After Harriet Miers
Posted on December 9, 2009, under National Politics.
Earlier today President Bush reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers’ withdrawal from the confirmation process. It shows he really can back away from a mistake. Over at the Volokh Conspiricy there’s already discussion of the next nominee. But what about Bush’s state of mind? I see three ways he can go from here, Stubborn, Petulant and Thoughtful.
Stubborn Bush will now follow up by picking a tougher crony to hand it to. Expect an Alberto Gonzales to get the nod.
Petulant Bush responds to his critics by giving them just what they want, then fails to back it up. Expect a Janice Rogers Brown to be hung out to dry with no support.
Thoughtful Bush goes for a strong conservative candidate that can win, then starts hammering on opponents like he was hammering on allies last week. Look for a Douglas Ginsburg or a Michael McConnell to get the nod.
I’d love to be wrong and see Bush nominate and fight for Brown, but Bush has shown very little spine in 5 years so I don’t expect him to.
Time will tell which Bush will win out.
*14/706/13*
Public Employees, Unions, Schools
Found at gullyborg via Upper Left Coast.
There is a strike looming for the Oregon Trail School District.
To address his second point first, his conclusion is
laudable.
Making threats of violence is a crime. … Any striking teacher who harms, or threatens to harm, a substitute teacher should never be allowed near our children again.
I agree fully. But the last I heard, it was specifically not a crime for a union picketer to threaten and in some cases to use violence. If these laws are still on the books, they should be repealed or invalidated soonest. Returning to the first point,
Now I have always thought that teacher’s unions should be barred from striking, the way air traffic controllers and other unions are.
This makes sense to me, but in an inverted sort of way. It’s a rational reaction to an unsane situation. To hit the high points, because
… the Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to an education.
and because
when a public union strikes, there is often no alternative for the people <to receive the goods/services>.
and finally
This amounts to sheer blackmail, especially when the service withheld is essential to the public as a whole.
therefor
Congress made it illegal for certain unions, such as the air traffic controllers, to strike. But Congress didn’t take it far enough. As long as there is no viable alternative to government, it should be illegal for ANY government employee to strike.
I find this to be a rational conclusion, but also wrong. Taking a government job should not be contingent on giving up your civil rights. Organizing to negotiate collectively is the best way to balance the power of the employer. People should not have to give that up when the employer happens to also be the sole employer available in that line of work as well as possessing a monopoly on the use of force. If that sacrifice IS necessary, it should be applied to the smallest number of people possible. Maybe there’s a better answer.
The key phrase in the problem seems to be “As long as there is no viable alternative”. Perhaps the root of the problem lies in having the government actually provide the services. If schools were run by a series of private companies, a strike against one would be of little effect on students. Perhaps the real answer to dealing with public employee strikes is to simply reduce the number of public employees to the bare minimum required to provide services that cannot be provided any other way?
The best way to deal this problem is to reduce the number of public employees to the bare minimum. Privatize and outsource the rest of the work. Eliminate the unnecessary government monopolies. Then this problem (and others) simply disappear.
*13/706/13*
Elderly Couple Hospitalized After Cops Raid Wrong House
I’m getting really tired of reading about grandparents getting beat up by SWAT teams. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse.
“We had good information from a reliable source that had been backed up by a purchase of narcotics linked to the address. However, when we arrived at the designated address, there were two houses on the lot. We hit the larger of the two houses.
“It was the wrong house,” (police Capt. Shannon) Beshears said. “The house was totally dark and the TACT members went through to the bedroom looking for the suspects.”
A man and a woman — both in their 80s — were injured as TACT team members secured the house although no drugs were found. There were children in the house also, but they were not awakened, Beshears said.
Beshears said the woman received a dislocated shoulder and the man received bruised ribs. Both were taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital-DeSoto, but both asked police not to identify them.
And if this elderly couple DOES try to sue over this, the good captain can just go ahead and sieze their home, since there was a drug arrest made. Later. In the other house.
No police state here, nothing to see, move along.
*12/706/13*
Iran Describes Jet Fighter That Morphes Into Fighting Robot
Posted on December 9, 2009, under Technology.
Well, not this week anyway. But we have the ‘Top Secret’ ultra-horizon missile that can be fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters, the “super-modern flying boat” that no radar at sea or in the air can detect, two new torpedos – one can “break a heavy warship” in two and the other moves at up to 223 mph underwater, and a stealth ballistic missile carrying multiple warheads to hit several targets simultaneously.
They may have even gotten some of them working, but the photo of the ‘flying boat’ (left) looks a lot like a kit built pusher prop float plane (right), not exactly the most modern of military hardware.
Iran is trying real hard to be taken seriously. But if we take their threats to nuke their neighbors seriously, we have no way to refuse sending in the Marines. Almost as if the Iran leadership actually wants a head-on closeup view of a company of Abrams.
*11/706/13*
Another Victory in the Drug War
Posted on December 9, 2009, under Technology.
Money flows out of the country, violence increases, honest people treated like criminals, no reduction in drug use. Looks like a typical victory to me.
Shutdown Of U.S. Labs Fails To Stop Spread Of Deadly Drug
Some snippets:
This deadly drug is now a growth industry for Mexico’s deadly drug cartels. They’re replacing small U.S. kitchen labs with Mexican super labs.
They are pretty much using the same routes that they’ve used in the past with cocaine and with marijuana.
By some estimates, as much at 80 percent of the meth on U.S. streets comes from Mexico.
DEA has been able to take a lead with our Mexican counterparts in order to prevent the importations of pseudoephedrine coming into Mexico
Tijuana now has a growing number of meth addicts seeking help at one of the growing number of rehab centers.
“It’s no longer just the drugs passing through Mexico to the United States. We’re now consumers,” said one Mexican addict.
I notice the Mexican labs are using the simpler ephedrine based recipe, rather than the psuedo-ephedrine based recipe the US labs worked with. So the DEA trying to reduce Mexican imports of psuedo-ephedrine are an interesting line to see.
a growing crisis for law enforcement on both sides of the border.
The very definition of a drug war victory.
*10/706/13*
•Welcome
This is our online magazine, so I guess that makes us journalists. You decide.
We’ll talk about a lot of things but have particular interest in Politics and how Technology and Religion impact society. We’ve read the Constitution and think it means what it says, so a lot of people will call us conservative. We disagree, but we’re outvoted. We also enjoy gaming of various sorts, though we certainly don’t have the latest of anything. We have serious opinions, but there isn’t much we won’t poke fun at.
We want comments and discussion, and the comments section is unmoderated after your first post (anti-spam). But we want civil discourse, so type like you’re talking face to face. If you are being offensive in our opinion, your words will disappear. If you are too offensive you’ll be invited out. We will be offended by foul language, name calling, and trolls. If that’s too rough for you, start your own blog and we’ll converse with you there.
We will also get email sent to us via our name at this domain. Meanwhile, we hope you enjoy your time here and come back again.
•Matt
I’m the younger, attractive looking one. I’m ex-Military and an ex school-bus driver. But I’m a self-described technophile, which would probably explain why I’m still single.
•Dave
I’m the more mature and intelligent looking one. Married and self-employed. A non-degreed electronic engineer, back to living in the country like I grew up in. I know a bit of science and a bit of theology and enjoy finding out more. I’m also usually the cook at home.
*9/706/13*
The Magic DUI Bullet
According to this AP story, California has decided that “Police may enter Californians’ homes without warrants to arrest those suspected of driving under the influence”.
OK then, the police suspect (or claim to suspect) that a person may have been driving under the influence. So they bust in the door if it isn’t opened for them. Arrest the suspect. All without having to demonstrate probable cause.
Now the real fun starts.
Search the entire house for weapons to ‘secure the area’. Look around for other interesting evidence. The infamous ‘arms length’ search for anything else they can find. What the heck, bring in the drug dog from the back seat as well.
When you’re done, drop the DUI for lack of evidence, but charge the poor dupe, or anyone else in the house, with everything else from drugs to child abuse, based on the warrantless search.
That’s civilized justice, Kalifornia style.
Update: The Cranky Insomniac let me know that TheAgitator was ahead of me, and even remembered the very similar Michigan recent case.
*8/706/13*
Microsoft’s Great Values
Posted on December 9, 2009, under Technology.
Unable to make enough money selling XP at $100 to $300 a pop to figure out how to secure their OS, Microsoft Company introduces virus protection software at only another $50.
Companies like Symantec and McAfee have built successful businesses on the proposition that Microsoft is unable to write a secure OS. Today, Microsoft has agreed with them and entered the band-aid market themselves. The cluelessness in Redmond is astounding.
“Sarah Hicks, Symantec’s vice president of product management for consumer products, said Microsoft’s entry will help shine a light” on the technical weaknesses of the OS product.
“Bill Kerrigan, executive vice president for McAfee, said Microsoft, in fashioning a broad solution, fails to address new and evolving Internet threats. He said OneCare may give consumers a false sense of security. “Microsoft’s traditional approach is, it’s good enough. But good isn’t good enough in security,” Kerrigan said. “OneCare is not a comprehensive security offering in the classic sense”.
So, it’s a virus package with holes in it for an OS famous for it’s holes.
The best part, in my opinion, is the interesting relationship this sets up. Now if MS ever succeeds in closing the security holes, they’ll be losing money. Redmond has publicly created a $50 per year per PC incentive to produce crappy, insecure products for the forseeable future.
Would you buy any other product from somebody who told you you’d have to pay them more if it didn’t work?
*7/706/13*
Conservatives Against Intelligent Design
There’s a new blog around named
Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. I like some of what they say, but I can’t support them. I think they’re fighting the wrong fight.
IMO, the ID issue came up primarily in response to just one thing. Students being taught about evolution, followed by the statement in the classroom “So there’s no need for God”. Granted, the young earthers have other issues with it. But if you accept the young earth theory, you also accept that God has deliberately tried to fool people, so why do you complain when He is successful? Except for young earth theories, there is no real problem reconciling evolution with Christianity. ID is that reconciliation.
Now, if you are a Christian, and you don’t like having your kids told that God doesn’t exist, you have three choices. You can pay for a public school and then pay again for a private school. You can pay for a public school and pay again to home school. Or you can try to force the public school to include your point of view.
The ID debate comes down to an argument over the curriculum in a socialist public school system. It’s not really anything else.
CAID is founded to wrestle over the control of a socialist one-size-fits-all approach to education that deliberately excludes choice and competition. I don’t think that’s the right approach for a Conservative, and I know that’s the wrong approach for a lover of liberty. On this one, I’m in Ogre’s camp when he says “If everyone were free to make their own decisions regarding their own education without any government interference, each family could decide for themselves if they wanted ID, creationism, or evolution taught in whatever manner they wanted.”
CAID is arguing about what children have to learn against their parents wishes. CAID has no problem with socialized education, as long as they are in control of it. In another context, that’s what make a RINO.
*6/706/13*
Warning About Nullification
Over at Positive Liberty, Timothy Sandefur has a post about Jury Nullification. To snip out the central question (edited):
jury nullification is obviously an important and legitimate part of the judicial system … but … for a juror to lie during voir dire (the “stealth approach”) is a crime, and brazen lawlessness in the jury box—the one place where the law ought to be most carefully weighed and respected—sets an extremely dangerous precedent.”
So, jury nullification is important, legitimate, and even “the point of having a jury system”, but it’s now against the law, so give it up. He trots out reasons not to, even the times that the judges and lawyers, appalled at the freedom the jury might have, have decided to restrict that freedom, but he ignores the elephant in the room.
If the government is violating your civil rights (in this case, your right to judge the law), why are you morally obligated to obey the law and cooperate with the violation?
So I have several points of disagreement. Of course, my disagreements are from a moral standpoint, and not a legal one.
“For a juror to lie to get on a jury so as to nullify the outcome is contempt of court.” Okay, but what if I lie simply because it’s none of their business whether or not I might later decide to nullify?
“brazen lawlessness in the jury box—the one place where the law ought to be most carefully weighed and respected” This is, in my opinion, a self-contradictory statement. The entire point of nullification is weighing the law. The jurors must not be bound by the law if they are to be weighing it.
By characterizing nullification as: “Choosing to participate in order to throw a wrench into the works”, he shows his prejudice. The wrench is the laws depriving jurors of their civil right to judge the law. The ‘stealth option’ is the repair to the system.
The point of the article is that nullification will not end the drug war. I agree. But handing control back to the jury that they are entitled to exercise, is a fight worth fighting all on it’s own.
*5/706/13*