The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it.

P. J. O'Rourke
Parliament of Whores

The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.

Dave Barry

What I really need is a directional WiFi antenna. I've been meaning to get one and had really intended to do that before this trip. As I stand (the signal inside the car is too weak) in the parking lot next to our rental car (for the power from the inverter I did bring along) in the early hours of the morning, blogging, reading and writing email, I realize my tendency to procrastinate is a vice (Xenia, please learn from your father's mistakes--even if you did inherit this personality trait from him).

I have permission to use the WiFi in the building across the parking lot from our place here but just not the range with the network card in my laptop. Neither WalMart nor Staples have the desired equipment. And it looks like the closest Fry's is in Texas.

All though this video I get increasingly uncomfortable. I kept thinking "this can't turn out well" and I was tempted to stop watching. The tension gradually increases and reaches a peak just as you "know" it's going to get really ugly. It has a nice twist at the end as everything resolves in a satisfactory manner that makes it worthwhile watching. Via Ry.

It illustrates the truth of Lyle's post from the other day.

No wonder the police and the politicians in Philadelphia want the citizens disarmed: Philadelphia cops use badges to exhort sex.

Liberty is a hollow joke without an armed populace to protect the rights of all.

Donald L. Cline
August 14, 2006
Gun laws only help criminals

We have arrived. The internet connection sucks. Only if I put my laptop on top of the T.V. at a funny angle can I get a connection. I think I can fix it but it will have to wait for a few hours. We are both tired and are going to take a nap.

NWA is going to get a letter from Barb about our baggage and a couple other items. She already called them and rattled their cage once. They messed up a bunch of people, not just us. It's straightened out now but it wasn't pleasant.

We've made more enemies during the presidency of George Bush than in the rest of our history combined.

Ramsey Clark
Former US Attorney General
[And one could make a lot of enemies serving "colored people" in your restaurant in the deep south 50 years ago too. It's the same emotional 'argument' about "squandering our good will". We "squandered our good will" with Germany, Italy, and Japan about 65 years ago too. Doing the right thing is more important than trying to make everyone happy. Facts don't support his agenda so he makes an emotional appeal.--Joe]

The majority opinion over here is pretty much what Ry and I have concluded. We'll have to take a serious hit before we stop swatting at the "wasps" and instead destroy the "nests" and kill the "queens".

We were supposed to be in Springfield MO by now. But our plane to leave Seattle arrived 40 minutes late. It took off well over an hour late (taxiway congestion). We arrived in Minneapolis about 10 minutes after our connecting flight to Springfield was scheduled to leave.

The airline (NWA) put us up in a very nice room with free ground transportation, meals, and small overnight kit (they locked up our luggage for the night). Tomorrow morning we get a wake up call at 4:00 AM (2:00 AM my time) to catch a shuttle ride back to the airport where we catch a flight to Memphis and from there we go to Springfield arriving almost exactly 12 hours later than we planned..

Barb is stressing a little bit but as long as I do the interacting with all the wonderful service people that have been so accommodating we'll do just fine.

I am annoyed with the hotel here, they have a policy of no guns on the property. This appears to be in accordance with Minnesota law. But since I don't have my gun with me (it's locked up at the airport) I suppose it doesn't matter all that much this time. I'll leave them one of these cards in the morning:

Barb and I will be visiting the Mark Twain National Forest and Ozark Pyrotechnics this week. The plane leaves in a few hours. I'm sure it will be fun going through security. I'm tempted to play games with security but Barb gets annoyed when I do that when she is along.

While we are gone the Huffman-Scott compound will be occupied by men and/or women with nasty attitudes, both long and short guns, bitey dogs, but no explosives. The explosives have been locked away in a secure facility. This is so there will be something left of any goblin who visits while we are gone. I don't want them to get all the fun.

Update: From being dropped off at the airport until we were through security and done putting all our clothes back on it only took 40 minutes. That 40 minutes included an inexperience ticket agent dealing with my handgun. They are doing their best to make the violation of our inalienable rights as painless as possible.

As I have been saying for years current airport security doesn't and probably can't possibly work. Here are some other peoples thoughts on the topic:

• New Airline Security Rules (be sure and read the comments)
• Threat modeling airplane explosive detection
• Bruce Schneier points out knives and guns are built in prisons so how can we hope to keep them off of airplanes?
• Gaping holes in airport security

It's time to investigate alternatives. Even scrapping the existing system entirely and taking all that money and investing it in intelligence and police work would be an improvement.

There should be a meteor shower tonight.

Appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.

Douglas MacArthur
1880-1964
American general
Address to Congress
April 19, 1951
[Communists, Islamic extremists, or anti-gun owner bigots it still applies.--Joe]

I'm getting a bunch of hits from people searching for liquid explosive recipes. You won't find them on any of my sites. They are too unstable for my use. The explosive that probably was planned for the most recent event in the U.K. is this one. Note what is said about it:

For its instability, it has been called the "Mother of Satan".

Even nitroglycerin is more stable.

But if you are planning a one way trip to meet your 72 virgins I suppose that doesn't much matter.

Who says you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life.

Anjem Choudary
A former leader of Al Mujahiroun
Via Diana West

Clayton asks, What, Exactly, Is The Purpose Of Blowing Up A Bunch of Airliners?

A couple years ago I was talking with a guy in the CIA. He was a manager over, among others, a bunch of psychologists. What he told me was that "these people" think differently than we do. "Perhaps more differently that we can think." Most important about this is that we understand what to do and/or say to get them to do the things we want them to do, next week, next month, and next year. And these means to these different goals may be in conflict with each other.

Now for my speculation. We probably think so differently that they have difficultly thinking like us as well. They probably are doing what they think should cause us to do what they want us to do, but as Clayton points out, it is going to make us more determined to capture and/or kill their extremists. It's sort of a messed up communication channel.

Another possibility is they just want to kill as many infidels as possible. They are just delivering on the "convert or die" offer from their leaders. If you look at the kill ratio when our military goes up against them it's probably 1:20 to even 1:100 in our favor. The numbers are against them in that situation.

Ry and I once did an informal study of kill ratios for various "occupations" such as military, mass killers, serial killers, terrorists, etc. This was a little different than your normal ratio of dead on one side to dead on the other side. In this case what is the ratio of people involved on one side to the number of people dead on the other. So if Ted Bundy acted alone, which I think is most likely true, and he killed 43 (or maybe 143--who knows?) then the kill ratio there is 1:43 (or 1:143). In the Oklahoma City bombing 168 were killed and there were probably two people involved for a ratio of 1:84. In 9-11 there were 19 (plus some organizers and support people) who killed something like 3500 people for a ratio of (on the high end) of 1:184. In the case of the military dropping a nuke you have to include all the people that helped make and store the nuke and it's delivery system, as well as the people in the chain of command who delivered the nuke.

It's not difficult to concluded that 1:200 is about the upper limit.

Therefore, if the goal is to kill as many infidels as possible losing one "martyr" per airplane full of infidels is pushing the limit of what is the "current state of the art" in dealing out death.

But who can know if that's right? My guess it's going to be difficult for us understand even if they were to explain it to us.

Oh, how many times we have heard the phrase, "It takes two to make a fight".  That statement appears to assign equal guilt to the defender and the perpetrator, which is the same as saying that you do not have any right to defend yourself, or to be defended by anyone else.  By the time I reached high school in 1972, two kids caught fighting were both punished equally ('cause fighting just isn't cool, man).  I see it as no mere coincidence that the arena wherein I've heard this phrase uttered the most, if not exclusively, is the public school system.

Its time to modify the phrase slightly, based on the application of intelligence guided by experience:

"It takes at least two to make a fight-- one perpetrator and one defender."

Col. Jeff Cooper was once asked whether violence merely begets more violence.  His answer went something like this (I'm going from memory, so I can only paraphrase): "It is my sincere endeavor to see to it that it does."  In explaining his answer, he said that if someone is going to perpetrate violence against innocents, that person should get more violence in return than he can handle.

How many times have you heard some version of "Don't judge me, man" or "You're being too judgmental"?  Similar to the "it takes two" quote, this seems to be designed to prevent us from doing that which makes us human-- it asks us to stop using our ability to reason.

If we really value "Peace And Love, Man" we should be ready to dish out both blame and praise appropriately.

Iran is fighting a proxy war, but smugly feels itself immune to consequence. Not only is this unfair to the Lebanese, but it is dangerous for Washington. The more overconfident Iran becomes in its ability to get away with murder, the more likely Americans will be targeted down the line.

Michael Rubin
Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington
Attributed in the article Iran mullah rush to resupply Lebanese agents, "Hezbollah"

I arrived at 8:00 this morning and didn't leave until 22:00 except for about 10 minutes to get a slice of pizza from the cafeteria. The brought supper to us which we ate in a conference room. It was a long tiring day but I got the last of my stuff checked in before Barb and I leave on vacation next week. This gives me two days to deal with whatever might blow up when my stuff starts getting executed in the daily build.

As I left work were still dozens of cars in the parking garage which reminded me of one time I had commented about how different it was at PNNL. I had made some causal remark about how my car would be nearly the only one in the parking lot when I left at 19:00 and how different this was than at Microsoft. I blogged about this once too. Some of my PNNL co-workers got indignant about that comment. My comment was accurate. It must have been there was some guilt on their conscience.

Will this be the triggering event for another change in airport security? Just like when the shoe bomber did his thing we had to start taking off our shoes before boarding the planes. Will now have to follow the British lead as described here?

BRITISH police have reportedly foiled a plot to smuggle explosive devices in airline hand luggage to blow up planes in mid-flight, according to Sky News in London.

The targets were said to have been flights between the Britain and the US.

Overnight police have arrested a number of people in London.

The BBC reports that the Department for Transport has set strict security measures at UK airports.

Passengers would not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said.

Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - would be allowed on board in transparent plastic bags.

Sky said the Metropolitan Police arrests were the culmination of a big covert counter-terrorist operation lasting several months.

It followed a pre-planned intelligence led operation by the Met's anti-terrorist branch and security service.

Police said they believed the aim was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board the aircraft in hand luggage.

"We would like to reassure the public that this operation was carried out with public safety uppermost in our minds," a police statement said.

"This is a major operation which inevitably will be lengthy and complex. We will provide further information as soon as possible."

Next will be strip and body cavity searches. But even that will fail. Defensive security is inherently very difficult and prone to failure. You must take the offense which, if reports are correct, it appears the British successfully done in this case. Good for them if true.

In the 1980s the Regan administration "deregulated" the telephone industry.  Since then, phone service has become vastly better, cheaper, with far more options, and the prospects for the future of personal communication are truly awesome.  Critics of deregulation said we simple Americans would be inconvenienced with too many choices, and too inept to shop for the best deals, etc., etc.  They were of course entirely wrong.  Stunningly wrong.  More wrong than anyone could have imagined 25 years ago.  Does anyone remember having to get your phone from the same company that provided your connection service, and then having to buy your long distance from that same company (there was, naturally, only one choice)?

Maybe its time for more deregulation.  I say start with education, energy, and transportation.

Is anyone going to seriously argue that the old, Soviet-style, big government monopolies are a proven path to excellence?

A good place to start, mentally, is to try thinking of just one part of our lives in which government has absolutely no business whatsoever.  For some people, this will be a formidable challenge.

From the U.K. via the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies comes this study, 'Knife Crime': Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy.

The PDF document is protected such that I can't copy and paste but some hand typed excerpts are worth the effort:

Government and the police lack a coherent, evidence-based, reasoned strategy for dealing with knife carrying and knife-related offences. There is insufficient evidence that a knife amnesty or increased sentence length for carrying knives will decrease the level of knife use and carrying. Due to the easy availability of knives, there will always be opportunities to commit knife offences. Since it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit the availability of knives and knives are merely a tool used in violent crime, success in fighting knife usage will only come with success in dealing with the underlying causes of violence, fear and insecurity.

This is mostly correct and applies to firearms as well as knives. What I disagree with is the last few words. And it is these last few words that are critical to solving the problem. They have an incorrect problem statement. This shows, conclusively, they don't understand the problem. If they don't understand the problem then they can never solve it.

They believe they have a violence problem and they are attempting to make it more difficult to commit violence. This is totally wrong. They have a violent crime problem. The only solution (assuming we are talking about ordinary crime and not sometime like a rebellion that is labeled crime by the ruling class) to violent crime is violence, or the threat of violence, against the criminals. This is what the police do when they arrest someone. They use violence or the threat of violence to remove the criminal from the general population.

The "underlying causes of violence" are more numerous than "fear and insecurity" which also shows they don't understand the problem. I'm shocked the author didn't at least throw in "poverty". But even then he would be leaving out the really big issue, evil in the hearts of men. It is only with this last issue can you explain such things as rape and extortion.

So a better problem statement is that they (and we) have violent crime problem for the most part because some people are evil. I will grant that as poverty (the definition of which is tenuous at best) increases crime tends to increase as well, but that is a topic for another day.

The solution becomes much more obvious with an appropriate problem statement. The dominant root cause is "some people are evil". The problem can now be broken down into identification and "elimination" (either by incarceration or other more violent solutions) of the perpetrators or "persuading" the potential criminal to not act out their evil inclinations. And as Al Capone said when discussing persuasion methods, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." And this basic truth is what the people in the U.K. have overlooked with their faulty problem statement. Further compounding their problems is that they have disabled the most effective identification and persuasion mechanism available by disarming the victims of violent crime.

It may be that they will eventually figure out the error of their ways. For example the study points out the folly of the "knife amnesty" program as follows with the stereotypical British understatement:

According to the Home Office, at total of 89,864 knives were handed in during the national amnesty. Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated that this means "fewer knives on our streets" and greater security for everyone. Assuming that there are approximately 22 million households in England and Wales, each possessing a single kitchen knife, the amnesty has been successful in removing 0.0041 of the knives that might be used in crimes. Of course, most households contain many more than a single knife and it is barely worth considering the tens of thousands sitting in shops waiting to be purchased. As such, it is, at best, questionable whether this will result in a reduction in knife carrying and knife-related offences.

Further evidence that they might be getting a clue is this part of the conclusion:

At the moment the government seems to be planning action to a problem without knowing the full and true nature and extent of it and whilst overlooking the causes.

The author has a clue, but just barely. But really, there is Just One Question that needs to be asked.

The Government is constructing responses without any credible evidence that they will be successful. Knife amnesties will have a negligible impact since knives will be available as long as there is unsliced bread.

Chris Eades
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
'Knife Crime': Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy
From The Independent: Big rise in knife crime despite tougher penalties
[First they came for the guns...--Joe]

On my website I mention the lax security at PNNL and how it can be used by people hostile to the U.S. No one seemed to care.

Here is another example of the type of information leakage that is happening.

I can't get away from it. It has to be mental problems. Do they even realize what they are saying?

...it’s also a symptom– a symptom of a culture that believes guns can be safe, a culture that believes teenagers can be trusted with firearms.

The truth is that no one can be trusted with firearms. They represent a threat, all the time, every time. This study makes it clear that things need to change– the only way to protect children from guns is to get the gun out of the houses they live in.

And here:

Guns are dangerous everywhere– why should we think a gun is any safer when it’s in a park rather than a church or a school? The guns don’t change. The people carrying them don’t change. Concealed weapons aren’t safe anywhere, because, as history shows time and time again, no matter how much training or discipline a gun owner has, a gun still represents a dire threat to everyone around it.

Evidence apparently doesn't matter. I have Just One Question.

He should volunteer to live in a place where the police don't have guns. Oh, that's right, there is no such place. I guess that means he yearns for a place that doesn't exist. Some imaginary world where everything is as he wants it to be rather than the way things are. I suppose it could exist for a while. Britain survived for a while without the police having guns on a regular basis. But look where they are now. They saw the folly of that and they have now have teams with guns available on short notice and one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world.

Yeah. There were problems with my blog for most of the day. My ISP was doing maintenance that took longer than it should have. My blog as well as Ry's had strange problems all day.

This book is dedicated to an anonymous member of Spain's Secret Police. On January 27, 1960, during a brief encounter on a quiet back street in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, I asked him for advice on how best to avoid any problems in the land of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. The advice he gave me has served me well for more than forty years. He said there was only one way to avoid troubles with the authorities:

"Make yourself invisible."

And so I did.

J.J. Luna
How To Be Invisible
2nd Edition