennessee (AP) -- A judge ordered that a state senator be placed under house arrest Friday over the objections of prosecutors, who played a video of the lawmaker watching an undercover agent count out $10,000 and an audiotape of him threatening a potential witness.

The tapes were played at a bond hearing a day after Sen. John Ford was charged as part of a two-year FBI sting operation nicknamed "Tennessee Waltz." Ford is charged along with four other current and former state lawmakers with taking payoffs, but he alone is accused of threatening to kill witnesses.

U.S. Magistrate Diane Vescovo set bond at $20,000 and ordered Ford to be placed under house arrest until his trial. The lawmaker then slipped out the courthouse through a garage exit, avoiding the news media.

Prosecutors, saying Ford should remain in federal custody, appealed before the paperwork needed to release him could be processed, but a district court denied their request for a stay. A new hearing was scheduled for Tuesday before another federal judge, who could uphold Vescovo's decision, modify it or send Ford back to jail.

Ford is the brother of Harold Ford, who served 11 terms in Congress. His nephew, Rep. Harold Ford Jr., has served five terms in Congress and said Wednesday he would run in 2006 for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist.

The videotape shows John Ford across a desk from an undercover FBI agent laying down $100 bills for what U.S. Attorney Tim DiScenza said was a bribe. Ford leans over and the agent asks him if he is counting. Ford says, "I ain't trying to count. I trust you."

In a scratchy Feb. 3 audiotape, Ford tells an undercover informant that he owns a gun and could shoot someone. The informant can be heard laughing, which FBI agent Mark Jackson described as nervous laughter because "the threat sounded legitimate to him."

Jackson said Ford told an agent at a later meeting that "if he caught someone trying to set him up, he would shoot that person, kill them, so that there would be no witnesses."

Ford's attorney, Michael Scholl, suggested the lawmaker was joking with the agent.

"Things are said ... that are meant in a joking manner," Scholl said, adding that "Ford has a problem of running his mouth too much."

Ford was arrested Thursday as part of a sting operation in which undercover agents created a sham company named E-Cycle Management and posed as executives who asked lawmakers to introduce bills to help their business.

According to the indictments, the lawmakers and two other men took $92,000 to usher bills for E-Cycle through the Legislature. Ford is accused of taking $55,000 between August and April.

The other defendants were released Thursday without posting bond.

Ford can't leave the federal court district except to appear in Nashville before the state Senate Ethics Committee, which is investigating him on an array of unrelated allegations. Ford cannot attend regular sessions of the Legislature.

Over three decades in the Tennessee Senate, Ford has lost paternity lawsuits, given a political job to a girlfriend, used campaign money for his daughter's wedding and been successfully sued for sexual harassment.

The Senate Ethics Committee and a federal grand jury are also investigating $429,000 Ford received from a consulting company with financial ties to the state's Medicaid program.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/28/lawmakers.arrested.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157936,00.html

Interestingly, CNN at least identified Ford as a democrat in a sidebar photo that accompanied the AP article, but FOX ran the same story with no party identification except for Frist. Perhaps the CNN/FOX biases are not as monolithic as is assumed.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Stem Cell Debate

My Position

I am not religious, but I believe that it may be unethical to create embryos for research. We don't know when human life begins, and when a person becomes a person, and it seems to me that we should err on the side of life. That does not mean that I would criminalize stem cell research, but just like I think cloning people for organs would be unethical, I think creating embryos for spare stem cells may be as well. I would probably blame science fiction reading for this position rather than any religious position.

My position on abortion was forever changed when my first child was born, and I mourn the day that my wife had a miscarriage because it represented a lost child. I find it hard to understand people who have children and offer unconditional support for abortion (though I recognize that you can support embryonic stem cell research without unconditional support for abortion).

So, do you think it would have been ethical to abort your baby 270 days before she was born so that we could harvest her stem cells and do research on them? To me, you have to be able yes to that question to support this research.


Should Stem Cell Researchers face Murder charges?

If we can take stem cells from embryos that will be tossed, why not organs from aborted late term fetuses? They are just going to be thrown away, after all. And if abortion is legal up to the moment of birth, why can’t we start “Fetus Farms” to grow organs for later transplantation? The developed fetus is not a person and has no right to exist, after all.

I have read some articles that indicate that if you don’t think stem cell researchers should be charged with murder, than you can’t think that destruction of an embryo is wrong. This seems to me to be the wrong question.

Wouldn't it be a better question as to whether the person who kills the embryo to harvest the stem cells should be charged with murder? We don't charge transplant surgeons with murder for harvesting the organs of a murder victim, so we shouldn't charge the researcher either, unless he actually does the killing, or has the killing done for his research.

On the other hand we would charge the transplant surgeon with a crime if he knowingly aided and abetted someone in killing another so he could harvest those organs.

I would think it is a reasonable standard that if someone is murdered, the killer is charged, and those who hired the killer would also be charged, even if it was ordered to harvest the organs and blood of the victim to save one person or many people's lives.

If you believe all abortion is murder and life begins at conception, I would think the same reasoning applied, but I don't go that far. Embryos are something different from people, but not just garbage.

Historical Argument

Some argue that there is no history of rights for the fetus, and so the effort to create rights is just the “crazy religious right” trying to inflict their values on us. Historically an abortion would at most be considered a crime against the father for his loss of a child. However, for much of human history, infanticide was legal and practiced as well (especially for the deformed), so I don't think I want to rely too much on historical norms. Additionally, since both children and wives were chattel for the fathers and husbands, I am not surprised that crimes against the unborn were seen as crimes against the "owner" of the right, either the mother or father. Additionally, science did not allow any way of determining causation. And, of course, the history is pretty clear that we have never allowed gay marriage either, so I think we should be very careful about basing arguments on history.

Abortion itself did not become a truly viable alternative to birth until the discovery of penicillin. The 100,000 back room abortion deaths canard is due to statistics based on pre-penicillin days. After the discovery of penicillin, criminal laws were created to ban abortion because it became a reality, because it was safe. So it may be true that before abortion was practiced to any great extent, it was "legal." But that is because legislatures don't ban things that don't happen, or are so likely to kill the person doing it that the act is its own punishment.

So it might be right that there is not a great history of protecting the unborn, but there is not a great history of protecting children, women, the disabled, or even other races.


In Vitro Fertilization and Usage of Stem Cell Research From Other Places

Can you argue against stem cell research and still believe in in vitro fertilization? If there is a cure found overseas using this method, can we in good faith use the science if we banned the research?

You can believe in in vitro fertilization if you also believe in implanting only the number of eggs that you are willing to give birth to, and you create only the number of embryos you intend to implant. The fact that it is done in a different manner is due to cost, not necessity.

And as for the knowledge gained elsewhere, do we use the science that was created by the Nazi's by experimenting on the Jews? I think that hypothermia in particular is one area that we use the knowledge gained. I would not have supported that science to get the information, but will use it to save lives now. This should be the same.

If Parkinson's treatment can be given without further loss of life, then I suppose it would be pragmatic to use it, but if it requires continued killing and harvesting of embryos to give treatment to adults, I think the treatment would be in the same category as the research.

Conclusion

Well, this discussion quickly devolved from simply discussing embryonic stem cells to rights of the unborn. I think that is fairly normal for the issue, though, because some people lump all unborn together with no rights, and others lump them together with all the rights of a person. And since the people opposed to embryonic stem cell research do it based on opposition to abortion, abortion and then miscarriages are always part of the discussion.

I do have trouble ethically with farming embryos because it seems like a slippery slope to having people farms, but I am sure that I would harvest all of them to save my kid.

I am perfectly willing to accept a gradation of rights, similar to Roe sets out, but the position that life and rights begin at birth is untenable given the change in science and viability of the fetus.

Viable fetus to me means able to live outside the womb without extraordinary care. Extraordinary care would be care that is never needed for a full term baby. So, I would include respirators and incubators, blood transfusions and medicines, but not reimplantation in another mother or life in a petri dish.

I believe that the earliest living person was born after 24 weeks of gestation, so for me, that is the point of viability. Abortion after that point is infanticide, but beforehand it is something different…what I don't yet know.

It is an emotional argument. At what point during your wife's pregnancy do you believe that the creature in there has a right to exist. I don't know when life begins, but I would err on the side of choosing too early rather than choosing too late.

And what do we do when we find that stem cells from a fetus at 20 weeks gestation are best for curing disease, rather than embryonic stem cells? Do we say that is okay, since they are not viable? I suppose some people will believe that up until birth it is okay. Since we can abort up to the moment of birth, why can't we grow these fetuses for organ replacement? They have no rights, after all.

So, perhaps the best argument against the research is that stem cells are a slippery slope to human farming, because the same arguments people are using for harvesting cells from aborted embryos goes for aborted viable fetuses as well. But if the pro-choice side would bend and agree that there is a difference between the legal status of an embryo at 14 days and a fetus at 14 weeks, perhaps we could make progress on this issue.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Life Skills Lesson of the Day

It is not too late to quit

Whatever it is that you are doing, it is not too late to quit. Most of you are unhappy or bored, so quitting will make you feel free and unburdened. But even if you currently enjoy what you are doing, you won't like it forever, so quit before you hate it.

Sometimes you may in fact complete something where it would seem that it is too late to quit (such as once you graduate from college, you can no longer quit). But what you can quit is pursuing the ends you had in mind that drove you to college in the first place. So if you were looking for a husband, quit. If you were pursuing the opportunity to make the world better or yourself rich, quit.

So, don't despair, you can quit. Each and every one of you should choose to quit today. It is okay to start at small, like "I will quit using my turn signals." As you get better at it, you will be able to quit larger and more important things, such as "I will quit paying my bills," or "I will quit breathing."

So, just remember, quitting is hard, and requires practice, but anything worth doing is worth the effort to do well.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Filibuster of Judicial Nominees

One point that I heard on C-Span that made sense to me re: the judicial filibuster is that there is no negotiation available on a confirmation vote. Unlike legislation, which can be negotiated and watered down to be acceptable to the minority, or amended to include some pork for the filibusterers, there is no similar option on appointments, it is simply yes or no. There is no negotiated conclusion to the filibuster possible, so you are simply stuck with minority veto.

In that context, then, I think that filibusters against nominees is an abuse of power and an abuse of the filibuster, because it is thwarting the will of the majority of Senators.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Illegal Immigrants Bringing Disease and Crime To Our Shores

Illegal immigrants are bringing new and exotic diseases to the American Continent. Additionally, legal residents often have little or no immunity to the diseases these immigrants are bringing.

In addition to disease, these immigrants are taking jobs and land from native born citizens, and are blamed for the introduction of gun crime to many areas. While generally illiterate, most make no effort to learn the native language here. Many also maintain allegiance to foreign leaders, represent violent and oppressive religions, and have no interest nor understanding about protecting the environment.

In addition to smallpox, plague, and flu, all of which wiped out much of the native population, the new immigrants are bringing drugs such as alcohol and tea that are capturing and destroying generations of the native population.

Conservative groups are calling for a restoration of the borders, and have organized into vigilante bands to send all Europeans back to their homes.


World News Daily Dateline, 1693...

Can Enviro-Lawsuits Force Carbon Dioxide Controls?

There are currently several lawsuits trying to impose carbon dioxide controls on the federal government and energy producers.  Can these suits win? 

Federal courts in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco heard arguments in two cases last month that challenge the failure of federal agencies to address global warming. One of the suits takes on the Environmental Protection Agency for not regulating carbon dioxide emissions; the other targets the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for funding fossil-fuel projects without assessing the environmental impact. A third case, brought by eight states last summer against five major electric utilities, argues that the companies' carbon dioxide emissions are a public nuisance because they trigger global warming and attendant effects like heat waves and beach erosion. Finally, the Arctic Inuit have announced plans to challenge the United States over global warming before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an action that could lay the groundwork for a future trip to court.

http://www.slate.com/id/2119312/

Even if these plaintiffs can show causation, they also need to show that the injunctive relief they are seeking is a solution to the problem. I think this is the hardest part of their challenge.

For one, the cost of the controls must be commensurate with the gains. If the United States reduces Carbon Dioxide levels to the 1979 output while increasing in population by almost 25% during that period (which is what I think is the effect of Kyoto when fully implemented), we will have less available affordable power, and it will necessarily mean that we are not investing resources in other areas that could be more efficient uses of capital for global problems. I think Plaintiffs will have to show that the injunction is a better use for resources than whatever the government in doing with those resources. I don't think simply reducing carbon dioxide is an effective solution given the cost (and even Greenpeace seems to argue that a full implementation of Kyoto will only delay global warming by about 5 years, not solve it).

Another thing we know for sure is that when we regulate our environment, we export the damage we cause to other countries. The plaintiffs should have to show that the regulation won't simply move the harm out of the US, because the global problem is not solved by exporting it.

Normally, the environmental hazard we export has minimal impact on the US, because it stays more or less where it was made. In the case of Carbon Dioxide, however, we do feel the impact of it because it effects the entire globe. The cheap goods we buy from China were produced from power made in coal fired plants with no controls at all. Exporting global warming is not a solution that should pass the court.

I think there has to be a rational balance in our regulation to ensure that we protect our people and our environment, but not at the expense of other people and places. Carbon dioxide is a good place to start, because exporting the production does not really protect our people at all.

So instead of simply exporting our harm, the plaintiffs should find a better use for the investment dollars.

I think an example of a better solution to global warming would be population control rather than controlling carbon dioxide directly.

The number one pollution issue on earth is the sheer number of people living. We need to control this growth and reduce numbers if we are to survive on this planet.

All green issues, from green house gasses, fossil fuel availability, depletion of fisheries, destruction of the rain forest, to the need for GM foods are due to the growing population on earth. We need to push our leaders to control populations, starting here at home, and then as part of foreign policy everywhere. We need to find a way to step away from the "tragedy of the commons" and make individual parents feel the price of their decisions to have kids.

The cost of controlling population would probably be cheaper than direct controls on carbon dioxide, would solve more problems than just global warming, and might actually be effective.

Friday, May 20, 2005

United States Missing Key Opportunity for War

Why doesn't the United States take advantage of the teen angst like the Islamists do?

It seems to me that we know that suicide is a leading cause of death for teens. Islamists take advantage of this by telling these teens that it is God calling them to kill infidels.
Instead of using psychologists to try (and fail) to fix this defect, why don't we sieze the opportunity and send these people over seas to blow up terrorist cells? They are going to die anyway, we might as well get some value out of it.

I am seeing the United States Suicide Corps (one step up from USMC) where we tell these kids that the desire they feel is God calling for sacrifice, and that in heaven there will be skateboards, videogames, and starlets waiting for them.

We can see the value afforded by having followers apparently willing to kill themselves for the cause. Lets jump on the bandwagon and use some losers too.

Pepsi's Brilliant Marketing Plan

Recently the president of Pepsi Co., Indra Nooyi made the bold move to try and separate Pepsi Co from the US foreign policy for its dwindling foreign sales. Faced with new islamic competitors in areas from Britian to Kuwait and anti-american sentiment everywhere, Pepsi needs to find a way to compete. Given that Coca Cola is forever connected with the United States in the same way McDonalds is, Pepsi has an opportunity to capture foreign sales that Coca Cola loses. Pepsi merely has to take a stand against the US.

Apparently in her speech, Nooyi compared the US to the middle finger that is being shown to the world because of all the evil that is perpetrated by our nation. It has not yet picked up a lot of air time, but I suspect that it will. As an attempt to preempt the backlash, Nooyi posted this message on pepsico.com:

A message from PepsiCo's President & CFO, Indra Nooyi
Following my remarks to the graduating class of Columbia University’s Business School in New York City, I have come to realize that my words and examples about America unintentionally depicted our country negatively and hurt people.

I appreciate the honest comments that have been shared with me since then, and am deeply sorry for offending anyone. I love America unshakably – without hesitation – and am extremely grateful for the opportunities and support our great nation has always provided me.

Over the years I’ve witnessed and advised others how a thoughtless gesture or comment can hurt good, caring people. Regrettably, I’ve proven my own point. Please accept my sincere apologies.

– Indra Nooyi


It will be interesting to see if the gamble works for Pepsi. Will they gain more foreign sales than they lose in the United States? Will foreign purchasers buy the obvious marketing ploy in greater numbers than Americans condemn the ploy?

My bet is that this will be a total failure that will cripple Pepsi for the next two years.

Women in Combat

Having served in both all male and mixed units, I can tell you that women are not the equivalent of men when it comes to military tasks. It is not disparaging to note the obvious. These same women were generally dedicated, smart, and hardworking, but many things in the army require brute strength, and women simply do not have it. One study the army did showed that after one year of dedicated working out, 3 hours a day with expert supervision, the average woman can attain 70% of the strength of a man who does not work out. It is not good enough to replace a male soldier with a female soldier that can not do the same job, not to mention that no one has 3 hours a day to work out when they have other duties to learn and train on.

I can note many examples, but suffice it to say that in the experiments where they would have units that were all women, they were combat ineffective. In contrast, all male units excel. For example, while women serve in Patriot Missile Batteries, and are perfectly capable of watching the screen, they are generally much slower and less capable of setting up the missile site to begin with: Some of the cables that are run from the command post to the missiles weigh close to 100 pounds alone. The battery is much less useful if it can not be set up quickly and efficiently.

To be fair, that is because the army and its tools are designed for men. Items that are designated "one man lift" are really meaning "man." If the army was designed to be populated by women and take advantage of some of their natural abilities such as flexibility and smaller stature, our equipment would be significantly different, perhaps smaller tanks, for example.But the fact is the army is not designed for women, and they do not perform as well as men at key tasks requiring strength, and should not be placed in a position where their weakness gets themselves or someone else killed whenever possible.

One of the problems with the PC army is that every General gets approved by the Senate, and the chances of a General getting promoted to the next rank or assignment after discussing this topic honestly is pretty bleak. For example, before women could be mechanics, mechanics had to be able to carry their tools 100 meters to get to the broken truck, as a performance standard. Since women could not do that, they simply did away with the requirement and now the broken vehicle has to get to the mechanic.When women first were given the opportunity to go to airborne school, they had to meet the male standards. Later, they decided that women could meet separate standards. Later still, they reduced the male standards to the female standards (for the run times) so that there was not a segregated training environment. I can understand that this is not the fault of individual women and that those that can meet the standards should be given the opportunity, but I believe that the number of women who could meet the same standards as men and choose to do it (rather than being an olympic level track star) would be so remotely small that the cost of integration is simply not worth it.

In the units I commanded, I would have generally preferred to be a man short rather than fill that position with a woman, because she would not be the equivalent, and the unit cohesion would often be reduced simply because the males get tired of doing her work...while being a man short they can more easily understand why they have more work to do.

And as to whether it is appropriate to discuss it now while women are serving in a war, it seems to me that now is when it has to be discussed, because those women are over there, and it may be that they should not be in the positions they are in...I think we can just recall that most famous female soldier, Jessica Lynch, who could not even fire her own weapon: She herself did not fire a shot and spent most of her time in the humvee huddled in a protective ball to want to have an honest debate over whether this is the best use of people.

For example, taking some of the males out of the cushy remf jobs and putting them at the front would maximize the assets that the army has, provide meaningful work where the females would be equal to the task, and provide the frontline with soldiers more likely to be able to accomplish the mission.

I would rather have a male homosexual in the foxhole with me than a draftee, and I would rather have a male draftee than a woman, because the men would be physicaly capable of doing the job.In general, the women that I have met that are close to being as strong as the average man can not run as fast, and women who can run fast are not as strong. I have not met one woman who could do both, though I would bet that Jackie Joyner Kersey could, but she is an olympic athlete.

I agree that there are things such as tolerance that women can do better, but there is no point in designing our military around those tolerances, because the vast majority will still be male. Therefore the equipment that we have will need to be designed for the lower male capability or frailties. So, women can't capitalize on those talents, and testing for them may be interesting, but of no military value.

The sliding scale within the military has always bothered me, where on the physical fitness test the older you are the worse you can do. I would think that there would be a minimum standard for all, though perhaps a sliding scale for excellence. But I don't really need the test to tell me that when I see 3 women carrying one box designed to be carried by one man, that whatever standards they are held to is not the standard we need.

What is the point of the Army?

When we were not at war, social experiments were tolerable. We all laughed as our scouts learned to look for porta-potties because that would be a sign of females, and therefore a higher headquarters to attack. They could even estimate the number of people at the headquaters by counting the number of potties, and some could slip in and look at the delivery date and see how long the unit has been there, and when they are leaving (or in war look at the pile, and estimate how long they have been there). When 1/3 of the females in one of my units were non-deployable because of pregnancy at any given time (increasing the burden on the males in a much more direct way than if they just were not assigned there), it was a pain, but not life or death. When 100% of the women would fall out of unit runs (which are at a pace such that the old men can make it) and none of the males, we would make excuses.

Now we are in a period of probably unending war for a decade or more, and we need to be more serious about the standards we are enforcing. We are already doing that with commissioning, and we are kicking out cadets who would have been commissioned in 1999, because we don't have the luxury of giving a marginal cadet the opportunity to grow as a platoon leader, becuase he may very likely be deployed in less than a year.

I know that it is easy to point and say many of the same arguments were made about a segregated army, but the difference is that 25 years into the social experiment with desegregation, we had men of all races who were capable of meeting equal standards. 25 years into this social experiment, we do not have women who are capable of meeting the same standards.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Abortion and the Gay Gene

There is potential that some day, we will be able to identify a "gene" that indicates whether someone is gay or not. It is also possible that this gene could be identified prior to birth.

I think this possibility opens up an interesting question, which is whether it would be okay to abort children based on whether they have this gene.

It seems to me that in order to support abortion at all, one would first have to believe that the fetus is not a person and has no rights. If so, the reason one aborts is essentially immaterial, and selecting kids based on health, sex, or eye color is perfectly rational. I suppose there are some who would argue there are some children so deformed or sick that abortion is the humane answer, but I think that is only a rational answer if you also support euthanasia for after birth. Regardless, the majority of Americans support abortion during the first tri-mester for any reason or no reason, so choosing at that time based on orientation would presumably be permissible in the eyes of most.

But there are some who are against abortion in all situations. Generally, these people are very religious, and often conservative. Presumably these people still would not abort "gay gene" kids anymore than they would abort any other kid.

I think that if a gay gene is identified, there might be many people who believe abortion is okay who might selectively abort gay children, much the same way that Chinese parents abort their females.

I wonder if we would have a situation where mostly conservative religious families would be raising gay children, because many less conservative parents chose to select their child's sexual orientation?

And would those conservative families still try to "cure" thier kids, even when faced with a "gene" that causes the behavior? Still better than losing the ability to exist, I would bet.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Hugging: More Dangerous Gateway than Pot

Hugging may be harmless by itself...but it is a gateway affectionate activity that leads to harder affectionate activity. Every baby started with hugging. If we prevent the hugging, the unwanted pregnancies will be reduced.

Pot, on the other hand, is only the gateway to twinkies..Twinkies don't get you pregnant, they just make you look that way...

Do you want your kids pregnant? Shouldn't we concentrate on stopping this activity rather than twinkie sales?

Hugging, can be attributed to being the gateway to 98% of all unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions in America: Hugging = infanticide.

Pass national legislation now to stop the hugging!

More from Newsweek

Newsweek:

A high administration official who wishes to remain anonymous has confirmed that the toilet paper in U.S. military rations does in fact have key verses from the Koran printed on each sheet. Soldiers are encouraged to burn the waste once they are finished using the paper. Some soldiers have complained that the ink comes off the paper when wet, and blame the "lowest bidder" model for contracting.

Newsweek Fall Out Continues

AP:
The apparent error by Newsweek in reference to the Koran being flushed down a toilet in the American prison at Guantanamo Bay Cuba continues to have international repercussions. In addition to deadly riots and angry denunciations by Muslim countries, Newsweek itself is beginning to feel the heat.

Several scholars have spent the last 48 hours reviewing numerous inflammatory reports by Newsweek, and while most were "inconclusive" as to whether they were fabricated, several were put in the likely category.

The most inflammatory article, published December 3rd, 2004, claimed that children of terror suspects were being burned at the stake, and the flames were fed by shredded versions of the Koran. Newsweek attributed the claim to Under-Secretary John Bolton, who now denies any knowledge of the incident. Experts claim that it was unlikely Bolton was involved in any burnings, since his method of choice is to drown children.

Newsweek has refused comment, other than to say "they are investigating the allegations."

Friday, May 13, 2005

Democrats responsible for pension failures

Democrats are responsible for the inability of unionized companies be able to continue to pay on their pension benefits, like the ariline and automotive industries. They are responsible because they do two things: they increase the costs of US production with labor and environmental regulations, and then do not support unionized american companies by buying their products.

It is so paradoxical that Republicans are more likely to buy US made union vehicles than Democrats. Republicans are painted as the heartless money people, but in fact will purchase American vehicles for patriotic reasons. Democrats make it too expensive to produce in the US, and then buy foreign vehicles leaving their union brethren with no jobs.

The Democratic party needs to be serious about buying union and buying American.

Bolton Shoots Self in Foot, Nomination in Trouble

AP Breaking News:

New allegations against the Bush Administration's nominee for UN Ambassador John Bolton have seriously hampered Mr. Bolton's chances of being confirmed even with the current Republican grip on power.

Mr. Bolton was asked about the impact of recent riots due to a copy of the Quran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In response, Bolton said "why shouldn't the Quran go in the toilet? I have been using it for toilet paper for years...and it can join the goddamn Constitution that you leftists and democrats have been shitting on for generations."

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist said that while this is the type of tough talk necessary to reform the UN, the milque-toast moderates were likely to kill the nomination.

Rules to Live By: General Rule # 1.

As a general rule, I think women trying to understand men must be like these four dimensional Celestial beings trying to understand a two dimensional comic strip character, searching for meaning, planning, or thought beyond what is apparent in the strip...It really does not go that deep for most men.

ACLU defends Separation of Church and State

AP News release:

ACLU Targets Arlington National Cemetary

Washington D.C.: According to a news release received from the Washington D.C. chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and endorsed by the several "Separation of Church and State" organizations, a lawsuit was filed Friday demanding that the cemetary prove that each individual person buried under a religious symbol chose this symbol in writing. The ACLU apparently has appropriated the language of the Terry Schiavo case to apply "living Wills" to after death symbology.

The case is brought in the name of Corporal James Danforth Totten, killed while fighting in Fallujah, Iraq, in October 2004. Totten left a will asking to be buried in Arlington Cemetary, but requesting that a symbol acknowledging his religion mark his grave. The Park Service at Arlington National Cemetary balked at placing a "Wizard's Hat" on the grave, arguing that it would violate the space and tranquility of the cemetary. They offered the Totten Estate a choice between a cross, star of David, and a crescent.

The ACLU suit is intended to see if this procedure has been used to prevent other wiccans, wizards, and nutjobs from getting the symbols that they most believed in incorporated into the cemetary to mark their "personal religious preference." For relief, the ACLU has asked that all religious markers be removed from the cemetary.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Free Speech and Campus Discrimination

(anyone who has read this blog a lot may recognize parts of this argument, but it is a new "mix.")

The Law School law suits against military recruiting are not really about free speech. The lie about the free speech "gay rights" argument is that the ABA rules require banning discriminating employers for accreditation (though it is currently "interpreted" to allow lawful discrimination). Law schools that would want to allow the military to stay will have to ban them in order to keep accreditation from the ABA. Without the Solomon Amendment, there would still be no "freedom," it would just be the ABA deciding the policy for all of the schools. And before we talk about the ABA being private and therefore different from government requirements, almost all states require ABA accreditation in order to sit for the bar exam, so it would still be state action, only this time requiring that the military be banned.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter2.html

Standard 210. EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
(a) A law school shall foster and maintain equality of opportunity in legal education, including employment of faculty and staff, without discrimination or segregation on ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.
(b) A law school may not use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.
(c) The denial by a law school of admission to a qualified applicant is treated as made upon the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation if the ground of denial relied upon is (1) a state constitutional provision or statute that purports to forbid the admission of applicants to a school on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation; or (2) an admissions qualification of the school which is intended to prevent the admission of applicants on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation though not purporting to do so.
(d) The denial by a law school of employment to a qualified individual is treated as made upon the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation if the ground of denial relied upon is an employment policy of the school which is intended to prevent the employment of individuals on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation though not purporting to do so.
(e) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affiliation or purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of faculty and staff which directly relate to this affiliation or purpose so long as (i) notice of these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their affiliation with the law school, and (ii) the religious affiliation, purpose, or policies do not contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom. These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affiliation or purpose of the law school, but shall not be applied to use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation. This Standard permits religious policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that they are protected by the United States Constitution. It is administered as if the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application.
(f) Equality of opportunity in legal education includes equal opportunity to obtain employment. A law school should communicate to every employer to whom it furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement functions the school's firm expectation that the employer will observe the principle of equal opportunity and will avoid objectionable practices such as(1) refusing to hire or promote members of groups protected by this policy because of the prejudices of clients or of professional or official associates; (2) applying standards in the hiring and promoting of these individuals that are higher than those applied otherwise; (3) maintaining a starting or promotional salary scale as to these individuals that is lower than is applied otherwise; and(4) disregarding personal capabilities by assigning, in a predetermined or mechanical manner, these individuals to certain kinds of work or departments.Interpretation 210-1:Schools may not require applicants, students, or employees to disclose their sexual orientation, although they may provide opportunities for them to do so voluntarily. (August 1994; August 1996)
Interpretation 210-2:This Standard does not require a law school to adopt policies or take actions that would violate federal law applicable to that school. (August 1994; August 1996)Interpretation 210-3:As long as a school complies with the requirements of Standard 210(e), the prohibition concerning sexual orientation does not require a religiously affiliated school to act inconsistently with the essential elements of its religious values and beliefs. For example, it does not require a school to recognize or fund organizations whose purposes or objectives with respect to sexual orientation conflict with the essential elements of the religious values and beliefs held by the school. (August 1994; August 1996)
Interpretation 210-4:Standard 210(f) applies to all employers, including government agencies, to whom a school furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement services. However, this Standard does not require a law school to implement its terms by excluding any employer unless that employer discriminates unlawfully. (August 1994; August 1996)


That interpretation is based solely on the existence and threat of the Solomon Amendment. The plain words of the ABA requirement is that law schools must prevent discriminatory employers from having access to students through their placement services.

And even if it is true that the ABA won't change the "interpretation" of the plain words of its rule, we are still in a position where a private organization will have the ability to exclude military recruiters from campuses using state pressure for the bar exam, including on taxpayer funded campuses.

Plus, the military has policies that discriminate based on many things, not just sexual orientation. You can't be too old, too young, too fat, too thin, too sick, color blind, too weak, too dumb, physically or mentally handicapped, need medication such as ritalin, and for many jobs, female. Someone with asthma but no overt symptoms can be excluded solely based on one doctor's note in medical records. You can even be discriminated against for serving too long, or not getting promoted fast enough. Most of the above areas will not prevent a lawyer from doing his job well, and therefore can not be supported as legitimate reasons to exclude.

For example, why wouldn't the policy implications of the American's with Disabilities Act be equally applicable to the military? There is nothing about the general duties of a JAG attorney that should preclude service, other members of the military can be "non-deployable" and not separated and have a profile against physical training, and reasonable accomodation is the law of the land for all other employment. The Army is currently sending amputees back to combat, but a wheelchair bound attorney can't join and serve as a military lawyer. Why don't the Law Schools go after this issue as well? It still violates their own anti-discrimination policies.

I think that the law schools need to be more intellectually honest about discrimination policies. Discrimination is either wrong, and they should attack the military on all fronts where it discriminates and not just one pet area ...or admit that this is merely politics, not about what is "right."

Incarnation of Evil: Born or Made

Evil comes from the corrupting influence of power, the need to protect that power, the inability of truth to speak to power and the subsequent isolation of the powerful, and it is something that can therefore "happen" gradually over time. I would imagine that is what happened to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, and Darth Vader as they increased power, and associates were no longer able to be honest with them.

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

What are the Chances that they Meant It?

Now that the Bush administration has won its case on the Energy Task Force, and protected the Executive's right to unvarnished advice, do you think they will release the information? Wasn't their argument that they had to resist to protect the privilege, not this specific information? Now that it is protected, they can release it, right?

Monday, May 09, 2005


Worldwide Oil Reserves
Antagonist

Mercury Poisoning and Cost Shifting

Is Bush wrong to delay the reduction in Mercury emissions in US powerplants? Doesn't this shift the burden from the power plants to those harmed by the emissions?

If it was true that reducing the emissions from US power lants would aid people, it would be a cost shift to have that cost stay with the recipient rather than the polluter. I don't think that is true.

Along with Cost shifting, we have to be cognizant of Cost-benefit. If the US eliminates entirely its Mercury emissions, it will not be a significant reduction in world wide mercury emissions, and it is the accumulation of mercury in predatory ocean fish that are the biggest health concern:

Almost all exposure to mercury comes from eating fish. Americans get their fish from a variety of sources from all over the world. Understanding fish consumption patterns is crucial to a more complete picture of the health benefits of reducing emissions from U.S. power plants. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/ inquiry.htm

Approximately 75 tons of mercury are found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually. This 25-ton reduction is achieved in the power plant boilers and through existing pollution controls such as fabric filters (for particulate matter), scrubbers (for SO 2) and SCRs (for NOx). As more scrubbers and SCRs are installed to comply with the Clean Air Interstate Rule and other regulations, mercury emissions are expected to decrease. This multipollutant approach is central to the Agency's plan to reduce mercury from power plants.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/ index.htm

Recent estimates, which are highly uncertain, of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources, natural and anthropogenic, are about 4,400 to 7,500 metric tons emitted per year. The world map and the pie chart below provide information about the worldwide distribution of mercury emissions. ...

The U.S. in the Global ContextU.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly three percent of the global total, and emissions from the U.S. power sector are estimated to account for about one percent of total global emissions. (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Chemicals, Global Mercury Assessment, Geneva, 2002.).EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Current estimates are that about half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources. However there are regional differences in these numbers. For example, U.S. sources represent a greater fraction of the total deposition in the Northeast because of the direction of the prevailing winds.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/contr...ions/

Emissions of mercury to the air from anthropogenic (human-caused emissions) sources have fallen by more than 45% since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These amendments provided new authority to EPA to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants to the air. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/contr...s/

So we have already had a 45% reduction, which presumably accounts for the cheap reduction, and the additional reduction that is called for will be more expensive with no real benefit, since the vast majority of the pollution effecting fish comes from other countries. I do not see this as being a good example of Bush administration cost-shifting. I see it more like a rational delay due to the cost providing no discernible benefit.

And since the Clinton EPA did not create the rule Bush is changing until December 2000 as it was packing its bags, I do not think that it was ever intended to be good policy. If it was a good policy, Clinton had 8 years to implement it.

And finally, doesn't this get us back to the issue of exporting our environmental harm? By creating additional costs for power here, we increase the benefit of importing merchandise that was made without those regulations? We can see that effect in many industries, from oil exploration to chemical production to ship decomissioning.

Normally, the environmental hazard we export has minimal impact on the US, because it stays more or less where it was made. In the case of Mercury, however, we do feel the impact of it because it poisons the fish we eat. The cheap goods we buy from China were produced from power made in coal fired plants with no controls at all. I think India and China each produce 250 tons of mercury annually, much more than the US for much less power.

I think there has to be a rational balance in our regulation to ensure that we protect our people and our environment, but not at the expense of other people and places. Mercury is a good place to start, because exporting the production does not really protect our people at all.

My proposal would be that we have a comprehensive strategy that allows regulations to have impact and not harm either our economy or pollute foreign countries. It seems to me that we need to incorporate "buy American" and "buy Union" in our rhetoric to prevent exporting the environmental damage, and reduce exporting jobs. We discussed before about Walmart and unions, but few greens actually seem to buy union. Supporting unions begins with buying the products and services they sell. Supporting environmental regulations also begins with purchasing products manufactured under those regulations.

And I have also been thinking that some sort of trademark (like "Dolphin Safe") for imported goods that are manufactured under environmental and labor rules as stringent as those in the US would be a great way to incorporate globalization with green and labor friendly ideals. I actually think it would be a good business to start...

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Israelis v. Palestinians

Who is worse?

I think there is a difference between collateral damage and intended targets. Palestinian terrorists intend to kill as many jewish civilians as possible. Israel takes incredible steps to limit that damage when attacking a specific target. If the Palestinians had the Israeli power, the Israelis would not exist.

It is a provable assertion that Palestinians want Israel to cease existing, because it has been in the PLO platform since the beginning of that organization, and is still unapologetically the Hamas and Islamic Jihad position that Israel will be destroyed. On several occasions, Arab states have attacked Israel with the intent of wiping it out, while Israel, with the power to destroy all those in the Palestinian territories and most of their neighbors, do not do so. Unless the Palestinians are just joking...and really would be happy to let Israel exist.

Under the Geneva Conventions, forces have a duty to limit the amount of damage necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose. Killing the leadership of terrorist organizations is legitimate, and the Israelis do it with the least amount of force to accomplish the mission. So yes, they can reasonably believe that their actions will cause collateral damage, and so long as they do their best to limit that damage, it is a valid and legal use of force. In contrast, Palestinians seek out the softest targets they can find and try to kill as many as possible, including children. And they use their own children to carry out the attacks. There is no place in the conventions that allows this behavior.

Israelis have no duty to treat those who deny the right of existence for their nation as though it was simply a border dispute. Nor do they have to allow terrorists who hide in public spaces the ability to escape.

I simply do not believe it is even remotely close in legitimacy, legality, or morality. Israel is right to defend itself, Palestinians wrong to target children and civilians.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Britain Shifts Right, Likes War

The British elections indicate that far from being a referendum against the War, the British have shifted to the right and endorsed the war. The British could have voted for the Liberal Democrats, the party that was very anti-war from the beginning, or they could have voted for the Labour party, who thought they needed an excuse for the war (WMD's.) The biggest shift was away from the excuse party to the "we don't need no stinkin' excuse party." The Tories attacked Blair for lying about the WMD's, but said they would have endorsed the war even with out that excuse.

What accounts for the right ward shift of Britian, even in the face of this supposedly unpopular war? In the end, it can only be seen as an endorsement of war, anti-immigration, and anti-islamic sentiment.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Michael Schwartz: Patriotic Hero

The anti-war SUNY professor is a hero and patriot. He is known for espousing that the US should lose in Iraq, and in Fallujah in particular.

I think the guy is a patriot and a hero because he is taking an unpopular position that he apparently believes and is willing to take personal risk to espouse it. Unlike Churchill, he does not denigrate particular people (ie victims) in making his case. Also different from Churchill, I think Schwartz has a defensible (though wrong) position. It is defensible because if his premise is accurate (that the US action creates more danger than it solves) then his solution is better for America (because it will reduce future US action). This contrasts with Churchill, who seeks the downfall of America.

Without people like this professor who are willing to stand up and argue unpopular positions, we really would have a steamrolled population, and meaningless freedom of speech. He proves that America allows dissent, and he widens public discourse, even if he is wrong. Churchill did the opposite, by painting anyone who drifts out of the mainstrean as someone actively seeking the downfall of America.

That is why Schwartz is both a patriot (because he is trying to better America) and a hero (because he is doing so publicly with personal risk involved). And he can be both even when he is wrong with his solutions.

Those who attack him without addressing his arguments, however, are neither patriotic nor heros.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

People Magazine:

After the bawdy speech by First Lady Laura Bush at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, People Magazine was able to interview Barbara Bush, the First Lady of the United States under President George Herbert Walker Bush, the current President's father.

Barbara Bush, well known for being a polite, grandmotherly woman, was apparently not amused by her daughter-in-law's speech. During the "humorous" speech, Laura Bush compared her Mother-in-Law to a fascist, controlling, uber-mom, and her son as someone who practices bestiality and likes to masturbate horses. Barbara, in turn, said that she was willing to accept the comments as merely being a poor attempt at humor, and that she never really expected much better from the "Trailer Park bitch who should have been convicted of manslaughter long before she ruined poor George's life. And for God's sake, look at the little tramps she raised: they could have used an uber-mom."

http://people.May.06.bush.observations.htm

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

John Kerry's service revealed

CNN:WASHINGTON DC, by James Hardington.

During last year's presidential election campaign, a small but persistent group of detractors reiterated a request for full disclosure of John Kerry's military record. Among those who continued to follow-up on this request after the election was over, Meet the Press host Tim Russert was the most persistent. According to reports, John Kerry has finally signed the "Form 180" that the military requires to disclose military records. The disclosure is intended to occur on Meet the Press on Sunday.

According to sources, the most interesting information in the disclosure is that John Kerry was dishonorably discharged during the Nixon administration, which invalidated his medals and awards. It was not until the Carter administration that his record was reviewed and he was given a "correction" that gave him an honorable discharge and returned his medals.

Kerry additionally was recalled to active duty for secret missions along the Iraq-Iran border with the CIA during the Gulf War, resulting in seven more Purple Heart Awards.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/03/kerry.form180.ap/index.html

The Big Secret

AP Breaking News:

DNA tests conducted on the fallen of American's sons and daughters have shown a significant anomoly that has taken 6 months to verify prior to release. The potential result was so unlikely that additional tests were conducted, and all verifed the same answer. Using new imaging and mapping techniques, three separate labs (including the world leading Crimson Lab at Sierra Nevada) have corroborating data points indicating that the anomoly can only have one cause:

The tests have proven that Vice President Dick Cheney is the father of America's son's and daughters, and therefore has in fact been screwing America for decades.

Human population is the greatest pollution

The number one pollution issue on earth is the sheer number of people living. We need to control this growth and reduce numbers if we are to survive on this planet.

All green issues, from green house gasses, fossil fuel availability, depletion of fisheries, destruction of the rain forest, to the need for GM foods are due to the growing population on earth. We need to push our leaders to control populations, starting here at home. Close the borders, end child tax credits, and make people financially responsible for the children they bring into the world, even if it means taking out "child loans" from the government that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and take 30 years to pay off. Perhaps Norplant as part of the public school requirements for innoculations. We need to find a way to step away from the "tragedy of the commons" and make individual parents feel the price of their decisions to have kids.

Lets take control of the number one source of pollution and control it. The rest of the green issues will take care of themselves, if we step forward and take care of this one.

Links
The Antagonist's Reserve Drill Payment Calculator
 
 The Antagonist's 2005 Reserve Drill Payment Calculator

What is your pay grade?


What is your minimum Time in Service?

Enter the number of drill periods.

 Bible Search
Translation :



Search For :
Powered by : Antagonism on the Web
I'm poor.
It's official.
There are 39,597,565 richer people on earth!



How rich are you? >>