A friend of mine at work often accompanies me to lunch. He's a lapsed-Catholic-turned-evangelical, and likes to discuss the finer points, if you will.
I've been introducing him to federalism, especially in the context of his support of the proposed Defense of Marriage amendment to the US Constitution---he supports, I oppose.
Secularism is a hard sell to him, federalism is even harder, BTW. But it's working. Wanna know where I pick articles to forward to his email inbox?
Volokh Conspiracy. At least 6 posts over the last two months. Strangely enough, whatever point we're discussing at lunch, when I get back to my computer and graze over VC, there's a new post that supports my point. Copy and paste, and wait for him to come out of his office and review how the post applies to our discussion.
NB: there are other sites I'd forward content from, but these here nippernet computers go through a filtered proxy server that excludes opinion sites. It lets sports scores and the latest William Hung mpegs through, but no opinion. No Reason, no Cato, no IJ. No NRA (but Violence Policy Center comes through---wonder, should I hire a lawyer? Or just complain to NRA?). No Instapundit. Whatever you guys at VC do, do not call yourselves an opinion site.
20040409
Dr. Rice badgered by assholes; film at eleven
Nine-Eleven commissioners bitch-slap a National Security Adviser before a national audience, with applause from the gallery no less, and get interviewed later on television.
Well, if I did that, I'd get on TV too. But I'd be wearing handcuffs.
Idea courtesy blogson Scotsman.
Well, if I did that, I'd get on TV too. But I'd be wearing handcuffs.
Idea courtesy blogson Scotsman.
There's millions of 'em on all three sides of us, imam! ---That means we've got those kufr right where we want them, Ahmed!
Professor Alan Gilbert was Peter Boyles's guest this morning, and both of them described the Fallujah action as a Perfect Storm, capable of uniting all Iraqis against the US occupation, growing to proportions that would force Uncle Sugar to contemplate leaving Iraq.
I pointedly disagree. Can't back it up, can't substantiate it. But here's the WUTT! take: the Sunna are getting their yarbles out. The Shi'a are getting their yarbles out. The Saddam-less fedayeen are getting their yarbles out. Not all the Iraqis are galvanizing to evict the Yank-led coalition, just all of the anti-Yank-led coalition Iraqis.
They're a distinct minority, mostly in towns that were intentionally bypassed the way Hitler should have bypassed Stalingrad. They've been waiting for a moment when political factors are right, when a signal atrocity would make a noticeable change in US public opinion of the occupation. The Blackwater event was it. Unfortunately for them, US public opinion does not respond the way it used to, they way their plans call for. This turning point will not turn their way.
It's been a few months since I've heard "flypaper" mentioned, but maybe this is when we roll all of that flypaper up into a few discrete balls and incinerate them. The few flies still in Iraq after that will remain a harrassing threat.
Essential to the success of the incineration: sealing the frigging Iran border.
WUTT! stands firm on its prior assertion, made in another venue, that this madness will not be over before American GIs bring home Persian wives.
I pointedly disagree. Can't back it up, can't substantiate it. But here's the WUTT! take: the Sunna are getting their yarbles out. The Shi'a are getting their yarbles out. The Saddam-less fedayeen are getting their yarbles out. Not all the Iraqis are galvanizing to evict the Yank-led coalition, just all of the anti-Yank-led coalition Iraqis.
They're a distinct minority, mostly in towns that were intentionally bypassed the way Hitler should have bypassed Stalingrad. They've been waiting for a moment when political factors are right, when a signal atrocity would make a noticeable change in US public opinion of the occupation. The Blackwater event was it. Unfortunately for them, US public opinion does not respond the way it used to, they way their plans call for. This turning point will not turn their way.
It's been a few months since I've heard "flypaper" mentioned, but maybe this is when we roll all of that flypaper up into a few discrete balls and incinerate them. The few flies still in Iraq after that will remain a harrassing threat.
Essential to the success of the incineration: sealing the frigging Iran border.
WUTT! stands firm on its prior assertion, made in another venue, that this madness will not be over before American GIs bring home Persian wives.
20040407
NYPD Hiring!
Mark A R Kleiman is concerned that valuable infantrymen are being recruited away from US armed services, after having been trained to be valuable infantrymen at public expense.
Well then, what of this?
Granted, Mark's concern was voiced in the context of the Blackwater employees (former military men) murdered in Fallujah.
Should this be stopped? I see little difference between this and non-compete clauses that were common when cable TV applications engineers were a hot commodity. What makes me valuable to one employer will to another employer, and I'm free to change employers if I can find one whose overall package is better.
Bringing the discussion back to territory that is familiar to me, I see a parallel between this issue and broad civilian gun ownership. Uncle Sugar trains hundreds of thousands of people to use lethal force responsibly. Immediately, Uncle does so for his own specific purposes, namely to field a competent army. But the training, if done well and kept up, becomes available to the civilian sector through the men and women who seek employment as sworn peace officers, commercial security guards, and armed citizens.
People who have not received this training, people who do not own firearms, and people who have not sought and received permission to CCW benefit from those who do. In fact, people who would never dream of receiving such training, people who object to widespread gun ownership, and people who want to outlaw all forms of concealed carry (except for agents of the government) derive a benefit.
Providing the training, even to personnel who will return that investment directly to Uncle Sugar for only another year or two then pursue richer opportunities, should not be counted as a net loss to Uncle, but as a net gain to all of us.
Well then, what of this?
NYPD Hiring! Take Free Exam at Camp Lejeune, Wed., April 7th
You’ve protected THE WORLD’S GREATEST NATION. Now,
protect THE WORLD’S GREATEST CITY. Don’t miss the
opportunity to take our FREE EXAM at Camp Lejeune,
Wed, April 7 - 1800 hours, Marston Pavilion, 730
Seth William Blvd, Camp Lejeune, NC. Call:
1-800-550-3836. Please bring military I.D. The NYPD
is continuously hiring and test scores for all
active military will be kept indefinitely. If unable
to attend apply online at:
http://tracking.military.com/cgi-bin/outlog.cgi?url=http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/policeofficer.html
by April 16 for the New York City exam. Or call 212-RECRUIT.
Granted, Mark's concern was voiced in the context of the Blackwater employees (former military men) murdered in Fallujah.
Should this be stopped? I see little difference between this and non-compete clauses that were common when cable TV applications engineers were a hot commodity. What makes me valuable to one employer will to another employer, and I'm free to change employers if I can find one whose overall package is better.
Bringing the discussion back to territory that is familiar to me, I see a parallel between this issue and broad civilian gun ownership. Uncle Sugar trains hundreds of thousands of people to use lethal force responsibly. Immediately, Uncle does so for his own specific purposes, namely to field a competent army. But the training, if done well and kept up, becomes available to the civilian sector through the men and women who seek employment as sworn peace officers, commercial security guards, and armed citizens.
People who have not received this training, people who do not own firearms, and people who have not sought and received permission to CCW benefit from those who do. In fact, people who would never dream of receiving such training, people who object to widespread gun ownership, and people who want to outlaw all forms of concealed carry (except for agents of the government) derive a benefit.
Providing the training, even to personnel who will return that investment directly to Uncle Sugar for only another year or two then pursue richer opportunities, should not be counted as a net loss to Uncle, but as a net gain to all of us.
20040405
Our lives, fortunes, and sacred bandwidth, updated
Donald Sensing despairs over the Republic now that freedom of political speech is in peril from campaign finance reform. Agreed. So WUTT!'s proposal?
Maybe enough bloggers will, on or before 2 September, publish something that might violate the law if it were posted on 3 September. Then in posts from 3 Sep onward, keep referring to each others' 2 Sep posts.
Throw in a few citations of the Officially Sanctioned Media's post-3 Sep reporting as well.
Point out inaccuracies therein, e.g. "No, Kerry voted FOR it in October then spoke AGAINST it in May," to keep citing voting records up over and over again, but carefully couching our posts as responses or corrections to, or criticisms of, each others' posts, not examinations of the officeholders themselves.
Then call the Federal Election Commission, and turn each other in. Insist upon an investigation of every possible meta-reporting offense.
Update: Geekwitha45's comments and email to me disclose my embarrassing ignorance of BCRA. It does not regulate private activities, including bloggers, so my proposal does not incur the FEC's wrath.
OK. So we bloggers can still participate. I paid NRA a handsome sum to be one of their Lifers. I expect a return on my investment. Political research on the issues of our common interest, and publication of that research, is part of what I paid for. They're still allowed to collect the voting records, but they can't take out ads to present them. They can give the records to me and a few thousand other bloggers, and we can post them. Nothing illegal there.
Further, we can sell them steeply discounted ad space on our blogs to present their research there. Then they're breaking the law, and perhaps so would we be.
I use NRA as an example here, other incorporated outfits would fit the space just as well.
If anyone is actually prosecuted, we then discuss the prosecution itself, and the evidence presented. Then complain to the FEC about each others' meta-meta-reporting during the blackout period.
Distributed denial of service attack, but via analog voice, upon Bad Law.
Maybe enough bloggers will, on or before 2 September, publish something that might violate the law if it were posted on 3 September. Then in posts from 3 Sep onward, keep referring to each others' 2 Sep posts.
Throw in a few citations of the Officially Sanctioned Media's post-3 Sep reporting as well.
Point out inaccuracies therein, e.g. "No, Kerry voted FOR it in October then spoke AGAINST it in May," to keep citing voting records up over and over again, but carefully couching our posts as responses or corrections to, or criticisms of, each others' posts, not examinations of the officeholders themselves.
Then call the Federal Election Commission, and turn each other in. Insist upon an investigation of every possible meta-reporting offense.
Update: Geekwitha45's comments and email to me disclose my embarrassing ignorance of BCRA. It does not regulate private activities, including bloggers, so my proposal does not incur the FEC's wrath.
OK. So we bloggers can still participate. I paid NRA a handsome sum to be one of their Lifers. I expect a return on my investment. Political research on the issues of our common interest, and publication of that research, is part of what I paid for. They're still allowed to collect the voting records, but they can't take out ads to present them. They can give the records to me and a few thousand other bloggers, and we can post them. Nothing illegal there.
Further, we can sell them steeply discounted ad space on our blogs to present their research there. Then they're breaking the law, and perhaps so would we be.
I use NRA as an example here, other incorporated outfits would fit the space just as well.
If anyone is actually prosecuted, we then discuss the prosecution itself, and the evidence presented. Then complain to the FEC about each others' meta-meta-reporting during the blackout period.
Distributed denial of service attack, but via analog voice, upon Bad Law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
