Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 27, 2015, 04:03:28 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85503 Posts in 2267 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 473 474 [475] 476 477 ... 656
23701  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / First, do no harm. on: February 02, 2009, 11:05:39 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487047,00.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by foxnews
NEW YORK — Police say a cab driver who tried to take a purse from a woman fare beater was beaten by a group of good Samaritans who thought they were seeing a robbery.

Police say it happened Saturday morning near the Staten Island Ferry Terminal when four woman, who had been club-going, got into a fight with the cab driver over the fare.  Police say the women left the taxi without paying and the cab driver gave chase, grabbing one of the women's purses.  That's when a group of men in a passing car thought they were witnessing a mugging and jumped on the cab driver, beating him and then fleeing the scene.  The cab driver was treated for cuts on his face.

The women were later picked up by police as they exited the Staten Island Ferry and issued summonses for fare beating.
23702  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: February 02, 2009, 11:02:43 PM
I got that  grin-- I was referring to the hijab LEO uniforms in the UK.
23703  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: February 02, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Huss:

Fascinating stuff.

Please forgive me for being a bit anal, but please note there are several "Islam in , , ," threads.  There is this one, one for Europe, one for Islamic countries, one for Asia etc.

Thanks,
Marc
23704  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / GSP greased? on: February 02, 2009, 08:46:42 PM
Did GSP's corner cheat to give him an edge?
By Steve Cofield


After a dominating victory over B.J. Penn at UFC 94, Georges St. Pierre is clearly the better fighter. GSP left no doubt. And yet now there is, thanks to one of his cornermen, Phil Nurse. It's pretty clear by watching the video that Nurse had some Vaseline on his hands when he rubbed St. Pierre's shoulders, back and chest between the first and second rounds.

Why is that a big deal in mixed martial arts? It's significant because of all the grappling and maneuvering that takes place on the ground. St. Pierre was on top of Penn in the second round and the Hawaiian tried several times to shift his legs up to work for a triangle choke or an armbar. Grip and some friction is huge in these cases and a slippery fighter would make it more difficult to lock on one of those holds. Above you can see, Nurse apply Vaseline to GSP's face, then get more Vaseline, then rub his shoulders, arms and back.

Penn's trainer Rudy Valentino told InsideFighting that St. Pierre cheated and the Vaseline thwarted his fighter's strategy:

"To cheat to win is not honorable. Why need another edge? Our gameplan was on the ground, not striking because we knew Georges had good kicks. We planned to work off the back."

Valentino says they warned the Nevada State Athletic Commission before the fight alleging that St. Pierre did it before their meeting in 2006 and that Matt Serra's camp claimed the same thing happened in Serra's second fight against GSP.

Greg Jackson, GSP's trainer hurt his reputation according to Valentino:

"I respect Greg Jackson but to do something like that, his integrity has been compromised."

Jackson told his side of the story to MMAWeekly:

"In between rounds, you always want to put on vaseline on (a fighter’s face). So Phil Nurse put all the Vaseline on his face, so his hands might have had a miniscule amount left over from that, when he went around the side and rubbed a little point on his back, and tapped on his chest."

Watching the scenarios (1, 2, 3), show Nurse did more than tap the chest and rub a little point on GSP's back.

Jackson chalked all of this up to an overreaction by the NSAC:

"At that point, somebody in the audience thought we were greasing George down, and ran over and told the commission that we were greasing his body down. The commission came in and said ‘you can’t grease him down,’ which didn’t work. They said ‘you’re putting Vaseline on his back,’ and Phil’s like, ‘oh, there might be a little on my fingers, but it wasn’t intentional at all, and of course they wiped it right off and it was gone, so it wasn’t a factor in the fight at all."

"The Commission" was actually NSAC executive director Keith Kizer. He bolted into the cage when he saw Nurse doing the same thing between the second and third rounds. Cage Writer spoke with Kizer after the fight and he was still steaming, saying that the rubbing of the back with Vaseline was completely inappropriate. But he was unsure if it had been done between the first and second.

UFC president Dana White also thought it was a serious violation:

"I saw the commission jump up there and flip out," said White.  "They said one of the guys was rubbing Vaseline on Georges' back in between rounds. It was one and two, I think. I personally didn't see it, the commission did. And that's about as illegal as you can get... I'm sure the commission is going to deal (with it)."

White didn't believe that it affected the outcome of the fight but he re-stated that illegal is illegal: 

"You could have put Vaseline on from head to toe, that wasn't the point, the point was you don't do it. It's illegal. The guy who did it needs to be punished, it's not (St. Pierre's) fault. The question is what happens to a guy that does that. You've got to put the smack down on him. He should lose his license."

Ultimately, did the use of the Vaseline win the fight for St. Pierre? No. But Penn's camp does have a right to complain. 

St. Pierre should be getting props for being the better conditioned fighter, designing and executing the perfect gameplan. The way he wore down Penn in the first round by holding his left leg up on three occasions with the threat of a single-leg takedown, was brilliant. It allowed him takedown a tired Penn with ease in each of the next three rounds. More importantly, GSP was able to pass guard and shift between full guard and side control as if he were fighting a first-year jiu-jitsu student. Now Penn, other fighters who dislike St. Pierre and fans may call for an asterisk on his dominant victory.
23705  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Border incursions on: February 02, 2009, 08:37:47 PM
Taken from another forum:
================

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...guns-to-agent/

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/...10312008_7.xml

http://www.voanews.com/english/archi...01-26-voa1.cfm

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...s-neighborhood

and most damning of all:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/20...ursion-reports
23706  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: February 02, 2009, 04:36:42 PM
Does this mean that the government can be jammed too?

http://www.discount-blockers.com/
23707  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Flawed Study on: February 02, 2009, 02:51:54 PM
Second post of the day

I. "Excessive force" study gravely flawed, says Force Science Research Center

Strong skepticism has been expressed by the Force Science Research Center regarding a recently publicized survey showing that a high percentage of emergency room doctors believe they see evidence of police brutality in the patients they treat.

The poll, published in Emergency Medicine Journal, reports that 99.8% of ER physicians responding to a random-sample survey believe that excessive use of force by police "actually occurs" and that 97.8% say they have managed patients they suspect were victims of excessive force.

The survey, conducted by a research team of 6 MDs, including faculty members at some of the nation's leading medical schools, has received coverage in a wide variety of professional publications, as well as the mass media, under headlines such as: "Excessive Police Violence Evident in Emergency Room Cases, U.S. Docs Say." A description of the report and directions for purchasing a full copy can be accessed by clicking here.

If you are confronted with this study in dialog with civilians or challenged with it in a courtroom, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of FSRC at Minnesota State University-Mankato, argues emphatically that there are more than adequate grounds for countering it.
"The survey's methods appear to conform to academic standards," Lewinski told Force Science News, "but the results are meaningless. It's impossible for ER physicians to know the context of injuries just by looking at them. The nature of an injury is totally unrelated to the justification for the level of force responsible for it.

"In essence, this survey is of little use or benefit to society, and it tends to malign law enforcement unjustly and unscientifically."
The researchers' findings were based on mailed responses from 315 full-time academic ER doctors associated with emergency medicine residency training programs in the U.S. The vast majority were Caucasian males between 30-50 years old, board-certified in emergency medicine, practicing in cities of 250,000 to more than 1,000,000 population, and affiliated with university, community, or public teaching hospitals.

The 97.8% who believe they have treated victims of police brutality made this determination based on their own suspicions or on what they were told by the patients themselves, the study states. About 65% said they recognized 2 or more cases of "suspected excessive use of force per year." Some 7% believe excessive force occurs "often" or "very often," while only a tiny fraction of 1% (0.2%) believe it never occurs.

As to the types of excesses suspected, 95.5% of the responders cited "blunt trauma," 95.2% "fists and feet," 73.1% "handcuffs too tight," 48.6% "night sticks," and 26.9% "flashlights." In short, the researchers conclude, "The suspicion of excessive use of force by law enforcement officers is clearly an issue encountered" by emergency room physicians.

The very last line of study report acknowledges what Lewinski points out is the "fatal flaw" of this research. The survey questions, the authors concede, "asked respondents to make a subjective judgment, most often without objective evidence; as such, this study reflects EPs' [emergency physicians'] perceptions of events rather than what actually happened."

This is the limitation, Lewinski says, that renders the study meaningless.

"First of all," he notes, "relying on suspects to accurately report whether they have experienced excessive force or not is absurd. In the 40 years I have been involved with law enforcement, I've never known a suspect who was injured by police to say, 'Oh, yes, I received just the right amount of force that was necessary to control my resistance.'

"Moreover, one has to ask what else the surveyed physicians were basing their suspicions on. Other than what a patient or an officer says, a doctor in the ER has no knowledge of the context in which force was used or how it relates to policy, procedure, training, or the law. "Depending on the circumstances, police can use force that results in injuries up to and including death and not have that force considered by law to be excessive. A doctor who's unfamiliar with all the elements involved simply can't use the extent or nature of injury as a basis for judging whether force was appropriate.

"It is fair to say that most ER physicians have never ridden in a squad car and seen first-hand the kinds of force situations officers are thrust into. Most have no information or training on what constitutes excessive force. Yet in their responses to this survey, they are making judgments on a professional activity they really know nothing about.

"That's ironic when you consider how sensitive doctors are as a group to any outsiders second-guessing their professional decisions!
"All this study really tells us is that ER physicians sometimes have suspicions based wholly on non-scientific data that excessive force was used. To report this as a serious finding is misleading to the public and smears, by implication, the professional integrity of law enforcement officers throughout the country."

Among the doctors surveyed, roughly 70% thought "it is within their scope of practice to refer cases of suspected use of excessive force for investigation," although more than 70% said they do not currently report their suspicions. About half believe that such reporting by ER physicians "should be legally required," as is the case with suspicions of child abuse, sexual assaults, weapons wounds, etc.

"Assessing police use-of-force injuries is significantly and qualitatively different from any other area they're required to report on," Lewinski notes. Nonetheless, voicing a suspicion of his own, he speculates that this survey will be used to encourage legislation for mandatory reporting by ER personnel of suspected police brutality.

[Our thanks to Chris Lawrence, a member of FSRC's national advisory board, for tipping us about this survey.]
23708  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jefferson; Abraham Williams on: February 02, 2009, 01:17:40 PM
"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson

==========

"All Men being naturally equal, as descended from a common Parent, enbued with like Faculties and Propensities, having originally equal Rights and Properties, the Earth being given to the Children of Men in general, without any difference, distinction, natural Preheminence, or Dominion of one over another, yet Men not being equally industrious and frugal, their Properties and Enjoyments would be unequal."

--Abraham Williams An Election Sermon, 1762
23709  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: February 02, 2009, 01:14:25 PM
That's funny.

So is this:

"The more interviews Speaker Pelosi gives explaining how vital the STD industry is to restarting the U.S. economy, the more I find myself hearing 'syphilis' every time she says 'stimulus.' In late September, America was showing the first signs of 'primary stimulus' â?? a few billion lesions popping up on the rarely glimpsed naughty bits of the economy: the subprime mortgage racket, the leverage kings. Now, the condition has metastasized in a mere four months into the advanced stages of 'tertiary stimulus,' with trillions of hideous, ever more inflamed pustules sprouting in every nook and cranny as the central nervous system of the body politic crumbles into total insanity -- until it seems entirely normal for the second in line of presidential succession to be on TV gibbering away about how vital the federalization of condom distribution is to economic recovery. The rules in this new 'post-partisan' era are pretty simple: If the Democratic Party wants it, it's 'stimulus.' If the Republican Party opposes it, it's 'politics.'" --columnist Mark Steyn
23710  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Swatting on: February 02, 2009, 12:27:34 PM
 SWAT teams deployed in 911 fraud

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AP IMPACT: SWAT teams deployed in 911 fraud (AP)

Posted on Mon Feb 2, 2009 2:00AM EST

- Doug Bates and his wife, Stacey, were in bed around 10 p.m., their 2-year-old daughters asleep in a nearby room. Suddenly they were shaken awake by the wail of police sirens and the rumble of a helicopter above their suburban Southern California home. A criminal must be on the loose, they thought.

Doug Bates got up to lock the doors and grabbed a knife. A beam from a flashlight hit him. He peeked into the backyard. A swarm of police, assault rifles drawn, ordered him out of the house. Bates emerged, frightened and with the knife in his hand, as his wife frantically dialed 911. They were handcuffed and ordered to the ground while officers stormed the house.

The scene of mayhem and carnage the officers expected was nowhere to be found. Neither the Bateses nor the officers knew that they were pawns in a dangerous game being played 1,200 miles away by a teenager bent on terrifying a random family of strangers.

They were victims of a new kind of telephone fraud that exploits a weakness in the way the 911 system handles calls from Internet-based phone services. The attacks — called "swatting" because armed police SWAT teams usually respond — are virtually unstoppable, and an Associated Press investigation found that budget-strapped 911 centers are essentially defenseless without an overhaul of their computer systems.

The AP examined hundreds of pages of court documents and law-enforcement transcripts, listened to audio of "swatting" calls, and interviewed two dozen security experts, investigators, defense lawyers, victims and perpetrators.
While Doug and Stacey Bates were cuffed on the ground that night in March 2007, 18-year-old Randal Ellis, living with his parents in Mukilteo, Wash., was nearly finished with the 27-minute yarn about a drug-fueled murder that brought the Orange County Sheriff's Department SWAT team to the Bateses' home.

In a grisly sounding call to 911, Ellis was putting an Internet-based phone service for the hearing-impaired to nefarious use. By entering bogus information about his location, Ellis was able to make it seem to the 911 operator as if he was calling from inside the Bateses' home. He said he was high on drugs and had just shot his sister.

According to prosecutors, Ellis picked the Bates family at random, as he did with all of the 185 calls investigators say he made to 911 operators around the country.

"If I would have had a gun in my hand, I probably would have been shot," said Doug Bates, 38. Last March, Ellis was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to five felony counts, including computer access and fraud, false imprisonment by violence and falsely reporting a crime.

In a separate, multistate case prosecuted by federal authorities in Dallas, eight people were charged with orchestrating up to 300 "swatting" calls to victims they met on telephone party chat lines. The three ringleaders were each sentenced to five years in prison. Two others were sentenced to 2 1/2 years. One defendant pleaded guilty last week and could get a 13-year sentence. The remaining two are set to go on trial in February.

A similar case was reported in Salinas, Calif., where officers surrounded an apartment where a call had come in claiming men with assault rifles were trying to break in. In Hiawatha, Iowa, fake calls about a workplace shooting included realistic gunshot sounds and moaning in the background.

In November, a teenage hacker from Worcester, Mass., pleaded guilty to a five-month swatting spree including a bomb threat and report of an armed gunman that caused two schools to be evacuated.

Many times, however, swats don't get fully investigated or reported.
Orange County Sheriff's detective Brian Sims spent weeks serving search warrants on Internet providers before he identified Ellis through his numeric computer identifier, known as an IP address.
Law enforcement hopes lengthy prison terms will deter would-be swatters. Technology alone isn't enough to stop the crimes.

Unlike calls that come from landline phones, which are registered to a fixed physical address and display that on 911 dispatchers' screens, calls coming from people's computers, or even calls from landline or cell phones that are routed through spoofing services, could appear to be originating from anywhere.

Scores of Caller ID spoofing services have sprung up, offering to disguise callers' origins for a fee. All anybody needs to do is pony up for a certain number of minutes, punch in a PIN code and specify whom they're calling and what they'd like the Caller ID to display.

Spoofing Caller ID is perfectly legal. Legitimate businesses use the technology to project a single callback number for an entire office, or to let executives working from home cloak their home numbers when making outgoing calls.

At the same time, criminals have latched onto the technique to get revenge on rivals or get their kicks by harassing strangers.
"We're not able to cope with this very well," said Roger Hixson, technical issues director for the National Emergency Number Association, the 911 system's industry group. "We're just hoping this doesn't become a widespread hobby."

The 911 system was built on the idea it could trust the information it was receiving from callers. Upgrading the system to accommodate new technologies can be a huge task.

Gary Allen, editor of Dispatch Monthly, a Berkeley, Calif.-based magazine focused on public-safety communications centers, said dispatchers are "totally at the mercy of the people who call" and the fact they don't have technology to identify which incoming calls are from Internet-based sources.

Allen said upgrading the communications centers' computers to flash an Internet caller's IP address could be helpful in thwarting fraudulent calls. He said an even simpler fix, tweaking the computers to identify calls from Internet telephone services and flash the name of the service provider to dispatchers, can cost under $5,000, but is usually still too costly for many communications centers.

But because this style of fraudulent calls is so new, and many emergency-dispatch centers receive few Internet calls in the first place, those upgrades are not frequently done.

Swatting calls place an immense strain on responding departments. The Orange County Sheriff's Department deployed about 30 people to the Bateses' home, including a SWAT team, a helicopter and K-9 units. It cost the department $14,700.

They take their toll on victims, too.
Tony Messina, a construction worker from Salina, N.Y., was swatted three times by the gang broken up by the federal authorities in Dallas. He was even arrested as the result of one call, because authorities found weapons he wasn't supposed to have while they were searching the house.

Messina had made some enemies on a party line he frequented to flirt with women. Some guys disliked him and out of jealousy, he says, they started swatting him.
The first time, he was home alone with his two poodles when officers swarmed his backyard at 6 a.m. According to Messina, the callers said he had "killed a hooker and sliced her ear to ear, blood all over the place, I'm doing drugs and if you police come over here I'm going to kill you, too." After a few hours at the police station, he was let go.

Two weeks later, he was detained outside his house. A month later, he was in bed watching TV when he saw someone with a flashlight at his window. He went outside and was handcuffed while deputies searched his house and car.

Messina had been told to call 911 himself if the swatting calls happened again, and when the deputies realized it was another fraudulent call, Messina was let go. He said he suffered bruised ribs that kept him out of work for a month and a half.

Investigators say swatters are usually motivated by a mixture of ego and malice, a desire for revenge and domination over rivals.

Jason Trowbridge, one of the defendants currently serving a five-year sentence, told the AP in a series of letters from prison that the attacks started with the standard fare of prank callers — sending pizzas and locksmiths to victims' homes — escalated to shutting the power and water off and eventually led to swatting.

"Nobody ever thought anyone would get hurt or die from a SWAT call," he said.
___ Associated Press researcher Barbara Sambriski in New York contributed to this report.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/200902...ec911_swatting
23711  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Long Gun for self-protection on: February 02, 2009, 11:38:16 AM
Kicking this thread off with a piece from Gabe Suarez:


THE COMBAT SHOTGUN
 
Let me begin by saying that I have used these fine implements against live fighting adversaries several times. Moreover, I received the classic training in this weapon at the academy which birthed the "modern technique" of the shotgun.

Training and reality sometimes conflict.

I have a few shotguns at home. One is a Remington 870. Another is a Remington 11-87. A third one, a vintage side-by-side exposed hammer shotgun with many "rustlers" to its credit. And the3n, of course, a couple of Saiga 12s.

None have Ghost Ring Sights, Sidesaddles, Speedfeed stocks, Specially Ported or Choked barrells of ANY kind. They are light, simple, fast into action, and all of them are more than sufficient for any anti-personnel duties.

Things You Need: A fast handling lightweight weapon that you can get into action very quickly, and that has at least 5 shots available.

Nice To Have - But Not Essential: A Light: Many fights happen in low light. Having a flashlight mount makes sense. Its not essential as in most situations, there will be sufficient ambient light to tell what is going on and who is doing it at CQB-CRG distances. For those times when there is not, a light will help.

A Magazine Extension: Some guys like these so they can download it by a couple of rounds to transition to slugs. This is silly. Who wants to go to a gunfight with a weapon not loaded to full capacity. Not me. The load/switch to slug concept may have merit, but its use is so limited that I would much rather have an extra round of buckshot.

A Sling: For class its essential. For fighting its a nice-to-have item in the event you need to transition to pistol (much more likely than transitioning to slug).

Things You Do Not Need: Ghost Ring Sights: In my opinion, the shotgun is NOT a rifle, nor should it be turned into one. The idea that you must somehow be able to reach out past CQB distances with a shotgun is a silly idea. Even the much discussed North Hollywood Bank Robbery involved shots within pistol range, and not way out there in rifle land.

Sidesaddles/Butt Cuffs: Many use these for slug switching. We've discussed that already. If your gun holds 7 or 8 shots and you need more than that, tactical withdrawl may be a better bet than anything else. How many shots are fired in pistol fights? It will be the same in shotgun fights. Sidesaddles make the gun heavy. Add a butt cuff in addition to the sidesaddle and it become heavier yet. Will you have lots of ammo? Sure. Will you be able to shoot and hit as accurately with a light fast gun or an overweight gun? I think you know the light fast gun will allow you better likelihood of NOT NEEDING a reload.

Want extra ammo? Ok, get a belly bag with two compartments. Fill one with buck shot and the other with slugs. Keep that with the shotgun and take it when you grab the shotgun. Its not as sexy as a sidesaddle and no elite bitchin guy SWAT dudes use it, but it makes more sense than a weapon you can't even bench press.

Ports/Choking, Special Barrels: Close Range shooting boys. Any shotgun barrell with any ammo will do just fine inside of 7 yards. At 15 yards it will open up slightly, but 15 yard shots are rare.

Other Points -

If you need a rifle, the shotgun is a poor substitute. A CAR15, or even a Marlin 30-30 will outshoot a slug loaded shotgun everytime. So grabbing a shotgun to do rifle duty is not a wise thing unless you are a cop whose administration does not trust its employees enough to give them rifles, and all you have and will ever have is a shotgun.

Slug loading has its place in a special situation, such as when you anticipate "contacts" in a car. I have a group of friends who routinely have such contacts and they load with slugs to penetrate through vehicles at close range. Same goes for guys who frequent bear country. A shotgun with slugs is good bear medeicine...or so I'm told. Both situations are rather close range deals, and not anything like what some so-called gunfighting schools are teaching.

What can a slug loaded shotgun do? It can reach a little farther and penetrate a little more than a buckshot loaded gun, or a pistol can do. A rifle will do better everytime. What can a buckshot loaded shotgun do? It can hit the adversary with something, even under bad conditions where your marksmanship has not kept up with the tempo of events in the mid to outer close range gunfighting zone. It is a weapon to be used at handgun distances against rapidly moving adversaries while you yourself are moving, where you cannot obtain (or don't have time to obtain) a suitable sight picture, and where the light is poor.

Examples:

1). Shooting a running adversary while you are also on the run in the dark - Distance 20 yards.

2). Multiple adversaries suddenly appearing in unison, again attempting to fire at you - Distance 3-5 yards.

Partial patterns will give you a hit, slugs or overly choked patterns may allow you to miss. Will thos epellets that don't hit the bad guy be a problem? Possibly. But if you miss with the slug because of the rapidly developing situation it won't matter either.

For CQB/CRG distances (within 5 yards) buckshot will outperform slugs every day of the week. Knowing that IF I grab a shotgun and go fight with it, it will be used in this situation more often than not, my round of choice is buckshot. I relegate slugs to "special purpose" applications. If I need a rifle, I'll go get a rifle.

While on the topic of buckshot: The ability to scallop a target standing behind a "hostage". I suggest a long deep inhale to smell the coffee. Then grab you best most expensive Tactical Shotgun with all the attachjments on it that the "cool" Gun Magazine Guys use. You know, the one with the famous shooting school logo on the stock and engraved so fetchingly on the receiver. Load it with the most expensive tactical gold-plated buckshot you can find and then stand off at 7, 10, or even 15 yards (whatever the shotgun school qual says).

Then place your daughter in front of that evil silohuette target. Still willing to take the shot? Some tactical cool guys will answer in the affirmitive. Then DO IT I say. Most of these guys have never fired a shot at a real human being before much less at a hostage past the ear of an innocent...with a shotgun much less. Fantasy always loses out to reality.

Technical exercises devised by clever minds on the firing range often fail to emulate reality. We've learned a great deal about CQB pistol fighting in the last few years simply by allowing ourselves to leave the doctrinal box. Perhaps its time we slay the sacred cow shotgun myth as well. Prove everything you train to yourself in force on force. If a technique cannot be replicated against real people, get rid of it.

Train for skill and attribute development, not to beat some silly shooting test, or some bobbing/weaving target dressed up in old clothes.

1). Know tactical advantage and Liabilities of Shotgun and their ammunition

2). Develop sound Firing Positions, Ready Positions as well as Ready Carry positions

3). Learn Reality based Marksmanship that takes advantage of the standard shotgun pattern

4). Learn tactically appropriate Gunhandling Drills & Transition to Pistol if suitable.

5). Learn CQB Responses to any point along a 360 arm's length to 7 yards. Its important to focus on fast close shooting because this is where you will use the weapon, not at the mythical rifle ranges some schools are suggesting..

6). Learn the ability to retain/recover/and fight with the weapon in body to body fight (including alternative force issues)

7). Learn Shooting in diminished light and the use of assisted lighting, as well as the use of Tactical Point Shooting.

Cool. Learn Shooting on the Move (in anything but firing from ambush you must move or get hit).

9). Learn Reality based Multiple adversary responses (not simply shooting at five pepper poppers).

10). Learn YOUR natural body speed and shoot as fast as YOU can guarantee the hits (not on how fast some "master" shot with his souped up Benelli back in 1990).

Develop these attributes and you will do well with your shotgun in any fight. Isn't progress wonderful?!
__________________

Gabe Suarez
23712  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Dog Brothers Facebook on: February 02, 2009, 11:24:50 AM
Eso decia yo a Cindy, pero ella dice que sera cosa de poner las mismas cosas que ponemos aqui en el sitio. 

?Que se' yo?

Segun ella siempre tiene la razon , , , tongue cheesy
23713  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Mexico on: February 02, 2009, 11:22:36 AM
México: ¿La diplomacia Entre los Cárteles de Sinaloa?
Stratfor Hoy » el 30 de enero de 2009 | 2218 GMT

Resumen

Los Tiempos de Los Angeles informaron enero. 29 eses asesinatos de droga-relacionó en el estado de Sinaloa, México, dejó caer de 120 en diciembre 2008 a 40 de enero. 1-29. Supuestamente, la disminución en la violencia ocurrida a consecuencia de una tregua entre cárteles rivales en Sinaloa. Las fuentes de Stratfor han confirmado que varios cárteles mexicanos tuvieron dos conversaciones servidas en la mesa, pero no son claro que una tregua fue alcanzada. Sin embargo, la disminución en la violencia sugiere que algún nivel de diplomacia ocurre.

Análisis

Los Tiempos de Los Angeles informaron enero. 29 esas matanzas de droga-relacionó en el estado de Sinaloa de México dejaron caer de 120 en diciembre 2008 a 40 dentro de los primeros 29 días de enero. La causa informada para esta gota en muertes de droga-relacionó fue una tregua entre cárteles rivales el Cártel de Sinaloa y la organización de Beltran Leyva. Las fuentes de Stratfor han confirmado que varios cárteles mexicanos tuvieron verdaderamente dos reuniones servidas en la mesa, pero eso (contradiciendo informes de prensa) ellos no alcanzaron ninguna tregua esparcida. La disminución en la violencia, sin embargo, sugiere que un nivel bajo de diplomacia puede estar sucediendo.

El informe de violencia disminuida en el estado de Sinaloa vino tres días después de que El Siglo de Durango, un periódico regional en el estado de Durango de México, informara que representantes de la Mayonesa de El y grupos de Sinaloa se sentaron en diciembre con representantes del Beltran Leyva, Arellano Felix y los grupos de Carillo Fuentes para discutir un alto de fuego, como el nivel inaudito de violencia de entierra-cártel en 2008 fue malo para el negocio. Los hermanos de Beltran Leyva fueron aliados una vez con Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman y su Cártel de Sinaloa, pero ellos operaron separadamente en 2008. Los dos grupos que luchan sobre rutas de traficar con drogas de droga en México occidental tuvieron como resultado luchas continuas que justificaron muchos de los 5.376 asesinatos relacionados con la droga en México en 2008. Por el 2008 de mayo, el ejército mexicano fue llamado en el estado de Sinaloa a ayudar a calmar la violencia.

Por todo el país, la violencia dejó caer de histórico alto en noviembre a niveles más normales en diciembre 2008 y subió otra vez en enero, pero ciertos estados vieron el número de muertes informadas disminuye en el mismo período de tiempo. Así como el número de matanzas de droga-relacionó dejó caer de diciembre 2008 al fin de enero en el estado de Sinaloa, en Juarez que ellos dejaron caer de 150 en diciembre 2008 a 80 durante los primeros 25 días de enero. Estas dos áreas, las situaciones críticas en la batalla del Cártel de Sinaloa con Beltran Leyva (en el estado de Sinaloa) y Carillo-Fuentes (en Juarez), puede ser visto como dos frentes primarias en conflictos del cártel de México. El hecho que la tasa de matanzas allí dejaron caer en enero (aunque las tasas nacionales estuvieran arriba) ofertas apoyan para los reclamos que los cárteles han alcanzado un alto de fuego limitado.

Los rumores acerca de cooperación de cártel han surgido ha disipado rápidamente y antes. Ocasionalmente varios grupos criminales de México han alcanzado aún treguas y alianzas anchas, aunque las más veces estos acuerdos rápidamente roto. La competición violenta sobre puertas de territorio y droga-traficando con drogas por EEUU-la frontera mexicana ofrece motivo fuerte seguir luchando antes que coopera. Incluso si los grupos alcanzaran acuerdo de algún tipo, un arreglo duradero es improbable.

Sin embargo, tal tregua tendría gran significado en la guerra del gobierno mexicana contra los cárteles. En 2008, varias facciones de cártel luchaban uno al otro y el ejército mexicano —Una situación que creó las guerras sangrientas de multi-frente en las que cárteles tuvieron que dividir sus recursos. Si los cárteles trabajan fuera un trato para reducir el luchar entre sí (incluso si el motivo sea de sólo mejorar el negocio), significaría que ellos podrían cambiar itinerario recursos que de otro modo serían utilizados para luchar uno al otro. Esto significa que ellos tendrían más dinero para utilizar para sobornar funcionarios, más recursos para centrarse en inteligencia-reunir operaciones y bajar los precios para los narcóticos que ellos negocian. Una tregua entre los cárteles haría una situación ya desafiante para el ejército mexicano complicó aún más, como el ejército hace ya no puede utilizar el “divide y conquista” táctica en su guerra contra los cárteles. Mientras una gota en la violencia general sería dada la bienvenida por el gobierno mexicano, una paz duradero de cártel llevaría sus propios riesgos para el gobierno.

Ultimamente, la cooperación también podría llegar a ser una estrategia para los cárteles para combatir el gobierno. Si los cárteles podrían mover de no luchar uno al otro a colaborar activamente a socavar el gobierno, ellos podrían colocar una amenaza grave al estado mexicano. Cuando mencionado arriba, muchos factores hacen este tipo de cooperación ancha bastante improbable — el honor entre ladrones es una cosa inconstante — Pero hay estímulos para la cooperación también.
23714  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sinaloan diplomacy? on: February 02, 2009, 11:21:23 AM
second post of the day:


Mexico: Diplomacy Among Sinaloa's Cartels?
Stratfor Today » January 30, 2009 | 2218 GMT

Summary

The Los Angeles Times reported Jan. 29 that drug-related murders in Sinaloa state, Mexico, dropped from 120 in December 2008 to 40 from Jan. 1-29. Reportedly, the decrease in violence occurred as a result of a truce between rival cartels in Sinaloa. Stratfor sources have confirmed that several Mexican cartels held two sit-down talks, but it is not clear that a truce was reached. However, the decrease in violence suggests that some level of diplomacy is occurring.

Analysis

The Los Angeles Times reported Jan. 29 that drug-related killings in Mexico’s Sinaloa state dropped from 120 in December 2008 to 40 within the first 29 days of January. The reported cause for this drop in drug-related deaths was a truce between rival cartels the Sinaloa Cartel and the Beltran Leyva organization. Stratfor sources have confirmed that several Mexican cartels did indeed hold two sit-down meetings, but that (contradicting press reports) they did not reach any widespread truce. The decrease in violence, however, suggests that a low level of diplomacy may be taking place.

The report of decreased violence in Sinaloa state came three days after El Siglo de Durango, a regional newspaper in Mexico’s Durango state, reported that representatives of the El Mayo and Sinaloa groups sat down in December with representatives from the Beltran Leyva, Arellano Felix and Carillo Fuentes groups to discuss a cease-fire, as the unprecedented level of inter-cartel violence in 2008 was bad for business. The Beltran Leyva brothers were once allied with Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and his Sinaloa Cartel, but they operated separately in 2008. The two groups’ fighting over drug trafficking routes in western Mexico resulted in running battles that accounted for many of the 5,376 drug-related murders in Mexico in 2008. By May 2008, the Mexican military was called into Sinaloa state to help quell the violence.

Nationwide, violence dropped from historical highs in November to more normal levels in December 2008 and rose again in January, but certain states saw the number of reported deaths decrease in the same time period. Just as the number of drug-related killings dropped from December 2008 to the end of January in Sinaloa state, in Juarez they dropped from 150 in December 2008 to 80 during the first 25 days of January. These two areas, hotspots in the Sinaloa Cartel’s battle with Beltran Leyva (in Sinaloa state) and Carillo-Fuentes (in Juarez), can be viewed as two primary fronts in Mexico’s cartel conflicts. The fact that the rate of killings there dropped in January (even though the national rates were up) offers support for the claims that the cartels have reached a limited cease-fire.

Rumors about cartel cooperation have surfaced before and have quickly dissipated. Occasionally Mexico’s various criminal groups have even reached broad truces and alliances, though more often than not these agreements quickly break down. The fierce competition over territory and drug-trafficking gateways along the U.S.-Mexican border offers strong motivation to continue fighting rather than cooperate. Even if the groups reached some sort of agreement, an enduring settlement is unlikely.

However, such a truce would have great significance in the Mexican government’s war against the cartels. In 2008, several cartel factions were fighting each other and the Mexican military — a situation that created bloody multi-front wars in which cartels had to divide their resources. If the cartels work out a deal to reduce the fighting among themselves (even if the motivation is only to improve business), it would mean that they could reroute resources that otherwise would be used to fight each other. This means they would have more money to use to bribe officials, more resources to focus on intelligence-gathering operations and lower prices for the narcotics that they traffic. A truce among the cartels would make an already challenging situation for the Mexican military even more complicated, as the military would no longer be able to use the “divide and conquer” tactic in its war against the cartels. While a drop in overall violence would be welcomed by the Mexican government, a long-lasting cartel peace would carry its own risks for the government.

Ultimately, cooperation could also become a strategy for the cartels to combat the government. If the cartels could move from not fighting each other to actively collaborating on undermining the government, they could pose a serious threat to the Mexican state. As mentioned above, many factors make this type of broad cooperation rather unlikely — honor among thieves is a fickle thing — but there are incentives for cooperation as well.
23715  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Iraqi elections: on: February 02, 2009, 11:12:00 AM
The democracy that President Bush was an idiot to imagine for Iraq held another election yesterday-- not that you would notice it very much in the MSM  angry  Here's Stratfor's initial take on it:

==============

Preliminary results emerging a day after Iraq held critical provincial elections suggested that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s group, the Coalition for the State of Law, has made significant gains both in Baghdad and the Shiite south. A Reuters report cited officials from both the largest Shia political group, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement as acknowledging that al-Maliki had fared far better than expected. Meanwhile, the Sunnis were expected to make considerable gains in certain northern provinces, reversing the gains made by the Kurds in the last elections — which the Sunnis boycotted.

Given the complexities of Iraq’s electoral system, it will be several days before actual results are available to show the precise balance of power between the Shia and the Sunnis. The results of the elections in both the Shiite and Sunni provinces will have a direct bearing on parliamentary election, scheduled for sometime in December. Together, these two elections will determine whether the delicate power-sharing arrangement that the United States shaped will hold.

The fact that elections were held at all, and without any serious violence, speaks volumes about how far things in Iraq have come since 2006, when the Sunni, Shiite and jihadist insurgencies were threatening to tear the country apart. Equally important is the rise of al-Maliki, who was little more than a compromise choice for prime minister about a year ago. Since then, al-Maliki has skillfully exploited Iraq’s factional rivalries and his own government position to enhance his standing.

Though he has been a Shiite Islamist politician throughout his career, al-Maliki went into the Jan. 31 elections promoting himself as a secular, non-sectarian and Iraqi nationalist seeking a strong central government as a counter to regional tendencies. If his coalition did in fact make considerable gains in the Shiite south, he will be able to counter the pro-Iranian ISCI’s moves to create a Shiite autonomous region in the south. Furthermore, his victory will pave the way for improved relations between Baghdad and the provinces, leading to a strengthened central government.

While he maintains strong opposition to the large-scale incorporation of Sunni militias into the state’s security apparatus, al-Maliki’s new makeover as a non-ideological Arab leader, increasingly independent of Iran, has won him a good many allies among the Sunnis. With the help of these Sunni allies, who also are expected to have gained power in the provincial election, al-Maliki is hoping to forge a strong coalition that could serve as a check on both Kurdish ambitions for greater autonomy and the pro-Iranian Shia who also seek a weak national government.

Obviously, new battle lines are emerging in Iraq between ethno-sectarian forces and nationalist ones, and al-Maliki will have a tough time dealing both with Kurds who have been greatly angered by his push for a strong center and fellow Shia who wish to see an Iraq aligned more closely with Iran. For the United States, however, al-Maliki’s gains can facilitate the Obama administration’s plans for an accelerated troop withdrawal and provide Washington with the leverage it needs in moving toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. Considering that it was not too long ago that the United States had all but given up on al-Maliki, this is indeed considerable progress.
23716  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Krauthammer on: February 02, 2009, 06:25:03 AM
Fighting For And Freeing Muslims Is Nothing To Be Apologizing For
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Every new president flatters himself that he, kinder and gentler, is beginning the world anew. Yet, when Barack Obama in his inaugural address reached out to Muslims with "to the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," his formulation was needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake.

In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d'affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.

Look. If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country — implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations — that's fine.

But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam due to a small minority?

George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.

And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 — seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons — there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history.

On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.

"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives."

That's his job?

Do Americans think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.

Every president has the right to portray himself as ushering in a new era of this or that. Obama wants to pursue new ties with Muslim nations, drawing on his own identity and associations. Good.

But when his self-inflation as redeemer of U.S.-Muslim relations leads him to suggest that pre-Obama America was disrespectful or insensitive or uncaring of Muslims, he is engaging not just in fiction but in gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead.

© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
23717  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Kudlow on: February 02, 2009, 05:08:45 AM

$3 Trillion Gov't Overdose Must Be Stopped
By LAWRENCE KUDLOW | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Last week's House tally on the Democratic stimulus package, where not a single Republican voted in favor, was another shot across the bow for this incredibly unmanageable $900 billion behemoth of a program that truly will not stimulate the economy.

Sure, the Democrats won on a party-line count. But Team Obama is now regrouping in the face of mounting criticism of this package.

GOP economist Martin Feldstein revoked his prior support of a stimulus plan in Wednesday's Washington Post.

"In its current form," Feldstein wrote, "(The plan) does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake."

Clinton economic adviser Alice Rivlin made the same point in testimony before the House Budget Committee. Her message: Divide up the package and slow down the process.

And Sen. Richard Shelby told CNBC that Washington should "shelve the stimulus package" and instead attack the banking and credit problem first — probably with a government-sponsored bad bank that would relieve financial institutions from their toxic-asset problem. Mr. Shelby believes the credit crunch remains the biggest obstacle to economic recovery.

Later in the day when I interviewed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, he agreed with Shelby that the stimulus plan should be shelved.

For the first time — as far as I know — McConnell pledged to vote no on the package. Instead he wants larger tax cuts and smaller spending. McConnell might be willing to change his mind if the package changes, but he told me he didn't expect that to happen.

And in what may prove to be the biggest stimulus-package hurdle of all, news reports suggest that Team Obama is contemplating as much as $2 trillion in TARP additions to rescue the banking system in one form or another. That would be $2 trillion on top of the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Government spending, deficits and debt creation of this magnitude are simply unheard of. So the added TARP money will surely imperil the entire stimulus package as taxpayers around the country begin to digest the enormity of these proposed government actions.

Financing of this type would not only destroy the U.S. fiscal position for years to come, it could destroy the dollar in the process.

What's more, the likelihood of massive tax increases — which at some point will become front and center in this gargantuan funding operation — would doom the economy for decades.

By the way, Scott Rasmussen's latest poll shows that already — before the new TARP money is included — public support for the humongous stimulus package has dropped to 42%.

It remains to be seen whether Republicans can in fact stop the stimulus package, but that certainly would be a very good idea. The long-run financial consequences will certainly force higher future tax rates — a prosperity killer feared by Arthur Laffer.

And while all the social spending gets baked into the long-run budget baseline, the short-run implications of the plan have little economic-growth potential.

Meanwhile, there's no shortage of alternative tax proposals that would truly re-ignite the economy.

Former Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush economist Larry Lindsey criticized the Democrat package in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, describing it as "heavily weighted toward direct government spending, transfers to state and local governments, and tax changes that have virtually no effect on marginal tax rates."

Instead, Lindsey proposes a big payroll tax cut that would slice three points off the rate for both employer and employee.

Rush Limbaugh also made an appearance in the Journal. He has a clever idea to give Obama 54% of the $900 billion package — equating that amount to the new president's electoral majority — while 46%, which was John McCain's electoral tally, would go to a plan that would halve the U.S. corporate tax rate and provide a capital-gains tax holiday for one year, after which the investment tax would drop to 10%.

It was Sen. McCain on Fox News a week ago Sunday who started the stimulus revolt when he said he couldn't support the package and called for less spending along with a large corporate tax cut.

Over in the House, Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor have successfully launched an opposition drumbeat by attacking congressional Democrats rather than directly hitting President Obama.

Now all eyes will turn to Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell to see if he can keep up this drumbeat.

Will common-sense Americans really support a massive overdose of government run amok? I seriously doubt it. This whole story has to be completely rethought.

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
 
23718  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / New York Times: Frontera no es obstaculo on: February 02, 2009, 05:03:49 AM
TUCSON — Los narcotraficantes aparcaron un remolque de transporte de coche contra el lado mexicano de la frontera un día en diciembre, dejaron caer una rampa sobre la valla de la seguridad, y condujo dos furgonetas llenaron de marihuana en tierra de Arizona.
Los narcotraficantes de México quemaron su camión y la marihuana que lo llevó antes de huir de agentes contiguos en Arizona.
Como Border Patrol Los agentes persiguieron, un tercer camión pareció en el lado y los pistoleros mexicano rociados ametrallan fuego por encima de la cerca en los agentes. Los contrabandistas en los primeros vehículos incendiaron un camión y abandonaron el otro, con $1 millón de valor de marihuana todavía en la cama de camión. Entonces ellos saltaron atrás sobre la barrera en Mexico’Estado de s Sonora.

A pesar de acciones inmensas de aplicación en ambos lados del el sudoeste de la frontera, el comercio mexicano de marihuana es más robusto — y bronceado — Que nunca, funcionarios de aplicación de la ley dicen. Mexican drug cartels Las cargas rutinariamente transportadas del industrial-tamaño de marihuana en 2008, excavando nuevos túneles y adoptar que tácticas quieren contrabando que rampa-ayudado para conseguir sus cargas a través de sin ser visto.

Pero éstos no son las único nuevas tácticas: los cárteles también plantan cada vez más cosechas de marihuana Estados Unidos que interior en un cambio mayor de estrategia para evitar la frontera enteramente, los funcionarios dijeron. El año pasado, las autoridades de aplicación de droga confiscaron cantidades sin precedentes de plantas altas de potencia de Miami a San Diego, e incluso de viñas arrendadas por cárteles en el Estado de Washington. Los traficantes de drogas mexicanos también se han cambiado a la producción hidropónica de marihuana — el cannabis crecido dentro sin tierra y alimentado con lámparas solares — Asiático desafiante hacer contactos y cultivadores más pequeños e individuales aquí.

Un informe del Ministerio de la justicia publicado concluyó el año pasado que droga mexicana que trafica con drogas organizaciones ahora operado en 195 ciudades, arriba de acerca de 50 ciudades en 2006.

Los cuatro cárteles más grandes con filiales en ciudades de EEUU fueron la Federación, el Cártel de Tijuana, el Cártel de Juarez y el Cártel de Golfo.

“Hay evidencia que cárteles mexicanos también aumentan sus relaciones con pandillas de prisión y calle en Estados Unidos para facilitar trafico de drogas de droga,” un informe Congresional de 2008 de febrero indicado. Los analistas de la inteligencia discernían droga mexicana aumentada actividad cártel-relacionado en Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Seattle y Yakima, el Lavado. — Las áreas que fueron controladas por otras redes étnicas.

El contrabando es todavía más visible en el Suroeste, que ha estado en casa a negociantes mexicanos para más de dos décadas. De Nogales, Ariz., recientemente, un periodista miró como contrabandistas a través de la frontera, en estaciones de cumbre, miraron por binocular en los movimientos de agentes norteamericanos de Patrulla de fronteras. El gunned de agentes sus camiones por la barrera que busca cruces ilegales.

Acerca del mediodía, agentes contiguos vieron una bala de 60 libras de gota de marihuana por encima de la cerca.

“Ese tipo de cosas sucede cada día aquí,” dijo Agente Michael A. Scioli, un portavoz para Customs and Border Protection.
Para los cárteles, “la marihuana es la cosecha” de rey, dijo Agente Especial Rafael Reyes, el jefe del México y Sección de América Central del Drug Enforcement Administration. Sostiene“coherentemente su comerciabilidad y la capacidad de ganancia.”

El trafico de drogas de la marihuana continúa virtualmente constante en Estados Unidos, aún como informes de inteligencia sugieren la disponibilidad declinante de heroína, de la cocaína y de otro endroga duramente eso requiere contrabando extenso operaciones.
Combinando contrabando con producción interior, los cárteles han sostenido el comercio de marihuana a pesar del ataque violento de acciones de aplicación en ambos lados de la frontera. De 2000 por 2007, las autoridades mexicanas detuvieron acerca de 90.000 traficantes de drogas, más de 400 hombres de hit y una docena de líderes de cártel, según un 2008 informe Congresional. Estados Unidos extraditó 95 mexicano nacional el año pasado. Las tomas en la primera mitad de 2008 dejaron atrás la tasa media de toma de 2002 a 2006.

Pero el precio ha sido alto. Las tensiones han aumentado entre los cárteles, que guerrea sobre rutas lucrativas de droga por pueblos fronterizos mexicanos como Juarez, Tijuana y Nogales, Sonora. Más de 6.000 personas, inclusive cientos de policías, fueron matadas por violencia relacionada con la droga en México en 2008. Los agentes de la Patrulla de fronteras de EEUU también informan enfrentamientos más violentos con negociantes.

Cuando el gobierno y las autoridades estadounidenses mexicanos han endurecido la frontera, cárteles de droga aumentan la producción justo del norte de ello para evitar recurrir a contrabando.

Muchas de las plantaciones más grandes de la marihuana son ocultadas en federal y jardines de estado, las autoridades federales dicen. La cuenta Sherman, un agente de Aplicación de Droga Administración basado en San Diego, dijo que las autoridades también encontraban un número creciente de granjas en Imperial y Condados de San Diego, un negociantes de área tradicionalmente evitados a causa de la presencia de guardias contiguos, varias agencias de policía y Acampan Pendleton, una base Marina.
“Vemos mucho más crece hacia abajo aquí ahora,” el Sr. Sherman dijo. “Eso es un cambio.”
===========
 
 Llame 2 de 2)

Los agentes de la aplicación de la droga desarraigaron acerca de 6,6 millones de cannabis plantas crecidas en su mayor parte por cárteles en 2007, la tercera parte más que las plantas destruyeron en 2006. En California, el productor doméstico más grande de marihuana de nación, las autoridades erradicaron un sin precedentes 2,9 millones de plantas por el fin de la cosecha de marihuana en diciembre.

Mas funcionarios de aplicación dicen que ellos no ven reducción discernible en el suministro doméstico. Los precios se han quedado relativamente constante aún como la potencia de marihuana aumentada para registrar niveles en 2007, según el Centro Nacional de la Inteligencia de Droga, una agencia de análisis de Ministerio de la justicia.

El Sr. Reyes también notó que negociantes mexicanos en Estados Unidos escogían marihuana hidropónica, que es más poderosa, provechoso y más fácil de ocultar porque puede ser crecido año alrededor con lámparas solares. (Una libra de marihuana de midgrade vende para acerca de $750 en Los Angeles, comparado con $2.500 a $6.000 para una libra de marihuana hidropónica). El notó un caso el año pasado en Florida en Las que cultivadores cubanos utilizaron varias casas en un solo desarrollo de tracto de Miami para suministrar marihuana hidropónica a negociantes mexicanos.

Kathyrn McCarthy, un abogado ayudante de EEUU en Detroit, dijo negociantes que mexicanos en Michigan comerciaban cocaína colombiana para la marihuana hidropónica de la Colombie-Britannique para vender en Estados Unidos. En el Estado de Washington, ahora el segundo productor doméstico más grande de marihuana, cárteles mexicanos crecen variedades mejoradas de marihuana al aire libre para competir con AC Brote y otras plantas interiores poderosas.

El año pasado, oficiales de narcóticos descubrieron 200.000 plantas de gran calidad de marihuana que crecen entre viñas arrendadas en el Valle de Yakima. El Noroeste ha sido tradicionalmente la provincia de redes hidropónicas asiáticas.

A pesar de plantar aumentado, los cárteles todavía dependen de contrabando. Nogales cercano, Ariz., el Sr. Scioli indicó varios túneles transfronterizos, uno de que extendió del traspatio de una casa, bajo la valla y en México 40 yardas lejos. Otra serie de túneles transfronterizos utilizó líneas existentes de alcantarilla o tubos de desagüe. Ellos estuvieron entre los nueve túneles de contrabando endroga a agentes de aplicación han descubierto allí desde que 2003.

A pesar de que las autoridades descubran más producción de marihuana Estados Unidos interior, el liderazgo de la mayor parte de los cárteles se queda en México y, para ahora, así que hace la mayor parte de la violencia. Todavía, fotografías recientes de México de las cabezas decapitadas de policías mexicanos juegan en las mentes de funcionarios de aplicación de la ley en este lado de la frontera, que está atento para signos de derrame.

La policía mexicana en Sonora “es atascada entre dos cárteles opuestos,” dijo Anthony J. Coulson, un agente federal de aplicación de droga. “Las policías son matadas como peones. Ellos son utilizados para mostrar cuánto poder y controlar los cárteles tienen.”
El Sr. Reyes, el agente especial, dijo, “La violencia sucede a causa de la presión que hemos exigido, pero no abastecemos de combustible ningún aumento ni la disminución en la marihuana.”

Nadie ve un fin rápido de la violencia en Nogales, Sonora.

El alguacil Tony Estrada de Condado de Santa Cruz dijo que había tanta violencia en el otro lado de la frontera que muchos policías y políticos mexicanos habían llegado a ser los refugiados virtuales en Nogales, Ariz.

“La violencia ha dejado un contingente grande de policía en este lado de la frontera,” el Alguacil Estrada dijo. “La matanza parará cuando alguien domina. Cuándo alguien toma control.”
23719  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mexico-US matters on: February 02, 2009, 04:59:29 AM
TUCSON — Drug smugglers parked a car transport trailer against the Mexican side of the border one day in December, dropped a ramp over the security fence, and drove two pickup trucks filled with marijuana onto Arizona soil.

Drug smugglers from Mexico burned their truck and the marijuana it carried before fleeing from border agents in Arizona.
As Border Patrol agents gave chase, a third truck appeared on the Mexican side and gunmen sprayed machine-gun fire over the fence at the agents. Smugglers in the first vehicles torched one truck and abandoned the other, with $1 million worth of marijuana still in the truck bed. Then they vaulted back over the barrier into Mexico’s Sonora state.
Despite huge enforcement actions on both sides of the Southwest border, the Mexican marijuana trade is more robust — and brazen — than ever, law enforcement officials say. Mexican drug cartels routinely transported industrial-size loads of marijuana in 2008, excavating new tunnels and adopting tactics like ramp-assisted smuggling to get their cargoes across undetected.

But these are not the only new tactics: the cartels are also increasingly planting marijuana crops inside the United States in a major strategy shift to avoid the border altogether, officials said. Last year, drug enforcement authorities confiscated record amounts of high potency plants from Miami to San Diego, and even from vineyards leased by cartels in Washington State. Mexican drug traffickers have also moved into hydroponic marijuana production — cannabis grown indoors without soil and nourished with sunlamps — challenging Asian networks and smaller, individual growers here.

A Justice Department report issued last year concluded that Mexican drug trafficking organizations now operated in 195 cities, up from about 50 cities in 2006.

The four largest cartels with affiliates in United States cities were the Federation, the Tijuana Cartel, the Juarez Cartel and the Gulf Cartel.

“There is evidence that Mexican cartels are also increasing their relationships with prison and street gangs in the United States in order to facilitate drug trafficking,” a Congressional report from February 2008 stated. Intelligence analysts were detecting increased Mexican drug cartel-related activity in Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Seattle and Yakima, Wash. — areas that used to be controlled by other ethnic networks.

Smuggling is still most conspicuous in the Southwest, which has been home to Mexican traffickers for more than two decades. From Nogales, Ariz., recently, a reporter watched as smugglers across the border, in hilltop stations, peered through binoculars at the movements of American Border Patrol agents. The agents gunned their trucks along the barrier looking for illegal crossings.

About noon, border agents saw a 60-pound bale of marijuana drop over the fence.

“That kind of thing happens every day here,” said Agent Michael A. Scioli, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection.

For the cartels, “marijuana is the king crop,” said Special Agent Rafael Reyes, the chief of the Mexico and Central America Section of the Drug Enforcement Administration. “It consistently sustains its marketability and profitability.”

Marijuana trafficking continues virtually unabated in the United States, even as intelligence reports suggest the declining availability of heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs that require extensive smuggling operations.

By combining smuggling with domestic production, the cartels have sustained the marijuana trade despite the onslaught of enforcement actions on both sides of the border. From 2000 through 2007, Mexican authorities arrested about 90,000 drug traffickers, more than 400 hit men and a dozen cartel leaders, according to a 2008 Congressional report. The United States extradited 95 Mexican nationals last year. Seizures in the first half of 2008 outpaced the average seizure rate from 2002 to 2006.

But the price has been high. Tensions have increased among the cartels, which are warring over lucrative drug routes through Mexican border towns like Juarez, Tijuana and Nogales, Sonora. More than 6,000 people, including hundreds of police officers, were killed by drug-related violence in Mexico in 2008. United States Border Patrol agents are also reporting more violent confrontations with traffickers.

As the Mexican government and American authorities have hardened the border, drug cartels are increasing production just north of it to avoid resorting to smuggling.

Many of the largest marijuana plantations are hidden on federal and state parklands, federal authorities say. Bill Sherman, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent based in San Diego, said the authorities were also finding an increasing number of farms in Imperial and San Diego Counties, an area traffickers traditionally avoided because of the presence of border guards, various police agencies and Camp Pendleton, a Marine base.

“We’re seeing a lot more grows down here now,” Mr. Sherman said. “That is a shift.”

===========



Page 2 of 2)



Drug enforcement agents uprooted about 6.6 million cannabis plants grown mostly by cartels in 2007, one-third more than the plants destroyed in 2006. In California, the nation’s largest domestic marijuana producer, the authorities eradicated a record 2.9 million plants by the end of the marijuana harvest in December.


Yet enforcement officials say they see no discernible reduction in the domestic supply. Prices have remained relatively steady even as the potency of marijuana increased to record levels in 2007, according to the National Drug Intelligence Center, a Justice Department analysis agency.

Mr. Reyes also noted that Mexican traffickers in the United States were choosing hydroponic marijuana, which is more potent, profitable and easier to hide because it can be grown year round with sunlamps. (A pound of midgrade marijuana sells for about $750 in Los Angeles, compared with $2,500 to $6,000 for a pound of hydroponic marijuana.) He noted a case last year in Florida in which Cuban growers used several houses in a single Miami tract development to supply hydroponic marijuana to Mexican traffickers.

Kathyrn McCarthy, an assistant United States attorney in Detroit, said Mexican traffickers in Michigan were trading Colombian cocaine for hydroponic marijuana from British Columbia to sell in the United States. In Washington State, now the second biggest domestic producer of marijuana, Mexican cartels are growing improved varieties of outdoor marijuana to compete with BC Bud and other potent indoor plants.

Last year, narcotics officers discovered 200,000 high-quality marijuana plants growing amid leased vineyards in the Yakima Valley. The Northwest has traditionally been the province of Asian hydroponic networks.

Despite increased planting, the cartels still rely on smuggling. Near Nogales, Ariz., Mr. Scioli pointed out several cross-border tunnels, one of which extended from the backyard of a house, under the fence and into Mexico 40 yards away. Another series of cross-border tunnels made use of existing sewer lines or drainage pipes. They were among the nine smuggling tunnels drug enforcement agents have discovered there since 2003.

Despite the fact that the authorities are discovering more marijuana production inside the United States, most of the cartels’ leadership remains in Mexico and, for now, so does most of the violence. Still, recent photographs from Mexico of the decapitated heads of Mexican policemen play in the minds of law enforcement officials on this side of the border, who are vigilant for signs of spillover.

The Mexican police in Sonora “are stuck between two warring cartels,” said Anthony J. Coulson, a federal drug enforcement agent. “The cops are being killed as pawns. They’re being used to show how much power and control the cartels have.”

Mr. Reyes, the special agent, said, “The violence is happening because of the pressure we’ve exacted, but it does not fuel any increase or decrease in marijuana.”

No one sees a quick end of the violence in Nogales, Sonora.

Sheriff Tony Estrada of Santa Cruz County said there was so much violence on the other side of the border that many Mexican police officers and politicians had become virtual refugees in Nogales, Ariz.

“The violence has left a large contingent of police on this side of the border,” Sheriff Estrada said. “The killing will stop when somebody dominates. When somebody takes control.”
23720  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / IBD: FBI severs relations with CAIR on: February 02, 2009, 04:49:34 AM
That is simply extraordinay Huss  shocked 

In its own way, this too is extraordinary:

Beware Of CAIR
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Homeland Security: You'd think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it's having to do major damage control.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Global War On Terror


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed "moderate" voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a "Dear Colleague" letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to "think twice" about meeting with CAIR officials.

"The FBI has cut ties with them," the letter says. "There are indications" CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group.

The letter, signed by five Republicans, including the head of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, is attached to an article by a homeland-security news service. It reports that the FBI has been canceling outreach events across the country with CAIR, following a recent directive from headquarters to cut ties with the group.

It's a major policy shift at the FBI, which has appeased the notoriously litigious CAIR since 9/11. The group aggressively attacks critics with threats of boycotts and discrimination lawsuits.

The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.

It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship.

According to the federal lawsuit, CAIR directed an unlicensed lawyer to handle their immigration cases. The phony lawyer shook them down for their life savings and bungled their paperwork. When the victims said they would go to the media, the suit charges, CAIR's board threatened to sue them and forced them to sign releases.

Such aggressive tactics are typical of CAIR. The group has threatened CEOs who don't kowtow to its demands to Islamize the workplace and airlines trying to protect passengers from terrorism. It's bullied, as well, scores of critics on TV and talk radio, even getting some hosts fired. Thankfully, the threats are no longer working.
23721  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: El concepto de enfrentamiento armado I on: February 02, 2009, 04:46:00 AM
Hola Cecilio:

Tremendo post-- y confieso no entender por que nadie ha comentado todavia-- aunque veo que mucha gente lo han leido.

Agradezco lo que compartas con nosotros.

La Aventura continua,
Marc
23722  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: February 01, 2009, 04:40:07 PM
Woof Huss:

Local custom is to put a sentence or three with a URL describing its contents and why you think it worthy of our time, etc.

Thanks,
Marc
23723  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: February 01, 2009, 03:28:10 AM
I agree that there are plenty of good uses to which this technology can be put. 

I also think it worth noting that it exists.

==================================

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28956016/

Begin Text

WASHINGTON - As President Obama's motorcade rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, federal authorities deployed a closely held law enforcement tool: equipment that can jam cellphones and other wireless devices to foil remote-controlled bombs, sources said.

It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. Police and others say it could stop terrorists from coordinating during an attack, prevent suspects from erasing evidence on wireless devices, simplify arrests and keep inmates from using contraband phones.

But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first.

The quest to expand the technology has invigorated a debate about how widely jamming should be allowed and whether its value as a common crime-fighting strategy outweighs its downsides, including restricting the constant access to the airwaves that Americans have come to expect.

"Jamming is a blunt instrument," said Joe Farren, vice president of government affairs for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. He and others pointed out that when authorities disable wireless service, whether during a terrorist attack or inside a prison, that action can also stop the calls that could help in an emergency. During November's raids in Mumbai, for example, citizens relied on cellphones to direct police to the assailants.

Jamming in downtown D.C.

Propelled by the military's experience with roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, jamming technology has evolved to counter bombs triggered by cellphones, garage openers, remote controls for toy cars or other devices that emit radio signals. Federal authorities rank improvised bombs, which are cheap and adaptable, as one of the greatest terrorist threats to the West.

On Inauguration Day, federal authorities were authorized to jam signals at some locations in downtown Washington, according to current and former federal officials. The Secret Service and other officials declined to provide specific details, some of which are classified.

Most of the nearly 2 million people attending the swearing-in and along the parade route would have been oblivious to any unusual disruption.

"Chances are, you wouldn't even notice it was there," said Howard Melamed, an executive with CellAntenna Corp., a small Coral Springs, Fla., company that produces jamming equipment. If someone in the crowd was on a call, they might have confused the jamming with a dropped signal. "Your phone may go off network," he said. In other cases, "it may never signal, if it's a quick interruption."

Industry officials said that radio-jammers work in several ways: They can send a barrage of energy that drowns out signals across multiple bands or produce a surge of energy on a particular frequency. In other instances, the devices detect and disrupt a suspicious signal, a technique known as "scan and jam."

Private citizens get gear

Some private citizens, hoping to eliminate cellphone calls in restaurants, churches or theaters, have tapped into an underground market of jamming equipment that has trickled into the United States. But that, too, is illegal under the 70-year-old federal telecommunications act, which bans jamming commercial radio signals. The Federal Communications Commission has begun to crack down on private use, which is punishable by an $11,000 fine.

The U.S. military is capable of shutting down communications across a wide area and has done so overseas, including when it has conducted raids to capture suspects. To counter explosives, devices can be set to jam signals for a distance of 50 to 500 meters, for example, or enough to allow a car to pass out of the blast zone of a small bomb.

Some federal agencies, including the FBI and the Secret Service, have standing authority to use jamming equipment or can request waivers from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a Commerce Department agency, when there is an imminent threat, a federal official said.

Jamming has been approved in the past for major events, ranging from State of the Union addresses to visits by certain foreign dignitaries, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the subject.

After transit bombings in Europe, the Department of Homeland Security reached an agreement in 2006 under the National Communications System with cellphone companies to voluntarily shut down service under certain circumstances, which could disable signals for areas ranging from a tunnel to an entire metropolitan region, a DHS official said.

Local demands
Much of the controversy has been fueled by the growing demands from state and local governments.

In the District, corrections officials won permission from the FCC for a brief test of jamming technology at the D.C. jail last month, after citing the "alarming rate" of contraband phones being seized at prisons around the country.

"Cell phones are used by inmates to engage in highly pernicious behavior such as the intimidation of witnesses, coordination of escapes, and the conducting of criminal enterprises," D.C. corrections chief Devon Brown wrote to the federal agency.

The test has been put on hold because of a legal challenge, but the city will keep seeking permission, said D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles.

Texas prison officials made a similar request last fall after a death row inmate placed an illicit call threatening a state legislator, and South Carolina corrections officials said their department staged a test without permission in November.

In a pilot project, the FBI deputized about 10 local bomb squads across the country in 2007 so they could use a small number of radio jammers similar to the military equipment used overseas.

Friendly reception in Congress
The local pleas for expanded permission are beginning to get a friendly reception on Capitol Hill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, plans to introduce legislation that would give law enforcement agencies "the tools they need to selectively jam" communications in the event of a terrorist attack, a spokeswoman said.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, has introduced a bill that would allow the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and governors to seek waivers from the FCC to jam calling at prisons.

"When lives are at stake, law enforcement needs to find ways to disrupt cellphones and other communications in a pinpointed way against terrorists who are using them," New York City Police Commissioner Raymond F. Kelly told a Senate panel Jan. 8. He also cited the Mumbai terrorist attacks, when hostage-takers used media spotters and satellite and mobile phones to help them outmaneuver police at hotels, train stations and other targets.

Backing up such requests are the commercial interests that could provide the jammers.

Melamed, with CellAntenna, has worked for several years to open what the company forecasts could be a $25 million line of domestic jamming business for itself, and the amount could be more for bigger players such as Tyco and Harris Corp. He said rules that prevent government agencies from blocking signals don't make sense.

"We're still trying to figure out how it's in the best interest of the public to prevent bomb squads from keeping bombs from blowing up and killing people," he said.

Cell phone industry alarmed

But the cellular industry trade group warns that letting the nation's 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies decide when and where to jam phone calls would create a messy patchwork of potential service disruptions.

Critics warn of another potential problem, "friendly fire," when one agency inadvertently jams another's access to the airwaves, posing a safety hazard in an emergency. Farren said there are "smarter, better and safer alternatives," such as stopping inmates from getting smuggled cellphones in the first place or pinpointing signals from unauthorized callers.

Still, analysts said, events such as the Mumbai attacks may tip the debate in favor of law enforcement.

"Without something like Mumbai, the national security and public safety cases would not be as compelling," said James E. Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. "Now, the burden of proof has been shifting to people who don't want these exceptions, rather than the people who do."

End Text
23724  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: February 01, 2009, 01:47:28 AM
Rachel:

"Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin wrote a great book called Why the Jews-- The Reason for Antisemitism which I really recommend."

Would you please give a summary of why you liked the book/what the book says?

TIA,
Marc
23725  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Denzel Washington on: January 31, 2009, 07:10:07 PM
In the parking lot at the Inosanto Academy today Jeff Imada was working Denzel Washington with a machete in a fight against some 15-20 guys.  Denzel looked very good, very smooth, and of course Jeff's choreography was awesome.

 
23726  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Now here's a solution! on: January 31, 2009, 12:52:23 PM
As to solutions: One novel idea on opium-and-corruption comes from James Nathan, a political science professor at Auburn University in Alabama and former State Department official. He argues in a forthcoming paper that the most efficient way to tackle the problem would be for the United States or NATO to buy up the entire Afghan opium crop.

"Purchasing the whole crop would take it away from the traffickers without cutting more than half the economy of Afghanistan," Nathan said in an interview. "Such a purchase would directly confront Afghanistan's most corrosive corruption. It would end the Taliban's money stream."

And the cost? By Nathan's reckoning, between $2 billion and $2.5 billion a year, no pocket change but not a large sum compared with the around $200 billion the U.S. taxpayer has already paid for the war in Afghanistan. The idea may sound startling, but its logic is not far from the farm subsidies paid to U.S. and European farmers.
23727  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Surprise, surprise on: January 31, 2009, 12:00:21 PM
Iran Says Obama's Offer To Talk Shows U.S. Failure

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday. "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.
Iranian politicians frequently refer to the US administration as the "global arrogance", "domineering power" and "Great Satan".
Tensions with the United States have soared over Iran's nuclear drive and Ahmadinejad's vitriolic verbal attacks against Washington's close regional ally Israel.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.

The new administration of Obama has also refused to rule out any options -- including military strikes -- to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Iran denies any plans to build the bomb and insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at peaceful ends.




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
23728  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Rants on: January 31, 2009, 11:47:28 AM
Good memory on your part!

I remember Mark from the Gilder and then the David Gordon days, but not this.
23729  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Bolton on: January 31, 2009, 05:43:38 AM
By JOHN R. BOLTON
Yesterday, North Korea declared all its political and military agreements with the South "dead" -- the latest in a string of confrontational moves taken by Pyongyang against Seoul and the U.S. In the past few weeks, the North confirmed it possessed enough plutonium for four to five nuclear warheads; threatened to retain its nuclear weapons until America withdraws its nuclear protection from the South; denounced the appointment of Seoul's new unification minister as "an open provocation"; and proclaimed that a routine South Korean military exercise had so inflamed tensions that "a war may break out any time."

The Associated Press concluded from all this that North Korea "sounded open to new ideas to defuse nuclear-tinged tensions." Some State Department quarters will warmly receive that analysis; a senior careerist at State once called earlier North Korean provocations "a desperate cry for help." Others will say Kim Jong Il just wants attention, that these moves are simply a "coming out" exercise after his recent illness.

Unfortunately, early signs are that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is falling prey to such logic and downplaying the significance of Pyongyang's nuclear program. It may well be that the Obama administration wants to emphasize domestic economic issues and limit foreign affairs priorities to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But neglecting North Korea is a dangerous gamble with very high stakes.

Most troubling is Mrs. Clinton's unwillingness to acknowledge North Korea's uranium-enrichment efforts. In her confirmation hearing, she said these efforts were "never quite verified." Although we know precious little about the North's progress, including how much weapons-grade uranium may have been produced, Mrs. Clinton cast doubt on whether uranium enrichment was a serious subject at all. Pressed on this point on Jan. 23 at State's daily briefing, the department spokesman said "we don't know" whether such a program exists.

Of course, the easiest way to solve a difficult problem is to conclude there really isn't one. (This was John Kennedy's technique for eliminating the U.S. "missile gap" with the Soviet Union, which he had deployed so effectively against Richard Nixon.) For years, State's permanent bureaucracy has been trying to wish away North Korea's uranium-enrichment program. If President Barack Obama's State Department takes this strategy, Pyongyang will once again have occasion to contemplate the profound wisdom of the ancient North Korean riddle: Why negotiate with the Americans when we do so well by letting them negotiate with themselves?

Equally tempting -- and equally dangerous -- is the notion that North Korea is not a truly pressing problem. After all, the argument goes, the North already has nuclear weapons, so unlike Iran there is no line to prevent it from crossing. Accordingly, there is no urgency to reconvene the six-party talks with the Koreas, Russia, China and Japan to end the North's nuclear program, and certainly not to take any concrete measures to apply meaningful pressure to Kim Jong Il's regime.

By contrast, George Mitchell, the newly appointed special envoy to the Middle East, arrived in the region five days after being named, and the endless cycle of meetings on Iran's nuclear program among the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members and Germany will resume in days. The special envoy for Afghanistan-Pakistan is gearing up rapidly. And there's now even a special envoy for climate change.

But so far, there is no special envoy for North Korea. Mrs. Clinton's first press conference last Tuesday provided another opportunity to announce the position and name the envoy, but she passed, even though she was asked specifically about the six-party talks. There are persuasive arguments against reviving the unhappy Clinton administration practice of unleashing numerous Big Beast envoys in the State Department. But make no mistake: In such an ecosystem, if your issue does not have a Big Beast, then it is not a Big Issue.

The belief that North Korea is not an imminent danger is closely related to the fallacy that it is "merely" a threat to peace and security in Northeast Asia, a longstanding State Department fixation. In fact, North Korea is an urgent threat in the Middle East, both because of its nuclear program and its strenuous efforts to proliferate ballistic missile technology there.

The clone of North Korea's Yongbyon reactor -- under construction in Syria until it was destroyed by Israel in September 2007 -- demonstrates beyond debate how the North's nuclear program contributes directly and palpably to Middle East tensions. Trying to ignore or downplay the relationship guarantees that we will resolve neither Pyongyang's, nor Tehran's, nuclear ambitions.

Ironically, North Korea's provocations may well precipitate the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to continue the six-party talks. If so, the North will have succeeded yet again, suckering Washington into more fruitless negotiations which have no prospect of eliminating the North Korean threat. By whittling away our time, they will continue to prevent the U.S. from implementing stronger measures to undermine Kim Jong Il's regime.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
23730  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Planes seized FROM police on: January 31, 2009, 05:12:58 AM
Mexican gunmen forcibly take back seized planes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Around the World

Washington Post, Thursday, October 2, 2008; A20

Gunmen Steal Impounded Planes
Police in Mexico said 20 heavily armed men stole five small planes the army had seized in anti-drug operations. The gunmen tied up a police officer who was guarding the Cessna planes in the state of Sinaloa, then flew them out of a local airfield.
From News Services
23731  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / NYT: Exclusionary Rule at risk? on: January 31, 2009, 05:07:59 AM
Supreme Court Steps Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 30, 2009
WASHINGTON — In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.


The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.

This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.

The Herring decision “jumped a firewall,” said Kent Scheidegger, the general counsel of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “I think Herring may be setting the stage for the Holy Grail,” he wrote on the group’s blog, referring to the overruling of Mapp v. Ohio, the 1961 Warren Court decision.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the Herring decision and has been a reliable vote for narrowing the protections afforded criminal defendants since he joined the court in 2006. In applying for a job in the Reagan Justice Department in 1985, he wrote that his interest in the law had been “motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure,” religious freedom and voting rights.

Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was considered a moderate in criminal procedure cases.

“With Alito’s replacement of O’Connor,” said Craig M. Bradley, a law professor at Indiana University, “suddenly now they have four votes for sure and possibly five for the elimination of the exclusionary rule.”

The four certain votes, in the opinion of Professor Bradley and other legal scholars, are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, who is also an alumnus of the Reagan administration.

The fate of the rule seems to turn on the views of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has sent mixed signals on the question. As in so many areas of the law, there are indications that the court’s liberal and conservative wings are eagerly courting him. They are also no doubt looking for the case that, with Justice Kennedy’s vote, will settle the issue once and for all.

The United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.

Other nations balance the two interests case by case or rely on other ways to deter police wrongdoing directly, including professional discipline, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

In Herring, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to be advocating those kinds of approaches. “To trigger the exclusionary rule,” he wrote, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.”

That price, the chief justice wrote, “is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.”

The Herring decision can be read broadly or narrowly, and its fate in the lower courts is unclear. The conduct at issue in the case — in which an Alabama man, Bennie D. Herring, was arrested on officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant — was sloppy recordkeeping in a police database rather than a mistake by an officer on the scene. Since the misconduct at issue in Herring was, in the legal jargon, “attenuated from the arrest,” the decision may apply only to a limited number of cases.

But the balance of the opinion is studded with sweeping suggestions that all sorts of police carelessness should not require, in Chief Justice Roberts’s words, that juries be barred from “considering all the evidence.”

A broad reading of the decision by the lower courts, Professor Bradley said, means “the death of the exclusionary rule as a practical matter.”

In one of the first trial court decisions to interpret Herring, a federal judge in New Jersey took the broader view, refusing to suppress evidence obtained from computer hard drives under a search warrant based on false information supplied by a Secret Service agent. The agent had told the judge that DVDs found during an earlier search contained child pornography.

This was false: other law enforcement officials had reviewed the DVDs and had found no child pornography. The agent, who was leading the investigation, testified that he did not know of that review when he made his statement.

“This conduct,” Judge Stanley R. Chesler wrote a week after Herring was decided, “while hardly qualifying as a model of efficient, careful and cooperative law enforcement, does not rise to the level of culpability that the Supreme Court held in Herring must be apparent for the exclusionary rule to serve its deterrent purpose and outweigh the cost of suppressing evidence.”

Constitutional adjudication is not a science experiment, and it is often hard to say for sure what difference a change in personnel makes. In the case of the exclusionary rule, though, you can get pretty close.

================

Page 2 of 2)



On Jan. 9, 2006, just months after Chief Justice Roberts joined the court, the justices heard arguments in Hudson v. Michigan. The police in Detroit had violated the constitutional requirement that they knock and announce themselves before storming the home of Booker T. Hudson, and the question in the case was whether the drugs they found should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule


Justice O’Connor, in her last weeks on the court while the Senate considered Justice Alito’s nomination, was almost certainly the swing vote, and she showed her cards.

“Is there no policy protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?” she asked a government lawyer, her tone sharp and flinty.

David A. Moran, who argued the case for Mr. Hudson, was feeling good after the argument. “I was pretty confident that I’d won,” he said in a recent interview. “O’Connor had pretty clearly spoken on my side.”

Three months later, the court called for reargument, signaling a 4-to-4 deadlock after Justice O’Connor’s departure. Justice Alito was on the court now, and the tenor of the second argument was entirely different.

Now Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who seemed to have been at work on a majority opinion in favor of Mr. Hudson, saw a looming catastrophe. The court, Justice Breyer said, was about to “let a kind of computer virus loose in the Fourth Amendment.”

Justice Breyer had reason to be wary. When the 5-to-4 decision was announced in June, the court not only ruled that violations of the knock-and-announce rule do not require the suppression of evidence but also called into question the exclusionary rule itself.

In a law review article later that year, Mr. Moran went even further. “My 5-4 loss in Hudson v. Michigan,” he wrote, “signals the end of the Fourth Amendment as we know it.”

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said that much had changed since the Mapp decision in 1961. People whose rights were violated may now sue police officers, and police departments are more professional. In light of these factors, he wrote, “resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified.”

Justice Scalia cited the work of a criminologist, Samuel Walker, to support his point about increased police professionalism. Professor Walker responded with an opinion article in The Los Angeles Times saying that Justice Scalia had misrepresented his work. Better police work, Professor Walker said, was a consequence of the exclusionary rule rather than a reason to do away with it.

Justice Kennedy signed the majority decision, adopting Justice Scalia’s sweeping language. Oddly, though, he also wrote separately to say that “the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt.”

Another important Warren Court decision on criminal procedure, Miranda v. Arizona, appears to remain secure. Miranda, as anyone with a television set knows, protected a suspect’s right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer by requiring a warning not found in the Constitution. The decision, like Mapp, was the subject of much criticism in the Reagan years.

But in a pragmatic 7-to-2 decision in 2000, the Rehnquist Court refused to revisit the issue. Miranda warnings, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority, had “become embedded in routine police practice” and had “become part of the national culture.” Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Defenders of the exclusionary rule breathed a sigh of relief in November

“From the point of view of a liberal concerned about criminal procedure,” said Yale Kamisar, a law professor at the University of San Diego, “we were saved by Barack Obama in the nick of time. If ever there was a court that was establishing the foundations for overthrowing the exclusionary rule, it was this one.”

For now, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, “they don’t have five votes to disavow the exclusionary rule by name.”

At the same time, Professor Karlan said, “you are not going to see any dimension along which there is going to be an expansion of defendants’ rights in this court.”
23732  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / NYT: Exclusionary Rule at risk? on: January 31, 2009, 05:07:05 AM
Supreme Court Steps Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 30, 2009
WASHINGTON — In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.


The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.

This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.

The Herring decision “jumped a firewall,” said Kent Scheidegger, the general counsel of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “I think Herring may be setting the stage for the Holy Grail,” he wrote on the group’s blog, referring to the overruling of Mapp v. Ohio, the 1961 Warren Court decision.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the Herring decision and has been a reliable vote for narrowing the protections afforded criminal defendants since he joined the court in 2006. In applying for a job in the Reagan Justice Department in 1985, he wrote that his interest in the law had been “motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure,” religious freedom and voting rights.

Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was considered a moderate in criminal procedure cases.

“With Alito’s replacement of O’Connor,” said Craig M. Bradley, a law professor at Indiana University, “suddenly now they have four votes for sure and possibly five for the elimination of the exclusionary rule.”

The four certain votes, in the opinion of Professor Bradley and other legal scholars, are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, who is also an alumnus of the Reagan administration.

The fate of the rule seems to turn on the views of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has sent mixed signals on the question. As in so many areas of the law, there are indications that the court’s liberal and conservative wings are eagerly courting him. They are also no doubt looking for the case that, with Justice Kennedy’s vote, will settle the issue once and for all.

The United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.

Other nations balance the two interests case by case or rely on other ways to deter police wrongdoing directly, including professional discipline, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

In Herring, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to be advocating those kinds of approaches. “To trigger the exclusionary rule,” he wrote, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.”

That price, the chief justice wrote, “is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.”

The Herring decision can be read broadly or narrowly, and its fate in the lower courts is unclear. The conduct at issue in the case — in which an Alabama man, Bennie D. Herring, was arrested on officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant — was sloppy recordkeeping in a police database rather than a mistake by an officer on the scene. Since the misconduct at issue in Herring was, in the legal jargon, “attenuated from the arrest,” the decision may apply only to a limited number of cases.

But the balance of the opinion is studded with sweeping suggestions that all sorts of police carelessness should not require, in Chief Justice Roberts’s words, that juries be barred from “considering all the evidence.”

A broad reading of the decision by the lower courts, Professor Bradley said, means “the death of the exclusionary rule as a practical matter.”

In one of the first trial court decisions to interpret Herring, a federal judge in New Jersey took the broader view, refusing to suppress evidence obtained from computer hard drives under a search warrant based on false information supplied by a Secret Service agent. The agent had told the judge that DVDs found during an earlier search contained child pornography.

This was false: other law enforcement officials had reviewed the DVDs and had found no child pornography. The agent, who was leading the investigation, testified that he did not know of that review when he made his statement.

“This conduct,” Judge Stanley R. Chesler wrote a week after Herring was decided, “while hardly qualifying as a model of efficient, careful and cooperative law enforcement, does not rise to the level of culpability that the Supreme Court held in Herring must be apparent for the exclusionary rule to serve its deterrent purpose and outweigh the cost of suppressing evidence.”

Constitutional adjudication is not a science experiment, and it is often hard to say for sure what difference a change in personnel makes. In the case of the exclusionary rule, though, you can get pretty close.

================

Page 2 of 2)



On Jan. 9, 2006, just months after Chief Justice Roberts joined the court, the justices heard arguments in Hudson v. Michigan. The police in Detroit had violated the constitutional requirement that they knock and announce themselves before storming the home of Booker T. Hudson, and the question in the case was whether the drugs they found should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule


Justice O’Connor, in her last weeks on the court while the Senate considered Justice Alito’s nomination, was almost certainly the swing vote, and she showed her cards.

“Is there no policy protecting the homeowner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?” she asked a government lawyer, her tone sharp and flinty.

David A. Moran, who argued the case for Mr. Hudson, was feeling good after the argument. “I was pretty confident that I’d won,” he said in a recent interview. “O’Connor had pretty clearly spoken on my side.”

Three months later, the court called for reargument, signaling a 4-to-4 deadlock after Justice O’Connor’s departure. Justice Alito was on the court now, and the tenor of the second argument was entirely different.

Now Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who seemed to have been at work on a majority opinion in favor of Mr. Hudson, saw a looming catastrophe. The court, Justice Breyer said, was about to “let a kind of computer virus loose in the Fourth Amendment.”

Justice Breyer had reason to be wary. When the 5-to-4 decision was announced in June, the court not only ruled that violations of the knock-and-announce rule do not require the suppression of evidence but also called into question the exclusionary rule itself.

In a law review article later that year, Mr. Moran went even further. “My 5-4 loss in Hudson v. Michigan,” he wrote, “signals the end of the Fourth Amendment as we know it.”

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said that much had changed since the Mapp decision in 1961. People whose rights were violated may now sue police officers, and police departments are more professional. In light of these factors, he wrote, “resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt is unjustified.”

Justice Scalia cited the work of a criminologist, Samuel Walker, to support his point about increased police professionalism. Professor Walker responded with an opinion article in The Los Angeles Times saying that Justice Scalia had misrepresented his work. Better police work, Professor Walker said, was a consequence of the exclusionary rule rather than a reason to do away with it.

Justice Kennedy signed the majority decision, adopting Justice Scalia’s sweeping language. Oddly, though, he also wrote separately to say that “the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt.”

Another important Warren Court decision on criminal procedure, Miranda v. Arizona, appears to remain secure. Miranda, as anyone with a television set knows, protected a suspect’s right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer by requiring a warning not found in the Constitution. The decision, like Mapp, was the subject of much criticism in the Reagan years.

But in a pragmatic 7-to-2 decision in 2000, the Rehnquist Court refused to revisit the issue. Miranda warnings, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority, had “become embedded in routine police practice” and had “become part of the national culture.” Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Defenders of the exclusionary rule breathed a sigh of relief in November

“From the point of view of a liberal concerned about criminal procedure,” said Yale Kamisar, a law professor at the University of San Diego, “we were saved by Barack Obama in the nick of time. If ever there was a court that was establishing the foundations for overthrowing the exclusionary rule, it was this one.”

For now, said Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford, “they don’t have five votes to disavow the exclusionary rule by name.”

At the same time, Professor Karlan said, “you are not going to see any dimension along which there is going to be an expansion of defendants’ rights in this court.”
23733  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self Defense with Pistols on: January 31, 2009, 04:59:40 AM
Careful eechurch, GM can be relentless with logic  cheesy
23734  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Suppliments: Legal and Illegal on: January 31, 2009, 04:58:25 AM
Because Top Dog and Salty Dog were true heavyweights and I was a cruiserweight.
23735  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / NYT Hits in football: on: January 31, 2009, 04:54:31 AM
TAMPA, Fla. — Isaac Newton’s apple hurt considerably less than Ryan Clark’s coconut. But they did have a few things in common.


A head-on hit from the Jets’ Eric Smith sent the Cardinals’ Anquan Boldin to the hospital.

Clark’s shockingly violent hit on the Baltimore Ravens’ Willis McGahee two Sundays ago — a full-speed, helmet-to-helmet crash that left McGahee unconscious and Clark all but — didn’t just follow the N.F.L.’s rules, but Newton’s as well. Force equaled mass times acceleration. Momentum was conserved. And the bodies finally came to rest, McGahee’s on a stretcher.

“How I look at it, you can be the hammer or the nail,” the inner scientist in Clark explained this week. “I try to be the hammer.”

The tackle, the art of making the ball carrier not stay in motion, is football’s most primeval action. Amusing physicists the way batting averages do actuaries, collisions lead the highlight reels, impart the force of a deadly car crash, and rely upon kinematics that date to a considerably different big bang.

Sunday’s Super Bowl could very well ride on how well the Steelers’ defense — known as perhaps the most fearsome and bone-clattering in the N.F.L. — can tackle the Arizona Cardinals’ fast and evasive wide receivers. From angles and acceleration to speed and centers of gravity, players might not understand the physics of tackling, but they know how to wield it.

“It’s all about timing and leverage,” Cardinals safety Adrian Wilson said. “Being able to time the hit the right way, and the leverage you’ve got to have once you make impact so the other player goes back, and not you.”

Trying to trip up or throw down a ball carrier with only one’s arms can be a risky maneuver. Barreling straight into him with 200-plus pounds of muscle at 20 miles an hour is a more reliable impediment.

From there, Newton’s second law of motion (force equals mass times acceleration) and conservation of momentum take over. Mass is the players’ weight, which in the N.F.L. grows higher every decade. Acceleration is not that of the incoming tackler, as is often assumed, but how quickly both the defender and runner slow down through impact.

It is this duration of impact, between one- and two-tenths of a second by many estimates, that has tremendous effect on the force of a football collision. Hard objects repel each other quickly; equally heavy but softer objects have “give” that allows their contact to last longer and accept the force less jarringly. It’s the difference between being hit by a baseball and being hit by an overripe peach.

“The tackler doesn’t want his body to be a big spring — these players lower their shoulder and tense up and launch to make their force go up,” said Stefan Duma, a professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech who has studied the similarities between football collisions and car crashes. “It’s like trying to break down a door — you try to get all your mass behind you and drive it through one point. You want to get all your mass to act as one mass, one missile.”

Reaching the ball carrier at full speed is crucial, as any deceleration before impact saps force from the hit. This is where angles come in, said Timothy Gay, a professor of physics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the author of “Football Physics: The Science of the Game.” Football instincts allow the best safeties to anticipate where the runner or receiver will be and then take the shortest route to him, maintaining speed and even allowing for one final push.

“Jack Tatum was vicious — that helps — but he had a way of popping with the perfect angle and timing,” Gay said of the former Oakland Raiders safety called the Assassin in both reverence and fear. “The best hitters accelerate at the last instant. That final jolt of speed allows them to apply a bigger force to their victim.”

Ask a physicist and a coach where that force should be applied, and they can answer differently. Gay said that the hit should be applied at the runner’s center of mass — just below the rib cage in the center of the chest — to direct all the force into stopping his forward motion. Missing that spot by too much, Gay said, “Causes the ball carrier to rotate around his center of mass, and he might not go down. The announcer would say, ‘He bounced off him.’ ”

But Ray Horton, the Steelers’ defensive backs coach, preaches a different approach. He is all for the ball carrier rotating, as long as he does so violently enough to wind up on the turf.

“We teach you tackle at the knees — if you tackle at the thigh to the shoulders, that’s his power box,” Horton said. “If I want something to tip over, I don’t want to hit it in its center of gravity, because it might go straight back and stay upright. If I want it to go down, I want to hit below the center of gravity, and that’s why we hit by the knees.”

Horton added: “Low man wins. If you hit him too high, he’s going to run you over because of the physics of how big these guys are.”



Page 2 of 2)



Which is why trying to run over the most massive running backs, from Earl Campbell to Brandon Jacobs, is asking for your action to get an equal and opposite (not to mention embarrassing) reaction, with you on the ground and the runner continuing onward. Because momentum — defined as mass times velocity — is conserved in all collisions, Jacobs moving at any decent speed is almost impossible to stop by an outweighed defender’s merely running into him. Tripping him or wrapping him up and waiting for help is a far better option, as long as you are not under him when he finally falls.

Running backs do not sustain the hardest shots in football, though. Few plays get more oohs and aahs than when a lithe receiver crosses the middle and, with or without the ball, gets hit squarely by an oncoming safety.
Duma suggested imagining the body as a primary mass (the torso) in the middle with several other masses connected by springs (the limbs and neck) attached to it. When the tense and intent defender hits the center of this object, the torso accelerates back while the head and feet stay behind temporarily, before flopping back. These are the hits that make the highlights.

Duma said that in his experience — he watches dozens of N.F.L. games each season — these hits are more frequent at the end of games already in hand.

“When you’re up, your defense hits harder,” Duma said. “They take more risks. If you come across the middle on the slant, they’re going to go after you and not worry about missing the tackle and giving up the touchdown.”

He added: “I think that’s what you saw on the Clark-McGahee hit at the end of the last game. I saw it a lot in these playoffs. Baltimore against the Dolphins, they were just leveling people. Ed Reed could run all over the backfield, and if he was out of position, they wouldn’t lose the game.”

Clark appeared to concur. On Wednesday, he said: “The McGahee hit, that was a point where I probably could have stopped and waited and tried to tackle him, but it’s sad to say I think I closed my eyes and I was praying that I’d wake up when I hit the ground.”

In the end, players leave physics out of their own definitions of hard hits. Anquan Boldin, the Cardinals’ receiver who was hit so high and hard by a Jets defender earlier this season that he now has 7 plates and 40 screws in his face, said he defined the perfect hit as “when you get hit hard enough to make you rethink about having anything to do with the ball,” which apparently the Jets hit still was not. Clark said, “What makes a good hit is not getting fined.”

Clark said he was not particularly familiar with Newton’s laws — but then offered his own theory of momentum, one he plans to use in Sunday’s Super Bowl.

“A good hit can change the momentum of the game,” he said. “If we come out there and hit them, be physical with them, and get a good hit early, I think they might go back to the quarterback and say, ‘How ’bout you not throw the ball in there?’ ”
23736  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / A song from my youth on: January 30, 2009, 09:17:35 PM
Do your balls hang low?
Do they wobble too and fro?
Can you tie them in a knot and
throw them over your shoulder
like a Continental Solidier (reference to American Revolution)
Do your balls hang low?
23737  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Facebook on: January 30, 2009, 07:27:25 PM
Oh.  smiley
23738  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Visual puns on: January 30, 2009, 06:39:51 PM

Visual puns
http://www.ripleywoodbury.com:80/News/VisPun.html
23739  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A thoroughly depressing rant on: January 30, 2009, 06:15:59 PM
The Suicide Of Marlboro Man

The Price Of Freedom Is Slavery. Sort Of. A Little Anyway

 








The other days I was reading G. Gordon Liddy's book of conservative nostalgia, When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country. He paints a sunset picture of former times when America was free, farmers could fill in swamps without violating wetland laws, and guns were just guns. People were independent and had character, and made their own economic decisions. The market ruled as it ought, and governmental intrusion was minimal.

The picture is accurate. I lived it. I wish it would come back, which it won't. It was a world certain to kill itself.

What happens is that, in an independent-minded rural county full of hardy yeomen, the density of population grows, either nearby or at distant points on each side. A highway comes through because the truckers lobby in Washington wants it. Building a highway is A Good Thing, because it represents Progress, and provides jobs for a year.

It also makes the country accessible to the big city fifty miles away. A real-estate developer buys 500 acres along the river from the self-reliant character-filled owner. He does this by offering sums of money that water the farmer's eyes.

First, 500 houses go up in a bedroom suburb called Brook Dale Manor. A year later, 500 more go up at Dale View Estates. This is A Good Thing, because the character-filled independent now-former farmer is exercising his property rights, and because building the suburb creates jobs. The river now looks ugly as the devil, but this is a wacko issue.

At Safeway corporate headquarters, way off God knows where, the new population shows up as a denser shade of green on a computer screen. A new Safeway goes in along the highway. This is A Good Thing, exemplifying free enterprise in action and creating jobs in construction. Further, Safeway sells cheaper, more varied and, truth be known, better food than the half-dozen mom-and-pop stores in the county, which go out of business.

Soon the mall men in the big city hear of the county. A billion-dollar company has no difficulty in buying out a character-filled, self-reliant farmer who makes less than forty thousand dollars a year. A shopping center arrives with a Wal-Mart. This is A Good Thing, etc. Wal-Mart sells almost everything cheaply.

It also puts most of the stores in the country seat out of business. With them go the restaurants, which no longer have the walk-by traffic previously generated by the stores. With the restaurants goes the sense of community that flourishes in a town with eateries and stores and a town square. But this is granola philosophy, appealing only to meddlesome lefties.

K-Mart arrives, along with, beside the highway, McDonald's, Arby's, Roy Rogers, and the other way stations on route to coronary occlusion. Strip development is A Good Thing because it represents the exercise of economic freedom. The county's commerce is now controlled by distant behemoths to whom the place is the equivalent of a pin on a map.

This is A Good Thing. The jobs in these outlets are secure and comfortable. The independent, character-filled frontiersmen are now low-level chain employees, no longer independent because they can be fired.

A third suburb, Brook Manor View Downs, appears. The displaced urbanites in these eyesores now outnumber the character-filled etcs. They are also smarter, have lawyers among their ranks, and co-operate. They quickly come to control the government of the county.

They want city sewerage, more roads, schools, and zoning. The latter isn't unreasonable. In a sparsely settled county, a few hogs penned out back and a crumbling Merc on blocks don't matter. In a quarter-acre yuppie ghetto, they do. Next come leash laws and dog licenses. The boisterous clouds of floppy-eared hounds turn illegal.

Prices go up, as do taxes. The profits of farming and commercial crabbing in the river do not go up. The farmers and fishermen are gradually forced to sell their land to developers, and to go into eight-to-fiving. Unfortunately you cannot simultaneously be character-filled and independent and be afraid of your boss. A hardy self-reliant farmer, when he becomes a security guard at the Gap, is a rented peon. The difference between an independent yeoman and a second-rate handyman is independence.

People make more money, and buy houses in Manor Dale Mews, but have less control over their time, and so no longer build their own barns, wire their houses, and change their own clutch-plates. Prosperity is A Good Thing. Its effect is that the children of the hardy yeoman become dependent on others to change their oil, fix their furnaces, and repair their boats.

The new urban majority are frightened by guns. They don't hunt, knowing that food comes from Safeway and its newly-arrived competitor, Giant. They do not like independent countrymen, whom they refer to as rednecks, grits, and hillbillies. Hunting makes no sense to them anyway, since the migratory flocks are vanishing with the wetlands.

Truth be told, it isn't safe to have people firing rifles and shotguns in what is increasingly an appendage of the city. The clout of the newcomers makes it harder for the independent whatevers to let their weapons even be seen in public. The dump is closed to rat-shooting.

The children of the hardy rustics do not do as well in school as the offspring of the commuting infestation, and are slowly marginalized. Crime goes up as social bonds break down. Before, everyone pretty much knew everyone and what his car looked like. Strangers stood out. Teenagers raised hell, but there were limits. Now the anonymity of numbers sets in and, anyway, there's no community any longer.

And so the rural character-filled county becomes another squishy suburb of pallid yups who can't put air in their own tires. The rugged rural individualists become cogs in somebody else's wheel. Their children grow up as libidinous mall monkeys drugging themselves to escape boredom. The county itself is a hideous expanse of garish low-end development . People's lives are run from afar.

What it comes to is that the self-reliant yeoman's inalienable right to dispose of his property as he sees fit (which I do not dispute) will generally lead to a developer's possession of it. The inalienable right to reproduce will result in crowding, which leads to dependency, intrusive government, and loss of local control.

I'd like to live again in Mr. Liddy's world. Unfortunately it is self-eliminating. Freedom is in the long run inconsistent with freedom, because it is inevitable exercised in ways that engender control. As a species, we just can't keep our pants up. But it was nice for a while.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Liddy.shtml
23740  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Rest in Peace on: January 30, 2009, 06:11:33 PM
On Tuesday morning Grand Master Helio Gracie was tanning at his ranch
in Brazil, and on Thursday morning at 9:15 he passed on due to natural
causes. His legacy will survive forever in all members of the Gracie
Family, jiu-jitsu practitioners around the world, and all those who
have benefited from the revolution he began.

In his final years, the creator of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu often spoke of his
satisfaction with his life's work. He openly stated that he had
accomplished everything he had set out to do, displaying his
preparedness for the transition into the afterlife.

The Grand Master believed that such a transition should be seen as a
positive step in one's spiritual evolution. In a recent interview he
declared: "I've already told my sons that when I die I want there to
be a party. No drinking, no debauchery."

To honor his request and his legacy, the Gracie Academy will host a
celebratory gathering/slideshow presentation on Saturday, February 7,
2009. In anticipation of a large turnout of friends and family, we
intend to have three showings starting at 4:00pm, 5:00pm and 6:00pm.
If you can't make it to the party, but would like to express how the
Grand Master has affected your life, please send your story to
heliogracie@gracieacademy.com so we can post it on the Gracie Academy
website.
23741  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: January 30, 2009, 06:10:22 PM
Newt Gingrich does movie about President Ronald Reagan

http://www.gingrichproductions.com/
23742  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self Defense with Pistols on: January 30, 2009, 06:05:24 PM
From the TPI forum:
==================================

everyone is familiar with 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz'. It was the first of 14 novels written by L. Frank Baum at the turn of the last century. My personal favorite installment is the fourth, 'Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz'. Did you know that the Wizard carried two handguns?

In Chapter 11 'They Meet The Wooden Gargoyles' we find this passage.

-------------

"Jim's right," sighed the Wizard. "There's going to be trouble, and my sword isn't stout enough to cut up those wooden bodies—so I shall have to get out my revolvers."

He got his satchel from the buggy and, opening it, took out two deadly looking revolvers that made the children shrink back in alarm just to look at.

"What harm can the Gurgles do?" asked Dorothy. "They have no weapons to hurt us with."

"Each of their arms is a wooden club," answered the little man, "and I'm sure the creatures mean mischief, by the looks of their eyes. Even these revolvers can merely succeed in damaging a few of their wooden bodies, and after that we will be at their mercy."

"But why fight at all, in that case?" asked the girl.

"So I may die with a clear conscience," returned the Wizard, gravely. "It's every man's duty to do the best he knows how; and I'm going to do it."
23743  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Michael Yon in Afghanistan on: January 30, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
Michael Yon is a truly great American who background, intelligence, courage, and integrity make him one of the great war correspondents.  IMHO America's weak link is our clarity about the nature of this war and our knowledge about how we are doing.

Dog Brothers Martial Arts makes a substantial monthly donation to Michael Yon.

Do you?
23744  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Yon on: January 30, 2009, 05:49:39 PM
Michael Yon is a truly great American who background, intelligence, courage, and integrity make him one of the great war correspondents.  IMHO America's weak link is our clarity about the nature of this war and our knowledge about how we are doing.

Dog Brothers Martial Arts makes a substantial monthly donation to Michael Yon.

Do you?
23745  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Suppliments: Legal and Illegal on: January 30, 2009, 05:29:21 PM
I have been sorely tempted by steroids over the years, but ultimately decided to pass.

I saw too many people who followed that path:

a) not spend the substantial $$$ that go with proper medical testing and supervision, and
b) find it hard to be motivated by the lesser results that are the reality of mere mortals-- i.e. they found it hard to train when they weren't juicing, and

For me these two points added up to steroids being contrary to my path of being a warrior for all my days.

TAC,
Crafty Dog
23746  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Facebook on: January 30, 2009, 05:23:12 PM
Ummm , , , Tom , , , search it for what?  huh
23747  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / from Scott Grannis's blog on: January 30, 2009, 01:21:41 PM
The silver lining to the faux-stimulus bill
It looks to me like the "stimulus" bill that passed the House is rapidly losing support. That's not surprising, since it was so absolutely awful. If this disgraceful display of politics run wild does not cast serious doubt on the seriousness of Congress and the intelligence of our new president, nothing will. And that is the good news, because only something this bad can mobilize support for something that does make sense. The Senate needs to do its job now, and recast this effort to help the economy using reason, experience and logic, rather than pure partisan politics. Above all, our senators need to focus on the fact that simply handing out money to favored constituents and creating vast new spending programs that will take years to deploy is the worst possible way to stimulate the economy. True stimulus needs to focus on changing people's incentives to work, invest, and take risk. That means tax cuts, not tax rebates, and any changes should apply to anyone or any company that pays taxes.

If we're lucky, the debate in the Senate might last long enough that we discover that a stimulus bill is not really necessary after all.

Ben Stein reminds us just how awful the current bill was:

Eight hours of debate in the HR to pass a bill spending $820 billion, or roughly $102 billion per hour of debate.

Only ten per cent of the "stimulus" to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ or both members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for President Obama to have read the entire bill.

For the amount spent we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000. We could give every person who had lost a job and is now passing through long-term unemployment of six months or longer roughly $300,000.
23748  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: January 30, 2009, 01:07:21 PM
Hence the title of the thread  cheesy
23749  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Dog Brothers Facebook on: January 30, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
Hola a Todos:

No entiendo el fenomeno para nada, pero mi esposa me dice que cuando yo vea, voy a entender.  Obedeciendo sus ordenes  cheesy se les informo que Dog Brothers Martial Arts ahora tiene un grupo en Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51885866231

La Aventura continua!
Guro Crafty
23750  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PP: BO growing orchids in Oval Office? on: January 30, 2009, 12:23:01 PM
Not of much significance compared to the clusterfcuk coming down the rails, but a little factoid which speaks volumes:

Speaking of heat, Barack Obama is feeling it in the Oval Office. But that's just because the thermostat is cranked up. "He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said his senior adviser, David Axelrod. (Wait, we thought he was from Indonesia. Er, Chicago. Oh, never mind.) "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there." So what about Obama's admonition in May? "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," he said, "and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Obviously, he didn't mean that he couldn't keep his home at 72 during the winter.
Pages: 1 ... 473 474 [475] 476 477 ... 656
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!