CNN.com - Motorbike bomber strikes Tel Aviv - January 25, 2002 Dammit! Use a bus! Or a car! We biker's don't need this grief! Freakin' Palestinian terrorists... Grrrr....

Robert A. Levy has some interesting comments on Military Tribunals in NRO...

Rod Dreher rips into the Catholic hierarchy for the Boston Molestacre. An excerpt:

Brooklyn Bishop Thomas V. Daily, who oversaw Geoghan in his previous role as an auxiliary Boston bishop, explained the kid-gloves treatment archdiocesan officials gave Geoghan as "concern of the public reaction." Said Daily, excusing his own inaction: "I am not a policeman; I am a shepherd." Bishop Daily also testified that he believed at the time that priests had immunity from civil or criminal charges of sexual abuse.

A shepherd will identify a sick sheep and either tend to it by getting it the care it needs, or by killing it to protect the flock. The majority of the shepherds were sleeping in field while one was molesting the flock. Okay, I let that metaphor get out of hand...

Deroy Murdock sheds some rationality and logic over various US detainees and prisoners... Okay, it's a little stronger than just purely rational, but I think he's pretty close to right.

Just trying to see how I can get some images in here... This is BellDandy. Follow the link at the left to learn her tale...

Instapundit has a pointer to the Enron Retirement Planning Coffee Mug on Ebay. Go and read the back of the mug. Okay, so don't. It reads "Who decides where to invest your money? Only You" It's an ironic point -- much of the hullabaloo over the loss of retirement savings came a direct result of the employees choosing to put their money into Enron -- their choice. One cannot deny the potentially criminal actions of Enron leaders, but no one forced the employees to buy into the company stock. I know this sounds pitiless and mean, but they had a choice, and they chose to put a great deal of their money back into Enron stock. Any slightly educated investor hears first and foremost the wondrous term "diversification". Enron employees didn't follow that creed, and they got bit on the ass. Hmmmm... if the Enron advisors were advising Enron employees to dump money into Enron stock, those advisors may be potentially liable, depending upon what they knew, and when...

Joanne Jacobs has a great takedown of Maureen Dowd. Search for "Fleeting Glory" to find it...

Format change! I got tired of Vomitous Green... And now that I can see it for real, I like it... sooothing, soothing colors... Mmmmmm... pretty...

Cyber-attacks are up on energy businesses(Thank you, Instapundit). The story behind the story -- most of the attacks are thwarted with little or no damage. Yes, it takes a level of company expense to respond and prevent these attacks. Yes, there should be legal recourse for the companies to recover damages from the perpetrators, and there should be other legal punishments for such attacks. But the biggest point -- initial defense comes from within. If the companies followed the Arms Control and Gun Control model, they'd get wiped out first, and while other companies trembled in their boots, the government would attempt to find the perpetrators. By taking an active interest in their own survival, the companies help ensure their security, just as an armed and trained woman can ensure her security far better than an unarmed woman could. Also, note the source of the attacks -- the middle east. I currently do not believe that any non-democratic Arabian-Islamic country is a reliable ally, except perhaps Jordan, and then primarily because the King of Jordan has an American wife, and seems on the surface to be ruthless but reasonable -- that is, he doesn't seem to have delusions of granduer and dreams of world conquest.

On the gist of Ms. Noonan's comments regarding Enron I cite below... Guys who wrestle their way to the top management slots are generally aggressive and in a way greedy. In my experience, anyway. It's not so much greed, as how they define success -- to the, success is defined in terms of the Almighty Dollar. If they are successful as a lower level manager, they make more bucks, get promoted, make even more money, do a good job, get even more Money, eventually get a VP or CEO/CFO/COO slot, make even more money, and then if they are successful as a CEO, they make a ton of money off their stock options, because their company has done so well that the options double or treble in value. Then they demand more options or dollars since they just made the company so successful (forget that they got rewarded with the options they just cashed in, plus a handsome salary, just forget about that. That was in the past). Running the show and making big bucks, for the CEO types, it's the only way to live. Some just can't stay within ethical or legal boundaries to do so. [UPDATE] I re-read the Noonan peice, and the guys at she describes Enron remind me of the Underwear Gnomes (Episode #217). Business Plan for Enron: 1. Get gas pipelines, broadband services, underwear. 2. ? 3. Make Profit.

The wondrous Peggy Noonan strikes again :-) I think Ms. Noonan is one of the best that there is. I think she's the only pundit I fawn over...

WSJ talks about Talk.

And even more from Iran! Iraq and Iran are in league, I bet. There's a tenuous connection now, and with the way things are evolving, it gets more and more interesting. Tom Clancy wrote of an union of Iran and Iraq in Executive Orders. There is merit in the idea -- Iran and Iraq share a lot of similar elements. Kill Hussein and you'd get a perfect chance for Iran to move in to "save" the Shi'a in Southern Iraq, and eventually take over the whole place. We need to keep close tabs on those two... The article mentions that Iran will use Iraqi airspace to provide direct flights to Syria. That sounds like the completion of the Terrorist Crescent...

More Iranian Shennanigans.

If you haven't seen it already, check out Samizdata.

TechCentralStation has an interesting article on Chernobyl and its aftereffect...

I got this via NRO's new toy, The Corner.

John Fund has his political diary out today. The subject is campaign finance reform, as a byproduct of the Enron "scandal". It's not really a scandal politically speaking, but it has campaign finance in there somewhere since Enron gave everyone money except for me (damn! damn! damn!) and a few other people. Anyway, John Fund proposes full disclosure as the only solution for campaign finance reform. That has its merits, but I think a better way to go is one I read somewhere this summer -- anonymize the donations. Establish a third party, independent clearinghouse that is a clearing house for donations. Donations are made to the clearinghouse in the name of the a candidate. The clearinghouse discards the information about the donor, then forwards a lump sum of all donations to the candidate every week. Donations are not limited in any way -- frequency, dollar amount, or "use". This way, the candidate has no bloody idea where the money came from. If Joe Donor said "Hey, vote this way because I gave you $$$," Jane Candidate could say "I don't know that. I'll be voting my conscience." It seems pretty solid to me...

Here is a very interesting article on Iran's meddling in Afghanistan. I was thinking that the Iranians might want to destablize Pakistan -- but interfering in Afghanistan makes even more sense. Iran despised the Taliban, however, Iran doesn't really mind a totalitarian regime in Afghanistan -- as long as it Shi'ite. I hope we dispatch a few missiles to undermine this effort. It would be nice if we issued a simple ultimatum to Iran as well. Iran is nearly ripe for a revolution. Give it a year, maybe two, and we could nudge Khameini and his henchmen just enough to topple them without serious risk to ourselves. The big thing is SUPPORT. If we're going to take sides, we should do it 100%. If we're going to support revolutions/uprisings in Iran and Iraq, we need to get behind the revolutionaries 100%, and shape the Revolutionary government up front. Then we can start applying pressure...

Pfizer kicks in a bloody generous benefit for Senior Citizens (I hate that term). Nice work, gentlemen, and well done. Who says we need a National Prescription Plan?

Apologies if there is funky behaviour, but I'm trying to give some "Oooh!-Aaaah!" factor to the blog and I may toast some stuff accidentally in the interim...

Nathaniel Hawthorne's story, "The Birthmark," has been handed out to Leon Kass' Bioethics Committee on Cloning. Well, I think it's a dubious piece. I just re-read the story, and the protaganist, scientist Aylmer, husband to Georgiana, is nothing other than a poor scientist. The only real moral lesson I got from the story was to be thorough in your research. In a nutshell, the story tells of Aylmer being offended by the presence of a birthmark on his wife's left cheek, and undertaking the task of removing the mark. He is successful, but removing the birthmark kills his darling wife. It's foreshadowed by a dream Aylmer has. Aylmer fails to conduct more than a simple passing test of his mechanism for removing the birthmark. In this, Aylmer is a poor scientist. A very poor scientist. A much to proud, much to arrgant scientist. He never investigates the real sounce of the birthmark, or explore the effects of his potion beyond the cursory experiment of feeding it to a flower. So much for applying the scientific method... Glenn Reynolds has a great article at TechCentral on the Leon's Committee...

James Miller has a terrific article on today's NRO. Well said, James...

Have you ever noticed that a Peace Process rarely leads to peace? Let's take a look through the annals of time and see when it has -- North to South in 1861? Nope. Several folks attempted reconciliation policies, such as the Mason-Dixon line, the Missouri Compromise, et al., but the end result was War, and a bloody one at that. Neville Chamberlain to Adolf Hitler? Nope. in fact, the whole sequence of negotiations resulted in strengthening Hitler's stand within Germany. He'd restored respect to Germany that it had lost after WWI (why do I want to type that as WW 1.0?), and that it had failed to regain under the failed Weimar Republic. USA to Vietnam? Nope. The Peace Process was used as a chance for the NVA and VC to regroup, re-arm, and prepare to attack. Since we had a core media in the US that was pretty much uncritical of the VC and NVA, and in many cases sympathetic to the North Vietnamese (Hello, Hanoi Jane), we ended up looking like schmucks. (FWIW, there were a plethora of other problems with the US effort in Vietnam, but the Peace Process and its cease fires was used as tool by North Vietnam and the Soviets to prepare for further war). Isreal to the rest of the Middle East? The only way that Isreal has gained any concessions towards its existence was through war. The current Intifada is a direct product of suing for peace. They Palestinians think they have Isreal on the ropes now, since they've managed to spin attacks on Isreal into something that Isreal provoked, when Isreal has been the one granting concessions for the last decade. Britain to Sinn Fien/IRA? At best, a mixed bag. Treating with the terrorists has resulted in some progress, but the IRA hasn't been astute in its observations of the agreements, and there is still a great potential for a future blow up. Most of the progress I've seen has been after September 11, mostly because the IRA and it's cohorts are lying low so they don't get lumped in with the Islamo-fascists. Peace is typically best secured through overwhelming defeat of your enemy and the destruction or total subjegation of its leaders. We succeeded with this in WWII, the Civil War, and in the Phillipine uprisings. We did not accomplish this goal at the end of WWI, Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. WWI's mistake ended after WWII. In Korea, we've foreced a stalemate. We lost Vietnam. The mistakes in Iraq will be seen as the precursor to this war, ultimately, just as the crappy hand dealt to the Germans at the end of WWI led to WWII. We gave the Iraqi Dictator a chance to survive. We showed a weakness to other enemies in the process, and left a festering cancer in the Middle East. Now we need to go in and remove that cancer, kill it completely, and rehabilitate the body it once inhabited.

I just saw that I got a reference from Glenn Reynolds, the legendary InstaPundit. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

All Enron, All the Time.... NRO has another commentary on the Enron fiscal fiasco. This one is by Larry Kudlow. It's an interesting read. The media spin on Enron seems to have gone beyond the political and into the pure economic malice or hubris of the issue. Whether the actions of Enron execs was malicious or simple hubris depends upon your personal leanings. I beleive it was hubris, personally. I think the Enron execs thought they'd discovered a Cash Cow, tried to milk it, discovered it wasn't producing, and rather than fess up and look like fools, they covered up and now look like criminals. But the question of the day is -- Will the British press and the Red Cross make as much a stink about how the future Enron white collar prisoners are treated as they have about the murderous prisoners at Guantanamo? Somehow, I doubt it. The media just doesn't care about the mistreatment and abuse of white collar criminals... < sob >

Here's an interesting legal thought... Has anyone considered challenging the IRS and the income tax establishment on the grounds of Equal Protection/Equal Treatment before the law? Considering that if you make less than about $50K you really pay nothing in income taxes (assuming a family of four or so), maybe there is a case to be made that the folks with larger incomes are being discriminated against, and that their civil rights are being violaled just because they have money. The opposite case has often been upheld in court -- that the government can't discriminate against someone for being destitute, or less wealthy, maybe a case could be made that you can't charge 'em a greater percentage of their income in taxes just because they make more money. I wonder what the legal history is in this case...

I heard on the radio this morning that a handful of bikers in Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) attacked an American Cultural center, riding up and machine gunning the facility, killing four Indian cops. The gunners then rode off into the early mornign traffic and away. CNN has the details here. I suspect that the terrorists loosely associated with Al Quaeda and the other Islamo-fascists are trying to stir up trouble between India and Pakistan in an attempt to force the US to take sides. I think that we'll continue to try and walk a fine line, but if Pakistan and India go to war, we'll probably land on the side of India -- which removes us from an Islamic country and creates the perception that we're fighting Islam itself, not the Wahhabist Islamo-fascists. It's on the order of the attacks Iraq waged against Isreal in hopes of getting Isreal to attack Iraq, thus throwing our Arab allies into turmoil over supporting a war between Isreal and an Arab regime. Expect more of this -- The terrorists and Islamo-fascists benefit from anything that makes it appear that our war is against Islam. I know that sounds a little hyper-conspiratory, but it seems to fit the data I've seen. It only takes a tenuous connection and a common goal for terrorists to act in concert. Think about it -- if the Pakistani terrorists can induce a war between India and Pakistan, they can potentially sever the ties between the US and Pakistan. This would endanger Musharref, and perhaps open the door for Pakistan to be turned into another Iran by way of coup. Add in the complications this creates for us in Afghanistan, and the potential appearance of victory for the Islamo-fascists. They could hope that this apparent defeat might weaken our will (as Mogadishu sapped Clinton's will in Somalia). It's got a big upside for the terrorists, and very little downside. They might lose a few voluntary Martyrs along the way -- so what? They've got plenty in their ranks, and they can always draw in more from the Saudis or the "Palestinians". Hopefully India will maintain a cautious but strong approach. President Musharref (sp?) of Pakistan is in a tough situation. His own intelligence service doesn't have sufficient loyalty to anything other than itself to be regarded as safe, and the Pakistani army is more than a little sympathetic to the Islamo-fascists.

There's an interesting article on NRO regarding charging Johnny Walker Lindh, the Al Quaeda sympathiser, AKA the Mullah of Marin. In the article, Douglas W. Kmiec argues for charging Johnny Walker with Treason -- and I tend to agree. There is little doubt that Walker commited acts of war against the United States, and the Consitutional requirements should be relatively easy to meet for the trial of Johnny Walker Lindh. Provided we can meet the requirements of the Constitution in charging Walker with Treason, he should be convicted and hanged. Walker is a blight, and his parents should be ashamed of him. Instead they try to pass off Treason as a youthful indiscretion. It's not. Had JWL murdered a store clerk in a robbery, particularly if it was done as an act of malice, we'd throw the book at him. The matter of Treason differs only in scope -- it's a crime against the Nation versus a crime against a single citizen. I believe much of the reaction to JWL is either disbelief ("How could someone hate the US so much as to join such a foul entity as Al Quaeda?" we ask ourselves, and answer to ourselves that he really didn't hate the US, he was just mislead, or brainwashed), or blatant sympathy with his cause, as evidenced by the "We deserved what we got" crowd on the Left. Well, if an Wahhabist Arab on the streets of Kabul can hate us, why couldn't some undisciplined jerk from Marin County? The only significant difference between the two is the streets they wandered as children. Both accepted uncritically the teachings of their Mullahs, both speak willingly of their desire to kill Americans. Both accept the premise that Islam is a religion of War and servitude. Both choose to carry arms against us. And both should meet the same fate.

I'm listening to Sum 41's relatively new CD All Killer, No Filler, and the description is apt. An excellent CD, with some undertones of classic punk (think Ramones) and a touch of classic 80s Metal (think Ozzy, Judas Priest, etc.).

Well, this was an interesting weekend. I have no time for much other than wedding stuff, really, and that consists primarily of providing keeping myself and the future Dad-in-Law amused so that we stay the heck out of the way of the ladies. So weekends are for golf, and movies -- Guy Movies. I saw two movies this weekend -- Blackhawk Down and Pearl Harbor. The former was fantastic, the latter ludicrous. I'll go backwards so I can end up saying positive things. Pearl Harbor is schlock. They mutilate history, overact, and basically make a general mockery of American History. Cinemagraphically, they went for the expensive spectacular effect versus something rooted in reality. They didn't research this at all. I firmly believe that the script writers, directors, and producers all simply read the National Park Service site (fwiw, the site if down) for the Arizona Memorial and didn't bother to research beyond a quick overview of the whole attack. They got everything wrong, except the date. Add in crap acting by Ben Affleck (Ben, get another look beside the Deeply Wounded Male -- you had subtlety in Chasing Amy, but now your hamming it up) (Oh, and stop taking yourself so seriously -- you're just an actor), unrealistic special effects, such as the ever-flexing Arizona that bends like a peice of overcooked pasta, ridiculously unrealistic flight sequences (planes do not chase each other with a separating distance of twenty feet -- if your target explodes, you will collide at that range), and horribly unbelievable action sequences, like the full barracks getting shot to hell without one pilot taking even a scratch, and you have the Dog of Dogs. Oh, and castin any Baldwin was a dumb mistake. It was a terrible insult to honorable memory of (Then Lt. Col) Jimmy Doolittle to have Alec Baldwin playing him. Historic garbage: Taking fighter jocks to fly the Doolittle Raid -- didn't happen. You can't get type certified on a totally different aircraft in less than a few months, especially for wartime training. Pulling the machine guns at the last minute -- They took the guns out first thing, becuase Browning .50 Calibre machine guns weigh a lot, as does .50 calibre ammunition. With no guns, you don't need gunners, so you trim your crew by three or four people, which saves more weight for fuel. This is all thoroughly documented in many books, and in the excellent movie Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. The little propellers at the back of Japanese bombs spun the fuse to the full contact position. We used the same thing at the front of our bombs from that period. The little propeller wasn't the fuse. The bomb would detonate at impact or after a slight delay -- maybe a half second to a full second. It didn't wait until the little propeller stopped spinning to explode. The propeller stopped spinning when the fuse was set (and IIRC, on some models, it came off when the fuse was set). The propeller was a safety, to prevent the bomb from being fully armed while on the ground. Those are off the top of my head. there are plenty more where that came from. I could write a whole research paper on Hollywood's abuse of history off this one movie. Essentially, the Now on to Blackhawk Down -- This is far, far, far better than I could have ever expected. It is historically accurate -- they talked to the men who were there. The mission profile, the equipment, the way things exploded, are the same as they are in real life, or at least pretty close. The depiction of the inaction and cussedness of the UN 'allies' was accurate as well. The men were not blamed for the mission failure -- the failure was rightly identified as a command failure. The men are shown to be brave, and honest, and professional. Yeah, this is a lot shorter than the stuff i listed about Pearl Harbor, but since the movie is in theatres now, I would urge you to go see it instead of listening to me fawn over its excellence. Ciao, J