Is Islamic terrorism crime or war?

According to the ACLU the terrorist attack on 9/11 was a crime and should be pursued and prosecuted exactly the same as any other crime.

According to conservatives the attack was an act of war by a nonstate actor (Al Qaeda) and should be pursued exactly the same as any other war.

I think it's something different than either--something new. From Al Quaeda's point of view it's exactly a war, albeit an assymetrical one. The problem is that in a war one side can defeat the other, negotiate terms of surrender, and then return any captured prisoners to the other side. That's what we've done in every other war, except for prisoners who committed war crimes. Many of those were executed after being tried by military tribunals.

In war, you can't arrest enemy soldiers on the battlefield, reading each arrestee his or her Miranda rights, and being sure not to use unnecessary force to subdue them.

But that's irrelevant if it isn't a war.

And there is a conservative argument for not making this a war. For one thing, the civilized world's efforts are largely being conducted under police auspices--as when the Brits recently arrested a terrorist cell planning another mass murder. For another, calling it a war elevates the terrorists--it equates them with armies and generals, when in fact they're fanatics and scumbags, to put it mildly. Bush greatly ennobled Bin Ladin with his rhetoric, and then by forgetting who'd attacked us and diverting the forces chasing Bin Ladin to Iraq. It made Bin Ladin a hero, when he should have been a nameless vermin we hunted down and killed on the spot.

I think the uncomfortable fact is that the so-called War on Terror is neither a war nor a police action, but a mix--to be prosecuted as a war, as when we kill Al Qaeda operatives with UAVs in Pakistanm, and at other times as a police action, as when we bust terrorist cells in civilized countries. Indonesia has gotten pretty good at this, by the way. They caught the Islamic fascists who planned the Bali bombings and recently put them to death, which made the peace-loving Balinese people very happy (I know this from personal experience).

So what do we do with dangerous terrorists we've caught? We use military tribunals to try them, just as we did with the Nazi leadership at Nuremberg. They aren't civilians, and treating them like pickpockets or Bernie Maddow is patently ridiculous.

Which means Obama's on the right track, to the dismay of his leftist supporters and relief of his centrist supporters (who are far more numerous, since there aren't enough leftists to elect a dog catcher anywhere but left bastions like Berkeley, CA).

killing democracy by killing debate

Both parties pay lip service to debating the issues. But both sides work hard to make their hot button issues non-debatable.

Of course they won't admit this. But look at their actions.

Time after time conservatives have been prevented from speaking on college campuses by left-wing student quasi-riots aimed precisely at shouting down the speaker. The notion of defending an opponent's right to speak was meaningless to them. Worse yet, in every case college administrations caved, either through cowardice or complicity.

Meanwhile, every single day well-financed right-wing demagogues such as Limbaugh and Hannity are on the air trying, among other things, to make their hot button issues non-debatable--mainly through attaching so much rage to the issues that rational concerns are swept aside.

For example, yesterday, on Hannity's TV show, one of his guests--an anti-abortion fanatic--equated Obama with Hitler. Hannity didn't object. And he himself has called Obama a "Bolshevik" repeatedly. Nor are issues debated on these shows. 95% of the time they'll bring in a fellow traveler on an issue, lob him softballs and bash the other side--including feeding the guest inflammatory "analysis" that are often even more extreme than that of the guest.

At this point I don't think most people even know what a real debate is.

Instead, tacit model is instruction--or the logic of the mob.

By instruction, I mean things like a Sunday school bible study class. Here, analytic study isn't the point. These classes are about what I'd call worshipful study. It's not a place where the existence of a God is going to be debated, nor the legitimacy of the Bible. (nor am I proposing that they should; just that they don't provide a model for debate)

Next, consider a discussion of evolution in a college biology class. Here, analytic study is the point, but within parameters. Assertions of biblical literalism will be summarily dismissed. This isn't worshipful study, but that fact won't be apparent to many. It is instruction, and the purpose of discussion is, again, to help the student understand the subject matter better--not to challenge the teacher's premises.

Then consider a public debate, such as the presidential debates, or debates on talk shows where people of opposing views are present. Moderation is usually weak, except on the PBS New Hour with Jim Lehrer, where the debaters are held to proper debate form by a firm moderator who shapes the discussion. But usually it's a shouting match, usually dominated by aggressive right wingers who won't let opponents finish a sentence without talking over them. A real moderator wouldn't let that happen, but that rarely happens. Even the presidential debates were nothing more than each candidate stating his or her talking points, in turn. Nobody refuted anybody else's points. Not really.

And the rise of a zillion cable channels and the Web has enabled people to insulate themselves from the opposition. Lefties don't watch Fox. Righties don't watch MSNBC. And within each fold there's rarely debate. Instead people egg each other on in the absence of opposition, yielding more extremism, more demonizing of the other side.

Look how all this gets expressed in specific areas.

Illegal immigration:
If you oppose illegal immigration you're a racist. Why should I debate a racist? They're outside the realm of reasonable discussion. This is how lefties avoid actually debating the issue, and it's gotten so extreme that journalists now rarely mention overpopulation, because left wing propagandists have managed to association complaints about overpopulation with racism. And even when illegal immigration is debated, the fact that American culture is being degraded by millions of Mexican peasants is never raised by mainstream immigration opponents, for fear of seeming racist. The arguments are focused on pocketbook issues instead. People fear to defend their own culture against the encroachments of another. Yet pro-illegal immigration activists would be outraged if a million Americans moved to, say, Guadalajara and insisted that the locals learn English, that the government print ballots in English and Spanish, and the they be given automatic citizenship by the Mexican government.

Abortion:
Both sides have tried to kill debate through labeling. "Pro-choice" makes opponents "women enslavers" without having to say so in so many words. "Pro-life" makes opponents "pro-death"--against without having to say so in so many words. Nobody's interested in a debate using neutral terms. Abortion opponents call opponents murderers. You can't debate with a murderer, can you?


Time after time, each side doesn't debate an issue--it simply labels the opposition with some inflammatory descriptor, rather than analyzing the other side's points. Nor do they ever acknowledge that the other side might have even a sliver of a point about anything.

Zealots actually detest real democracy--and half the country is zealots (somewhat more right wing than left wing, but psychologically equally totalitarian).

Solving the Somail pirate/poaching/dumping problem

Somali piracy isn't one problem. It's at least eight:

1. Seizure of passing ships and crew and holding both for ransom by Somali nationals, often bankrolled by foreigners in places like Dubai.

2. Illegal dumping of toxic wastes in Somali waters by foreign businesses in Europe and elsewhere.

3. Poaching in Somali waters by foreign fishing fleets, often using trawlers that destroy the habitats on the sea floor as well.

4. International law that doesn't adequately cover crimes committed in the territorial waters of failed states like Somali. Oh, and it currently forbids ships from keeping their decks floodlit at night!

5. Navies--very much including ours--that are primarily oriented towards conducting major wars against powerful nations.

6. Fundamental philosophical conflict between those who want to treat Somali piracy as a kind of war vs. those who want to treat it as a kind of crime--that is, do you shoot them or arrest them? And if the latter, where do you take them to be tried? Kenya has agreed to try pirates, but that seems like an ad hoc solution to many.

7. The land the attacks are coming from is no longer a country, but rather a patchwork of feudal holdings and theocratic enclaves.

8. The situation is rapidly becoming much worse as the 10s of millions of dollars of ransom money is going to buy more and more sophisticated arms and other materiel, and as the pirates become more adept at parasitizing the rest of the world and the local communities become more and more oriented around piracy. All this defies simple solutions, but Somali piracy has become so substantial it's actually damaging the world economy, and we have to act.

So here's my solution, which attempts to address all of these issues:

Just as our Army and Air Force are being dragged into the world of assymetrical warfare, so must the Navy. Even destroyers are too big to be used cost-effectively against Somali pirates.

We need several task groups of pocket carriers that fly fleets of small, inexpensive, unarmed UAVs (drones) with a smaller number of killer UAVs and some choppers. The UAV pilots can be located anywhere. For example, the Air Force's UAV pilots work in air-conditioned trailers in Nevada, even when flying missions in Afghanistan.

The task groups would also have the kinds of vessels the Coast Guard uses—far smaller than destroyers, armed with one or two missle launchers, a chain gun and one longer-range gun. These would be fast, light and economical to operate. If these could be equipped with hydrofoils they'd be really fast.

Secure an agreement from the Somali provisional government (there is one, more or less) to let the multinational force act as Somalia's coast guard, tasked with stopping piracy AND international poaching and waste dumping.

Use the UAVs to patrol the Somali coastline and territorial waters. Tell the Somalis that we will stop foreign poaching and dumping—-but we'll also use the UAVs to sink pirate skiffs and motherships, since no other method is cost-effective—-and, consequently, we won't be taking prisoners, since UAVs can't pick up survivors. Give the Somalis a month to get the word out before we start the operation. Pirate skiffs carry far more crew than fishing boats, so even without the guns being visible they're easy to spot. Heck, with gun-mounted UAVs we could even fire a shot across their bows to warn them to turn back if there's a doubt.

On the other hand, we'd use the Coast Guard-type vessels to board and confiscate all foreign ships poaching and dumping in Somalia's territorial waters, and use the sale of such vessels to defray the cost of operations.

Meanwhile we'd work with the UN to get the law of the sea updated to cover such situations and, based on our experience in Somalia, set up similar operations off the shores of other shaky or failed states that lack a Coast Guard.

Note that we can use UAV task groups—either with pocket carriers or land-based---to patrol our own coasts to defend against smuggling and suchlike.

The New York Times' love affair with Mexican peasants

Today the New York Times editorial board ran yet another screed demanding citizenship for illegal aliens. You can read it here (free registration required). The Times ran 165 comments, most strongly opposing the editorial (including nearly all the comments that garnered high reader ratings). Mine got the 17th highest rating. Here it is:

What this editorial didn't say is more interesting than what it did. Basically it was concrete about what we should do for Mexican citizens who are here illegally, but fuzzy about what we should do to keep more from coming.

That's in line with the last "comprehensive immigration reform" passed by Congress in 1986, which combined real amnesty with fake enforcement.

And of course this editorial doesn't mention what happened as a result of the 1986 amnesty: a huge wave of undereducated, unskilled humanity pouring over the border once we'd erected a giant green light over it.

What's the current unemployment rate for undereducated, unskilled Americans? 20%? 30% 40%? Yet it's OK to spit in their faces, I guess. And why not? None of them are on the NYT Editorial Board, nor are they neighbors of the Board's members. Out of sight, out of mind, huh?

The Board could have taken this opportunity to endorse e-Verify, which is quick, simple, accurate, & can actually prevent companies from exploiting illegal immigrant labor to drive down everyone's wages & bust unions.

It could have admitted that the "12 million" illegal alien head count is speculative, since America lacks any kind of universal ID system--the only way we could really tell who's here & how many. The actual number of illegals in this country could be double or triple that. No one knows.

And if the Board ever ventured west of the Hudson to California where I've lived all my life, they might discover that the character of our state has been radically Latinized since the 1986 amnesty. The most-watched TV station in Los Angeles only broadcasts in Spanish, for example.

I mention this not because I hate Mexican culture--in fact I speak Spanish & have traveled in the Mexican countryside extensively. I mention it because I actually like my own American culture. Now the Board, in other editorials, has condemned Americans who like American culture, calling us nativists, as if we're knuckle-dragging xenophobes who break out in hives if we espy a foreigner. Well if so, I've got plenty of company, since at least 2/3 of Americans feel the same way I do.

And since so many do, you'd think the Board would try to address our complaints about the Southwest being turned into an American Quebec. It would endorse e-Verify, Universal ID, & other practical measures to regain control of our demographics. But instead it speaks about the 2/3 with contempt, as it did again in this editorial.

Lastly, the Board didn't mention that in 1940 Mexico had a population of 20 million, which exploded into over 100 million in 2000--vastly more than the Mexican economy can absorb. This is our fault how?

And if we are to admit millions upon millions of immigrants every year, why are we obligated to have most of them Mexican peasants? Why not people of every race & nation who have skills we actually need? Why Mexicans? Darfurians are in far worse straits. Chinese engineers are more useful. What obligation or need requires us to allow Mexico's oligarchs to outsource their home-made population crisis to America?
Not to mention how people trying to immigrate legally will feel once our government lets 10-30 million Mexicans jump the queue.

How did the New York Times Editorial Board's sympathies become limited to just one foreign country's population? In the words of Marvin Gaye, ain't that peculiar?

Somali piracy

1. Right now Secretary of Defense Gates is talking about reconfiguring our military to be able to prosecute asymetrical war more effectively. In the case of the Navy, we need more small fighting vessels and not so many WWIII-appropriate giant multibillion dollar task forces.'

For operations like the one in Somalia we need a new class of very small aircraft carriers that only carry helicopters and UAVs (drones). They don't even need UAV pilots on board. They can be based anywhere in the US.

And we need Coast Guard-type military vessels. Even destroyers like the Bainbridge are overkill for situations like Somalia. Small, fast, seaworthy fighting boats with a couple of chain guns and ship to ship missile launchers (for motherships) would be perfect. We have to make it more cost effective to guard shipping lanes around the world, and the only block today is hidebound career officers in love with big airplanes and big boats and fighting other superpowers. We shake our heads at the Pakistani military's obsession with India while their own Taliban slowly take over their country. We're only a little better. Fortunately, Gates and Obama seem to have their eyes on the ball.

2. The pirates' claims to be be protecting Somali fishing from foreign trawlers is nonsense, since they're mainly taking nonfishing ships. However, it is true that foreign trawlers from Europe and Asia have virtually destroyed Somali fishing--as they've done off the coasts of every country with good fishing and no effective coast guard. We should demand a Law of the Sea that forbids nations from letting their ships pillage defenseless nations' waters, and also empowers UN-authorized naval forces to grab poachers, confiscate their boats, and try their crews in an international court.

We could kill two birds with one stone: interdict both pirates and poachers.

Another plus to patrolling with drones: they can't negotiate with pirates--just sink their boats. The best deterrent to piracy is darkness: pirate boats go out and they don't come back and no one (in Somalia) knows what happened. That's far more effective than warnings.

3. We have to forbid shippers from paying ransoms, and severely fine ones that succeed in doing so. This requires multinational cooperation, but we have to cut off the flow of money to Somali warlord coffers. Ditto arms, most of which are coming from Europe and China, not America, I'll wager.

www.blogzu.blogspot.com

— Ehkzu, Palo Alto, California

Illegal immigration and the drug war--both insoluble

It's hopeless, because of something right wingers and left wingers have in common: they prefer their fantasy version of reality to the real thing.

Right wingers believe the "war on drugs" is working; that if you tell teenagers not to have sex they won't; that the "war on terror" is a war, and that terror is the enemy...it just goes on and on.

Left wingers, meanwhile, believe that illegal aliens are "undocumented workers" and that anyone who doesn't want to hand this country over to them might as well be in the Ku Klux Klan.

Both groups can continue to dwell in their alternate realities because they pay no penalty for doing so. College- educated liberal elites aren't losing their jobs to illegal immigrants; the college town schools their kids attend aren't being ruined by barrios of semiliterate peasants; the districts they live in aren't having our culture replaced by Mexican culture. This isn't multiculturalism--it's ethnic cleansing, block by block, across the Southwest. It's gotten so bad in parts of LA that blacks are being murdered by illegal alien gangbangers who are latinizing neighborhoods that were once black neighborhoods.

Likewise the right wingers can live in denial of the ruinous consequences of the "war on drugs." Their drug of choice--alcohol--is perfectly legal, despite being vastly more toxic than most of the drugs the kids take. And their kids aren't taking drugs, or having sex, because, well, they just aren't. And those college binge drinking parties? Not my little Johnny. Nossir.

Meanwhile both sides ignore one simple, critical, verifiable statistic: in 1940 there were 20 million Mexicans, and Mexican immigrants represented less than .5% of the American population. By 2000 there were over 100 million Mexicans--waaay more than the Mexican economy could absorb--and millions were pouring over our border.

How did their population explode without significant immigration? Simple. A potent mix of importing some Western medicine into a country dominated by a backward religion that opposes all forms of contraception and even calls condoms murder.

And guess what? America didn't do it. When China saw what was happening, they instituted their "one child" policy--which liberals, warm-hearted and empty-headed as usual, have been complaining about ever since. But that's why China's population hasn't exploded, which most of the third world has--very much including Mexico.

And of course Mexico's overpopulation has put literally millions of young men on the streets. Where do you think the drug gangs and the cartels get their foot soldiers? Few would be tempted if Mexican village life were still intact. But the population explosion has severely damaged that.

Want to help Mexico? Support funding Planned Parenthood clinics across Mexico, giving free condoms and abortions.

Instead, both the Democratic and Republican leaderships support turning America into a dumping ground for Mexico's overpopulation--the Demos to pander to people with American citizenship who still regard themselves as Mexicans; the Republicans to pander to the boss class who just luv that cheap scab labor. And Meanwhile the backward religion that dominates Mexico wants to do the same to us, so it's constantly interfering in American government at all levels to accomplish that end.

And if it does, then it can give us the same laws Latin American countries enjoy, where a 12 year old girl raped by her father is forced to bear the child instead of getting a therapeutic abortion.

The cosmic joke is that most right wingers, left wingers and Catholics mean well. Hence the saying "the road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions."

Senator Webb introduced ground-up prison reform legislation

I hope this legislation get passed—and that it tackles several structural issues that have produced pervasive dry rot in our legal system: 

(1) the job of District Attorney often being an elective office, which gives DA's a powerful incentive to seek victory instead of justice; 

(2) lobbying by the prison guard unions to increase prison populations with disproportionate terms, no rehabilitation, and locking up people we just don't like, such as drug abusers, instead of treating them in the public health system;

(3) the tendency of local government to use the law for revenue enhancement instead of solely focusing on public safety (think red light cameras on left- and right-hand turn lights, which actually increases accidents by causing a sharp increase in rear-enders).

The latest example of DA abuse of power is prosecuting middle school girls for "possession and distribution of child pornography" i.e., they posted racy pictures of themselves on MySpace or similar venues. This is now going on in at least nine states. If convicted, these children--being tried as adults, of course--face prison sentences of up to 17 years, lifetime registration as sex offenders, lifetime disenfranchisement in many states, and also in many states being forbidden for life to go within 2,000 ft. of anywhere children congregate. 

This is insane. Legally we define children as people too young to be held fully responsible for their actions. By treating 14 year old girls as adults we're saying they're old enough to be fully accountable for their actions. But adults can legally distribute racy photographs of themselves. So it's a Catch-22. 

And of course even if the DAs drop the charges after using the girls as an example to scare other children into behaving themselves, what will it do to these 13 and 14 year old girls? At the very least they're spending months terrified of being imprisoned until they're in their mid-30s. I'd be amazed if many of them didn't wind up with post traumatic stress disorder.

But the DAs do it because it shows how tough they are on crime, and because they look at the law to see how many people they can jam into the criminal system. 

And if some DA doesn't do stuff like this you can be sure that next election some opponent will accuse him of being "soft on child porn." Never mind that the "pornographer" is a child herself, taking pictures of herself by herself, posting them on MySpace to impress some boyfriend. 

Societies that sacrifice children to further social goals…hmm…this makes us like the Taliban, who congratulate themselves every time they blow up a school that teaches girls. And like our crusading DA's, the Taliban also say they destroy girls' lives...because they revere girls. That it's "for their own good." 

Becoming like the Taliban—not an ideal I found in my high school civics texts.

the Morality of Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis used to be dangerous but now we can cure it...right?

Not any more. Now there's a strain that's resistant to most drugs--and a second strain that's currently incurable and kills within weeks.

Where'd these monster TB breeds come from?

The Third World. [The map shows incidence of TB per 100 people, the worst in red, the best gray.]

You see, TB requires taking pills daily for 6-12 months. You feel lots better pretty quickly though. So people stop taking the pills. And within their bodies, where all but a few resistant bacilli have been killed off, a monster is growing that imperils us all.

The people know the doctors told them to keep taking the pills. But they feel better. And remember, these are people who often put more faith in folk medicine than in Western medicine. They might have even gotten a treatment from the witch doctor/curare/etc. at the same time and been pronounced cured by him/her.

The numbers of people dying from--and spreading--hard to cure or incurable strains of TB are proliferating--particularly in areas with an AIDS epimec as well, since AIDS makes people far more prone to get TB in the first place.

Mostly these people stay put in the third world. But some are entering America and other advanced nations that have porous borders, as illegal immigrants. Others are sometimes getting on airplanes and endangering dozens or even hundreds of fellow passengers.

And a recent news item on PBS about this issue said that in South Africa around a quarter of poor people fail to complete their TB treatments. It didn't say whether this cohort was different in any quantifiable way from those who did complete their treatments.

So--this raises both moral and practical issues. On a purely practical basis there's an argument for denying medical treatments to poorly-educated people when the treatments are protracted and those who quit treatment early endanger others--unless those offering the treatment can hospitalize such patients for the duration of their treatment.

But they don't, and as a consequence a group of people trying to bring first world medicine to the third world are completely responsible for developing drug-resistant strains of TB that endanger the rest of the world. They have helped many deserving people. But I doubt that they've considered the price: these human TB time bombs.

Just another example of how much evil in the world is caused by saintly people who only wish to do good. Many do-gooders need to work harder at pondering the long-term consequences of their actions.

Should Speaker of the House Pelosi register as a foreign agent?

Speaker of the House Pelosi (on or close to March 20, 2009), speaking to a group of Mexicans with American citizenship (that is, those who place their ethnic identity above their citizenship):

"Who in our country would not want to change a policy of kicking in doors in the middle of the night and sending a parent away from their families? It must be stopped.

"What value system is that? I think it's un-American."

So if I'm a bank robber, a rapist, an MS13 honcho, Bernie Madoff--or any other kind of crook, in Congresswoman Pelosi's book we can't arrest them as long as they have a domestic partner and/or children living with them.

Then what? We have to wait until the domestic partner and/or children leave or die before we can arrest the crook? 

Of course she meant illegal aliens, not other kinds of criminals. So you could claim I'm taking her out of context. But she didn't qualify her statement when she made it--I'm quoting her verbatim. If you don't want to be taken out of context, put the context into what you say.

And what if she did say what she was doubtless thinking? That once an illegal alien gets into this country and settles down with a domestic partner and/or children, they're home free? That's a big fat carrot to dangle in front of the hundreds of millions of people around the world who'd like to move to America.

Of course ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has stated repeatedly that they're looking for illegal aliens who have comitted felonies, and only sweeping up others in the process of doing so. Pelosi must either think ICE is lying--or that it's OK to be a felon as long as you're an illegal immigrant.

I might feel differently if Pelosi advocated, at the same time, a universal ID system coupled with e-Verify. Or something else to help us control and keep track of who's wandering around within our borders. Do I have to point out that the perpetrators of 9/11 were all illegal aliens? [Some were here on visas but had gotten them under false pretenses, making them illegals as well.]

Every previous amnesty--and there have been several, most recently in 1986--has triggered a tidal wave of illegal immigration across our borders. Pelosi isn't an idiot, so this must be OK with her.

I'm glad I took Spanish in school instead of French, like the other college-bound kids did. Spanish has already become the accepted second language of California--to the extent that people who only speak Spanish can live here comfortably. 

Of course that's fine with Pelosi and her ilk, because they show no respect for the culture that's being displaced by this Hispanic tidal wave. I say "displaced" because when an invasive population gets large enough to support not having to learn the host country's language, they don't assimilate, and their children only do so partially (enormous school dropout rates for the kids of illegals from Mexico and parts south).

The long-term consequence of Pelosi's advocacy is an American Quebec. Talk to the Canadians about how that's worked out for them.

Stem Cells and Religion

Opponents of stem cell research won't tell their real reason for opposing it: they believe God plants a soul in every fertilized ovum at the instant of fertilization.

Otherwise their opposition is nonsensical. But I don't know how they arrive at this believe. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that supports such an idea. No one in Biblical times thought any such thing.

No one thought it until some 19th century Pope interpreted the scientific findings of the time as meaning that God ensouls us at the moment of conception. Then the Catholics sold Protestant Fundamentalists on this novel idea. And now they all act as if Christ's mission on Earth was to stop abortion and stem cell research.

Doesn't anybody read the Bible any more?

Moreover, science has moved on quite a ways from what we knew in 1850. Turns out a fertilized ovum may or may not be a "potential human being." Innumerable fertilized ova and foetuses are spontaneously aborted because either they weren't viable--that is, they had no chance of becoming a human being--or because they were biochemically incompatible with the mother's uterine environment.

Others get born but still have no chance at living much past the point of birth. For example, anencephalic foetuses can be delivered but there's only fluid in their skulls. Again, no potential.

And then what about identical twins? They don't form at conception. Does each get half a soul then? Or what about chimeras, which coalesce out of two fertilized ova? They look perfectly normal but have the DNA and body parts of two different people within themselves. Do they have two souls?

Besides, the biggest source of dead fertilized ova is infertility clinics. When was the last time anti-abortion fanatics marched and prayed in front of such a clinic, or shot the doc who gave so many childless couples hope but "killed" thousands of fertilized ova in the process?

Anyone who thinks God puts souls in human eggs fertilized in a petri dish obviously thinks God is a robot who can't tell a petri dish from a uterus.

They don't give God much credit, do they?

Actually, the "God" they worship is their own warped ideas, which they're too busy listening to to notice the "still, small voice" telling them to do right by actual human beings--some of whom have terrible genetic diseases that stem cell research may one day cure. In which case these opponents of stem cell research are actually serving the Adversary. Ironic, huh?

Red light cameras -- scams or safety devices?

I just had my day in court after getting a red light camera ticket. Here's the sort-of brief I handed the judge, along with copies of several judgments justifying my position:

Re: Case No. XXXXXX  in Superior Court of San Mateo, Southern Branch

People of the State of California vs. Ehkzu

 

I plead not guilty. I decline to testify. Acting in pro per, however, this is my case:

The city's case against me is based entirely on evidence obtained illegally, because the city's contract with Redflex violates state law by giving Redflex financial incentive to issue more tickets; and while the state law doesn't specify the remedy to this, the U.S. Supreme Court has supported the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle on several occasions as a fundamental feature of American jurisprudence, obviating the necessity of invoking it explicitly in every law.

While no published appellate ruling currently supports this interpretation of state law vis-à-vis the Redflex contract, several unpublished rulings (appellate and otherwise) support this interpretation and the logic of those rulings could certainly be used by the commissioner in this case. Also, several adverse appellate rulings either do not apply or contravene the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle, thus running a considerable likelihood of being overturned on appeal. 

Specifics: 

California vs. Nagai (case # LA007022PE), Superior Court, Orange County, January 23, 2007 [involving a comparable Redflex contract]:

"In interpreting other statutory language of Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, it has been held that the statute must be construed to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent; and to give the words of the statute their usual and ordinary meaning….Notwithstanding any facts to the contrary, this is a revenue driven pricing system, in direct violation of Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g)(1).

            "Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 is to be strictly construed. The statutory requirements are intended to provide protection to the motorist public, and a conviction cannot result from a violation of its statutory provisions. Accordingly, the defendant in case number LA007022PE must be found not guilty." 

California vs. Franco (case # 30-2008-93057), Appellate Division, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, November 21, 2008:

"Appellant contends evidence from the City of Fullerton's Automated Enforcement System was inadmissible because the City's contract with the camera operator contains a provision tying payment to the operator to revenue generated by the system. This court agrees, and the judgment is reversed…The contract at issue provides for a payment of a flat monthly fee, but also provides that service fees can be negotiated 'down or up, but not to exceed' the monthly rate…NTS has an incentive to ensure sufficient revenue are generated to cover the monthly fee…Because the City's contract with NTZS violated Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g), the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the automated enforcement system." 

Two contrary appellant decisions are often cited in finding against defendants in comparable cases. These are California vs. Brandel (case # CR.A.4548 [Trial Court: 014554 SAGB]), June 3, 2008; and California vs. McDonald (case # BR 04561, No. LC04465), February 23, 2009. 

Neither of these judgments find that the red light camera contracts of the cities involved were legal. They sidestep that issue. Instead, both judgments claim that the legality of the contracts is irrelevant to the cases being considered. 

Such findings flout the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle first confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939), and then further in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 

The "Fruit of the Poisonous" tree doctrine holds that evidence discovered through illegal search or other unconstitutional means may not be introduced by a prosecutor. An illegal contract between a city and a red light camera operator that incentivizes the private, for-profit operator to write more tickets is just such a poison tree. 

Both of these appellate judgments, by excusing governments' illegal conduct, foster disrespect for the law, which has far-reaching effects. I have traveled in countries where the law is for sale and no one in their right mind would go to the police for help unless they belonged to the ruling elite. I don't want that to happen here. Yet red light camera operations are starting to be seen as a sophisticated update of the good old speed trap, due in part to illegal contracts like Menlo Park's one with Redflex systems, compounded by some judicial authorities failing to hold cities accountable for such behavior. In a just system the perpetrator must not be allowed to retain the profits of his illegal conduct. Allowing cities to retain the monies collected from such modern-day "speed traps" violates this principle. 

In the case at hand, the city of Menlo Park was warned prior to signing the contract that its financial provisions contravened state law. It went ahead and signed that contract anyway. So it cannot plead ignorance. 

And in putting a red light camera on a left turn such as the one at Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road, the city perpetrates the image of doing this not for safety but for revenue enhancement. 

Studies conducted by impartial institutions (as opposed to those by the insurance industry, which has a powerful financial incentive involved) show that nearly all accidents caused by red light runners are caused by drivers barreling straight through an intersection—not turning. In fact, installing red light cameras on left turns increases rear end crashes substantially while doing little or nothing to reduce other crashes, since those are caused by drivers going straight through the intersection. 

[I have brought copies of legitimate studies substantiating my assertions, which I’d be glad to provide the court; and I could show in detail why the insurance and red light camera studies are bogus. I have a BA in Sociology from UCLA and am trained in assessing such studies.] 

Moreover, when red light cameras are installed on turns, they're almost always coupled with timing the yellow lights to the state minimum of 3.0 seconds, as is the case for the left turn at Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road. Impartial studies have also proven that increasing the yellow light timing by up to a second or so (depending on the specifics of the intersection) greatly reduces red light infractions, and claims by the insurance industry and the red light camera industry that drivers soon habituate have proven to be wildly exaggerated. Red light running goes up a little over time, but the number of infractions is still several hundred percent lower than when the light timing is set to the shortest time the city can get away with.

 There is no safety justification for using red light cameras on turns coupled with as-short-as-legally-possible yellow light timing. The only justification is revenue. And using law enforcement as a profit center is exactly what the moral hazard of incentivized red light camera contracts leads to.

Moreover, nearly half the monies collected from such red light camera traps goes out of state, and much of that out of country (since Redflex is an Australian company0. City government profits immediately, but that money comes out of citizens' discretionary income, and will not be spent on local businesses. This in turn decreases taxes paid to city government.

 Red light cameras used to improve safety, applied to drivers going straight through intersections, coupled with reasonable yellow light timing—not "what can I get away with" timing—is probably a good thing, as long as the operation is conducted above reproach—starting with using legal contracts. 

But using red light cameras primarily for revenue is immoral, corrupting, and ultimately self-defeating. There's a reason why California bans speed traps. I predict that eventually we'll get state Supreme Court rulings that will prove extremely costly for the 20 cities using illegal contracts—and we'll get state laws that force cities to use red light cameras for safety enhancement instead of as a hidden tax on motorists. 

Two additional points: researchers in Florida found that red light cameras coupled with short yellow light timing were particularly difficult for elderly drivers, causing an inordinate amount of infractions and accidents instead of improving safety. Their reflexes aren't up to the demands placed on them by short yellow lights. 

And I have found that as a reasonably fit bicyclist I often find myself facing oncoming traffic that has a green light while I'm still crossing an intersection, even when I start across promptly when the light turns green. Stoplight timings are based on the reflexes and mobility of a 30 year old driver in a late-model car. Bicyclists and the elderly are on their own. 

Instead of churning innumerable citizens through a red light camera operation for money, Menlo Park should be focusing on improving road safety and getting its revenue through legitimate means. 

Upper class sociopathy

What's amazing isn't the sociopathy of our ruling class--it's the proven fact that roughly half the voters side with them, election after election. These are also the voters who believe Saddam Hussein planned 9/11 with his partner Osama Bin Ladin; that President Obama isn't a Christian; that we're descended from a dab of mud in the literal Garden of Eden; that foreigners have cooties...I could go on, but it's too disheartening.

Never forget that Obama's "landslide" was only 52% of the popular vote. He knows he has to bring these people along, somehow. I think that's one reason why he acts so conciliatory.

The boss class has convinced many, many voters that the only alternative to ownership of business by government is ownership of government by business. The former is Socialism, pronounced syllable by syllable to emphasize its demonic character, as "So-Shul-Is-M" drawing it out to instill the full horror of the term to these people.

We need an equally catchy word for the current situation (ownership of government by business). Any ideas? Anyone?

When nations should intervene in other nations' internal affairs

My spouse and I spent 10 days on a boat on the equation far from any large land masses a few years ago. The boat held four American divers, four German/Austrian divers, and an Indonsian crew. One of the Germans was quick to point out that America was at fault for pretty much everything bad these days, and the others seemed to concur.

I asked her what America should do if Communist China invaded Taiwan. She said absolutely nothing. It was none of our business.

She was invoking the doctrine of national soverignty--that no nation has the moral right to interfere with other nations' actions regarding their own citizens. Of course in this case many would argue that all mutual defense treaties were also immoral and should be abrogated, since many of us believe that Taiwan is a country, not a part of China.

One way or another, it's not surprising to hear Germans espousing MYOB. After all, they interfered in other nations affairs not all that long ago, and they set a standard of immorality few can match.

And our fortunately former president did his best to give war a bad name, not through being evil like Hitler, but certainly venal.

Nevertheless. the world's nations are slowly coming to recognize that no nation has a right to murder its own people or anyone else for that matter. I said murder, not "kill." They're different, despite the mistranslation of the relevant commendment in the King James Bible.

In a better world an intelligently run and empowered United Nations would intervene in Somalia, Haiti, the Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, and China (at the very least over its military invasion of and slo-mo ethnicide in Tibet).

I consider myself a patriotic American, and I don't want America subsumed in a world government. But the community of civilized nations, to be moral, needs to come up with a way to deal with rogue and failed states.

Even on a purely selfish basis, such states are sources of infection for the rest of the world. Look at Somali piracy and Mexico's virtual conversion into a narco-state. Both affect many other nations. At the same time a bunch of nations are quickly destroying the ocean floor in Somalia's territorial waters, preventing their fishermen from earning a living, with no functioning government able to stop the foreign trawlers. We must intervene in both the piracy from Somalia and the trawler incursions into Somali territory.

Isolationism is impossible unless a nation withdraws into itself and imports and exports nothing. We'd have to go back to an 18th century agrarian economy to do that.

And American exceptionalism is also impossible, as Bush proved. The stronger a nation is, the more polite it needs to be to its allies. Otherwise they gang up on you. Again, it's both the right thing to do and the self-interested thing to do.

Give both sides a right of return--Arab and Jew

My response to a Washinton Post op-ed piece about the Gaza war by an Israeli novelist and peace activist:

And being a novelist makes one an expert on military strategy how?

I just finished reading a long article detailing the years of preparations and training the Israeli Defence Force carried out prior to this incursion. They build a huge training facility to ensure that both reservists and active military are knowledgeable about urban warfare. In particular the widespread use of UAVs (pilotless drones) and smart bombs (laser or optically guided, using GPS technology) has helped them kill the ones they want to kill (Hamas fighters and leaders) and avoid those they want to spare (everyone else).

Now of course Hamas' goal is as many Palestinian deaths as possible, preferable with cameras running, for publicity purposes. If the Israelis were the genocidal butchers the whirly-eyed letter writers on this thread purport them to be, they could easily exterminate everyone in Gaza.

Civilian deaths in war are inevitable. As General Tecumseh Sherman said, "War is hell." But Sherman didn't have smart bombs and UAVs. The Israeli's didn't hesitate to blow up houses housing Hamas leaders and groups of fighters, but it did extraordinarily well at avoiding hitting adjacent houses.

And can anyone deny that Hamas stores weapons and fighters and command centers in mosques, hospitals and schools? If the Israelis really were genocidal Hamas wouldn't do this. They do it because they know the Israelis don't want to strike such targets.

Not to mention Hamas fighters fleeing battle scenes in clearly marked ambulances. Very clever. But don't blame the IDF for shooting up ambulances leaving battle scenes in the future.

Odd that few of the letter writers here decry Hamas' use of civilians as human shields.

The face the whirly-eyes can't face is how hard the IDF worked to avoid civilian casualties and how hard Hamas worked to cause them.

The irony is that the IDF's technology used in killing Hamas fighters and leaders was so much better than Hamas anticipated that afterward Hamas ran around executing numerous innocent people suspected of being informers.

And of course if the Palestinian equivalent of this article's author had written a mirror image of this article declaring that Hamas should negotiate with Israel and learn to live with the Jews....you know what would happen to him, don't you?

Actually you don't, because most Americans are ignorant about what Hamas and its ilk do to people before they murder them.

It's so very easy to decry violence when it isn't your town getting unguided bombs flying in daily with the only purpose being to kill civilians.

And it's so very hard to forget the footage of Palestians dancing in the streets with joy on 9/11 and handing out sweets. Even enemy countries like Iran mourned the event.

But you want constructive? Here's constructive: have the Arab nations accept as many Palestinians as the number of Jews they expelled in 1948--along with all of their descendants, of course. And compensate them for the land and businesses the Arabs stole from the Jews when they expelled them. In exchange the Israelis would grant any Palestinians left over full citizenship in an Israel that would include the current Palestinian lands.

Since that number is equal to or greater than the number of Palestinians who fled Israel it should be a wash.

Of course the Palestinians breed like rabbits, so you'd also need a one child per family rule like China has, applied to Israelis and Arabs alike. The ultra-Orthodox Jews would hate that with a fiery passion. so it would be a big compromise.

How's that for a solution?

blogzu.blogspot.com

Israel butchers of Gaza--or vice-versa?

Comment posted to an Economist opinion piece on the war in the Gaza Strip. (The photo shows a map from a Palestinian textbook that omits Israel):

The Arab world reject's Israel's claims to its territory, based on prior claims of Palestinian Arabs to the territory Israel occupies.

But here's something not mentioned so far, I'll wager: the Kurds' ancient lands are claimed by the Arabs of Syria and Iraq and the Persians of Iran and the Turks of Turkey. In these Muslim countries the Arabs and Persians and Turks often treat the Kurds vastly worse than the Israelis have ever treated Arab Israelis or Palestinians in the occupied territories. It was Arabs who used nerve gas on Kurdish villages, remember.

So--when these countries volunteer to give the Kurds' lands back to them and thus grant Kurdistan "countryhood" I'll take their assertions about Palestine more seriously. Then there's the "right of return." It's a historical fact that when Israel declared its independence, all the Arab countries--every single one of them--expelled their Jews, many of whom had been living there for over a millenium. And took their lands and homes and businesses without compensation.

So--when the Arab world grants a "right of return" to all the Jews they'd expelled--and their descendents--and gives them back the lands, homes, businesses and money they stole from the Jews in their countries--then I'll take their chatter about a "right of return" seriously. As for the present situation: it's a big lose-lose for Israel.

Hamas has stated unambiguously that its goal is the conquest of all the land Israel occupies and the explusion or murder of every Israeli. I'm guessing this includes the Israeli Arabs, who Hamas' principles would require treating as collaborators. So how can Israel deal with Hamas?

To put it simply, Hamas has declared, in effect, total war on not just Israel but on every human being living in Israel.

What would you do if a hostile foreign state was regularly lobbing missles and mortar rounds into your community, not to mention suicide-murderers? What would you say if others said, well, they're not that many and they're not that accurate? (Actually they're exactly accurate, since they're intended to kill civilians and terrorize the civilian population.)

How many rounds would be lobbed into your community before you demanded that your government put a stop to it, by whatever means necessary? And what if your enemy used its own civilians as human shields? Would you then tell them they're welcome to kill you and your family rather than have your army hurt their civilians being used as human shields?

I pity your family if you do.

All this said, it's obvious that the Israelis have been conducting a stealth campaign to take and occupy a good deal of territory beyond what they had before the 1967 war. I don't have a dog in this fight. There are no angels here. The territory being fought over is miniscule by American geographical standards (I'm writing from Palo Alto, California).

Oh, and while Gazans voted in Hamas, that doesn't mean they're all fanatics. Fatah was and is monstrously corrupt, so the Palestinians faced a Hobson's choice. Plus they only get one-sided news, and moderates tend to be murdered as collaborators. So their consent to Hamas' rule was not informed consent in the Western sense.

I'm guessing that President Obama will try to broker a painful compromise that will involve Israel leaving territory it would really like to hang onto (though not everything it has occupied outside the 1967 borders) while demanding that the Palestinians formally recognize Israel and forswear violence--something along those lines.

But Hamas is fanatical. Regardless of Palestinians' material grievances, Hamas' theological position is absolute: that Allah demands that they always fight to expel every Israeli from "Arab lands." Period. You can't compromise with that. It just means that any truce = time to regroup/rearm.

So if I were running Israel I just might choose to take the P.R. hit and keep on grinding down Hamas.

A new year's eve recommendation

I bought a lot of Christmas presents on Amazon.com, along with stuff like a new cartridge for our kitchen faucet. Today I spent a few hours writing reviews of the stuff I bought.

As a consumer, Amazon.com reader reviews have benefited me a lot, and anyone who harbors communitarian political ideals should pay back by helping others in this way, just as others have helped us.

It's not only the particular things said that help, but the knowledge they convey that so many people give of their time to help others, with no direct reward. Seeing community spirit nourishes community spirit.

Shoe Throwing: Wrong Question

Newspapers are printing many letters defending throwing shoes at Bush—or being offended by such defenders. Well, they're all wrong. The actual question is whether a journalist should use a press conference as the time and place to make a partisan statement.

If lefties had their wits about them they'd denounce this breach. Civilization depends on us all acting, well, civilized. Its exact essence is people who disagree profoundly agreeing to coexist in a common framework. And the exact test of that civilization is how you treat people you despise.

I despise Bush. (Though I do admire his agility. He dodged both shoes neatly.) But all the shoe-thrower showed was his disregard for his profession and his incomprehension of what we all must do to keep civilization going. Same goes for those who defend his actions.

There's a place to show what you think about Bush: the ballot box. And that worked out pretty well, didn't it? Besides, if you defend the shoe-thrower, then you're defending Cheney cursing out a Senator on the Senate floor.

Think about it.

Is it time for revolution in Zimbabwe?

A Zimbabwean senator wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, proposing that powersharing with the Mugabe regime was the only nonviolent option. Here's the comment I posted there:

I'm sure Senator Coltart's assertion is correct: the powersharing agreement is the only nonviolent alternative.

However, that doesn't make it the only alternative.

No one should propose violent revolution lightly, and I don't. My own country--America--tried everything before resorting to revolution, and in that revolution, many people died or suffered grievously. And in our case perhaps it wasn't necessary. Certainly Canada and Australia and New Zealand all transitioned to independence peacefully--as did Zimbabwe's southern neighbor, to the astonishment of the rest of the world.

That said, surely we all agree that there are conditions under which violent revolution is the least worst alternative. the question is whether this is true in the case of Zimbabwe, and, sadly, I'm afraid it is.

Mugabe has become a tick firmly embedded in his country's body, bleeding it dry. He has stated recently that Zimbabwe is his personal possession. He appears to have veered into clinical megalomania. And an insane dictator is even more dangerous than your ordinary despot.

And in this case it really looks as though Mugabe and his cronies are already at war with the people of Zimbabwe. Maybe we just have to recognize this fact.

But then the question is will South Africa's government stop aiding and abetting the Mugabe dictatorship? This quiet collusion is shameful and flies directly in the face of S.A.'s own commitment to democracy.

Of course there's the issue of Africa's general inability to transcend its bitter memories of the colonial era. Mugabe fought colonialism, therefore he's a fine fellow. Well, the colonial era ended several generations ago. Africa needs to get out of reactive mode and deal with the present in terms of the present.

Somali Piracy--should we fish or cut bait?

We can't leave Somalia alone, notwithstanding Bush's blunders and regardless of whether you think America is the Great Shaitan or the world's last best hope for international peace--for the simple fact that Somali piracy is wreaking havoc on international shipping. 

The pirate's apologists can rant all they want about how it's all our fault and they're just peaceful fishermen forced into this. Whether we played a role in their turning to piracy or not, and whether they'd (re)turn to fishing after making hundreds of millions of dollars from piracy (yeah, right), they're a menace to navigation and must be stopped. 

The Somalis do have a legitimate grievance against many other nations: foreign trawlers have not only removed most of the fish Somalis used to catch but have also destroyed the fishes' breeding grounds (that's what trawling does). 

But to the no doubt disappointment of those who think America's to blame for everything, those foreign trawlers aren't American. They're Portuguese, Taiwanese etc. 

Yes, Somali piracy is doubtless symptomatic of other stuff, and I doubt that stopping the piracy will do anything to fix that other stuff, and I agree that the other stuff needs sorting out--perhaps with a UN mandate, since self-determination would only be possible if you disarmed the warlords' militias so that traditional Somali institutions could function again. 

But we can't wait for that other stuff to get sorted out. Nor is an unfleet of warships from various countries--some of which are countries the poaching trawlers come from--working out so well.

We need a unified command imposing order on Somali waters--one that would both stop the pirates and expel the foreign poachers. International law needs to be updated to explicitly enable captains of ships who capture pirates to try them on board, sentence them to death, execute them on the spot and dump their bodies in the sea. All the Somalis on shore need know is that pirates go out and don't come back. 

This is also a perfect area for new technology like UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). UAVs could patrol Somalia's long coastline and notify patrolling vessels when pirates set out in skiffs (easily recognizable) or in motherships (which could then be interdicted and boarded by warships and/or choppers).

The ships now being held by the pirates (almost always under the control of several warlords) must be boarded and retaken--all simultaneously in a large operation. Some crewmen will die, but it's worth it in the long run.

Many left wingers quail at the brutal realities of the world. They believe in a Star Trek universe where everything is solved by sweet reason. The irony is that to the extent that they get control of nations' foreign policies they often cause as much human suffering as right wing warmongers do.

International peace isn't a freebie. If you study history, you'll sea that it has only been brought about by a tough, dominant nation, often administered unfairly and brutally--but better than the chaos that's the only alternative. The Romans did it. Now it's our turn. Bush gave war a bad name, but that's not because war isn't the only answer sometimes. It was because he's a fool in the purest sense of the term.

None of what I've said justifies Bush's blunders. I'm just trying to deliver a wake-up call to those who let their ideologies swamp their ability to perceive things as they really are, for better and for worse.

Coral reefs dying

A recent NYTimes science blog discussed the existential threat to the Earth's coral reefs, coming from a variety of sources, including acidification of the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption, reef bombing, overfishing, etc. Here's my comment:

One thing individuals can do to help–odd as it sounds–is to become scuba divers.

We divers are eye witnesses to what’s going on beneath the surface of our seas. Talking to older divers reveals how greatly diminished many reef habitats are now.

Yet speaking as someone who only started diving in 1994, I’ve still seen–and continue to see–amazing beauty underwater, from the Caribbean to Indonesia and elsewhere.

I’ve also heard reef bombing going on, seen poachers at work in national parks, seen the devastation caused by humankind’s wasteful and destructive treatment of the ocean’s resources. And since I’ve seen and heard these things myself, I can be a more compelling advocate.

Humans understand specifics more than statistics. That’s just the way it is.

Also, the more divers take themselves and their money to tropical destinations, the more the locals have an incentive to conserve our reefs. I’ve seen what a huge difference this can make. It won’t help with acidification directly but it can ameliorate the situation in other ways.

True, diving is dangerous. In fact it’s as dangerous as driving a car on a freeway. Oh, wait. You do do that, though, right?

In fact, as long as you stick to sport diving parameters, you can get life insurance (unlike sky divers, for example). Insurance company actuaries are a great source of information as to which activities are reasonably safe, and which are not.

The key is training and common sense. Don’t get one of those InstaDiver resort courses. Take a proper course from a proper dive shop, and don’t do stupid things like partying ’till 3am then diving at 8am. I’ve been on over 400 dives worldwide in many conditions and have never had a problem, apart from a jellyfish sting twice on my lip–about as painful as a thistle sting. That’s it.

So go dive, enjoy one of the most exciting activities you can do, become a witness, help our planet.