Wow, this is the coolest Dreamweacer MX extension ever. I’ve been trying to find a good work around for an IE CSS problem for a couple of days. (IE doesn’t read the min-width property in CSS.) Plugged in the extension and solved the problem in 15 seconds. It would be nicer if IE just worked right, but this works.
I’ve noticed several small stories in the news lately about the United Nations interest in controlling the Internet. The magnitude of this is staggering. I can’t understand why this isn’t getting more play in the media. With all of the major news agencies and most of the minor ones having a significant web presence, you’d think they would have more interest in this. Protecting our freedom of speech should be in their best interest. You’d think protecting their investment in the web would be a factor if nothing else. Bob Barr has a story on this in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about this that is worth reading in it’s entirety. Mr. Barr pulls no punches in his criticism of the organization.
I recently spent four days at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The reason for my interest in an organization I and many others hold in low esteem was to keep an eye on the World’s Biggest Bureaucracy as it held another in a lengthy series of meetings to develop international controls on firearms ownership. I exited this latest conference with even less regard for its endeavors than when I first arrived, but with renewed amazement for its chutzpah.
This is an organization that continues to bat .000, can claim not a single major success to its credit, and suffers from gross mismanagement and systemic corruption throughout its labyrinth bureaucracy.
Yet, the United Nations continues to thumb its nose at all efforts to force reform and accountability into its ranks. Not content with simply exhibiting the arrogance that comes from being largely beyond the reach of normal judicial or political accountability, and believing that the best defense is a good offense, the United Nations is now proposing to expand its reach into new areas ripe for its bungling and corruption.
It looks like the Joint Terrorism Task Force might have nabbed some terrorists in New York. I almost hope this story is wrong. It would be nice if things like this didn’t happen in the USA, but it looks real. Nice to see the boys in blue are doing their job as professionally as usual. Good job guys.
Anita Hill has an opinion about who should be in the US Supreme Court. Actually she has an opinion about who shouldn’t be in the Court. John G. Roberts apparently shouldn’t be in the Supreme Court, because he has belonged to a series of “increasingly elitist institutions”.
We don’t know much about Roberts’ political ideology, but we do know that his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities. From his education at Harvard University and Harvard Law School to his role as chief of a D.C. firm’s appellate practice, Roberts placed himself in increasingly distinguished but exclusive circles.
His positions as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and a clerk for then Associate Justice William Rehnquist are impressive. But the selection processes for each of those positions have their critics. By 1994, years after Roberts’ clerkship, Rehnquist had hired a total of 73 clerks. Only eight were women.
Before Roberts’ appointment to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, he was included in a small circle of top Supreme Court litigators that included New York’s Floyd Abrams and Washington’s Robert Bork – but very few women or minorities.
Let’s keep score:
Isn’t this the one place we want an elitist, Harvard educated lawyer? And what more elitist organization is there than the US Supreme Court? Nine people, who are in some sense the last protectors of the US Constitution. This is the group that the word elitist was made for.
Richard Epstein has a much more interesting opinion on the Roberts nomination.
I have never met Judge Roberts, nor, for that matter, read a single one of his opinions. But I knew that he enjoyed the reputation as one of the keenest intellects and best Supreme Court advocates in the highly competitive Washington legal market. A glance at his gilt-edged resume–his 1979-80 clerkship with the late Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals leaps out–only increased my confidence in his nomination. His familiarity with complex business matters counts as a big added plus. Well done, I thought. This should be a cakewalk.
Then I heard Senator Charles Schumer, somber and self-righteous, reach, as he so often does, for the microphone, to announce that gilt-edged credentials are not enough. In his view, all nominees must be vetted for the soundness of their ideological positions. More pointedly, he observed that when John Roberts was up for a Circuit Court judge position, he refused, under questioning, to identify three Supreme Court decisions that he disagreed with. This time round, Sen. Schumer warned, that evasion will not work.
I hope that Judge Roberts resists the temptation to talk too much about past cases lest he prejudge future ones. Frankly, I care more about his willingness to listen than his ability to declaim at length. And I enthusiastically support his candidacy even if he rejects, publicly or silently, every outlandish position I hold dear. The fate of his nomination does not turn on my views.
Well worth reading the whole piece. He poses several questions to Mr. Schumer while pointing out several Supreme Court decisions that he personally disagrees with. I find Mr. Epstein much more believable in his opinions. I still can’t quite understand Ms. Hill’s opinion that she is against Mr. Roberts because of his “extraordinary” credentials, choosing instead for “diversity”.
I think extraordinary credentials are a good place to start. Maybe follow that up with a little personal integrity. A good case of ethics might also be in order. Diversity though, has no place in this discussion. The best possible candidate, regardless of race, sex, or religious background. We deserve no less.
Wander -
1. To move about without a definite destination or purpose.
2. To go by an indirect route or at no set pace; amble: wander toward town.
3. To proceed in an irregular course; meander.
4. To go astray: wander from the path of righteousness.
5. To lose clarity or coherence of thought or expression.
Source Dictionary.com
Definitions 1-3 are preferred, number 4 is frowned upon, number 5 is not allowed.
Mode of transportation while wandering is important. This is one of the aspects often overlooked by amateurs. A certain amount of inefficiency is not only acceptable, but preferred. Getting to your destination too fast can ruin an otherwise successful Wandering.
Transportation must have character, because traveling is the point, not the means to an end. My personal preference for wandering is horseback, but the right choice of horse, like other modes of transportation, is a must. A horse must be trustworthy, maneuverable, and comfortable. Precise handling and braking, like with cars, is important. A strong sense of self preservation is good, but the broad mindedness to include you into the “self” being preserved is better. The ability to stay calm in a crisis is good, the ability to stay out of the crisis altogether is better.
The key to a successful Wandering is not to enjoy the destination in spite of the trip, but to enjoy the trip, regardless of the destination.
I’ve commented previously on ALF’s (Animal Liberation Front) strategy of smashing labs in order to “free” animals, usually to the animals detriment. Michelle Malkin’s WHY THE FBI WATCHES THE LEFT links to a story about another lab’s destruction. My sympathy goes out to the author of the article. It is extremely stressful to live under personal threats as Mr. Blumberg is. He has some good points in his column, notably:
Moreover, and perhaps most alarming, is the adoption by certain groups of increasingly violent action to achieve their political aims. Indeed, the mounting acceptance of intimidation and violence within the anti-abortion movement eerily parallels the escalating tactics of animal rights extremists.
The escalation of violence and acceptance of violence by both sides in our politics has got to end. While I disagree with a lot about the modern political arena, I would never condone violence to solve these problems. We need to find a way to have politic discussion in our society without immediately resorting to insults and violence.
You Shield Us, We’ll Shield You
Federal Shield Laws aren’t the way to go. The media is jumping all over S. 397 and H.R. 800 – Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of the limited immunity it would give the Arms Industry. For themselves however, immunity would be just fine. Granted, it’s a different kind of immunity, but the premise is the same. What’s OK for the general public, isn’t good enough for the media.
While I agree with S. 397 and H.R., (companies shouldn’t be sued for producing legal products that function as advertised), I have a problem with letting reporters be unaccountable. What would happen if reporters never had to reveal sources? Would they still need sources? What would keep people like Jason Blair from just making stuff up and then hiding behind the shield law.
Sure it would protect the media, but who would protect us from the media? Maybe the media can be trusted with more responsibility, they keep telling us how trustworthy they are.
Jason Blair
Janet Cooke
Stephen Glass
Google “Reporter Fraud” if you think that’s all.
Weird naming of children by Gene Weingarten
I think Mr. Weingarten has a good point here.
Madison is symptomatic of something I call the “Elantra” phenomenon, after the appalling marketing-driven trend among automakers to name their cars pleasing sounds that have no meaning. Increasingly, people are no longer naming children for their ancestors or heroes or even favorite actors or athletes — names with some sense of history or reverence or accomplishment — and are choosing trendy names that to them seem hip or creative. No one real ever had a first name of Madison. The naming process has become not a celebration of love for another, or of good lives well lived — but a celebration of . . . oneself.
Our society is all about “oneself” already I don’t know why the trend in names should surprise me, but it does. I have recently noticed an increased frequency of odd and unusually spelled names myself, but I hadn’t realized it was a national trend. While I’ve not always been thrilled with my parents choice of names for me, I can be sure it wasn’t chosen on a whim, or from a sitcom.
The Right to Self-Defense by Wendy McElroy
Ms. McElroy has written a great piece about the Gonzales decision. If you haven’t heard of the case, she gives a brief description of the case in her first paragraph, before going into much greater detail about the case and it’s repercussions.
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
Ms. Gonzales, tragically lost her three children, when they were killed by her estranged husband. Despite a restraining order, Mr. Gonzales abducted and killed the girls before being killed himself by police.
After discussing in detail both sides of the lawsuit, Ms. McElroy goes one step further, and comes to the obvious conclusion:
A third position cries out: Given the court’s position that the police are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the ability to defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should impede the access to gun ownership.
While I say obvious, and it is for me, Ms. McElroy has clearly elaborated something that has been escaping the media for years. Personal safety isn’t something you delegate to someone else. It is as the name implies, personal. It is every person’s responsibility to take care of their own safety. That doesn’t mean you need to buy a gun. Maybe you buy the apartment across from a police station, maybe you move to a safer neighborhood. Whether you realize it or not, you are making a lot of decisions about your safety every day. You choose the neighborhood, the city and state you live in. You choose the job you have and how you get there. These all effect you personal safety. These decisions are often made without looking at the long term ramifications. Whether you want to or not, you choose the means of and methods protecting yourself and your family. The responsible person makes these decisions consciously, and then hopes they can live with the consequences. That’s life.
Read Ms. McElroy’s piece, The Right to Self-Defense, it’s worth reading the whole thing.
Cox and Forkum is great today. – Art of Desecration
The associated commentary is good as well.
One particular passage reveals the Times blindness to the real issue. They write that if Governor Pataki attempts to “appease one small, vocal group of protesters,” “he runs the risk of turning ground zero into a place where we bury the freedoms that define this nation.”
“Bury”? The Times has the gall to use the word “bury”? There are actual Americans buried at Ground Zero, murdered because they lived in a free county, and the Times’ main concern is not the victims but that Ground Zero have an art gallery able to exhibit “controversial images of 9/11 and America’s role in the world,” all in the name of “free speech.”
BBC edits out the word terrorist
If this isn’t the most absurd thing I’ve heard lately, I don’t know what is. The BBC is taking the world of Political Correctness (PC) to a whole new level. They are being very careful to not offend potential terrorists, by calling them terrorists. They are calling them bombers instead. They have even gone so far as to correct stories already published.
The BBC’s guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments”.
I sure wouldn’t want to be accused of a “value judgment”. It must be hard writing about death and destruction without saying that it’s bad. Maybe we should push to have the terms death and destruction changed as well. Death is of course an emotional term, and destruction is quite judgmental. I vote they now use Involuntary Dissolution and Alternative Construction in their place. That sounds about up to the BBC’s level of writing. Maybe I should write for them…
The alternative construction of several London subway trains led to the involuntary dissolution of at least 52 people last week. This was brought about by several members of a otherwise peaceful religious organization who attached explosives (is that to judgmental?) to their bodies in an effort to alternatively construct the train, thereby causing dissolution to themselves and people nearby.
Think they’ll hire me?
I was looking for a weather forecast on the news this morning (Roanoke channel 10), and the reporters kept talking about an upcoming story, Bad news for America. Seems that suicide bombers were involved in the London bombings, and that’s Bad News because they could strike America next. Did I miss something? Were we somehow safe from terrorists yesterday and nobody told me? To think I missed this fleeting moment of safety.
All things considered I’d rather be threatened by suicide bombers than a general nutjob who knows something about explosives. The nutjob can try again if he misses his target, or just keep blowing things up for the hell of it. The suicide bomber by definition only gets the one shot.
Citizens fight back against the attempted political hijacking of the 9/11 memorial.
The 14 major family organizations called on President Bush and Congress to come to their aid and honor their promises to “Never Forget.” They asked all American citizens to log on to www.takebackthememorial.org, sign the petition and call their elected officials and ask them to make the WTC memorial reflect only the history and events of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. They also called on the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Boards who both meet later this week to exercise their fiduciary obligation to protect this memorial.
Press release from takbackthememorial.org
(And somebody tell Newsday that it’s Alfred E. Neuman not Alfred E. Newman. Best not to misspell things, especially in headlines, when someone else is being called stupid.) Ann Althouse
My sincerest condolences to those affected by the bombings in London. My prayers are with you.
Man Charged With Stealing Wi-Fi Signal
I’ve been curious why this sort of thing wasn’t taken more seriously. Both as a law enforcement issue, and as a personal security issue. While it isn’t necessary to be quite as paranoid as I am (or possible), I’ve noticed a complete lack of concern about the security of wireless networks. Even a number of companies I am familiar with make nothing more than a token effort to secure their wireless network. These same companies spend thousands on building security, but leave their wireless network unsecured. Why should a thief take the chance of being caught breaking into a building when he can steal your data from the parking lot.
The other thing about this kind of security lapse that bothers me is how needless it is. A lot of companies really have no need for their wireless networks. They put in a wireless network for the ease and convenience of a few people. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to go that extra step to secure that new level of access.
In the interest of full disclosure I must say I spend my days chained to a desk looking at two computers and three monitors, and a wireless network in my office wouldn’t help me at all. Being a true Graphics Geek at heart, I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Teacher Attire Becoming a Touchy Topic
Do teachers need a dress code in schools? In some ways this seems like a silly argument, but then again some of these teachers aren’t making good choices either. Flip flops, see through or revealing clothing? I don’t remember my teachers dressing that way. I was raised in a small town who’s school district included some extremely rural areas, and occasionally a teacher or student looked less than stellar. This was usually the result of loss of power, or water at their home, not poor fashion sense.
It’s not so much that this is a silly argument, but that it is silly that rules like this need to be made at all. Some of the rules may go too far, but some of the teachers seem to have forced these rules into existence in the first place. Poor professionalism, in a profession that deserves better.
Powered by WordPress