Caliber50

Miserable March

2005-03-30T18:37:00.000-05:00

Call it March Madness, Miserable March, or Murder March if you want. I don't know what has been going on this past month. I speculated before that we were passing through the tail of some kind of murder comet (at least it's not turning everyone into zombies), but these last few weeks have been really violent and depressing.

-Wisconsin hotel shooting
-Atlanta courthouse shooting
-Jessica Lunsford's body was found
-Philadelphia murder spree
-Judge's family executed (technically happened Feb 28)
-Red Lake school shooting
-Terry Schiavo's feeding tube removed

What the hell is going on? I'd bet that on a statistical level, March, 2005 will probably be no different than any other month this year. It just seems there are a lot of spectacularly violent crimes being committed. Can't wait for April.

Man vs. Nature

2005-03-30T18:23:00.000-05:00

First off, sorry about the no-blogging for the last week or so. Thanks for coming back. I'd like to say I was busy with work, or working around the house or something (although I did spend 2 weekends fixing my Jeep). No, it was my longtime downfall, computer games. And an old game, at that.

Anyway, last week, I happened to be in the right place at the right time, and saw something that I think was once in a lifetime. My uncle and I were driving back from lunch. It's a nice, scenic drive, a winding road that goes past a dam and its reservoir and park. We drove on past the elementary school, and, just past the trailer park, to the foot of a hill. Near the crest of the hill, about 50 yards away, a herd of deer was running across the road. As a dump truck came over the crest. Our eyes grew wide, the 8 or so deer kicked it into high gear, and the dump truck kept coming. It was really booking, it must have been going 50. The deer flitted across in front of it, it kept coming, a disaster was in the making, we started yelling, "Oh... oh... Oh...... OHHHHHHH!!!" as tail end charlie didn't make it. It didn't just get slapped aside to the side of the road, the deer exploded. Like it swallowed a grenade. It was obliterated. A dark red spray obscured the front of the truck, whose driver I don't think even touched his brakes. Hair floated in the air like dandelion seeds. As we slowed down to pass the carcass, I turned to look at its shattered body, checking to see if it was possibly still alive, while my uncle watched its liver slide across the road.

We're just lucky the truck didn't try to swerve into our lane to avoid the poor doe. Another, smarter deer had waited to cross, and bounded across in front of us to join the remainder of the herd.

T-Day

2005-03-17T20:15:00.000-05:00

Unless something happens, tomorrow is the day the doctors will remove the feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, and she will begin to die of starvation and dehydration. Here is a story on it that includes this ridiculous line:

The push, largely by Republicans, has drawn accusations that Bush and the GOP are pandering to the religious right. Some have also questioned whether the campaign runs counter to Republican principles of less government and more freedom.

Options are running out for Terri's parents, who are desperate to keep their daughter alive. The Florida house passed legislation that would save her, but the Senate balked. Congressional action has stalled. The Schindlers (Terri's parents; apt name) have filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court.

Who knows what will happen between tonight and tomorrow. And it will probably be 2 weeks before Terri starves to death. So there is still some time. If nothing pans out, there's only one thing the Schindlers can do: the John Q option. Bring some guns to the hospice where she is kept, barricade themselves in her room, and prevent the tube from being removed. Wouldn't you do that if it was your child?

Yesterday, I wrote about Ward Churchill urging Americans to commit acts of terrorism, and I thought about that before writing the "John Q" statement. People on many web sites (left and right) casually comment about armed insurrection or civil war when they can't get their way. In the context of national politics and foreign policy, it is an absurd position. Even the state taking away your rights to bear arms, free speech, and own private property has to be stretched pretty far before "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That all goes out the window when it comes to family. This is a terrible case, and hard cases make bad law. Their are competing interests and claims, and controversy over Terri's mental state. But the Schindlers believe Terri is alive, and aware, and worth saving. Hopefully something will happen, some governmetn agency will stop this. Otherwise, tomorrow a person will go into Terri Schiavo's room to kill her. A father has a duty. I hope he fulfills that duty. I wish him success.

Update: Oops, it's Terri, not Terry. Fixes.

The Online Coalition

2005-03-16T22:00:00.000-05:00

In response to the FEC's recent quasi-decision to regulate political speech in the blogosphere, prominent bloggers formed the Online Coalition. You can go there and sign the petition to Scott Thomas, the Chairman of the FEC.

I signed, but with some trepidation. Here's an excerpt from the letter:

As bipartisan members of the online journalism, blogging, and advertising community, we ask that you grant blogs and online publications the same consideration and protection as broadcast media, newspapers, or periodicals by clearly including them under the Federal Election Commission’s “media exemption” rule.

In order to ensure that there are sufficient measures taken, we also request that the FEC promulgate a rule exempting unpaid political activity on the Internet from regulation, thereby guaranteeing every American’s right to speak freely and participate in our democratic process.

Finally, we ask that you clarify the rules and definitions related to “coordinated activity” to protect bloggers and journalists from running afoul of Commission rules regarding the republication of campaign materials.

It is a noble effort, that has united bloggers of all stripes, liberal, conservative, and confused. But this is the problem for me: we are asking the FEC to confirm our rights. As if they have the power to take away our right to free speech on the Internet. They don't. The letter isn't nearly defiant enough. But it's a start.

Antiwar Isn't the Same as Anti-American, But...

2005-03-16T21:42:00.000-05:00

...sometimes you wonder.

There absolutely is a principled (if, in my opinion, wrongheaded) position to be taken against the Iraq war. One can believe it to have been launched on false pretenses, that it detracts from the pursuit of Bin Laden, that it increases hatred for the U.S. around the world, that it's not worth the human cost, etc. etc. But that position is overshadowed by the anti-American left, who make signs like this one:

This protest took place on March 15, a week before the March 23rd grenade attack allegedly carried out by U.S. soldier Hassan Akbar at the 101st Airborne Division camp in Kuwait in the opening days of the war. Here you have protestors advocating the fragging of U.S. officers during war. Is that anti-American?

Then, of course, there is Ward Churchill. Okay, we all know he is rabidly anti-American. He famously called the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns," and had the video "US Off the Planet," and advocated terrorism inside the U.S., exhorting his audience to bomb Wall Street, etc., etc. And he still has his job. This isn't a free speech issue, anyone exhorting people to commit terrorism should be fired. CU is considering buying him out. Okay, Churchill is out there, and represents only the very far left fringe. Can he be called anti-American? He wants US off the planet!

There was the "attack"on U.S. Army recruiter SFC Jeff Due in Seattle, where protesters drove him off campus and tore up his literature.

Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Due, right, a U.S. Army recruiter, is surrounded by protesters at Seattle Central Community College, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005, in Seattle. After about a 10-minute standoff during which protesters tore up U.S. Army literature, the protesters were successful in getting Due and another
recruiter to leave their table under escort by campus security officers.

And the phenomenon of the counter recruiters (via No Angst Zone, via Mudville Gazette).

Jim Murphy is a "counter-recruiter," one of a small but growing number of opponents of the Iraq (news - web sites) war who say they want to compete with military recruiters for the hearts and minds of young people.

"I don't tell kids not to join the military," says Murphy, 59, a member of Veterans for Peace. "I tell them: 'Have a plan for your future. Because if you don't, the military has a plan for you.' "

...Counter-recruiters formed a national network at meetings in Philadelphia in the summers of 2003 and 2004. They range from Vietnam War veterans, such as Murphy, to high school students trained to talk to their peers about enlistment.

And military recruiting offices are being attacked (via Michelle Malkin).

These incidents are active efforts to disrupt our military's recruiting efforts. Which has a direct impact on its ability to prosecute the war. You can say that Bush's war is overstretching out forces, creating a "hollow" military which is therefore creating recruiting problems all you want. Acting to exacerbate that problem is hurting our ability to fight, and helping the enemy.

These are left-wing, fringe protesters, perhaps caught up in the idealism of youth, perhaps, as in the case of the counter-recruiters, pushing their religious philosophy of pacifism. They'll be at it again this weekend. Other, main-stream advocacy groups are promoting policies that directly damage our security. Let's look at the CAPPS II controversy. From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

CAPPS II: Government Surveillance via Passenger Profiling
What's Happening?
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced plans to implement CAPPS II, a controversial passenger profiling and surveillance system that would
require you to give your birth date, home phone number, and home address before you can board a U.S. flight. Under CAPPS II, travel authorities would check these and other personal details against the information collected in government
and commercial databases, then "tag" you with a color-coded score indicating the level of security risk that you appear to pose. Based on your assigned color/score, you could be detained, interrogated or made subject to additional
searches. If you are tagged with the wrong color/score, you could be prohibited from flying.
What's at Stake?

Your fundamental right to privacy and your fundamental right to travel without being forced to give up your constitutionally protected freedoms.

Of course, the ACLU was all over this:

"We're focusing on the wrong group of people," Barr said. "We shouldn't be focusing on the law-abiding traveling public."

Barry Steinhardt, director of ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, said they welcome discussions with TSA on an effective way to secure airline travel but that CAPPS II is not the answer.
"A more sophisticated, more accurate, more useful system for tracking actual terrorists may make sense, but that's not what we're talking about with CAPPS II," he said. "We're certainly willing to have a discussion about what a sensible system would look like, but CAPPS II is not that system."

The opposition was effective. CAPPS II is dead. The "II" implies it is the second such system. Indeed, there was a CAPPS. The effectiveness of CAPPS II could only be evaluated against the effectiveness of the system it was replacing. After all, they both were to do the same thing, i.e., compare all potential airline passengers against a terrorist watch list (CAPPS stands for Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening Program). How effective was CAPPS on 9/11? From the 9/11 Commission Report:

American 11: 4 out of 5 hijackers flagged:

When he checked in for his flight to Boston, Atta was selected by a computerized prescreening system known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System), created to identify passengers who should be subject to special security measures. Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta’s selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta’s plans.

While Atta had been selected by CAPPS in Portland, three members of his hijacking team—Suqami,Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri—were selected in Boston.Their selection affected only the handling of their checked bags, not their screening at the checkpoint. All five men cleared the checkpoint and made their way to the gate for American 11. Atta, Omari, and Suqami took their seats in business class (seats 8D, 8G, and 10B, respectively). The Shehri brothers had adjacent seats in row 2 (Wail in 2A,Waleed in 2B), in the firstclass cabin. They boarded American 11 between 7:31 and 7:40. The aircraft pushed back from the gate at 7:40.

...At the same time [8:14 AM] or shortly thereafter, Atta—the only terrorist on board trained to fly a jet—would have moved to the cockpit from his business-class seat, possibly accompanied by Omari.

At 8:46:40,American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.39 All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower,were killed instantly.

United 175: 0 out of 5 hijackers flagged:

Shehhi and his team, none of whom had been selected by CAPPS, boarded United 175 between 7:23 and 7:28 (Banihammad in 2A, Shehri in 2B, Shehhi in 6C, Hamza al
Ghamdi in 9C, and Ahmed al Ghamdi in 9D).Their aircraft pushed back from the gate just before 8:00.

American 77: 3 out of 5 hijackers flagged:

Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed were flagged by CAPPS. The Hazmi brothers were also selected for extra scrutiny by the airline’s customer service representative at the check-in counter. He did so because one of the brothers did not have photo identification nor could he understand English, and because the agent found both of the passengers to be suspicious.The only consequence of their selection was that their checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that they had boarded the aircraft.

United 93: 1 out of 4 hijackers flagged:

Between 7:03 and 7:39, Saeed al Ghamdi, Ahmed al Nami, Ahmad al Haznawi, and Ziad Jarrah checked in at the United Airlines ticket counter for Flight 93, going to Los Angeles.Two checked bags; two did not. Haznawi was selected by CAPPS.His checked bag was screened for explosives and then loaded on the plane.

When I first read that, it knocked the wind out of my sails. 8 of the 19 hijackers were flagged by CAPPS as potential terrorists. The only consequence is reported with nauseating repetition: The only consequence of their selection was that their checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that they had boarded the aircraft. 1 guy could not have hijacked American 11, especially since their only pilot was flagged. 2 guys would have had a hard time taking over American 77. And maybe that one hijacker on United 93 would have made the difference in the passenger's heroic, failed battle to retake the aircraft.

Let's say that the hijackings of American 11 and 77 would have failed if CAPPS had teeth. American 11 crashed into the North Tower. That came down second, so let's say 1/3 of the 2,792 deaths in New York would have been avoided (I'm assuming most of the casualties were from the South Tower, with was a complete surprise when it collapsed. If my assumption is wrong, it only bolsters my argument). With the Flight 11 passengers, that comes to 961 people. The crash of American 77 into the Pentagon killed 188 people. So 1,149 people would have been saved.

How could anyone be against CAPPS II? Is the privacy of airline passengers worth that much? Sure, the terrorists may change their tactics next time - but only if we close the vulnerabilities that made the most spectacular terrorist attack in history possible. The list of issues the ACLU is wrong on is long. This, to me, is the most flagrant. They are puttin their privacy concerns over a system that was proven to have worked identifying terrorists. Is that anti-American?

Time is pressing, and if you've gotten this far, your eyes are feeling the strain. So I won't go into Human Rights Watch, or the complete inability of military interrogators to apply any pressure whatsoever while questioning suspected terrorists, or the ridiculous lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, or the judges who want to free Jose Padilla and Zacharias Moussaoui. What is the point of this ridiculously long post (sorry dial-up users). It is to ask a question. Lefties are very quick to get their backs up when they are accused of being un-American or un-patriotic. Conservatives are usually called McCarthyite. My question is, what action can be called anti-American? Where is the threshold? How do we define treason now? Is giving aid and comfort to the enemy an issue of free speech? This is not a recent phenomenon, of course. Jane Fonda infamously went to North Vietnam and posed with communists for propaganda photos. There were no repurcussions for her. Why?

My purpose in asking this question is not to advocate prosecuting people. They are (with the exception of the privacy fanatics) mostly harmless. Or do a small enough amount of harm that we can afford to ignore them in order to preserve the liberties of our society, refreshed as they are from time to time with the blood of patriots. My purpose is not jingoistic, or McCarthyite. My purpose is to initiate a debate. Without rancor or high-running emotions, where do we draw the line, if we draw it at all? What constitutes anti-Americanism?

Busy News Day Today...

2005-03-16T18:57:00.000-05:00

...and time for some gloating.
-The Iraqi National Assembly met, holding a celebratory meeting today to celebrate the assumption of their democratically elected posts.
Excellent.
-Judge sentences Scott Peterson to death. Do they still say "May God have mercy on your soul"? 50,000 volts, scumbag.
Hahaha.
-The Senate voted to include an ANWR oil drilling provision in next year's budget. This precludes the use of a fillibuster to stop it. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) had this to say on what is really a parliamentary maneuver:

Why not expedite timber sales by simply recognizing revenue in the budget? Why not open up drilling on the coastal regions of the country by just recognizing revenue in the budget? Why not open up driling in yellowstone national park just by recognizing revenue in the budget? It's a bad precedent.

Why not... let the majority decide the issue with a floor vote for once?
Update: That last line is a doozy. Heh.
Muwahahahaha... I can hear the caribou lowing. And last but not least:
-Bush picks Wolfowitz to head world bank! Oh, man, I can just hear the moonbats barking. In fact, let's take a little trip over to Democratic Underground, via Little Green Footballs:

I truly fear for the US now in a way I never have before - heck we made it through Nixon and Reagan. But now the malevolence and hatred towards the middle class in the US and the entire rest of the world that is such a strong part of this administration, coupled with the aristocratic disdain, blinkered mentality and unwillingness to compromise of Bush, are overwhelming. I am depressed.

Oh, the heads of the neo-cons-are-really-a-zionist-plot-to-take-over-the-world nuts must be exploding.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
The stars are aligning.

Local Pennsylvania Stuff 2.A

2005-03-15T21:12:00.000-05:00

I guess I understated the issue:

The mayor of Philadelphia urged a crackdown on gun ownership on Tuesday after 18 people died in a week of street violence in the city.

Looks like that we're deeper into the gun-murder-inducing comet tail than I thought. What does Mayor Street want to do about this? Crack down on legal gun ownership:

Calling the rash of killings a "crisis," Mayor John Street urged state lawmakers to amend Pennsylvania's relatively lax gun laws.

You knew this was coming after the last week. Relatively lax gun laws?! No, Mr. Journalist, that's not an opinion or anything. If I go to a range, I can't load more than 3 rounds in my rifle without getting a $100 fine. I can't hunt with a semi-automatic weapon (not that I would really want to, but it's the principle of the thing. I would love to take my M-1 Garand out in the woods, though.). PA does have a CCW program. I guess I better sign up for a permit before they take that away.

Maybe, instead of going after the law-abiding gun carriers, the city should go after criminals blah blah blah...

Mayor Street continued:

"These are not hunters. People should not be authorized to carry weapons on the streets of Philadelphia unless they have a good reason to do so," he said.

How about protecting themselves from all the murdering scumbags? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Operative words being shall not be infringed. By anyone. I guess, like Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, that's not clear enough.

WTF!!!

2005-03-15T21:01:00.000-05:00

From CNN, via the Corner,

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A critically ill 5-month-old was taken off life
support and died Tuesday, a day after a judge cleared the way for doctors to halt care they believed to be futile. The infant's mother had fought to keep him alive.

Wanda Hudson unsuccessfully fought to continue her son's medical care. She believed he needed time to grow and could eventually be weaned off the ventilator.

"I wanted life for my son," Hudson said Tuesday. "The hospital gave up on him too soon."

Pardon my French, but that is fucked up. This is, obviously, completely different from the Terry Schiavo case. There, Michael Schiavo, her husband, has the legal decision to continue or terminate care. As controversial as that case is, and I completely sympathize with the parents' position, her legal caretaker wants to take her off life support.

The fact that doctors, or a hospital, can decide to terminate life-sustaining care, when the mother wants to continue it, is horrible. It is Dutch-baby-euthanasia horrible. Maybe little Sun Hudson didn't stand a chance. Miracles can happen occasionally. If it was your child, wouldn't you want to give them every chance possible? That is John Q time.

The Cedars Strike Back!

2005-03-14T22:14:00.000-05:00

Today's rally is great news. The Hezbollah rally last Tuesday had me seriously worried that the "Arab Spring" was going to fizzle out as the dictators updated their tactics. But when you read things like this

There were no official estimates of the crowd size, but Lebanon's leading LBC TV station and some police officers estimated it at about 1 million. An Associated Press estimate put the number at least 800,000. Either way it was the biggest demonstration ever in this country of 3.5 million.

That's from 23% to 29% of the population! The Orange Revolution in Ukraine only drew 500,000 or so. Hopefully they can get the government to resign again.

Update: Wow, wow, WOW! All I can say is, WOW!

Local Pennsylvania Stuff 2

2005-03-14T22:03:00.000-05:00

The second in an ongoing series in local issues of the great state of Pennsylvania. Most of which deals with bad stuff in Philly:

-There has been a murder spree in Philadelphia, as well as the rest of the country, it seems. 9 people dead in the last 48 hours. Add to that the 7 killed in Wisconsin, and the 4 in Atlanta, and you have to wonder if we're passing through the tail of some murder-comet.
-The Philadelphia City Council is considering a public smoking ban. Much like the ones in New York and Los Angeles, the ban is ostensibly for the benefit of workers and customers. In a local NPR report, the reporter interviewed a New Jersey diner owner who had instititued her own smoking ban. The purpose was to show that a smoking ban wouldn't hurt business. The owner reported that after putting the ban in place, her business increased 10%. Which... sounds to me like a pretty good argument for letting the free market take care of it.
-And, to end on a good note, Mayor Street hopes to create a city-wide Wi-Fi zone by putting antennae on street light poles. Which I think is a great idea. They said they would allow free access for people outdoors, but charge them for in-home use. If it's radio-based, how can they keep people from using it indoors for free? Couldn't they just put an antenna by the window?

Doesn't Play Well With Others

2005-03-14T21:37:00.000-05:00

On the way back from New York (see below), I heard a story on NPR (my favorite radio station) about the Monterey Aquarium's Great White Shark. I'll probably have to go out soon to see it, not only because my brother-in-law is stationed there, but because my fiance is shark crazy (I mean she is really bloodthirsty about it. If we're ever on a boat, she starts muttering, "Heeeeeere sharkysharkysharkysharky..."). But mostly because Great Whites don't usually survive long in captivity.

This girl has survived a year. But lately she has been getting snippy. She took bites out of two soupfin sharks, who both later died (I guess the Japanese aren't the only ones who find them tasty).

I mean, if you were this badass dwarf-eater:

Wouldn't you just have to take a bite out of this droopy-the-hound looking weenie, just to keep your street creds once you got on the outside?

No soup for you!

During the interview, NPR's Michelle Norris asked Randy Kochevar, a marine biologist at the aquarium, what the shark's name was.

She does not have a name. This is an animal that, if all continues to go well, will only be in our care temporarily. Our hope is that one day we will return her to the ocean, and as such we would really like our visitors to think of her more as a wild animal rather than a performer or a pet. And so we have made a conscious decision not to give her a name.

What bunk. As if naming her Jaws, or Jabber Jaws, or Bruce, or Smiles-A-Lot would make one bit of difference to her visitors, most of whom just want to see her eat something. It is a touchy-feely goofiness, a sort of political correctness of the animal world. Like calling killer whales "orca." As if calling them "killer" is some kind of negative connotation. Come on, that's the reason they're so cool.

It's like if you turn on a show about the American Indians, and they spend all the time talking about how they made pottery, or wove their fabrics, or planted crops. Nobody wants to see that. We want to see how they fought, and hunted buffalo, and hung themselves for hours from hooks through their nipples. These were some of the greatest warriors to ever live. Celebrate them for what they were, not from what we would have liked them to be.

And name the damn shark. How about "Toofie?"

It's a Hell of a Town

2005-03-14T20:29:00.000-05:00

Today I had to go into New York for a job meeting. Which turned out to be a complete waste of time, unfortunately, but I got to indulge in some adrenaline-rush city driving. Dodge-taxi keeps all your senses sharp. It was a great day to be in New York, not too cold, sun shining bright, managed to miss the heavy traffic, but there was enough to keep it interesting.

As I came out of the Holland Tunnel, I kind of wandered north (uptown), and east. I drove past this place:

This is the plaque on the left:

Just happened to drive by. Go visit their homepage. Note that not only did these guys lose seven on 9/11, they lost 5 in 1966. Note also the volume of calls they handle.

I had a slice of "famous New York pizza." Big deal. New York's got nothing on Quakertown, PA. Dominick's and Frank's have better pizza than anything in NY. But I digress.

After my wasted meeting, I walked back to the parking garage. As I was crossing a street, a man next to me called out, "Miss! Miss!" He turned around and rushed backwards. A young woman crossing the other way had dropped a letter, this guy made sure she got it back.

So let me compare New York to Philly. If, say, you break down by the side of the road in Philly, no one will stop to help you. In fact, they may throw something (a brick or a bottle, or a snowball if you're dressed like Santa) at you as they drive by, or rob you. In New York, someone'll stop to help you. And they'll abuse you the entire time: "Hey, ya moron, get the heck out of the road. Here, I'll give you a ride. Get in before you get hit. You believe this guy, Frankie?" "No." I lived in Philly for four years, been there many times before and since, and can't remember ever seeing anyone help another person like that letter guy. It's the little things.

New York has a no-cell-phones-while-driving law. Good idea, but what they really need is a no-cell-phones-while-walking law. Every other person was yakking away on one as they walked. I saw one lady stop in the middle of a crosswalk to dial. Unbelievable. Nice place to visit, but...

Comments Fixed

2005-03-14T20:13:00.000-05:00

When I flailed through formate editing ("Danger Will Robinson!"), I inadvertently turned off Haloscan commenting. It is now fixed. 2 comments have be re-inserted by me.

Who Is Giuliana Sgrena's Boyfriend?

2005-03-13T22:30:00.000-05:00

Who is this Pier Scolari?

Sgrena's boyfriend, Pier Scolari, said she told him that the car wasn't speeding. Sgrena subsequently told interviewers the car was traveling at "regular speed."

Seems I've heard that name before... Pier... Dock? Urinator? No, that's not it.... Wait! I've got it! Pier is Euoro-speak for Peter. Could she be dating the great Peter Scolari?!

" Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone..." The Tom Hanks connection seems to keep popping up...

My Hunting Story

2005-03-13T20:52:00.000-05:00

This past November opened my second hunting season. I had never gone before 2003, but had felt a burning to try it for several years. Would I have the guts to shoot a deer? How would it feel (taste!) to eat meat I had killed myself? After an unsuccessful few tries last season (plenty of doe but only a buck license), I went again last year to my hunting mentor Fred's cabin up in Tioga County, Pennsylvania (i.e. the beautiful middle of nowhere), this time with a doe tag as well.

The first morning I went out to a high hayfield, and settled into a thin treeline separating the hayfield from the farm to its east. It was a great position - to my left, the east, there was a wide field, about 300 yards across, lined by trees. To my front, the trees continued across as the ground dipped into an old logging road, which was crossed by a game trail the deer used often. To my right, the hayfield was about 70 yards wide, and a tree- and brush-covered steep bank rose to another field which was out of my line-of-sight. Behind me, there was a rise whose I-V line, about 30 yards behind me, cut off the view of a road and another farm across it. Coming full circle, to my rear left was a farmstead, Fred's uncle. It was a great position. I had a 360 degree view, with a 270 degree field of fire (I obviously didn't want to shoot at the farmhouse).

So, at o'dark thirty, I unfolded my camp stool and settled in to await the dawn and the deer. It was crisp, the cold biting at my nostrils, but I was warm enough with my borrowed military Goretex jacket, hunter-orange ski mask, and "glomitts." After fifteen or twenty minutes, I got up, standing against a tree to get the extra visibility and mobility. Leaning against the tree behind me, I could, by merely swiveling my head and shoulders, easily scan all 270 degrees of my field of fire. It was getting brighter by the minute. As dawn broke, I scanned behind me - and there she was!

A doe had broken the I-V line behind me, not 30 yards away, and had stopped. The adrenaline hit me. Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch... My rifle, a Remington 700 with a cheap-shit 3-10 power scope, was already in my shoulder. I slowly raised it up and leaned it against the tree to steady my aim. I thumbed off the safety, took a deep breath, held it, and had her in the scope. I fought down my adrenaline and slowly squeezed the trigget. BANG! No way I missed that shot.

The doe jumped, and took off into the farm now to my right. I racked the bolt and put the rifle on safe, confident and exhilarated that I had just made my first kill. It was a confused jumble of emotions - the exhilaration, some guilt, some trepidation at what I would find and do when I caught up with her. I walked over around to where she had stood when I fired. No blood. Okay. She broke to her left, so I crossed the thin treeline and walked out into the field. It was wet, the puddles in the tractor tire gouges scummed with ice. I walked straight out about 50 yards, then did a large counter-clockwise circle. SNAP! The doe got up form the corn stalks and weeds and took off back the way we had came. She was there and gone in a second. I took off after her.

And spent the next two hours beating the brush. There was no sign of the doe. There was no way I could have missed - I was an "expert" rifleman, and had the badges to prove it. She had been so close, and the shot felt good. I had to have hit her. But there was no sign that I had. No blood, no deer. I walked up and down the hayfield, broke the brush that bordered it, walked up and down the road and even glassed the farm across it. Nothing. I was worried sick. Either I had winged or gutshot her and she was bedded down in agony, waiting to die, or I had missed a gimme shot and had no business carrying a rifle in the woods.

I circled back towards my position, dejected. But, maybe... Could I have hit a branch? Thinking I had a way out, I hurried back, and saw this:

No way! That slender branch, not more than 1 1/2 inches thick, not more than 5 yards from my shooting position, had deflected my bullet. (You can just make out my campstool below and to the right of the hole. I shot from right there.) I just shook my head and laughed. Someone had been looking out for that doe that morning. I headed in for an early lunch.

The next morning, from the same position, I got a doe in the farmfield to my front left, from about 100 yards. (Full disclosure compels me to admit I shot and missed a few times the previous afternoon. Not used to scopes.)

Now I really had to deal with a kill. It was the mix of emotions from yesterday all over again, now to the tenth power as I started cutting the warm guts out of the deer. The terrible finality of it, taking the life of such a beautiful animal, coupled with the very real predatory feeling of savage joy at having taken down my prey. No one in my family hunted. My Dad had never shot at an animal, except other men. My sisters, both vegetarians, were obviously appalled, but kept it civil. Mom just shook her head. But I had done it.

This was the very reason I wanted to hunt. Man is a savage animal, a hunter. Even a casual reading of history confirms this. But we live in a soft age. The trappings of capitalism and liberal democracy are wonderful. I am thankful I was born in this age, and even moreso to be born in this great, free country, rather than some opressed sub-Saharan African hellhole. But there is a deep-seated, instinctual, predatory urge that has no outlet today, unless we hunt. No man should go through life without experiencing it. We buy meat at the Acme Supermarket in prepackaged, plastic-wrapped bundles unidentifiable with the animals they came from. This would have been totally foreign to anyone in our nation even sixty years ago, when 90% of the population was engaged in farming, all of which involved slaughtering and butchering. It is at some level dishonest and self-blinding to not see with your own eyes and feel with our own hands the bloody, very-recently still living and breathing source of our meat.

Not an encouraging trend. Which is what is inspiring some lawmakers in Tennessee to consider a constitutional amendment to protect hunting. The next report on national statistics should be out in 2007.

Thoreau Had Nothin' On Proenneke

2005-03-12T19:57:00.000-05:00

In 1845, Henry David Thoreau, aged 28, distressed over the death of his brother and disgusted with the commercialism of his age, built a cabin in the woods along Walden Pond, and wrote Walden, Or Life In the Woods. He lived there for 2 1/2 years, a mile from any neighbor or civilization while he wrote his opus, and idealistic young students have been pining for his simple life ever since.

If you've been watching PBS lately (hey, stop laughing!), you may have caught Alone In the Wilderness. This is the video story of one Richard Proenneke (pren-a-kee). In 1968, at the age of 50, he journeyed to the Alaska's Twin Lakes region and started building a cabin. Fortunately for those of us tied down to civilization here in the lower 48, he took a wind-up video camera with him and kept a detailed journal.

Proenekke was a philosopher in his own right, although no wordsmith like Thoreau. A carpenter in the Navy during WW 2, he suffered from rheumatic fever, and was bedridden for 6 months. After a failed cattle-raising venture, he worked as a heavy-equipment operator at the U.S. Naval Base on Kodiak Island. Then he was flown into the Twin Lakes region for the first time. Like Thoreau, Proenneke was disgusted by the trappings of civilization. Life was too fast, nobody took time to enjoy the scenery, people became dependent on things they didn't need. He decided to tread a different path.

Get the book (there's quite a wait). Watch the video, or catch it on PBS. The first half is the best, watching Proenneke shape his cabing from trees with axe, saw, and draw-knife (he didn't even bring handles with him!). Anyone who's ever worked with wood will appreciate the precision of his craftsmanship with such basic tools. The hinges he made from spruce stumps are just incredible. And the fireplace, made with rocks he collected over the summer... Wow.

He wasn't completely pure - he had a layer of tarpaper and polyethelene under the foot of moss on his roof, and had basic supplies flown in regularly. But Proenneke lived a simple life. When he wasn't working on his cabin, the fireplace, or his elevated foodcache, he was roaming the lakes, filming wildlife, watching the caribou and moose and wolves, tracking a wolverine, getting birds and squirrels to eat out of his hand. Like these young servicemen, he had his heart-stopping encounter with a bear:

Suddenly, the brush on my right rustled and crashed. I spun,
expecting to see the bull getting up out of his bunk - and every hair on my head stabbed electricity into my skull.
A huge brown bear was coming head on, bounding through the willow clumps not fifty feet away! His head looked as broad as a bulldozer blade. I threw up my arms and yelled. That was all I could think to do.
On he came, and I thought, "At last you've done it, nothing can save you now." I stumbled as I retreated in terror, shouting.
I tripped and fell on my back. Instinctively I started kicking at the great broad head as it burst through the willow leaves. And then as he loomed over me, a strange thing happened. The air whooshed out of him as he switched ends. Off he went up the slope, bunching his huge bulk, climbing hard, and showering stones. Not once did he look back....
He must have scented me at the last moment. Until then I do believe he had me pegged as another animal and meat on the table. I couldn't stop shaking. The rest of the way down the mountain I lived those seconds over and over again. I was convinced that the ought-six would be standard equipment from this day on.

I'm not sure how much good his Springfield would have done him. Probably just pissed the bear off.

Proenneke took his wilderness sojourn to an extreme, spending 30 years at his lakeside cabin, except for short trips back to civilization. Including 50 below winters! He finally left in 1998, as old age made living through the winters too difficult. He hooked up with Swerer productions, and they took his deterioriating videos and spliced them together into a documentary, narrated by Proenneke. He saw the completed product five days before being felled by a stroke in 2003.

If you can stand the inane time-filling of the pledge week drones, Alone in the Wilderness is a great way to spend an afternoon. He lived life in real woods.

Watch Those Blankets, Here Comes the Cliff

2005-03-10T21:52:00.000-05:00

Fox News reports on the growing trend favoring a national sales tax to replace our current payroll tax system. Demint and Greenspan are weighing in in its favor. Harry Reid has backed the Democrats into a political corner, and the cliff is coming up fast.

The Next Supreme Court Appointment

2005-03-10T21:32:00.000-05:00

William Rehnquist's poor health means that he will likely be the next Supreme Court justice to retire. Stevens is oldest, at 84, but Rehnquist, despite his still-brilliant judicial mind at age 80, doesn't even participate in oral arguments anymore after his tracheotomy.

The Court is currently split 5-4, with liberal justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Kennedy in the majority. The conservative minority is made up of Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and, unreliably, O'Connor. So a Rehnquist retirement would threaten to further erode the originalist block on the Court (really only 3 members strong).

Bush's first appointment will be crucial. And given the Democrats' obstructionist tactics towards mere appelate court nominees, we can expect a brutal fight. But the fight won't be a chance to advance the originalist cause on the court. It will be a fight to preserve the status quo, which is pathetic enough as it is. Conservatives can either lose ground or hold it, there is no opportunity for advancement.

For liberals, conversely, this is an opportunity to expand their majority on the court, their last government bastion to enact policy, however wrong-headed. But there will be no more Bork-ings. Conservatives are too well organized now. It will be a dirty fight; even better if the Republicans in the Senate strike some pre-emptive, nuclear blows on judges now.

The Counter-Cedar Revolution

2005-03-10T21:09:00.000-05:00

The 500,000 strong Hezbollah counter-demonstration on Tuesday is a big deal, and a bad sign. The excitement of the pro-democracy, anti-Syrian-occupation protests in Lebanon, of all places, was infectious (protest babes, anyone?). And the self-congratulatory comment of the hawks in the blogosphere, especially set against the crow-eating of liberals ("Was Bush right after all?"), has been self-reinforcing.

Why is the Hezbollah protest such a bad sign? First, let's deal with the negatives - it was obviously staged, and obviously coerced. So, even though it dwarfs the size of the anti-occupation protests (70,000), it lacks some of the legitimacy of those spontaneous, orange-revolutionish crowds.

But the fact that this was probably ordered from Damascus is troubling. Now, the "positives:" This means that the Arab dictators have learned a thing or two. I think it's fair to say that this is the first real counter-stroke to Bush's policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East. There were the Madrid bombings, but that was the "same-ol' same-ol'" terrorist schtick. This counter-protest shows a new level of sophistication. The dictators, Assad in particular, realize the old tactics, Hama Rules, don't work anymore. Hence the people-power counter to the people-power revolution. It gives them all kind of options that they didn't have before, including the re-appointment of the pro-Syrian prime minister, Omar Karami. Who can say it isn't the will of the people, when their demonstration was bigger than ours? The dictators are turning our own tactics against us. Pressure must be brought to bear in other ways.

Format Update

2005-03-10T20:21:00.000-05:00

You may have noticed a slight change to this site's format. This was designed to improve the reading experience of Caliber 50's loyal fans. We here at the C50 community believe that, if we work together, we can change the world...

(Okay, I tried to put a cool pic of a tank firing at night in the banner. In doing so, I screwed up my template. This was the best I could come up with. Could someone please leave a comment and let me know if the sidebar is actually at the side instead of down at the bottom? Thanks.)

Glowy box give Grog headache! Grog smash with hammer!

Update: It's the bear pic that's screwing it up! Even in cyberspace, that thing is too freakin big.

Chivalry Is Not Dead!

2005-03-09T17:52:00.000-05:00

The Italians seem to have always been indifferent allies. The power of ancient Rome, admittedly, was amazing. It was built in part by leading tens of thousands of soldiers from neighboring Italian cities to their deaths. Rome so depleted her neighbors' landholders (the only citizens given the privilege of military service) that Consul Gaius Marius was forced to open the legions to the landless proletariat. The only reason the Senate agreed to such a scandalous reform was that a massive German army had just slaughtered 80,000 Italian troops at Arausio, and were headed into northern Italy.

Rome's might was a long time ago, but it still contrasts amazingly with Italy's performance in World War II. From the embarrasment in North Africa, to Hitler having to delay Operation Barbarossa by a crucial summer month to bail Il Duce out in Greece, modern Italian soldiers seem to bring plenty of individual courage to a fight, but can't aggregate that into a coordinated, organized fighting machine.

Which is a good description for the circumstances surrounding Nicola Calipari's death, which I'm sure you've read about. When taking fire after recklessly approaching a U.S. checkpoint, Calipari covered freed journalist Giuliana Sgrena with his body. He was killed in the process. Apparently the Italian intelligence agent, after paying the ransom for Sgrena's release, didn't coordinate his movement to the airport with U.S. forces.

Which is a shame. It was a stupid thing to fail to do, coordinate with the law of the land while conducting a clandestine mission. But, given Calipari's apparent folly, he gave his life to protect the lady in his charge. Good on him. If nothing else can be said about him, he died like a man.

Of course one is reminded of the bravery of Fabrizzio Quattrocchi: "I will show the whole world how an Italian dies."

Silvio Berlusconi has been a staunch ally in the U.S. war in Iraq. But if, as has been reported, Italian intelligence agents paid off terrorists for Sgrena's release, the double edged sword of Italian alliance will be back. As has been asked many times already, how many IEDs and suicide bombers will that blood money pay for?

SCOTUS, the FEC, and Blogs

2005-03-04T21:20:00.000-05:00

I like John McCain. Spending 5 1/2 years in "that Hanoi pit of hell" for his country earns a guy a lot of creds. The passage from the Nightingale's Song, describing how his dad, who was CINCPAC at the time, spent Christmas Day with the Marines along the DMZ just so he could be closer to his son, brings tears to my eyes even as I type this.

If I could ask the Senator just one question, it would be, "How can someone who has sacrificed and suffered so much for his country turn around and sponsor a bill that destroys the very freedoms he fought so hard to protect?"

In McConnell v. FEC, the SCOTUS upheld McCain-Feingold's ban on soft money and political speech.

The campaign finance law bans so-called soft money, the unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties. It also prohibits advocacy advertisements 60 days before an election -- ads criticizing or supporting a candidate's stand on an issue. The law also imposes contribution limits and donor disclosure requirements.

How that squares with "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is beyond me.

The blogosphere is abuzz with a recent development, where the FEC is seriously considering applying the law to blogs. Here's the article that started it all. Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, and others have been all over it.

Here we find the great conumdrum for liberals who advocate a "living Constitution" and an activist Supreme Court: if the court has the power to grant Constitutional rights (e.g. finding a Constitutional right to abortion in the "emanating penumbras" of Roe v. Wade), it also has the power to take them away. The fact is, they do have that power, and there is little we can do about it without changing the fundamental order of our government, as Deacon of Powerline notes in this post. The only counter to America being ruled by a judicial oligarchy is to appoint strict constructionists to the appeals courts and the SCOTUS. This very issue is why strict constructionist jurists are the only ones appropriate.

This fundamentally drives Justice Antonin Scalia's judicial philosophy. He understands the role of the Court in our system of government, and in speeches frequently asks the question, "If you don't use strict constructionism as your standard, what do you use?" The political views of nine lawyers out of touch with the people? They are a poor substitute for the will of the people as expressed through our democratic political process. It is not their place to decide matters of policy. His passionate dedication to this principle is what makes him a great justice, and a model for future appointees. It is why he wrote the dissent for McConnell v. FEC.

I was lucky enough to hear Justice Scalia give a speech at the University of Pennsylvania Law School when I was a senior, back in 1993 or 1994, where he expressed these sentiments eloquently. Afterwards there was a reception, with free beer and snacks (hors d'ouevres, but I'm not French), where he circulated among the students and faculty. He was accosted by people asking him question after question about Roe v. Wade and other cases where the conventional legal mindset ran smack dab into the brick wall of his unassailable judicial principles. It was getting ridiculous. Law professors would ask him a question and react with a smug, superior smile at his answer, as if amused by how simplistic his thought processes were. I wanted to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ask him some profound question, but didn't have the heart. Two-and-a-half sheets to the wind, I said at a pause, "Sir, I'd just like to thank you for the opportunity for some free beer." He shook my hand and said, without missing a beat, "Party on, dude." I went in search of the bree.

Oy Vey 2

2005-03-04T20:46:00.000-05:00

This story is pretty old (2001, I think) but I just heard about it today from my hunting mentor, Fred. Warning: the 3rd picture is, to say the least, graphic.

The following pictures are of a guy who works for the Forest Service in Alaska. He was out deer hunting. A large grizzly bear charged him from about 50 yards away. The guy unloaded his 7mm Mag. Semi-automatic rifle into the bear and it dropped a few feet from him. The bear was still alive so he reloaded and
capped it in the head....

The bear had killed at least two people. His last meal was the unlucky nature buff in the third picture below. The Forest Service found the hiker's 38 caliber pistol emptied. Although the hiker fired six shots and managed to hit the grizzly with four shots (they ultimately found four 38 caliber slugs along with seven 7mm slugs inside the bear's dead body) it only wounded the bear - and probably angered it. The bear killed the hiker an estimated three days prior to the bear's own death by the gun of the Forest Service worker.

A full clip of 7mm mag. Here's the first pic.

All I can say is, Oy vey! With my luck, this is probably an internet hoax like the Chernobyl rider girl. Phelps?

Ah, Snopes comes to the rescue (you see Phelps, I learned something). Apparently, this guy and a buddy did kill this bear (although they aren't forest service employees, just hunters), but the remains of the hiker were not from this bear. The poor guy was eaten by other animals.

After seeing this for the first time, I saw an ad for Bambi on TV. I just started laughing, because, as my sisters haven't yet stopped reminding me, I did indeed kill Bambi's mother this past November - a big doe, my first. She makes a mighty tasty burger. :,(

Oy Vey 1

2005-03-04T20:38:00.000-05:00

Check out this story from Little Green Footballs. Someone was watching out for this guy. All I can say is, Oy vey.

Baitin' the Hook

2005-03-04T19:50:00.000-05:00

Harry Reid, Democratic Minority Leader in the Senate, said today:

"Mr. President, you take privatization off the table, and we'll sit down and talk to you tomorrow," Reid said. "As long as that's there ... we're not going to deal with it."

Bingo. Sen Reid just took the bait in my crazy, "Bush's Privatization Plan is Really a Mousetrap Play to Get a National Sales Tax" theory.

This debate between the two sides is out of control. They are both distorting the issue. The Democrats are obstructing. Protesters greet the President with signs like, "Hands off my Social Security," and, "If you want to gamble, go to Atlantic City." The party line is that Bush is out to dismantle Social Security, while racking up trillions of dollars of debt. Both counts are wrong. Partial privatization will still leave the old system intactand unchanged for all those who want to participate. And the pressent costs of privatization will be exactly offset by benefit cuts in the future.

Which is also the exact reason why Republican claims that privatization is the answer to the Soc Sec crisis are wrong. The privatization plan will do nothing to make Social Security solvent. Savings in benefit payouts in the future are exactly offset by the costs of privatization in the present. It doesn't change the stark demographic realities of the situation one bit.

Which comes back, in the end, to being a big, currently somewhat unspoken reason to support privatization. The demographic shift in our population, from ~3 1/4 workers per retiree now to 2 workers per retiree in 2030 (according to Greenspan, para 6), will exhaust the trust fund by 2042. It will then almost certainly be necessary to cut benefits. Those who have wisely opted for private accounts with a much greater return (i.e., not less than zero) will be in much better shape than those who dont.