Ya gotta be kidding me! Another election, another fiasco!
Aren't these the folks that have been screaming at Fl for messing up their elections?
And now they are asking for federal intervention because of ballot irregularities?
I guess art really does imitate life imitating art........or whatever....
I think they should go with Melissa. She's cuter.
(Two sexists posts in one day. I better watch it!)
Thursday, February 07, 2002
Ya gotta be kidding me!
Woo hoo!
Woo hoo! Samizdata has a new blog on streaking which staggers the imagination.
I'm having trouble finding something wrong with that.....
In Maine two women have successfully defended themselves against the charge of public indecency. In seems that these two "streakers" were not breaking the law because no genitals were shown. Having done their research, the arresting officer was asked if he say any genitals. He said "no." Case dismissed, and the state of Maine has wasted oddles of money prosecuting two women for doing something college students have been doing since Rome. This does mean the law is sexist of course, because men's genitals are exposed they may not streak. You would almost think the law in Maine is encouraging women to streak.
I'm having trouble finding something wrong with that.....
OK, Here it is
OK, Here it is I haven't read all of Emerson's testimony yet, but I have read enough to comment on Sugg's article linked below.
Charges by Suggs/Extra/FAIR
1. ‘Emerson's most notorious gaffe was his claim that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible."’
Since Timothy McVeigh himself indicated that there was a larger group behind him, one that he would not comment further on, this claim may have some substance. We don’t know. The tactic of bombing highly populated gathering places is one favored by Islamic fundamentalists, as the WTC bombing and 9/11/01 shows.
2. “Among the Tribune's and Emerson's charges are that Muslims, while at the University of South Florida, were active Islamic Jihad commanders. Emerson told Congress: "One of the world's most lethal terrorist factions was based out of Tampa." If that's so, federal agents must have missed something. Although the FBI and INS have been searching for clues for more than three years, no charges have been filed.”
No comment required on this one, in the wake of the discoveries post 9/11/01.
3. “ Emerson popped an opinion piece into the Wall Street Journal (8/8/98), that attacked Clinton for ‘legitimizing self-declared 'civil rights' and 'mainstream' Islamic organizations that in fact operate as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements.’ ”
Hmmm. I seem to recall we froze the assets of many of those organizations after 9/11/01.
4. While Emerson makes incredible claims about Muslim conspiracies that purportedly intend to commit terrorism inside U.S. borders, he ignores the fact that far more of these American atrocities, such as the anti-abortion bombings and murders, are committed by apple-pie militant Christian fundamentalists.
From his testimony before congress on Feb 24, 1998:
“One. Foreign terrorists and extremists are no different than home grown terrorists and extremists. Terrorism is terrorism-no matter who carries it out. The threat from domestic terrorists who see the United States government from a paranoid lens is no less problematic than foreign terrorists view us in the same manner. As evidenced by the Oklahoma City bombing, bombings of abortion clinics, and other acts of terrorism, the ultra right wing militia, the Christian Identity Movement, Arian Nations, and neo-Nazis are intent on inflicting murder and mayhem against innocent civilians.”
So much for that claim
Charges by Suggs/Extra/FAIR
1. ‘Emerson's most notorious gaffe was his claim that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible."’
Since Timothy McVeigh himself indicated that there was a larger group behind him, one that he would not comment further on, this claim may have some substance. We don’t know. The tactic of bombing highly populated gathering places is one favored by Islamic fundamentalists, as the WTC bombing and 9/11/01 shows.
2. “Among the Tribune's and Emerson's charges are that Muslims, while at the University of South Florida, were active Islamic Jihad commanders. Emerson told Congress: "One of the world's most lethal terrorist factions was based out of Tampa." If that's so, federal agents must have missed something. Although the FBI and INS have been searching for clues for more than three years, no charges have been filed.”
No comment required on this one, in the wake of the discoveries post 9/11/01.
3. “ Emerson popped an opinion piece into the Wall Street Journal (8/8/98), that attacked Clinton for ‘legitimizing self-declared 'civil rights' and 'mainstream' Islamic organizations that in fact operate as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements.’ ”
Hmmm. I seem to recall we froze the assets of many of those organizations after 9/11/01.
4. While Emerson makes incredible claims about Muslim conspiracies that purportedly intend to commit terrorism inside U.S. borders, he ignores the fact that far more of these American atrocities, such as the anti-abortion bombings and murders, are committed by apple-pie militant Christian fundamentalists.
From his testimony before congress on Feb 24, 1998:
“One. Foreign terrorists and extremists are no different than home grown terrorists and extremists. Terrorism is terrorism-no matter who carries it out. The threat from domestic terrorists who see the United States government from a paranoid lens is no less problematic than foreign terrorists view us in the same manner. As evidenced by the Oklahoma City bombing, bombings of abortion clinics, and other acts of terrorism, the ultra right wing militia, the Christian Identity Movement, Arian Nations, and neo-Nazis are intent on inflicting murder and mayhem against innocent civilians.”
So much for that claim
He knew it! Why didn’t we listen?
He knew it! Why didn't we listen? A man named Steven Emerson predicted that Al quaida was active in America, and a major attack was immanent. For his trouble, he was banned from NPR. Why?
According to this report published by FAIR in their magazine EXTRA, Emerson was a bigot who hated Muslims and Arabs. Their primary evidence? He raved about Islamic terrorists operating within the US, planning to murder American citizens. Some of their evidence that he was a crackpot? Among other things, he stated that there was a large terrorist cell operating out of Fla, and that Islamic professors in Florida Universities had ties to terrorist organizations.
In light of the WTC attacks, maybe FAIR/Extra owes him an apology.
I'm still reading the report, and comparing it to Emerson's testimony at a congressional hearing on terrorism held Feb 1998, as well as one held Dec 4 2001. I'll write up and post what I find and we'll see if FAIR is really fair.
Place your bets!
According to this report published by FAIR in their magazine EXTRA, Emerson was a bigot who hated Muslims and Arabs. Their primary evidence? He raved about Islamic terrorists operating within the US, planning to murder American citizens. Some of their evidence that he was a crackpot? Among other things, he stated that there was a large terrorist cell operating out of Fla, and that Islamic professors in Florida Universities had ties to terrorist organizations.
In light of the WTC attacks, maybe FAIR/Extra owes him an apology.
I'm still reading the report, and comparing it to Emerson's testimony at a congressional hearing on terrorism held Feb 1998, as well as one held Dec 4 2001. I'll write up and post what I find and we'll see if FAIR is really fair.
Place your bets!
Too much of a good thing
Too much of a good thing The Red Cross can't win for losing, it appears. Slammed for not giving all the money away, now they are being slammed for giving it to the wrong people.
The difference is clear
The difference is clear Once again, the difference between the israelis and the PLO is demonstrated.
The two-hour assault marked the first time in 16 months of Israeli-Palestinian fighting that Israelis were killed in their home and further raised the nation's anxiety level. In response, Israeli F-16 warplanes fired two missiles at a government complex in the West Bank town of Nablus early Thursday, wounding 11 Palestinians.
After the air raid, 32 suspected Islamic militants were freed from prisons in Nablus and the West Bank town by Jenin, some by police and others by gunmen, to keep them out of harm's way.
What was he thinking?
What was he thinking? Now is probably the wrong time to try and see the cockpit, and it is certainly the wrong time to throw a tantrum. He's lucky the co-pilot used the blunt end of the ax.
Time to start keeping score.
Time to start keeping score. Debkafile, the site which claims to be "in the know" has predicted an upsurge in terror strikes, timed to occur while Sharon visit's the White House.
We'll see how accurate they are. While their record on predictions has been a little spotty, their coverage of the middle east certainly outperforms the alphabet networks.
Egyptian intelligence chief Gen. Omar Suleiman called on Yasser Arafat in Ramallah Tuesday, 6 February, with two warnings – one from the United States and one from Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Arafat was cautioned that if he launched a wave of terrorist attacks during Sharon’s absence, the Palestinians would find themselves confronting a whole new set of game rules.
Arafat smiled and promised every effort to keep the peace in the interests of the Palestinian people.
Exactly 24 hours after Gen. Suleiman left – and one hour before Sharon boarded the plane for Washington – Arafat gave the signal for the first of a deadly series of terror strikes against Israeli civilians.
We'll see how accurate they are. While their record on predictions has been a little spotty, their coverage of the middle east certainly outperforms the alphabet networks.
Wednesday, February 06, 2002
Reactors and Airplanes
Reactors and Airplanes TJ Buttrick writes on the safety of a nuclear reactor if it were hit with a large passenger jet. While the secondary containment wall may fail, there are several more layers of safety features to protect the public.
As an example, at 3-Mile Island, just about everything that could go wrong, did go wrong, including failure of the plant operators to recognize and react to the casualty properly. They completely uncovered their core, and allowed it to melt down. With all of this, the highest radiation dose received, even by the people operating the plant was about 15-20rem, the same as that received by a patient undergoing a heart catheterization. This level of exposure would not even cause radiation sickness.
Granted, if a plane cracked the secondary containment, then managed to rupture the primary containment, and managed to cause enough damage for a fuel element failure to occur, then there would be some exposure to the public. But the exposure would be on a scale of the above mentioned medical procedure, not Chernobyl or Hiroshima.
As an example, at 3-Mile Island, just about everything that could go wrong, did go wrong, including failure of the plant operators to recognize and react to the casualty properly. They completely uncovered their core, and allowed it to melt down. With all of this, the highest radiation dose received, even by the people operating the plant was about 15-20rem, the same as that received by a patient undergoing a heart catheterization. This level of exposure would not even cause radiation sickness.
Granted, if a plane cracked the secondary containment, then managed to rupture the primary containment, and managed to cause enough damage for a fuel element failure to occur, then there would be some exposure to the public. But the exposure would be on a scale of the above mentioned medical procedure, not Chernobyl or Hiroshima.
Guns don’t kill people,
Guns don't kill people, 11 year old boys do!
What can you say to this story? Having a gun and knowing how to use it saved two lives by taking a life. But I wonder about the boy, Caspar. How will he handle having taken a life? At 38, I don't know how I would handle it.
What can you say to this story? Having a gun and knowing how to use it saved two lives by taking a life. But I wonder about the boy, Caspar. How will he handle having taken a life? At 38, I don't know how I would handle it.
I stole this
Cloning again
Cloning again Charles Murtaugh writes a piece on cloning and the arguments against it. He claims that most arguments against cloning are a disguised attempt by pro-life forces to advance their agenda on abortion, then proceeds to deconstruct those arguments. Unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job.
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like, "I can't define humanity, but I know it when I see it!" This definition didn't work the last time it was tried. Probably shouldn't pull it out again.
In addition, Charles makes an unwarrented assumption, that genetically modified clones would be attributed human status. He asumes that the modifications would all be benign improvements. He fails to consider the possibility that a subclass of human could be engineered to serve as a slave class, strong, moderately intelligent, and servile. History has shown us that the impulse to enslave others is a universal human characteristic. This time, there would be no moral qualms about it, because we could legitimately say that the slaves were born to be slaves. Yes, this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but I have yet to see anybody put up anything even suggesting that this was not a likelihood.
Once again, a wrong assumption. The discussion is about therapeutic cloning, since it is acjnowledged that the public is not interested in repoductive cloning. Why bother framing an argument for a moot point?
OK Charles, why? What is the problem with allowing parents to clone a child who died in a car accident? What is the ethical basis for denying a woman the right to get pregnant by herself, without relying on a donor? You know, privacy and all that?
The only arguments against reproductive cloning continue to be the same ones used against therapeutic cloning.
You'll have to do better than that.
By framing "humanity" in terms of genetic makeup, though, Smith paints himself into an ethical corner. What if, many years from now, people are able to modify their genes, or the genes of their offspring, such that they deviate far from the human norm? This isn't something I look forward to, mind you, but it features in lots of science fiction. Would a person with wings or gills still be a human being according to Smith? What about a functioning human brain plugged into a computer, or somehow grafted onto a monkey? I assume that Smith would, grimacing, admit that such grotesques still have a "right to life" not enjoyed by, say, cows or dogs, in spite of their physical/genetic distance from what we today consider human. This right must derive from moral intuition, our ability to recognize personhood in our fellow man (or man/monkey hybrid), not from a rationalistic, scientific formula.
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like, "I can't define humanity, but I know it when I see it!" This definition didn't work the last time it was tried. Probably shouldn't pull it out again.
In addition, Charles makes an unwarrented assumption, that genetically modified clones would be attributed human status. He asumes that the modifications would all be benign improvements. He fails to consider the possibility that a subclass of human could be engineered to serve as a slave class, strong, moderately intelligent, and servile. History has shown us that the impulse to enslave others is a universal human characteristic. This time, there would be no moral qualms about it, because we could legitimately say that the slaves were born to be slaves. Yes, this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but I have yet to see anybody put up anything even suggesting that this was not a likelihood.
Second, Smith's focus on the fate of embryos misses the whole point of what makes cloning different from abortion, why a vast majority of Americans opposes it. Embryos schmembryos; people are worried about how cloned babies, cloned adults, would affect family life, affect the structure of society, affect the very trajectory of the human race. Implicit in his argument is the following astonishing point: if therapeutic cloning were banned, but reproductive cloning could proceed in a 100% efficient manner (i.e. no loss of manipulated embryos), he would have no reason to oppose it!
Once again, a wrong assumption. The discussion is about therapeutic cloning, since it is acjnowledged that the public is not interested in repoductive cloning. Why bother framing an argument for a moot point?
I remain relatively agnostic about abortion, but I know full well that I'm against reproductive cloning, and I'm joined in that position by a majority of Americans.
OK Charles, why? What is the problem with allowing parents to clone a child who died in a car accident? What is the ethical basis for denying a woman the right to get pregnant by herself, without relying on a donor? You know, privacy and all that?
The only arguments against reproductive cloning continue to be the same ones used against therapeutic cloning.
- Efficacy. We really aren't all that good at it.
- Safety. The failure rate is unacceptibly high.
Both of the above will be corrected by advances in the technology
- The Eeewwwww factor, also known as moral squeamishness.
You'll have to do better than that.
Child Safety Part II
Child Safety Part II In this piece from Fox, the issues I addressed below are examined in greater detail.
Sounds like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
An obese girl is yanked from her parents in Arizona. A New York couple loses custody of their son because they refuse to drug him with Ritalin. A Colorado boy is stripped and examined by school officials because he said he'd been spanked one morning. A Christian mother loses her daughter for teaching forgiveness.
Prudent precaution on the part of America's child protective services agencies or proof positive of a system run amok?
Activists lay part of the blame for what critics call a "frantic kidnapping frenzy" on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, legislation that rewards states with cash "bonuses" of $4,000-$6,000 per kid and other windfalls for each child permanently adopted out of foster care.
The law was intended to prevent children from languishing in foster care. In addition to the bonuses, the ASFA also removed protections for parental rights and made getting families back together a priority. Under the new law, though, states have much more leeway in deciding whether their social workers made a "reasonable effort" to reunite a family.
Nev Moore, founder of the Massachusetts-based Justice For Families, said states need a steady supply of adoption-eligible kids to keep the federal dollars flowing. In some states, social workers are even paid individual cash bonuses for each child they take into custody.
Sounds like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Well, what did they expect
Well, what did they expect? NPR brought Gene Simmons on to promote his book. The interview went as anybody with half an inkling of what KISS was all about would expect.
Too bad NPR won't print the transcript.
Too bad NPR won't print the transcript.
Religious freedom vs Child Safety
Religious freedom vs Child Safety This story raises two very thorny issues.
The answer to the first question should be "No," unless the parent has legally abdicated his or her responsibilities. In that case, the state would have the duty to find the best possible parents for the child. But what gives the state the right to intervene in a case where the parents have not abdicated their responsibilities? I agree that in cases of abuse or neglect, the child has to be protected, but where does this authority come from, and who gets to decide, and what criteria are used? This authority is too nebulous right now, especially given the impact it can have.
For the second question, let's just assume that the right of the state exists, and is well defined. What is the balancing point between the right of the state to protect the interests of the minor, and the right of the parent to freely practice their religion? The parent in me says that any practice which endangers the welfare of the child is grounds for intervention. The libertarian in me says that the "wall of separation" extends in both directions, and cannot be breached by the government any more than it can by religion. So, where is the balance?
I know that personally, I would say that starving a child because you believe god told you to is grounds for intervention, but that witholding medical treatment for illness, even a fatal one, is not. I cannot give sound reasons why I feel this way, just acting according to my conscience.
- Does the state have the right to determine the fitness of a parent?
- If so, when does this right trump the constitutional guarantee for free practice of religion?
The answer to the first question should be "No," unless the parent has legally abdicated his or her responsibilities. In that case, the state would have the duty to find the best possible parents for the child. But what gives the state the right to intervene in a case where the parents have not abdicated their responsibilities? I agree that in cases of abuse or neglect, the child has to be protected, but where does this authority come from, and who gets to decide, and what criteria are used? This authority is too nebulous right now, especially given the impact it can have.
For the second question, let's just assume that the right of the state exists, and is well defined. What is the balancing point between the right of the state to protect the interests of the minor, and the right of the parent to freely practice their religion? The parent in me says that any practice which endangers the welfare of the child is grounds for intervention. The libertarian in me says that the "wall of separation" extends in both directions, and cannot be breached by the government any more than it can by religion. So, where is the balance?
I know that personally, I would say that starving a child because you believe god told you to is grounds for intervention, but that witholding medical treatment for illness, even a fatal one, is not. I cannot give sound reasons why I feel this way, just acting according to my conscience.
