MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) is a classic example of an organization which has departed so far from its original purpose that it ought to be renamed. Whether this is because of success in the war against drunk driving, or whether MADD has simply succumbed to ideologically driven activists with a neo-prohibitionist agenda I do not know, but the MADD outfit is getting so ridiculous that at the rate they're going they should just drop one of the Ds and hire Alfred E. Newman as their publicist. (Needless to say, such meandering by MADD is not a new topic here.)

This latest stuff is almost that funny. I stumbled onto something a few days ago to which I'll return, but I'll start with the MADD's campaign against virtual drunken driving. Hmmm... Maybe that's drunken virtual driving?

Anyway, Glenn Reynolds linked this post by "Simon Scowl" about MADD's campaign against "Grand Theft Auto IV" -- a video game in which players can virtually drive virtually drunk (and of course virtually steal, virtually rob, virtually commit murder, etc.). It's the virtual drunken driving that bothers MADD; apparently they're not only against the real thing; they don't want pretending:

In the critically acclaimed open-world game, players have the choice of patronizing a bar and then attempting to drive drunk. While virtually under the influence, the screen becomes blurred and the controls are more difficult to use. Players also have the option of hailing a taxi or walking. The intoxication effects wear off after a few minutes in the game.

Retorts Simon Scowl,

Er... when you're sitting at home pretending to drive drunk in a video game, you're not out driving drunk. You probably haven't even left the house for days. You are a menace to nobody but yourself.

Hmm....

Maybe instead of subtracting the D, MADD could add a D. MADDD. "Mothers Against Dry Drunken Driving." (I kind of like the 3D effect.)

Except they're against much more than that. The latest thing I stumbled onto was their campaign against alcoholic beverages which have the same alcohol content as beer, but which taste sweet. Like many bloggers, I was simply outraged by the story of the father whose son was taken away from him because he mistook Mike's Hard Lemonade for ordinary Lemonade at a baseball game and bought one for his boy. For that mistake, his child was taken to an emergency room (nothing was wrong with him, of course) and the predictable forces of bureaucracy did their damnedest to mess up the family. Opined Amy Alkon, who blogged about the incident:

...the CPS nitwits actually put the kid in foster care. Meanwhile, there are probably hundreds of kids in Detroit, in foster care and out, direly in need of assistance.

My big wish? That there were a TV show to replicate the role of the town stocks in the Middle Ages, where "public servants" shown to have their heads planted halfway up their small intestine will not simply be rewarded with pay raises, pensions, and vacation time, but with the kind of reception they actually deserve.

At the time, I didn't feel motivated to write a post because I didn't have anything to say beyond my usual "yet another typical example of bureaucratic tyranny..."

But I know I've expressed that sentiment before. So maybe I could have said, "this is the worst bureaucratic outage I've seen since the last bureaucratic outrage!" But that would have been so typical of me, and I didn't say anything because I really didn't have anything to add.

However, I pondered what might explain the bizarre nature of the bureaucratic overreaction, so I decided to research the product itself -- Mike's Hard Lemonade. It has a bad rep, not because it's inherently bad, for it has the same percentage of alcohol as beer. Rather, the problem is that it's sweet, and the anti-alcohol bureaucratic community doesn't like that. It's in a group of beverages they refer to collectively as "alcopops." These are said to be "gateway drugs" (no, really) simply because they taste good, and because they taste good, they appeal to young people, especially girls. (Who are for reasons unclear to me deemed more in need of protection than boys.) Seriously, they're being called "girlie drinks" and "kiddie booze."

More at Slashfood; Wiki entry here.

Whether bureaucratic antipathy to "kiddie booze" was a factor in snatching the man's son away from him I don't know. But I hadn't known about the major campaign against these beverages nor had I known that one of the sponsors is MADD. Not because "alcopops" are any more likely to cause auto accidents than beer or wine (like beer, they're around 5% alcohol, which is why they're classified as beers for tax purposes), but because they are said to "target" the young.

Exciting developments are under way across the nation to reclassify sugary, sweet alcopops, or flavored malt beverages, from their current beer tax classification to a more appropriate distilled spirit tax classification. Success in this reclassification effort will help prevent youth access to these soda-pop tasting, alcohol-laden beverages is because taxing them at a higher rate will make them less affordable to youth. Success will also result in removing them from shelves of thousands of retail outlets.

In California alone, alcopops are available in an almost 15,000 additional outlets due to its beer misclassification. And the state is losing an estimated $40 million in tax revenue that would be gained from proper classification. So the California Coalition on Alcopops and Youth, which includes groups such as MADD-California, the Girl Scout Councils of California, and Friday Night Live Partnership, took action. With a major campaign reaching every branch of government, this Coalition has enjoyed great recent success. Leading the way, four young people from California Friday Night Live Partnership and California Youth Council filed a petition with the State taxing agency, the Board of Equalization, requesting reclassification. After the testimony of youth leaders at a hearing this past December, the Board of Equalization voted 3-2 to reconsider the current classification. This decision generated statewide media coverage and led to an interview with Elliana Yanger and Jimmy Jordan on NPR's All Things Considered.

Another development is under way in the California courts. On Nov. 15, 2006, Santa Clara County filed a lawsuit against the Board of Equalization for the misclassification of alcopops as beer instead of distilled spirits. In support of the Coalition's efforts, the case was taken on a pro-bono basis by the San Francisco law firm of Renne, Sloan, Holtzman & Sakai.

The anti-alcopop crusaders make the "public policy" argument that the sweet beverages should be taxed at the same rate as distilled spirits:

By classifying alcopops as beer rather than distilled spirits, marketers can make the products cheaper and more available, critical factors in marketing to young people. In California, beer is taxed at much lower rates than distilled spirits - 20 cents a gallon for beer compared to $3.30 a gallon for distilled spirits. Experts believe that imposing the proper tax rate would raise the price substantially and, thereby, reduce alcopops' appeal to young people. This beer classification is also costing California tax payers an estimated $40 million in state taxes each year.[3]

Obviously, nothing would stop anyone from buying vodka and lemonade or tequila and Margarita Mix, putting the two together, and ending up with the same thing as "alcopop." The campaign accomplishes nothing. What's the next step, once the dimwits realize this? Preventing distilled spirits and mixers from being sold in the same stores? Or maybe ban alcohol altogether?

The reason there's a war against these beverages because they have sugar, and they're supposed to taste good. Sweetness has evolved from being an issue of taste into an issue of morality.

I should point out that I prefer bitter to sweet, and thus beer to "alcopops." Does that make me a more moral person? Or is sweetness more immoral because girls like sweet things? Can someone maybe explain? Because, the more I look at this the more confused I become.

Some time ago, Reason's Jacob Sullum analyzed the "alcopops" issue, and pointed out the illogic of the taxation argument:

...the rationale for taxing liquor at a higher rate than fermented beverages such as beer and wine is that liquor has a higher alcohol content, usually around 40 percent. The "alcopops," by contrast, generally have an alcohol content of around 5 percent. So if the Board of Equalization's tax hike plan is implemented as advertised (i.e., limited to "alcopops"), California will be taxing drinks with a 5 percent alcohol content at a much higher rate than beer, which can have an alcohol content twice as high, or wine, with an alcohol content up to three times as high. Putting aside the question of whether this is good public policy, it is clearly contrary to the legislature's intent in distinguishing between fermented and distilled alcoholic beverages. If critics of "alcopops" want to tax the hell out of sweet, flavored malt beverages, they should ask the legislature to do so, instead of reinterpreting the law to fit their agenda.

Beer is without question, like Pizza, Madonna, and fast cars, an icon of modern American culture. That the white working class American male is stereotypically referred to as "Joe Six-pack" is but one example of the dominance of beer as lower and middle-class America's preferred alcoholic beverage. But this was not always the case. 150 years ago, in the 1840s, hard cider held the position now held by beer as the preferred alcoholic beverage of the working class.

But somehow, by the end of the 19th century and well before Prohibition, Cider all but disappeared in the United States. That hard cider remains popular in all the other outposts of British culture, that apples are still a major American crop, and that every other alcoholic drink once popular in America came back after prohibition make the question of cider's disappearance all the more perplexing.

Order a glass of hard cider in an American bar today, and the bartender might look at you strangely. The only hard ciders to be found are relatively expensive English imports like Bulmer's and Woodpecker's. So foreign has this drink become that most Americans have never even tasted it. While hard cider remains a favorite draught beverage at most British pubs and is still consumed in large quantities in Canada, Australia, and its country of origin, France, descendants of anglo-culture in the United States, and only in the United States, no longer know what hard cider is.

Had hard cider never been produced in the U.S., for whatever reason, then this might not seem such an oddity. But what makes this particularly problematic is that hard cider was not only widely produced and consumed in the U.S. but held a place of high esteem on American tables and in American taverns well into the
19th century. Perhaps the height of cider's popularity came in the election campaign of 1840 when the conservative Whig candidate, William Harrison, managed to convince a majority of working class Americans that he was one of them by associating himself with the symbols of "log cabin and hard cider."

However, it's worth noting that cider was very popular among the founding fathers ("In the early days of our nation, the founding fathers and mothers and their kids consumed hard cider by the gallon," and"to the end of John Adams's life, a large tankard of hard cider was his morning draught before breakfast"). Thomas Jefferson is said to have written much of the Declaration of Independence in a tavern.

Apple cider was so American that it really was more American than apple pie, as well as in the classical tradition (something I cannot ignore -- hence the longish quote):

....Thanks to the Romans, and all of their conquering, apples were spread around the world - leaving not only a tasty little fruit, but yet another convenient way to produce alcohol. Orchards really began to flourish in Europe during the Medieval Days, when those keen little monks added this to their long list of resources for food and alcohol production. The same could be said for the early European settlers. When they first came to North America, apples seemed a better use for alcohol production than anything else. So, "as American as apple pie" should read more like "as American as hard cider". The colonials also embraced hard cider, as not only was it easier to produce than beer or wine, but it was quite the cost effective way to make their hooch.

Back around 1625, William Blackstone sowed the seeds for what was perhaps the very first American orchard, placed close to Beacon Hill. William Endicott, the first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, was a distinguished orchardist as was George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As far as Johnny Appleseed goes, he was probably partaking of the hard cider rather than thinking of people baking apple pies. Cider was held in high regard right up to the end of the 1800's, but its appeal soon fluttered. Maybe it was the Industrial revolution giving the working class the thirst for light lagers? Prohibition? Or could it have been an aggressive attack from the budding soft drink industry and the likes of Coca-Cola? Hey add a little cocaine to soda and voila! ... a nice refreshing beverage without the alcohol, but still packing a kick.

So where has this pride and history of hard cider gone after Prohibition? Where's cider now? Most ciders produced today have an addition of sulfites and perhaps other preservatives. Sugar and apple juice concentrate are often used as well as natural or artificial colourings. Most are far from being what they used to be, traditionally. And, it seems like the cider industry has become more of a rat race rather than a craft niche market and one of quality. In the 1980's imported English and French cider made their way to America to appease the changing tastes, spawned by the beginning of the micro-beer revolution. By the 1990's racy marketing and gimmick on top of gimmick showed that the cider industry could get as shallow as the macro-beer industry. Of course it does not help when you have the hard lemon, hard tea, alcoholic water, and now hard cola side of the beverage industry chipping away at your sales. But still, cider's stem remains attached ... waiting to ripen and hit the industry on the head.

Domestic Brands

Cider Jack Hard Cider, this whole entire brand of syrupy sweet hard ciders has a tap handle everywhere. Racy marketing and an aim towards drinkers with a sweet tooth have done well for them. Brands include Hard Cider (5.5% alcohol by volume), Raspberry Hard Cider and Cranberry Hard Cider (both 5.0% alcohol by volume).

Hardcore Hard Cider is the Boston Beer Company's venture called Hardcore Cider Company that is based in Ohio. Hardcore Crisp Hard Cider is oak aged to add at little depth and character to be closer to traditional ciders, their Hardcore Golden Hard Cider is lighter and more on the lines of a present day cider.

The Woodchuck Cider brand has been around since the 1980's as The Joseph Cerniglia Winery.

I don't know what's egregious; the fact that the favorite drink of the founding fathers was alcopop, or that imaginary drinkers can get behind imaginary wheels.

Or maybe they're real wheels?

I visited a friend the other day who has the Wii game, and his latest accessory is -- I kid you not -- a steering wheel!

I looked carefully, but I saw no warning label against drinking (either real or imaginary) behind that wheel. Anyone could drink and drive -- especially children! Factor in alcopops, and you've got children -- especially helpless girls -- drinking and driving! They could even take turns engaging in contests to see who's the best drunken driver.

It's terrible.

Why, it's almost as bad as Thomas Jefferson's drinking and writing...

There is a whole lot to cover on this subject so I'm going to give mostly links and let you make up your own mind. Be sure to read the comments at the links provided as they tend to add information or present countervailing views.

Fleet Positions for War.

We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be. Part of that strategy includes the buildup of rhetoric, the shuffling of resources, and the preparation in Iraq for a military action against Iran. We observe these events taking place. Much thanks to Yankee Sailor for his collections regarding the developing time line.

Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means

There has been a political split in the Pentagon since 2005, when those who wanted to move forward under the cooperative model as opposed to the unilateral model for military action were able to shift the Pentagon position through the release of official strategic papers. Under Gates, the Pentagon has tried to shift to a cooperative phase from what has been a unilateral phase of military action. The cooperative approach is championed by Rice, Gates, and people like Adm. Fallon. Many neo-conservatives, which unfortunately includes a bunch of big blue Navy folks I won't name specifically, form up the unilateral military action side.

Admiral William Fallon shakes his head slowly, and his eyes say, These guys [Iran] have no idea how much worse it could get for them. I am the reasonable one.

Building a Case for War in Iran - Part 2

News continues to roll in that the United States may be nearing a decision to strike Iran. In my previous installment, I discussed the storm of tough talk currently unleashed from Washington. In this installment I'll lay out some of the other events in the region in recent weeks.

First, an intriguing report was published alleging that Washington authorized the execution and funding of a covert offensive against Iran in recent weeks.

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Lee Smith at Michael Totten's writes: Hezbollah's Endgame? Pt. 2

David Wurmser, formerly Vice President Cheney's Middle East adviser, writes in to comment on Iran's role in the Beirut crisis.

"Iran has suffered some pretty serious defeats in Iraq, foremost is that the Shiites there kind of turned on Iran. May they not need to pull back and focus on their role as the champion of the Shiites right now, even at the cost of compromising their efforts to jump the Sunni-Shiite divide? They may actually be in no better a shape among Lebanon's Shiites as they are among Iraq's. Second, there were these really odd nasty exchanges between Zawahiri and Iran, which may have been born of Iran's desire right now to solidify its own role as Shiite champion."

Omar Fadhil of Iraq the Model comments at Pajamas Media. Iranian-Made Rocket Discovered Near Basra Alarms Iraqis

The Iraqi minister of defense pushed the debate with the Iranians over their provision of weapons to Shia militias one more step on Monday. Minister Abdul Qadir Obeidi indirectly confronted the Iranians, without naming them, with new findings that prove their involvement in the arming of Shia militias.

On Monday, state-owned al-Sabah published a statement by the minister in which he spoke of the capture of a certain type of rocket that was never found in militia-held caches until now:

Defense minister Abdul Qadir Mohammed Obeidi revealed that army troops found a 200-mm ground-to-ground rocket manufactured in 2007 during a search operation by the troops north of Basra. Obeidi told al-Sabah in an exclusive interview that, under international laws and norms, this kind of rocket can be traded only with the approval of parliaments and is used only at times of extreme necessity during wars ... and wondered how this rocket entered the country. Obeidi added that this rocket can be launched only from a special platform and by specialized crews.

From what I read in Iraq's two biggest newspapers, it seems that the government is trying to step up the rhetoric against Iranian interference in Iraq and to induce uproar among the Iraqi public.

Noah Pollak.

Hezbollah's thug-in-chief, Hassan Nasrallah, addressed Lebanon today. What he said is not promising. You can read the entire transcript here, but it's not necessary. The following snippet tells you everything you need to know:

I said . . . that any hand that reaches for the resistance [i.e., Hezbollah] and its arms will be cut off. Israel tried that in the July War, and we cut its hand off. We do not advise you to try us. Whoever is going to target us will be targeted by us. Whoever is going to shoot at us will be shot by us.

Captain Ed.

Iraqi soldiers have begun evacuating families from portions of Sadr City, a sign that a large offensive will start shortly against the Mahdi Army militia that have long controlled the sector of Baghdad. Two stadiums have been secured for sheltering the evacuees as the government of Nouri al-Maliki attempts to break Moqtada al-Sadr's last stronghold and end mortar attacks on the Green Zone. Maliki also wants to end Iran's influence in Iraq, which caused Iran to cut off security talks with Maliki and the US:

Gateway Pundit has: A Gift From Tehran-- ARMED HEZBOLLAH THUGS Roam Beirut ...Update: 1 Dead- Saudis Warn Hezbollah

Beirut Spring posted this photo of a bridge banner in Beirut that reads: "A gift from the municipality of Tehran to the righteous, resisting Lebanese people."
Yup. That sums it up.

Update 09 May 008 1217z

Hezbollah's Subtle Takeover

Hezbollah has taken control of the media in Lebanon, and their propaganda campaign has already begun. They are currently presenting themselves as liberators of Lebanon, and allies of the Lebanese Army against a corrupt government supported by pro-government snipers and brigrands.

Hezbollah's militant takeover of Beirut and its systematic destruction of the authority of the state and freedom of the press suggests a sophisticated and planned campaign to take power. There is no hiding the violence Hezbollah used to seize Beirut and cut it off from the rest of the country. But as their media campaign is already showing, Hezbollah is employing subtle and sophisticated mechanisms to take over the rest of Lebanon. All news which could be construed as negative behaviors, such as the blatant destruction and corruption of Lebanese institutions, is hidden beneath a Hezbollah-dominated media blackout.

No one knows if Hezbollah is currently occupying government building, re-routing the telecommunications networks, placing weapons in areas they could not gain access to before, and more. If Hezbollah wins this battle, this information will never be made public.

Instapundit says:

I GET AN EMAIL NEWSLETTER from an oil trader and today it includes this tidbit: "In an interesting twist of OPEC news - in the folder titled 'Adequate Supply' - Iran has chartered an armada of supertankers to act as floating storage for as many as 28 million barrels of crude oil that is backing up on them. Analysts are blaming worldwide refineries yet to recover from maintenance programs. It's not the first time that Iran has had trouble finding buyers; they temporarily floated 20 million barrels in 2006. No, I can't explain this in light of record oil prices and continual cries for more release of OPEC crude oil. "

U.S. crude stocks are up, too. This is unlikely to be the case, but here's a thought: If I were, say, the United States government, and I anticipated military action in the mideast that might interrupt oil supplies, I wouldn't want to stockpile directly because that would be a tipoff. But if I manipulated markets into running up stocks, I wouldn't have to. . . . Nah. They're not that smart.

Many links from Instapundit

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Physics World reports that 20 Nobel laureates are asking Bush to work with Congress to restore funding for science that that was cut in the 2008 budget.

Two fields financed by the Department of Energy have been particularly badly hit, with funding for high-energy physics falling to $688m -- some 12% less than Bush had requested -- and support for fusion falling by a third. The cuts led to Fermilab, for example, announcing plans earlier this year to lay-off 200 of the lab's 1900 staff.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I'll be out until late tonight, so I thought I'd write an uncharacteristically short post consisting mainly of links, with few comments. (It kills me, because I always want to say more. But OTOH, blogging is supposed to be done like this, isn't it?)

Glenn Reynolds links John McWhorter's discussion of Hillary Clinton which reaches the startling conclusion that she may be a monster after all. (An excellent read.)

Robert Novak asks whether Obama is flawed or fantastic. (He thinks the next test will be how Obama handles Bill Ayers.)

Jerry Seper has scooped an incredible treasure trove of documents from the late Sam Dash's estate, which details how close Hillary came to being indicted back in the 1990s.

And Rush Limbaugh seems to be calling off "Operation Chaos":

...Limbaugh called off the operation yesterday, saying he wants Obama to be the party's pick, because "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees."

As I say, it kills me not to have time for a good rant.

George Stephanopoulos says Hillary is negotiating the Vice Presidential spot:

ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos told Charles Gibson on "World News" that Clinton is staying in the race to negotiate a spot on the Democratic ticket in November.

What I'm wondering is why she would want the job that Vice President Garner famously said isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

And why would Bubba be content to accept being the first second laddie?

Well, for starters, the famed Garner quote is wrong. He actually called it a bucket of warm piss. And in terms of prestige and publicity, the job is more important than it was in Garner's days.

Plus it's more, um, lucrative:

It took the invention of television for politicians to realize that the Vice-Presidency was worth a great deal more than what John Nance Garner, the first of F.D.R.'s three No. 2s, is famously said to have compared it to, "a bucket of warm spit." (Famously but incorrectly: Garner said a bucket of warm piss, which, though unquotable in the family newspapers of his day, makes more sense from the heat-retention angle.) The Vice-Presidency is a much, much better job than it was in the old days. Back then, you drowsed through endless sessions of the Senate, lived in a flyspecked boarding house on a muddy street, and nursed your resentments. Now you get a mansion, a staff, and a plane worthy of a Saudi arms merchant. And, if you like undisclosed locations, no longer have detectable Presidential ambitions of your own, and serve a callow President so in thrall to you that when you headed his Vice-Presidential search committee you felt free to find yourself, you can end up achieving total world domination.

Did Dick Cheney expand the role of the vice presidency to include world domination?

Whether he did or not, I'm wondering whether the Clintons might see it as a precedent for further, um, expansionism?

Sounds like a job for two.

MORE: I'm not sure how this will affect Hillary's plan to put Rush Limbaugh on the ticket out of gratitude for Operation Chaos.

They might make him Secretary of State, I suppose.

UPDATE: Steve Kornacki argues that Obama does not need Hillary on the ticket, and analogizes to Reagan (among others):

Reagan was 65 in 1976, and he knew that he'd get one final shot at the presidency in 1980, whether Ford won or lost (the 22nd Amendment would have kept Ford from running again). But Reagan also knew that causing any trouble for Ford in the fall of '76, and thus being blamed for electing Carter, would do his long-term ambition no good.

For his own good, Ronald Reagan didn't make a fuss about not being on the ticket. For her own good, Hillary Clinton probably won't either.

Yesterday, I was rendered unconscious by intravenous administration of a drug called Propofol. The oddest thing about it is that I can remember every detail except the moment it was administered. No memory of what it felt like, no "drifting off," nothing like that. The IV line had been set up and was flowing, and I remember the anesthetist telling me they were going to give it to me, but then it's just a big blank until I woke up (a little less than an hour later). So it's more than just an anesthetic; it seems to either prevent or wipe out the laying down of any memory relating to the way it feels. So, not only did I feel no pain, I did not feel the effect of the drug which blocked it. When I woke up, there I was, apparently clear-headed, but with no memory beyond lying down with the IV in me.

There was a time -- not all that long ago -- when not feeling pain was considered immoral. But anesthesia, by introducing the concept of not having to feel pain, changed the concept.

Some argue that it went from being a spiritual to a political issue. From an abstract of a article titled "The Secularization of Pain":

The rapid acceptance of anesthesia in 1846 appears to have had a political and social basis as well as medical. Two factors are particularly important. First was a change in the perception of disease and pain; both lost religious connotations and became biologic phenomena as part of a process of secularization that affected all aspects of Western society. Second was the growth of a sense of well-being and progress, which imbued patients and physicians alike with confidence in their ability to control natural processes. During the last half century, pain has remained secular, but the confidence in both progress and the ability to control nature may have diminished.

Conquering pain is one thing, but conquering death -- in many ways the ultimate reach in our ability to control nature -- still eludes science.

Of course, when nature can be controlled, a debate ensues over who gets to be in control of the controllers.

Why would the ability to avoid pain have been seen as immoral by Victorian moralists? Were they simply wrong? Or were the pain avoiders wrong according to the morality of the times? It's easy for us to dismiss out of hand the argument that short-circuiting pain constitutes "playing God," but in religious terms, isn't that precisely what is going on? Pain is as much a part of nature as death, and the human ability to eliminate it takes nature out of the equation, and puts man in charge. For those who believe nature is God, anesthesia gets between the individual and what God would seem to have ordained.

Little wonder that the power to control pain would be so strictly controlled. The word "secularization" is a bit misleading in this context.

"State takeover" is more like it, for it's as if taking God out of pain meant putting the state in control.

Or is "secular" coming to mean statism?

Althouse of Althouse and Jeralyn Meritt of TalkLeft had a dust up and Jeralyn thinks Obama is too far to the center to win in November. Althouse being the more sensible of the pair and better in touch with the electorate (lots of righties like to comment at her blog, Jeralyn excises them) gets the better of the argument. At least if Pew is correct.

The Futurist (where I stole the graph) makes some very good arguments. He lists them as numbered points so go there if you want to see the rest.

3) The Democratic Party has been enslaved by fringe leftists. Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in ideology, yet very far to the left of the center of gravity. The purple oval I have inserted, along with the question mark, represents a vacuum in the moderate left. A large number of voters clearly reside there, but the Democratic party of today will not nominate someone who resides in the purple zone, leaving these voters as ideological orphans. Thus, Clinton and Obama have to lie (assisted by a complicit leftist media) to appear more moderate than they are, and hope that the public doesn't figure that out.

Joe Lieberman, the VP candidate against Bush/Cheney just seven years ago, was run out of the Democratic Party simply for not being opposed to bringing democracy to Iraq. Bill Clinton's actions of supporting free trade agreements like NAFTA, cutting taxes on capital gains in 1997, attacking Saddam Hussein to remove his WMD programs in 1998, etc. are all actions that the modern Democratic party would not take.

The moderate left died in 1968, when two of their most promising young leaders were assassinated. Since then, Democrats have only won three of the last ten elections. After the disaster of Jimmy Carter, Democrats never again won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts, while Republicans achieved that feat 4 times over that period (1980, 84, 88, 2004). This is a truly shambolic performance from the Democrats of the modern era. Jimmy Carter did more to ensure a generation of GOP dominance than Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Rove ever could.

Furthermore, Democrats are not capable of getting a majority of voters who earn over $30,000 a year. The middle class earning between $50,000 and $75,000 voted just 44% for Democrats. A party that is soundly rejected by the middle class and upper class is not positioned for long-term success.

I think a little history is in order.

In 1978, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code, later called section 401(k), whereby employees are not taxed on income they choose to receive as deferred compensation rather than direct compensation.[2] The law went into effect on January 1, 1980,[2] and by 1983 almost half of large firms were either offering a 401(k) plan or considering doing so.[2] By 1984 there were 17,303 companies offering 401(k) plans.[2] Also in 1984, Congress passed legislation requiring nondiscrimination testing, to make sure that the plans did not discriminate in favor of highly paid employees more than a certain allowable amount.[2] In 1998, Congress passed legislation that allowed employers to have all employees contribute a certain amount into a 401(k) plan unless the employee expressly elects not to contribute.[2] By 2003, there were 438,000 companies with 401(k) plans.[2]

Originally intended for executives, section 401(k) plans proved popular with workers at all levels because it had higher yearly contribution limits than the Individual Retirement Account (IRA); it usually came with a company match, and in some ways provided greater flexibility than the IRA, often providing loans and, if applicable, offered the employer's stock as an investment choice. Several major corporations amended existing defined contribution plans immediately following the publication of IRS proposed regulations in 1981.

So the question is. Despite the economic bump we are hitting will the electorate wish to punish business and raise taxes? I don't think so. So what should the Republicans promise? I think cutting taxes and cutting spending (including ending earmarks permanently) might work. So where do the candidates for President actually stand on earmarks based on their behavior as opposed to their promises? Well in the current Congress Hillary Clinton is a Champion among the Presidential Candidates at $340 million, Obama is in second place with $91 million, and poor old John McCain brings up the rear with $0. That is right a big fat zero. Way to go John.

I know who I'm voting for. Even RINOs have some Republican principles.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

But Glenn Reynolds did pick an extremely bad day to tantalize me with food.

Normally I wouldn't have whined about hunger, but it just so happens that I've been starving for over 30 hours, and I won't be allowed to eat until tonight.

Not that it's all that big of a deal; it's that I have to do it (plus drink gallons of Gatorade along with a nauseating 64 ounce drink which tasted like seawater sweetened with antifreeze) in preparation for a medical procedure I'd rather not discuss. Nothing serious; just a routine screening for men over 50.

So, if I sound goofier than usual, it's because my electrolytes have been messed with, and on top of that I'll be getting sedated in a couple of hours.

I will return this evening, and I do have access to this blog. Whether I'll be in an appropriate state of mind to blog, who knows?

(Readers would be well advised to take into account that I might not be responsible for my contents.)

I like to joke about Bill Clinton when he gets into his "Angry Satyr" mode, and the picture of him in the Globe article I discussed yesterday is one of the best illustrations I've seen of that.

It is funny, and it isn't. There's something a bit sad about seeing him this way, and I say this because, even though I don't like him, I do remember the irresistible Bill Clinton charm and his very agile wit.

What happened?

By any standard, the man is clearly a liability to his wife's campaign. He is just not the same Bill Clinton that America loved (and loved to hate) back in the 90s.

The lopsided North Carolina results indicate that despite hopeful predictions about the "Bubba Tour", his campaigning did Hillary no favors.

I don't know what the analysts say, but I'm wondering whether it actually hurt her. If he was running around preaching to the coverted (people who would have voted for her anyway), might this have had the unintended effect of galvanizing Obama voters?

Just a few days ago, polls were showing Hillary with 17% of the black vote, in a state where blacks comprise 35% of the vote. She could conceivably have won, and was certainly expected to do far better than she did. I'm wondering whether having her volatile, former president husband running around down there might have created a sort of black backlash against Hillary. Was he speaking mainly to white crowds?

A couple of days ago, Glenn Reynolds linked NRO's Byron York, who said he was:

Clinton's crowds are mostly white, just like they've been in Pennsylvania and Ohio and nearly everywhere else. In the south, they remind you of how many whites didn't migrate to the Republican party, and of how popular Clinton remains here. (In his two national election victories, Clinton managed to win Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Florida -- and lost North Carolina by about 0.7 percent in 1992.) "Been a Democrat all my life -- born and bred," an older man named Cecil tells me. "I know they say he's done this, he's done that, but he was no worse than all the rest," adds his wife, Nettie.

Did Bill Clinton inadvertently help get out the black vote?

MORE: Post Politics (in a post titled "Angry White Female") links this discussion of a notable observation by Clinton surrogate Lisa Caputo:

Right now on Hardball they have on a Clinton surrogate, former Clinton press secretary Lisa Caputo, just said that it's all about "white middle class voters" and in particular, that the "white middle class has been hurt the most by the economic downturn."

Yeah, way to cast aside millions of voters. Black people don't matter because they vote for Obama. They're just like the "elites who swill white wine", they haven't been hurt by the economic downturn at all. Not like those hardworking whites.

Maybe Hillary thought that the best way to court the "Angry White Female" vote was to send in her "Angry White Satyr."

It makes sense satyrically.

MORE: In addition to the role of Bill Clinton, I think the attacks against Obama have in general helped boost his numbers with black voters -- not because the attackers have played the race card, but because of the principle of blowback, which I discussed earlier in the context of Philadelphia Mayor Street. The discovery of an FBI bug (normally a major scandal), generated great sympathy for Mayor Street, and enabled him to win when he should have lost.

Some major doom-and-gloom for Republicans, from Newt Gingrich:

Senator McCain is currently running ahead of the Republican congressional ballot by about 16 percentage points. But there are two reasons that this extraordinary personal achievement should not comfort congressional Republicans.

First, McCain's lead is a sign of the gap between the McCain brand of independence and the GOP brand. No regular Republican would be tying or slightly beating the Democratic candidates in this atmosphere. It is a sign of how much McCain is a non-traditional Republican that he is sustaining his personal popularity despite his party's collapse.

Second, there is a grave danger for the McCain campaign that if the generic ballot stays at only 32 % for the GOP it will ultimately outweigh McCain's personal appeal and drag his candidacy into defeat.
The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested -- And It Failed

The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti- Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.

This model has already been tested with disastrous results.

In 2006, there were six incumbent Republican Senators who had plenty of money, the advantage of incumbency, and traditionally successful consultants.

But the voters in all six states had adopted a simple position: "Not you." No matter what the GOP Senators attacked their opponents with, the voters shrugged off the attacks and returned to, "Not you."

The danger for House and Senate Republicans in 2008 is that the voters will say, "Not the Republicans."
Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll

A February Washington Post poll shows that Republicans have lost the advantage to the Democrats on which party can handle an issue better -- on every single topic.

Americans now believe that Democrats can handle the deficit better (52 to 31), taxes better (48 to 40) and even terrorism better (44 to 37).

This is a catastrophic collapse of trust in Republicans built up over three generations on the deficit, two generations on taxes, and two generations on national security.

(Bold in original.)

So, assuming the certainty of Republican defeat, Newt Gingrich -- much as I hate to say it -- makes a compelling case for Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

The problem with that is that I think it's a very poor political tactic to go into an election assuming your side is going to lose. Additionally, Hillary Clinton supplies the anti-McCain right with more of an excuse to sit the election out, while Obama forces them to vote for McCain. Obama is thus the one guy who can unite the Republicans.

But let's assume McCain loses. While Hillary might be a better president from the standpoint of national defense (and thus the country), would she necessarily be the best president from the standpoint of the Republican Party? Who would be more likely to have a second term -- Hillary or Obama? Who would inspire more people to vote Republican? Who would be more likely to foster a continuation of the current malaise?

I just don't know the answers.

I'm not that great at futuristic defeatism.

(Or is that defeatist futurism?)

It looks like Hillary won Indiana, and the polls have not yet closed in North Carolina. I won't be live blogging the results, but Pajamas Media has great coverage, including Stephen Green's Drunkblogging and Bill Bradley's Special Coverage.

And constantly updated coverage here.

I'd be very surprised if Hillary didn't hold her lead in Indiana, so I'll stick my neck out and predict a win for her there.

As of 7:37 p.m., Fox has called North Carolina for Obama.

Coco is sleek and svelte, and has been compared to both Audrey Hepburn and Kim Novak. She's wonderful dog, but my only disagreement with her is that she's a Hillary supporter. That's not surprising, though. Because, being a pit bull, Coco admires grit and stamina, and Hillary Clinton has that. Moreover, Hillary is a female, and Coco prefers women to men. The combination of being tough like a pit bull, plus female, is enough to win Coco over completely. That Hillary has even been compared to a pit bull makes this whole thing a no-brainer, actually. And, far from being a no-brainer, Coco has the brain the size of your average lime.

I don't spend much time discussing politics with Coco, but occasionally when the occasion arises, I'll run things past her. During the hubbub over the Hillary cackle laugh, I thought I'd let Coco weigh in on the laugh, and when I set it as my telephone ring tone and played it for her, she was curious and attentive, and listened carefully. (Not bad for a dog; many a politician would give their eye teeth to get a similar reaction from humans.)

Today, when I learned that the Hillary/Huma sex scandal had heated up again, I thought I'd gauge Coco's reaction to the story.

As you can see, she is not very happy.

She doesn't even want to look at it. Perhaps she's in denial. Then again, she might be jealous of Huma. (Coco is very possessive.)

And according to the article, so is Bill.

Anonymous political insiders have told the Globe that there's been a major showdown, between Bill and Hill over Huma:

Humiliated Bill Clinton went berserk and angrily ordered Hillary to ditch the sexy beauty who has dragged her into a lesbian love scandal that's spreading shock waves around the world, political insiders say.

In a screaming showdown shortly after Hillary's stunning victory in the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary, sources say jealous Clinton confronted his wife about her sultry aide Huma Abedin and laid down the law, saying "It's HER or ME!"

As GLOBE reported in our May 5 issue, an avalanche of published reports are now linking Hillary, 60, and Huma as gay lovers. Rumors about a lesbian romance between HIllary and the aide who is with her day and night have also scorched the Internet -- and even popped up in the respected Sunday Times in London.

I'm not trying to pick on Hillary here, but the fact is that I have already posted -- repeatedly -- about the gay scandal allegations involving Barack Obama, and I'm trying to be fair.

Whether there's any actual proof, who knows? Coco clearly thinks this "Humasexual" stuff is beneath her dignity, and even though I suspect that she might be jealous of Huma, none of it has changed her opinion about Hillary. Coco is family to me, so I respect that.

However, there's a double standard which I think may be a bit over Coco's head.

Suppose that Barack Obama was always in the company of a sexy male model who was with him night and day, 24/7.

Wouldn't that be an even bigger deal than this?

Would it remain in the tabloids?

Richard Nebel tells about plans for commercializing the Bussard Fusion Reactor (BFR) at Talk Polywell. Richard starts off discussing who owns the BFR technology and patents. DOD is The Department of Defense. Currently the US Navy is funding the research.

...EMC2 owns the patents and the commercialization rights. DOD retains the right to use the technology free of charge. That's a pretty standard arrangement.

As for DOD taking control of the technology, I think that's pretty unlikely. The most similar parallel to this that I can think of was the development of fission power. Both nuclear fission propulsion and commercial power were developed in parallel. It isn't a coincidence that both systems are LWRs. I expect a similar situation here. Everyone that I have talked to at the DOD understands that energy supply is a major national security issue. It's not in the national interest of the US to keep this technology from going commercial. Furthermore, this project has never been classified. Fusion research world-wide was declassified in 1958 by international treaty.

Finally, I appreciate your concern about research being slowed down by the lack of dialogue. My previous research at LANL (POPS for instance) was always public domain. The reason we did it that way is because we figured that the patents would run out before we could commercialize it and the benefits of having it critiqued outweighed the drawbacks of getting "scooped". I still feel that way, but I have a little different responsibilities at EMC2. We have a responsibility to get this technology developed in a timely manner and I also have a responsibility to look after the interests of our employees and the corporation.

To get an idea of what success would mean check out:

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion also check out the IEC Fusion Technology blog.

The side bar at IEC Fusion Technology blog has links to various discussion groups. They can be found under the heading Working Groups.

A good tutorial and a history of the project before the US Navy resumed funding can be found at: World's Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

While suicide is a very poor way of coping with federal racketeering charges, I have to say that I'm somewhat sympathetic to Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who left a suicide note explaining that she couldn't face spending 6-8 years in prison:

"However, I cannot live the next 6-8 years behind bars for what both you and I have come to regard as this 'modern day lynching,' only to come out of prison in my late 50s a broken, penniless and very much alone woman," she wrote.

Palfrey had been staying with her mother in Florida since a jury convicted her last month of running a prostitution ring that masqueraded as a high-end erotic fantasy service. Palfrey argued that for 13 years she had no idea that the call girls working for her were getting paid $250 an hour for sex.

Palfrey, who did not testify during her trial, had said she insisted that her employees -- socially polished, college-educated women -- engage in only legal, "quasi-sexual" fantasies. Her case drew national attention when, shortly after her indictment last year, Palfrey provided volumes of phone records to ABC News. ABC posted them on the Internet, resulting in public identification of some prominent clients.

Palfrey's notes to her family said that she couldn't bear to go to prison. She served an 18-month term in California in the early 1990s for running a prostitution service.

While we can debate the pros and cons of prostitution, it offends both common sense as well conventional jurisprudence to treat it as a major violent crime like armed robbery. But politicians need to get elected, so they keep passing more and more draconian laws, and the mischief-making RICO statute is a perfect example. Originally intended to go after the mob, the RICO laws have been used to go after poker games. Money laundering laws are another example. It defies common sense to suggest that ordinary drug users who buy drugs are "money launderers," any more than are customers of prostitutes. Yet as Eliot Spitzer and Rush Limbaugh learned, common sense has nothing to do with it.

At the rate things are going, pretty soon hiring the wrong guy to cut your lawn could land you in the federal slammer.

In a piece titled "Obama Rebounds From the Wright Stuff," Bill Bradley said something that worried me:

Yesterday's CBS poll has even better news for Obama, showing him opening up a lead on Clinton again and also leading John McCain. This is a pattern we saw a while back when Wright's sometimes incendiary sermonizing became a round-the-clock staple of cable TV, talk radio, and the blogosphere. As the shock wore off - in part due to its constant repetition - Obama rose up again. The same pattern happened again with Bittergate.

I don't mean to sound like a scold or a moralist here, as I want to make a simple observation about what I think is an unconscious (and illogical) mechanism, and what might arise out of a perfectly natural human reaction to shock inundation.

The schock factor -- and things that shock -- drive the news cycle, the talk radio cycle, the blog cycle, and even the fashion cycle. When elections are factored in, timing becomes critical, because there's an initial shock, then a wave of repetition, and than finally (when enough people tire of it), it tends to fizzle. Jeremiah Wright keeps coming back, and generating new shock waves, but there's only so much to be said, and only so many people who want to dwell on it 24/7. Most people -- no matter how informed they are -- do not belong to the Jeremiah Wright junkie subset of political junkiedom. Not even your ordinary political junkie can keep it up on the level of all Wright shock, all the time. (Thank God for Bill Ayers; at least there's shock rotation!)

None of this is said to minimize Wright or Ayers -- as I've said I think the latter is far more egregious than the former, and justifies not supporting Obama. I am just saying that the ordinary citizen cannot be expected to be shocked all the time by the same thing, simply because of a steady diet of shock.

But would anyone expect him to? Well, yes. Every time I turn on the radio, there's a steady diet of "new" shock -- most of which is not really new, but just being turned over. You could turn over a rotting carcass you'd seen before in order to express horror over "new" maggots crawling, but would it really be horror?

My worry here is that while news, talk radio and even blogs are often driven by a desire to compete for the shock factor, what is the effect over time with ordinary people? Do they become harder to shock? If so, might that account for the erratically cyclical nature of the shock waves?

More ominously, what are the longterm effects in terms of voting patterns? We've all heard about the backlash, or blowback principle; how might this work with ordinary voters? Clearly, this is why last-minute shockers are the most effective; hence every negative campaign that wants to be effective should always aspire to the perfectly timed so-called "October surprise."

But what would happen if people were tired of surprises in advance?

I'm still thinking of Mayor Street's bug! For those who've forgotten, the FBI planted a bug in his office during a corruption probe. Normally, the discovery of such a bug shortly before an election would doom a candidate -- especially a candidate behind in the polls as Street was. But in Street's case, race and BDS were brought into play, and the FBI bug scandal was transformed into a major advantage, with Street seen as a victim.

Sympathy blowback is neither predictable nor rational, but in the right hands, it works. Are some partisans better at playing this game than others?

Nor have I forgotten the way the Monica Lewinsky scandal created sympathy for Bill Clinton in such a way that ultimately, the crime of perjury was subsumed into his sex life. While some Americans sympathized with Clinton, many more came to sympathize with him by way of reaction against the people who screamed about the immorality, and who demanded that everyone else be as shocked as they were.

Of course, the Lewinsky scandal occurred before blogs, and before the Internet was as influential as it is now. That phenomenon we once called "the news cycle" is now aggravated by so many things that it's unpredictable. Millions of people are shocked, millions publicly weigh in, millions tune out, and millions react against the shock.

What happens to the issues over time? How are normal people to determine to what extent they are issues, and to what extent they are fuel for cycles?

Honestly, I don't know anymore. While I know what I think about any given issue, I'm don't like repeating myself, and I'm beyond cynical.

It would be unreasonable of me to expect people to be shocked if I am not.

The more shocked people want me to be, the less shocked I am, and the more annoyed I become by those I perceive to be demanding that I be shocked.

Is there such a thing as shock burnout?

(Maybe that'll wear off too, so I can focus on "issues.")

BOTTOM LINE: Wanting to shock people is natural enough, but scolding them into being shocked can backfire if they become annoyed.

Confused by the interpretation of unemployment statistics? Then b y all means don't miss Tim Worstall's Pajama Media piece on the subject.

Worstall wonders whether some unemployment can be a good thing, and points out (gasp!) that some people actually choose not to work!

....places where people have looked at the employment to population ratio and declared that the jobs market is in fact worse than the straight unemployment rate would lead us to believe. For those who are economically inactive, the percentage of the adult population that not only doesn't have a job but isn't looking for one has risen. And, of course, the assumption is that they've been pushed, not chosen, and that this is thus a bad thing.

But perhaps it is in fact a good thing? Perhaps this change in the size of the labor force is a result of individual choices rather than people being pushed?

Anyway, if you enjoy such heresy, read the whole thing.

Yesterday (while contemplating a new Hillary Clinton comedy book that Dr. Helen linked), I opined that maybe there was a "bright side":

Maybe Clinton II will conflate the annals of history into the annals of comedy.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton drew a big laugh Sunday by saying on national TV that radio host Rush Limbaugh has "always had a crush" on her.

Clinton was appearing on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in downtown Indianapolis. Stephanopoulos pointed out that Limbaugh has encouraged Republicans to vote for Clinton in state primaries, in an effort to divide and weaken the Democratic Party before the general election.

"He's always had a crush on me," Clinton said jokingly, prompting the audience of about 200 people to erupt into laughter.

Is this really comedy, or do they secretly love each other?

I'll say this for Hillary; she may be hedging her bets with the gag routine, but the first step in dealing with an issue is talking about it.

I think they need each other more than either of them realize.

For once I agree with Hillary. Rush has always had a crush on her.

The only question remaining is what Hillary is being too coy to voice.

Is it mutual? Has Hillary always had a crush on Rush?

Or is this one of those relationships where there might be a power imbalance?

If so, then which of the two has the greater power, and which one is in the subordinate, um, position? Hmm... I mean, who's the, um, heavy in this?

Now come on. Really! I'm trying to be serious here!

Any ideas?

Let me see if I can decipher the captions. Let me start with the top one.

The group was dealing with the past with a kind of amnesia about violent actions. Bill Ayers recollected his adventurous violence with practical jokes. "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, it's a great country", he said. He also said his three sons were incredulous to hear that Bill had burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War. "Burned your credit card"? asked one little boy. "Man, I'm not that stupid", Bill said.

Bill Ayers, August 2001, former Weatherman, stomps on U.S. flag. As a result of their friendship with Kathy Boudin and Dave Gilbert, Bill and Bernadine Dhorn raised Chesa Boudin.

Kathy Boudin's former "Weatherbureau" colleagues, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, now luminaries of Chicago's academic life, have been responsible for little Chesa since his mummy and daddy were locked up. Ayers, an admitted bomber, now is a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago's School of Education; and Dohrn is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University. This select Weather family lives in Chicago's comfortable Hyde Park section and has every reason to be proud of Chesa Boudin.

Chesa's grandfather was a secret Communist Party strategist. Leonard Boudin masqueraded as a civil rights lawyer during the years the Weathermen killed, robbed and bombed, but really was a contact man for such hostile foreign powers as the Soviet Union and Cuba. Daughter Katherine was one of New York's elite, attending good schools such as Bryn Mawr, enjoying a year in Moscow and developing a social conscience that allowed her to plan the killing and maiming of her fellow Americans.

Chesa receiving the Rhodes Scholarship is worth a closer look. British ultra-conservative statesman Cecil Rhodes created the scholarships in 1902. Winners are selected, so it is said, on the basis of academic achievement, integrity, leadership potential and physical vigor. Out of 981 applicants from some 341 colleges, 32 Americans were named as Rhodes Scholars. Chesa adds injury to the insult left by William Jefferson Clinton to this once-respected institution and to the United States.

Selection was through a committee chaired by Dennis Hutchinson, an academic at the University of Chicago who teaches constitutional law. A Rhodes scholar in the 1970s himself, Hutchinson's resume ends with a statement, "professional scholars (must) ... do more than simply talk to one another."

Interestingly, no one has asked about any connection between Chesa's adoptive parents and Hutchinson, though there certainly must be one. Chicago is a large city, but not that large, especially in the realm of academia, where, it is surmised, they "do more than simply talk to one another."

H/T Backyard Conservative via Marathon Pundit via Insty

The murder of a Philadelphia police officer during a bank robbery continues to dominate the front page of the Inquirer. As it turns out, all three of the robber/murderers are convicted robbers who have served time. From today's account:

Police charged a journeyman boxer with murder and issued a warrant yesterday for an alleged accomplice in connection with the "assassination" of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski on Saturday after a bank heist by three ex-cons.

"I'm going to let him have it," Howard Cain, 33, allegedly said as he turned his high-powered rifle on Liczbinski Saturday afternoon. Police shot Cain dead minutes later.

Cain's words were recalled in a confession by Levon T. Warner, 39, the local boxer and the only one of the three suspects in custody, according to a police source.

Warner, of the 5400 block of Westminster Street in West Philadelphia, was arraigned last night on charges of murder, robbery and conspiracy. He provided a detailed account of his part in Liczbinski's death, according to the source.

Police and the FBI expanded their search yesterday for the fugitive suspect, Eric DeShann Floyd, 33, from Philadelphia to Lancaster, Pa., where Floyd once lived. Floyd should be considered armed and extremely dangerous, police said.

Floyd escaped from a Reading halfway house recently, police said. He knew Cain from prison, and the two shared a rundown, corner apartment in Fairhill that neighbors described as a haven for transients.

Court records show that all three men have been convicted of robbery, and Cain and Warner were friends, according to the police source. The three allegedly devised an elaborate plan, complete with disguises and military-style weaponry, to rob the Bank of America branch in the ShopRite supermarket on Aramingo Avenue in Port Richmond on Saturday.

Yeah, there is. Merely by having the guns, the trio committed a serious gun crime which would have sent them all back to the slammer.

I'm wondering, is it possible that armed robbers don't follow gun control laws?

While I'm glad to see the criminal histories of these killers reported, as might be expected, its the Gun That Did It which really gets top billing.

Here's today's front page:

Since I posted about this yesterday, the perps have been identified and several details have changed, but the gun is obviously the most important aspect of the case, it's picture dominating the page.

But it is no longer an "AK-47." Now it's described as "a Chinese SKS assault rifle," which "assassinated" the officer because it penetrates vehicles:

"That officer was assassinated on the streets of Philadelphia," Mayor Nutter said in an interview yesterday. "There was nothing that could have protected him - that weapon penetrates vehicles."

Deputy Police Commissioner William Blackburn said Liczbinski's patrol car was found with a single bullet hole in the door. It was unclear yesterday exactly where Liczbinski was when he was struck, though he appeared to have been getting out of the car at the time.

The three suspects ditched the Jeep in the 3400 block of North Miller Street, four blocks from where the officer lay dying. Cain hopped into Warner's Chrysler Town and Country minivan but was cornered by police in the 500 block of East Louden Street, near Roosevelt Boulevard.

Cain got out of the van with the SKS rifle and police shot him dead. His gun apparently jammed with 25 of 30 rounds unspent. Five spent shell casings were found at the scene of the officer's slaying.

Police recovered the rifle outside the van. Inside was a .44-caliber revolver loaded with five rounds, two sets of Muslim clothing, $38,000 in cash taken from the bank, and two GPS "bloodhound" units, used by banks to track stolen cash. Blackburn said police used the GPS signal to track the suspects.

In a nearby alley, police found a loaded .22-caliber revolver and other clothing. Also recovered during the investigation were another set of Muslim clothing, a dreadlocks wig, and a dust mask, all believed worn as disguises.

Interestingly, yesterday Mayor Nutter called the killing "senseless," while today it's an "assassination."

Are assassinations senseless?

Whatever. The most important aspect of the case, according to the Inquirer, will be the gun, which would have been banned under Mayor Nutter's illegal and unconstitutional gun laws:

The slaying also is likely to become Exhibit No. 1 in the city's effort to adopt stricter gun laws. One of several laws that Nutter signed last month in defiance of the state legislature bans the kind of weapon used to kill Liczbinski. The city's ability to enact its own gun laws is the subject of a lawsuit against the state.

If someone can explain to me how that law would in any way have deterred these career criminals from getting this gun (or any other gun capable of killing a police officer) I'm all ears.

MORE: Not that anyone in the gun-banning community would care, but the SKS is not an assault weapon, nor was it designed as one. From the Wiki entry:

The SKS has a conventional carbine layout, with a wooden stock and no pistol grip. Most versions are fitted with an integral folding bayonet which hinges down from the end of the barrel, and some versions, such as the Yugoslavian-made M59/66 variant, are equipped with a grenade launching attachment. As with the American M1 Carbine, the SKS is shorter and less powerful than the semi-automatic rifles which preceded it -- most notably, the Soviet SVT series and the American M1 Garand. Contrary to popular belief it is not a modern assault rifle. This is because it does not meet all of the criteria of a true assault rifle, though there are some variants that fall closer to the definition. It does not possess the capability for selective fire, and the basic design does not possess a removable magazine. Some selective-fire variants were produced in the PRC; however, the basic design of the SKS is semi-automatic in nature. The carbine's ten-round box magazine is fed from a stripper clip (see below), and rounds stored in the magazine can be removed by depressing a magazine catch (thus opening the "floor" of the magazine and allowing the rounds to fall out) located forward of the trigger guard.

Such conversions (whether legal or not) tend not to work out, as the gun was not designed that way. Hence, they have a propensity to jam. From an SKS FAQ site:

Myth #8 -- "The SKS uses high capacity magazines."

There is actually some truth to this -- but only some. As noted above, some Chinese SKS Carbines were sold with detachable high-capacity magazines. However the vast majority of SKS Carbines were sold with non-detachable ten-round magazines. Magazine capacities of ten-rounds or less are not typically considered high capacity.

In addition, since 1998 it has been illegal to convert standard SKS Carbines to use aftermarket detachable high-capacity magazines. Such aftermarket magazines are prone to jamming and are often difficult to use, thus owners usually become disillusioned and revert to the original fixed magazine.

Note that while it is still legal under certain restrictive circumstances to convert an SKS Carbine to utilize detachable high-capacity magazines, reliability and usability problems persist. And doing such a conversion legally often involves more cost than simply purchasing a different rifle that already uses high-capacity magazines. Hence, while a large number of SKS owners have toyed with these magazines, most do not continue to use them.

(Italics in original.)

Which confirms the suspicion voiced by commenter dr kill yesterday:

Could'nt be an AK. They never jam.

Right?

MORE: Astoundingly, Mayor Nutter stated that the NRA should apologize for the murder!

"I think it's insane," Nutter said. "The fact that we put forward a piece of legislation to prevent the sale and use and transfer of assault weapons and have a Philadelphia police officer assaulted on the streets with one, I think makes it pretty clear to anyone who is confused about this issue that there's no reason for any citizen, any person other than in law enforcement or in the military to have such a weapon."

He added: "There's no legitimate argument by the NRA, they need to get in the real world where the rest of us live and come to grips with these kinds of issues. They owe an apology to the family for their staunch opposition over many, many years blocking legislative support for these kinds of matters."

According to Nutter's logic, because an officer was shot by career criminals with an "assault weapon" the criminals already weren't allowed to have, that means law-abiding citizens should not be allowed have them either (even though the weapon used was not an "assault weapon").

(In his mind, if criminals shoot cops, that means citizens shouldn't have guns.)

And if you don't agree with Nutter, you're "confused."

Real class warfare has always been the upper classes against the masses. Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law Sc