Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2016, 06:55:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94834 Posts in 2311 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 604 605 [606] 607 608 ... 735
30251  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mexico-US matters on: May 08, 2008, 10:11:40 PM
May 8, 2008

Acting Head of Mexico’s Police Killed

Filed at 3:31 p.m. ET

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico's acting federal police chief was shot dead Thursday outside his home -- a brazen attack that comes as drug traffickers increasingly lash back at a nationwide crackdown on organized crime.

Edgar Millan Gomez was shot 10 times after he opened the door to his Mexico City apartment complex, where at least one gunman was waiting for him before dawn, the Public Safety Department said. Two bodyguards were also wounded. Millan died hours later in a hospital.

President Felipe Calderon's government said Millan played a vital role in the country's battle against organized crime and denounced ''this cowardly killing of an exemplary official.''  Millan, 41, was named acting chief of the federal police March 1 after his superior was promoted to a deputy Cabinet position, said a police official who was not authorized to give his name.  The official said police were investigating and had not yet determined a motive for the pre-dawn attack. One suspect with a record of car theft was arrested.

Mexico has suffered a wave of organized crime and drug-related violence in which more than 2,500 people died last year alone.  Since taking office in 2006, Calderon has sent more than 24,000 soldiers to drug hotspots, and Millan was in charge of coordinating operations between the federal police and those troops.

Cartels have responded fiercely to the nationwide offensive, killing soldiers and federal police in unprecedented attacks. But until recently, most of those killings took place in northern Mexico where drug gangs rule large areas of territory. Now criminals appear to be getting more brash with daring slayings in the capital.

George Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, said Millan's death ''shows the increasing audacity of the cartels.''

''This happened in Mexico City where people like Millan tend to be quite cautious, often sleeping in different houses on different nights, and who have their own security patrols,'' he said. ''When you can get someone like this, no one is safe.''

Millan was the second top federal police official killed in less than a week in Mexico City. A Mexican federal police intelligence analyst was killed on May 2 in an apparent armed robbery attempt outside his home.

In January, police in Mexico City arrested three men with assault rifles and grenade launchers who were allegedly planning to assassinate Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, a top prosecutor who oversees the extradition of drug traffickers.

Millan was involved in solving a number of high-profiling kidnappings.  In 2000, he helped capture one of Mexico's most feared kidnappers, Andres Caletri, and disband two notorious abduction rings. In 2001, he was named head of anti-kidnapping operations for the Federal Agency of Investigation, Mexico's version of the FBI.  Under his direction, agents captured five suspects involved in the abduction of Ruben Omar Romano, the coach of Mexico's Cruz Azul soccer team in 2005.
Top policeman shot dead in Mexico
A senior Mexican police official has been gunned down in the capital, Mexico City, officials have said.
Edgar Millan Gomez was in charge of co-ordinating national police operations against drugs traffickers.
He was shot nine times outside his home early on Thursday and died later in hospital, officials said. Two of his bodyguards were wounded in the attack.
Police are investigating if the attack was drug-related. Several top policemen have been killed in the past week.
Police said a group of gunmen had attacked Mr Millan.
"They were hunting him," a spokesman for the security ministry told Reuters news agency.
Police have arrested a 34-year-old man in connection with the attack.
Lucrative trafficking routes
Mexico has seen a surge in drug-related killings recently. Last year, 2,500 people were killed; so far this year, 1,100 people have been killed.
Two other senior police officers were killed in Mexico City in separate incidents last week.
And earlier this week, a senior officer in Ciudad Juarez - across the border from the United States - was ambushed as he left police headquarters.
President Felipe Calderon has sent nearly 30,000 soldiers and federal police to fight Mexico's powerful drug cartels since he took office in 2006.
The drugs cartels have fought back by attacking security forces. They are also fighting with each other to control lucrative trafficking routes.
Story from BBC NEWS:
30252  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PD WSJ on: May 08, 2008, 01:02:09 PM

How Obama Won the Cable TV Primary

Broadcasters on cable TV shows used to pride themselves on their efforts to be objective or at least not overt in their biases. But much has changed as the cable TV news universe has been morphed into a fierce competition with the emergence of ratings leader Fox News, which clearly appeals to a conservative-leaning audience. CNN, the old ratings favorite, still leans left but has made efforts at balance. MSNBC, on the other hand, seems to be seeking out more and more liberal-minded viewers.

But not all liberals are created equal, which has resulted in frequent complaints from Hillary Clinton supporters that the network is biased against her in the current primary fights. Last night, Hardball host Chris Matthews added fuel to that fire when he appeared for a speech at Harvard's Institute of Politics.

According to attendees, Mr. Matthews heaped praise upon Mr. Obama during his talk. So much so that during the Q&A, he was asked by an audience member if MSNBC officially backed the Illinois Senator. "Well, it's not official," Mr. Matthews replied in a burst of candor. He then launched into a rambling answer that appeared aimed at partially retracting his admission and ended with the assertion that all of his bosses at MSNBC had backed the Iraq war.

But MSNBC does not have much of a defense. During Tuesday night's primary coverage, the pro-Obama spin was so obvious that the political tipsheet Hotline joked that MSNBC's enthusiasm level for the Obama campaign registered somewhere between Richard Simmons and the "American Idol" girl who cried over Sanjaya.

The storyline of the 2008 election has been dramatically influenced by the favoritism shown Mr. Obama in certain media circles. John Harris, editor of, has said he was forced to put certain reporters sent to cover Mr. Obama through a rehab program after they returned to the office. Back in January, NBC News anchor Brian Williams noted that Lee Cowan, the reporter NBC had sent to cover Mr. Obama, had told him that "it is hard to stay objective covering this guy."

Some media reevaluations of Mr. Obama are now taking place, fueled in part by revelations such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that are hard to ignore. But the simple truth is that Mr. Obama has had a free media ride for so long that he effectively wrapped up the Democratic nomination before any of his political weaknesses were generally known.

As Hillary Clinton wrestles with a way to continue her underdog fight against Mr. Obama, she is said to be seething about the kid-glove coverage he was accorded for so long. What she forgets is that back in 1992, when Bill Clinton and she were the new kids on the political block, they too benefited from glowing coverage that pushed off close analysis of their many problems until after 1992 election was over.

-- John Fund

Continuing the Jones Act

The Jones family has represented a Congressional district in North Carolina for 40 out of the last 42 years, with Democrat Walter Jones Sr. leaving office in 1992 and his son Walter Jr. taking over two years later -- though, in a twist, this younger Jones was elected as a Republican.

And a rare kind of Republican too. In recent years, he has aligned himself with the Ron Paul school of Republicanism, and voted against many Bush administration foreign policy priorities. An original supporter of the Iraq war, the younger Mr. Jones started voting against the war in 2005 and had warm words for Mr. Paul during the latter's presidential bid.

That brought him a vigorous challenge in Tuesday's GOP primary from Joe McLaughlin, a conservative local official who said Mr. Jones was consorting with the far left and undermining U.S. troops who are stationed in the strongly pro-military district. The race "is not even about Walter Jones. It's about the future of the Republican Party in the 3rd District. And if he wins, it's virtually the end of the party," Mr. McLaughlin claimed.

But beating an incumbent is always an uphill struggle, and Rep. Jones was able to outspend his challenger some five to one. In the end, Mr. McLaughlin's apocalyptic warnings did not resonate with district voters who had known the Jones family for decades. The congressman won 60% of the vote on Tuesday.

No doubt his victory does not mean his constituents share his anti-war views. But it does mean that if a congressman has built up enough credibility on other issues, voters will often forgive him for going against them so long as it appears to them to be a principled stand.

-- John Fund

Quote of the Day I

"There are various exit strategies right now. Number one would be, go out on a win. So, stay in until West Virginia, where Sen. Clinton is likely the winner, and Kentucky on May 20, and after that, bow out.... But the big one, Charlie -- and this is what some people close to the Clintons are talking about: Is there a way to negotiate a settlement with Barack Obama to have Sen. Clinton on the ticket...? Can he get over the bitterness of this campaign? Can he be convinced that it's the strongest ticket? Third, of course, would Sen. Clinton take it? I think if it was offered in the right way, yes" -- ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, last night reporting that Hillary Clinton is angling for the No. 2 spot on an Obama ticket.

Quote of the Day II

"Most of all, [Hillary Clinton] was too late in understanding how much the Democratic Party's mania for 'fairness,' as mandated by liberals like her, has, by forbidding winner-take-all primaries, made it nearly impossible for her to overcome Obama's early lead in delegates.... If even, say, Texas, California and Ohio were permitted to have winner-take-all primaries (as 48 states have winner-take-all allocation of their electoral votes), Clinton would have been more than 400 delegates ahead of Obama before Tuesday and today would be at her ancestral home in New York planning to return some of its furniture to the White House next January" -- syndicated columnist George F. Will.

Healing the Breach with Hispanics

The fast-growing Hispanic population in America has also proved a growing political problem for the Republican Party. The GOP's share of the Hispanic vote plummeted after the last Republican Congress's angry debate on immigration reform. That episode, which quickly focused on fence-building and deportations, created a portion of the electorate that now holds the Republican Party in increasing contempt.

Exit polls from the 2004 election show Hispanic voters favored Democratic candidates in Congressional elections by 55%-44% margin. Two years later, that margin more than doubled, with Hispanics favoring Democratic candidates by 62%-37%. In some states, several enforcement-only hardliners lost what had been Republican districts to more moderate Democratic challengers. In Arizona alone, Rep. J.D. Hayworth lost his seat to Democrat Harry Mitchell, while State Senator Gabrielle Giffords, also a Democrat, won an open seat previously held by a senior Republican when she beat an anti-illegal immigration activist.

This year, GOP strategists have warned that their party is in danger of categorically ruling out competing among Hispanic voters for perhaps a generation to come.

At least one state Republican Party is trying to engage Hispanic voters before it's too late. This weekend, the Florida GOP will host a Hispanic Leadership Council Conference featuring keynote addresses from Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Rep. Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico, and home-state Senator Mel Martinez -- three of the leading Hispanic voices in the party today.

"The Hispanic vote and the African American vote is the future of the Republican Party," Florida party chair Jim Greer says (Mr. Greer held a similar event aimed at African American voters late last year). To get the groups involved, he adds: "We ensure that they have a seat at the table, and wherever [the Republican Party has] failed in the past, we correct that."

It is a help to the GOP that John McCain is the party's standard-bearer in this year's presidential contest. Mr. McCain is far more moderate on immigration issues than most of his primary rivals were, several of whom proposed steps just short of outright deportation of undocumented aliens. And while Mr. McCain has recently backed off his support for a comprehensive approach that would include a guest-worker program, telling conservative voters in his own base that he understands their concerns about rewarding illegal behavior, his legislative and political record could prove more appealing to Hispanic voters, or at least less damaging to the party's chances with those voters, than anything his erstwhile rivals could have offered.

If Mr. Greer's efforts to woo Hispanic voters works (and he says the Hispanic constituency is "critically important" to a successful GOP presidential campaign in Florida), the idea could be exported to other states in time for Congressional elections in 2010. But if others choose the route of ex-Rep. Hayworth and the immigration hardliners, the damage to party's reputation with Hispanic voters could be severe and long lasting.

30253  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Yon on: May 08, 2008, 11:31:03 AM
Some folks have asked if I plan to do book signings in stores. None are planned because I need to take care of business here before heading back to the war, but I have been making dozens of media appearances and many more are scheduled this month.  The big issue at hand is the launch of my book Moment of Truth in Iraq.  Doesn't do any good to spend all that time on the battlefields if I do not take time to convey the facts to folks at home.
I'll try to sign one more gigantic stack of Moment of Truth before heading back to the war, but for those folks who were buying signed copies for Christmas presents, now is the best time as we still have about a thousand signed copies. is fully stocked and has the lowest current price--$17.97 as I type this.

Moment of Truth is available at all Barnes & Noble stores and at at a reduced price.  Please click the link and enter your zip code to check availability of Moment of Truth in Iraq at nearby stores. This function maps nearby stores with copies in stock.
Great to be back in America but sure comes with a lot of work before heading back to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Next time you see a service member in an airport, please say "thank you" to him or her.  Those simple words go a long, long way.  Back in the war, I often have heard combat soldiers saying how good it made them feel when someone in an airport simply said "thank you" and kept on walking.  Very powerful words.  They hugely appreciate those words.
Your correspondent,
Michael Yon
30254  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Wilson: Law and Liberty on: May 08, 2008, 10:33:54 AM
"Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes
oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its
name, and becomes licentiousness."

-- James Wilson (Of the Study of the Law in the United States,
Circa 1790)

Reference: The Works of James Wilson, Andrews, ed., vol. 1 (7)
30255  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Case Study: knifing victim testimony on: May 08, 2008, 08:20:49 AM

I mean, I didn't know it at the time, but I had my guts hanging out of my stomach, my temple was slashed.
I was basically fighting for my life, and I was just in that fighting mode, I remember jumping into his car and kneeing him in his face.
That's when my friend said, Mike, stop; you've been stabbed, and I looked up in my stomach and --
Q   Explain to us, how is it that after this clash, you ended up in the front seat of this vehicle?
A   I can't tell you how I got in his vehicle.  I don't remember that.  I really don't.  All I remember is that I was in that fighting mode.
No law, nothing was in my head that was -- you know what I mean.  At that point, I was in a fighting mode.  Some one has got to stop me at that point.
Q   But you do remember going towards the driver's side of the vehicle driven by this male and going towards that door?
A   Yes, yes.
Q   Did you enter the vehicle?
A   I didn't enter it.  I didn't -- like, I reached in there and grabbed his head.
Q   You did?
Well, explain to us, to the best of your recollection, how is it that this male that was driving this vehicle proceeded from between the two of your vehicles towards the front door of his vehicle?
A   I can't tell you that.  I don't know.
Q   Did you see him do that?
A   See him do what; go to his car?
Q   Go to his car after the clash.
A   I mean, I couldn't give you an honest answer.  I don't remember.  I mean, I do remember, somehow, he had his legs out of the car; and I do remember going there and grabbing his head and kneeing his face, and I remember that's what ended the fight.
That's when my friend said, Mike, stop fighting.  You're hurt.  Because I didn't feel any of that.
Q   Any other reason in your mind why you went towards the front door of his vehicle?
A   Like I said, I was in fight mode.  I wasn't thinking clearly.  That's the only explanation I have.
I mean, I was bleeding to death.
I wasn't in my right -- if I could do it all over again, I wouldn't have followed him.  I would have pulled over and let him go, but you know, that's not what happened.
I didn't do everything text book right, but like I said, it was just instincts.  I couldn't help it.
Q   So, you're guts were hanging out of your stomach; were you intestines actually hanging out of your stomach?
A   Yes.  My friend was holding in my stomach for me.
Q   Who was?
A   My friend in the car was holding in my stomach for me so they wouldn't lay on the car seat.
Q   Before this clash took place between these two vehicles, did you make any gestures towards the vehicle driven by the male?
A   Before anything happened?
Q   Before, you testified there was a clash, and a clash occurred between he vehicle driven by the male and the vehicle driven by your wife.
A   Right.
Q   That was the first physical contact.
A   Yes.
Q   Before that occurred that evening on that day, did you make any gestures towards the vehicle that was driven by this male?
A   No, sir.  If I did, I might have a reason -- I might understand why it was he swerved.  That's why I can't understand what the point of that swerve was.
As soon as I looked over at him, he swerved.  I can't understand what caused him to do that. 
Q   Did anybody in you vehicle make any gestures towards the male before the clash occurred?
A   Not that I'm aware of.  I didn't see any.
THE COURT:  When you say clash, you're talking about the vehicle swerving behavior, and not the person's clashing?
MR. TELUK:  I'm referring to the actual clash between the male and Mr. Daniel.  That's the clash I'm referring to.
THE COURT:  Okay.  I'm going to ask you to rephrase the question, please.
MR. TELUK:  I'll rephrase the question.
BY MR. TELUK:           
Q   That evening, that day, did you or anybody inside your vehicle, make any gestures towards the vehicle that was driven by that male?
A   Not that I saw, no.
Q   Before that clash occurred between yourself and the male in that vehicle, did you say anything, or did anybody in you vehicle say anything to anybody in the vehicle that was driven by the male?
A   No, there was no words.
Q   You testified that you pretty much lost it that evening?
A   After I had my temple cut and my guts cut out of my stomach, yeah; I lost it.  I didn't necessarily know that that was happening, but there was something inside of me.
Apparently, that was it, because I've never felt like that in my life.
Q   Well, did you lose it before this clash occurred?
A   No, not like I did when I got cut.
Q   So, you do admit you lost it before the clashing occurred?
A   No, that's not what I just said.
Q   Well, how would you characterize your statement that you believe you lost it before this clash occurred?
A   Say that again, please.
Q   You testified on direct examination that you pretty much lost it that evening or that night.
That was your testimony; right?
A   Not -- that's not what caused me to get out of the car.
Q   Well, listen to the question, please.
You testified on direct examination that that evening or that night, you pretty much lost it.
That's what you said; correct?
A   At a certain point in time, yeah.
Q   You said that?
A   Yes.
Q   I'm asking you, what did you mean by that statement?
A   By losing it?
Q   Yes.
A   I mean, just going off.  I mean, I had blood coming out of my head. 
MS. ASHWORTH:  Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point as asked and answered.
If he wants to put it into context when that statement was made, then maybe the witness can clarify it, but without any other information, I think he's testified over and over again what he meant and what happened to the best of his recollection.   
MR. TELUK:  I'm going to rephrase the question.
THE COURT:  I'm going to overrule the objection.  I think you're going to follow that question to try to elicit further information.  Go ahead.
Q   Besides what you testified up to this point in time, you testified that that evening, you pretty much lost it.
A   I don't know what you mean by that evening.  I mean, I told you I lost it after I got stabbed eight times.
Q   Was that when you lost it?
A   Yeah.  When I kneed him in his face, I lost it.  I shouldn't have done that.
Q   You shouldn't have done what?
A   I shouldn't have followed him in his car and kneed him in his face.  That's what I meant by losing it.
Q   Okay.
A   I could have got back in my car and went to the hospital.
Q   And from the time this vehicle driven by this male swerved into the vehicle that had been driven by your wife, you were consistently angry; correct?
A   Yeah, I was very angry.  I didn't lose it.  I was angry.  I wanted to see him get arrested.
Q   You wanted to do him some harm that day; correct, before the clash occurred?
A   Yeah, I wanted to see him get put back behind a cop car.
Q   You wanted to fight with him before the clash occurred; isn't that true?
A   A fist fight?
Q   Yes.
A   I didn't want to fight.  If I could have sat there and called the police and had the police come -- my -- it was stupid to do that. 
It was stupid to follow him and try to act like a cop myself to help a cop get him.  That was dumb, but that's what I did.
I had no intention of stopping and getting out.  I got put with a split second decision and I made my decision.
Q   And you started the fight; yes or no?
A   No, I didn't start the fight.
Q   Did this male in the vehicle start the fight?
A   I would say so.
Q   Tell us why you believe he started the fight.
A   Well, he came up beside my car full of my family and swerved me off the road for no reason.
I think that's enough to start a fight, wouldn't you?
Q   Any other reason?
A   Getting out of his car and making threatening gestures to my car.  That'd be a reason.
Q   What threatening gestures did he make?
A   Swinging his door open and getting out like he's going to fight.  I've got my three year old daughter.  I have no idea what this guy's going to do.
Q   Any other threatening gestures?
A   No.
MR. TELUK:  I have no further questions.
30256  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Case Study: knifing victim testimony on: May 08, 2008, 08:20:04 AM

Q   What happened next?
A   All I can remember was him getting out of the car.  My emotions were running so high, because my adrenaline was pumping.  You know, I've got my daughter in the back seat.
I seen him get out of his car, and that was it.  I didn't think about nothing else.  I got out.  I wanted to protect my family, because this guy is crazy.  He swerved at us like that for no reason.
Q   How do you describe how this person got out the car?
A   He just, basically, ripped his door off it's hinges getting out.  You know, I just saw the door fling open.
Q   Was that on the driver's side or the passenger's?
A   Driver's.
Q   Do you remember what the person looked like that got out of the car?
A   Not at all.
Q   Not at all?
A   No.
Q   So, you can't identify the person as being here in the courtroom?
A   No, I really can't.
Q   So, you saw, what you said, the door fly off the hinges --
A   I'm just saying he pushed it open real hard like he was getting out to fight.  
Q   Where was the driver of that car when you got out of your car?
A   The driver of his car?
He was the driver.
Q   Right; where was he when you decided to get out of your car?
A   Coming towards my car.
Q   But where?
Between his driver's side and where you met him --
A   I mean, as soon as I seen him get out and approach my car, I got out.  So, he didn't even make it past his car yet.
Q   And you got out of the passenger side of your car?
A   Uh-huh.
Q   What happened next?
A   It was just a clash.  No words, it was a clash.
Q   Do you remember what happened?
Can you tell the Court what happened?
A   All I remember is just -- I mean, I can't remember exactly what happened.  I remember we clashed and just started fighting.
I had no idea, I mean, nothing was going on.  I thought it was just a fist fight, and when my friends realized that all that blood was coming from me, they decided it was time to get out and help me out, and --
Q   Did you see any weapon?
A   I never saw it.  Never.
Q   Did you notice any blood?
A   On my head.  I figured it was a grazing punch.  I never thought it was a knife.
Q   Okay.
Where in relation to the cars did this fight take place?        
A   I'm not exactly sure, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say in the middle somewhere.
Q   Okay.
What did you do after that?
A   After what?
Q   After this fight.
Did you get back in your car, or did you --
A   Well, that's when Justin was like, Mike, stop fighting; because I, I mean, I pretty much lost it.
He said look at your stomach, and I pulled my shirt up an my guts were hanging out of my stomach, and that's when I realized I needed to go to the hospital.
I ran back to my car, and Justin flew back there, somehow, and we rushed to the hospital.
Q   What injuries did you sustain as a result of this fight?
A   I got stabbed and lacerated eight times.  I got stabbed in the triceps, I got slashed in my temple, I got my guts cut out of my stomach, I got poked in the chest, poked in the back, slashed in my right arm.
Q   What treatment did you receive at the hospital?
A   What do you mean by that?
Q   What treatment, what did they do to you, and what hospital did you go to?
A   The first one I went to was Potomac Hospital.
Q   Okay.
What happened there?
A   It was kind of a blur at that point because I was losing so much blood.
All I remember was walking into the hospital with blood everywhere, and they threw me on a table, stripped my clothes off, there was like, eight doctors around me, and that was it.  I blacked out.
Q   Where did you wake up?
A   I woke up in ICU in Fairfax.
Q   How long were you in the intensive care unit?
A   Without knowing exactly, I'd say two or three days.
Q   Do you have scars as a result of this fight?
A   Very bad scars.
Q   I'd ask you to show the judge your scars.
A   All of them, or just --
THE COURT:  Do I need to see this, for preliminary hearing purposes?
THE COURT:  All right.
Q   Do you have any permanent injuries as a result of this?
A   Yeah.
Q   What is that?
A   I have nerve damage in my left arm where he stabbed me in the triceps.  I can't squeeze with my left hand.
Q   Were you able to do that before this?
A   Oh, yeah.  Strong as an ox before this.
Q   What are you unable to squeeze?
You're able to move your hand?
A   Yeah, I just don't have any pressure to squeeze it.
Q   Please answer any questions that Mr. Teluk has for you.
   * * * * *
Q   Then, at a certain point in time, you decided to exit the vehicle driven by your wife; right?
A   Yes.
Q   Why did you exit that vehicle?
A   Because I had my three-year-old daughter in the back seat, I had my wife sitting next to me, I didn't know if this guy had a gun, I didn't know if he was going to come force us out of the -- I had no idea what he was going to do.
Out of nowhere, he came and swerved at my car, so at this point in time, I didn't what this guy's intentions were.
So, at that point in time, I had no second thoughts about getting out of my car and defending my family, and that's just what was going through my head.
Q   Any other reason you exited the vehicle at that point in time?
A   Any other reason why, other than to protect my family?
Q   Yes.
A   No.
Q   Now, at that point in time, both vehicles are stopped; right?
A   Yes.
Q   You're in the passenger side; correct?
A   Right.
Q   The driver of this vehicle is in front of your vehicle; correct?
A   Yes.
Q   He's on the driver's side; right?
A   Yes.
Q   Any other reason why you believed you had to exit your vehicle to protect you family?
A   What do you mean by that?
Q   Well, you said you exited your vehicle; right?
A   Right.
Q   Because you didn't know what this person was going to do?
A   Right.
Q   This person when you exit your vehicle; where is this other person?
A   On the way to my car.
Q   Okay; what is he doing?
A   I really don't know.  If I don't know what he looks like -- I mean, there's a lot of things that's a blur.
At that point in time, I felt in danger for my family.
Q   Any other reason that you testify to that you felt either you or you family was in danger, other than what you testified to?
A   No.
Q   All right.
So this male gets out of the car; correct?
A   Uh-huh.
Q   Does he say anything o you?
A   No.
Q   Does he do anything unusual to lead you to believe that --
A   He almost swerved my family off the road for no reason.  That was kind of unusual.
Q   That's the only reason you wanted to protect your family at that point in time?
A   I didn't know what was going on.
Q   I understand that.
Now, you exited your vehicle after he exited his vehicle, or vise-versa?
A   Say that again.
Q   You exited the vehicle before or after he exited his vehicle?
A   After he exited his.
Q   All right; and where was he in relationship to the driver's side door of his vehicle, where was he in relationship to that driver's side door when you exited your vehicle?
A   You mean the time I exited?
Q   Yes.
A   He was getting out of his car.
Q   He was just getting out of his car?
A   Uh-huh.
Q   He was not at the front of your vehicle; he was just getting out of his car?
A   No, he wasn't banging on my window or nothing, telling me to get out.  I just -- it was an instant reaction that I had.
I just got out.  It was the only thing I could think to do.  I didn't have ten minutes to sit there and think about what was the best thing to do legally.
It was an animal instinct.  I had my three-year-old daughter behind me.  That means everything to me.  It was a split second decision.  It might have been the wrong one.  That's what I decided to do.      
Q   He's not yelling at you or screaming at you, or anything like that; right?
A   No.
Q   So what did you do next after you exited the passenger side door of your vehicle?
A   I ran right into him and started fighting.
Q   You started the fight?
A   No, I didn't start the fight.
Q   But you just said you started fighting.
A   Yes, that's the intention I had getting out of the car, was to fight to protect my family.
Q   So, how did you start the fight?
A   How did I start the fight?
Q   Yes.
A   How did I start the physical altercation, you mean?
I jumped out and I clashed into him.  I felt like I needed to that to prevent this guy -- I have no idea what the hell he's doing with my family, I had no idea what his intentions were.
My animal instincts told me to get out and keep him away from my car, keep him away from my daughter behind me.
Q   So you said you clashed into him?
A   Yes.
Q   C-L-A-S-H-E-D; is that the word you used; clashed?
A   Yeah.
Q   How did you clash into him?
A   I don't -- I can't explain it.  If I knew if I threw him a three piece combo or knee, I'd tell you that.  That's why I say clash.  I don't remember it.  I just remember this (indicating).  That's all I remember.
Q   Did you run towards him?
A   Yes.
Q   He wasn't running towards you when you ran towards him; is that correct?
A   Yes, he was running towards me.  It was a mutual -- I mean as far as that goes, he clashed into me.  It was like this (indicating).
It was a clash.  It wasn't like I attacked him.  It was a clash.
Q   Where did this clash take place?
A   Between both of our cars.
Q   Do you recall which portion of your body clashed with his body?
A   No.  Other wise, I'd say something other than clash.  I don't remember.  If I did, I'd say something, but all I remember in my head is a clash.
Q   Do you know how long this clashing occurred?
A   No.  I remember a clash, and we broke up and squared up.
Q   I'm sorry, you broke up and what?
A   When we first hit, it was a clash.  I don't remember what happened, and then we broke back up, and
we both squared up, and we were both fighting.
So, as far as I know, it's a boxing match after we broke up after the first clash.  You know, he took a swing.
All this blood came from my head.  I figured, he grazed me with a fist or something like that busted my head open.
I had no idea I was getting stabbed.  So, I kept fighting.  After I started bleeding, I really started fighting as hard as I could.
Q   The clash took place between the rear of your vehicle and the front of your vehicle; correct?
Is that a fair characterization?
A   Yeah.  I mean, I almost died that night.  I can't tell you exactly what happened.  I'm giving you the best I can remember.
Q   I understand, and isn't it true that after this clash occurred, this male proceeded towards the front door of his vehicle?
A   Do what?
Q   You proceeded towards the driver's door of his vehicle?
A   After we clashed?
Q   Yes.
A   Absolutely not.
Q   Why do you disagree with that statement?
A   Because we squared up when we broke up off of that clash.
Q   After you squared up, what happened then?
A   I just remember throwing fist in a normal fistfight, and --
Q   You do remember hitting him with you fist; correct?
A   Yes, I do.
Q   How many times did you hit him with your fist?
A   I couldn't tell you an exact number, but I hit him a few times.
Q   At least five?
A   That's fair.
Q   Would at least ten be fair?
A   Maybe.  Like I said, I mean, it was blur.  I got my temple sliced open and I was losing blood so fast.       I mean, it's kind of hard to remember something that's going on.
Q   Did he strike you with his fists?
A   He struck me with the knife, and I didn't even know he was doing the knife, so I can't tell you what he did.
I mean --
Q   Do you recall how many times he hit you with his fist, if he hit you at all?
A   No.  I didn't know any of that.  I didn't know what he was doing.  All I was worried about was I'm going to do.
Q   Do you recall any other physical contact between you and this mail that was driving this car?
A   Other than the fight?
Q   Other than what you testified to?
A   Yeah.
Q   What other physical contact do you remember?
A   You mean after we broke up?
Q   All right.  Besides --
A   I remember jumping into his car when the fight was -- because I got in a fight mode, and I pretty much lost it.  
30257  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Another Coyote attack on: May 08, 2008, 08:18:36 AM
California 2-Year-Old Dragged From Yard by Coyote in Third Such Attack in Five Days

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

A coyote grabbed a 2-year-old girl by the head and tried to drag her from the front yard of her mountain home in the third incident of a coyote threatening a small child in Southern California in five days, authorities said.

The coyote attacked the girl around noon Tuesday when her mother, Melissa Rowley, went inside the home for a moment to put away a camera, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department said in an incident report.

Rowley came out of the house and saw the coyote dragging her daughter towards a street. She ran towards her daughter, and the animal released the girl and ran away, said sheriff's spokeswoman Arden Wiltshire.

Rowley took her daughter to a hospital where the toddler was treated for several punctures to the head and neck area, and a laceration on her mouth. She was then flown to Loma Linda University Hospital for further treatment, although her injuries were not life-threatening.

State Fish and Game wardens and county animal control authorities set traps for the coyote and were monitoring the neighborhood high in the San Bernardino Mountains about 65 miles miles northeast of Los Angeles.
On Friday, a nanny pulled a 2-year-old girl from the jaws of a coyote at Alterra Park in Chino Hills, a San Bernardino County community about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. The girl suffered puncture wounds to her buttocks and was treated at a hospital.

A coyote came after another toddler in the same park Sunday. The child's father kicked and chased the coyote away.

Alterra Park is near Chino Hills State Park, a natural open space of thousands of acres spanning nearly 31 miles.
30258  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Vetoing the Verifyers on: May 08, 2008, 07:51:47 AM
Vetoing the Verifiers
May 8, 2008; Page A14
The State Department is justifying its decision to let North Korea renege on its pledge to give a "complete declaration of its nuclear programs" by promising a strict verification regime. So why is Foggy Bottom cutting its own verification experts out of the loop?

The State Department's systematic exclusion of its own Bureau of Verification, Compliance and Implementation has gone unreported as the North Korean diplomacy proceeds. But it is causing concern on Capitol Hill and has already led to a proposal to require State to submit a report to Congress describing how the U.S. will verify any nuclear deal. Sponsored by Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the legislation passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week with the support of Democratic Chairman Howard Berman.

The mandate of the verification bureau, as described on the State Department's Web site, is to provide oversight "on all matters relating to verification or compliance with international arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament agreements and commitments." It "supports the Secretary" in "developing and implementing robust and rigorous verification and compliance policies."

The verification bureau was created by a Republican Congress in 1999 over the objections of the Clinton Administration and State Department careerists who didn't want agreements subject to additional oversight. The bureau's biggest success to date is Libya, where it played a central role in dismantling the country's WMD programs in 2003. There the bureau worked closely with experts from the Departments of Defense and Energy as well as with Britain and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

North Korea is a different story. The verifiers "have no voice so far," one person close to the process told us. They aren't part of the negotiating teams talking to the North Koreans and they've been excluded from key internal meetings. No one from the verification bureau participated in a recent State Department trip to Pyonygang intended to work out verification issues.

Nor is the verification bureau in charge of monitoring the disabling of the North's nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. One bureau professional took part, but he was invited for his technical expertise; he was not there as a verifier. Paula DeSutter, the assistant secretary who heads the bureau, declined to comment.

Incredibly, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs is calling the shots – talking to the North Koreans, hand picking experts to work at Yongbyon, and overseeing disablement. Call it the Chris Hill Show. Mr. Hill – the assistant secretary for East Asia – has also made a mockery of the interagency process. The verification bureau's Pentagon counterparts, who were closely involved in the six-party Korean diplomacy until mid-2005, have also been kept in exile.

Now there's talk that the East Asia bureau – not the verification bureau – will also end up monitoring any final six-party agreement. Not only does East Asia lack the technical expertise to verify a nuclear agreement, its staffers would hardly be eager to find violations in an accord negotiated by their superiors. There's even talk State may outsource some of the inspection work to China, which will be chairing a verification group within the six-party group. But China would have no incentive to blow the whistle on its client state.

The fact that Mr. Hill and his boss, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, are marginalizing their own verifiers is further reason to doubt their North Korea deal. The diplomats want to deliver a "success" and are afraid that if the verifiers get a close look, they will expose it as a fraud. Among the uncomfortable questions: Where is all of the plutonium North Korea has produced over the years? What happened to the uranium program that Pyongyang once boasted about but now says does not exist? What exactly did the North proliferate to Syria?

No verification can deliver 100% certainty, and North Korea, with its history of cheating and lying, would be a difficult case under even the most stringent inspection regimes. The disarmament of Libya succeeded because Moammar Gadhafi decided to cooperate. There's zero indication that Kim Jong Il shares that frame of mind.

North Korea's geography offers special challenges too. It's a mountainous country, with caves hiding mobile missile launchers aimed at Seoul. The military has vast underground facilities built with the help of its former Soviet patrons. Will these be open to inspectors? Even assuming that Kim will allow unimpeded and unannounced access – a leap of diplomatic faith – special expertise is needed to decide where to inspect and what to look for.

The State Department's verification bureau was created in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's slogan, "trust but verify." The Gipper was referring to the disarmament of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but his principle applies equally to North Korea today. If Foggy Bottom won't trust its own verifiers enough to make them part of any disarmament deal, then the rest of us shouldn't trust any deal struck by the Bush State Department.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds,
30259  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rove on: May 08, 2008, 07:47:58 AM
It's Obama, Warts and All
May 8, 2008; Page A15

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each took a state Tuesday. But the result was a damaging loss for the woman who was once the overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Here are some observations on the race:

- Mr. Obama is now the prohibitive favorite. Tuesday night, he took at least 94 delegates to Mrs. Clinton's 75 and leads the former First Lady by 176 delegates in the AP tabulation. He has 1,840 of the 2,025 delegates needed to win. Mr. Obama needs only 185 – or 38% – of the 486 outstanding delegates (217 to be elected in the six remaining contests, and 269 superdelegates yet to endorse a candidate). Mrs. Clinton needs 341, or 70% of those left to be awarded.

Barack Obama arrives at a primary election night rally in North Carolina, May 6, 2008.
Mr. Obama understands this. On Tuesday night, he added a big dollop of general election themes and pre-emptive defenses against coming attacks to his stump speech.

- Mrs. Clinton may battle until June and possibly until the convention in August. There's nothing Mr. Obama can or should do about it. After a long, bitter struggle, losing candidates often look for reasons to feel aggrieved. There is no reason to give her one. No pressure from Mr. Obama or party Chairman Howard Dean is better than pushing her out of the race.

- The Democrats' refusal to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations at their convention is an unresolved problem. If they insist on not seating these delegations, Democrats risk alienating voters in states with 44 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. And here Mr. Obama is at greater risk than Mrs. Clinton, especially in Florida. He trails John McCain badly in Sunshine State polls today, while Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. McCain there.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a plus for the party. The AP estimates that more than 3.5 million new voters registered during the competitive primary season. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent energizing Democratic turnout will leave organization and energy in place for November. Mr. Obama is a better candidate for having been battle tested. And Mr. McCain has to fight hard for attention. He's mentioned in less than 20% of the coverage in recent months, while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are talked about in 60% to 70% of the coverage.

- The length of the Democratic contest has been – in some ways – a minus. It has revealed weaknesses in Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton came across as calculating, contrived, stiff and self-concerned. Mr. Obama is increasingly seen not as the Second Coming, but as a typical liberal Chicago pol with a thin record, little experience, an array of troubling relationships and, to top it off, elitist sensibilities. Nominating him will now test the thesis that only a Democrat running as a moderate can win the White House.

The primary has created a deep fissure in Democratic ranks: blue collar, less affluent, less educated voters versus the white wine crowd of academics and upscale professionals (along with blacks and young people). Mr. Obama runs behind Mrs. Clinton's numbers when matched against Mr. McCain in key industrial battleground states. Less than half of Mrs. Clinton's backers in Indiana and North Carolina say they would support Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. In the most recent Fox News poll, two-and-a-half times as many Democrats break for Mr. McCain (15%) as Republicans defect to Mrs. Clinton (6%) and nearly twice as many Democrats support Mr. McCain (22%) as Republicans back Mr. Obama (13%). These "McCainocrat" defections could hurt badly.

State and local Democrats are realizing the toxicity of their probable national ticket. Democrats running in special congressional races recently in Louisiana and Mississippi positioned themselves as pro-life, pro-gun social conservatives and disavowed Mr. Obama. The Louisiana Democrat won his race on Saturday and said he "has not endorsed any national politician." The Mississippi Democrat is facing a runoff on May 13 and specifically denied that Mr. Obama had endorsed his campaign. Not exactly profiles in unity.

- As much as Mr. Obama's cheerleaders in the media hate it, Rev. Jeremiah Wright remains a large general-election challenge for Mr. Obama. Not only did Mr. Obama admit on "Fox News Sunday" that Mr. Wright was a legitimate issue, voters agree. Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have dropped since Mr. Wright emerged as an issue. More than half of Mrs. Clinton's supporters say it is a meaningful reflection on Mr. Obama's character and judgment.

- This will be a very difficult year for Republicans. The economy's shaky state, an unpopular war, and the natural desire for partisan change after eight years of one party in the White House have helped tilt the balance to the Democrats.

Mr. Obama is significantly weaker today than he was three months ago, but Democrats have the upper hand in November. They're beatable. But it's nonsense to think this year is going to be a replay of George H.W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis or Richard Nixon versus George McGovern.

- Mr. McCain is very competitive. He is the best candidate Republicans could have picked in this environment. With the GOP brand low, his appeal to moderates and independents becomes even more crucial.

My analysis of individual state polls shows that today Mr. McCain would win 241 Electoral College votes to Mr. Obama's 217, with 80 votes in toss-up states where neither candidate has more than a 3% lead. Ironically, Mrs. Clinton now leads Mr. McCain with 251 electoral votes to his 203 with 84 in toss-up states. This is the first time she's led Mr. McCain since I began tracking state-by-state results in early March.

Mr. McCain is realistic enough to know he will fall behind Mr. Obama once the Democratic nomination is settled. He's steeled himself and his team for that moment. And he's comforted by a belief that there will be plenty of time to recapture the lead. Mr. McCain saw Gerald Ford come from 30 points down to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter in 1976, and watched George H.W. Bush overcome a 17-point deficit in the summer to hammer Michael Dukakis in the fall of 1988.

- The battlegrounds will look familiar. It will be the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, minus Indiana (Republican) and Illinois (Democrat); the western edge of the Midwest from Minnesota south to Missouri; Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Rocky Mountains; Florida; and New Hampshire.

Mr. Obama will argue he puts Virginia and North Carolina into play (doubtful), and may make an attempt at winning one or two of Nebraska's electoral votes (it awards its electoral votes by congressional district). Mr. McCain will say he can put New Jersey and Delaware and part of Maine (it splits its vote like Nebraska) in play. But it's doubtful he'll win in Oregon or Washington State, although he believes he can.

- Almost everything we think we know right now will be revised and even overturned during the next six months. This has been a race in which conventional wisdom has often been proven wrong. The improbable or thought-to-be impossible has happened with regularity. It has created a boom market for punditry and opinion offering, and one of the grandest possible spectacles for political junkies in decades. Hold on to your hat. It's going to be one heck of a ride through Nov. 4.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

30260  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bolton: Bush's NK Nuke Abdication on: May 08, 2008, 07:37:56 AM
Bush's North Korea Nuclear Abdication
May 8, 2008; Page A15

Despite rising Capitol Hill opposition to its North Korea policy, the Bush administration continues to find new and imaginative ways to accommodate Pyongyang's sensitivities. Meanwhile, the administration's Democratic congressional allies are urgently pushing to waive the Glenn Amendment, which bars essentially all U.S. economic and military aid to the North.

The strategic folly here is rooted in the administration's decision to focus on North Korea's plutonium supplies and stop caring what Pyongyang once did or is doing on the enriched-uranium route to nuclear weapons. That could be a fatal mistake.

In 2002, our intelligence community definitively judged that the regime was working on an industrial-scale enrichment program. Since then we have little new information, reducing the confidence level, but not changing the substantive conclusion, that the North Koreans "have and continue to operate a uranium enrichment program" – as Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified in February.

For the Bush administration, however, the lack of new data is an excuse to ignore the entire issue of uranium.

On plutonium, the administration seems content to seek vague statements from the North that "account" for the amount of this fissile material we think it has extracted from its Yongbyon reactor's spent fuel rods over the years. Administration briefings reveal little or no interest in how many plutonium weapons exist; whether there are other plutonium-related facilities hidden in North Korea's vast complex of underground facilities; and what the North's weapons-manufacturing capabilities are.

Proliferation? Perhaps the Bush administration's most wondrous act of magic is to make that problem disappear. The State Department argues that North Korea may have proliferated in the past, but that's all behind us. How do we know? The North Koreans have told us.

Since the reactor it helped Syria build on the Euphrates River was pulverized by the Israeli Air Force last September 6, Pyongyang's efforts at and interest in nuclear proliferation may have ceased. Even if true, that should not give us comfort: It took an act of brute military force to bring this about. One need hardly point out that this tactic is not congruent with the administration's current approach to North Korea's nuclear behavior.

More troubling is the administration's apparent treatment of the Syrian reactor as if it were the only proliferation threat in the Middle East. It is not. Iran should be top of mind as well.

It is inconceivable that Syria could work for five years or more building the clone of North Korea's Yongbyon reactor on the Euphrates without, at a minimum, Iranian acquiescence. Quite likely, Iran was involved. Tehran could well be financing Syria's purchase of reactor technology from North Korea. It could also have expected to benefit from the reactor's production of plutonium.

Indeed, Iran had much the same incentive as North Korea to hide its nuclear activities from international scrutiny. What better way to conceal proscribed work from inspectors in North Korea or Iran than to build facilities in Syria?

Iran and North Korea already have a history of cooperation in ballistic missiles – the delivery system which, if perfected, could give their weapons global reach. After the North declared a moratorium on launch testing from the Korean Peninsula in 1999, it simply ramped up cooperation with Iran's aggressive missile research and development program.

The North thus continued to benefit from launch-testing data, prior to breaking its moratorium on July 4, 2006, while also scoring a propaganda victory among the clueless for its apparent renunciation of provocative behavior in Northeast Asia. Outsourcing weapons programs is nothing new for Pyongyang.

Although our intelligence community stated publicly that the Syrian reactor was a cash transaction, its congressional briefings contained little or no supporting evidence that this was so. This is unsurprising. The Israeli raid was based on the hard physical evidence seen on the banks of the Euphrates River, not on scrutiny of documents embodying the deal.

Some friendly advice to our intelligence services: Think joint venture. Think asset diversification.

Hypothetically, what if the deal had North Korea getting a third of the plutonium produced by the Euphrates reactor, Iran a third, and Syria a third? The North benefits by maintaining open access to a plutonium supply even if Yongbyon remains frozen. Iran gets experience in reactor technologies immune from IAEA scrutiny. And Syria takes a major step toward undisclosed nuclear capabilities. Win-win-win, as that entrepreneurial proliferator A.Q. Khan might have said.

Here is the real problem. North Korean nuclear proliferation is quite likely more than a series of one-time transactions that create problems elsewhere in the world. It may very well be integral to its own nuclear weapons program.

The Bush administration can wish away these possibilities and still achieve its deal. But it cannot wish away the underlying reality, the full scope of which we simply do not know. That reality, whatever its reach, will still be there to haunt President Bush's successor and threaten international peace.

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/Threshold Editions, 2007).

See all of today's editorials and op-eds,
30261  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Obama Phenomena on: May 07, 2008, 10:23:26 PM
Article of Ayers, including recent foto of him standing on US flag:
30262  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: sean sherk vs. bj penn on: May 07, 2008, 07:10:27 PM
BJ's separatist BS for Hawaii irks me  angry angry angry
30263  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Yon's book!!! on: May 07, 2008, 01:45:21 PM
I have just ordered this book and recommend it most highly.
30264  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Soak the Rich on: May 07, 2008, 01:07:34 PM
from a US newspaper (1936)…

Soak the Rich

Father, must I go to work?
No! No! my darling son,
We’re living now on Easy Street
With funds from Washington

We're cared for now by Uncle Sam,
So don't get exercised;
We do not need to care a damn
Because we're subsidized.

But, dad, if he's going to treat us well
and give us all milk and honey,
Please tell me truly, where the hell
He's going to get the money?

Don't worry, child, there is no hitch
about this glorious plan --
He'll get the money from the rich
To help the common man.

But, dad, won't there come a time
if we take all their cash
and they are left without a dime,
when things will go to smash?

Son, you need a lot of seasoning,
you nosey little brat,
you do too damn much reasoning
to be a Democrat.

I Want to be a Consumer
"And what do you mean to be?"
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
"We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society's plan;
Then what do you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?"
"I want to be a Consumer,"
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed up into the Bishop's face
In innocence open-eyed.
"I've never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along.
"I want to be a consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that's needed most,
I've heard Economists say,
I won't just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on."
"But what do you want to be?"
The Bishop said again,
"For we all of us have to work," said he,
"As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?"
"Why, no!" the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.
"I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that's need most,
I've heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further Trade.
"I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that's needed most,
I've heard Economists tell.
I've made up my mind," the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
"I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today."

30265  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Emergency Tips and Emergency Medicine on: May 07, 2008, 12:01:32 PM
Could this tragedy have been avoided if someone knew to slam on a tourniquet?

Sergeant's Last Words: 'Tell My Wife I'll Miss Her'
5637 Views 260 Comments Share Flag as inappropriate 
Officer in New Jersey search for the only suspect still at large. (AP)
Philadelphia Inquirer

May 06, 2008

PHILADELPHIA – Nancy Braun was sitting on a couch watching one of her favorite TV shows, Trading Spaces, when gunfire erupted down the street yesterday morning.

“I heard three shots – real loud,” Braun said from a rocking chair on the front porch of her Schiller Street rowhouse. “Then a lady started screaming, ‘A police officer’s been shot!’ “

Braun and her boyfriend, Joe Czarnik, both 43, bolted out of the house and ran to Schiller and Almond Streets, she said. She was not wearing shoes at the time, she said, and ran in her socks.

In the street next to a compact police cruiser, Braun said, she saw Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. Others were trying to apply pressure to his stomach and an arm.

Keith Petaccio, 45, was at his front door greeting his wife as she came back after walking their dogs.

A police cruiser “flew by,” and Petaccio stepped outside to see what was going on just as the gunfire started, he said. He said he had run to Liczbinski.

Throughout the block as noon approached, chaos ensued.

A woman spun around yelling that a man had put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her. People young and old poured out of houses and onto their porches. One man chased the shooter’s stolen Jeep as it bolted south on Almond Street. Others called 911 on cell phones.

An older man nearby had taken the fallen officer’s radio and was saying, “A police officer is down. He’s shot multiple times. Get an ambulance,” Braun said.

Braun yelled at another neighbor for towels to try to stop the gushing blood. She grabbed four kitchen towels and gave them to those trying to stop the bleeding, she said.

A neighbor tying to help Liczbinski looked up at Braun and said, “His arm is just dangling off.”

Petaccio said he had stayed with Liczbinski talking to him as he tried to save his life.

He said Liczbinski had looked at him and said, “I want you to tell my wife I’ll miss her.”

Joe Farrell was cooking breakfast for his children, he said, when he heard the shots feet from his porch. He yelled at the children to get down on the floor and ran out the door to help.

“They were holding rags on him trying to stop the blood from pumping out,” Farrell said. He said he had helped get Liczbinski into the back of a police car.

Minutes later, swarms of police and detectives arrived. They quickly strung yellow police tape for blocks around the intersection.

“I feel bad for the family and the police,” Braun said. “What they have to go through today, it’s horrible.”

Petaccio said that on Saturdays the neighborhood streets were usually filled with children playing. Yesterday few people were outside when the drama began.

“My heart goes out to his family,” Petaccio said. “I can’t believe it happened.”

Many of the porches in the neighborhood have colorful flowers hanging in baskets or in pots.

By 6 p.m., when most police cars had left and the police tape had been collected, some had placed flowerpots at the curb where Liczbinski fell.

(c) 2008 YellowBrix, Inc.
30266  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tell my wife I'll miss her on: May 07, 2008, 11:58:53 AM
Sergeant's Last Words: 'Tell My Wife I'll Miss Her'
5637 Views 260 Comments Share Flag as inappropriate 
Officer in New Jersey search for the only suspect still at large. (AP)
Philadelphia Inquirer

May 06, 2008

PHILADELPHIA – Nancy Braun was sitting on a couch watching one of her favorite TV shows, Trading Spaces, when gunfire erupted down the street yesterday morning.

“I heard three shots – real loud,” Braun said from a rocking chair on the front porch of her Schiller Street rowhouse. “Then a lady started screaming, ‘A police officer’s been shot!’ “

Braun and her boyfriend, Joe Czarnik, both 43, bolted out of the house and ran to Schiller and Almond Streets, she said. She was not wearing shoes at the time, she said, and ran in her socks.

In the street next to a compact police cruiser, Braun said, she saw Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. Others were trying to apply pressure to his stomach and an arm.

Keith Petaccio, 45, was at his front door greeting his wife as she came back after walking their dogs.

A police cruiser “flew by,” and Petaccio stepped outside to see what was going on just as the gunfire started, he said. He said he had run to Liczbinski.

Throughout the block as noon approached, chaos ensued.

A woman spun around yelling that a man had put a gun to her head and threatened to kill her. People young and old poured out of houses and onto their porches. One man chased the shooter’s stolen Jeep as it bolted south on Almond Street. Others called 911 on cell phones.

An older man nearby had taken the fallen officer’s radio and was saying, “A police officer is down. He’s shot multiple times. Get an ambulance,” Braun said.

Braun yelled at another neighbor for towels to try to stop the gushing blood. She grabbed four kitchen towels and gave them to those trying to stop the bleeding, she said.

A neighbor tying to help Liczbinski looked up at Braun and said, “His arm is just dangling off.”

Petaccio said he had stayed with Liczbinski talking to him as he tried to save his life.

He said Liczbinski had looked at him and said, “I want you to tell my wife I’ll miss her.”

Joe Farrell was cooking breakfast for his children, he said, when he heard the shots feet from his porch. He yelled at the children to get down on the floor and ran out the door to help.

“They were holding rags on him trying to stop the blood from pumping out,” Farrell said. He said he had helped get Liczbinski into the back of a police car.

Minutes later, swarms of police and detectives arrived. They quickly strung yellow police tape for blocks around the intersection.

“I feel bad for the family and the police,” Braun said. “What they have to go through today, it’s horrible.”

Petaccio said that on Saturdays the neighborhood streets were usually filled with children playing. Yesterday few people were outside when the drama began.

“My heart goes out to his family,” Petaccio said. “I can’t believe it happened.”

Many of the porches in the neighborhood have colorful flowers hanging in baskets or in pots.

By 6 p.m., when most police cars had left and the police tape had been collected, some had placed flowerpots at the curb where Liczbinski fell.

(c) 2008 YellowBrix, Inc.
30267  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Closest allies on: May 07, 2008, 11:33:29 AM
Israel Is Now America's Closest Ally
May 7, 2008

President George W. Bush will soon make his second visit to Israel in less than six months, this time to celebrate the country's 60th anniversary. The candidates for the presidency, Republican and Democratic alike, have all traveled to Israel and affirmed their commitment to its security. So have hundreds of congressmen.

American engineers, meanwhile, are collaborating with their Israeli counterparts in developing advanced defense systems. American soldiers are learning antiterrorist techniques from the Israeli army.

John McCain visits the Western Wall in Jerusalem, March 2008.
Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the American flag is rarely (if ever) burned in protest – indeed, some Israelis fly that flag on their own independence day. And avenues in major American cities are named for Yitzhak Rabin and Golda Meir. Arguably, there is no alliance in the world today more durable and multifaceted than that between the United States and Israel.

Yet the bonds between the two countries were not always so strong. For much of Israel's history, America was a distant and not always friendly power.

Consider the period before Israel's founding in 1948, during the British Mandate over Palestine. Though many Americans, Christians as well as Jews, were committed to building the Jewish national home, their government's policy was strictly hands-off. Palestine, in Washington's view, was exclusively Britain's concern, and the Arab-Jewish conflict was a British headache.

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration raised no objection to Britain's 1939 decision to end Jewish immigration into Palestine, sealing off European Jewry's last escape route from Nazism. The U.S. indifference to Zionism deepened during World War II, when America feared alienating its British allies and angering the Arabs, whose oil had become vital to the war effort. Deferring to British and Arab demands, America confined hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in displaced-persons camps in Europe rather than let them emigrate to Palestine.

America's ambivalence toward Zionism persisted after the war, as the battle against Nazism gave way to the anticommunist struggle. While a sizeable majority of Americans welcomed Israel's creation in May 1948, policy makers in Washington feared that such support would trigger an Arab oil boycott of the West and the Soviet take-over of Europe. Secretary of State George Marshall even warned the president, Harry Truman, that he would not back him for re-election if he recognized the newborn state. An ardent Baptist whose best friend was a Jew, Truman ignored these warnings and made the U.S. the first nation to accord de facto recognition to Israel. But buckling to State and Defense Department pressures, Truman also imposed an arms embargo on Israel during its desperate war of independence. Later, he arm-twisted Israeli leaders to relinquish land to the Arabs and to readmit Palestinian refugees.

Pressure for territorial concessions escalated under Truman's successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who also vetoed weapons sales to Israel. His secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, dismissed Israel as "the millstone around our necks," and threatened it with sanctions during the 1956 Suez Crisis. Israel is home to the Middle East's largest memorial to John F. Kennedy, but Kennedy similarly refused to sell tanks and planes to Israel, and warned that America's relationship with the Jewish state would be "seriously jeopardized" by Israel's nuclear program. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first president to invite an Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington – 16 years after Israel's birth – but he then balked at Eshkol's request for American help against the Arab armies assembling for war in June 1967. "Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone," Johnson replied, implying that the U.S. would not stand beside Israel militarily.

The Six-Day War nevertheless inaugurated a dramatic change in America's attitude toward Israel. Israel's astonishing victory in that conflict instantly transformed the "millstone" into an American asset, a hardy fellow democracy and Cold War ally. Nixon regarded Israel as "the best Soviet stopper in the Mideast," and furnished the weaponry Israel needed to prevail in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both ran on platforms highly favorable to Israel, and dedicated themselves to the search for Israel-Arab peace. By the end of the 1970s, an inchoate U.S.-Israeli alliance had emerged, sealed by the existence of a potent pro-Israel lobby in Washington and the extension to Israel of billions of dollars of American aid.

But the relationship was hardly friction-free. Israel's reluctance to forfeit territories captured in 1967, and its efforts to settle them, became a perennial source of tension. Presidents Ford and Carter threatened to withhold assistance from Israel unless it made territorial concessions. President George H.W. Bush denied Israel loan guarantees for resettling Russian immigrants in the West Bank. Israel's security policies also jolted the alliance – Ronald Reagan condemned Israel's bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 as well as its siege of Beirut the following year. Americans, in turn, irritated the Israelis with their transfer of sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia and their opposition to Israeli arms sales to China.

Such rifts have grown increasingly infrequent, however, and today there are few visible fissures in the U.S.-Israeli front. Yet America has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital – imagine if Israel refused to recognize Washington. Powerful interest groups lobby against Israel in Washington while much of American academia and influential segments of the media are staunchly opposed to any association with Israel.

How does the alliance surmount these challenges?

One reason, certainly, is values – the respect for civic rights and the rule of law that is shared by the world's most powerful republic and the Middle East's only stable democracy. There is also Israel's determination to fight terror, and its willingness to share its antiterror expertise. Most fundamentally, though, is the amity between the two countries' peoples. The admiration which the U.S. inspires among Israelis is overwhelmingly reciprocated by Americans, more than 70% of whom, according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish state.

No doubt further upheavals await the alliance in the future – as Iran approaches nuclear capability, for example. Israel may act more muscularly than some American leaders might warrant. The impending change of U.S. administration will also have an effect. But such vicissitudes are unlikely to cause a major schism in what has proven to be one of history's most resilient, ardent and atypical partnerships.

Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," now available in paperback from Norton.
30268  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Georgia on Russia on: May 07, 2008, 11:32:33 AM
A Georgian Cabinet minister said on Tuesday that his country is very close to war with Russia over Abkhazia, a region in Georgia’s northwest that wants to secede formally from Georgia. A leader of the Abkhazian movement, its foreign minister, said that Abkhazia was ready to hand over military control to the Russians. The Russians are, of course, already in Abkhazia, and announced last week that they have been doubling the number of troops they have there, something the Georgians claim is aggression against Georgia. The Russians claimed that the Georgians were the ones massing troops along the Georgian-Abkhaz border. The White House issued a statement saying that “The Russian government has taken what we would call provocative actions which have increased tensions with Georgia over its separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” another breakaway region.

There are three factors driving all of this. First, there is Kosovo. When the United States and Europe imposed — from the Russian point of view — independence on Kosovo, in defiance of Serb or Russian wishes, it was clear that the Russians would have to respond. When they declined to respond in Kosovo itself, their next option was to extend the Kosovo precedent to an area where it would involve an American ally. Georgia was an obvious choice. Like Kosovo, it has regions that want to be independent from a relatively small country. By supporting this process, the Russians impose a quid pro quo on the United States in particular.

Second, during the NATO summit, the United States came out in favor of NATO membership for Georgia (and for Ukraine as well). The Russians took this as both an intentional affront and a threat to their national security. The idea of NATO troops present in Georgia, in an area that Russia considers to be part of its sphere of influence, was unacceptable. It was also something that the Russians had to react to, first for symbolic reasons and second because if the U.S. were to pull off NATO membership at some later point, it would be a serious problem for Russia. The Russians needed to act now, not later.

Third, Russia is, as we have said before, in the process of using the window of opportunity presented by the American commitment to the Islamic world, to assert their sphere of influence. The Caucasus, where Georgia is located, is an area of fundamental importance to the Russians. Georgia is their major challenge in the region and therefore it is the one they need to confront. Moreover, if the Russians manage to solve their Georgian problem, they will have changed the rules of the game in other regions, such as Ukraine. Other countries in the former Soviet space will be much more cautious in their flirtations with the Americans, if the Russians can lean on Georgia with nothing more than a protest from Washington.

This does not mean that war is likely. Unless the Georgians are suicidal, they are not going to fight the Russians. This is 2008, not 1998, and the Russians have the means both to bolster forces as needed and to overwhelm the Georgians. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the Russians want to invade Georgia. It is rugged country and resistance could be fierce, particularly against an occupying force.

The Russians are deliberately intimidating the Georgians and the Georgians are talking up war in the hope of getting help from the West. Unless the French or Germans feel like intervening in force — assuming they can — the United States won’t. It does not need another war on its hands. The Russians are hoping to build a sense of isolation and embattlement among the Georgians, in the hope of forcing a very public capitulation from an American ally.

This is a very important crisis in an important part of the world. It represents a direct challenge by Russia to an American ally and how it ends can define broader relationships on the Russian periphery. The Russian build-up is no accident and the Georgian warnings are not really true but not frivolous either. They are in trouble and they know it. One option the Americans have is to place a small number of troops in Georgia to bolster Georgian morale and serve as a warning to the Russians. That in turn assumes that such a presence won’t be the final straw for the Russians, who outgun any American force that can be deployed.

There are only two reasons why Russia would not seize this opportunity. One, they are even more hampered by their internal clan war than they are letting on. Or two, even now — even when the U.S. tied down in Iraq — they fear that the U.S. retains the military capability to defeat a Russian incursion. The last may seem ridiculous, but remember that the U.S. position during the Cold War was essentially predicated on the nuclear bluff (a much more powerful Moscow has fallen for that before.)

With that said, the one possibility we find unlikely is Russia simply backing off. After Kosovo, they simply cannot afford to do that. We expect that the situation will be solved through negotiations, and expect that both Abkhazia and South Ossetia will wind up seceding formally as well as practically. The question is whether the Russians will be content with that or whether they want regime change in Georgia as well.
30269  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Biofuels backlash on: May 07, 2008, 11:17:13 AM
The Biofuels Backlash
May 7, 2008; Page A18
St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes, and for 30 years we invoked his name as we opposed ethanol subsidies. So imagine our great, pleasant surprise to see that the world is suddenly awakening to the folly of subsidized biofuels.

All it took was a mere global "food crisis." Last week chief economist Joseph Glauber of the USDA, which has been among Big Ethanol's best friends in Washington, blamed biofuels for increasing prices on corn and soybeans. Mr. Glauber also predicted that corn prices will continue their historic rise because of demand from "expanding use for ethanol."

Even the environmental left, which pushed ethanol for decades as an alternative to gasoline, is coming clean. Lester Brown, one of the original eco-Apostles, wrote in the Washington Post that "it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that food-to-fuel mandates have failed." We knew for sure the tide had turned when Time magazine's recent cover story, "The Clean Energy Myth," described how turning crops into fuel increases both food prices and atmospheric CO2. No one captures elite green wisdom better than Time's Manhattan editors. Can Vanity Fair be far behind?

All we can say is, welcome aboard. Corn ethanol can now join the scare over silicone breast implants and the pesticide Alar as among the greatest scams of the age. But before we move on to the next green miracle cure, it's worth recounting how much damage this ethanol political machine is doing.

To create just one gallon of fuel, ethanol slurps up 1,700 gallons of water, according to Cornell's David Pimentel, and 51 cents of tax credits. And it still can't compete against oil without a protective 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imports and a federal mandate that forces it into our gas tanks. The record 30 million acres the U.S. will devote to ethanol production this year will consume almost a third of America's corn crop while yielding fuel amounting to less than 3% of petroleum consumption.

In December the Congressional Research Service warned that even devoting every last ear of American-grown corn to ethanol would not create enough "renewable fuel" to meet federal mandates. According to a 2007 OECD report, fossil-fuel production is up to 10,000 times as efficient as biofuel, measured by energy produced per unit of land.

Now scientists are showing that ethanol will exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions. A February report in the journal Science found that "corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years . . . Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." Princeton's Timothy Searchinger and colleagues at Iowa State, of all places, found that markets for biofuel encourage farmers to level forests and convert wilderness into cropland. This is to replace the land diverted from food to fuel.

As usual, Congress is the last to know, but maybe even it is catching on. Credit goes to John McCain, the first presidential candidate in recent memory who has refused to bow before King Ethanol. Onetime ethanol opponent Hillary Clinton announced her support in 2006, as the Iowa caucuses beckoned. In 2006 Barack Obama proposed mandating a staggering 65 billion gallons a year of alternative fuel by 2025, but by this Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" he was suggesting that maybe helping "people get something to eat" was a higher priority than biofuels.

Mr. McCain and 24 other Senators are now urging EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to consider using his broad waiver authority to eliminate looming biofuel mandates. Otherwise, the law will force us to consume roughly four times the current requirement by 2022. In fact, with some concerned state governments submitting helpful petitions, Mr. Johnson could largely knock out the ethanol mandate regime, at least temporarily.

Over the longer term, however, this shouldn't be entrusted to unelected bureaucrats. The best policy would repeal the biofuel mandates and subsidies enacted in the 2005 and 2007 energy bills. We say repeal because there will be intense lobbying to keep the subsidies, or transfer them from projects that have failed to those that have not yet failed.

Like Suzanne Somers in "American Graffiti," the perfect biofuel is always just out of reach, only a few more billion dollars in subsidies away from commercial viability. But sometimes even massive government aid can't turn science projects into products. The industry's hope continues for cellulosic ethanol, but there's no getting around the fact that biofuels require vegetation to make fuel. Even cellulosic ethanol, while more efficient than corn, will require countless acres of fuel if it is ever going to replace oil. Perhaps some future technology will efficiently extract energy from useless corn stalks and fallen trees. But until that day, Congress's ethanol subsidies are merely force-feeding an industry that is doing far more harm than good.

The results include distorted investment decisions, higher carbon emissions, higher food prices for Americans, and an emerging humanitarian crisis in the developing world. The last thing the poor of Africa and the taxpayers of America need is another scheme to conjure gasoline out of corn and tax credits.
30270  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Guns for Oil on: May 07, 2008, 11:14:15 AM
I so wish Newt were the candidate for the Republicans , , , , anyway, here's this:

Guns for Oil
May 7, 2008; Page A18
Speaking of energy (see here), we can't help but give more attention to a recent press release from some of the Senate's leading liberals. Charles Schumer, Byron Dorgan, Bernie Sanders, Bob Casey and Mary Landrieu are demanding that President Bush tell OPEC nations to increase their oil supplies or risk losing arms deals with the United States. The Senators say U.S. consumers need the price relief that only increased oil production can bring.

Yes, that Senator Schumer and that Senator Dorgan, both of whom voted against increasing U.S. oil production because they couldn't abide drilling across 1% of Alaska's wilderness. Yes, that Senator Casey, who has called for mandatory reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. At least Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has fought to allow more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

All of these Senate Democrats are willing to accept greater carbon emissions, as long as we can also outsource jobs in the petroleum industry to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The Senators do aver that "some of us have concerns in general about arming this region to the teeth," but apparently cheap fossil fuel buys a lot of peace of mind.

A special word of concern about Mr. Sanders: He is the only avowed socialist in Congress, but the Vermonter appears to be losing his religion over $122-a-barrel oil. By signing this letter, not only is he officially recognizing the law of supply and demand; he's also proposing a more crassly commercial trade of guns for oil than anything we've ever heard from the most candid realpolitician.

To top it off, the Senator whose Web site proudly proclaims that the first bill he introduced was to combat global warming now wants more fossil fuels ready for burning. We hope his friends are closely watching Mr. Sanders, in case he blows a gasket over all of this cognitive ideological dissonance.
Both Democratic candidates have to face some hard realities in the aftermath of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

For Hillary Clinton, it's that Mr. Obama's overwhelming victory in North Carolina now makes it almost impossible for her to take the popular vote lead when the primaries finish on June 3. That, combined with her certain deficit in elected delegates, will make her case to undecided superdelegates a hard sell.

She will also have to confront the fact that a major reason she lost is that, according to yesterday's exit polls, half of the Democratic primary electorate does not think she is honest or trustworthy. It has been 15 years since the Clintons burst onto the national stage and it now appears that all of the scandals involving the First Lady -- Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, various presidential pardons and countless others -- have sapped her credibility. No matter how pointed her case about Mr. Obama's electability in the fall, she is too flawed a messenger to fully capitalize on those concerns.

Mr. Obama is going to have to address his continued weakness with white, working-class voters. He won North Carolina on the strength of getting 93% of the black vote, and since blacks made up a third of the electorate in the Tar Heel State, the African-American vote was able to carry him to victory. But he won only 38% of white Democrats and only 42% of independent voters.

In Indiana it was no better. He won half of the vote on the strength of his showing in urban Gary and Indianapolis, but was trounced 65% to 35% among white Democrats and also lost independent voters. The Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama's remarks in San Francisco about rural voters have taken a toll -- two-thirds of Democrats in both states who voted for Mrs. Clinton told exit pollsters they would be dissatisfied with Mr. Obama as the nominee.

In the end, most of those voters will come home to Mr. Obama. But with national polls showing John McCain essentially tied with him, that may not be good enough. Democrats are closer than ever to having a nominee after Mr. Obama's showing last night. But once again they appear to have handed Republicans ammunition to paint that nominee as an out-of-touch liberal.

-- John Fund

In Your Dreams...

That didn't take long.

Within hours of the polls closing in North Carolina and Indiana, a group called began emailing reporters and others to announce the launching of an effort to unite Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the same ticket -- a so called Democratic "Dream Team."

The Web site is catchy. There is a banner that alternates between "Clinton-Obama" and "Obama-Clinton" and features a hybrid of their campaign logos. Readers are urged to contact superdelegates and press them to insist on a unity ticket.

However, Barack Obama supporters would be forgiven if they viewed the effort with some suspicion. As columnist Salena Zito points out, the site was originally known as Clinton-Obama 08. Founder Adam Parkhomenko admits Hillary was his original preference but now he wants to be more ecumenical.

Anything is possible but one Democratic superdelegate I spoke with is highly skeptical that Mr. Obama could be talked into sharing the ticket with his current rival. "We have seen the Clinton machine in action and it is not pretty," he told me. "If Hillary were the vice president you would have Bill rattling around the West Wing and Obama would need a food taster for four years. No way."

-- John Fund

Quote of the Day I

"A top Democratic source with insight into Bill's and Hillary's states of mind says the Clintons are convinced that a Democratic presidency is all but certain no matter how messy the fight for the nomination. In that scenario -- which the Obama side and some Democratic elders worry is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst -- there's no downside for Hillary doing whatever it takes for as long as it takes. 'At the end of the day,' a Hillary loyalist who talks regularly to campaign headquarters sighs, 'I think he still wins the nomination.' But not without a bigger -- and longer -- fight than Obama, and many in the party, had hoped for" -- New York Daily News Washington Bureau Chief Thomas DeFrank.

Quote of the Day II

"The view that nature was in some sort of preferred, yet fragile, state of balance before humans came along is arbitrary and philosophical -- even religious. It is entirely possible that there are other, more preferable states of balance in nature which are more robust and less fragile than whatever the state of nature was before we came along. You would think that science is the last place you would find such religious opinions, yet they dominate the worldview of scientists. Natural scientists tend to worship nature, and they then teach others to worship nature, too . . . all under the guise of 'science'" -- University of Alabama climate scientist Roy Spencer, writing in National Review.

Kryptonite for Superdelegates?

Last night, Hillary Clinton eked out a victory in Indiana, which she will likely use to justify continuing on. But her big loss in North Carolina undoubtedly finished off any real hope of swinging the superdelegates behind her campaign. Had she won even a decent sliver of the black vote, demonstrating that her appeal isn't merely the situational one of appealing to white, blue-collar voters who won't vote for Barack Obama, she could have made a case that nominating her wouldn't necessarily split the party in the fall. But that story went out the window when she won a pitiful 9% of the black vote.

The next stop is West Virginia, which holds its presidential contest next week. Mrs. Clinton is expected to win handily there, because white, blue-collar voters dominate the state's electorate. But it won't matter. This is a fight the party's nearly 800 superdelegates will now have to settle -- a denouement party leaders had wanted to avoid, since it smacks of the backroom deals of old.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has floated the idea of holding a mini-superdelegate convention in June, getting the dirty work out of the way before the August convention. But there's another option for the party to avoid the awkwardness of having superdelegates decide on the nominee -- simply strip the superdelegates of their right to vote and allow Mr. Obama to claim the nomination based on his lead in pledged delegates. Connecticut stripped Sen. Joe Lieberman of his superdelegate status earlier this year, as punishment for endorsing John McCain's bid for the White House. There's no reason the other superdelegates couldn't be stripped of their votes as well. Doing so would get a lot of attention and likely win the Democratic National Committee plaudits for its willingness to trust the judgment of voters over party poobahs.

-- Brendan Miniter

30271  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ: Divided for Obama on: May 07, 2008, 11:10:26 AM
Divided for Obama
May 7, 2008; Page A18
With his victory in North Carolina on Tuesday, Barack Obama took a giant step toward the Democratic presidential nomination. The irony is that he is doing this just when Hillary Clinton has finally exposed his potential weaknesses as a general election candidate.

The Illinois Senator can certainly breathe easier having dodged a loss in North Carolina, where he once held a big lead. As usual, he swept the under-30 crowd as well as the educated, upscale liberals in the central part of the Tar Heel State. He also seems to have fought the economic issue to a draw, suggesting that his opposition to Mrs. Clinton's proposal for a moratorium on the 18.4 cent federal gas tax didn't hurt.

But his victory in North Carolina depended heavily on his overwhelming (91%) share of the black vote, which made up about a third of the primary electorate. Mrs. Clinton won 61% of white Democrats in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, and 65% of white Democrats in Indiana. Mrs. Clinton also broke even among independents. Clearly Mr. Obama's early promise of a transracial, postpartisan coalition has dimmed as the campaign has progressed and voters have learned more about him.

The controversy over his 20-year association with his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, seems to have hurt in particular. About half of North Carolina Democrats said the Wright issue mattered to them, and they voted decisively for Senator Clinton. The former First Lady won easily among late deciders, which also suggests that Mr. Obama's rocky recent performance has cost him. And the Chicagoan continued his poor showing with rural voters, especially in white Democratic counties in Indiana. These are the voters John McCain will have a chance to get in November.

These are also the data points the Clinton campaign will now press with the superdelegates who will ultimately decide this contest. But the bitter political fact for the New York Senator is that her late-game rally may not matter. To nominate Mrs. Clinton now, party insiders would have to deny the nomination to the first African-American with a serious chance to be President, risking a revolt among their most loyal voting bloc.

The truth is that most Democratic pros are so confident of their November prospects that they believe either Senator will defeat John McCain. Mrs. Clinton also showed her own screaming liability yesterday, with nearly half of all Democrats saying she isn't "honest or trustworthy." This is the residue of the Clinton scandals, and it is one reason so many superdelegates have already begun to break their long co-dependence with Bill and Hillary by declaring for Mr. Obama.

Judging by his victory speech last night, the Illinois rookie has already begun to pivot to a general election strategy. He tried to address his vulnerabilities on national security and cultural values. And he began to recast his personal story as an affirmation of the American dream – in contrast to the image presented by his much-delayed condemnation of Rev. Wright's anti-American conspiracy theories.

One habit of modern Democrats is that they tend to fall in love with candidates who are both unknown and untested. The superdelegates will now have to decide if Mr. Obama is more like the Jimmy Carter of 1976 – or Michael Dukakis.
30272  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / From Detainee to Detonatee on: May 06, 2008, 03:08:12 PM
From Detainee to Detonatee
May 5, 2008

"A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday," Reuters reports from Dubai:

A friend of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul, his cousin Salem told the Dubai-based television channel.
"We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon . . . through a call from one of the friend's of martyr Abdullah in Iraq," said Salem al-Ajmi in a telephone interview aired by Arabiya.
He did not say when the suicide bombing happened.
30273  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Was it a tight fit? on: May 06, 2008, 02:26:03 PM
Philadelphia Inquirer

April 23, 2008

MOORESTOWN, NJ – A South Jersey police officer, in jail after being accused of molesting three children, was charged yesterday with four counts of animal cruelty for having sex with barnyard animals, authorities said.

Patrolman Robert Melia, 38, was suspended last week by the Moorestown Police department after authorities raided his Moorestown home and seized a computer and pornographic materials.

The animal cruelty charges were filed after an examination of the seized materials, authorities said.

An investigation is continuing. Police said they were investigating four incidents involving cows.

 Moorestown, NJ, Patrolman Robert Melia has been charged with having sex with cows.
Melia and Pemberton filmmaker Heather Lewis, 32, were charged April 13 with the sexual assaults of three girls at Melia’s house. The assaults occured on multiple occasions during the last five years, said a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor’s office said.

Melia is being held on $510,000 bail at the Burlington County Jail in Mount Holly. Lewis, who is charged with aggravated sexual assault and criminal sexual contact, is being held on $300,000 bail at the Women’s Detention Center in Pemberton.

(c) 2008 YellowBrix, Inc.
30274  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Venezuela Pol?tica on: May 06, 2008, 02:23:58 PM
30275  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / 4/29 Casi la mitad sin electricidad on: May 06, 2008, 02:22:40 PM
Casi la mitad de Venezuela sin electricidad

CARACAS (AP) -- Un fuerte apagón de más de una hora se registró la 
tarde del martes en cerca de la mitad del país a consecuencia de una 
falla en el sistema de transmisión de la central hidroeléctrica del 
Guri, que suministra electricidad a todo el país, declaró un 

El servicio eléctrico fue restablecido progresivamente en varios 
puntos de Caracas y otras ciudades del país pasadas las 5 de la tarde 
(21.00 GMT).

Hipólito Izquierdo, presidente de la Corporación Eléctrica Nacional, 
dijo a la televisora estatal que Caracas y varios estados del país 
quedaron sin luz pasadas las 4 de la tarde (20.00 GMT), por una falla 
en las líneas de transmisión que van desde el estado central de 
Guárico hasta el estado costero de Aragua.

Izquierdo acotó que la falla desconectó a las subestaciones y las 
plantas asociadas al sistema troncal del servicio eléctrico nacional.

El funcionario destacó que el apagón fue de gran magnitud y afectó 
entre 40% y 50% del servicio en todo el país.

Los estados que se vieron mayor afectados por esta falla fueron el 
Distrito Capital, Miranda, Aragua, Bolívar, Táchira, Lara, Carabobo, 
Yaracuy, Portuguesa, Falcón y Mérida, reportó la televisora local 

El apagón generó un caos en la capital debido a que los semáforos 
quedaron sin servicio y las líneas del Metro fueron paralizadas, lo 
que generó un fuerte congestionamiento de vehículos.

El presidente de la estatal Electricidad de Caracas, Javier Alvarado, 
declaró a la televisora estatal que la empresa comenzó a restablecer 
el servicio en la capital, y que en las próximas horas espera que 
todos los puntos de la ciudad tengan luz.
30276  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Politica on: May 06, 2008, 02:20:53 PM
La Politica de etanol:
30277  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Grand Truths and Grand Caverns on: May 06, 2008, 02:06:32 PM
From Grand Truths to Grand Caverns
by Alexander Green
Dear Reader,
Two summers ago, I toured Grand Caverns in the Shenandoah Valley.

It is a fabulous example of subterranean beauty. Awestruck, I walked from one room to the next, surrounded by shimmering red and yellow walls, giant stalagmites, and crystal-clear pools from underground streams. Near the end of the tour, I asked our guide – a girl of high-school age who was probably working a summer job – the approximate age of the caverns.

"Less than 6,000 years," she answered.

"6,000 years?" I said, incredulous. "But these caverns must be millions of years old."

"Well, I’m a Pentecostal," she explained. "And since we believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, the caverns can't be any older than that."

"What if you were Presbyterian," I asked with a wink. "How old would the caverns be then?"

She said she didn't understand the question. We left it at that.

I learned later that geologists estimate the caverns were formed more than 400 million years ago, during the Paleozoic era. (In case you were wondering.)

Ah, the age-old conflict between science and religion. Of all the religious wars, this one may be the battiest.

After all, science explains how the world is. Religion offers a vision of how it ought to be. Science tells us how the universe behaves. Religion suggests how we should.

Science has given us computers and vaccines, probed the recesses of the atom and the hinterlands of outer space. It is responsible for everything from anesthesia to supersonic travel to our understanding of quantum mechanics. New theories are tested experimentally every day. Some of them advance our knowledge. Those found wanting are rejected.

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong," says the Dalai Lama, "then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

Talk about enlightenment…

I'm not suggesting that science is without shortcomings. You'll notice, for example, that while science can tell us how to build an atomic bomb, it doesn't address the somewhat significant matter of whether to drop it on someone.

Clearly, that's one reason why Einstein remarked that, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Similarly, the late Stephen Jay Gould, an Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and professor of geology at Harvard, argued that science and religion operate in entirely separate realms or, as he called them, "Non-Overlapping Magisteria."

"Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts," says Gould. "Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different realm of human purposes, meanings, and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve… Science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven."

Some, however, would argue that science is uncovering so much about Nature that it is diminishing the majesty and mystery of life. And while it's true that science has revealed a lot about our natural history, it is safe to assume that it will never explain how everything could have sprung from nothing. That leaves plenty of room for science to co-exist with a genuine sense of spirituality.

After all, scientific principles don't contradict the universal spiritual values of everyday life. I have never heard a physicist or biologist argue against compassion… or forgiveness… or gratitude… or charity.

Moreover, many scientists and philosophers have written lucidly - even poetically - about the glories of creation.

The astronomer Carl Sagan said, "I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship."

Eric Chaisson, author of "Cosmic Dawn," writes that, "Without life, galaxies would twirl and stars would shine, but no one would appreciate the grandeur of it all."

Michael Shermer of Scientific American writes that, "Spirituality is a way of being in the world, a sense of one's place in the cosmos, a relationship to that which extends beyond ourselves."

The Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein proclaimed that, "The mystical is not how the world is, but that it is."

Einstein wrote, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

And the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend declared that a worthwhile life is not one devoted to scientific achievement, but to love. In the first draft of his autobiography, completed just before he died in 1994, he said love is all that matters in life. Without it, he said, "Even the noblest achievements and the most fundamental principles remain pale, empty and dangerous."

Clearly, there is plenty of common ground here. If science and religion oppose one another, perhaps it is only as your thumb opposes your fingers. And together you can use them to grasp the truth about life.

As the German poet and scientist Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe wrote a few hundred years ago, "The highest happiness of man… is to have probed what is knowable and quietly to revere what is unknowable."

Carpe Diem,


30278  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / PD WSJ on: May 06, 2008, 01:12:27 PM

If Hillary Clinton loses in North Carolina tonight, it will not have been for lack of effort to pander to her audiences.

First, came the accent. Often ridiculed for adopting a Southern twang when south of the Mason-Dixon line, Mrs. Clinton hauled out her best local pronunciation in her campaign stops. "It's time to quit wringin' our hands and start rollin' up our sleeves," she told a crowd at High Point this past weekend. The town's name rolled off her tongue sounding like "Hah Point."

China-bashing, always popular in a state that has lost many textile jobs, was a staple of her stump speech. She claimed China was no longer a trading partner and had become "our trading master." She said Beijing had cheated Americans out of jobs and "sends us back lead-based toys, contaminated pet food and polluted pharmaceuticals. This is going to end when I am president of the United States," she shouted.

Mr. Obama was implausibly portrayed as both out of touch and a tool of the oil companies. "Senator Obama wants you to pay the gas tax this summer instead of trying to get the oil companies to pay it out of their record profits," she told her listeners. She also criticized him for refusing to back her call for a freeze on home foreclosures, a step many economists say would be ruinous to the housing market. His failure, she said, just proved Mr. Obama's unwillingness to "take on the Wall Street bankers and mortgage companies that misled so many people into these sub-prime mortgages."

Team Obama is aghast at the audacity of the Clinton machine's tactics in the Tar Heel State. Buoyed by 92% support from African-American voters, they still expect to win. But if Mr. Obama loses, it will once again prove the potency of good, ol' fashioned demagoguery.

-- John Fund

Hillary and the Bush Voter

Can Hillary Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination on the back of Bush voters? Today in North Carolina, she may find out.

The Tar Heel State has become a key state for the former First Lady. With a large black population and sandwiched between two southern states Barack Obama has already won handily, her rival was once expected to win by a wide margin. If Mrs. Clinton can pull off an upset, it would transform the dynamics of the Democratic nomination race and immeasurably strengthen her appeal to the superdelegates. Though behind in overall fundraising, Mrs. Clinton has pulled out the stops and is outspending Mr. Obama in North Carolina. She also made the strategic decision to focus her time exclusively there in the campaign’s final days, rather than in Indiana, where Democrats also are voting today.

Any upset, however, would likely depend on mobilizing voters who pulled the lever for George W. Bush four years ago. Under Democratic Party rules, the bulk of the state's delegates will be handed out proportionally based on how the two candidates perform in 13 districts. Congressional Quarterly did a close analysis and found that the former First Lady is running strongest in districts that have a lot of Bush voters, such as the districts that include the Army's Fort Bragg and the Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune. Based on polling, the magazine still expects Mr. Obama to walk away with a slight lead in delegates (40 to 37) -- partly because Democratic Party rules assign fewer delegates to districts that voted heavily for Republican presidential candidates.

But Mr. Obama tends to perform slightly better in polls than he does on Election Day. Another wild card is North Carolina's "open primary," in which the state's 21% of "unaffiliated" voters can vote in either party's primary. Today's outcome may well come down to whether Mrs. Clinton can convince enough conservative Southerners -- who have tended to vote Republican for national office, but who have also voted for Gov. Mike Easley (a Clinton endorser) and other Democrats at the state level -- to turn out for Hillary.

-- Brendan Miniter

Quote of the Day

"[W]hen I hear people say let's bring the troops home and end the war, good God, it's not going to end the war. I think it's going to give you a war of significantly increased proportions. I remember how we reacted to Rwanda. How could we have let that happen? Why didn't we step in? Why didn't we get the international community engaged? Well, you know, what if you have a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and it's not a question of why didn't we step in, it's we stepped out. How is that going to affect people?" -- Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Next Stop, Hamas

Fresh from his presidential campaign and his splashy endorsement of Barack Obama, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has now been to Venezuela to meet with President Hugo Chávez and seek the release of three Americans held hostage by Colombian guerrillas.

Mr. Chávez clearly enjoyed the role he was asked to play as the magnanimous host, empathetic listener and potentially heroic intermediary. For his part, Mr. Richardson undoubtedly relished the chance to continue playing on a global stage, compared to which administering the state of New Mexico must seem unglamorous. Unfortunately, the only thing his trip accomplished was to clarify why the governor's bid for the U.S. presidency flopped.

For starters, Mr. Richardson came off looking ignorant about the realities of Venezuela. Intelligence agencies have long known that the FARC, which is holding the American hostages, makes a good part of its income by running illegal drugs through Venezuela. If Mr. Chávez wants to force the FARC to hand over the hostages, he needs only to threaten to cut off its transit routes.

He won't do that, of course, because he is ideologically, tactically and strategically wedded to the FARC. On his return to the U.S., Mr. Richardson only further advertised his ignorance by explaining to the media that negotiation was "difficult" because "you're dealing with a rebel group that's out in the jungle. You don't know where they are. You don't know what they want."

Huh? As the world knows, a captured laptop belonging to slain rebel leader Raul Reyes has already exposed not only the extent of Mr. Chávez's complicity with the Colombian rebels -- he obviously knows how to communicate with them -- but also what FARC is seeking in exchange for the hostages, namely a safe haven inside Venezuela where they can build bombs, store weapons and otherwise plan for attacks on civilians.

Mr. Richardson may want to position himself in U.S. politics as a cool Hispanic statesman with a sophisticated understanding of the region. But after this trip, he's looking like just one more naïve gringo.

-- Mary Anastasia O'Grady

30279  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Support our troops on: May 06, 2008, 11:42:36 AM
May 5, 2008

Dear Employer:

   As the Chairman of the Orange County Veterans Employment Committee (OCVEC), I would like to invite you and your organization to participate in the “Honor a Hero, Hire a Vet” 24th Annual Ultimate Career Fair. The OCVEC, in partnership with the Employment Development Department Veterans’ Program, sponsors this annual event.

We are thrilled once again to be working with the Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The goal of the “Honor a Hero, Hire a Vet” 24th Annual Ultimate Career Fair is to bring together job seekers and employers. We anticipate a substantial number of qualified job seekers of varying backgrounds will attend this well-established employment opportunity event.   

The Fair will be held on Wednesday, May 21st 2008, 9am-1pm at the Anaheim Angel Stadium: 2000 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, California 92806. The Fair is open to the general public.  We have accommodations for over 85 employers.
Attached is a registration form for you to complete and return before May 14th. The registration fee of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) is due upon registration. This fee includes: an 8’x 8’ curtained booth, 2 chairs, a 6 foot-table, booth signage, continental breakfast and a delicious sit down luncheon for two. If you have special requests, please make these known on the registration form.

The registration deadline is May 14th. Make your check payable to the OCVEC. We request that you fax a copy of the completed form to our office so that we can reserve a space for you.

   The Orange County Veterans Employment Committee looks forward to having you participate in this annual career fair. Contact a Veterans Representative at (714) 241-4955, if you require additional information.

Dick Akins
Dick Akins
OCVEC Chairman

2450 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE, SUITE 200, ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4272                                                                         
30280  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The First Amendment on: May 06, 2008, 11:29:49 AM
The Reformers Who Ruined Politics
May 6, 2008; Page A22
Nearly halfway to choosing the next President, voters are witnessing an amazing spectacle in addition to the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton scrum. All three of the contenders are avowed believers in ever more restrictive and convoluted campaign finance laws. They are also proving, with their every decision, why those laws have become a national farce.

With his fund raising headed for the stratosphere, Mr. Obama has transformed himself from earnest reformer to Senator Moneybags willing to renege on his pledge to accept public financing. Mrs. Clinton flirted initially with another donor scandal, and now her big givers are maxed out so even she has to scramble for cash for the later primaries. And John McCain, the caped crusader of reform for more than a decade, has taken to bending rules so he can remain competitive: His campaign pledged his eligibility for federal matching funds as collateral for a bank loan, then declined public funding and its spending limits for the primary season.

* * *
If you don't like how this looks, send your complaints to the three candidates. They were all proponents of fund-raising rules sold as a way to "cleanse" the system. Send your complaints as well to the good-government types who pledge allegiance to the idea that money is the root of political evil. They have had their way since the Watergate era, passing reform after reform.

George Soros
Yet in 2008 the role of money is more important than ever, only by means less accountable and transparent. To run for President nowadays means devoting a large share of your time to creating a fund-raising "machine." Scores of good potential candidates won't run because they can't stomach the endless wheedling required to raise campaign cash in $2,300 chunks.

If the goal was to make campaigning cheaper, that didn't work either. In the early 1990s, a respectable presidential primary campaign needed $20 million. Mr. Obama had raised more than $230 million by the end of March. He's to be congratulated for raising record numbers of small donations over the Internet. But the truth is that small donations still make up a minority of all contributions – 34% – according to the Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University.

Not that we agree that the virtue of a donation is inversely related to its size. The stakes of a presidential race are high, and those with money and a motive cannot be kept on the sidelines in a free society (if it's to remain a free society). Whether as individuals or through unions or other organized groups, citizens have a First Amendment right to support their candidate – and they will find a way to do so.

Increasingly, they are turning to 527s and other independent political groups not covered under McCain-Feingold's 2002 restrictions. Between 2002 and 2004, spending by 527s more than doubled to $653 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Responsive Politics. At least $177 million of that came from 52 individuals who donated more than $1 million each. Total spending by independent political groups is expected to approach $1 billion by the end of this election.

The King Canutes of reform are outraged. Their answer is to stack new regulations on top of the current malfunctioning regulations they said would solve everything. Fred Wertheimer at Democracy 21, the godfather of this mess going back to the 1970s, now denounces the 527s, which he says create "enormous inequities."

Maybe he's referring to George Soros, his billionaire ally and fellow supporter of McCain-Feingold. Today Mr. Soros and his friends conduct a fleet of liberal 527s so broad that it is nearly untrackable. The reforms that were sold in the name of minimizing the influence of "fat cats" has made one of America's richest men among the most powerful in politics. The very reforms championed by Mr. McCain could help Mr. Soros defeat the Arizonan this year.

Another unsavory result has been deterring nonprofessional candidates from giving political lifers a run for their money. No one can realistically contemplate running for office without a team of lawyers to navigate the campaign laws. This year, to complicate matters further for the benefit of incumbents and insiders, those insiders are politicizing the Federal Election Commission that is supposed to enforce all of these rules. The FEC has been left without a quorum indefinitely, thanks to a Democratic charade over one of President Bush's nominees.

Last year, Mr. Obama placed a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, on grounds that he had once supported a voter ID law in Georgia. Last week, a 6-to-3 Supreme Court majority agreed with Mr. von Spakovsky on voter ID. But don't expect that to sway Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who still refuses to confirm Mr. von Spakovsky as part of a traditional FEC nominee group of bipartisan pairs, or even to confirm two other FEC nominees without him. How convenient. Blocking an FEC quorum opens up maneuvering room for Democrats in a year when they have the financial advantage. They can count on their inventive campaign tactics receiving adjudication around, say, 2011.

* * *
The Founding Fathers would have had no trouble detecting the absurdity of having political actors determine what does or doesn't constitute free political speech. The First Amendment was written precisely to deny politicians such control. The Supreme Court has nonetheless upheld the idea of limiting campaign contributions on grounds that it would reduce "corruption." But after 30 years of contrary evidence, the Justices should revisit that fanciful notion. Money is required in modern America to amplify political speech. Attempting to limit or ban money merely gives the advantage to those best able to game the rules, or to the news media that can make nonfinancial "contributions" via endorsements.

If this campaign proves anything, it is that more reform on the post-Watergate model will only compound the McCain-Feingold-Clinton-Obama folly. The rules themselves are the scandal, empowering the powerful and making it harder for voters to judge the indebtedness of candidates to individuals or interest groups.

The better path is more simplicity and transparency, so office seekers can raise whatever amount they can from whomever they want so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet. It's time we reclaimed politics from the reformers who ruined it.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
30281  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Jefferson; Franklin; Washington; Hamilton; and Rush on: May 06, 2008, 10:49:06 AM
"In our private pursuits it is a great advantage that every honest
employment is deemed honorable. I am myself a nail-maker."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Jean Nicolas Démeunier, 29 April

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America
"A fine genius in his own country is like gold in the mine."

-- Benjamin Franklin (Poor Richard's Almanack, 1733)

Reference: Franklin: Writings, Lemay, ed., Library of America

“May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us in all our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.” —George Washington

"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton

“Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.” —Benjamin Rush

30282  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New Intel on Iran's nukes? on: May 05, 2008, 11:51:13 PM

UK paper: Breakthrough reached in intel on Iran
Mossad chief Meir Dagan is expected to brief Britain's MI6 head Sir John Scarlett, who is slated to visit Israel later this month, on an intelligence breakthrough regarding the Iranian nuclear program, London's Sunday Times reported.

Concern has been mounting in Israel that Iran's nuclear capability may be far more advanced than was recognized by the US National Intelligence Estimate last December, which reported that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003 in response to international pressure.

A source quoted by the paper on Sunday claimed that the new information was on par with intelligence that led to the discovery and destruction of a partly constructed nuclear reactor in Syria last September.

Israeli officials believe the US will revise its analysis of Iran's program.

"We expect the Americans to amend their report soon," a high-ranking military officer said last week.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni briefed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Israel's findings during talks on the Middle East in London last week. Israeli intelligence officers, en route from Washington where they had been outlining their latest information to American officials, joined Livni for the briefing.

It is believed that if Israel were weighing military action against Iran, it would first seek diplomatic support in London and Washington because of the danger of triggering a wider Middle East conflict.

"We're doing a lot of things about Iran," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last week. "We say we shouldn't rule out any option. Not ruling out options means action, but the worst thing to do at the moment is to talk [about it]."
30283  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / More on coyote-human interaction on: May 05, 2008, 07:48:53 AM
More on coyote-human interaction
30284  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Peru on: May 05, 2008, 07:47:49 AM
Uno mas en inlges:

Peru Takes the Other Path
May 5, 2008; Page A13

Iquitos, Peru

It's about 90 minutes flying time from Lima to this jungle metropolis of 400,000. But daily life here is light years away from what it is in the Peruvian capital.

After almost two decades of gradual reforms by the central government, Lima is today home to first-world services, globally competitive businesses, shopping malls and an emerging middle class. But here in the hub of the Peruvian Amazon, living standards are all too similar to what they were 30 years ago.

WSJ Americas columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady says although the Peruvian economy is experiencing growth, it's not uniform throughout the country. She speaks with Kelsey Hubbard about the struggle between modernity and atavistic socialism. (May 2)
The differences between the two cities illustrate one of the biggest challenges for the government of President Alan García, who was once a renowned socialist but now says he embraces democratic capitalism.

Peru has been experiencing fast growth – better than 6% annually – for almost seven years, and it has largely occurred on the coast and in the capital city. But the mountain and jungle regions of the country have not kept up. They remain vulnerable to the siren song of left-wing populism.

This is what makes Peru ground zero in the continental struggle between modernity and atavistic socialism. Hugo Chávez is circling like a vulture in the poorer parts of the county, hoping to pick off a prized Andean nation to add to his collection of revolutionary allies in South America. Meanwhile, reformers are trying to push ahead with deeper liberalization.

The good news is that the white hats have the momentum. If it is true that remote locations like this city are vulnerable to ideological incursions from the authoritarian left, it is also true that much of the rest of the country is beginning to think and act more like Chilean entrepreneurs than Cuban apparatchiks. Understanding why is critical to further progress.

A fundamental change that has won converts to market reforms in the past two decades is price stability. In 1990, inflation reached 7,000%, but over the past six years it has averaged 2.3%. That means that even before any other changes in government policy, every Peruvian has enjoyed a tax cut and a boost to his savings power.

Yet price stability on its own would have left the country well below its potential. Far more impressive is the restructuring of the economy, which has led both to growth and to a more equal distribution of opportunity. While a boom in commodity prices has certainly fueled development of late, Peru is also sprouting entrepreneurs in a variety of nontraditional industries. And these innovators are making their way onto the global stage.


Get the latest information in Spanish from The Wall Street Journal's Americas page.The key reform that has made all this possible is the opening of the economy, which until 1990 had very high tariffs designed to protect local industries.

Peruvian journalist Jaime Althaus documents the effects of the opening in his 2007 book (Spanish only) titled "The Capitalist Revolution in Peru." Far from "deindustrializing" the country, Mr. Althaus argues, trade liberalization has strengthened Peruvian manufacturing. Under high tariffs, the industrial sector served mainly as an auto and electronics assembler, using inputs from abroad. But when protection ended, local manufacturing began to discover its comparative advantages.

There were plenty. High growth rates – averaging 11% a year from 1990-2002 – have occurred in sectors that make china, porcelain, knitted fabrics, plastic products and basic chemicals, to mention a few.

The story of the "cluster" of small metallurgical companies that has emerged in Lima is especially compelling. In recent years, these entrepreneurs have been competitive in bidding for work that was previously dominated by important international firms. They have also become exporting powerhouses.

The agricultural sector on the coast has also revived, in part because private-property rights there (though not in the interior) have replaced the collectivized system of the 1970s. As a result, investment has poured in. Modern farming has put the coast on the map as a global supplier of asparagus, grapes, sweet yellow onions, mangos and organic bananas. All of this has been supported by the deregulation and privatization of key sectors like telecom and banking. And the biggest beneficiaries of openness have been consumers.

So what's the matter with Iquitos? It is not, as you might think, the fact that it is so isolated. Mr. García told me that he believes the real problem is that its most valuable resources – mahogany and cedar – grow on land that has no property rights. There are some long-term concessions, but he says he would like to see many more so that those who harvest the wood have the proper incentives to care for the forests.

See what I mean about the change in thinking? Now if only the president will seize the day, the chavistas from Caracas might begin to look like no more than footnotes in Peruvian history.
30285  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: May 05, 2008, 07:27:50 AM
Obama's Health Care Record
May 5, 2008; Page A15

Laughing gas can be useful during complicated dental procedures, but should every health plan be required to cover it and should health insurance cost more because of it?

Barack Obama thinks so. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted to require that dental anesthesia be covered by every health plan for difficult medical cases. Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. Other mandates require coverage of infertility treatments, drug rehab, "personal injuries" incurred while intoxicated, and other forms of care.

By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.

A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state. Average policies in high-mandate New Jersey cost about $4,000 according to a 2004 insurance survey, much more than the $1,200 charged in low-mandate Wyoming.

CAHI estimates that there are 1,961 state-mandated benefits across the country. It's not just specific products and services that get mandated, but also whole categories of providers like chiropractors and psychologists. By one count, states have enacted about 500 laws mandating coverage for 25 different types of providers.

States also mandate new categories of eligibility that force small businesses to cover additional dependents. One popular measure is the "slacker mandate," which extends coverage to unmarried dependents under the age of 30.

Not all mandates are equally expensive. Drug rehab, for example, increases a plan's premiums by 9% on average, according to America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Coverage for psychologists adds 12% to premiums. But in total, in some states mandates increase the cost of insurance from 10% to 20%, according to AHIP.

These increased costs aren't shared equally among all who have health insurance. People who are covered through self-insured employers (usually large corporations) are shielded from state mandates because of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prevents states from enacting controls on plans that cross state lines.

The burden of paying for state mandates is usually borne by individuals who buy their own insurance, small employers and others not covered by ERISA. In total, about half of the people who have insurance bear the brunt of the cost of state mandates. And, as it turns out, individuals who do not work for large corporations are much more likely to be uninsured. AHIP calculates that between 20%-25% of uninsured Americans can't afford coverage because of the increased cost of providing mandated care.

It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.

State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.

Why, then, do we have mandates?

For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies.

One way to make insurance more affordable is to extend the benefits of the ERISA exemption to people who buy insurance on their own, putting them on a level playing field with those who get coverage through large employers by freeing them from expensive state insurance laws.

Most insurance plans would still cover important health-care items such as prenatal HIV testing or routine colon cancer screening or bone density tests – three additional mandates Mr. Obama helped enact in Illinois. But without government mandates, plans would also have the flexibility to offer lower-priced insurance options.

Better still, Congress could pass legislation that has long languished in the House allowing people to purchase health plans across state lines. People could choose which state regulations to buy into, creating a market for the insurance mandates. This would give states more incentives to fix local problems that have helped make health insurance expensive in the first place. It's a fair bet that there would be an exodus of policyholders from higher-cost, higher-mandate states like New Jersey and even Illinois (which has more expensive mandates than about half of the other states).

Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.

"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain.

Dr. Gottlieb is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
30286  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / GM Cacoy Canete in Los Angeles on: May 05, 2008, 07:05:46 AM
We are pleased to share word of a seminar here in LA with the legendary GM Cacoy Canete:

> Gentlemen,
> Please email this flyer to all your email friends and students in 
> California.  Respectfully in the Martial Arts,  Aloha RSBustillo
> International Martial arts Boxing, Inc.
> Presents
> Grandmaster Cacoy Canete
> From time to time the IMB Academy takes pride in presenting 
> prominent, internationally known martial artists from around the 
> globe to share, teach, and demonstrate their martial art skills to us.
> We are proud to announce that on June 8th from 9 AM to 4 PM, the 
> legendary Cacoy Canete of Cebu, Philippines will be conducting a 
> five (5) hour hands-on seminar at the IMB Academy.  The 88 year old 
> Grandmaster's list of achievements would be far too numerous to 
> list, so here are just a few:
>                    o Eskrima training since age 7 under older 
> brother "Momoy"
>                    o Amateur boxer, Cebu City 1937/39
>                    o Wrestler, Philippine National Wrestling 
> Association 1957
>                    o Black Belts: Shorin Karate 1969, Aikido 1984, 
> Kodokan 1985
>                    o Presidential Champion Trophy, 1st National 
> Masters Open, 3/24/79
>                    o Champion, 1st National Arnis Invitational, 
> August 19, 1979
>                    o Ret. Lieutenant, Military Police, Philippine Army
>                    o Ret. Captain, Reserve Armed Forces of the 
> Philippines
>                    o Cebu Sports Hall of Fame inductee, Philippines 
> 1997
>                    o Hall of Fame Inductee: Black Belt Magazine, 
> Filipino Martial Arts and
>                        2X United States Martial Arts, Martial Arts 
> History Museum
> This seminar will cover hands-on training on the advance Doce Pares 
> olisi (rattan), Eskrido & Pangamot, and short rattan (dagger) for 
> self-defense.  Bring your gym clothes, eskrima equipment and learn 
> from a living legend for self-defense and martial arts' sport.
> Sunday - June 8, 2008, 9am to 4pm, 4 hrs @ $75.00 Members

> $85.00 if paid before June 1st (non-members)
>  $95.00 if paid before May 14th (non-members)
> Tel (310) 787-8793  web site   Fax (310) 787-8795
> IMB Academy, Inc. 22109 So. Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA

30287  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Attention Women Fighters on: May 04, 2008, 10:05:27 PM
Woof All:

I need to confirm with Linda "Bitch" Matsumi, but my understanding is that she is available for fighting with Ashley _____ of Manassas VA.  Ashley is an excellent athlete and I look forward to some outstanding fights between the two of them. 

I post here so that other women know that there are fights for them to be had at this Gathering.

The Adventure continues,
Crafty Dog
30288  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / TV Show on: May 04, 2008, 09:42:00 PM
New Reality Show

Now Picked up By a Major Network

A new Reality Show , featuring the Martial Arts is gearing up and looking for your
story. Have you ever been attacked , stalked, struck or mugged and were you able
 to fight back using your martial arts training  ?  .

Like nothing you have seen before . This show will be based on experts and novices
alike , be part of a all empowering show , which will leave the audience smarter,
more prepared and wiser to the world we live in today.

Instructors we are looking for WOMEN  ( for our first show ) that have used thier
martial arts  in a attack.
1. Please send a small write up on the attack to our Email
2. Please note that person will have to be able to travel to Brooklyn NY During
the last weeks of May for 1 day , for filming.

The Producers : Fight Back Intelligently

Andrea Matzke &  Alan Goldberg

Cast so far : David Toma , Christine Bannon Rodriquez , Alan Goldberg, Demitrius
 Oak tree Edwards

Please Contact us at []

Or 718 856-8070
30289  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Albert Hoffman on: May 03, 2008, 06:44:04 PM
Man who invented LSD and took first acid trip dead of a heart attack at 102

Associated Press
Article Launched: 04/29/2008 09:13:09 PM PDT

NEW YORK - Albert Hofmann, the father of the mind-altering drug LSD whose medical
discovery grew into a notorious "problem child," died Tuesday. He was 102.

Hofmann died of a heart attack at his home in Basel, Switzerland, according to Rick
Doblin, president of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, in a
statement posted on the association's Web site.

Hofmann's hallucinogen inspired - and arguably corrupted - millions in the 1960's
hippy generation. For decades after LSD was banned in the late 1960s, Hofmann
defended his invention. "I produced the substance as a medicine ... It's not my
fault if people abused it," he once said.

The Swiss chemist discovered lysergic acid diethylamide-25 in 1938 while studying
the medicinal uses of a fungus found on wheat and other grains at the Sandoz
pharmaceuticals firm in Basel. He became the first human guinea pig of the drug when
a tiny amount of the substance seeped on to his finger during a repeat of the
laboratory experiment April 16, 1943.

"I had to leave work for home because I was suddenly hit by a sudden feeling of
unease and mild dizziness," he subsequently wrote in a memo to company bosses.
"Everything I saw was distorted as in a warped mirror," he said, describing his
bicycle ride home. "I had the impression I was rooted to the spot. But my assistant
told me we were actually going very fast."

Three days later, Hofmann experimented with a larger dose. The result was a horror
trip. "The substance which I wanted to experiment with took over me. I was filled
with an overwhelming fear that I would go crazy. I was transported to a different
world, a different time," Hofmann wrote.

There was no answer at Hofmann's home on Tuesday and a person who answered the phone
at Novartis, a former employer, said the company had no knowledge of his death.

Hofmann and his scientific colleagues hoped that LSD would make an important
contribution to psychiatric research. The drug exaggerated inner problems and
conflicts and thus it was hoped that it might be used to recognize and treat mental
illness like schizophrenia.

For a time, Sandoz sold LSD 25 under the name Delysid, encouraging doctors to try it
themselves. It was one of the strongest drugs in medicine - with just one gram
enough to drug an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people for 12 hours.

Hofmann discovered the drug had a similar chemical structure to psychedelic
mushrooms and herbs used in religious ceremonies by Mexican Indians.

LSD was elevated to international fame in the late 1950s and 1960s thanks to Harvard
professor Timothy Leary who embraced the drug under the slogan "turn on, tune in,
drop out." The film star Cary Grant and numerous rock musicians extolled its virtues
in achieving true self discovery and enlightenment.

But away from the psychedelic trips and flower children, horror stories emerged
about people going on murder sprees or jumping out of windows while hallucinating.
Heavy users suffered permanent psychological damage.

The U.S. government banned LSD in 1966 and other countries followed suit. Hofmann
maintained this was unfair, arguing that the drug was not addictive. He repeatedly
maintained the ban should be lifted to allow LSD to be used in medical research.

He himself took the drug - purportedly on an occasional basis and out of scientific
interest - for several decades. "LSD can help open your eyes," he once said. "But
there are other ways - meditation, dance, music, fasting." Even so, the self
described "father" of LSD readily agreed that the drug was dangerous if in the wrong
hands. This was reflected by the title of his 1979 book: "LSD - my problem child."

Hofmann retired from Sandoz in 1971. He devoted his time to travel, writing and
lectures - which often reflected his growing interest with philosophy and religious

He lived in a small picturesque village in the Swiss Jura mountains and remained
active until his early 90's.
30290  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Husband shoots wife's lover on: May 03, 2008, 04:55:45 PM

Wife convicted after husband fatally shoots lover

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.

In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
30291  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Negotiating with the Taliban on: May 03, 2008, 04:53:02 PM

Canadian troops in Afghanistan are looking for opportunities to carry out
tactical-level talks with Taliban insurgents, Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail
reported on Thursday. The paper added that discussions are under way in Afghan
government circles regarding strategic negotiations with the Taliban, including some
controversial suggestions that Taliban leaders could receive political appointments
or provincial governing posts. Furthermore, international stakeholders in the Policy
Action Group reportedly are discussing "red lines" to set boundaries for what the
talks could include.

The West has come to the realization that "solving" Afghanistan is not something
that can be done militarily. The country, with its size and geographic complexity,
is -- at best -- an artificial state held together by nothing more than an occupying
force and neighbors who think that imposing direct control is more trouble than it
is worth. Put another way, if the Soviets -- with as many troops in Afghanistan as
the United States now has in Iraq and with the will to kill anyone, anywhere --
could not handle the country, NATO will certainly not be able to handle it with
Western rules of engagement.

Yet that is how the war has been fought since 2002. Note we say 2002, not 2001. In
2001, the war was a different creature: The operation entailed overthrowing the
then-Taliban government, and not imposing some flavor of stability. Overthrowing a
manpower-light, geographically dispersed military proved rather simple. But then
again, most of the Taliban chose not to stand still and let themselves be bombed
from 20,000 feet; they melted away into the countryside. They began their resurgence
in 2002 -- which, six years later, has taken the form of a full-fledged insurgency.

The state of war that has existed since the Taliban began their comeback is what has
defined the "country" for the past six years. And that war is what the U.S.
administration is now attempting to redefine. The first step in that process is the
installment of Gen. David Petraeus as chief of U.S. Central Command.

Petraeus' most impressive claim to fame so far was turning the Iraqi war of
occupation around. Instead of using military force to make Iraq look like a sandy
Wisconsin, he instead engaged select foes and turned them into allies, adding
American firepower to their own. This not only whittled down the number of militants
fighting U.S. forces, but it allowed those forces to concentrate their efforts on
the foes that they had to fight, instead of needing to patrol regions that -- with
the right deals cut -- could patrol themselves.

The war in Iraq is hardly "over," but Petraeus' strategy has proven sufficient to
make the task manageable. Perhaps there are lessons from Iraq that can be put to
work in Afghanistan such that the United States and its NATO allies can reach a
point where the chaos there can be managed as well. If re-Baathification worked and
the Americans are working with Islamist actors in Iraq (both Sunni and Shiite),
perhaps they can do the same in Afghanistan. In other words, if there is a need to
bring back the Taliban, then that has to be managed.

Petraeus has juggled a complex situation in Iraq, consisting of multiple groups
divided along ethno-sectarian, ideological, political and tribal lines. Dealing with
a much less complex militancy landscape involving (more or less) a singular trend --
that of the Taliban -- is therefore not an unreasonable expectation. That said,
there is one major difference: Unlike the Iraqi actors Washington has dealt with,
the Taliban could be the first jihadist group with which the United States engages
in talks.

The operating assumption in any negotiations is that an armed nonstate actor is
willing to be pragmatic --  something very difficult for religious ideologues. What
this means is that initial talks will be about gaining a clear understanding of the
nebulous nature of the Taliban phenomenon such that pragmatic elements can be
identified among what appears to be a collection of armed Pashtun mullahs.
Separating those who are willing to do business from those who are engaged in a
zero-sum game could help transform the belligerents into a much more manageable

The West's goal in Iraq is to re-create a buffer state that can contain an Iran with
regional ambitions, whereas the objective in Afghanistan is far more modest. In
Afghanistan, the West is not even looking to create a state in the normal sense of
the word. An arrangement that can keep chaos within tolerable parameters would

30292  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Nanny vs. Coyote on: May 03, 2008, 04:32:38 PM
Nanny Rips Baby Girl From Jaws of Coyote in California Sandbox

Saturday , May 03, 2008

A nanny pulled a 2-year-old girl from the jaws of a coyote when the animal attacked the toddler and tried to carry her away in its mouth, officials said.

The girl was playing Friday in a sandbox at Alterra Park in Chino Hills in San Bernardino County. Around 10:30 a.m., the caretaker heard screaming and saw a coyote trying to carry the child off in its mouth, officials said.

The babysitter grabbed the child and pulled her from the coyote's grasp, the sheriff's department said in a statement.

The coyote then ran off into nearby brush.

The child suffered wounds to her buttocks and was taken to Chino Valley Medical Center and was later released, director of nursing Anne Marie Robertson said. She was later transported to Loma Linda University Medical Center to receive the rabies vaccine.

San Bernardino County Animal Control and the State Department of Fish and Game were searching for the animal, Wiltshire said.

Miller said there was another attack in the area in October when a coyote bit a 3-year-old girl playing in a cul-de-sac. The girl needed treatment for puncture wounds to the head and thigh, Miller said.
30293  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Windfall profits for dummies on: May 03, 2008, 06:36:51 AM
Windfall Profits for Dummies
May 3, 2008; Page A10
This is one strange debate the candidates are having on energy policy. With gas prices close to $4 a gallon, Hillary Clinton and John McCain say they'll bring relief with a moratorium on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax. Barack Obama opposes that but prefers a 1970s-style windfall profits tax (as does Mrs. Clinton).

Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.

The idea is catching on. Last week Pennsylvania Congressman Paul Kanjorski introduced a windfall profits tax as part of what he called the "Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008." So now we have Congress threatening to help itself to business profits even though Washington already takes 35% right off the top with the corporate income tax.

You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.

There's another policy contradiction here. Exxon is now under attack for buying back $2 billion of its own stock rather than adding to the more than $21 billion it is likely to invest in energy research and exploration this year. But hold on. If oil companies believe their earnings from exploring for new oil will be expropriated by government – and an excise tax on profits is pure expropriation – they will surely invest less, not more. A profits tax is a sure formula to keep the future price of gas higher.

Exxon's profits are soaring with the recent oil price spike, but the energy industry's earnings aren't as outsized as the politicians seem to think. Thomson Financial calculates that profits from the oil and natural gas industry over the past year were 8.3% of investment, while the all-industry average is 7.8%. And this was a boom year for oil. An analysis by the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor finds that between 1970 and 2003 (which includes peak and valley years for earnings) the oil and gas business was "less profitable than the rest of the U.S. economy." These are hardly robber barons.

This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?

Late this week, a group of Senate Republicans led by Pete Domenici of New Mexico introduced the "American Energy Production Act of 2008" to expand oil production off the U.S. coasts and in Alaska. It has the potential to increase domestic production enough to keep America running for five years with no foreign imports. With the world price of oil at $116 a barrel, if not now, when? No word yet if Senators Clinton and Obama will take time off from denouncing oil profits to vote for that.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
30294  DBMA Espanol / Espanol Discussion / Re: Peru on: May 03, 2008, 06:31:05 AM
Alan García
Peru's Born-Again Free Marketeer
May 3, 2008; Page A9

Lima, Peru

'Knock on the door," a solider standing guard in front of Peru's Government Palace says when I tell him I have an interview with President Alan García. I gaze up at the massive wooden portal – the perfect entry for the palace's 6-foot-5-inch resident or even someone twice that size – and do as I'm told.

A small wicket in the middle of the big door swings open and I give my name. I am admitted and escorted through the famous mirrored "golden salon," modeled on a room at Versailles. At 8:30 on a Saturday morning, the palace is silent. The click of my high-heels on the marble floor echoes under the vaulted ceiling. We reach another smaller chamber; coffee is served.

Terry Shoffner 
The Peruvian economy is doing well these days, but with the world's attention focused on an aspiring dictator in Venezuela, its success has gone relatively unnoticed outside the region. Thus I want to talk to Mr. García and he has agreed to talk to me: A clever and seasoned politician, legendary for his silver-tongued populism, he is now in the business of marketing his country to investors. And why not? With an average growth rate over the past six years of better than 6.2%, the story is a good one. And it is about much more than a boom in mining exports. Peru has blossomed because of competitiveness, something that could not have been imagined a decade ago.

Mr. García led Peru once before, from 1985-1990. That presidency ended in disaster. In July of his last year in office, when his successor Alberto Fujimori was sworn in, the monthly inflation rate was 63%.

Price controls had spawned long lines for food. The government had a fiscal deficit totaling a whopping 7.5% of GDP. The economy contracted 8.8% in 1988 and 12.2% in 1989. Meanwhile, Shining Path terrorists dominated the countryside, making life miserable for the peasant population, unattractive to foreign investors and impossible for tourism.

Mr. García left office in shame and, hounded by corruption charges, fled in 1992 to live in exile in Colombia. Upon his return nine years later, he lost a bid for the presidency against Alejandro Toledo.

In 2006, he ran again and won in a run-off against a hard-left populist who was promising to replicate Chávez-style government in Peru. His victory was owed in part to the many Peruvians who, despite bitter memories of his disastrous administration, held their noses and voted for him just to avoid the horror of chavismo. Then they braced themselves for life again under the man known as "crazy horse."

So far not only have their fears not materialized but something truly unexpected has happened instead: Mr. García now speaks the language of a born-again economic liberal and defends markets as a way to reduce poverty. Whether the conversion is authentic is a matter of much debate in Peru these days. What I can say for sure, after a 70-minute interview, is that he firmly grasps the principles behind the arguments he now professes to believe.

Peruvian growth is often assumed to be about the mining sector – copper, gold and the like. But Peruvians are discovering their comparative advantages in niche markets around the world in a host of other sectors, including manufacturing, apparel and agriculture. A visitor to Lima immediately appreciates vast improvements in services compared to even a half-decade ago.

How has all this come to pass? "I think the essential change is in the commercial economic model of Peru," he says. The country "has decided to insert itself in the global economy, open its borders to investment, lower tariffs [and] guarantee fiscal and monetary stability. I think this, sustained for more than 10 years now, is bearing fruit."

Mr. García also recognizes the fact that many of his neighbors are not courting investors, making his country a beneficiary of their bad attitudes. "Peru looks like the country [in the region] most favorable to modernization," generating a level of investment "that is extraordinary." The country has had "an important rate of growth in the past three years, from 6% annually to almost 8% and then 9%. We expect to maintain, this year, the highest growth rate and the lowest level of inflation in South America."

For a country defined by decades of poverty and violence, this borders on the miraculous. But what may be more amazing is that the region's most notorious left-wing populist of the 1980s now champions free enterprise. Even Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez never wrote such a surreal tale. I ask the president to explain his epiphany.

The question produces a burst of laughter that seems to contain at least a kernel of irritation, but if so it fades quickly. He immediately goes to the heart of the issue. "First, more than reading, one has to see the reality and this reality is what has changed." For the president, that reality is all about the birth of the microchip. "Twenty-five years ago the world was divided in two," he says "and what did not exist was the extraordinary revolution in communication and information, which is the basis of all the change in the world economy now and of the change in our ideas. The Internet, electronic money, the economic opening of trade without borders," this is what's driven the shift in thinking. "This new reality demands that we not oppose the wave of globalization but take advantage of it in favor of society."

More shocking for those who remember the old Alan García is his newly espoused faith in the private sector as an engine of human progress. "I have an enthusiastic and hopeful perspective that we are beginning a new economic phase of the economy, like in 1750 with the steam engine. We are beginning a totally different chapter in economics. The world is linked and there is a growing democratization through participation by consumers and producers.

"At the same time there is the process of individualization of decisions, communications that makes humanity more free. Just like when Cho En Lai was asked if he judged the French Revolution a success and he said, 'It's too early to tell,' I think we are in the first years of something that may take centuries to evaluate." Government's role, in Mr. García's opinion, is "to persuade the people – this is its role as a leader – to be open to all the possibilities of . . . investment and, with this, to decentralize economic activity and thereby create more employment."

Still, his critics in Lima say that he has yet to prove his mettle by pushing through the next phase of reforms. Businesses still toil under a massive regulatory and tax burden; and Peru particularly needs labor reform that will lower the cost of hiring and firing workers. This will require cuts in payroll taxes and in severance obligations of companies when workers are let go.

Mr. García agrees that labor regulation is a drag on businesses and has no trouble diagnosing the problem: "We no longer live in a closed economy with protection. It is an economy of competition and speed. And therefore the businesses are destined to be born, live and die because any company can enter a market and displace others. In this sense, businesses are condemned to instability. As a consequence we cannot continue with concepts that come from another time and another situation."

Instability, he says, is particularly a problem for services and low-tech manufacturing businesses that face stiff competition from around the globe. But he also notes that the problem makes life difficult for Peruvian workers. "We need a reform that formalizes the masses – some 70% of Peruvians workers – who work in the informal sector and have no rights, as well as the businesses which are not legal and don't pay taxes."

For decades politicians around the region have looked at different ways to reduce the size of the underground economy. Most see the answer as more law enforcement; Mr. García seems to favor incentives. Rather than hiring an army of tax and labor inspectors to force compliance, he recognizes that the rules of the game have to be changed. He says Peru has to lower the cost of being in the formal sector if it wants to "increase its internal saving capacity through the pension funds and increase its ability to offer health care to Peruvians." Without such changes, the country will be stuck with "informality," what the president calls "the slavery of the 21st century."

Opponents of labor reform, he says, include workers in the formal sector who want to protect their privileges enshrined in regulation, and businesses that dread the organizing power of legal workers. But Mr. García says that the 70% who don't have formal-sector jobs will be liberated from the slavery if the reform that he is working on is passed by the Peruvian Congress. It is a "pro-jobs" reform, he insists, more than a labor reform.

Meaningful labor reform would go a long way toward erasing his past sins, and maybe even secure his legacy. But much will depend on what happens to the inflation rate, which has been heading north of late. Poor Peruvians, particularly in the mountainous area of the country which favored his opponent in the run-off election, have been demonstrating in the streets against rising food prices. Mr. García blames this on rising global demand for rice, "the disastrous ethanol program" and the fact that the country grows no wheat and has to import it all from abroad.

Just to be provocative, I ponder aloud whether price controls wouldn't be a good way to help the poor. He snickers and then shoots back: "Price controls are my enemy." Instead, he says, the answer to rising prices is to increase the productive capacity of Peru. That's not a bad course of action, though it will take some time. What would be better is to let the "sol" appreciate. Regrettably, the central bank is loath to do that because it believes it will make exporters less competitive, a view that has led many a government into trouble.

President García wants the world to know that he is a born-again believer in the connection between liberty and human progress. And as a world-class orator, he has no trouble laying out the case. But Peruvians once bitten are thrice shy, and they are not so eager to bless his conversion. The key, it would seem, to ending the debate and rewriting the history books that will tell of his heroic leadership is to put his vision into action. No wonder all eyes are on this former populist's attempts to tackle the difficult issue of labor reform.

He certainly packs the optimism necessary for the job; he has no time for the doom-and-gloom set. "When they say that the world is threatened by immigration, poverty, destruction of the environment and concentration of monopolies, I laugh. I have complete faith in human intelligence and technology to overcome any obstacle, geographic or social."

Ms. O'Grady writes the Americas column for The Wall Street Journal.

30295  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Sit Rep on: May 03, 2008, 06:26:16 AM
The Truth About Iraq's Casualty Count
May 3, 2008; Page A11

The newspapers are predictably filled with articles about how 52 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq last month – the highest toll since September. Iraqi civilian casualties are also said to be at the highest level since August. These losses are being used to cast aspersions on claims of progress in Iraq.

Even one death is too many and 52 deaths is tragedy multiplied 52-fold. But let's keep some perspective. As the website makes clear, for better or worse, April was still one of the lighter-casualty months during the long war in Iraq.

More important, casualties cannot be looked at in a vacuum. A spike in casualties could be a sign that the enemy is gaining strength. Or it could be a sign that tough combat is under way that will lead to the enemy's defeat and the creation of a more peaceful environment in the future.

The latter was certainly the case with the casualty spike during the summer of 2007. (More than a hundred soldiers died each month in April, May and June.) Those losses were widely denounced as evidence that the surge wasn't working, but in fact they were proof of the opposite.

At the time, troops were engaged in hard fighting as part of Operation Phantom Thunder that eventually cleared most terrorists out of Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala, Babil and other provinces, leading to dramatic reductions in violence over the last year (more than 80% before the recent fighting).

The latest increase in casualties is the result of another coalition offensive: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's decision to break the grip of militias in Basra. At first the results did not look promising: Iraqi troops were rushed in without adequate preparation, and shortly after the March 25 offensive began appeared stymied in their battles against the Mahdist Army. Mr. Maliki seemed to agree to an Iranian-brokered cease-fire with Moqtada al Sadr that left the Mahdists in control of much of the city. But as April progressed it became clear that the results of the initial clashes were more beneficial than most (including me) had initially suspected.

Iraqi security forces have not suspended their operations in Basra. In fact, since the "cease-fire," they have continued to increase their area of control. An April 25 article by a London Times correspondent who visited Basra finds: "Raids are continuing in a few remaining strongholds but the Iraqi commander in charge of the unprecedented operation is confident that his forces will soon achieve something that the British military could not – a city free from rogue gunmen."

The political repercussions in Baghdad have been just as positive and just as unexpected. First, by taking on Shiite militias, Mr. Maliki has gained new-found respect from Kurds and Sunnis who had viewed him as a hopeless Shiite sectarian. Not coincidentally, the main Sunni party has now announced plans to rejoin the cabinet.

Second, Mr. Maliki has managed to mobilize the other Shiite parties into an anti-Mahdist bloc, demanding that Moqtada al Sadr disarm his militia if his party expects to wield political power. Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the senior Shiite cleric in Iraq, has backed that demand.

Mr. Sadr has so far refused to comply, but nor has he staged a major uprising across the country, probably because he knows it would not succeed. His plan to hold a "million man" anti-American protest in Baghdad on April 5 fizzled out at the last moment. Mr. Sadr appears increasingly isolated – as symbolized by the fact that he chooses to remain in Iran.

Finally, by exposing Iranian machinations in Basra, the recent offensive has sparked an anti-Iranian backlash even among Shiite politicians with longstanding links to Tehran. Thus a high-level Shiite delegation has gone to Iran to present the Iranian leadership with evidence of the nefarious activities of their Quds Force (as if they don't already know!) and to demand that they knock it off.

The Iranian answer, notwithstanding some soothing words about wanting stability in Iraq, is coming in the shelling and rocketing of the Green Zone and other Iraqi and American bases. The Iranians have been providing longer-range rockets to their allies in the Special Groups and the Mahdist Army.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have been forced to push deeper into Sadr City than they have previously gone in order to take away launching sites. The Mahdists have had years to prepare defenses, and the subsequent battles account for much of the increase in casualties among Americans (and Iraqis) that have so disturbed the press.

The ongoing operations could still fail. But if they succeed, the result would be greater fracturing of the Mahdist forces and more government control of Sadr City, an area of some two million people that has been effectively run by the Sadrists since 2003.

This would represent a major achievement, because, as al Qaeda in Iraq has lost strength in the past year (thanks in large part to the surge), the Shiite extremists have become the major remaining threat. Unfortunate as the latest deaths are, they are in all likelihood a sign of things getting worse before they get better.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World" (Gotham, 2006).
30296  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America and the rest of the western hemisphere on: May 03, 2008, 06:22:04 AM
Reliability of source unknown.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Gaubatz: Islamic Manual in Falls Church, Virginia Calls on Muslims to Attack Olympians, Kill Priests and Nuns, Wage War on All Christians

Dave Gaubatz has posted a very distrubing discovery regarding a Jihad manual being sold at the Halalco Supermarket in Falls Church, Virginia. As Dave explains it on his Kids&Terrorism Blog:

    "On 29 April 2008, I shopped at Halalco to verify the book is still available. It is located in the "Jihad" section of the bookstore. The manager 'Tariq' can show you the book and it is available for $12.95.

    Following are some of the quotes:

    1. "It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Jihad. Identify the enemy. Declare the Jihad. define its parameters. Indicate its opening statements. Delineate its outcome and indicate its end".

    2. "The enemy is not merely a personnel but a method, a deen, with its Temples, the banks; with its holy places, the Stock Exchanges of the world; and its false scriptures, the data banks of figures, these magical millions and billions that hold the world's poor to ransom for the sake of a small elite of kafir power brokers, their core jewish, their allies the lawless Christians. It is with these the war must be waged".

    3. "He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought".

    4. "Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more".

    5. "No one has yet contemplated the impact of one destroyed Stock Exchange or Central Bank Archive".

    6. "Not taking the jews and Christians as friends, not following their deen, not submitting to bid'a, neither its holidays (National Days, etc), nor in habits, not entering their places of worship, nor participating in their festivals-all this is vital in the prelude to the attack of a new Jihad."

    7. "Strike at the time least expected. It follows that one should also strike at the place not expected. By extension, in light of the current situation, one may strike at several centres all at the same time, thus causing havoc in the enemy and in their response".

    8. "One thing is certain-if the kuffar accept us and approve of us and claim they can live alongside us, then we have lost our Islam. The whole body-worshipping mushrik cult of Olympic fire worshipping sport is something unacceptable"."

    ACT for America
    P.O. Box 6884
    Virginia Beach, VA 23456

    ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

30297  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Liner lock issues on: May 02, 2008, 08:47:57 PM
Where does one get the chain mail gloves (or suitable alternative) for testing?
30298  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: consipiracy theory on: May 02, 2008, 03:48:11 PM
Two woman involved with prostitution for the rich and powerful "committing suicide"?  Helluva coincidence. 

There were a lot of strange coincidences in the Vince Foster suicide too , , ,
30299  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: May 02, 2008, 06:32:16 AM
And while we await MM's specific citation of DE law, here is this on Texas law:

'Castle doctrine' likely will apply in fatal shooting

Web Posted: 04/29/2008 11:14 PM CDT

Robert Crowe
After his home was burglarized earlier this week, Thomas Thames decided to arm himself in case the intruder returned, police say.
The following night, he heard another noise at his home in the 5800 block of East Midcrown, so Thames, 39, walked downstairs. It was about 2:30 a.m. Tuesday when he once again saw a young man in his kitchen. The back door was open.
This time, Thames fired a gun at the man, who ran into the backyard, where Thames shot at him again, police said.
Ronnie Scarborough, 18, was pronounced dead at the scene.
San Antonio police spokesman Sgt. Gabe Trevino said the resident had pulled the man into his house and waited for police to arrive.
Police said the man killed at Thames’ Northeast Side home Tuesday matched the description of a burglary suspect the resident said he chased from the home the night before.
Police said Tuesday that Thames likely won’t be charged with a crime because Texas law gives homeowners latitude in protecting their property and themselves.
“A property owner, by Texas law, has the right to prevent the consequences of a burglary by utilizing deadly force if necessary,” Trevino said.
For many years, Texas law has permitted residents to use deadly force to protect themselves and their personal property. Last year, the Legislature broadened the law to include a “castle doctrine,” allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense against an intruder without having to retreat into his home.
Many other states have adopted similar doctrines — sometimes called “Make My Day” laws — said Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University.
“The danger of empowering people to use deadly force is that they are not trained to recognize friend or foe in highly dangerous situations,” he said. “Oftentimes, a stranger in a house turns out to be a drunken neighbor or a relative.”
In San Antonio last year, a Northwest Side homeowner fatally shot an intoxicated college student who wandered into his home — in the same neighborhood where the student’s sister lived.
Raymond Lemes found 19-year-old Tracy Glass inside his house about 2:45 a.m. one Saturday last August. Believing Glass was an intruder, Lemes chased the young man outside, where he shot him in the neck, arm and chest.
Lemes wasn’t charged in the case.
Texas’ castle doctrine garnered national attention last year when a 61-year-old Pasadena man shot and killed two men who had broken into a neighbor’s home. The incident was recorded in a 911 phone call that the shooter, Joe Horn, made to police.
Horn was inside his house when he reported seeing two men break into a neighbor’s home. According to a recording of the emergency call, Horn told the dispatcher he intended to go outside and kill the men. The dispatcher told him that it wasn’t worth it to kill someone over property.
Still, Horn went outside and fatally shot the men, Pasadena police said. He told police they lunged at him on his property. Harris County prosecutors are scheduled to present the case to a grand jury next month.

Staff Writer Michelle Mondo contributed to this report.
30300  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: May 02, 2008, 06:29:29 AM
While I await Medicmatt's response to Jonobos post and its quite pertinent points, as I am on my way out the door for the day I toss in this little piece.

By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press WriterThu May 1, 11:50 PM ET

A college student apparently called 911 from her cell phone shortly before she was killed but a dispatcher hung up, failed to call back and never sent police to investigate, authorities said Thursday.
Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said it was too early to know whether a better response could have prevented the April 2 slaying of Wisconsin-Madison student Brittany Zimmermann or helped police capture her killer.
Authorities refused to release the content of the phone call, but Wray said it should have been enough for the Dane County 911 Center to take it seriously.
"It would be accurate to state that there is evidence contained in the call, which should have resulted in a Madison police officer being dispatched," Wray said at a news conference. "The 911 center did not call back to the telephone number, Madison police were not notified and no officer was sent."
Zimmermann, 21, was found slain in her apartment in an apparently random crime. Police believe someone broke into her apartment before killing her. They have not identified a suspect but have ruled out her fiance, who found her body in the apartment they shared.
Dane County Public Safety Communications Director Joseph Norwick said the dispatcher who received the call from Zimmermann's cell phone inquired several times to determine whether an emergency existed. The dispatcher hung up after receiving no answer and then answered another 911 call that was waiting, he said.
The dispatcher failed to call the number back as required under the department's policy, Norwick said.
Norwick said he was investigating the incident and reviewing whether policies should be changed and employees should be disciplined. But he also said, "I don't think there's anything to apologize for at this time."
Pages: 1 ... 604 605 [606] 607 608 ... 735
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!