Pajama Pundits

This is really an update to this post.

The senate, today approved S 397 by a vote of 65-31. Apparently, those who said it would immunize firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits due to negligence got little traction. Some of that might have been due to the language of the bill itself, which specifically excludes negligence (among other things) from the offered protection. (Massachusetts' favourite swimmer tried once again to revive his infamous 'cop killer bullet' canard, but once again, it didn't fly)

One interesting point covered in the article was this:

The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The percentage totals aren't particularly surprising, but, particularly as how the 'gun industry' lobby is said to be so very powerful, isn't the amount of money spent rather pitiful?

As it cannot be through monetary influence that it (the 'gun industry') has power; if memory serves, they were outspent by the trial lawyers, at a ratio of something like 100-1; it has to be through votes.

... which seems to indicate that this is another of those areas where 'we' should listen to 'the voice of the people'...

... only when those people see it the way they're supposed to.

... NOT

Senate Democrats are, as expected, quite, quite publically 'preparing' to drag out the Roberts confirmation hearings; also and equally expected, blaming others for the proposed delays. (I'm still trying to figure out why someone's tax returns are 'essential information' when considering elevating a sitting judge to a higher bench, but maybe that's just me.)

It's no secret that the Administration has invoked privilege regarding some of the work Roberts had done as an attorney. It comes as no surprise that doing so will be used as a tool to delay the proceedings, but every silver lining has a cloud attached; Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee says the Senate might just have to cut its August vacation short, if the delay goes on long enough.

Republicans are pushing to start Roberts' confirmation hearings Aug. 29, interrupting the Senate's monthlong summer vacation, unless Democrats promise to allow a confirmation vote before the end of September.

"Absent that kind of commitment, it seems to me that duty will call on us to go ahead with August 29th," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

The run-up to the hearings is, if nothing else, providing some absolutely hysterically funny tidbits. Consider the following:

But Democrats as well as Republicans have continued to give Roberts glowing reviews as he continued his tour of senators' offices. Schumer said Wednesday that Roberts assured him he would not act as an ideologue if he makes it to the Supreme Court.

"He told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues," Schumer said in a speech at the National Press Club. [emphasis added]

... Chuck Schumer doesn't like ideologues... how does he shave?

Or: "One lane per customer, IF you don't mind.

The Bush administration got the 'Central American Free Trade Agreement' through Congress and will sign it into law soon. It wasn't a real fistfight, but it did take some negotiating.

One's view on the agreement itself may well be dependent on one's perspective with respect to the production of certain goods. Textile and sugar producers are understandably somewhat cool toward the concept.

What I did find very interesting in the administration's pitch for the agreement, was this bit:

They used a national security argument, saying that rejecting the deal would impoverish the region and undermine new and fragile democracies. Instability and poverty would drive people north and increase the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.

... now he's worried about illegal immigration!

I've had an America Online account since 1993. I've kept it since broadband became available in my neighborhood for two reasons, a way to access the internet from anywhere there's a phone line, and this one little message board I got addicted to - originally called something like "How Important Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" It's now simply called "The Gun Control Debate" and has been relegated to AOL's unmonitored (and relatively unsupported) section.

Over the years, various AOL monitors tried to keep the board "on topic" preventing forays into side issues. Always difficult, that proved impossible after September 11, 2001.

One of the reasons topic control was difficult is that a person's stance on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is sort of a litmus test revealing the process used to formulate political and social opinions.

It was discouraging to find out that so many people didn't have a process beyond 'whatever my friends think, I'll think', never bothering to even try to figure out whether the position had merit or from what ideological plant it bloomed.

Beyond those, I learned that many came to a conclusion then formulated reasons and twisted facts (or manufactured them) to support that conclusion - Humpty Dumpty thinkers. These people exist in every hue of the ideological rainbow and they annoy the hell out of me.

The rare individual is the one that looks at facts first and then comes to a conclusion without being influenced by ideology.

Most of us, being human, are a hybrid of the three processes. Regardless of that, we can and should expect better of those we elect to represent us. I consider it their job to use that rare process of considering facts before coming to a conclusion that something should or should not be law.

Today I am again disappointed in too many of our legislators, though I am enjoying watching my Democrat husband yelling at Democrat Senators and the fact that my Democrat brother is in wholehearted agreement with me concerning Senate Bill 397. Passing it will not harm the ability of citizens to bring valid suits against gun manufacturers. For a Democrat, who is also a lawyer with product liability experience, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

I have to wonder if some of them (including a few of the Republicans) have read the bill. My husband thinks they have and their ignorance suggests that passing a reading comprehension test should be a requirement to run for office.

As Eric from Classical Values puts it:

I'm getting a bit tired of opponents of this bill saying that it would protect manufacturers and gun dealers against ordinary negligence actions.

In fact, the bill specifically preserves the right to sue when a seller or manufacturer is negligent or in violation of laws governing the sale of firearms.

One has to wonder if the real objection some of the pontificating Senators have is that it also states as a Finding that "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that it "...protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps they also object to this stated purpose:

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

The Brady Bunch and VPC are screeching.

Now, go read the rest of Eric's post and find out why it's the fault of the South that crimes with guns happen in New York. And then wonder why I want to add a logic test to my husband's reading comprehension test.

There are a few single-issue concepts that will generate the sort of 'instant-on' emotion that accompanies the gun control debate... but only a few.

Both sides of the debate are well-populated with extremists; and, as ever, the extremists get most of the press. From my perspective, I can say that one can acknowledge that the more extreme elements among the rights supporters occasionally have a point, but that their method of forwarding it most often renders it moot. Then again, one person's radical extremist is another's stalwart defender. Sometimes it just depends on where you draw the line.

To that end, it might do to examine the endgame.

Consider: Australia. A case, or at least an argument, can be made that, in the wake of severe restrictions on legal possession of firearms Down Under, the number of homicides committed with firearms has been reduced. But... A) The homicide rate there had already been dropping for decades, albeit very slowly, and the rate has not changed significantly. B)The number of homicides committed with firearms may have dropped some, but arguably the total homicide rate has remained relatively static. (controlling for the very slight downward trend referenced previously)

Other nations' experiences with firearms restrictions/bans are even less supportive of 'gun control' as an answer to violent crime. (ohhhh yes,,, it's not supposed to be about crime, I keep forgetting)

This leads one to inquire.

At some point, one would think that someone, somewhere within the ban advocacy; and/or the various sycophantic cowards who forward ban advocacy rationale, while claiming, occasionally, that they don't really want to ban guns; would address the basic question:

What is your real goal?

If one accepts that the goal is solely to reduce the numbers of people killed with firearms, regardless the effect on any/all other forms of crime/criminal violence; and more importantly, regardless whether the total number of people killed stays static, or even rises; their methodology may perhaps be considered sound.

The question would then become: is that goal worthy of pursuit? (want to know my answer?)

Of course, if the claim is that such is not the goal, then the method is terribly ineffective at best, a counterproductive use of finite resources generally, and quite likely worse than useless in virtually any regard.

It is something of a comfort to know that, as the moonbats complain louder and louder about; Rush, Fox News taking market share from CNN, the allegations about Rove being treated like the trollish baiting they are and how much gas everyone else's SUV burns (becase they have theirs for a reason, you see); Doonesbury pen Trudeau seems to be clamoring for attention...

... the same way 4 year olds often do.

Only, he's not 4 anymore, and it appears that some people won't stand for that sort of behavior from a theoretically grown person.

While Senate Democrats scramble to decide just how much of a fuss they're going to make over vetting John Roberts; naturally, any and all fuss they create will be someone else's fault; The White House may invoke privilege regarding some of the work Roberts did for previous administrations.

That's business, as usual, but in a stunningly ironic case of absolutely towering hypocrisy, a certain Senator actually showed up for work that day.

No Democrats have said publicly they will fight the Roberts nomination. But Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., last week called for the White House to release all of Roberts' working papers from his time during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush years.

Umm,,, excuse me?

... but that doesn't really surprise anyone.

Love him or hate him, (there seems to be little middle ground) you gotta hand it to him. At the gawdawful-decrepit, dinosaurian, dust-collecting, ancient span of a frightful 33 years, Lance Armstrong brings home his 7th consecutive (back to back to back to back to back to back to back) Tour de France victory.

He got sick, it didn't matter. They changed the course, it didn't matter. He went on after he was older than most solid competitors were... it didn't matter. He said he was going to do it, and then he did. Now he can go home.

The rest of them can breathe something of a sigh of relief...

because now, they might actually be racing for the title, rather than pedalling their hearts out for weeks, just to see who came in second to Lance Armstrong.

Congratulations, Lance!

There comes a time... or there should come a time, when one would think people would sit back, look at recent events, and wonder...

... what the hell are we thinking?

Okay, it's early, I haven't had coffee yet and my shoulder hurts so this is already not starting out well, but the trend is, nevertheless, disturbing.

I'm talking about the statutorily-created defenselessness and systematic disempowering of the law-abiding citizen. It's not just here, it's arguably worse elsewhere, but the trend is fairly widespread.

I'm not sure I 'get it',,, but then I haven't really understood much of the further left methodology; though I think I have the endgame figured; for a while now.

Nevertheless, consider this morning's news:

LONDON - Police shot and killed a man wearing a thick coat at a London subway station Friday, a day after the jittery city was hit by its second wave of terrorist attacks in two weeks.

The man died after being shot by officers at the Stockwell subway station in south London, police said.

A news report. Okay, accepted. As always, there is a whole lot to the story, and 'we' are going to get precious little in 4 inches of half-column text. The police were chasing someone; reason unknown; he didn't stop; reason unknown; and he was subsequently shot; resaon unknown... so what was one of the headlines?
London man killed fleeing police The subheading was 'Gunned down in subway car'

Other headliners aren't quite so antagonistic, most just saying 'man killed', or 'Police kill man', or something like it, but the theme remains.

I'm trying, then, to figure out just to whom it is that people are supposed to turn. See, the same organizations that excoriate police at every available opportunity, tend to be the ones who tell 'the people' that all they need is 911, that no one 'needs' a gun, or to worry about self-defense, because "the police are there to protect you".

Without going too far back into that whole 'the police are there to protect you' bit, (because, in reality, they are NOT) one is nevertheless given to wonder...

if all these organizations delight so in pointing out how unjust, corrupt, inept, or otherwise generally ineffective, the police are...

... who will help us when the s*** really does hit the fan?

Update: Sorry, I should have included a link to the story, just in case someone cares.

Or: AOL commits organizational suicide, in public?

Announced on certain 'members only' message boards earlier today. (7-21)

We are pleased to announce that all News message boards will become "Open to the Web" and available to AIM users. This is an exciting opportunity for all of us to discuss our favorite topics with a larger group of people. In addition, you will notice that these boards have a new interface.

What Is an "Open to the Web" Board? An "Open to the Web" board is an AOL message board that is open to both AOL members as well as registered AIM users. We have several "Open to the Web" communities on AOL, including AOL Movies and AOL Television.

So How Does This Work, You Ask? AOL members will have all the tools they alwaiys have, just more opportunities to interact. Web users will be able to view board posts and see why AOL's message boards are the best on the Internet, but in order to post messages, they will need to register for an AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) screen name.

Why Is AOL Doing This? In some of our communities members have expressed an interest in talking to non-AOL members as well as their AOL friends. This, combined with our experience, research, and member feedback, show that allowing AOL members and AIM members to interact with one another provides a richer community experience.

When Is AOL Doing This? You can expect to see the change the week of July 25.

If we accept that one of the very few things keeping some people on AOL was the members-only nature of its message boards, this just leaves one question...

... when the last person leaves AOL for real internet access... will he or she turn off the lights?

From Sky News:

Bombers have again targeted London's transport system - with up to four explosions reported.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the devices were set off across the city "almost simultaneously".

He added that the explosions were small and that police had the situation under control.

Instapundit notes behavior of "idiot" correspondents:

Some idiot correspondent asked Blair if the attacks were his fault because of the Iraq war. And others are taking an equally negative line -- one asks if the propaganda war against terror is being lost.

I do like his translation of John Howard's logical and polite answer:

Translation: You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.

It's time to note (again) that a free press is no guarantee of an intelligent press. How many times has the 'blogosphere' been characterized by "professional" journalists as unworthy, supposedly because it's just a bunch of people with opinions and an agenda. Isn't it time they acknowledged that is exactly what they've been for decades? Their denigration of the blogosphere is properly called projection.

On hot days like today, sometimes it's best just to sit back with a tall glass of something icy...

and look at Bondmobiles.

There are as many different views on the nomination as there are ways to make 'authentic' spaghetti sauce, and, rather naturally, everyone immediately sets out to find out... what's the catch?

Leaving David Souter out of this, at least a few people seem to think Roberts was picked in some sort of a hurry.

I don't believe that for a moment.
It's no secret that Rhenquist is ailing, and O'Connor has been talking at least a little about retirement since the end of the Clinton administration. (anyone remember the flap over 'oh, that's terrible'?)

No, for whatever reasons he was picked, Roberts was not a name pulled out of a hat on the double-quick, so George could move on to more important matters*. It wasn't, quite, inevitable that he (Bush) would get to put at least one person on the big bench, but it wasn't that far from fated.

To that end, profiles of quite a few people have been being sorted, winnowed, screened, combed and otherwise given the many-times-over, against exactly such a contingency, arguably since the inauguration in 2001. I won't speculate on how long the 'short list' was when O'Connor announced she'd had enough, but it would take a lot of effort to convince me there was much real wading to be done.

Everyone who comments on Roberts generally agrees that he's one of the brightest legal minds on the scene. Of the information I myself have seen, very few of the people who know him personally will comment on what political ideals shape his rulings, and of those who do, there seems to be agreement that, well,,, there aren't any.

While admitting that it can come back to haunt one, (I know we're leaving Souter out of this, but one shouldn't forget him entirely) the fact that his friends tend to decline comment on his politics is comforting, on several levels. I would hate to ever be under the sort of media microscope that is currently focusing on Roberts, but if it did happen, I should like to think that my own friends would be just as reluctant to tell the press things that are none of the press' business. To me, it's a point in Roberts' favor that his friends, are.

So 'we' are left with a guy who has been working with the SC, on one side of the bench or another, for 10 years, and has been a Circuit court justice for two more. He is bright, he's talented, he's quiet, he seems to keep his personal convictions out of his legal procedures, and he has experience.

They're going to have to pick on him for his hairdo.

*

I don't hear the term S.W.A.G (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess) much these days, there's probably a new slang word for it, and no one's ever accused me of keeping up with what's "new". Oh, and just in case a humor-impaired individual is reading this, the "sophisticated" part is sarcasm.

I am now about to make a S.W.A.G. (or two):

Based on nothing whatsoever, I'm classifying John C. Roberts, Jr. as a "sacrificial lamb" nominee, because I think the Democrats are going to crucify him... or at least try very, very hard to do so.

After his demise, a nominee with a more moderate view on Roe (the actual first choice) will be put forth and easily confirmed.

The alternative S.W.A.G. is that the Democrats will not too strongly oppose Roberts, saving the big protest for Rehnquist's presumably upcoming retirement announcement.(Have I sufficiently covered my bets?)

I'll be updating this post periodically with predictions, analysis, and commentary from people who actually know about stuff like this, as it becomes available:

Crescat Sententia: "I'm pleased to see that the President has nominated someone who is thought stone cold brilliant in John Roberts."

Confirm Them: "...the White House wanted to keep the pledge to conservatives, have someone who Bush knows, and support Executive powers. Roberts was the only one to fit the bill."

Bench Memos (Whelan): "[President Bush] has fulfilled his promise to nominate someone who has excellent credentials and who understands the role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic."

Bench Memos (Adler): "...he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be."

Bench Memos (Lopez): Democrats have "the obstacle of having fairly recently put him through the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation deal fairly recently for his D.C. Circuit seat — May 2003."

The American Mind (via Instapundit, who hasn't yet posted his own thoughts): "Not since "freedom fries" were served in the House cafeteria will the fried food play such a large role on Capitol Hill."

Juan Non-Volokh explains why Roberts may not be anti-Roe.

Instapundit says Lieberman's inclusion of Roberts in a list of nominees that "could be considered with sparking a talk-athon" suggests a filibuster is unlikely.

UPDATE: President lays down the challenge by noting that the confirmations of the last two confirmations prove the process can be done in a timely manner. NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez noted that average was 58 days from nomination to confirmation.

Patrick Leahy notes that since the job is different, Roberts' confirmation to the D.C. Circuit isn't relevant to a Supreme Court confirmation.

Chuck Schumer: "It's a whole new ballgame."

Shakespeare's Sister: "...he doesn't look like my worst nightmare."

More:

Ambivablog: "Well, here goes. Who really believed Bush would do anything else?"

Ann Althouse in in CourtTV Chat right now - 8:44 pm CDT

Prof. Althouse thinks Roberts will take a position on "penumbras of rights of an evolving Constitution" that will protect him from attacks on abortion issue. And that his credentials are so strong, the only thing the Democrats have to disagree with is ideology. Hmm... I think that will be enough for them. I hope she's right and I'm wrong. (There's a real good chance of that. --ed.)

My question hasn't come up in the queue - Do you think that Roberts' "reliable conservatism" will push Kennedy to be more consistently "liberal"? (Sounds like I'm already discounting my S.W.A.G. that he won't be confirmed, doesn't it?)

I haven't participated in this kind of "chat" in years. It seems very antiquated and slow, but it's really not. It's going just as fast as anyone could be expected to type.

She notes the Democrats would look awfully follish filibustering this, they would seem like political hacks.

Hmmm... I don't think that will stop some of them.

In response to my question: "If you remove a moderate, it creates a vaccuum that pulls someone else into the middle. So, yes, I do think it will happen and it will be Kennedy.

More UPDATES: kos:

Tonight's announcement, and the rash of false leaks throughout the day, meant Rove got a reprieve from the steady stream of damaging stories about his involvement in the illegal outing of an undercover CIA agent.

So the administration had to act quick, and nominated Roberts to the high court.

The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, and these guys will even truncate that process for short-term political gain. Par for the course.

... but what else is new? Okay, none of the following is really new, but some of it is a bit more blatant than that to which I'm completely accustomed. Or: you find the strangest things in some stories...

Now, I don't want to get started on the whole license thing; there isn't enough coffee (on the planet),,, and besides, it would ruin the rest of what is shaping up to be another very pretty day.

I did find this little tidbit interesting, for a completely different reason.

Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico said the law, known as the REAL ID Act, unconstitutionally infringed upon state laws such as his, where illegal immigrants have been able to get licenses.

New Mexico's approach made roads safer since licensed immigrants could get insured, helped the state keep track of immigrants, and also helped integrate immigrants into the community, he said. [emphasis added]

I have to hand it to Richardson. It takes (cover your ears) balls to bitch about the Fed wanting to tighten up rules regarding who may legally obtain driver's licenses; while simultaneously erasing restrictions on illegal alien residents to the point where he approves of helping 'integrate' them into the community.

... I guess what I really want to know is,,, whose side is Richardson on?

One reads with much amusement the latest publicity stunt by another grandstanding charlatan.

There are so very many ways this is amusing, but a few of them are terribly politically incorrect, and you know how much that sort of thing concerns me,,, right?

From the article:

Addressing a South Los Angeles church congregation that included the girl's mother and sister, Sharpton said Sunday that some local activists had agreed to suspend protests until the Police Department finished its probe.

"There cannot be a knee-jerk reaction when we will always say the police is right," he said. "There cannot also be a reaction, knee-jerk in the community, saying they're always wrong."

Uhh,,, excuse me?

Have space aliens visited someone else's hair and this isn't the same Al Sharpton who brought us the Tawana Brawley debacle?

Let me see if I have this right. A 'reverend' viciously slanders several people and deliberately fuels a protest over a completely fabricated, but oh-so-conveniently racially-charged allegation of misconduct by police... and now, this... kinder, gentler Al Sharpton wants to be the voice of reason?

... next thing you'll tell me is that Ice-T is making money playing a cop on TV.

Austin Bay links to an essay in the Arizona Republic by Robert Robb that notes securing property rights is the key component to fighting poverty in Africa.

Robb discusses a "widely panned" Bush initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and its small grant to Madagascar.

In fact, the grant to Madagascar, made this April, was the first. And it was small potatoes, just around $110 million.

But about a third of the money is for a land titling project, and therein lies the hope.

Imagine there was no functional system in the U.S. for titling property. You'd be "renting" indefinitely. A third of the grant to Madagascar is for a land titling project, and as Robb writes, "therein lines the hope."

That the poor in Madagascar wanted, first and foremost, legally protected property rights illuminates the insight of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, most clearly explicated in his book, The Mystery of Capital. De Soto has inventoried the assets the poor in developing countries already control, and they are considerable. But, because the poor do not usually have legally protected property rights to what they possess, they are what he calls dead capital - they cannot be leveraged for economic improvement.

I read The Mystery of Capital last year, and highly recommend it. This is not a dry tome filled with graphs and charts and esoteric formulas. A short excerpt from page 107:

I have decided, therefore, to focus on the United States because, more than 150 years ago, it too was a Third World country. The governments and judiciary of the young states, not yet so legally united, were trying to cope with the law and disorder of migrants, squatters, gold diggers, armed gangs, illegal entrepreneurs, and the rest of the colorful characters who made the settling of the American West so wild and, if only in hindsight, so romantic. To a Third Worlder like me, this picture of the gringo past is astonishingly familiar. Although my colleagues and I have trouble relating to 11,000 on the Dow Jones, we feel quite at home among the squatters in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia or the log cabin settlements of Daniel Boone's Kentucky.

What we take for granted didn't magically appear and wasn't always here. Also, the mental picture we in the U.S. have of poverty outside our borders may not be totally accurate. For instance, De Soto documents that the poor in undeveloped countries have assets, savings of immense value, but they do not have access to the legal tools allowing them to turn these assets into wealth-generating capital.

AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking bus with hundreds of ebola victims on board throwing dead wombats and rotten cabbage at the other cars, most of which have been assembled at home from kits. Some are built around 2.5 horsepower lawnmower engines with a top speed of nine miles an hour. Others burn nitroglycerin and idle at 120.

Read the rest here.

And the U.N. wants to run the internet?

Pregnancy Test: $15

Outfitting the Nursery: $5,000

Labor and Delivery: $15,000

Motherhood: Priceless

However, that which MasterCard cannot buy does come at a cost that might translate into a lower credit limit on that card:

Relative to other kinds of applicants, mothers were rated as less competent, less committed, less suitable for hire, promotion, and management training, and deserving of lower salaries. Mothers were also held to higher performance and punctuality standards..

As Kevin Drum says, "Food for thought, no?" There are some excellent observations in the comments to his post, as well.

Kevin Drum wants somebody to buy 'one' of us amnesiac conservatives a subscription to Nexis.

I'm willing to 'forget' a lot for one of those.

I could 'forget' that it's not that the allegations of contacts between Osama and Saddam are not true, it's just that it was later discovered they may not have led to significant dealings.

And then I could 'forget' that Osama has never been the only purveyor of terror.

Yessiree, I could 'forget' a lot with a Nexis subscription handy to refresh my memory.

One Happy Dog Speaks is hosting the Carnival of Recipes. I don't know why he's so happy, because I don't think are going to be any leftovers.

The unrepentant swashbuckling Baboon Pirates is hosting the 22nd Carnival of Cordite.

From Varifrank. And the answer is Hell NO!

Suicide Bomber Kills Children, U.S. Soldier

A suicide car bomber sped up to American soldiers distributing candy to children and detonated his explosives Wednesday, killing up to 27 other people, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. One U.S. soldier and about a dozen children were among the dead.

And don't tell me such people do not exist in Iraq, and that they were not as brutalized by Saddam as Afghanis were by the Taliban.

"... we won't give him up as long as there's a man or a woman left alive in our village."

How the Shepherd Saved the SEAL

A crackle in the brush. That's the sound the Afghan herder recalls hearing as he walked alone through a pine forest last month. When he looked up, he saw an American commando, his legs and shoulder bloodied. The commando pointed his gun at the Afghan. "Maybe he thought I was a Taliban," says the shepherd, Gulab. "I remembered hearing that if an American sticks up his thumb, it is a friendly gesture. So that's what I did." To make sure the message was clear, Gulab lifted his tunic to show the American he wasn't hiding a weapon. He then propped up the wounded commando, and together the pair hobbled down the steep mountain trail to Sabari-Minah, a cluster of adobe-and-wood homes--crossing, for the time being, to safety.

After taking the SEAL to Sabari-Minah, Gulab called a village council and explained that the American needed protection from Taliban hunters. It was the SEAL's good fortune that the villagers were Pashtun, who are honor-bound never to refuse sanctuary to a stranger. By then, said Gulab, "the American understood that we were trying to save him, and he relaxed a bit."

The Taliban was not so agreeable. That night the fighters sent a message to the villagers: "We want this infidel." A firm reply from the village chief, Shinah, shot back. "The American is our guest, and we won't give him up as long as there's a man or a woman left alive in our village."

(Thanks to Bill at INDC Journal)

How incredibly annoying to read that. Let's keep East Texas clean and promote it as the land of the illiterate while we're at it.

It's not like they didn't have a better hook to use. There's R.I.D. - Report Illegal Dumping. Surely a good copywriter could do something with that.

Then there's the phone number. If you're going to denigrate your target audience you might as well make them laugh. And you wouldn't even have to hire a good copywriter. A contest on that one would have talented (and not so talented) amateurs submitting hundreds of better slogans than "Keep East Texas Purddy!"

If the purpose of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is for this sign to make the viewer asks questions, they succeeded wildly.

My first question was "Is 1 in 5 children even online?" followed by "What ages are they talking about?" then "Males and females both?" then "Where did they get those numbers from?" and, finally, "What ARE they talking about?"

On their FAQs and Statistics page, the sixth question is "How many children are sexually approached and/or solicited online?" Clicking on that answers two of my questions, the ages are 10 to 17 and the statistic comes from the DOJ Highlights of the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a pdf brochure to which they provide a link. (For more information about the survey, see here.)

More info from the brochure:

• 77% of those solicited were 14 to 17 years old.

• 1/3 of those solicited were male.

• none of the solicitations led to an actual sexual contact or assault.

• 48% of the solicitations were made by juveniles, 24% by adults, the remainder, age unknown.

• 2/3 of the solicitations came from males, 1/4 from females. (Although it doesn't say, I presume the remainder are unknown. It does point out that the identified genders may have been part of a disguise.)

• 75% of the incidents were described as not distressing.

• 1/3 of the aggressive incidents (attempts at personal contact) were unreported (now that's distressing.)

I suppose there's no harm done in the vague and slightly misleading language of the sign, but I doubt there's anything gained by it either. I have less respect for the organization, than if they'd phrased it 1 in 5 teens is sexually solicited online. That would have been an underestimation and I suppose not nearly as scary as using the word "children" (a person between birth and puberty) but I'd be more likely to believe the rest of the their message.

UPDATE: Web-Proofing Your Kids

Maybe so, but it's obvious that no one else will do the job.

It seems that the minor documentational misunderstandings between the US and Mexico; regarding the (estimated) 12 million illegal aliens, in this country, from that one; have come to the attention of more than just those folks in Arizona who were tired of having their property damaged by the traffic. It would seem that, while traffic directly from Mexico remains an unimpeded flood, additional numbers from other sources are being added to the mix.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people from countries other than Mexico arrested trying to cross the U.S. southern border has almost doubled this year, the head of the U.S. border patrol told the U.S. Congress on Tuesday.

Now, the President evidently feels that the nation is already doing too much to impede the flow of criminals into this country from the south; witness his dismissing the 'Minuteman Project' as 'vigilantes'.

And yet, here we are, spending huge amounts of money and not inconsiderable amounts of blood in the ME, in an at least partially symbolic effort to 'do something' about terrorists. (I'll tie this together, I will,,, really)

I got a couple of recipes for ya!

Case: Surplus LC 1969 30-06(that's Lake City Arsenal, if you care)
Primer: CCI Large Rifle (can substitute Winchester, if you prefer)
Powder: 55 grains IMR 4350
Payload: Pulled surplus 147 grain FMJ BT (full metal jacket, boat tail)
2800-odd feet per second at the muzzle.

No, it's not something you can whip up in a casserole dish, but it's a good little plinker. On the other hand, not everyone is content with the venerable '06, though it's a great round for pretty much anything one might want to hunt in the continental US. (no, it's not always about hunting, nor should it be) For those who prefer things a little... louder, try this.

Case: Surplus military 50 BMG
Primer: CCI 50 BMG
Powder: 248 grains H50 BMG (do you notice a trend here?)
Payload: 655 grain FMJ (full met... you remember this from last time)
3000-odd FPS at the muzzle, you don't even want to know how much energy that is.

Now, I had to look this up, because I didn't know what a 'garden variety' load was for the 'big fifty'. I do know that I was spotted next to one at the local range not too long ago. The 'guest' line there is right in front of the range office, which puts it right next to the 25-yard pistol lanes, but they have a single-shot 50BMG rifle you can use. (byoa) I don't know what it feels like to be the guy pulling the trigger, but standing one lane over from that thing...

hurts!

For those of you who don't speak 'reload', there are 7000 grains to a pound. That means that you can get just over 127 rounds for the 30-06 out of a pound of powder. However, if you're loading for the big boys, you'll get under 30 rounds. Too, while 147 grains works out to just under 1/3 of an ounce, the 655 grain pill for the .50 works out to just under 1/10... of a pound (fractionally under one and a half ounces)

Now,,, if you're really hungry, try this one.

Case: Surplus military 50 BMG (necked up to .585 and fire formed to 14.5mm JDJ)
Primer: CCI
Powder: 235 grains 5010
Payload: 1173 grain jacketed.
Don't ask, don't tell,,, don't stand too close.

You're talking about two and two thirds ounces of jacketed lead screeching downrange at 2700 feet per second. I could give you the formula for how much energy that generates, but it would be sort of like the one for how many miles in a light year, a number too big to be meaningful.

The word you're looking for is 'wow'.

... is here with Food & Guns.

Carnival of the Recipes at blogoram.

Carnival of Cordite at Resistance is futile!

My brother has always shared his Texas Bar Journals with me, because I love Jerry Buchmeyer's et cetera.

Why I didn't find the blog, Say What?! before dear brother sent me a link today is beyond me.

Is there some kind of psychic connection between the Ann's writing at Althouse and AmbivaBlog more powerful than sharing a first name?

Latest example: Ephemera and Putting the ointment in appointment

You'll just have to go read both those posts to understand why I've chosen to file this post in the "Words" category.

Take a gander at these two posts from yeah, right, whatever: I Could Have Told You That and Honoring Last Requests.

Totally unrelated topics? Not to me. I find both to be on the topic of "Celebrating Life".

First, the information about twins is just plain fascinating. What mother, exhausted at the end of the day from keeping up with one child, does not sit in awe of mothers of twins? It would appear that what every parent learns the first day of their child's life - that each one is uniquely wonderful - might be realized by parents of twins perhaps a day or two later.

What a celebration of the wonder of life to discuss our differences, genetic and otherwise.

Then there's the discussion of the ritual celebration of a life after it has ended. I hope my funeral is as joyful as my grandmother's was. She was 96, and the saddest note of the eulogy was the recognition of how much she would have enjoyed her funeral - all her children, grand children, great-grandchildren, great-great grandchildren, and great-great-great grandchildren gathered to celebrate her life.

It's a shame we didn't ALL get together while she was alive, even though the majority did celebrate her 95th birthday with her.

...post a link to a page with 1000's of instances of a word my children have surely never heard or uttered, but just this once, I will: FUCK YEAH!

(Thanks to that hottie, Vodkapundit)

Remedial French Kissing 100 for law nerds.

There is no truth to the rumor that Tony Blair was sending two dozen soccer fans and a carload of Bass to the Afghan border.

UN officials declared that such a hostile escalation would violate human rights protocols.

/sarcasm

The Captain has it just about exactly right. We're all Britons

Thanks to Publius Pundit for the Union Jack graphic!

Seasons change and once again, I find myself thinking to upgrade my computer.

I should know better, I really should... okay, I do know better...

but the ancient, wheezing fossil I'm using now, (all of (gasp!) 5 years old) while it's still noodling along with no errors,,,

won't handle some of the software that's winding up in my computer room.

I'll have a headache for a week or two while I sort out how to get: close enough to 'the cutting edge' that I can actually find products without going to the museums; while staying far enough off the front end of techno-geekism that my bank account doesn't go into spontaneous meltdown at the mere thought. It's a real trial to build a machine that will be relevant two weeks later, without having a budget that the Manhattan Project guys would have envied. It's a painful process, not the least reason for which is because I can now do things like buy a 160 Gig hard drive for quite a bit less than the 20 Gig that's in my current dinosaur. (and at that, the data transfer rate on the new drive is supposed to be about 250 times faster (I'll believe it when I see it))

That sound card that was so very dear when I got it? Hopelessly outclassed by the onboard sound capabilities of the new mainboard.

The video card? Don't ask.

CPU? STFU.

System memory is a tiny bit better, the cost isn't too, too different, meg-for-meg... but this is DDR2 533 RAM, versus PC133. (sigh)

Days like these can make a person feel... old. (I guess growing older is still a helluva lot better than the alternative: unless your first name is Merlin, there's only one way to quit having birthdays)

UPDATE: Given my experience with a few online vendors, (one in specific) I have a name for the new computer. I shall call it Scarecrow, since, after everything else is said and done, I am battling the company from which I supposedly purchased the CPU, leaving the rest of the computer sitting around, collecting dust and singing "If I only had a brain."

... at that, perhaps I should call it...

(chuckle) nevermind.

"A man full of bile is not fit to pronounce on food."

Perhaps he needs a digestive?

After celebrating our independence from the British yesterday, today I feel compelled to defend them.

For breakfast this morning, I think I'll have beans on toast.

UPDATE: London's bid for Olympics looking good.

Althouse and AmbivaBlog are in sync today.

My preferred solution would be a massive influx of cash so I could hire someone to deal with housework and the disorder of my stuff for me. I like to think I'm making progress (like having sorted all the family photographs), but that's a sort of delusion, which is why I can relate better to AmbivaBlog's take on the issue.

I first saw this song 20 years ago in an old book of folk songs. Though we don't wear bonnets and we now have an array of poisons and (better) traps to deal with critters, has the essential experience changed all that much?

HOUSEWIFE'S LAMENT

One day I was walking, I heard a complaining
And saw an old woman the picture of gloom
She gazed at the mud on her doorstep ('twas raining)
And this was her song as she wielded her broom

CHORUS:
Life is a trial and love is a trouble
Beauty will fade and riches will flee
Pleasures they dwindle and prices they double
And nothing is as I would wish it to be.

There's too much of worriment goes to a bonnet
There's too much of ironing goes to a shirt
There's nothing that pays for the time you waste on it
There's nothing that last us but trouble and dirt.

CHORUS

In March it is mud, it is slush in December
The midsummer breezes are loaded with dust
In fall the leaves litter, in muddy September
The wall paper rots and the candlesticks rust

CHORUS

There are worms on the cherries and slugs on the roses
And ants in the sugar and mice in the pies
The rubbish of spiders no mortal supposes
And ravaging roaches and damaging flies

CHORUS

It's sweeping at six and it's dusting at seven
It's victuals at eight and it's dishes at nine
It's potting and panning form ten to eleven
We scarce break our fast till we plan how to dine

CHORUS

With grease and with grime from corner to center
Forever at war and forever alert
No rest for a day lest the enemy enter
I spend my whole life in struggle with dirt

CHORUS

Last night in my dreams I was stationed forever
On a far distant isle in the midst of the sea
My one chance of life was a ceaseless endeavor
To sweep off the waves as they swept over me

Alas! Twas no dream; ahead I behold it
I see I am helpless my fate to avert
She lay down her broom, her apron she folded
She lay down and died and was buried in dirt.

of the thirteen united States of America

UPDATE: BizzyBlog tells What the Declaration’s Signers Endured (and What Happened to One Columnist Who Wrote About It)

It seems that bloggers have ruffled feathers in all sorts of places.

Okay, catching Dan Rather lying through his (false?) teeth was something of a bust, because, let's face it, nothing came of it. He retired, but he was going to anyway, and no one else connected with the debacle got so much as a wrist slap.

But that, apparently, hasn't rendered the blogosphere anything like a null on the political scene, because the bloggers are now taking shots from... of all people...

Garry Trudeau. Yesterday's Doonesbury strip is a continuation of Trudeau trying to paint bloggers as irrelevant, ignorant, losers.

... which could lead one to think...

that they must actually be having more of an effect than people like Trudeau are comfortable witnessing.

What's the matter, Garry... more people surf the net than read your strip?

~Phone rings~

Youngest daughter on other end...

"Mom, are you at your computer? We're at a restaurant, would you look up something for us? This is really bothering us..."

"Sure, what is it?" I ask, as I sit down to fire up the browser.

"Who wrote Hungarian Rhapsody?" she asks.

"Rachmaninoff." I answer, confidently. No need to Google that.

"No, no... that's what your perfect son-in-law thinks." [So, what more proof do you want? Your husband and your mother, both couldn't be wrong could they?] "It starts with an "S", the composer's name, but I can't think of it right now."

"Shostakovich?" I ask.

"Yes! that's it!" I hear her convey this info to her husband, as confident in Shostakovich as I am in Rachmaninoff.

By that time, this Google page is staring at me.

as Vanderleun.

Check it out at Resistance is futile!

The discussion question this week is:

As we celebrate the 229th Birthday of the United States of America, what does Independence Day mean to you? And for those of you reading this from another country, what are your perceptions about this holiday?

This week's Carnival is a colorful affair at Anywhere But Here.

The Political Compass test asks for one's level of agreement or disagreement with this statement:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

I always check "agree" as an answer. I don't strongly agree, because I'm aware of the background and consequences of this quote. But, I still think that as an ideal, it is a good one.

It is demeaning to expect less than someone is capable of. It is also demeaning to suggest that capability is pre-determined and unchangeable. The danger is that a level of contribution be demanded by someone or something outside the individual.

It is callous to think that needs should not be met. Since varying capabilities and varying needs are inherent in being human, social adjustments for those whose needs outweigh their capability to meet them is the alternative to methods such as eugenics.

So, I believe the statement expresses a fundamentally good idea. Being human, we'll always have the capacity to take one of those and twist it into something resembling evil.

Ankle Biting Pundits thinks Hillary may have a Wal-Mart problem in the 2008 primaries. Could be, who knows?

My "AHA! moment comes from the parenthetical mention of the 1992 Democrat primary:

Hillary has never really had to compete in a primary setting (one could argue she was a major figure in the 1992 Democrat primary, which is true, but she was not a combatant in that race and successfully morphed into the role of victim.)

That's it. That's why I cringe when she's mentioned as presidential material. I do not someone who "morphed into the role of victim" for the purpose of political survival to occupy the oval office.

Things To Do Upon Retirement has been getting lots of hits from Google searches on that topic. It could have been her. Then again... maybe not. We'll know for sure if she announces she's buying a chicken ranch next week.

The Volokh Conspiracy has several interesting posts, particularly Confirmation Fight, in which Todd Zywicki suggests there's going to be fight no matter who is nominated, because. Just because.

Good links to the headlines on O'Connor at How Appealing and of course, SCOTUSblog is blogging this.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

O'Connor's, um, variable voting pattern means that if whoever replaces her is more consistent it will make a disproportionate difference. That also means that this fight is likely to be nastier than the fight over, say, a replacement for Rehnquist.

Compare Orin Kerr's take:

O'Connor's retirement may shift the Court a lot less than people think. In the big ideological cases of the last Term, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote as often as (or maybe even more often than) Justice O'Connor. Let's assume for now that O'Connor is replaced by a consistently more conservative Justice; even if that's true, the left-of-center Justices presumably still have 4 very reliable votes and a good shot at picking up a 5th vote with Kennedy. Plus, new Justices are hard to predict, and it's often hard to tell whether a new Justice will vote consistently one way or another.

Ann Althouse goes further to predict:

If Bush picks a very strong conservative to replace O'Connor, I predict... ... that Justice Kennedy will become a reliable liberal vote. This prediction is based on my belief that there is small group dynamic at work on the Court that tends to produce moderation.

My highly informed, highly educated, and thoroughly sophisticated legal opinion aligns with Kerr and Althouse. Don't let that discourage you, gentle reader, should you find yourself also agreeing with them. (For the humor impaired among you, I'm not a lawyer and have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.)

CNN has a nifty gallery of possible nominees. My suggestion for O'Connor's replacement is, of course, my daughter. However, she informed me this afternoon that she didn't make the "short list" because she hasn't yet graduated from law school.

Oh well...

Heh.