This sounds like a repeat of the M-16 debacle from Vietnam. The Army weapons procurement bureaucracy never seems to learn.
Fill ‘Em With Lead
This sounds like a repeat of the M-16 debacle from Vietnam. The Army weapons procurement bureaucracy never seems to learn.
Too Bad For The Republicans
…that the Democrats won’t have a nationally televised convention this year. If they did, this is what the public would see (and here’s the whole thing for non-subscribers):
…in bigger-than-life projection was an extended trailer for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which played to a nearly instantaneous standing ovation. In addition, the conference screened other documentaries, some innocuous (The Motherhood Manifesto, featuring Rosie the Riveter balancing a baby on her bicep) and others not (Iraq for Sale, whose name is self-explanatory).
Down below, on the concourse level, signs flanking entrances into the Hilton’s 45,000-square-foot exhibition hall and its vendor booths read, “We know what to do: Impeach him.” On top of NOW, NARAL, ACORN, and the ACLU (which still contends it is nonpartisan), there was the Backbone Campaign, which sold miniature spines to discourage purchasers from engaging in yes-man, convictionless support of their politicians.
Attendees cautious of “establishment politicians” also seemed to be looking for signs of spinelessness at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday in the Hilton’s International Ballroom, a classy combination of contemporary architecture bathed in florid adornments. That’s when Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were to begin their back-to-back-to-back speechmaking.
Before the main event, two graying, hippie-looking men in the third row hoisted a handmade banner that read, in all caps, “IMPEACH BUSH.” (This was becoming the unofficial theme of the week.) Wild applause erupted, and several people nearby, energized by their proximity to this agitation, felt compelled to stand in solidarity and raise peace signs. This horrified the conference leaders, who discouraged such displays and constantly reminded attendees, whom they treated like mischievous children, to “be respectful.”
Not a pretty picture. That’s why I suspect that the Donkeys are going to be disappointed again this fall.
The Cult Of International Law
David Bernstein discusses:
I’m not exaggerating when I say that I’ve had several correspondences along these lines, none challenging the points I raised (though not necessarily assenting, either), but simply arguing that any such points are completely irrelevant, because all that matters is whether or not Israel violated international law.
It has struck me that debating such people is just as frustrating and unproductive as arguing with a religious believer about some matter within the scope of his religious belief–just substitute “God says so” for “international law says so.”
Turn About Is Fair Play
You know, what I’d like to see is some dirt from whistle-blowers within the New York Times organization.
Of course, what would be most interesting is how Bill Keller or Pinch Sulzberger (who’ve never been on any ballot in my memory, when it comes to who I want to trust to declassify information) respond.
Backup
Jim Pinkerton agrees with Stephen Hawking, that we need to get some of our earthly eggs into other baskets.
Death In The Blogosphere
Acidman has gone to the big blog in the sky. RIP.
Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish
At long last, Ward Churchill is on his way to the unemployment office (I wish–I’m sure that some wacko college is just slavering to pick him up, if he can just burnish his native American creds).
I wish that reporters would call his lawyers on this kind of nonsense, though:
“We’re going to a real court because we can trust juries to do the right thing,” said Churchill’s attorney David Lane. “Churchill says this all completely bogus. Let’s see if a jury and a Federal District Court agrees with the committee. Or see if everything that’s happened here is retaliation for Ward Churchill’s First Amendment free speech relating to 9/11.”
…When his essay was brought to light in January 2005, Gov. Bill Owens, state lawmakers and relatives of Sept. 11, 2001 victims in New York immediately denounced it. University officials concluded Churchill could not be fired for the essay, but in March 2005 they launched an investigation into allegations of plagiarism and other research misconduct.
“A committee last year began to look at his writings including his essay on 9/11,” said DiStefano. “We determined his writings were protected under the First Amendment. However, during that process there were allegations of research misconduct.”
Instead of wrapping himself in a flag, Chuch has wrapped himself in the First Amendment, and thus despoiled it. And unfortunately, the university has aided and abetted this misconception.
There are no First Amendment issues at stake here, at all. Churchill has the right to say whatever he wants, but the First Amendment does not grant him the right to remain a university professor (any more than it protects the New York Times from prosecution for violating the law regarding disclosure of secrets, should Alberto Gonzales grow a pair and decide to prosecute Bill Keller and company).
Contra the findings of the university committee, Churchill has no “First Amendment right” to say whatever he wants and suffer no repercussions. If they wanted to fire him for his “little Eichmanns” statement, they’d be perfectly within their constitutional rights to do so. The only thing preventing it is his contract that goes along with tenure.
Fortunately, while that contract does in fact allow him to say the vile things he chooses to say, it doesn’t extend so far as to protect him against his repeated and egregious acts of academic fraud. I hope that this case does go to trial, so that both he and his attorney can waste their time and money in fighting a pointless case, in futile support of a truly disgusting human being.
Well, That Explains It
If only he’d released this version. Iowahawk has a rough draft of Bill Keller’s letter explaining his publishing decision:
It’s an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Jihadi Accountant and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? I’ll tell you who we are, pal. We are journalists – the people whom the inventors of this country specifically appointed to be the protectors of this little experiment we call the “human race” against the privations of out-of-control Texas Oil Nazis. And if you check your Constitution, I don’t think you’ll see anything in there about the right to clog up the press’s inbox with your stupid Rush Limbaugh talking points.
I Never Fail To Be Amazed
At not only how different the state Doppler radar is from the local one, but at how little rain one can get from a “heavy shower’ on the local Doppler. I filled the pool this morning in the hopes that one of the many “thunderstorms” predicted for today would actually hit us. We watched all weekend as they approached southeast Palm Beach County, and would either stall, or fizzle out, just before they reached us. We really need the rain here. And thunderstorms are one of the three things that I like about south Florida, relative to south coastal California.
Still, I’m glad that we have much better weather forecasting and sensing than we did as a kid growing up in southeast Michigan, when the best they could do is tell you that they had “tornado watches” and “warnings” and it was based on a WAG as to where they were going to go.