It has legal merit, so it will fail

Timothy Smith, a California resident, is suing Apple for locking iPhone to AT&T. He's claiming that this violates California's antitrust statues. Frankly, it appears to do more than that as well. These agreements among companies to limit free trade and to leverage monopolies is in no one's interests but the companies themselves. We have anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation in this country for a reason. It's about time someone realized that we need to enforce these laws.

Man sues Apple over iPhone's AT&T lock
The Machinist - Salon

Apple has lately been on the receiving end of a number of ridiculous iPhone lawsuits -- litigious whiners are upset at the device's battery life and that Apple cut the iPhone's price -- but now comes a legal claim with some moral weight to it. A California resident is suing Apple for locking the iPhone to AT&T -- a lock that Apple has been prepared to maintain at the cost of breaking people's phones.

Timothy Smith and his attorney say that by preventing customers from choosing a cell carrier than AT&T, Apple is violating California's antitrust statues. Smith argues that because unlocking your cellphone is completely legal, Apple's technical and contract restrictions have "artificially inflated" the iPhone's price.

Smith's attorney is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. The suit asks to bar Apple from selling locked phones and to force the company to reinstate the warranties of people who have unlocked their phone's from AT&T.

We'll see if Smith's suit goes anywhere, but you'd be wise not to hold your breath on this one. This is a huge deal, bugger than Apple and the iPhone alone. If he prevails, Smith's claim would ripple through the cell industry, which generates gobs of green from the kind of anticompetitive locks that Apple and AT&T maintain with the iPhone. Wish for the best, but don't expect it.

Is the primary a scam?

I hate when someone from Salon makes a good point, but Michael Shearer is right on with his criticisms of the primary process."

We need a better way to identify candidates that this ridiculous system. Personally, I'm in favor of a direct, representative, nation-wide series of primary elections. Perhaps 3-4 of them would make sense. The first might winnow the field down from the top candidates per political party, then 4, then 2, then you get one. If at any time, someone gets more than 50% of the vote, you can stop. We're basically doing this right now. The only difference is that moving from 10 to 3-4 will occur based on votes in only a small number of voters in a couple of states which are not representative with the rest of the country.

Maybe it's time to sit down, reevaluate how we elect the President, and come up with something a bit more democratic.

The presidential primary scam
Current Opinion - Salon

WASHINGTON -- It's far worse than you think -- worse than the hanging chads, faulty Diebold machines, and billionaires who bankroll last-minute attack ads. The American system for nominating a presidential candidate has about as much in common with actual democracy as Donald Duck has with a lake mallard. It's not just that this year's primaries have been further front-loaded, or that the early primary states aren't representative of the nation at large. There is only passing fairness. There is only the semblance of order. There is nothing like equal representation under the law.

The whole stinking process was designed by dead men in smoky parlors and refined by faceless bureaucrats in hotel conference rooms. It is a nasty brew born of those cauldrons of self-interest known as political parties. At every stage, advantage is parceled out like so much magic potion. "The national interest is not considered in any form," says University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "Everything is left up to an ad hoc decision. It's chaotic."

This is not an exaggeration. Consider this: If you are a Republican, your vote for the presidential nominee will be worth more in Tennessee than in New York. If you are a Democrat, your vote in the primary will not count in Florida and is unlikely to count in Michigan. If you are a Republican in Wyoming, you probably won't get to vote at all, since only party officials have a say.

And it gets worse. This election cycle, a top Democratic candidate shaking someone's hand in Miami before the end of Florida is breaking the rules, unless that someone is handing the candidate a check at the same time. To put it another way, Democrats' communicating with the voters has been barred in Florida, but taking money from voters is OK. To put it a third way, the system is not only irrational but offensive to the nation's most basic values. "The only way that you can hear a candidates campaign is if you are willing to pay a campaign contribution," explains Steven Geller, Florida's exasperated state Senate Democratic leader. "It is astounding."

Quote of the Day

"This study shows that cost containment strategies that result in disenrollment from Medicaid or SCHIP programs can be expected to increase care at expensive sites, including EDs and hospitals, and decrease care that is received in physician's offices. Such changes in site of care not only will increase health care costs but also will aggravate current community problems of ED overcrowding and inpatient bed shortages. The total number of ED visits and inpatient days can be expected to increase as well as the amount of uncompensated care that is provided by hospitals and EDs that serve as safety net providers when Medicaid/SCHIP-insured children disenroll."

- Mary E. Rimsza, Richard J. Butler, and William G. Johnson, Impact of Medical Disenrollment on Health Care Use and Cost, DOI: 10.1542/peds.2006.2747, Pediatrics 2007; 119; e1026-e1032

It's time to start questioning Democrat patriotism

I'm still riled up about the Fox News poll that just came out, showing that 20% of Democrats think the world would be better off if the U.S. loses the war in Iraq.


Let me just put this out there: I deeply question the patriotism of anyone who feels that the world would be better off if America loses the war in Iraq.


The Democrats keep yelling about how "not unpatriotic" they are despite their being no real challenges from Republicans about their patriotism. Perhaps there should be.


Earlier this year, the Democrats used the troops' welfare as a bargaining chip: threatening the funding of the war only to make an empty political statement. By showing the world the Democrats were against the war in Iraq, they are damaging the efforts there. They did this knowing they had no chance of passing their retreat bill. They only did so in order to make a vacuous political statement. They've once again done the same. Instead of renewing the wildly popular SCHIP program before its expiration this past Monday, they have staked out a position: they'll hold hostage the millions of poor children on the program, refusing to give them medical care unless the Republicans agree to expand the program into the middle class families who largely have health care - and, of course, they pay for it with a regressive tax. They've made no secret that they're doing this once again to make a vacuous political statement They did this to generate a campaign issue for their members. It's pretty sickening that they're denying medical care to poor children simply in order to make a political statement.


So yes, I do have to question the patriotism of some of these Democrats. When you're threatening to take funding away from troops in the field, when you're threatening to take funding away from poor children's health insurance simply to make a political statement, it clearly says you care more for your own political future than helping the groups of people in this country we must support the most.

Grant POW status to detainees

The last paragraph here really gets to me:

"About 340 detainees remain in Guantanamo on suspicion of links to terrorism, al-Qaida, or the Taliban. Most have been held for years without being charged."

We have this perception somehow that these are criminals suspects. Look at how the AP author is writing this. They're held "on suspicion of links to terrorism, al-Qaida, or the Taliban" and have been "held for years without being charged."

We need to change this perspective. One of the largest failings of the Administration in the War on Terror is the refusal to declare the individuals held at Guantanamo as POWs. By now calling them POWs, the Administration is fostering the perspective that it is a criminal matter. If they can just say, "Any honest reader of the Geneva Conventions would conclude that these terrorists are not Prisoners of War as defined by that document. However, the U.S. feels that it would be best to treat them in accord with the treatment of POWs as defined in the treaty. Thus we have decided to grant them the status of POWs even though the treaty would not give them those rights."

This would end the whole "held without charged" arguments because POWs aren't charged. They're held for the duration of the conflict in a preventative way, not in a punitive one.

Report: Saudi Gitmo Detainees Get Gift
Brietbart.com

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - The Saudi Arabian government will temporarily release 55 prisoners recently transferred from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and will give each of them about $2,600 to celebrate the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid-al-Fitr, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz granted the temporary releases from detention centers in Saudi Arabia so the prisoners could spend time with their families during the holiday in mid-October, the Okaz newspaper reported.

They will return to police custody after the holiday and will be referred to Saudi courts at the end of this month for upcoming trials, the paper said.

U.S. authorities transferred 16 Saudis from Guantanamo Bay back to Saudi Arabia in September, the latest transfer of prisoners from the U.S. detention facility. Fewer than 40 Saudi detainees remain in detention.

Can we question Democrat's Patriotism now?

A new Fox News Poll says, "Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq." There's really nothing much else to say about that.

FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War
Fox News

NEW YORK - Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.

The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would better off if the U.S. lost the war.

Overall, 11 percent of Americans think the world would be "better off" if the U.S. lost the war, and 72 percent agree.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 25 to Sept. 26. The poll has a 3-point margin of error.

John McCain wants Alan Greenspan to do his taxes

Sometimes I just really love John McCain.

McCain wants Greenspan, Dead or Alive
"If He's Dead, Just Prop Him Up...Like 'Weekend At Bernies' To Help Fix Tax Code, Jokes Senator
CBS News

(AP) Republican John McCain said Thursday that as president he would appoint Alan Greenspan to lead a review of the nation's tax code - even if the former Federal Reserve chairman was dead.

"If he's alive or dead,it doesn't matter. If he's dead, just prop him up and put some dark glasses on him, like "Weekend at Bernie's," McCain joked. "Let's get the best minds in America together and fix this tax code."

The 81-year-old Greenspan served as chairman of the Fed for 18 1/2 years.

Campaigning in early-voting South Carolina, McCain was asked about his support for a flat tax.

Quote of the Day

"Unlike Mitt Romney, who has jumped on board the Democrats' 'change' theme, Giuliani is sticking with what he does best: strength, efficiency, and haunting the nightmares of liberals."

- Christopher Beam and Chadwick Matlan on slate.com

Out of my bedroom but into my living room...

Two California (where else?) cities are set to vote on banning smoking in apartments and, more frighteningly, in condos.

Why is it that liberals are so fond of trying to keep the government out of the bedroom but wanting it involved so intimately in every other room of the house? If the 4th Amendment prohibits the government from regulating who can have sex with whom (a position I heartily endorse, by the way) then it certainly prohibits the government from regulating who can smoke in his home.

Two Calif. cities to vote on banning smoking in apartments
USA Today

Lawmakers in two California cities are casting votes this month on unprecedented legislation that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos.

Today in Calabasas, the City Council plans to vote on expanding its anti-smoking law to bar renters from lighting up inside existing apartments. It would exempt current resident smokers until they moved but would require all new buildings with at least 15 units, including condos, to be smoke-free.

Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on a similar measure that won initial approval last week. The ordinance, which applies to apartments and condos, which allow fines and evictions if neighbors complained and smokers didn't heed warnings.

The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members, is a controversial part of a mostly volunteer effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies.

McCain is right-on about the SCHIP

McCain takes the maverick stance once again - this time praising Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion into the middle class on the backs of the poor.

Republicans need to get out in front of this RIGHT NOW. The Democrats are trying to tax the poor to subsidize medical insurance for middle class families who largely have insurance already. That needs to be the message. What Congress needs to do is pass a renewal of the existing program and then we can discuss how to cover uninsured middle class families without forcing the poor to subsidize medical insurance for middle class families who already have insurance. I am sick of the Democrats using the most vulnerable among us - poor children and deployed military personnel - as pawns to try to score political points against the Republicans. It's disgusting.

McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
CNN

CAMDEN, South Carolina (CNN) -- Sen. John Mccain, R-Arizona, told CNN Wednesday he agrees with President Bush's veto of legislation expanding a children's health insurance program, saying the bill provided a "phone smoke and mirrors way of paying for it."

"Right call by the president," the Republican White House hopeful told CNN's John King. "We've laid a debt on these same children...that we're saying we're going to give health insurance to."

The bill, which would cost $35 billion over five years, is meant to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to an additional 10 million children.

Bush said he vetoed the bill because he considered it a step towards "federalizing" medicine and an inappropriately expanding the program's goal beyond its original focus on helping poor children.

SCHIP: It's the Democrats who are hurting the poor

This is such a disgusting, partisan attack. The issue here isn't that Bush wants to take away SCHIP - he's against increasing taxes on the poor to expand SCHIP to the middle class. Of course, this article positions it as though Bush is trying to hurt the poor, but it's the Democrats who are arguing that if they don't get to expand the SCHIP program to the middle class they they'll take it away from the poor.

Families Brace for SCHIP Demise
Many Poorer Families Fear Presidential Veto Threatens Their Children's Health Care
ABC News

Carolyn Taylor, a full-time nursing assistant and medical technician, works hard to ensure that she is able to provide for her 11-year-old son Keith. But on Monday, she - along with thousands of others - took time off to rally in support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

"The rally was to let Bush know we need health insurance for our children," said Taylor, a Baltimore resident. "We wanted to let President Bush know we are real people.. He said there would be no child left behind. Well, we're getting left behind unless he continues SCHIP."

Gathering on the White House lawn and the steps of Congress, the throngs were joined by children who pulled red wagons filled with over a million petitions, urging Congress to expand health insurance coverage for children.

Yet, it appears that the effort may be in vain after Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have renewed and expanded SCHIP.

Hillary Clinton's audacity

The audacity of Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. This is a woman who has established a PAC which has a politicization of science" division, who is allied with Al Gore who admits to exaggerating the global warming menace (most clearly by blatantly lying about Antarctic glaciers), and actively ignores the overwhelming majority of economists in setting economic policy. How does the audacity to levy the charge that anyone is manipulating science?

Clinton Would Fund Stem Cell Research
Hillary Rodham Clinton to Lay Out Science Proposals, Slam Bush's 'War on Science'
ABC News

If elected president, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would sign an executive order rescinding President Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

She says she also would bar political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions from government research without a legitimate reason for doing so.

The New York senator was to announce these and other proposals of her science agenda in a speech in Washington on Thursday.

The address to the Carnegie Institution for Science was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. The launch, which caught U.S. scientists by surprise, helped start the U.S.-Soviet space race and led to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SCHIP -- Taxing the poor to provide health care for the middle class

I don't know if this is a winner for the Democrats - they're trying to tax the poor to pay for health care for the middle class. How can they spin that? The democrats are unwilling to pass an SCHIP program which will cover just the poor and will instead fund the expansion of the program into the middle class throuogh a ridiculously regressive tax. I don't understand how the Republicans can avoid hitting the Democrats on this. This is about taxing the poor to provide health care for middle class families, which can afford health care themselves. How is that flying?

Child Health Veto Will Be Election Issue
Bush's Quiet Veto of Child Health Bill Will Reverberate into Election Campaigns
ABC News

President Bush cast a quiet veto Wednesday against a politically attractive expansion of children's health insurance, triggering a striggle with the Democratic-congrolled Congress certain to reverberate into the 2008 elections.

"Congress will fight hard to override President Bush's heartless veto, "vowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Republican leaders expressed confidence they have enough votes to make the veto strict in the Heouse, and not a single senior Democrat disputed them. A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress is required to override a veto.

Bush vetoesd the bill in private, absent the television camera and other media coverage that normally attend even more routine presidential actions. The measure called for adding in estimated 4 million mostly ower income to a program that currently covers 6.6 million. Funds for the expansion would come from higher tobacco taxes, including a 61-cent increase on a pack of cigarettes.

Desperate Housewives apparently work as janitors

Laura Berman has a mean-spirited, scathing attack column in yesterday's Detroit News. Apparently, she thinks that "Desperate Housewives" are the ones who own companies which purchase computer consulting services, HR services, accounting services, payroll services, or janitorial services.

I'm not sure how she thinks that only the rich get their hair colored, their cars washed, and their carpets cleaned.

But what really galls me is her ridiculous assumption that this will not affect the economy. Who does she think performs these services? When the entrepreneur opens up a nail salon, is this more likely to be a "Desperate Housewife" or a middle or working class American? When someone gets a technical certification and becomes a computer technician, is it more likely to be a "Desperate Housewife" or someone trying to raise a family?

This morning on the Paul W. Smith show on WJR, L. Brooks Paterson made clear that he's already heard of one technical service company which leaving the state. Who can blame them? Why would other companies continue to utilize their services when they can see 6% by using one based in Toledo instead of Oakland County?

Laura Berman: Service tax aims to skim off the cream
The Detroit News

The new 6 percent tax on assorted, nonessential services will be a mild annoyance for most, like waiting in line at the Secretary of State's office.

It doesn't tax the refrigerator repair guy.

The dry cleaners are exempt. And in a display of reassuring legal lobby agility, the services of lawyers remain tax-free.

Yes, the new tax wreaks havoc on the metaphysical industry (psychics, palm-readers, phrenologists and astrologers), goes after sex in the city (escort and dating services), frowns on festivity (party planners and ballonistas), but it is squarely aimed at a slender Michigan demographic.

It's a Desperate Housewives tax, designed to skim off cream from the people who can afford to buy dairy products from Devonshire.

A toned-and-tucked tax.

Could the new Michigan service tax be repealed?

The Freep has an article about business' anger over the new service tax. Here's the rub:

"The businesses say they fear the tax will raise the price of their services enough to cost them clients who decide to go without the service, such as janitorial, or to change to an out-of-state company that might avoid the tax.".

That's the real problem. The issue is really that companies will start to get some of these business-to-business services from Ohio, Indiana, or even further out-of-state companies. Why buy your accounting service in Monroe when you can get it for 6% less in Toledo? Why buy your payroll services in Kalamazoo when you can get it for 6% less in Chicago? Why use an Ann Arbor IT company when you can just use one from Dallas that costs 6% less?

An even better question: if you're thinking about starting an IT, HR consulting, accounting, or any other professional service company, why not put it in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, or Wisconsin instead of Michigan and make an extra 6%?

Service tax repeal is plotted
Detroit Free Press

LANSING -- Business groups inflamed by the new sales tax on many services are plotting a campaign to repeal it, just days after it passed.

"There are a lot of discussions going on," said Todd Anderson of the Small Business Association of Michigan.

He said measures include a possible petition drive -- which could place the issue on a statewide ballot -- or merely lobbying the Legislature to rescind or make major changes in the new tax.

The tax on services is a key piece of the state budget deal lawmakers finished early Monday, hours after a deadline passed to shut down state government. It will generate about half the new tax revenues needed to help erase a $1.7 billion deficit.

More MoveOn drama...

This sounds like illegal campaign contributions to me. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Mr. Franken is taking the money. Illegal campaigning has become a sport for Democrats these days, if it's Mr. Fieger making reimbursements of donations to Sen. Edwards, or Mr. Hsu making reimbursements of donations to Sen. Clinton, or apparently, Mr. Franken taking money from the Star Tribune.

Newspaper Refunds Ad Money to Franken
Associated Press

WASHINGOTN (AP) - MoveON.org has proven to be a headache for newspapers.

On Sunday, The New York Times said it erred in giving the liberal anti-war group a $77,508 prince break on a full-page advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Now the Star Tribune, a Minneapolis newspapers, is refunding about $12,000 to Al Franken, a Minnesota Democratic Senate candidate, after undercharging Sen. Norm Coleman, for a full-page advertisement spawned by the one in the Times.

Franken is one of several Democrats vying to unseat Coleman.

The Star Tribune said it charged Coleman, R-Minn., around $20,000 for Tuesday's add, which criticized Franken for not condemning the MoveOne.org ad. Two months ago, according to the newspaper, it charged Franken around $32,000 for a full-page ad in the paper criticizing Coleman's record on the Iraq war.

Thank goodness Standford has a "value of tolerance"!

Donald Rumsfeld has received a one-year appointment at The Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank at Standford. Apparently,in a fit of childish rage, over 300 professors and 3,500 total individuals associated with Standford want him removed. All is not lost, however. There is at least one mature person at Standford:

"Personally I disagree with his politics," said Brett Hammon, a political science major. "But at the same time, I'm not sure I think it would be prudent for the university to refuse hiring him just because most students disagree with his politics. I know I would hate it if I went to school in Texas and the university refused to hire a prominent liberal politician just because most of the student body was conservative."

Professors, students protest Rumsfeld's appointment
CNN

Standford, California -- Students and professors at Standford University are protesting Donald Rumsfeld's appointment to a campus think tank, saying the former defense secretary does not uphold the "ethical values" of the school.

Shortly after Rumsfeld's appointment was announced in September, professor Pamela Lee began an online petition from faculty members opposed to bringing him to the Hoover Institution.

Since then, the petition has gained more than 3,500 signatures, including nearly 300 faculty members from such diverse disciplines as law, computer science, electrical engineering and drama.

"We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested inquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Standford is inalienably committed," the petition reads.

America's ambivalence towards abortion?

There's no way this poll result is valid:

In the Third Way poll, 72 percent said the decision to have an abortion should be "left up to a woman, her family, and her doctor," while at the same time 69 percent acknowledged that abortion "is the taking of human life." .

That means that at least 41 percent of people feel that abortion is the taking of human life but that it is acceptable that the decision to have said abortion should be "left up to a woman, her family, and her doctor." That means that 41 percent of people feel that it's acceptable for "a woman, her family, and her doctor" to unilaterally engage in the "taking of a human life."

Am I the only one troubled by that?

To me, the debate has always been pretty straight-forward: either you believe that humanity begins at conception, or at some point thereafter. Perhaps it's at viability, perhaps at the moment of birth, perhaps it's at some time some weeks or months or even years after birth. However, there is a very clear line there: either you are a person or you are not; either you can be killed legally or you cannot. The people who are taking the position which is espoused here, that it is okay to kill people because their existence is inconvenient, is shocking and reprehensible. I, frankly, cannot believe that 40 percent of Americans are in that camp.

A New Ambivalence
Long a black-and-white issue, abortion is now seen more as an argument to be fostered, not settled
Newsweek

Although plenty of people are passionate about abortion, few of them would spend 16 years and $7 million of their own money making a movie about it, especially one that tries not to take sides. British filmmaker Tony Kaye, who says he's not pro-life or pro-choice but "confused," can't even explain why he became so obsessed with the topic. But in his 152-minute documentary, "Lake of Fire," which opens in New York this week, Kaye - who also directed "American History X" - offers an exhaustive look into the extremes of the abortion fight. Pro-choicers will wince at the graphic footage of actual abortions - including one at 20 weeks, where tiny appendages are measured against a ruler afterward. Pro-lifers will be dismayed they're represented largely through the rantings like extremists like Paul Hill, who was later executed for murdering an abortion doctor. Though it mentions South Dakota's recent attempt to ban nearly all abortion, the movie concentrates on the protests and clinic violence of the 1990s. It doesn't take into account any of the profound changes of the past decade: pro-lifer's move away from the picket lines into state legislatures and courtrooms, the battle over "partial-birth abortion" that forced Americans to focus on the specifics of the procedure, or even how more-sophisticated technology is changing minds about just when life begins.

Despite our tendency to focus on the extremes of the abortion debate, many Americans - including those who say they are pro-choice or pro-life - have come to realize that the issue won't be settled any time soon. In a national poll to be released this week by the influential Democratic think tank Third Way, nearly three quarters said they wished elected leaders would look for common ground on abortion. The country is pretty evenly divided on their standing view of the question: 40 percent of registered voters say they're pro-choice, 39 percent pro-life, and 18 percent volunteered the response "neither." (In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of Iowa overs, 17 percent selected "neither.") Although many liberals fear a reversal of Roe by a conservative Supreme Court, and many conservatives fear a rampant culture of abortion, much of the country in fact seems more ambivalent than adamant.

Must Read: The Death of Relativism

There is nothing else I can add to this brilliantly written piece by Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl.

The Death of Relativism
The film A Mighty Heart goes too far in likening my son's murders to the Guantanamo regime
The Guardian

I used to believe that the world essentially divided into two types of people: those who were broadly tolerant, and those who felt threatened by differences. If only the former ruled the earth, I reasoned, the world might know some measure of peace. But there was a problem with my theory, and it was never clearer than in a conversation I had with a Pakistani friend who told me that he loathed people like George Bush who insisted on dividing the world into "us" and "them". My friend did not realize that he was in fact falling straight into the camp of people he loathed.

This is a political version of a famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell. The stronger you insist on the necessity of tolerance, the more intolerant you become toward those who disagree. The moral lesson is that there is no such thing as unqualified tolerance; ultimately, one must be able to expound intolerance of certain ideologies without surrendering the moral high ground normally liked to tolerance.

Which brings me to my son, Daniel Pearl. Thanks to the release of A Mighty Heart, the Angelina Jolie movie which premiers in the UK this week, Danny's legacy is once again receiving attention. Of course, no movie could ever capture exactly that magical combination of humor and integrity, gentleness and resilience, that made Danny so admired by so many. Still, traces of these qualities are certainly evident in A Mighty Heart, and viewers will leave the cinema inspired by them.

At the same time, I am worried that the film falls into a trap Russell would have recognised: the paradox of moral equivalence, of seeking to extend the logic of tolerance a step too far. You can see traces of this logic in the film's comparison of Danny's abduction with Guantanamo (it opens with pictures from the prison) and of al-Qaida militants with CIA agents. You can also see it in the comments of the movie's director, Michael Winterbottom, who wrote in the Washington Post that A Mighty Heart and his previous film, The Road to Guantanamo, were very similar: "There are extremists on both sides who want to ratchet up the levels of violence and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of this."

Dingell wants more money to "fight polution"

Rep. John Dingell is rolling out a new environmental plan. What's the plan? Raise taxes. Raise gas taxes, raise income taxes, raise energy taxes.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Rep. Dingell is trying to raise taxes. His goal here is not to protect the auto industry - he has, after all, gone on record as saying he is "committed to CAFE increases", which are tantamount to the Senate-proposed increases that would destroy the auto industry. Nor is his goal here to reduce CO2 production - there are ways to do this which represent minimal cost to consumers and, most particularly, the poor who would suffer under a regressive carbon tax. He can have the same effect with proposals which would be more cost effective:

1. carpool lanes


2. building codes that include rigorous standards for energy efficiency


3. more efficient charging of household electronics (i.e. cell phones, batteries, laptops, etc.)


4. replacement of incandescent light bulbs with compact florescent bulbs


5. elimination of non-programmable thermostats

These programs and the long-term development of alternative energy will all have net cost savings, as well as promote energy efficiency and conservation of our natural resources.

Instead of taking a serious look at any of these programs, Rep. Dingell is simply trying to redirect more money away from consumers and toward the government. This should surprise no one, as Rep. Dingell makes no secret of his love of nearly every tax and his desire to raise them all. But raising taxes is not the best way to solve our pollution problems, and the sooner someone tells Rep. Dingell this fact, the better it will be for American taxpayers.

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like - a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax, and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with the Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

Republicans: No more pork!

There isn't anything I can say about the disgusting habit of earmarks, which are returning with a vengeance, which Rep. Boehner hasn't said here.

Pork Barrel Stonewall
The Democrats refuse to allow public scrutiny of all earmarks.
Wall Street Journal - Opinion Journal

House Republicans have launched a renewed effort to change the way Congress spends taxpayers' money. Our goal: Stop Congress from tucking members' pet spending projects into bills without public scrutiny and debate.

Pork-barrel earmarks were an important factor in the loss of the GOP majority last November. Years of irresponsible earmarks, slipped into bills behind closed doors without public debate or scrutiny, eroded Republicans' reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility and trustworthy custodians of taxpayer funds.

I've never made a secret of my distaste for worthless pork. Just a few months after being elected as majority leader last year, we enacted comprehensive reforms that brought the earmark process out into broad daylight. All taxpayer-funded earmarks had to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge and debate. If you sponsor a project, we argued, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it -- and if you're not, you shouldn't ask taxpayers to pay for it. These reforms were the right thing to do -- and they still are.

Yipes!!!

The Open Science Institute has a "politicization of science" program????? This is damn scary.

The Soros Threat to Democracy
Investors Business Daily

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him support his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Give them fair warning?

The government is supposed to tell suspected terrorists that they're searching their property and papers? Doesn't this judge think that might be a bit out of line of what the Constitution intended? The Fourth Amendment prohibited "unwarranted searches and seizures". There's nothing in there that requires that the person searched be notified prior to the search, just that it be legitimate and warranted. I can understand that if we're looking at American citizens we need a court of some sort (FISA or whatever) to review the search warrant. I'm completely on board with that. However, if we're informing terrorists that we're investigating them, that could definitely inhibit the investigation. I don't see any need to notify them of the search until the investigation is complete.

Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional
CNN

A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, set up to review wiretap applications in intelligence cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "holds that the Constitution need not control the conduct of criminal surveillance in the United States," Aiken wrote.

"In place of the Fourth Amendment, the people are expected to defer to the executive branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate."

What's reasonable and responsible about genocide?

I'd love to see Sen. Levin's plan which would have a "reasonable date of completion" for handing off duties to the Iraqi's in less than 15 months. I love that the Democrats have started using words like "reasonable" and "responsible" to refer to their unreasonable, irresponsible dates for surrender.

GOP Offers New Iraq Plan
ABC News

A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.

The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.

"To try to put this off until after the election, rather than a reasonable period of completion, I believe would be to unnecessarily introduce a political element to what is a bipartisan effort," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Democratic Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the misison of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a gol of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.

Hooray for Hollywood

Interesting article, but one problem: they suggest that driving a hybrid car can somehow save money. This is a fallacy. Most hybrids NEVER will save their owner money.

Hollywood Sending Mixed Climate Messages
Brietbart.com

LOS ANGELES (AP) - From "green carpets" at awards shows to organic fruit served to actors on sets, Hollywood is going all out to promote itself as being environmentally hip. But is it all just show.

No amount of public service announcements or celebrities driving hybrid cars can mask the fact that movie and TV production is a pretty gritty industrial operation, consuming enormous amounts of power to feed bright lights, run sophisticated cameras, and feed a cast of thousands.

Studios' back lots host cavernous soundstages that must be air conditioned to counter the heat produced by decades-old lighting technology. Huge manufacturing facilities consume wood, steel, paint, and plastic to build sets that are often torn down and tossed out after filming ends.

The energy guzzling continues on the exhibition side, too, with multiplexes drawing millions of kilowatts to power old-school popcorn makers and clunky film projectors that cash-strapped theater owners are reluctant to replace.

A two-year study released last year by the University of California at Los Angeles concluded that special effects explosions, idling vehicles and diesel generators make the entertainment industry a major Southern California polluter, second only to the oil industry.