For those of you who are technical newbies, (and not-so-newbies) the discussion on Boots & Sabers about deleting calendars may be enlightening. (Read the combox items.)
Frank "The Fixer" Busalacchi is in a deep hole. And you know the old saying: ".....QUIT DIGGING!"
But maybe Frank doesn't like that advice.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
On Gonzales
Despite the strained and silly yapping from the "right" radio folks, Tom Roeser also thinks that Gonzales should be cut loose:
To this old ex-federal bureaucrat who has just completed an inside look-see at the Justice Department through several past and present sources, there was something wrong with the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as AG in the first place. Close to George Bush he may be but the indistinct image coming through of a namby-pamby on abortion has bothered social conservatives from the outset. He doesn’t speak on the square; looks shifty-eyed; acts like a junior clerk. The frequent lying, misstatements and corrections shows an insecure man at the helm. My one fear was that Bush would name him to the Supreme Court for the next opening. This call for his resignation-which may very well happen-could be a godsend.
While GWB will not fire Gonzales (an honorable position to take,) Gonzales could still resign.
That would allow Bush to appoint an AG who actually has some curiosity about the dealings of Sandy "Hotpants" Burglar, the Border Patrol's supervisors, and like that, you know.
To this old ex-federal bureaucrat who has just completed an inside look-see at the Justice Department through several past and present sources, there was something wrong with the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as AG in the first place. Close to George Bush he may be but the indistinct image coming through of a namby-pamby on abortion has bothered social conservatives from the outset. He doesn’t speak on the square; looks shifty-eyed; acts like a junior clerk. The frequent lying, misstatements and corrections shows an insecure man at the helm. My one fear was that Bush would name him to the Supreme Court for the next opening. This call for his resignation-which may very well happen-could be a godsend.
While GWB will not fire Gonzales (an honorable position to take,) Gonzales could still resign.
That would allow Bush to appoint an AG who actually has some curiosity about the dealings of Sandy "Hotpants" Burglar, the Border Patrol's supervisors, and like that, you know.
Extraordinary Ministers to Disappear?
Well, it would be a good thing, considering the nature of the Sacrament (thus, its administration.) Benedict XVI understands that, and apparently is insisting on making EEMs (EHMCs) an extinct species, with very few exceptions.
Karl Keating's periodical has an article, here partially excerpted by Phil Blosser:
The discussion of EMHCs [Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion] in the Catholic Answers Report comes under the subtitle: "Role of Extraordinary Ministers Trimmed."
"Rome has been concerned about the widespread overuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in many countries and particularly in the U.S., where extraordinary ministers are often treated as an ordinary part of Mass," states the article.
The ordinary ministers, of course, are "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes." (What's the last time you've spotted an instituted acolyte around your suburban parish?) Canon law permits the use of EMHCs when there are too many communicants present to be served in a "reasonable period of time" by the ordinary ministers. To its credit, the Report is straight up about this:
But in recent years, many liturgists adopted an ideology that tries to blur the line between clergy and laity at Mass, and extraordinary ministers became one of the key ways used to advance their agenda. Large numbers of extraordinary ministers were used on a regular basis -- far more than were actually needed. In some places, extraordinary ministers were used to distribute Communion while a perfectly healthy priest simply sat down and waited out the Communion rite.
An attempt was also made to gloss over the extraordinary character of their service. In many places they came to be referred to as simply "special ministers" or even "eucharistic ministers" -- hiding the fact that they are to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
The good news is that the Holy See appears to be reining in these abuses. In a series of recent documents, the Vatican has emphasized that EMHCs should be used only when there are too many communicants for the ordinary ministers to "reasonably serve." There is some evidence that the Vatican is going beyond repeating earlier instructions with their implicit escape clauses, however. In October 2006 it was announced that Pope Benedict had decided not to renew the United States indult that allowed EMHCs to purify the vessels after Mass. From now on, Americans will have the same rule that applies throughout the world, and vessels are to be purified only by ordinary ministers -- "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes."
Going back to the 'alter Christi' nature of the ordained priest, this is not real difficult to place in context. Christ fed the 12 at the Last Supper; with his Apostles He fed the 5,000. This "feeding" was a corporeal symbol for spiritual nourishment. If the command "Feed my lambs..." has any meaning, it should be most evident at Communion.
And, as Blosser points out, if it is to be demeaned, this is the very best place to start.
Karl Keating's periodical has an article, here partially excerpted by Phil Blosser:
The discussion of EMHCs [Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion] in the Catholic Answers Report comes under the subtitle: "Role of Extraordinary Ministers Trimmed."
"Rome has been concerned about the widespread overuse of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in many countries and particularly in the U.S., where extraordinary ministers are often treated as an ordinary part of Mass," states the article.
The ordinary ministers, of course, are "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes." (What's the last time you've spotted an instituted acolyte around your suburban parish?) Canon law permits the use of EMHCs when there are too many communicants present to be served in a "reasonable period of time" by the ordinary ministers. To its credit, the Report is straight up about this:
But in recent years, many liturgists adopted an ideology that tries to blur the line between clergy and laity at Mass, and extraordinary ministers became one of the key ways used to advance their agenda. Large numbers of extraordinary ministers were used on a regular basis -- far more than were actually needed. In some places, extraordinary ministers were used to distribute Communion while a perfectly healthy priest simply sat down and waited out the Communion rite.
An attempt was also made to gloss over the extraordinary character of their service. In many places they came to be referred to as simply "special ministers" or even "eucharistic ministers" -- hiding the fact that they are to be used only in extraordinary circumstances.
The good news is that the Holy See appears to be reining in these abuses. In a series of recent documents, the Vatican has emphasized that EMHCs should be used only when there are too many communicants for the ordinary ministers to "reasonably serve." There is some evidence that the Vatican is going beyond repeating earlier instructions with their implicit escape clauses, however. In October 2006 it was announced that Pope Benedict had decided not to renew the United States indult that allowed EMHCs to purify the vessels after Mass. From now on, Americans will have the same rule that applies throughout the world, and vessels are to be purified only by ordinary ministers -- "priests, deacons, and instituted acolytes."
Going back to the 'alter Christi' nature of the ordained priest, this is not real difficult to place in context. Christ fed the 12 at the Last Supper; with his Apostles He fed the 5,000. This "feeding" was a corporeal symbol for spiritual nourishment. If the command "Feed my lambs..." has any meaning, it should be most evident at Communion.
And, as Blosser points out, if it is to be demeaned, this is the very best place to start.
Taxpayers' Bill of Rights
Short and sweet:
1. Taxpayers have a right to have a federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.
2. Taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.
3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.
4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.
Republican Study Committee put this out, with good reason.
Naturally, with the exception of #2, this applies perforce to Madistan. Of course, we'd have to get rid of a few "Republicans" before it could occur there, too.
Got that, Luther and Carol?
1. Taxpayers have a right to have a federal government that does not grow beyond their ability to pay for it.
2. Taxpayers have a right to receive back each dollar that they entrust to the government for their retirement.
3. Taxpayers have a right to expect the government to balance the budget without having their taxes raised.
4. Taxpayers have a right to a simple, fair tax code that they can understand.
Republican Study Committee put this out, with good reason.
Naturally, with the exception of #2, this applies perforce to Madistan. Of course, we'd have to get rid of a few "Republicans" before it could occur there, too.
Got that, Luther and Carol?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Blogroll Addition
Atomic Trousers, who is the re-incarnation of York, has begun Blog #2. Link at the sidebar.
He's good. Really good.
He's good. Really good.
R. Miller (First Things) Takes on the Cardinal, Badly
Robert Miller, an attorney, thinks that Cdl. Crepaldi is ...inaccurate.
Crepaldi: “Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ [a phrase from Benedict XVI], for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. . . . Relativism [denies] a capability of reason to argue truth . . . [and so] prevents the use of public reason.”
Miller: Just as a sociological matter, this should give us pause. Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.
We suppose that Mr. Miller, an eminento in the constellation of First Things, is attached to 'argumentation-American-style.' But he chooses to miss the point of the Cardinal's discussion.
Of course, that has to do with the Cardinal's ignorance and/or blindness: The answer is that Crepaldi is in the grip of a serious misconception about the modern world common among Catholic thinkers.
Actually, Mr. Miller, the Catholic weltaunschuung is more comprehensive than your Positivist/Calvinist one, but...
That is, Crepaldi thinks it’s a foundational (and mistaken) premise of modern culture that the province of reason comprises natural science and mathematics, with everything else—including normative disciplines like morals or politics—being the province of subjective opinion, a realm in which no statement is objectively true or false.
Unhhh....not really. The "dictatorship" to which the Cardinal refers is 'relativistic' insofar as it acknowledges no Authority--and certainly not an Authority who was crucified; rather, it worships (or at least give fealty) to Positivist make-do, not eternal realities. (Shall we discuss the Relativist Judiciary of Roe? Or the Relativist regency of Economics?)
You'll have to do better in your next, promised, installment.
Crepaldi: “Public reason is not possible in a culture that is dominated by the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ [a phrase from Benedict XVI], for a very simple reason: Relativism is a dogma and therefore it a priori rejects rational argumentation, even toward itself. . . . Relativism [denies] a capability of reason to argue truth . . . [and so] prevents the use of public reason.”
Miller: Just as a sociological matter, this should give us pause. Generally speaking, our society is more concerned with producing and responding to arguments than probably any other in the history of the world. Whether the issue is abortion or gay rights, tax policy or the trade deficit, global warming or third-world debt, everyone seems ready to adduce arguments in support of some position or other.
We suppose that Mr. Miller, an eminento in the constellation of First Things, is attached to 'argumentation-American-style.' But he chooses to miss the point of the Cardinal's discussion.
Of course, that has to do with the Cardinal's ignorance and/or blindness: The answer is that Crepaldi is in the grip of a serious misconception about the modern world common among Catholic thinkers.
Actually, Mr. Miller, the Catholic weltaunschuung is more comprehensive than your Positivist/Calvinist one, but...
That is, Crepaldi thinks it’s a foundational (and mistaken) premise of modern culture that the province of reason comprises natural science and mathematics, with everything else—including normative disciplines like morals or politics—being the province of subjective opinion, a realm in which no statement is objectively true or false.
Unhhh....not really. The "dictatorship" to which the Cardinal refers is 'relativistic' insofar as it acknowledges no Authority--and certainly not an Authority who was crucified; rather, it worships (or at least give fealty) to Positivist make-do, not eternal realities. (Shall we discuss the Relativist Judiciary of Roe? Or the Relativist regency of Economics?)
You'll have to do better in your next, promised, installment.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Spend More, Borrow More, Screw the Children!
That's the Doylie philosophy.
...officials with the state Department of Natural Resources as they push for reauthorization of the state's land- buying Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund and for a substantial increase in the amount of money the agency would be allowed to borrow to buy land under the program.
Scott Hassett, DNR secretary, argued before the state Legislature's Joint Finance Committee last week that an increase in borrowing authority from $60 million to $105 million a year is necessary because of soaring land prices.
Joint Finance Committee co-chair Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, said the DNR may be interested in protecting the land but that the committee has to consider the financial implications, especially when the state is spending more than it is taking in.
"We are also leaving our grandchildren a legacy of debt," said Rhoades of continued land purchases.
Joe Polasek, director of management and budget for the DNR, said that since the fund's inception in 1989, it has cost about $1.2 billion to repay, with interest, the $803 million that has been borrowed for land purchases.
Paying off loans of $105 million a year between 2010 and 2020 will cost about $1.6 billion, Polasek said. [In other words, the State will borrow $1.05 billion and pay $1.6 billion.]
Obviously, buying a bunch of land is really, really, really important, no matter WHAT the cost.
...officials with the state Department of Natural Resources as they push for reauthorization of the state's land- buying Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund and for a substantial increase in the amount of money the agency would be allowed to borrow to buy land under the program.
Scott Hassett, DNR secretary, argued before the state Legislature's Joint Finance Committee last week that an increase in borrowing authority from $60 million to $105 million a year is necessary because of soaring land prices.
Joint Finance Committee co-chair Kitty Rhoades, R-Hudson, said the DNR may be interested in protecting the land but that the committee has to consider the financial implications, especially when the state is spending more than it is taking in.
"We are also leaving our grandchildren a legacy of debt," said Rhoades of continued land purchases.
Joe Polasek, director of management and budget for the DNR, said that since the fund's inception in 1989, it has cost about $1.2 billion to repay, with interest, the $803 million that has been borrowed for land purchases.
Paying off loans of $105 million a year between 2010 and 2020 will cost about $1.6 billion, Polasek said. [In other words, the State will borrow $1.05 billion and pay $1.6 billion.]
Obviously, buying a bunch of land is really, really, really important, no matter WHAT the cost.
DNR Mandates Nuke Power for Wisconsin
Don't you wish?
Actually, that may be the result of their latest move:
Proposed regulations to reduce mercury emissions from electric generating plants by 90 percent by 2020 are stirring debate about pollution, utility costs and nuclear power.
On Thursday, the state Department of Natural Resources, responding to a request by Gov. Jim Doyle, proposed rules that would exceed those of the federal government and remove Wisconsin from a national program which would allow utilities to buy credits for out-of-compliance plants.
Lawniczak [Director, Enviro Services, Wisconsin Public Service] said no technology now exists to allow plants to achieve a 90 percent reduction.
Which leaves two options: 1) Simply shut down the coal plants. 2) Go Nuke!
Actually, that may be the result of their latest move:
Proposed regulations to reduce mercury emissions from electric generating plants by 90 percent by 2020 are stirring debate about pollution, utility costs and nuclear power.
On Thursday, the state Department of Natural Resources, responding to a request by Gov. Jim Doyle, proposed rules that would exceed those of the federal government and remove Wisconsin from a national program which would allow utilities to buy credits for out-of-compliance plants.
Lawniczak [Director, Enviro Services, Wisconsin Public Service] said no technology now exists to allow plants to achieve a 90 percent reduction.
Which leaves two options: 1) Simply shut down the coal plants. 2) Go Nuke!
Tool Dictionary
Stolen from Clay Cramer. Accurate, concise, comprehensive.
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, splattering it against that freshly-stained heirloom piece you were drying.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench at the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned guitar calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, "Son of aâ?¦.."
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKIL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters. The most often used tool by all women.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WELDING GLOVES: Heavy duty leather gloves used to prolong the conduction of intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely for lighting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub you want the bearing race out of.
WHITWORTH SOCKETS: Once used for working on older British cars and motorcycles, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16 or 1/2 inch socket you've been searching for the last 45 minutes.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake hose, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
EIGHT-FOOT LONG YELLOW PINE 2X4: Used for levering an automobile upward off of a trapped hydraulic jack handle.
TWEEZERS: A tool for removing wood splinters and wire wheel wires.
E-Z OUT BOLT AND STUD EXTRACTOR: A tool ten times harder than any known drill bit that snaps neatly off in bolt holes thereby ending any possible future use.
RADIAL ARM SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to scare neophytes into choosing another line of work.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
CRAFTSMAN 1/2 x 24-INCH SCREWDRIVER: A very large pry bar that inexplicably has an accurately machined screwdriver tip on the end opposite the handle.
AVIATION METAL SNIPS: See hacksaw.
TROUBLE LIGHT: The home mechanic's own tanning booth. Sometimes called a drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under cars at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about thesame rate that 105mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids and for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads. Women excel at using this tool.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws.
AIR COMPRESSOR: A machine that takes energy produced in a coal-burning power plant 200 miles away and ransforms it into compressed air that travels by hose to a Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench that grips rusty bolts which were last overtightened 30 years ago by someone at Ford, and instantly rounds off their heads. Also used to quickly snap off lug nuts.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Women primarily use it to make gaping holes in walls when hanging pictures.
MECHANIC'S KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund checks, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMMIT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling "DAMMIT" at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
CONSTRUCTION AND HOME WORKSHOP TOOL DEFINITIONS
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, splattering it against that freshly-stained heirloom piece you were drying.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench at the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned guitar calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, "Son of aâ?¦.."
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKIL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters. The most often used tool by all women.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
WELDING GLOVES: Heavy duty leather gloves used to prolong the conduction of intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely for lighting various flammable objects in your shop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub you want the bearing race out of.
WHITWORTH SOCKETS: Once used for working on older British cars and motorcycles, they are now used mainly for impersonating that 9/16 or 1/2 inch socket you've been searching for the last 45 minutes.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake hose, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
EIGHT-FOOT LONG YELLOW PINE 2X4: Used for levering an automobile upward off of a trapped hydraulic jack handle.
TWEEZERS: A tool for removing wood splinters and wire wheel wires.
E-Z OUT BOLT AND STUD EXTRACTOR: A tool ten times harder than any known drill bit that snaps neatly off in bolt holes thereby ending any possible future use.
RADIAL ARM SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to scare neophytes into choosing another line of work.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
CRAFTSMAN 1/2 x 24-INCH SCREWDRIVER: A very large pry bar that inexplicably has an accurately machined screwdriver tip on the end opposite the handle.
AVIATION METAL SNIPS: See hacksaw.
TROUBLE LIGHT: The home mechanic's own tanning booth. Sometimes called a drop light, it is a good source of vitamin D, "the sunshine vitamin," which is not otherwise found under cars at night. Health benefits aside, its main purpose to consume 40-watt light bulbs at about thesame rate that 105mm howitzer shells might be used during, say, the first few hours of the Battle of the Bulge. More often dark than light, its name is somewhat misleading.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids and for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads. Women excel at using this tool.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws.
AIR COMPRESSOR: A machine that takes energy produced in a coal-burning power plant 200 miles away and ransforms it into compressed air that travels by hose to a Chicago Pneumatic impact wrench that grips rusty bolts which were last overtightened 30 years ago by someone at Ford, and instantly rounds off their heads. Also used to quickly snap off lug nuts.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Women primarily use it to make gaping holes in walls when hanging pictures.
MECHANIC'S KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund checks, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMMIT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling "DAMMIT" at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Counter-Protest? WHAT Counter-Protest?
As usual, the MSM doesn't get it:
Yup, the journalistic standard-bearers of the NYTimes relied on "several veterans of the antiwar movement" to give them crowd estimates of the Gathering of Eagles. It's the domestic equivalent of MSMers relying on dubious Iraqi stringers to provide them with war coverage while they sit in their comfy Green Zone offices in D.C. and Manhattan.
...when stating that "several hundred" counter-protesters showed up in D.C.
In reality, (not where the MSM lives), the National Park Service estimated 30,000 "Gathering of Eagles" counter-protesters.
TWO local MSM outlets (Channels 6 & 4) mentioned "counter-protesters." Damn nice of them.
A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow "Out of Iraq" placards.
Somehow the locals were not able to provide numbers for EITHER group, although Moonbattery suggests that the Eagles OUTNUMBERED the wackos 3 to 1.
HT: Malkin
Yup, the journalistic standard-bearers of the NYTimes relied on "several veterans of the antiwar movement" to give them crowd estimates of the Gathering of Eagles. It's the domestic equivalent of MSMers relying on dubious Iraqi stringers to provide them with war coverage while they sit in their comfy Green Zone offices in D.C. and Manhattan.
...when stating that "several hundred" counter-protesters showed up in D.C.
In reality, (not where the MSM lives), the National Park Service estimated 30,000 "Gathering of Eagles" counter-protesters.
TWO local MSM outlets (Channels 6 & 4) mentioned "counter-protesters." Damn nice of them.
A pure, grass-roots effort, the Gathering of Eagles' volunteers matched the massive Soros-funded anti-war machine sign for sign, chant for chant, and marcher for marcher. The contrast was most stark right before the entrance to the Memorial Bridge, where Eagles gathered with a field of American flags--while anti-Bush, 9/11 conspiracy nuts wrapped themselves in a figurative blanket of yellow "Out of Iraq" placards.
Somehow the locals were not able to provide numbers for EITHER group, although Moonbattery suggests that the Eagles OUTNUMBERED the wackos 3 to 1.
HT: Malkin
Angels--A Primer, Humorous
When this guy is 'on', he's really 'ON.'
So go here and learn a few facts, and get some farce, as well.
I'll just give you the last line, which is a touch sardonic:
I, for one, find it quite odd that the western world is fixated on little small floating half-naked little children. But what do I know?
So go here and learn a few facts, and get some farce, as well.
I'll just give you the last line, which is a touch sardonic:
I, for one, find it quite odd that the western world is fixated on little small floating half-naked little children. But what do I know?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Who ARE These Jerks?
"One Wisconsin Now" seems to have a pathological problem with nosiness.
...One Wisconsin Now Action asked for a listing of all phone calls made from Ziegler's office phone in the Washington County courthouse from June 2005 through January 2007.
...Washington County Finance Director Susan Haag released 37 pages of records listing 1,184 phone calls, both incoming and outgoing, with all the phone numbers blacked out. Haag is the legal custodian of the records since her office pays the phone bills, she said.
"This delayed and incomplete response is unacceptable," One Wisconsin Now Action spokesman Cory Liebmann wrote in a news release Friday. "It raises serious questions about Annette Ziegler's respect for and commitment to our Wisconsin tradition of fair and open government."
Of course, Liebmann is lying. Ziegler had no input into the release (or non-release.) It was handled by Ms. Haag; the phone utilization and records are Washington County's, not Ziegler's.
Might be interesting to get the complete phone records (in- and out-bound) from "One Wisconsin Now," no?
Or would that be called chutzpah?
...One Wisconsin Now Action asked for a listing of all phone calls made from Ziegler's office phone in the Washington County courthouse from June 2005 through January 2007.
...Washington County Finance Director Susan Haag released 37 pages of records listing 1,184 phone calls, both incoming and outgoing, with all the phone numbers blacked out. Haag is the legal custodian of the records since her office pays the phone bills, she said.
"This delayed and incomplete response is unacceptable," One Wisconsin Now Action spokesman Cory Liebmann wrote in a news release Friday. "It raises serious questions about Annette Ziegler's respect for and commitment to our Wisconsin tradition of fair and open government."
Of course, Liebmann is lying. Ziegler had no input into the release (or non-release.) It was handled by Ms. Haag; the phone utilization and records are Washington County's, not Ziegler's.
Might be interesting to get the complete phone records (in- and out-bound) from "One Wisconsin Now," no?
Or would that be called chutzpah?
DarthDoyle Goes National
Heh.
Our Governor, Darth ("Killing Embryos Is a Cure") has a reputation which extends to the east. In the State of Virginia, one finds a gun shop, and in the gun shop:
Bloomberg's face graces a poster taped to a shotgun rack at Bob Moates, under the words "Here are our worst enemy." Sarah Brady, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle are also pictured, though Bloomberg's face is circled in bright pink highlighter.
Those guys don't know the HALF of it...
Our Governor, Darth ("Killing Embryos Is a Cure") has a reputation which extends to the east. In the State of Virginia, one finds a gun shop, and in the gun shop:
Bloomberg's face graces a poster taped to a shotgun rack at Bob Moates, under the words "Here are our worst enemy." Sarah Brady, of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle are also pictured, though Bloomberg's face is circled in bright pink highlighter.
Those guys don't know the HALF of it...
Friday, March 16, 2007
Stanley Hauerwas on "Rights"
Here's something to think about. Hauerwas is a well-known and respected theologian, published frequently in First Things.
...Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.
Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us."
Under the veil of American privatization, we are encouraging people to believe in the same way that Andrew Carnegie believed. He thought that he had a right to his steel mills. In the same sense, people think that they have a right to their bodies The body is then a piece of property in a capitalist sense. Unfortunately, that is antithetical to the way we Christians think that we have to share as members of the same body of Christ.
So, you cannot separate these issues. If you think that you can be very concerned about abortion and not concerned about the privatization of American life generally, you are making a mistake. So the problem is: how, as Christians, should we think about abortion without the rights rhetoric that we have been given--right to my body, right to life, pro-choice, pro-life, and so on? In this respect, we Christians must try to make the abortion issue our issue.
This is particularly clear when listening to Walter Williams' facile (and erroneous) Explanation of All Living in terms of Economics. It's a simple-minded (and wrong-headed) approach, which taken to its logical conclusion, would tell us that raising children is utterly devoid of value.
It also has an impact on the "right to privacy" debate. Not only is that phrase NOT found in the Constitution (and thus had to be put there, emanating-wise, by a creative group of Supremes in Griswold)--it is irreconcilable with a Christian notion of society, as Hauerwas shows above.
More curious: one wonders why the "right to privacy" was NOT present. Was this a case of the Homeric Nod by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
HT: Dreher
...Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were.
Christians, to be more specific, do not believe that we have a right to do with our bodies whatever we want. We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies. I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of "us."
Under the veil of American privatization, we are encouraging people to believe in the same way that Andrew Carnegie believed. He thought that he had a right to his steel mills. In the same sense, people think that they have a right to their bodies The body is then a piece of property in a capitalist sense. Unfortunately, that is antithetical to the way we Christians think that we have to share as members of the same body of Christ.
So, you cannot separate these issues. If you think that you can be very concerned about abortion and not concerned about the privatization of American life generally, you are making a mistake. So the problem is: how, as Christians, should we think about abortion without the rights rhetoric that we have been given--right to my body, right to life, pro-choice, pro-life, and so on? In this respect, we Christians must try to make the abortion issue our issue.
This is particularly clear when listening to Walter Williams' facile (and erroneous) Explanation of All Living in terms of Economics. It's a simple-minded (and wrong-headed) approach, which taken to its logical conclusion, would tell us that raising children is utterly devoid of value.
It also has an impact on the "right to privacy" debate. Not only is that phrase NOT found in the Constitution (and thus had to be put there, emanating-wise, by a creative group of Supremes in Griswold)--it is irreconcilable with a Christian notion of society, as Hauerwas shows above.
More curious: one wonders why the "right to privacy" was NOT present. Was this a case of the Homeric Nod by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
HT: Dreher
Corn-A-Hole's Chickens Are Expensive!
The Corn-Whores ("Inserting a Cob Up Your A** Since 2005, With Glee and Profits") should begin to fear; the price-chickens are coming home to roost.
Consider that February prices for "crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs" were up 18.8% above year-ago levels, its no surprise that food companies are passing those higher costs to consumers. Wholesale consumer food prices are 6.8% above year-ago levels.
It ain't just tortillas any more, folks.
Corn is the base feedstuff for cattle and chickens, and is found in most breakfast cereal products--and is a major-league sweetener-ingredient, too.
I'm sure that Farmer Hahn is a happy camper.
Consider that February prices for "crude foodstuffs and feedstuffs" were up 18.8% above year-ago levels, its no surprise that food companies are passing those higher costs to consumers. Wholesale consumer food prices are 6.8% above year-ago levels.
It ain't just tortillas any more, folks.
Corn is the base feedstuff for cattle and chickens, and is found in most breakfast cereal products--and is a major-league sweetener-ingredient, too.
I'm sure that Farmer Hahn is a happy camper.
"Judicial Activism" Unvarnished
Following the Shark's paper on the question of "judicial activism," (referenced and linked in the post beneath this one,) he posts today a clearly "activist" statement made by a "non-partisan" candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
"Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is an insufficient amount in this day and age,”she said. “Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct.”,”she said.
What she said was that in her (not-so-humble) opinion, the caps, which were legislated by the Legislature, should have been re-legislated by....(ta-da) the Court.
Esenberg comments:
These malpractice caps were enacted by the people's democratically chosen representatives. Unless they are, for some reason, "categorically unconstitutional" then the court has no business setting them aside - whether or not Linda Clifford or a majority of justices think they are "too low." While our state's constitution does place certain limits on the legislature, the policy preferences of a majority of justices on the state's supreme court are not among them.
It so happens that I decried the stubborn and politicized refusal of the Assembly Majority Leader to accept a compromise cap-limit (IIRC, $750K). He's no longer in any public office, perhaps because of his stances...
But stubborn, politicized Legislators are not an excuse for abrogation of Legislative prerogative by a Court which "feels like it" one morning.
Now we have the possibility that Ms. Clifford will win a seat on the Court and take her electoral victory as a mandate to Legislate rather than Adjudicate.
Egads. Or, more elegantly:
Some of you might wonder why we should care. Isn't this just geeky lawyer stuff? If the result is right, why worry about whether it was legitimate? The answer goes to the very foundation of democracy. Judges get to set aside the actions of our elected officials only when those actions violate some constitutional limitation on what election officials are permitted to do - not because judicial officers believe that "in this day and age" the legislature has chosen poorly or society "needs" something else.
"Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars is an insufficient amount in this day and age,”she said. “Whether the cap was categorically unconstitutional or arbitrarily too low, I think the result was correct.”,”she said.
What she said was that in her (not-so-humble) opinion, the caps, which were legislated by the Legislature, should have been re-legislated by....(ta-da) the Court.
Esenberg comments:
These malpractice caps were enacted by the people's democratically chosen representatives. Unless they are, for some reason, "categorically unconstitutional" then the court has no business setting them aside - whether or not Linda Clifford or a majority of justices think they are "too low." While our state's constitution does place certain limits on the legislature, the policy preferences of a majority of justices on the state's supreme court are not among them.
It so happens that I decried the stubborn and politicized refusal of the Assembly Majority Leader to accept a compromise cap-limit (IIRC, $750K). He's no longer in any public office, perhaps because of his stances...
But stubborn, politicized Legislators are not an excuse for abrogation of Legislative prerogative by a Court which "feels like it" one morning.
Now we have the possibility that Ms. Clifford will win a seat on the Court and take her electoral victory as a mandate to Legislate rather than Adjudicate.
Egads. Or, more elegantly:
Some of you might wonder why we should care. Isn't this just geeky lawyer stuff? If the result is right, why worry about whether it was legitimate? The answer goes to the very foundation of democracy. Judges get to set aside the actions of our elected officials only when those actions violate some constitutional limitation on what election officials are permitted to do - not because judicial officers believe that "in this day and age" the legislature has chosen poorly or society "needs" something else.
The Nuggets of Esenberg: Shirley's Theme Song
The Shark wrote an essay on Judicial Restraint which is a delight to read.
But rather than excerpting long, I'll present a few aphorisms--nuggets--for future reference. They combine brevity with memorability, and get to the heart of the matter.
Re checks and balances (and setting the table for the rest of the paper):
We have given judges the final say on what the law means because they do not get to say what the law is.
While discussing the Ferdon decision:
The precise contours of this carnivorous form of review are not clear.
On the Dairyland decision (which reversed another decision which was only 2 years old):
Because the parties to the 1991-1992 compacts believed that they would be able to negotiate for new casino-type games in the future (the compacts provided for amendment), the court held that it would be an impairment of contractual obligation to construe the 1993 amendment to defeat that expectation.
...
It seems unlikely that the court really intends to find an unconstitutional impairment of contract whenever someone's hope for a favorable contractual amendment is frustrated by subsequent legislation.
...but they DID find so to accomodate Governor Doyle and the Tribes. Would the Court rule, then, that someone's belief that taxes will not rise should invalidate increased taxes?
In sum:
Having voted to restrict the expansion of gaming, the state's residents now find that they have conferred a monopoly on the tribes to engage in any type of gaming that the Governor might agree to and that is permitted by federal law.
Bet you didn't know that, eh?
In Jarrell, the Court mandated recording of police interrogations of juveniles.
...the court's concern went beyond problems of proof (that were themselves not present in the case before it) to substantive judgments about how interrogations should be conducted that were rooted in neither the constitution nor the statutes.
Justifying such regulation because it is implemented through a rule of admissibility (and is, therefore, a rule "governing the courts") establishes a principle with no obvious stopping point.
On the "lead paint" decision (Collins):
...its suggestion that the constitutional provision maintaining that Article I, section 9 "does allow for a remedy through the existing common law"61 suggests that it believes that Article I, section 9 imports into the common law a constitutional imperative for a "remedy" whenever there is a "wrong," whether or not recognized at common law. The court acknowledged amicus' argument that such a broad constitutional command cannot be "maintained in some principled way thereby creating uncertainty in a number of cases,"62 but pronounced itself untroubled ...
Which, I suppose, hints at the title of Screechin'Shirley's personal theme song:
Que Sera, Sera. Whatever will be, will be/the future's not yours to see/It depends on ME!
That is precisely the nature of Screechin'Shirley's decisions on carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense, which Esenberg also discusses (no excerpts here.)
***********
Ms. Abrahamson has attempted to baptize (thus sanctify) her majority's meandering opinions as "The New Federalism," which has some appeal to people who disagree with the state of jurisprudence at the Federal level. You know, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and all that stuff. But the direction The Screecher has taken with her "New Federalism" looks a bit more like "Old Anarchy,"--a logical outcome of Social Science-based decisions.
In DuBose:
The court in DuBose, like Jerrell C.J., reached out to create a broad rule regarding what law enforcement procedures should be permitted in response to concerns that were not presented by the case before it.
...
both cases represent a departure from the way in which the court had generally handled such questions reflecting, perhaps, a diminished weight placed upon precedent. And as we have seen, Ferdon and Dairyland reversed very recent decisions, calling into question the extent to which anything can be regarded as settled other than by the type of head counting normally associated with political prognostication.
Esenberg concludes:
We have seen that a number of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decisions have involved an aggressive re-examination of legislative fact-finding (Ferdon) or the rooting of a decision in facts that are controverted (Thomas) or outside of the record (Jerrell C.J., DuBose). We have seen the court engage in a judicial reformulation of legislation (Fisher) and adopt doctrine that it is unlikely to follow in future cases (Ferdon, Dairyland). ...
It is the purpose of this white paper to facilitate a discussion about this important trend and to foster a dialogue about the proper role of the courts in our state. It is the hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest
It is also the hope of rational citizens of this State, as well, Rick. Let's Get It On!!
But rather than excerpting long, I'll present a few aphorisms--nuggets--for future reference. They combine brevity with memorability, and get to the heart of the matter.
Re checks and balances (and setting the table for the rest of the paper):
We have given judges the final say on what the law means because they do not get to say what the law is.
While discussing the Ferdon decision:
The precise contours of this carnivorous form of review are not clear.
On the Dairyland decision (which reversed another decision which was only 2 years old):
Because the parties to the 1991-1992 compacts believed that they would be able to negotiate for new casino-type games in the future (the compacts provided for amendment), the court held that it would be an impairment of contractual obligation to construe the 1993 amendment to defeat that expectation.
...
It seems unlikely that the court really intends to find an unconstitutional impairment of contract whenever someone's hope for a favorable contractual amendment is frustrated by subsequent legislation.
...but they DID find so to accomodate Governor Doyle and the Tribes. Would the Court rule, then, that someone's belief that taxes will not rise should invalidate increased taxes?
In sum:
Having voted to restrict the expansion of gaming, the state's residents now find that they have conferred a monopoly on the tribes to engage in any type of gaming that the Governor might agree to and that is permitted by federal law.
Bet you didn't know that, eh?
In Jarrell, the Court mandated recording of police interrogations of juveniles.
...the court's concern went beyond problems of proof (that were themselves not present in the case before it) to substantive judgments about how interrogations should be conducted that were rooted in neither the constitution nor the statutes.
Justifying such regulation because it is implemented through a rule of admissibility (and is, therefore, a rule "governing the courts") establishes a principle with no obvious stopping point.
On the "lead paint" decision (Collins):
...its suggestion that the constitutional provision maintaining that Article I, section 9 "does allow for a remedy through the existing common law"61 suggests that it believes that Article I, section 9 imports into the common law a constitutional imperative for a "remedy" whenever there is a "wrong," whether or not recognized at common law. The court acknowledged amicus' argument that such a broad constitutional command cannot be "maintained in some principled way thereby creating uncertainty in a number of cases,"62 but pronounced itself untroubled ...
Which, I suppose, hints at the title of Screechin'Shirley's personal theme song:
Que Sera, Sera. Whatever will be, will be/the future's not yours to see/It depends on ME!
That is precisely the nature of Screechin'Shirley's decisions on carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense, which Esenberg also discusses (no excerpts here.)
***********
Ms. Abrahamson has attempted to baptize (thus sanctify) her majority's meandering opinions as "The New Federalism," which has some appeal to people who disagree with the state of jurisprudence at the Federal level. You know, the 9th and 10th Amendments, and all that stuff. But the direction The Screecher has taken with her "New Federalism" looks a bit more like "Old Anarchy,"--a logical outcome of Social Science-based decisions.
In DuBose:
The court in DuBose, like Jerrell C.J., reached out to create a broad rule regarding what law enforcement procedures should be permitted in response to concerns that were not presented by the case before it.
...
both cases represent a departure from the way in which the court had generally handled such questions reflecting, perhaps, a diminished weight placed upon precedent. And as we have seen, Ferdon and Dairyland reversed very recent decisions, calling into question the extent to which anything can be regarded as settled other than by the type of head counting normally associated with political prognostication.
Esenberg concludes:
We have seen that a number of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recent decisions have involved an aggressive re-examination of legislative fact-finding (Ferdon) or the rooting of a decision in facts that are controverted (Thomas) or outside of the record (Jerrell C.J., DuBose). We have seen the court engage in a judicial reformulation of legislation (Fisher) and adopt doctrine that it is unlikely to follow in future cases (Ferdon, Dairyland). ...
It is the purpose of this white paper to facilitate a discussion about this important trend and to foster a dialogue about the proper role of the courts in our state. It is the hope of its author that it begins now—in earnest
It is also the hope of rational citizens of this State, as well, Rick. Let's Get It On!!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
About the Gross Domestic Product
Next time some yapper tells you about the glorious growth of the GDP, remind them of this:
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy.
Ron Paul, MC
In other words, a good deal of Federal spending is counted as GDP--meaning that the larger the Feds' budget, the larger the GDP. Hell--FDR increased the GDP significantly, but gasoline was rationed, as was copper, and some food. Great GDP--just no benefit to the citizens (aside from winning the war.)
So who wants to look at the GWB spend-a-thon and re-calc GDP for actual growth?
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy.
Ron Paul, MC
In other words, a good deal of Federal spending is counted as GDP--meaning that the larger the Feds' budget, the larger the GDP. Hell--FDR increased the GDP significantly, but gasoline was rationed, as was copper, and some food. Great GDP--just no benefit to the citizens (aside from winning the war.)
So who wants to look at the GWB spend-a-thon and re-calc GDP for actual growth?
Task Force 145
When you want to know what's going on in the War on Terrorists, Google "Task Force 145."
Last week, western forces from Afghanistan were reported to have crossed the Pakistani border, and captured Mullah Hakimallah Mehsud, a clansman of Baitullah and Abdullah Mehsud, the two leading Taliban commanders in South Waziristan. Yesterday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokesman denied any involvement in operations inside Pakistan. "Contrary to recent press reports, the NATO International Security Assistance Force has not and is not involved in the conduct of any operations inside of Pakistan," noted an ISAF press release. "" 'These reports are simply false,' said Col Tom Collins, ISAF spokesman." Colonel Collins is technically correct, this wasn't a NATO led mission, but, as we noted the day the news broke, one conducted by Task Force 145, the hunter-killer Special Operations group created to pursue senior al-Qaeda leadership.
It's a lot easier than asking the Bush Administration what's going on. They won't tell you.
HT: Roggio/Fourth Rail
Last week, western forces from Afghanistan were reported to have crossed the Pakistani border, and captured Mullah Hakimallah Mehsud, a clansman of Baitullah and Abdullah Mehsud, the two leading Taliban commanders in South Waziristan. Yesterday, NATO's International Security Assistance Force spokesman denied any involvement in operations inside Pakistan. "Contrary to recent press reports, the NATO International Security Assistance Force has not and is not involved in the conduct of any operations inside of Pakistan," noted an ISAF press release. "" 'These reports are simply false,' said Col Tom Collins, ISAF spokesman." Colonel Collins is technically correct, this wasn't a NATO led mission, but, as we noted the day the news broke, one conducted by Task Force 145, the hunter-killer Special Operations group created to pursue senior al-Qaeda leadership.
It's a lot easier than asking the Bush Administration what's going on. They won't tell you.
HT: Roggio/Fourth Rail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
