Nervous Rodent's Views from the Bottom

Just a thought.

2007-07-06T20:24:00.000-04:00

I am sitting here thinking about this LIVE EARTH thing this weekend. Something I heard on the television keeps popping up when I hear or think about it. One of the members of the British band Arctic Monkeys pointed out the hypocrisy of this concert. These performers are going to show up with their entourage, by coming on their private airplanes, drive to the show in big posh gas guzzling limos, and then use huge amounts of energy to power the amps, lights, and all the amenities in their dressing rooms just to keep them satisfied. That doesn’t even take into account the band that is going to Antarctica to play. I mean how much fuel are they going to use? By the way it is winter down in that part of the world now, so if they fly the plane will not be able to turn off the engines or they will freeze up. Now, I’m no brain genius but it seems to me that is another HUGE waste of energy there. However maybe the plane will just drop them off, and come back when they are done. Does this whole thing seem a bit self defeating? What good is having a concert to save the world from carbon emissions if you are going to be putting tons of carbon into the atmosphere? Further is the Goreacle going to be at all the concerts or just one? If he goes to all how will he get there, obviously in a private plane, so that means he will be the biggest polluter on the planet that day.

Now I don’t know if any of you have ever worked a big rock concert, but I have, and I can tell you these people make all kinds of strange demands about what is to be in their dressing rooms. Van Halen for instance wanted K-Y Jelly in gallon jars, don’t ask, not tubes; at least that is what I heard from one of the owners of the company that catered their show. Others have demanded no brown M&M’s, I heard one band, at a show I worked, complaining about laminates, the plastic badges that hang around their necks so they are identified, and can go where they want, they were upset about the plastic. They wanted something other then plastic, said it was in their contract, but since they had to have them to eat they shut up and put them on. Then there is the meal, usually that is fairly straight forward but sometimes it can get outrageous only cooked with a certain brand of oil, or in certain type pots and pans. You may think I am making this up, but I assure you I am not, I worked a couple of shows with a friend who ran a catering company that did shows at Painters Mill, the Civic Center, Capitol Center, and the Lyric, and I heard the horror stories from her. Some were funny but other were just what are these people thinking. Anyway, back to my original subject, what are these rock stars going to demand and what kind of a “carbon foot print” will it leave. Hell, I am sure it will be more then I leave in a year, and that is just them getting there in their planes and limos.

So, as I pen this missive I have decided to not worry about my carbon output as the people telling me to conserve and live a carbon neutral lifestyle are hypocrites. Well, there is another rant by the Swamp Fox, hope you got a little bit to think about the next time you hear Sheryl Crow, or the Goreacle telling you how to behave and live, just remember they are living a lifestyle most of us will never attain, and have luxuries we can only dream of for the most part. Any thoughts about this yourselves?

Two quotes again this time, both I think are in keeping with the rant above.

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.” —Samuel Adams

"A man may conduct himself well in both adversity and good fortune, but if you want to test his character, give him power." —Abraham Lincoln

Question?

2007-06-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

Hey folks how are you all doing? First, to the Rodent, Welcome back brother, sorry I didn't hold up my end as well as I should have. But as with you work conspired to keep me busy and unable to get a good rant or post going. This is just a stream of consciousness; I hope it makes a little sense.I was reading the paper last week, and looking at the picture of the hamas thugs in Palestine occupying the Presidents Office, and I was curious. Does it strike anyone else as a bit cowardly, that these PUNKS who call themselves freedom fighters, and are so proud of what they do, wear masks? If they are so proud why are they wearing the FREAKIN’ MASK? Are they afraid of something, or what, are they embarrassed, and don't want their mama to see them acting the fool? I have always thought the same about the klan, and those gang bangers one sees posturing on TV, and in the paper. They are so proud of being racists, crimanals, and terrorists, but yet, they wear hoods. Does anyone else see the dichotomy of this; proud of what they are but won't show their face, that doesn't make sense. Does it? As I thought more about this, and the fight that brought about this turn of events, the hamas thugs in the Presidents Office and them taking over the Gaza Strip, I knew I was going to be called a racist or islamaphobe or whatever. Well you know what, I don't care because this is America and I can have, and voice an opinion, be it wrong or not. Besides, I don't make things the way they are, I just calls 'em like I sees it. But, anyway, here are my thoughts, first the Palestinians can't have or aren't ready for self rule, not if it is a Democratic form of government. They need someone who can rule with an iron fist. If that were not true then why is their economy and infrastructure in such disarray? Why are the conditions so dire when the European Union and America gives the Palestinian Authority millions of dollars yearly? Answer, because the government is nothing but a bunch of corrupt, thieving bastards. Second, why since they haven't been able to get an honest government going, one that could control the terrorists from hamas and fatah, are they still saying it is Israel's fault? How can it be Israel’s fault if they can’t build a country with such largess from the world over? Further, I heard that thousands of Palestinians are fleeing to Israel to escape the fighting in the Gaza strip. Does anyone see the irony in this, I know the Palestinians don't. First they wanted to have their own home land and self rule; now that they have it they want back into Israel where it is safe. The next thing that came to mind was that Israel should tell them NO, You can't come in; they don’t want Israeli settlements in Gaza, then No, settlements in Israel. Another thing was why Lebanon is the only country in the Middle East that has any semblance of Democracy, even though it has very tenuous hold on it. What with Hezbollah being funded by Iran, and doing everything in its power at Iran’s behest to topple it. What is it about the Middle East that none of these people want to be free? Are they all masochist or what. Well, as I said back with my first post I will sometimes rant, sometimes make sense and others not. I hope I didn't sound like some wingnut, but sometime you just got the get things off your chest.

Hide From The Secret Police

2007-06-13T01:43:00.000-04:00

Does anybody remember Rodney King? If you forgot, click the link to see Rodney King getting brutally beaten after a high-speed chase, eventually leading to the 1992 race riots in LA. What most people don't know is that thirteen seconds of footage, edited out and not aired on television, showed Rodney King getting up and charging at a police officer. Perhaps that video, if aired, could have prevented the deaths of fifty-three people.

My point is this -- information is power, and video is the most powerful form of information. It influences in a way that the written word cannot. Seeing is believing, and controlling what people see is a sure why to control them. Which leads me to my big question of the day -- do the police control people, or do people control the police?

Brian Kelly, an eighteen year old in Carlisle, PA, was riding in the passenger seat of a friend's pickup when the truck was pulled over by police for speeding. When the officer began yelling at his friend, Brian started recording the incident on his camcorder. He was arrested, and is currently facing up to seven years for violating Pennsylvania's wiretapping statute. (more info)

Wiretapping? Pennsylvania has a law prohibiting the recording of any conversations of any persons without their knowledge. The video wasn't the problem, but recording the police officer speaking was against the law. Ironically, the law has an explicit exception to allow police officers to record traffic stops themselves.

So let's review. The police are allowed to film you, but you cannot film them. The police are the only ones who can have footage of an incident. Maybe Pennsylvania learned from Rodney King. If you control the video, you can control what to release. Right now, the police can show their side, but nobody can (legally) record video to show the other side of the story.

Any regular reader of the Rodent is going to agree with me here: A police officer is a public servant. Everything he does in the line of duty is, by definition, public information. Yes, there are undercover policemen who need to have information, including their identity, concealed temporarily. However, at the end of the day, all police must be accountable for their actions.

I've personally been the subject of illegal and unwarranted searches by overzealous police. The attitude is simple -- if you're innocent, you've got nothing to worry about. Let's turn that around. If you're acting properly, you have nothing to fear from being filmed.

Pennsylvanians -- PLEASE contact your state legislator and let them know this law must be changed to allow the recording of all state employees in the line of duty.

RIAA Lapdogs

2007-06-04T12:49:00.000-04:00

Sorry for being gone so long; sometimes things come up. I'm back!

I love our country. Every now and then I hear someone talking about how corrupt our government is, and how they wished they lived somewhere else. I've lived in a great many different countries, and I have to say America is unique in it's government's transparency. Sure, sometimes a politician is caught with ninety thousand dollars in a freezer, but that's the point, isn't it? He was caught.

I bring this up because America lets us watch over our politicians and see what they're up to, and who they're accepting money from. And I'm going to make the assumption that the majority of readers realize the RIAA is evil, whether for suing widows for their departed's prior downloads, support for DRM, or for extortion and computer fraud. Most recently I've been upset at their claims they must be paid royalties for all Internet radio transmissions, regardless if the artists played are members of RIAA.

So without further ado, click here for the names and addresses of politicians who accepted money from RIAA in the last election cycle. Write your local politician, change your vote, or just let Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both on the list, know exactly how you feel.

The Real Cost of Daylight Savings Time

2007-04-18T10:22:00.000-04:00

I've always felt Daylight Saving Time was a waste
of time and productivity. Moving DST around is an
even greater waste of money. To be honest, I'm not
a big fan of time zones in general. What's so magic
about 6AM that it has to be the correct waking time?
I've heard that people want noon to be mid-day (why?),
but noon isn't mid-day anyway. Personally, I tend
to wake up about 5:30AM and go to bed at 11:0PM,
making my "mid-day" around 2:15PM. Today the sun
will be halfway to sunset in Washington DC at
12:40PM. Whatever.

The entire idea is centered around the concept that
people are too stupid to deal with problems themselves.
In a survey, the government found that people liked
DST because it gave them more time to do things in
the evenings before sunset. Duh. Go to work earlier,
get off work earlier. Do you really need the
government to tell you that? If you aren't able to
set your own hours, talk to your boss. Apparently
the majority of the country wants to wake up sooner
and get off work earlier, so what's the issue?

Oh, and it saves money, too. Or at least that's
what the DOE tells us. In a frequently-touted report,
California found DST saves money by shifting power
usage from expensive "peak" periods into cheaper
morning hours.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=P400-01-013

Okay, this may sound like a stupid question, but if
the power usage shifts from the "peak" period into
the cheaper morning hours, don't the morning hours
become peak? If everyone gets up an hours earlier,
then they'll turn on all their lights an hour
earlier, and the peak period will start at hour
earlier. What the hell?

The fact is there were no energy savings from moving
DST. Frankly put, DST has no real effect on energy
at all.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070403-the-daylight-savings-change-no-savings-no-point.html

But that's not to say it doesn't have any effect.
Besides lots of computers getting hosed up, and
people showing up to meetings an hour off, DST
actually kept an innocent 12 year old boy in jail
for twelve days. Yep. Next time someone tells you
that we can all just live with the temporary
confusion that moving the clocks causes, tell them
about Cody Webb, a Pennsylvania student who was
arrested for making a prank bomb threat. He had
called the school exactly one hour before the threat
was called in, and well, you can guess the rest.
The best part of the story was the Catch-22 attitude
of his principal, who refused to let him argue in his
defense, stating 'Well, why should we believe you?
You're a criminal. Criminals lie all the time.'
http://www.passablynews.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1175830780

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these folks really do need
the government to tell them when to wake up and
when to go to bed. They don't appear intelligent
enough to decide on their own.

The Swamp Fox Rants.

2007-04-12T19:08:00.000-04:00

I am ticked off, and I know I said I will keep a civil tongue in my head, but I got a question. What in the hell has happened to this freakin' country? Can somebody tell me? Anybody? Please? Now, you may ask what has my panties in a bunch. Well, it is this carp called political correctness.

There is in Littleton CO a group of parents mostly if not all women who are having a fit over a statue. The statue hasn’t even been erected yet, but these people have deemed it in appropriate, because it is, they think too close to three Elementary schools, and two parks. Why, is it inappropriate, you may ask? Good question. Well, it seems the statue depicts a man in uniform holding a gun.

So, how did this all start? Let’s go back to the very beginning. Years ago there was a young boy named Danny Deitz Jr., who like most boys was fascinated by all things military. However young Danny, who grew up in Littleton CO, lived out his soldierly dreams, he became a Navy SEAL. From what I have been able to glean from different sources Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL(BUD/S) Training is one of, if not the toughest, most challenging, and grueling training regimes in the Armed Forces. This is not meant to minimize the training to become a Green Beret, Army Ranger, Marine Force Recon, Air Force Special Air Police(if I am wrong about this units name or anything else, I apologize the all those in the Air Force), or Delta Force. Although, I do believe it is the longest training process, after six months of BUD/S there is another eighteen months of specialized training.

Jump forward to 27, 28 June, 2005 the vicinity of Asadabad, Konar province Afghanistan. His Special Reconnaissance element was to locate high level anti- Coalition militia leader, in support of a follow on direct action mission to disrupt enemy activity. They are spotted by militia sympathizers who reveal their position to the militia. They were as a result confronted directly by the enemy, with a much larger force, and a tactically superior position. In this attack Petty Officer Danny P. Deitz Jr. is wounded. Also wounded is a Team Mate Petty Officer Matthew Axelson. These men though mortally wounded continued to fight on, for forty five minutes by the accounts I have seen, while urging, and allowing their wounded Team Mate to escape. They stood their ground, and continued to fight even after a rescue helicopter crashed due to enemy fire, killing eight other SEALS, and they fought until they succumbed to their wounds. They were, a year later, Posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor( also known as the Congressional Medal of Honor), for their bravery, and valor.

Now, as a statue is being readied to be dedicated to this brave man, who gave his last full measure for his nation and his Team Mates, some people are offended by the statue. This is where the political correctness comes in. This statue shows P.O. Deitz crouched in full combat gear, including his M-16 with grenade launcher attached resting on his knee. It seems it is the weapon that is offensive to the good people of Littleton. Some of them say he should be holding a child, or a bouquet of flowers, can you believe that one, or nothing. There is even the idea of one moonbat who thinks that a better statue to honor P.O. Dietz by having a statue of a peace dove. A FREAKIN’ PEACE DOVE!! When was the last time a peace dove kept you safe Lady? Geez, where do they find these people. It has been said that one of the reasons they don’t like the statue of P.O. Dietz is because of those two pieces of human detritus that massacred their school mates at Columbine. But as P.O. Dietz’s widow, who is sympathetic to the message that guns and school don’t mix, puts it "It's a parent's job, including these parents who are protesting, to teach their children the difference between two thugs who murder their classmates and a soldier who died fighting for their freedom," she said. "Danny represents every soldier and sailor who has fallen, and for them to take this stand, well, that's offensive to me." She also said comparing the guns used at Columbine to her husband’s M-16, “one is used to take lives,” she said. “And the other is used to save them.” They want to change a monument a man who gave his life for the very right they are exercising to stop his monument, I wonder if they even realize the irony of it. Here is the link to Danny’s Navy Cross Citation. Navy Cross Citation for Danny P. Dietz

I have two quotes for this post.

The first, and I forget who said it, but I vowed to remember it when I heard I, is.
We sleep safe in our beds at night, because rough men stand ready to do violence in our name.
The second is
"It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world." --Theodore Roosevelt

Bestiality, Urination, Defecation, as well as Sadistic and Masochistic Behavior

2007-04-06T21:54:00.000-04:00

I must open by apologizing for not having my regular images and nice
formatting, but I'm away on the previously-mentioned business and unable to
log into Blogger. This is my test of a backwards method of bringing a post to
the Internet.<P>

<a
href="http://nervous-rodent.blogspot.com/2005/09/big-brother-or-nanny.html">I
posted</a> about the government's unhealthy obsession with pornography back in
September 2005. That story, like most sick and unhealthy obsessions, hasn't
died. In that article, entitled "Big Brother or Nanny?", I argued that by
making pornography between consenting adults a "focus area" for prosecution,
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was not only wasting valuable tax
dollars, but encouraging prosecutions that the government would ultimately
lose. It turns out that the eight fired prosecutors had one thing in common:
<a
href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/porn_and_the_doj.php">refusing
to prosecute these cases.</a><P>

I'm not going to suggest, as others have, that the failure to prosecute these
pornography cases was the underlying reason behind the firing of the
attorneys. That would be ludicrous, even if it does appeal somewhat to my
sense of conspiracy. In the case of Paul Charlton, the reason for the firing
was obvious: Charlton had <a
href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal">just initiated an
investigation</a> into the corruption of a Republican candidate and Bush
loyal: Rick Renzi. It doesn't take a genius to know why Charlton was fired --
but it takes a spinster to come up with an excuse that doesn't taste bad for
TV.<P>

So the White House released e-mails that showed evidence the eight attorneys
were ineffective and needed to be fired. In Charlton's case, he had been
reluctant to prosecute pornographers for distributing content between
consenting adults. It's time to sigh, and reaffirm our understanding that the
government, regardless of party, is infesting with self-serving politicians
who do not hold your best interests at heart. The need for transparency is
obvious.

I'll Wager On This

2007-04-03T10:54:00.000-04:00

Is online gambling illegal in the United States? The Justice Department says so, citing the Wire Act from 1961. Notably, the Wire Act only prohibits those "in the business of betting or wagering" from doing so, which has been interpreted to mean casual bettors were beyond the reach of the law, while gambling professionals and companies were not. So what happens when offshore gambling establishments allow Americans to log in and play casually over the Net?

Only 21 states have explicit prohibitions against social gambling, and only eight states specifically prohibit Internet gambling. What's an overzealous Congress to do? Pass a new law, of course! The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 makes it illegal to transfer funds to or from an online gambling site, while not actually banning gambling itself. Predictably, this law has killed the Internet gambling industry -- Antigua's gambling industry went from $1 billion per year in revenue to only $30 million, resulting in a loss of 4,000 jobs in a country with only 68,000 people.

Even before that bill was passed, however, the Justice Department had been publicly stating that they felt Internet gambling was illegal, and would prosecute those who engaged in it. How many more people would have wagered online if they didn't have the spectre of
law enforcement hanging overhead? We may never know.

Here's the part that's interesting. Including indian lands, there are 1,657 casinos 46 states. Yes, that means a lot of states that make gambling illegal have an exception either for indian lands or specific establishments. So the question Antigua raised is, "Does Congress have the right to stop Americans from playing in offshore casinos when the majority of Americans can legally wager near home?" Funny thing is that's not just an ethical question; it's really a matter of protectionism and restraint of trade. Congress has stated that an American wishing to gamble must do it at an American brick & mortar casino, not with a foreign company.

So Antigua took the United States to the World Trade Organization, which whom we have signed treaties promising not to engage in protectionism or restraint of trade. America frequently petitions the WTO when foreign countries make it hard for American companies to compete overseas -- this is the first time any nation under 100,000 people has ever filed a complaint in the WTO. In 2004, Antigua won: the United States was unfairly engaged in illegal restraint of trade.

The United States blatantly ignored the ruling, and passing the aforementioned law against online gambling two years later.

This week the WTO compliance board found the United States, not surprisingly, to continue to violate international law: "The Panel concludes that the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the [Dispute Settlement Body] in this dispute."

So what does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Don't think for a second our politicians are afraid online gambling will create social ills and injure children, as they claim. Many of the states with explicit online gambling bans are those states with the largest gambling industries, including Nevada (373 casinos), Washington (143 casinos), and Montana (136 casinos). This is a clear-cut case of big business, namely the American gambling industry, pushing politicians to restrict American's freedoms for the sole purpose of reducing competition and ensuring higher profits. The largest sponsors of the 2006 gambling ban? Casinos, with $28.5 million dollars spent in 2006 alone, or $53,271 for every Congressman in the House and Senate.

What should you do? Tell your congressmen to give Americans the freedom of choice. Support the Poker Players Alliance, the strongest group lobbying for the legalization of online gambling, with 319,307 dues-paying members, and headed by former Congressman Alfonse D'Amato. And always remember it's not the job of our government to hand money to special interest groups on a silver platter.

John Doe

2007-04-02T19:22:00.000-04:00

John Doe is being sued by the Imams, who after acting in an extremely suspicious manner were removed from the US Airways flight form Minneapolis to Phoenix. Now, I see on Michelle Malkins blog that a few bloggers, Uncle Jimbo of youtube.com/unclejimbomadcity, Robert Spencer of jihadwatch.com, Erick Stakleback of cbn.com/blogs/erick_stakleback/index.aspx, and Brian Preston of hotair.com, have stepped up with the John Doe Manifesto, the manifesto lets it be known to all who would enslave us, or work to bring down America that John Doe will not be intimidated. He will not be silenced, and he will not give a rat’s pa-toot what they think. He is vigilant, he is aware or his surroundings, he is watching. But, who is John Doe, really? He is the guy looking over from the next car at the stop light. He is the woman who watched you pump gas into the gallon can for your lawn mower. John Doe is bagging your groceries. He is the cashier at the store where you stop on the way home from work. He is the person who collects your garbage. He is the woman pushing the stroller, who smiled pleasantly as you passed. He is the jogger in the park. John Doe is us. He is every American who watched television on 11 September, 2001 with purple faced, white fisted rage as the Twin Towers fell. He howled in frustration at his feelings of impotence, because there was nothing he could do, when learning about the Pentagon. He wept, unashamed, at the bravery of the passengers on flight 93. He wants to do some thing, anything, to protect his country, and to defend her. John Doe does not care when told he is a bigot because he is on alert for the enemies of his country. He will become more vigilant. He is more suspicious, he is taking a harder look at those who are trying to make his vigilance falter. He will not back down. John Doe will tell the flight attendants when he sees something, or someone that isn’t quite right. He will call the Police when he sees something disturbing, he doesn't care if he is wrong. He will err on the side of caution. We are John Doe. I am John Doe. Are you John Doe?
Below is the John Doe Manifesto as taken from Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,
You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.
I am John Doe.
I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.
I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.
I am John Doe.
I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.
I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.
I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.
I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I am John Doe.
I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”
I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.
I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.
I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.
I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.
I am John Doe.
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.
I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.
I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.
I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.
I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”
I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.
I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.
I am John Doe.

Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened. — Billy Graham
The Swamp Fox

Illegal Immigrants Get Preference Over US Citizens

2007-03-28T17:06:00.000-04:00

There's a Federal law that governs educational rights for illegal immigrants. Specifically, public elementary and secondary schools must allow illegal immigrants to enroll, presumably because educated illegal immigrants are better than uneducated illegal immigrants. The same law also prohibits states from providing illegal immigrants any tuition breaks that are not available to all U.S. citizens. South Dakota, in effect, couldn't charge more money to a North Dakota resident then they do to an illegal immigrant.

The law makes sense, except it never would have occurred to be to provide lower tuition to illegal immigrants than to American citizens.

It turns out that four states have found a way to bypass the law. These states offer in-state tuition not based on state of residence, as is common custom, but rather by the state the student attended high school. Since by Federal law a state cannot prohibit an illegal immigrant from attending high school in the state, the student automatically qualifies for in-state tuition regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The four states are California, New York, Texas, and Utah, which rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 6th respectively for illegal immigrant populations (GAO report).

Why bring this up? Aren't we all sick of hearing what California is doing anyway? Because Maryland just passed a bill to do the same thing, and the Governor has already stated he would sign it.

In-state tuition has always been problematic for young adults heading off to college. If you move to a new state, you're automatically charged out of state tuition. Even switching your driver's license and becoming a legal resident of your new state won't grant you the benefits that long-time residents enjoy. This can be particularly frustrating as most teenagers have no ability to choose where they live prior to college.

The comments button is below. I promise I won't delete comments... I just want one, honest good answer from anyone who has it. Why on Earth should a person who sneaks their family across the border illegally get lower tuition than a legal resident who chooses to move into Maryland to attend college? Someone, please, explain it to me.

The Swamp Fox

2007-03-27T17:00:00.000-04:00

Hi, folks, just thought I would introduce myself, I was asked by the Nervous Rodent to give him a hand while he is occupied with other commitments. I am a guest blogger from The Commons at Paulieworld (paulieworld.com/commons), and have known the Rodent and Mrs. Rodent for about 3 years. I posted a few articles at The Commons in its previous form, three of them were on the Second Amendment, they were Lawsuits against Firearm Manufacturers for the Criminal or Negligent Misuse, Militias and the Second Amendment, Concealed Carry and the Right to Self Defense. I also posted a few things I found around the web on various subjects, some political and some humorous. I will post on occasion when I have something to say, and probably even when I don’t. At The Commons I am the resident Second Amendment expert, not that I am an expert in the sense that some are, Chris Cox of NRA comes to mind, but I guess I am the expert over there. My nom de plume is The Swamp Fox; I didn’t take this name it was given to me by the web master over at The Commons, some of us who post to The Commons live rather public lives or have other reasons for needing a nom de plume. If you go to The Commons you will see that all of our nom de plumes have a Revolutionary War theme. But, why don’t I let you read what he (Paulie) said of me instead of trying to tell you. The Swamp Fox = Namesake is Col Francis Marion, led a guerilla war against the British in the South. Our resident Second Amendment expert and perhaps the only true libertarian on our masthead. Some of my posts will be by someone who wishes to remain anonymous; I will come up with an alias for them when the time comes. I will sometimes post because of an outrage committed by some politician, or some other thing I find outrageous, other times I will be amazed at some nit wittery, or just feel like venting my spleen, if for no other reason then I can. I will try to keep a civil tongue in my head, as I have no wish to offend, and think that if you must curse to get your point across then you don’t have much of a point in the first place. I hope you will read what I have to say and if you agree, give me some feed back, and if not take me to task for it, but I only ask that either way you are polite. I hope to help the Rodent keep you entertained and make you think a little, and maybe once in a while get a laugh out of you. You can even curse me, but, hey, please, just don’t do that on the Rodents pages. I always try to end with a quote, they may or may not be germane to the issue at hand, but I like to sometimes change things up. I never know which quote is going to strike my fancy, so it could be anyone from Saltus to Ted Nugent to Samuel Clements to the Dali Lama to Joseph Goebbles. Thank you for reading what I have to say, now and in the future. Enjoy.
"Illegitimus non carborundum" (don't let the bastards grind you down)
The Swamp Fox

Iranian Mentality

2007-03-26T19:14:00.000-04:00

As I'm sure you have all heard by now, last week Iran captured two British RHIBs with fifteen Sailors and Marines aboard. You may or may not have heard that this isn't at all unprecedented; Iran has aggressively claimed waters it doesn't own for many years, and has "captured" British and Iraqi servicemembers it claims were in its territory. In some cases, they have even crossed into Iraq and fired on American troops, thankfully without hurting any. This particular incident, however, is unique in that Iran doesn't seem inclined to return the Brits any time soon. There's reporting that Iran has moved them to Tehran, and is preparing for long-scale negotiations.

The question each of us should be asking ourselves is "What does Iran think it has to gain?" There was a lot of speculation that the capture was meant to influence the sanctions vote last week. That's ridiculous -- the capture was only a day before the vote, and previous captures have resulted in a release within two or three days. Britain, at the time of the vote, had no reason to believe Iran wouldn't release the servicemembers by Monday.

A lot of Iranian press has talked about various Iranian "diplomats" kidnapped by Americans, and a possible prisoner exchange. The Iranian Majles has been considering adopting a bill requiring that the Brits only be released when these Iranians are released (although it's doubtful the Council of Guardians would allow such a bill). The "kidnapped" Iranians include a defector whom the West would never force to return to Iran, and a number of imprisoned Iranians caught red-handed providing explosives to terrorists in Iraq. I don't see either President Bush nor PM Tony Blair as being willing to release them at this point, especially with Iran continuing to defy the UNSC.

So what's Iran's problem? The first problem is that this wasn't a pre-planned capture, as many have speculated. The timing was awful, and the choice of British over Americans was careless. The erratic response shows a lack of coordination, and various branches of the convoluted Iranian government are still trying to sort each other out and come to a consensus on what to do.

The next problem is that this crises couldn't have come at a worse time for Iran. Engaged in a game of brinkmanship with the West, Iran would view a release of the Brits as a sign of weakness. The Iranian leadership has an attitude not too different from inner-city gangs -- it's all about appearance. They instruct the IRGC to harass multi-national forces and occasionally "capture" foreign forces, because they think it makes them look "tough." This time, however, the nuclear crises has left them without a nice out. No exit strategy, as it were.

So what will Iran do next? It's hard to predict such an irrational beast. The most likely scenario is they will hold onto the prisoners until the nuclear crises defuses, try them for made-up crimes in a kangaroo court, and sentence them to some long incarceration -- then quietly commute it to time served and let them go without any attention.

What if the crises doesn't defuse? We all remember the Iranian hostage crises; Iran's played this game before. Iran won the last crises by waiting for the next election and releasing them as a sign of goodwill to Ronald Reagan. But unlike Reagan, who saw no problem in treating enemies like friends just to stab the Soviet Union in the eye, I don't see any of the contenders for the White House or 10 Downing Street as being willing to work with Iran. And frankly, I don't see either Bush or Blair as being willing to tolerate a hostage situation lasting into elections.

So if Iran doesn't quietly let these fifteen Brits go, what happens next? The Nervous Rodent predicts a series of strikes against IRGC, leadership, and nuclear facilities to continue until the Brits are released. The problem is Iran isn't very good at giving up when it's outmatched... When you believe God is on your side, you tend to think you'll survive any fight. Iran is likely to retaliate outside its own borders, which is a sure trigger for war.

The ball is in Iran's court. They've kicked out the inspectors, and they've captured the Brits. You'd think they would have seen what happened to their neighbors when they refused the demands of the civilized world, but this isn't a rational country. It's a country powered by emotion and prestige, and they aren't going to back down. Whatever Iran does, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

In other news, events are conspiring to keep me off blogging. I'll be unable to blog for the most part over the next few months. Rather than leave the blog idle as before, I've invited a friend (The Swamp Fox) to make some guest posts. Please give him a warm welcome!

RIP COPA

2007-03-25T10:06:00.000-04:00

In 1996, the Communications Decency Act was passed, making it illegal to make obscene or indecent material available on the Internet where a minor could access it. The nascent Internet community reacted, with an estimated five to ten percent of online websites switching to black backgrounds (including Yahoo!) for 48 hours, and a massive "blue ribbon campaign" that saw blue ribbons on thousands of homepages for several months.

The law was never enforced, as a federal panel of judges enacted an injunction against it, and by the next year it had been overturned completely. A horrible law that died a quick clean death.

So, given Congress's penchant for attempting to pass an unconstitutional law by ramming it down the public's throat, the measure was pushed through Congress the following year (1998) under a new name, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). COPA limited the restrictions to commercial enterprises, but clarified the obscenity requirements to include all nudity, including female breasts. Medical health sites were among the many outraged by the new law, which would have required a credit card or other proof of age to access information on how to perform cancer self-exams.

The law was, once again, subject to an immediate injunction. The following year, the law was struck down. However, unlike the CDA, it was not quickly killed. The Attorney General chose to appeal the ruling, and by 2004 the Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the unjunction, but referred the case to a lower court for trial.

The Department of Justice then issued subpeonas to various Internet search engines for search records. All search engines complied except for Google, which successfully fought the subpeona as illegal. The trial finally commenced, and this Thursday, a verdict was reached. COPA is finally dead, having been found to facially violate both the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. said in his ruling "[P]erhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

I have only two worries. The first is the inevitable third try Congress will attempt now that COPA is dead. The second is that this judge appears to think that you have to be eighteen to have free speech.

Global Online Freedom Act of 2007

2007-02-05T18:02:00.000-05:00

Some bills are good ideas, and a great many are colossally bad ideas. Every now and then you get a bill that does a good thing the wrong way, and that's what the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 is. Introduced by Rep Christopher Smith (R-NJ) as a rework of the failed 2006 version, the bill is currently sitting in the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

So what's all this about then? Here's a short history on the why of this bill:

In 2005, Yahoo! provided information on a Chinese journalist who released an internal Communist Party message anonymously via the Internet, leading to his arrest and 10 year prison sentence.
On Dec 31st of the same year, Microsoft removed a blog of a Chinese journalist. Microsoft had earlier that year admitted to censoring words like "freedom" and "democracy" from its Internet portal.
Early last year, Google admitted that it censored search results for users in China.

What do all three events have in common? In all three cases, the companies stated they were simply complying with Chinese law, and had no choice.

In February 2006, the House held a hearing in with Representative Tom Lantos said "Your abhorrent activities in China are a disgrace. I simply do not understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I abhor the thought of China censoring the Internet, and it sickens me that American companies are profiting from helping China through pro-democracy activists in the Gulag. But about this bill? Does the ends justify the means? Is the cost worth the result? I don't see a problem with Congress regulating international commerce, that is, prohibiting U.S. corporations from performing certain acts on behalf of foreign governments. There are three basic elements of the bill that bother me:

The price tag of $50 million per year. What the heck is going to cost fifty million dollars per year? How hard is it to tell which countries are censoring the Internet?
The massive reporting requirements. Anyone who removes any content from any server on behalf of a foreign government is basically required to describe the circumstances behind the removal to the State Department. Perhaps the $50 million is to pay for federal workers to read all these reports, but who's going to pay for the guys who waste time writing them?
Export license restrictions. The bill tasks the Secretary of State to perform a feasibility study on restricting export licenses for products that facilitate restrictions on Internet freedom. Almost all networking technology can censor in some fashion, whether operating system, firewall, or router. Could this snowball into a situation like we had in the 90's where all decent cryptology was prohibited from export, holding computer security back for years?

My mind isn't made up quite yet. I offer this post primarily as food for thought. Chew deeply, unless you're in China, in which case you won't be able to find this blog that talks about democracy and freedom.

Ironically, China denies censoring the Internet at all. Not that anyone believes them. Maybe the Chinese do. After all, if you search Google News from within China, I bet you won't find any evidence of censorship.

New source of news in Iraq

2007-01-27T09:17:00.000-05:00

Thanks to AubreyJ for these links...

I know some of you are going to say that you wouldn't trust the Pentagon's media with a ten foot pole. But the fact is the U.S. military is forbidden from intentionally lying to Americans. I've seen a lot of Armed Forces Network news reports over the years, and I have to say they aren't glossed over propaganda, but good honest news reports, from the viewpoint of soldiers.

What about the news reports planted by the U.S. government in Iraq? What about them, I ask? They were truthful stories. Iraqi papers were doing the same thing as the MSM; printing lots of bad news, some untrue, while refusing to print any good news. The U.S. simply balanced news coverage by paying papers to print both sides of the story. Heck, I think that the Pentagon should be allowed the do the same thing in America.

Anyhoot, on to the goodies:

Freedom Journal Iraq is a daily program produced by American Forces Network Iraq. This program focuses on military missions, operations and U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Click here for daily reports. Also try this recent interesting report (or here for low-bandwidth version).

The People have spoken.... But I don't care!

2007-01-23T19:19:00.000-05:00

Let me start by saying I hate blue laws. They are unconstitutional by any measure, as they specifically honor the preferences of a certain sects of a single religion over all others. When someone tells me they support blue laws, I generally ask if Christians should be banned from purchasing alcohol in Muslim-majority towns, because they are coming to America fast. As Christians represent an ever-shrinking percentage of America, they will quickly look to the Constitution to defend them from other religious beliefs.So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely, Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.

It's hard to be against that, isn't it? It allows each town and/or county to decide for themselves if they want to limit blue laws to hard liquor. It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the current law.

As Crazy for Liberty points out, there is widespread support among both the population and representatives in the government. Somehow the Governor, Sonny Perdue, is against it (sound clip, AJC link):

I think it’s going to have a tough time, actually. When you ask people generally if they want the right to vote on anything — what kind of toilet tissue the state ought to use, or anything like that — they’ll typically say yes.

Although they like representative government, they like to have their voices heard. And that’s why we have representative government, where people elect their own legislators to come and make these kinds of decisions.

Some things rise to the level of referendums — such as, I felt, the symbol, the flag that represented Georgia, which I felt rose to that level. But you can’t do government really by referendum. And so, I don’t support that, and I don’t know whether it will pass the Legislature or not, but it’ll have a pretty tough time getting the last vote….

You have to always be attuned to where public opinion is, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to follow that. A good leader always leads in a way they think is the right direction for Georgia on significant issues. …

What? Yeah, the people want more freedom and less government intrusion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to them? Remember Georgians, you voted for him!

I have to credit Sonny Perdue with one thing, however. He is the first person I've ever heard come up with a valid justification for blue laws that doesn't mention religion -- the government's responsibility to educate the populace:

Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.

Hey, I've got an idea. Let's only sell gasoline on odd days, milk on even days. Condoms should only be sold on prime-numbered days. We'll make everyone plan their entire week around a couple of random proclamations with no justification other than making people's lives harder so they can learn to deal. After all, that's why government exists.

Bipartisan Support For Making College Unaffordable

2007-01-22T20:03:00.000-05:00

Let's face it. College is expensive. Unless you join the military or happen to come from a family that owns a bunch of oil wells in Texas, chances are you're going to leave college deep in debt. Many Americans don't dig out from under that debt for many years; many never do. The reason is quite obvious -- skyrocketing college tuition is making attendance virtually impossible without resorting to massive student loans.

Our Congress has decided to help out the little guy and make a college education a little easier to reach. HR 5, College Student Relief Act of 2007, reduces interest rates for new federal student loans. It has passed the House, 356-71, with bipartisan support. It now moves on to the Senate.

This sounds like a great idea. It really helps the young American get an education, lift himself up, and improve the economy, right? There's no way this bill could possibly increase student loan defaults, since it reduces the size of the payment, right?

Actually, HR.5 will increase the pool of applicants who want to attend college, without increasing the number of students the college system can accept. The law of supply and demand dictates that college tuition must then rise and demand outstrips supply. Student loan sizes increase, thus resulting in higher student loan payments for those lucky enough to get them.

Student interest rates are currently tied to the average one year constant maturity Treasury yield (CMT), and thus follow the flow and ebb of the economy. Since 1998, Stafford interest rates have dropped from 7.94% to 6.80%. The low rates (and high defaults) mean these loans incur significant cost to the average American in the form of higher taxes.

How low does HR.5 drop interest rates? Applied only to new students, HR.5 will lower rates each year until it bottoms out at 3.40%. That's right, less than half current rates, which are already low by any standards. What's more, HR.5 breaks the relationship between interest rates and the economy by making 3.40% permanent, no matter where the economy goes.

This is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. Not only does it not achieve the desired effect of making college affordable, it potentially reduces the income of college graduates, depressing the economy. The fact is that too many Americans are going to college. Half of all Americans are below average intelligence, and no amount of education can change that. The economy requires doctors and lawyers, but it also needs waitresses, janitors, and bus drivers. How many college graduates do we really need? Currently 45% of all high school graduates enroll in a four year college!

The net effect of unreasonable high college attendance rates are multiple:

Higher tuition, driven by supply and demand. Eventually, the market will respond by increasing capacity and accepting more students, leading to
Lower wages for college graduates, based on the same principle. The increased number of college graduates and lower wages for graduates combine to produce
Higher job qualification requirements. After all, if you have an excess of college graduates, which don't cost significantly more than non-graduates to hire, most employers will prefer the college graduate. Eventually a college degree becomes a requirement for jobs that previously were done by high school graduates. This further increases the demand for college education, leading to
Lowered educational standards. As every American realizes that a college education is the only way to survive, the market responds by creating an educational system that allows every American to graduate.

This vicious cycle is already in place. Nobody will contest that tuition has risen, attendance is up, more Americans hold degrees, a degree is more important than it was in the past when it comes to job hunting, and our universities are failing to maintain high standards. This isn't a what-if theory about the future, it's an observation of the present.

As a culture it's time to drop the notion that everybody deserves the same. Every man is created equal, but what we achieve in life separates us. Only the students who excel in high school and prove the ability to perform at a higher level should be afforded the chance to attend college. To do otherwise demeans our entire educational system, and produces a nation of idiots with degrees.

Scappleface has a story on this issue as well. Check it out.

Fatah honors Saddam Hussein

2007-01-16T21:48:00.000-05:00

The main square in the Jenin refugee camp has been renamed by Fatah after Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator who engaged in genocide against various ethnic groups, invaded two of his neighbors, and routinely had innocent people ritually killed for his own pleasure. Yeah, that Saddam Hussein.

Yet Fatah is an ally of the United States. An ally to the tune of an additional $86 million dollars of your tax dollars spent on improving Fatah's military force. The money is granted to "assist the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map (peace plan) to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza," according to a U.S. government document.

That's okay, though, because Fatah is fighting against Hamas, and is therefore against terrorism, against violence, and just generally a friend of the American way of life. This renaming of the main square is obviously a clerical error, a mistake, a political gaffe. Heck, just read the American media accounts of Abbas's latest speech:

AP - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told a large rally of his Fatah movement Thursday that he won't allow fighting with their Hamas rivals to continue and called on opposing factions to respect each other.

AFP - Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas assured tens of thousands of supporters that he was determined to prevent further factional clashes with rival Hamas after weeks of internecine bloodshed.

While both of these articles contain quotes from Abbas's speech, neither contain any of the following language, also from the same speech:

When Fatah was established, it was accused of treason and we were chased in every place. But with the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.... We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation. It is forbidden to use these guns against Palestinians. The occupation has perpetrated brutal attacks in Jenin, Beit Hanun and Ramallah.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if you want to really see the news in Israel, read an Israeli paper. If you read American news stories written by Americans, you're going to hear what Americans want you to hear. You can't be educated if you don't read both sides of every story.

The fact is Abbas did call for Palestinian restraint, as the American media claims. He just wants Palestinians to stop fighting each other, so they can use the $86 million dollars the U.S. just gave him to go fight the Israelis.

Thanks to No More Spin for the heads-up on this story.

Iraq news ... from Iraq!

2007-01-15T21:14:00.000-05:00

Lately, it seems that all discussions of Iraq are really discussions of Bush, and how the Democrats want to change our strategy. What is the best course for America? Bush's plan to increase troop strength, or the Democrat's plan to concede defeat? I've already posted my opinions on how we need to change the way we're fighting the war, and I think that Bush's plan incorporates some, but not all, of my opinions. But that's not what this post is about.

This post is a reminder that not all Iraqi news is made in Washington, DC. This post is a reminder that things are really happening in Baghdad, and if you want to know what they are, you should talk to those in Baghdad. Not a reporter from DC who flew over for a week to write a few articles, but someone who has lived there their entire life.

Specifically, I recommend Omar and Mohammed, whose blog Iraq the Model has been linked as the first link on my "Good Blogs" sidebar for a very long time. The last three posts have covered an ongoing security operation, which while widely publicized in Iraq, has escaped Western media coverage. It'd be a shame if our media put out any GOOD news for a change.

The first post discussed what Mohammad thought was the beginning of the operation:

The battles left more than 50 militants killed and more than a dozen captured, seven of whom are Syrians and this supports what we reported in our last post that eyewitnesses said. Meanwhile there have been more clashes in Al-Aamil district in western Baghdad yesterday and we learned that all roads and bridges leading to that area are now closed, with helicopters hovering above.

The second post discusses the raids in more detail, and includes some imagery on what life is like in the most insurgent-ridden parts of Baghdad. It also includes some interesting reactions to Bush's plan, including discussion in the Iraqi Parliament:

A few hours later a flood of comments from Iraqi politicians filled the media here and maybe the earliest and most interesting argument was the one that took place between Abdul Kareem Al-Inizi of the UIA (from a branch of the Dawa party that split from the original Dawa of Jafari and Maliki) and Mithal al-Alusi during yesterday's session of the parliament.

Al-Inizi said "Iraq is not an American state and Bush must consult with us before making such decisions about sending troops…" to which al-Alusi responded by saying "We have an elected prime minister and he was consulted…you and others like yourself wouldn't be sitting here had America not helped us. They are trying to protect this democracy and they possess what they can offer to help us with the security situation, but what do you have?? Cut the nonsense, ok? Do you think the parliament wants to vote about this? Fine, let's ask everybody if they want such voting…"

There was only silence in the hall after this and no one said another word about voting.

The final post covers an Al-Sabaah story that neighboring provinces are already finding insurgents flooding in from Baghdad in fear of combined U.S./Iraqi forces. What the article doesn't mention is that the operation is still in the very early phases. Still, the effect of the latest campaign is starting to show. Check out today's top three stories on Al-Sabaah, none of which were covered by CNN:

[Iraqi] MPs Optimist[sic] of Achieving Stability Soon
Numbers of police volunteers in Ramadi increased
16 Wanted Arrested

CNN's top story?

A journalist who saw videotape of the hangings of Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the dictator's former chief judge has described how one of the men was decapitated. John F. Burns, from the New York Times, told CNN that Barzan Hassan al-Tikriti's head "just snapped off." He said both men looked "deeply frightened" in the execution chamber.

Which brings me full-circle. If you want to know what's important to the Iraqi people, ask the Iraqi people. Read Iraqi newspapers. Read Iraqi blogs. Don't ask the opinion of some Atlanta-based tourist with a media visa and a video camera.

It's Different on the Internet...

2007-01-14T18:32:00.000-05:00

The RIAA is at it again, and this year they've got Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) backing them up. Specifically, those are the sponsors of the "Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act" (PERFORM), which was introduced (and failed) in 2006 and re-introduced Thursday. (Last year it was only sponsored by Feinstein and Graham)

In a nutshell, the law requires satellite, cable music, and Internet broadcasters to "use reasonably available and economically reasonable technology to prevent music theft." It also would have the government responsible for determining the royalties paid to music companies for the use of music libraries over these media. It also requires all Internet, satellite, and cable broadcasters to incorporate DRM (digital rights management), that same technology that prevents some CDs from working in computers, lots of MP3s from working in certain MP3 players, and generally making it hard to put music in the form you want it. Note that Live365, Shoutcast, iTunes streaming, and the majority of small webcasters use MP3 or other non-DRM'ed technology to broadcast, meaning the majority of webcasters would have to develop new technology to comply with this bill.

Under current law, broadcasters cannot actively assist listeners in pirating music. They are required to use DRM, but only if the format they are using has DRM features. The changes put the FCC in the role of forcing broadcasters of digital music to adopt technologies that prevent consumers from copying (or time-shifting) broadcasted music.

Yes, it's illegal to pirate music, whether you do it via FM radio, satellite, or the Internet. However, under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Subchapter D, you can legally make analog or digital copies of broadcasts (time-shifting, or recording for later playback, has consistently been upheld as fair use by the Supreme Court). This bill changes that by making it illegal to copy digitally transmitted music, while still allowing analog music. Check out the EFF article about last year's version for more information.

Ironically, Senator Sununu (R-NH) has announced that he intends to introduce a bill that will prohibit the FCC from enacting technology mandates, such as the broadcast flag and other DRM-like technologies. Should such a bill pass, it would prevent the FCC from enforcing S.256.

It's really simple folks. Fair use is fair use, and there's nothing wrong or illegal about copying a broadcast to listen to it at a later date. There is something wrong about copying your favorite songs off the radio and creating a mix tape. Unfortunately there's no way to build a technology that allows one but prevents the other, because the intrinsic difference is intent of the end user. The government should not restrict freedoms of broadcasters to use the technologies they want, nor restrict the freedoms of individuals to exercise fair use rights, in an effort to prevent illegal pirating of music. And I'm sure everyone except the RIAA will agree the government has no business setting the royalty rates for music.

Write your Senator to complain about this one. Also, register at govtrack.us, an excellent website that allows you to research virtually any action by Congress. You can have daily updates sent to your inbox, showing all activities by certain representatives, on certain issues, or on certain bills. Or just see everything (but prepare for lengthy e-mails).

How to Get Free Airfare

2007-01-10T18:20:00.000-05:00

You're going to love this one. I hate to even write about it -- I want to tell you to just read the Washington Post article, then come back.

Okay, I know you didn't click on the link, so here goes:

Tommie Rice was arrested in Nashville for driving on a suspended license. When he was taken in, Tennessee police ran his name and saw that he was wanted for murder in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Although he insisted he'd never even been to Maryland, he was flown to Maryland to face trial.

Tommie Rice spent three weeks in jail, including Christmas and New Years, before anyone checked his fingerprints. Guess what? There's more than one person named Tommy Rice in America, and this wasn't the right guy.

Let's hear it for police that fly a suspect halfway across the country without even checking his story. Or even his fingerprints. Let's hear it for a three week imprisonment without evidence. And most importantly, let's here it for what Maryland finally did when they realized their mistake:

They drove him to a homeless shelter.

Since his release, Tommie Rice has been calling relatives trying to get them to lend him money for a flight home. In the meantime, Montgomery County Sheriff Kight has said he would "try" to get him home. "We definitely owe him a ride back to Tennessee and an apology," he said. Kind words for a man you held without evidence for three weeks, then dumped in an out-of-state homeless shelter.

You owe him more than an apology and a ride home. What's three weeks of your life worth to you? What would you do if you were imprisoned for three weeks because you shared a name with a murderer?

In any case, it's obvious what Tommie needs to do. Just wait until someone by the same name, living in Tennessee, commits a crime.

Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide

2007-01-09T18:46:00.000-05:00

The U.S. government was derided for producing decks of cards with terrorists and wanted criminals, but those decks are long forgotten today. Why? Because most of the cards have big X's through them now. Strike another one up, possibly two.

Yesterday an AC-130 gunship rained fire and death down on terrorists fleeing from Somali and Ethiopian forces in Hayi and on an island training camp.

Today helicopters killed an estimated 30 terrorists hiding under foilage near Afmadow, about 30 miles from Hayi. There were reports the helicopters were American, but the military has denied operating the helicopters, which witnesses did not see any markings on.

Today's strike was aimed at Tariq Abdullah, aka Abu Talha al-Sudani, known as an explosive expert, Al Qaeda trainer, and planner for at least one terrorist attack against U.S. forces. Fazul Abdullah Mohammad, one of the two major planners of the twin bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, was also reported to be killed. Both fatalities have yet to be confirmed, and will be difficult to confirm in the near future.

Who owned those helicopters? I don't know. It doesn't really matter, when you get down to it. Somalia and Ethiopia have both stated that they believe the best way to stablize the region is to eliminate terrorists as they find them. As a result, they are allowing U.S. forces the right to attack when and where we find them. America, Somalia, and Ethiopia are freely sharing intelligence on the location of terrorists, and whoever is best positioned to take advantage of the intelligence is doing so. Thus, the USS Eisenhower stationed off the Somalia coast.

The bottom line? Nevermind what the Democrats and Peacemongers are saying. America has not given up on chasing down terrorists and killing them. We're no longer in a target-rich environment, but key Al Qaeda leaders are continuing to die across the world. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia... everywhere they hide, they find enemies. Period.

Take My Children ... PLEASE!

2007-01-08T18:06:00.000-05:00

Sorry, no link for this, but this morning on the radio I heard some rather disturbing news. Legislators are planning to reintroduce a bill to help police stop underage drinking in Frederick County. Under current law, a police officer witnessing a minor in possession of an alcoholic beverage may arrest the minor for underage possession of alcohol. Additionally, an officer who witnesses a driving minor who appears to be under the influence of alcohol may arrest the same. The new law would allow an officer to detain a minor who simply appears to be acting as if under the influence of alcohol on suspicion of underage drinking. He could also force a breathalyzer test.

This bill was introduced last year and failed, as some opponents feared that this would grant too much power to the police. Well, of course it does! Most importantly, you're giving police the power to harass minors without evidence. Remember when Washington DC allowed DUI arrests based solely on the officer's judgement of intoxication? Before that law was finally changed, we saw numerous arrests and convictions for DUI of drivers with a BAC under 0.04, and one arrest of a driver who blew a 0.00 BAC at the scene. Give Maryland troopers the same authority, and you'll get the same results.

No standards exist to define at what point an officer can stop a minor and force a breathalyzer test. If an eighteen year old is jogging through the park and sees an attractive young lady, he may weave slightly as he is distracted. Can he now be tested for his erratic jogging? This law would give police the authority to perform an unreasonable search and seizure on a minor without justification or evidence except the officer's judgement.

I'm also curious as to what the minor would be charged with. In the vast majority of states, including Maryland, the consumption of alcohol while under the age of 21 is not a crime. Purchase, possession, and consumption prior to driving are, but consumption is not. Why? Because the law specifically allows immediate family members to provide alcohol to minors within their own homes. If you can convince your parents that you're mature enough to drink, you are home free. And yes, I know a great number of parents that do purchase beer and wine for their children in Maryland.

So, in a nutshell, Bob the 18 year old kid is going to prom. He's hired a limo, so he isn't driving. His libertarian parents split a bottle of champagne with him first, to celebrate his "growing up." Walking into the prom, a police officer decides to perform a breathalyzer on him, and finds he blows a 0.02. What's the charge? Drunk and disorderly? I don't get it.

You've all heard the argument that if you're old enough to serve your country, you're old enough to drink. Ironically, the majority of people I meet who agree with that statement feel that anyone in the military should be allowed to drink, while civilians should have to wait until they are twenty-one. You could do three full tours in Iraq before your twenty-first birthday. If you were mature enough to make that decision at eighteen, you were sure as hell mature enough to make a decision on a glass of beer. Even if you decided the military wasn't for you, surely you've now reach the point in life where you're responsible for your own actions?

Look, folks, don't any of you remember being twenty? Try to remember the first time you drank alcohol. How old were you? Did you do it in your own house with your parents? In college, maybe in a frat house?

The absolute best place to learn about alcohol is from your own parents. Your parents are there to teach you about life. This is why most states allow parents to provide alcohol to their children. If you do not teach your children about drinking, someone else will. Chances are that person will be a peer with no more experience that your kid. They're probably be influenced by movies showing severe intoxication. They'll probably purchase cheap flavorless beer and liquor, and consume it in great quantities.

I thank my parents for wisely introducing me to alcohol at an early age. Twelve, if you're counting. Of course, they closely monitored how much I drank, and I didn't even get a buzz on until I was sixteen. I was eighteen when I finally got drunk. Imagine that -- six years of experience appreciating alcohol before I first managed to get drunk.

The neo-prohibitionists want to outlaw responsible parenting. They think by delaying the consumption of alcohol as long as possible, they can remove it entirely from our culture. It's simply not true. What we're getting is a nation of closet drinking youth, afraid of any supervision while they explore adulthood.

My message to America is "Teach your children well." My message to the government is "Get out of our way. We're better than you at this."

Israel Fingers the Big Red Button

2007-01-07T10:22:00.000-05:00

Israel today talked about its plans for a nuclear strike against Iran. Lots of folks are freaking out, but I think we should be clear that the fact that Israel is talking about it means Israeli isn't doing it -- yet. If the intention were to launch a strike this week, the last thing Israel would do is talk about it. Instead, this press conference was intended as a warning to Iran that Israel will not stand idly by while Iran develops nukes.

There's no doubt that Israel can do it. They've got the weaponry, they've got the training and the long-strike capability. The question is whether Israel, the most hated nation in the Middle East, would be willing to provoke retaliatory strikes from virtually all its neighbors by becoming the first country since the Second World War to split atoms in anger.

In the Nervous Rodent's opinion, yes, they would.

But that doesn't mean they will. This saber-rattling isn't intended to influence Iran. Ahmadinejad won't back down to threats from Israel, and neither will the Supreme Leader. But America will probably go out of its way, to include changing foreign policy, to keep Israel from starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Perhaps they're scared the US is going soft on Iran?

On one hand, we've been saber-rattling ourselves. Russia complained today about the U.S. imposing sanctions on Russian firms selling goods to Iran. The appointment of Admiral Fallon, a Navy admiral, to lead USCENTCOM, embroiled in two ground wars, is interesting. It's a direct warning to Iran, since a war with Iran would place America in a naval war. Add to this the fact that USCENTCOM changed policy last month and ceased considering Iranians "off-limits," upsetting both Iran and Iraq.

On the other hand, we're bogged down in two ground wars. Iraq and Afghanistan are keeping a significant portion of our troops occupied, and more importantly, silenced hawks in our society. Who wants to stand up and say we need a third war? Do we have an exit strategy for that war?

An attack against Iran isn't necessarily a good idea at this stage. But we can't take it completely off the table until we find a way to influence Iran to cease supporting terrorist operations. Put simply, Iran is funding and supplying weapons to Hezbollah, Taliban, and Iraqi terrorists. Excluding the war in Somalia, Iran is supporting terrorism in every conflict in the Middle East. Can we win in Iraq as long as a protected nation sharing a large border is supporting the terrorists? Or does this sound too much like another war in recent history, Vietnam?

I've written before about the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. The scale of the conflict is the difference least recognized by the media -- U.S. causality rates are orders of magnitude smaller in Iraq than in Vietnam. But there are similarities, and we can use those to learn lessons from history and lead us to a better outcome. Both involved a nation in civil war, with each side supported by powerful external countries that were not directly at war with each other. In both, we attempted to extract ourselves by passing responsibility for the fighting to the local forces. In both, we'll have lost if we leave the other external power to finish the civil war unopposed.

What does all this mean, then? It means we must find a way to convince Iran to cease supporting terrorists around the world. Until we do, we'll remain in a stalemate, with the best possible outcome continued low-level violence as we see in Afghanistan. So if you're wondering why America insists on toeing a hard line with Iran, now you know. Thousands of U.S. lives hang in the balance.

EDIT: AubreyJ put this link in the comments, I think it deserves to be in the body. Check out some additional info about Iran.

I'm back....

2007-01-06T13:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I've been missing for a few months. Nine, I think. I'm working full-time, and until recently, attending college as well, and it's been sucking up my free time. But I'm back now, hopefully for a good while.

The first thing I want to tell you about is a story I saw today on Reuters. This Tuesday, Wesley Autrey, 50, was waiting for a subway in NYC, just trying to get to work. He watched Cameron Hollopeter suffer from a seizure and fall onto the subway tracks, while a train was coming. Knowing that the convulsing man would be killed, Wesley jumped onto the tracks and held Cameron down so the train would pass safely overhead.

Safely overhead may be an exaggeration. Wesley was brushed by the train, getting grease and dirt on his clothes, yet he was unharmed. Cameron's life was saved by the extraordinary act of bravery Wesley committed. It's a great feel-good story, true. I was surprised to hear this happened in Harlem, of all places. I was amused to learn that Wesley's boss didn't believe his excuse for being late to work. But there is something else that Wesley did that caught my attention.

Mayor Michael Bloomburg gave Wesley the Bronze Medallion for exceptional citizenship and outstanding achievement, the first time it was been awarded since 2005. Bloomburg called Wesley a "real hero." Wesley Audrey responded by saying the real heroes were U.S. troops in Iraq.

Wesley, you're absolutely right. But that doesn't mean Mayor Bloomburg was wrong. Wesley Audrey is a hero, because he selflessly and knowingly risked his life to save another's. He's got a lot more in common with the U.S. troops than he realizes.