August 2006 Archives

National ID cards are a hit with conservatives. They just love the idea of creating big databases that would allow the government to just know who everyone is to make everything "safer" and more streamlined. It's too important to worry about whether or not the potential for abuse is worse than the current situation. This blows the lids on the arguments that Michelle Malkin and her ilk have used to in defense of such proposals here in the states:

The security breaches occurred at the Identity and Passport Service, which is setting up the National Identity Register to provide access to individuals' health, financial and police records as part of the £8billion ID card scheme scheduled to begin in 2008.

Personal information about every British passport holder - including their date of birth, mother's maiden name, address and photographs - is already held in the IPS computers.

A Home Office spokesman last night confirmed the IPS security breaches. He also confirmed that three staff involved had been sacked and a fourth had resigned before disciplinary procedures had concluded.

The spokesman said none of the security breaches involved'hacking' by outside criminals, and a 'whole range of protocols and procedures' were in place to protect Home Office databases from unauthorised staff use.

Think of all of the cases you have read about people being abused by the government, now imagine those abusive people who are protected by that bureaucracy having direct or indirect access to every possible bit of official information on everyone. Even if they don't have access rights to the system themselves, they are close to the people who do have them. Just go ahead and say, "here's everything you could want to know that we have access to, now please, don't abuse it."

All of the arguments in defense of this sort of thing are built on naivete.

Why "liberals" are the very fascists that they wring their hands over:

The grown-up answer to a satirical website like that is to laugh it off. But the Liberal party is hurting right now, so it lashed out against the pranksters -- pressuring their internet service provider (ISP) to censor the site.

Oh, it's completely different because it was done through the courts and legislature say the "liberals." I'm sure they'll duck and evade, pulling their infamous redirection stunts where they say "but... but... right wingers do that too so there!" That's the name of their game. They basically never admit the obvious truth in cases like this, "hey, my peers are acting like fascist assholes. If I believe in freedom of speech, maybe I should denounce their behavior."

This is why I try to avoid using that left-right nonsense. It doesn't make any sense and both Fascism and Libertarianism prove that. Spectra don't loop back around. If you add additional energy to blue light that you will not get red light instead of the ultraviolet spectrum. It works the same in politics. The spectrum is between total government and no government, and objectively speaking, that would put Stalin's brand of Communism on the former and Anarcho Capitalism on the latter. It is within that much more realistic framework that it can be rightfully said that most people are supporters of Fascism which is probably about halfway toward total government. That's where a lot of "liberals" and "conservatives" are rightfully placed.

If I didn't know better, I would say that there are still judges who actually care about such quaint notions as mens rea:

Three years ago, federal prosecutors likened McLean, Virginia, pain doctor William Hurwitz to "a street-corner crack dealer." But it turned out there were a few differences.

Unlike a street-corner crack dealer, Hurwitz did not sell drugs. Instead, he prescribed narcotics to patients, the vast majority of them undisputedly legitimate, in an attempt to relieve severe chronic pain. The small minority of patients who used the pills to get high or sold them on the black market also claimed to be suffering unrelieved pain, and Hurwitz said he believed them.

Prosecutors said none of this mattered-not because Hurwitz was lying (although they suggested he was) but because, even if he was completely on the level, even if he was making a conscientious effort to treat pain, he was still guilty of drug trafficking. A federal appeals court recently rejected this astonishing assertion, dealing a blow to prosecutions that seek to punish mistakes in medical judgment with prison terms.

Once again, in the War on Drugs, you do not have to be intentionally doing anything wrong to be considered guilty of a very serious crime. In this case, a doctor who was clearly manipulated and had his kindness abused by a minority of his patients was going to be sent to prison for 25 years for a "crime" that he didn't even intend to commit. Now, fortunately the judges in the appeals court have seen right through it, but it remains to be seen what the Supreme Court might have to say about this case. I have the sickening suspicion that they would side with the DEA for some logically dubious reason, that would invariably be passed off as "nuanced, legal thinking."

How many things like this will it take for conservatives to finally realize that the only thing the War on Drugs has accomplished has been the near complete destruction of civil liberties and morality in the judicial system? This doctor's life was going to be ruined by federal officials for the sake of "making a statement." This is what the system has come to.

I have news for you, if you think that the ends justify these means, you are every bit the amoral scumbag that you think the drug users and dealers are.

Senator Stevens is guilty of one of two things. Either he is the single most idiotic politician on Capitol Hill right now, or he is offering himself up as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of porkbusting to get the public riled up about fraud, waste and abuse:

Aaron Saunders, spokesperson for Stevens, said Coburn was informed two weeks ago that his boss had concerns about the bill. Namely, Stevens is concerned that the bill would create more bureaucracy. He wants to see a cost-benefit analysis.

Saunders said there was nothing secret about what Stevens did.

"Senator Stevens has always preferred to handle this at the staff level or member to member," Saunders said. "He doesn't like running to the blogosphere or the media."

So where was the good Senator back when the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the bill that created the enormous and infamously inefficient Transportation Security Administration (TSA)? Oh, right, he had absolutely no problem creating a vast new bureaucracy that added tens of thousands of new workers to the federal payroll. I'm sure that he's just concerned that this obvious mistake of his will only be compounded by adding a few dozen software engineers, managers and database administrators to the federal payrolls to keep track of how much agencies like the TSA, which he helped create, are spending. Truly, this "new bureaucracy" would end up being the straw that breaks the camel (*ahem*... taxpayer's) back.

I don't think that this is going to be enough to get him booted from the Senate, but it might be enough to at least cost some Republicans who have been close to him, some very much needed votes in 2006. You know what they say, you lie with dogs, you'll get fleas...

Now that he has been exposed, the Senate needs to break with its traditions and move on. The Senate is not a religious body; its traditions shouldn't mean jack when there is something of obvious constitutional need that is being held up for petty reasons. Create the database, let everyone search through it, then let the reign of terror of arrests and prosecutions for bribes and other criminality in the elected government commence.

You know how they say that the law is an ass? Well, here's a perfectly good example of that:

An 89-year-old man has been left both heartbroken and betrayed after his North York bungalow was stolen from him in the rising wave of title fraud.

Paul Reviczky, who fled Hungary in 1957 to escape Communist persecution, is one of the latest homeowners to discover that Ontario law favours banks, mortgage companies and purchasers over victims of fraud.

But wait, it gets worse!

Reviczky's lawyer, Tonu Toome, says it was "very painful" to have to break the news to Reviczky that he may lose his house forever - even though he was an innocent victim of fraud - because Ontario law recognizes the transaction as valid where the purchaser is unaware of the scam.

The government recognizes that the man was victimized by thieves, that they not only committed fraud, but stole hundreds of thousands of dollars (Canadian and US alike) from him, but still allows the "new owners" to lay claim to the property. In fact, Reviczky would be legally guilty of the crime of trespassing if he sets foot on his property without their permission. What a brave new world, ain't it?

For what (little) it's worth, the minister that is in charge of this area of the provincial government is furious that the law allowed this to happen, and is working to change the law and make things right. That does not, however, change the fact that the legal system put Reviczky through this in the first place by not automatically invalidating the sale of the property. It was, after all, the sale of stolen property, the only difference between that and buying a stolen car being that you would need to get around the land title hurdle.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that there are ample protections in American law either, given our own history with that rubbish known euphemistically as squatter's rights.

God's Own Party seems to forget that God established a legal code, but they seem to only want to legislate the fun parts:"

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected to political office politicians will "legislate sin," citing abortion and gay marriage as two examples in an interview published Thursday.

Harris made the comments - which she clarified Saturday - in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. The publication interviewed political candidates, asking them questions about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, adding that separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

If you attempt to legislate on God's behalf, then refuse to legislate according to the standards that God put down, does that not make you a blasphemer? You are crediting your action to following God's standards, then deliberately refuse to follow some of them. Last I checked, that's a textbook example of blasphemy right there.

I wonder if she'd be happy about reestablishing the death penalty for adultery or having consistently unruly, disrespectful children? Damn, wouldn't that end up killing off half of the kids in this country today? I think she just wants to be able to exercise the "Yates Option" with her kids the next time they talk back to her.

But that's just me...

You know how they say that education is supposed to be an ongoing thing that lasts your entire life? Well, I have come to the realization that I have entered into an educational funk. Sure I have learned a decent bit as a programmer since I started my job in early January, but I have not read a single book since then that wasn't somehow related to programming. Tonight, I ordered a few books that were listed on Roci's reading list, two of which were Dune and Dune Messiah. The first one, I have already read and the second I got halfway through but got distracted long enough that I never got into it.

Tonight, before I go to bed, I am going to start reading some of Heinlein's For Us, the Living which has sat on my shelf for too long. From there, I plan to actually read some non-political philosophy. Probably go back and read more than just the few bits of Nietzsche that struck my fancy back when I was an agnostic with atheist tendencies.

As this post at Drug WarRant shows, one should never, ever underestimate the impact that being labeled a "forbidden fruit" can have on an illicit substance or product. Now, those who look to the government, and not God (and you can't do both simultaneously), for moral guidance may see a culture of pure licentiousness in the Netherlands, but I remain dubious as to whether the United States is in fact any better, morally-speaking, than the Netherlands all things considered. The slut and pimp culture alone should give such people at least a few seconds of contemplation before they continue throwing their self-righteous weight around.

This has got to be the worst example of parents refusing to take responsibility for their own stupid behavior that I have seen for a long time:

Ashley's family say his parents wanted to teach him a lesson about the consequences of breaking the law. He had taken his mother's car without permission so they had him charged him with theft.

On Thursday Ashley appeared at the North Shore District Court. The judge offered him bail but his parents chose to send him to prison as a deterrent.

Ashley's family have issued a statement listing 10 questions they want answered, such as why was a 17-year-old with no history of serious crime or violence was transported unattended with more serious offenders?

The family then goes on to describe him as a gentle teen. He had a few minor brushes with the law, something not uncommon for a 17 year old, and so they decide that charging him with car theft was a great way to get him to straighten up. Yes, let's examine that logic. Get him what is probably felony or equivalent (or at least a very stiff misdemeanor) in New Zealand on his record and expose him to the adult criminal justice system.

Then they wonder why he's not prepared for all of this and get his brains bashed in by a hardened criminal. You know who should be rotting in prison alongside the perps? The parents! Who in their right mind would think that this qualifies as "tough love?" It's more like throwing your son to the wolves and praying that they don't use him as a chew toy. The parents are morally to blame for putting their son in this situation. Taking the family car without permission hardly qualifies as stealing it.

Posts like this remind me of one of my central objections to the War on Drugs' supporters' arguments. They claim that if drugs are legalized that there will be a plague of violence and mayhem, but that has not happened in the Czech Republic which serves as a good model for how we might begin a process of legalization. What this belief says about those who subscribe to it is that they do not believe that their neighbors have the good sense to not get addicted to hard drugs. It's really quite arrogant as it is a not so subtle way of saying that pretty much everyone but you is an idiot.

Alcohol is not as potent as many hard drugs, but it is a very easy way of achieving the same effect. If most people were that stupid, there would be an uncontrollable wave of alcohol-induced violence and mayhem long before there would be one brought on by heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines. I am far more cynical than most drug war supporters, but even I am willing to give the average person the benefit of the doubt that they are not that stupid.

I have recently begun to have some pain that makes me think that if I don't change some things, I could be a candidate for a repetitive stress injury. So, I went out and bought one of the new Microsoft Natural Keyboards and I've gotta say that it has made the difference so far. The curve really is very good for my hands so far, and I have not found the "learning curve" of using a new keyboard to be any real problem so far. It does require me to be a lot less sloppy with my typing, but that is probably for the best anyway.

I have said it once, I'll say it again. The only power that the terrorists have over us is the power that we give them. Bruce Scheier backs that point up in his latest blog post on the subjects of terrorism and anti-terrorism:

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up 10 planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.

Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror.

After several years of fighting Islamic terrorism, the Bush Administration has failed to appreciate the fact that the two key players, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are still operating freely. In fact, it should have become increasingly clear that what we face is a proxy war, but that would require admitting that one of our "great allies," Saudi Arabia, has in fact been funding a global movement in a manner similar to how the Soviets funded international communism. The great coup for the enemy here has been that they have been able to mask their totalitarian agenda in a religion that is highly amenable to totalitarianism, allowing them to turn the whole politically correct culture back in on itself. Today, many are as afraid to say that Islam is a violent belief system as they are afraid of anti-terrorism efforts failing!

I think our enemies are quite aware of the inherent power of their approach, which has been demonstrated time and again in the ham-handed, illogical approaches to fighting terrorism. The American "can-do" attitude is being exploited by them because most Americans cannot stomach the reality that there is actually little that we can do to be safe other than to keep potential Islamic terrorists "over there." One would think that 9-11 would have been a wakeup call for the futility of trying to preemptively stop terrorism, due to the fact that they used box cutters to hijack planes and use them as missiles, but... that might be giving too much credit to those who don't deserve it.

I'll be the first to admit that my views on terrorism would be classified as *ahem* unconventional by most of what passes itself off as conservative today. I don't support the programs that cause us to spy on people, detain others indefinitely and things like that. I support mass deportations of foreign nationals from countries that produce these nutjobs. Why? It's the only effective, humane and constitutional rights-respecting way to fight against terrorism.

The most significant and complicated factor in terrorism is the fact that many "civilians" harbor sympathies toward it and there are many terrorists who double as "legitimate freedom fighters" from the perspective of their population. That's a problem because immigration from those populations means that even if you don't bring in terrorists, you may be bringing in foreign nationals who are sympathetic to them or whose views may create offspring who are. Spare me the thought police accusations on this. The last thing that any civilized country needs is to introduce people like this into its population. Immigration is at best a privilege, not a right.

Personally, I have no problem with Arabs, just Islam. If a Maronite or a Druze Arab lived next door to me, I wouldn't bat an eye at it because the thing that drove the 9-11 hijackers was their Islamic faith and some of its more violent teachings, not their Arabic cultural background.

I even freely acknowledge that there are many good people who practice Islam non-violently, but then these people are probably by nature not violent so violent teachings would be cheerfully ignored anyway. But how do we find these people at immigration and visa-granting time? That's the golden anti-terrorism question. All of the spy programs and data-mining applications in the world won't help if we allow a potential fifth column to be built up within our cities. We even still allow Wahabis, a violent death cult aimed at establishing a Taliban-like theocracy in America if there ever was one, to operate freely.

America is stuck in a very ugly place right now. We have to hurt our own people and many innocent Muslims to catch a sizable minority who sympathize with, help or are terrorists or we have to simply take little or no risk by deporting all foreign nationals from countries with serious Islamist activity. Collective judgement versus the risk of getting blown up, and some of those people getting blown up would, undoubtedly, end up being immigrants, Muslim or otherwise.

The enemy's terror war is a proxy war. Hezbollah has largely functioned as an auxiliary unit of Iran. They have been allowed to come here too. The rules haven't changed, we are still fighting nation states, but America does not have the will to actually invade a real terrorist sponsor like Iran or Saudi Arabia. I am not sure if it did even on the day after 9-11. The casualties would have been much higher, the occupation much more brutal and ultimately we would have needed what we have not had since Reagan: a leader who could unapologetically explain to the world why America needs to stick its boot hard up another country's ass in a way it won't forget for generations.

For a long time, if you lived a "blameless life," you had little to fear from the police, but the Gonzalez case brings to mind a new fact that should scare a lot of people who try to lead good, clean lives:

In the South Texas city of San Juan, population 26,200, police have begun seizing ever greater amounts by taking both cash and vehicles from motorists. In 2005, officers collected $4400. This year, however, the force has collected $67,000. Pharr, with a population of 47,000, collected $422,000 last year. McAllen, a bigger city with 106,000 residents, collected $484,000. A federal appeals court ruling this week concluded that driving with a large amount of cash is sufficient justification for police to confiscate it, even if there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.

The point is that you can be someone who is not doing drugs, has never done them, has no involvement in the vice trade in general, pays your taxes and the police can take your money anyway without having to give it back to you. The fact that it is stupid to carry around very large amounts of cash is not irrelevant to the fact that the police can literally steal from you on the grounds that they just don't trust you carrying that much cash. What else can you call it, but pure theft, when someone can take your property without any good reason other than they just don't trust you?

Despite the fact that I am a (classical) liberal (or libertarian, if you prefer), I don't support the use of drugs anymore than the average social conservative does. However, the constant in the fight to keep up the war on drugs has been a terrifying amount of damage to our legal system. The kind of ends-justify-the-means mentality involved will reduce our country to being a bonafide banana republic in another generation if it's not stopped dead in its tracks. It should terrify every traditionalist that a cop can simply grab their cash and walk away with it because a court ruled that mere possession of large amounts of cash is probably evidence of a connection to the drug trade.

I have faulted libertarians (I personally prefer the classical liberal label) for not being sensitive to the issues that seem to them to be on the periphery of such greater issues as the immigration problem in America. I blame it on many things, one of the common things being that libertarians who openly espouse a support for the open borders ideology tend to be insulated by their position of relative comfort from its immediate effects. Better police protection, less competition for jobs (typically no competition), none of the unpleasantries.

At a potential cost of $126 billion, it's no laughing matter to the majority of Americans who do not live a very affluent lifestyle. Their tax dollars will go to pay for the benefits of low and no skilled workers whose labor has hardly benefited them except in some sort of academic economics sort of way. The bottom line is that there are two sides to this issues: those who benefit and those that do not. The former are fewer than the latter.

Libertarians wonder why they have been steam-rolled since 9-11 into the ground by the blundering Bush Administration, but it's no secret: libertarians are perceived as being impotent ideologues on matters important to preserving a free society. Disgusting, baseless rhetoric such as casting all opponents of illegal immigrant as buck-toothed, yeehaw hillbillies who hate all "dem G-d damned fereners" has basically handed the battle right over to our enemies. It is easy to be a smug, cosmopolitan libertarian when you aren't one of the low-skilled Americans or even, for example a construction worker, who is going to lose his job to a desparate illegal immigrant.

It's all for the children, until some dumbass politician decides that beautification is more important than common sense, safety and property rights. This community ought to throw this no good piece of excrement out of office and march him out of town:

"It's just not as pleasing to the eye," Mayor Blackie Holmes said about the goals.
The ordinance would probably not keep kids from playing basketball outside.
Residents with alley access or driveways that extend behind their homes can move the basketball goals there.

And kids can play in nearby Highland Park whenever they want. Susan Millet, who lives a block south of Mrs. Sone, but in Highland Park, said children from all over play basketball in her front yard because it's safer than playing in the alleys. Highland Park doesn't regulate basketball goals.

That's right, in the name of "beautifying" the community, the government is going to require that kids go play in the park or, more commonly, in the allies around their homes. Makes a lot of sense, especially in those areas where the allies are no doubt between apartment buildings. Great place for kids to get victimized, and it makes it that much harder for parents to look out for their children. I'm sure the police are going to be dutifully working overtime to ensure that this is not the case...

Then there is the property rights aspect to this. What right is it of even a democratically-elected government to tell a homeowner that they cannot do something like this? It doesn't harm anyone except the government bureaucrats who want to expand their regulatory power.

And what did the humble civil servant have to say about people who think that his idea is ridiculous and stupid?

"They're going to have to find somewhere else to play basketball," he said.

Which, translated into French, means approximately Qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

I saw this and had to pass it along. It's a very interesting concept, and some of the evidence does seem to be a bit compelling. It certainly wouldn't surprise me given the geographic diversity of the remnants of the Jewish people. There is a new book that goes into detail about it called The Biblical Hebrew Origin of the Japanese People and is available for sale from Amazon.

Basics of threading in Java.

public class ThreadTest implements Runnable
{
private Thread thread;
public ThreadTest()
{
thread = new Thread(this);
thread.start();	//Begin executing the thread
}
public void run()
{
int counter = 0;
try
{
while (counter < 10000)
{
System.out.println(counter);
Thread.sleep(5000);
counter += 5000;
}
} catch (Exception ex) {}
System.out.println("Finished");
}
public static void main(String[] args) { new ThreadTest(); }
}

The basic model is that you create the thread instance, attach an instance of an object that implements the Runnable interface to it and then call the start() method. The start() method will call the object's run() method which is the code that will be executed while the thread is running.

Basic thread safety is implemented through the synchronized keyword. This keyword causes the other threads to block until the synchronized code is finished executing. Many collections, such as Hashtables, in Java are thread-safe collections, meaning that their accessor methods are synchronzied. For situations that this does not matter, other ones such as ArrayList work just fine. The JavaDocs contain information on which collections are thread-safe and which ones are not.

Java's synchronized keyword is an example of the monitor concept. They are similar to semaphores, but are a language-level construct that takes away a lot of the burden from the programmer. It is important that they be used sparingly because when they are not used properly, they can easily cause major performance problems.

Process Management

	Runtime run = Runtime.getRuntime();
Process proc = run.exec(new String[]{"notepad.exe"});
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(proc.getInputStream()));

That example will only run on Windows, but it will create a new Notepad window on the screen when run from the command line. The array that is passed to the exec method is the same thing that one would use on the command line to start the program. Notepad.exe in the case of notepad. However, execution of DOS programs can be tricky. They need to be executed within the command shell first, and Java does not start one by default. So, the array line will look like this:

	Process proc = run.exec(new String[]{"cmd.exe", "/c", "dir", "C:\\windows"});

For an article describing some of the pitfalls of Java process management, read this.

**UPDATE**: Apparently, this post is REALLY popular with spammers. I have finally just given up and have closed off the comments and trackbacks because of the disproportionate number of spam hits this gets compared to the rest of my blog.

Despite a few futile efforts by John Hawkins to disprove the allegations about the SPP, NASCO, SmartPort and other efforts that are said to be part of a proto-American Union, issues do remain. Now, I'm not saying that these efforts in and of themselves constitute a subtle, but systematic campaign to unite all three North American players, but Hawkins has made a fool of himself for the following reasons, which for the sake of brevity, I will simply enumerate:

• If NASCO's board members wanted a North American Union, would they actually admit that at a time when their plans are coming under public scrutiny? Come on John, it's called objectivity. What you did was take him at his word and say "well I guess he's telling the truth because no one with an agenda tells lies!" There may not be an evil, ulterior motive, but your "rebuttal" constitutes the same sort of unobjective, take-them-at-their-word crapfest that defines the mainstream media.
• The SPP is an effort to harmonize operational logistics between three countries with very different governmental systems and economies. This is, well, a prerequisite for any sort of integration of the three countries into a continental union.
• You're right, that the SmartPort is probably nothing sinister, but given the fact that the Mexican government has shown a shocking degree of contempt for our national sovereignty on many fronts, you could at least feign understanding of why a lot of people might not like the idea of federales working full time on this side of the border.
• If the Department of Commerce were to be using the CFR's document as a blueprint, I have news for you, super sleuth, they wouldn't tell you. Governments lie all of the time to their people. Maybe they are telling the truth. Hopefully they are, but if you just take them at their word, you're a fool, even if they're telling you the truth because of how many times governments have lied and betrayed their own people.
  • Corollary to this rule, John. The first constitutional convention was conducted in secret and the states and the people were completely unaware of its true activities until it brought the final draft of the United States Constitution to the states. It was supposed to be a revision of the articles of confederation, you know, a few upgrades, not a whole new system of government. History is not on your side, though hopefully, honesty in government is this time. Will I bet anything of value that it is? No.
• It was 46 years (1952-1998) between the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (predecessor to the European Union) and the ratification of the Euro. It took the European Union about 41 years to start solidifying into its current form, as a transnational confederation. Realistically, a North American Union would take another 20-40 years to complete, or approximately two generations of Americans between now and its realization. Nothing big and scary, no black helicopters. Gradual, but purposeful change driven by a ruling elite.
• Just because George Bush and his people don't support a united currency, doesn't mean that many power brokers in all three countries don't.
• John, my man, when has constitutionality ever been an issue for the United States government except on a handful of issues since FDR? Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history knows that modern politicians, judges and police care, compared to 100 years ago, not one bit about the US Constitution or any state constitution. Laws are frequently passed and upheld that are unconstitutional.
• None of us know the true extent of the plans, nor the extent of the political and economic power behind them. It could be anything ranging from an impotent cabal of sex-deprived geriatrics to a majority of the rich and well-connected people in politics, private industry and the military leaderships of all three countries. The point is, we don't know! The signs aren't good. They are all geared toward eventual harmonization.

The amusing part about this little spat is that John Hawkins is Jerome Corsi in reverse. Jerome sees a conspiracy under every bush (and in every Bush), John is quick to immediately give the highest benefit of the doubt to people with political agendas and to make the most superficial defense of "his guy," Bush. I don't think that Corsi has successfully made his argument that Bush is preparing us for a quantum leap into continental government, but neither has John come even remotely close to debunking the unionization accusations.

If history serves as any indicator, both of these guys are wrong. Unionization is inevitable with the current foreign policy establishment and monied interests. It won't happen on Corsi's timeframe, as it took three generations to get seriously underway in Europe. North America is hardly sufficiently homogenous to make it go any faster. If nothing more, it'll take Canadians a while to get used to being dominated by the United States and Mexico because of the demographics.

What John has done is akin to sticking his head out the window, noting the lack of rain right now and declaring the weatherman who predicted rain for the afternoon a fraud.

Mark, I knew that you were right with your comments about court cases entitled things like "United States vs. Ferrari," but I have to admit, that I am a little surprised at how blatant the stealing has gotten:

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.

The facts of this case are pretty simple. You have a Hispanic guy who was traveling without any drugs or anything like that, who got pulled over and searched. Drug dog barks at the car and the money which has been sitting in the car. Problem is, it's not the guy's car--it's a rental, so there is absolutely no obvious proof that the drug residue was from him as opposed to the previous renter. The guy claimed that he wanted to buy a refridgerated truck with his friends and family so that they could start a business.

District court judge comes in and says the case is a bunch of crap, the state failed to provide sufficient evidence. Then the geniuses on the appeals court say that merely carrying around that much cash is ipso facto proof that he was a drug runner.

Thank you, Hollywood, for all of your years of providing these people with the propaganda that they needed to make people honestly believe that only criminals carry this much cash. Normal people don't buy houses or cars in cash, only criminals do. If they have nothing to hide, they have no reason to fear the loan shark or credit card processor!

And my only question is, does anyone actually think that a country that is run by jackasses this stupid is going to stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the "War on Terror?" For more analysis, which puts it in even worse and more detailed terms, check out The Agitator.

Once again, Lee from Right-Thinking from the Left Coast illustrates why non-Christians often have problems with Christians:

You know how we always say that it is up top moderate Muslims to stand up and reclaim their religion from the extremists? Well, the same goes here. Until such a time as normal, logical Christians begin to denounce the abject stupidity of the anti-science fundamentalists, the wide brush of self-imposed ignorance will color everyone.

And how perfect that Mann Coulter would be a part of it. You know how we look at the left as if they're scum because of their "Bush = Hitler" or "Israel = Nazi" messages? This is just as bad, if not worse.

One final point: when you look at the number of people throughout history that have been killed in the name of Christianity, Hitler was a fucking piker.

• If you are going to throw scripture in our faces, be prepared for us to be able to respond to it.
• Be prepared to not like what we have to say when we turn it back on you.
• Christian scripture is somewhat complicated and not conducive to pithy soundbites.
• If you won't concede the fact that the crimes of institutional churches and the governments that controlled them are categorically condemned by and unsupported by scripture, then don't expect any of us to reciprocate on things like the crimes of pagan and atheistic states.
• Calling us anti-science because we disagree with you on a handful of scientific ideas is akin to calling someone racist against black people because they dislike one style of rap music.
• Many of us are converts to Christianity and chose this path after seeing the alternatives.
• We are not impressed by the "morality" that you create "rationally."
• We really wish you would stop selectively stealing from our scripture when you are trying to create your own morality.
• We are doubly unimpressed by your code of morality if it is blatantly self-serving, allowing you to be "righteous" in areas where you have no struggle, and be totally free where you are completely out of control.
• You may see being told what is right and wrong is a flaw. We see it as a feature. Some of us actually don't enjoy talking about morality and prefer to think about other things that are more interesting.
• Finally, we are incredibly unimpressed by those of you who are staunch advocates of Darwinian evolution yet believe in a light and fluffy religion-inspired morality. Here's a little secret: we think you're illogical and stupid. You cannot simultaneously appeal to a natural order as crude, capricious and vicious as Darwinian evolution as the fundamental truth of the biological order and yet appeal to a religion-inspired morality that is based on exact opposite characteristics.

You may also find that some of us were actually agnostics who subscribed to a naturalistic worldview built on Darwinian evolution. I happen to be one of those people. I have always had the deepest contempt for the beliefs and mental faculties of secularists, especially atheists, who cling to a belief in Darwinian evolution, yet espouse a universalist morality based on religion. I doubt this will ever change.

Miracles happen, even when we don't recognize them. My girlfriend and I got into a fight today over something stupid, and I prayed for resolution. Sure enough, after another 10-15 minutes of fighting once we got back home after church, it was resolved in a way that had us recognize the value of our relationship and how stupid the fight was to begin with. If you're primarily looking for Miracles^tm like inexplicable healing and the dead getting brought back, you are going to be disappointed because it's the little stuff like an ugly fight that's going nowhere that suddenly ends with happiness in both people that God is quick to bring about.

Just a thought.

You know how I harp on SWAT units and the propensity of local law enforcement to use military tactics and weapons without doing proper intelligence gathering? Well, here's a good example of why police work is still not like military work and why military tactics and weapons are completely inappropriate for the majority of criminal investigations:

An informant's tip that led officers to Steven Blackman's house should have been corroborated before the search warrant was sought, Lt. Dean Sullivan said.

"We made a mistake," Sullivan said at a Friday afternoon news conference.

SWAT officers stormed Blackman's house in the 3600 block of Rufus Street while looking for Howard Earl Taylor, 27, who is wanted in a recent crackdown on gangs and drugs in southeast Fort Worth.

Officers shot tear gas through the windows and broke down a back door. The house was empty, and there were no signs of drug activity.

Now, granted, they admitted that they were wrong in their public statement, which is a good thing in most respects, they botched it by getting defensive when people actually questioned whether there was something wrong with the pol icy that lead to this situation. I don't know about others here, but I was raised that if you are going to apologize for something that you clearly did wrong, you should... well... just take it like a man. Apparently, these guys didn't get that lesson growing up:

"SWAT did their job," he said. "They did not make a mistake."

They forcefully entered the house two years after the perp had ceased living there. You don't call that a major mistake? They did what sounded like a few thousand dollars of property damage that could have easily been avoided by simply getting the ownership records on the home and realizing that their guy hadn't lived there for quite some time, which probably meant that their informant was wrong.

This sort of case highlights another major flaw with our system. Drug cases frequently involve playing people in the drug trade off against one another. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these things go wrong very easily. Well, it is part of an larger process of cutting back on those pesky due process protections for the sake of expediency, so the possibility of coming home to thousands of dollars of property damage for no good reason may just be part of life int the 21^st century.

Well, in Kentucky, it may become perfectly legal for the police to lie their asses off to the public about why they need to search a property. How about that win for the "good guys?" The golden rule of thumb for dealing with the police will increasingly be just simply do not allow a uniformed cop to ever enter your home without a specific warrant. If they come to your door with news of a tragedy, such as a dead child of yours being found, they can damn well wait while you bring out some lawn chairs and discuss it with them. If they ask why "you're paranoid," cite this case and say that your mommy told you to not trust strangers.

The story had comments like these added to the bottom of it, made by good old conservative, law-abiding citizens who just want the streets to be clear of those mean old drug dealers:

I think if it helps to get the drug problems under control the police should be able to do anything they need to. There should be limits as to when they can lie to gain entry. Thing is if you are not doing anything wrong to start with then it shouldn't bother you if a cop lies. It is the people that are breaking our laws that are the first to complain. Well no they don't want the police to have any more power than they have right now. I say if it helps to combat crime i am all for it. Everyone should be able to live in a place with a low crime rate to raise children and simply exist. If it gets more crimminals off the streets then i am for it.

And

I really don't care what the police need to do in order to get the dope dealers off the street.

These are the sort of sheep who will probably also see no evil, hear no evil except when it comes to their door, which we know will never happen to them. Proof that most people never outgrow the adolescent "it will never happen to me, I'm invincible" attitude and never gain a sense of principle.

Why is this a bad precedent for the public? It's very simple. It's just another opportunity for the police to break the rules of civil conduct and create mistrust between them and the general public. God knows, we don't need any more of that! If you believe, as I do, that human nature is corrupt and needs to be controlled, clearly this is not a step in a positive direction. And no, busting a non-violent drug offender like that does not meet the scriptural standards for violating the ten commandments.

It's really quite simple. If the police are not held to a high standard of conduct, one which includes a policy of punishing the police for lying unnecessarily, unethical conduct will creep in. It's human nature. The more room that is made for evil behavior, the more it will flourish. The police will invariably suffer in their own way as much as the public if this becomes acceptable.

Ya moost beh daft to carreh a wehpun!

"Although it shows that police are proactively searching for knife carriers, it clearly shows that there are individuals still out there who continue to think it's acceptable to carry a weapon in 21st Century Scotland."

Any bets on how quickly the good chief inspector would turn on anyone that would suggest it is equally unacceptable for civilian police to carry a weapon since, being civilians, they are clearly no more mentally and emotionally capable of being armed in public than a normal citizen (or *ahem* subject or *ahem* serf)? Now, wouldn't that be great if some good citizens decided to really get in the civic spirit by raiding the police station, seizing any weapons it might have (hey, the English are starting to pack heat) and then melting them down in a frenzy of patriotism?

I guess the police will just have to hope that the Scottish version of yobs will keel over from a heart attack before the cops chasing them do.

Last night I booted a LiveCD of ZetaOS on my laptop and it worked like a charm, especially the networking. Man... what I wouldn't give to be able to really use BeOS again instead of Windows or MacOS X. Anyway, I am now saving up the money for my next project, which is to build a super classic console system that runs Zeta. The specs are not impressive, but they don't have to be:

• Motherboard - $56.99
• Case - $46.99.
• Hard Drive - $49.99.
• Laptop Hard Drive Converter - $6.99.
• 512MB of PC2100 RAM - $56.99.
• ZetaOS - $99.

The controller will require a little more research, but that's the basic system right there.

Quis custodiet ipso custodies

According to the criminal complaint, Dunsavage around 6 a.m. on July 15 was on duty in uniform and driving a marked unit when he conducted two traffic stops, Avello said. Dunsavage allegedly took both drivers' wallets and when they were returned money totaling $590 was missing -- $390 from one victim and $200 from the other.

Avello said investigation revealed two more alleged incidents in which Dunsavage was accused to stealing $180 total -- $100 from one and $80 from another.

Between cops behaving criminally and criminals behaving like cops, decent people both in law enforcement and the general public are finding themselves up the creek without a paddle when it comes to protecting themselves, others and their property. Unfortunately, it only takes a few instances of things like this or criminals using police tactics to commit crimes for people to get very, very afraid of law enforcement. That there is an increase in abuse of power and criminality among law enforcement only exacerbates the problem.

How could someone in this position not be vicitmized? A cop is the one who is robbing them, and if they used force to stop them, few people would believe their story. The cop could have easily shot them and passed it off as a violent confrontation "started by the perp." The odds are simply much higher that it would end up like the Duke rape case, where the prosecutor is more concerned with his career than truth and justice.

Theocracy means something different for Christians than it means for other religions. While the word itself may mean "rule by god," it has a place in Christianity that it doesn't in other religions. Christianity is, quite simple, a theocratic religion. One's heart must be ruled by God. There is just no way to get around that little fact about how Christianity works in practice.

If you are a Christian, you are supposed to believe that God is sovereign and this means that nothing happens against His perfect will for humanity. For someone who is following Christ, there is a realization that not only does God exist, but God will execute a divine judgement upon the unforgiven sins of humanity. Attempts to usurp this authority by the state are meaningless. A Christian is supposed to believe that there is no such thing as "the criminal who got away with it" or the "uncaught immoral act" because God will catch--and punish--all moral unforgiven moral transgressions.

A Christian theocracy is not what America has. If it did, it would look a lot like what the Libertarian Party espouses. Legislating most morality is simply pointless to anyone who is both a Christian and takes an eternal view of things. Why bother forcing two consenting adults who are intent on having sex to not have it, when God will ultimately deal with such matters of private conscience? A Christian theocratic state would be unconcerned with such things, and its own purposes would be to keep the peace and to enable the church to provide for the material and spiritual needs of the public. Enable, not enforce.

Non-Christians are clearly not to be held to the same moral standards as Christians. They are not like us because we chose this path through the grace of God. We cannot force the changes that only God can make in their hearts. That's a sobering fact that a lot of American religious conservatives cannot accept. To accept that would be to admit that there are no easy answers to America's moral problems except repentance and prayer. All of the FCC fines and gay marriage amendments won't even begin to address the underlying rot that has produced in America a nation described in Romans 1.

That is why I say that Christians should be committed to theocracy, an America ruled by God, and not by clerics and religion-minded bureaucrats. You cannot simultaneously rely on the state and rely on God to bring about a moral rebirth in this country. Only in the liberty of freely-chosen theocracy can vice and virtue be meaningfully understood and evaluated, and only through freedom can moral choices actually bring about lasting change.

It's time for a little expansion on the last post about open source. Where a lot of people go wrong with open source is that they don't accept the fact that it is a phenomenon that can only happen with a few types of productive work. Music, movies, writings and source code are the only things of significant economic value that can be produced by hobbyists that would compete with the work of major companies to some significant degree. Material costs alone render most forms of property production immune to this sort of thing.

The arguments against open source software are largely unconvincing. It is true that open source software can have a deleterious impact on some markets, as it reduces the value of the market, but that is not an issue that a capitalist, as opposed to corporatist, state should concern itself with. As MySQL matures, it may reduce the ability of Oracle to sell licenses to many customers, but there are two reasons for that. First, in such a case, the commerical vendor provided a tool that wasn't able to simultaneously meet the needs of several types of users, and second, most of its former or potential customers don't find enough value to buy the software.

Open source platform tools have had a dramatic enabling effect for private citizens that close source software has not had. Blogging only became viable because the tools that most blog software was initial built on is so cheap and open. Movable Type and WordPress, two products that control the lion's share of the standalone blog software market, are built on open source platforms. Hosting packages are so cheap for bloggers because a skilled system administrator can deploy Apache, Linux (or FreeBSD) and MySQL (or PostreSQL) without much cost. Just compare the cost of a single license of Oracle with the cost of that whole open source software stack.

PHP is an excellent example of a product that would drive a policy wonk into a tizzy. It's ugly, technically inferior to most of its commercial competition, but somehow holds its own very aggressively over its competition. This is because in the world of IT, policy wonks tend to be concerned with the high end of the spectrum for solutions, such as Oracle and .NET, rather than the mundane and practical side. In terms of focusing on the so-called greater good, this would akin to public policy that debates how to promote the creation and sale of advanced, expensive sports cars rather than the boring coupes and sedans that dominate. There is a place for both.

As I said earlier, open source software is nothing more than a means of making a tool. It is not political, RMS' grandiose, non-starter visions notwithstanding. In the real world, there is rarely a clear divide between open source and closed source software. It is common to build a Java program with many open source libraries, target several databases (some of them open source, some not) and then deploy from a Windows workstation to a Linux or Solaris server. Idelogical interpretations may be heady to policy wonks and fan boys, but they are just headache-inducing menaces to the code monkeys that have to actually build the system.

When discussing issues of malfeasance by the police, it is a good idea to keep some diversity involved in the subject matter. It's not just people getting shot up in no-knock raids that is a problem, but rather sexual abuse is a very real problem too:

In another, still-open case obtained by The Inquirer, the department allowed an investigation into a complaint of a forced sexual display in a police lockup to languish for years. No one has been disciplined.

Philadelphia isn't unusual. Hundreds of police officers across the country have turned from protectors to predators, using the power of their badge to extort sex, an Inquirer review shows.

Many of those cases fit a chilling pattern: Once abusers cross the line, they attack again and again before they are caught. Often, departments miss warning signs about the behavior.

Most police departments do little to identify the offenders, and even less to stop them. Unlike other types of police misconduct, the abuse of police power to coerce sex is little addressed in training, and rarely tracked by police disciplinary systems.

This official neglect makes it easier for predators to escape punishment and find new victims.

The first rule of thumb is that any institution that has a problem with sweeping internal misconduct under the rug is going to be an institution where the visible problems are the tip of the iceberg. This is not to say that the vast majority of people in the Philadelphia Police Department are criminals. However, let's say that five percent are criminals or could become criminals. That would still be about 350 people capable of acting under the color of law that would be able to bring themselves to commit criminal acts.

The article points out that a lot of these women are terrified even more because it is a cop that is preying on them, not some run-of-the-mill criminal. Who are they going to turn to? The police department? Many police departments, whether deserved or not, have a reputation for protecting their own and these women are all too often silenced out of fear of reprisal and harassment by the cop and his buddies. And ultimately, who benefits? Why the criminals of course.

Reform won't happen without prosecutors who are willing to go after these cops, and who have enough internal morality to recognize how evil laws like these are. In my opinion, the real bottleneck is ultimately the local prosecutor's office, which would often be more willing to go after a person who shot one of these cops dead, than to actually bring the proper felony charges against the cop. It shouldn't surprise anyone because the burden of proof that is required to bring charges in excessive force cases involving SWAT deployments is ridiculously higher than what is used against normal people.

What's the lesson here? The government looks out for its own, and the "branches of government" are largely a construct of political scientists.

A laptop in every hut? Just what the doctor did not order for solving the problem of poverty! To those who think that an underpowered, crappy laptop is going to make a difference in many of the countries that they are being marketed to, I would like to point out a few more pressing points:

• What good are these going to do, if the students don't have access to a local job market capable of allowing them to use technical skills?
• Where is the flow of capital into these countries that would enable the creation of viable businesses?
• Where is the legal system that promotes fair and flexible arbitration and that is reasonably free of the more common forms of corruption?
• Where is the basic infrastructure like telecommunications networks capable of connecting poor regions to rich regions. It's a little hard to telecommute without them, and telecommunications are only the tip of the iceberg in many poor areas lacking infrastructure.
• Just what good is the hardware on these for creating anything cool with them?

That is not even an exhaustive list of why this program is nothing more than a waste of money. The hardware is ancient on these things and if these kids are going to get anywhere, they are going to need good, new hardware and software that can be used for more powerful tasks. And another thing, what good is a computer for classroom access without Internet access? How could reading, writing, math and most other subjects not be just easily taught with pen and paper?

This is just a distraction from other larger issues like the fact that many of the countries that are buying into it have major problems with clean government, have minimally market-oriented economies and things like that.

Apparently Pajamas Media has been able to see into the future as far as the 17^th.

It's probably just a technical screw up, but I thought it was funny nonetheless.

In every single case listed here, there is a recurring problem. These situations could have been avoided if people just behaved decently and minded their own business. Take the case of the cabbie, for instance. His customer would not be dead right now if he hadn't been drunk, had actually paid his fare and didn't pull a knife on the cabbie when he objected to not being paid. Then there's the retired Virginia cop who played nanny, got into a verbal fight and pounded on the door of the guy he was complaining about, like a madman and got shot.

The vast majority of people are not psychotic and are not going to shoot people for the hell of it. There is a single theme that unites most of these kinds of cases. Someone behaved like a violent, abrasive idiot and then got shot. Sounds to me like it's a problem that solves itself pretty quickly. If you want to avoid such a situation do some of those things that the good book says are godly characteristics. Think before you speak, be a man or woman of peace with your words while being firm about your wishes, and do not be quick to anger.

Some of these cases just scream Darwin Award. And those that don't are simple murder cases. Let's take the case of the former cop, for example. Suppose instead of getting into a fight over the number of trashbags his neighbor had put out, he had gone up to him and firmly, but gently said "look neighbor, I have asked you nicely to stop doing this. Keep it up, and I'll take this to the police." No fighting words, no hostile demeanor. That's not how it happened. How was the neighbor supposed to know he wasn't going to beat the hell out of him? The guy supposedly had his foot in the door, which made his neighbor think he might be a threat.

So, you see kids, the moral of this story is that there are a lot of people out there who will hurt you if you behave like a violent jackass. If this bugs you, call up your representative and politely ask them to pass a law against survival instincts. They are clearly the root cause of this problem. If nobody had a survival instinct, we wouldn't be in this situation, now would we?

Neighbors identified one of the suspects as Don Stewart-Whyte, 21, from High Wycombe, a convert who changed his name to Abdul Waheed.

"He converted to Islam about six months ago and grew a full beard," said a neighbor, who refused to be identified. "He used to smoke weed and drink a lot but he is completely different now."

Ibrahim Savant of Walthamstow, one of the names on the Bank of England list, was a convert formerly known as Oliver, neighbors said.

One of the most important parts of the story, if you ask me. Last night I saw a commenter argue that attacking Islam is racist. This right here should just about settle that issue right there for anyone with a brain and a willingness to use it. Some of the guys who were going to participate were presumably white guys who converted to Islam. I think that actually says something positive, which is that the fundamental problem is not Pakistani culture, but Islam.

After a lengthy up and down chat on Tech Liberation Front regarding open source software, business models and all of that crap, it's dawned on me that there are actually a number of capitalism-minded people who simply cannot grasp what truly defines open source software. Here's a quick stab at it at a definition of what constitutes a baseline of open source software:

• The source code must be publically availible.
• The source code must be able to be modified by third parties without compensation except sometimes in the form of the modifications being sent back as patches to the original developer.
• The person doing the modifying must be able to distribute their modifications without harassment by the original developer.
• At a minimum, all software covered under the same license should be able to be integrated together as a user or developer sees fit without harassment.

That is a baseline definition that covers the majority of open source and free software licenses. The latter category is almost always associated with the GNU General Public License (GPL) and is a more ideologically-driven movement. A significant amount of popular open source software, however, is dual-licensed under the GPL (thus allowing flexibility) or is licensed under another license, such as the BSD or MIT licenses.

It is important for open source skeptics to realize that most of the anti-business rhetoric eminates from the "free software movement." The broader open source movement is more abstract and diverse in opinion, ranging from those that use the GNU Lesser General Public License, which serves as a compromise on the GPL, to those that choose the almost entirely laissez faire BSD license.

A significant amount of open source software can be integrated into commercial applications without any problems. Python, for example, can be distributed with commercial software to provide a scriptable interface. The idea with open source software is to provide a quality tool, and in particular in many cases, to provide a vendor-neutral platform to build products on.

Why America will probably get hit hard by Iran when they're ready:

Now, in case you are wondering what sort of "gushing" things that Mike Wallace had to say about the President of Iran, here's the relevant excerpt from the article that WorldNetDaily linked to. Say what you will about the man, and there is much that can be said negatively of him, but his being a stupid, wild-eyed, irrational zealot is not one of them.

Of Ahmadinejad, Wallace said, "He's an impressive fellow, this guy. He really is. He's obviously smart as hell."

Wallace said he was surprised to find that the Iranian president was still a college professor who taught a graduate-level course.

"You'll find him an interesting man," he said. "I expected more of a firebrand. I don't think he has the slightest doubt about how he feels ... about the American administration and the Zionist state. He comes across as more rational than I had expected."

Evil people are not necessarily prone to being insane. Hitler was hardly insane. Eccentric, yes, but insane (which implies being dysfunctional) he wasn't. Neither is Ahmadinejad. In fact, Ahmadinejad is probably far better prepared for the sorts of schemes that he and the regime he represents are cooking up than the "sane" Bush or Olmert administrations.

It's too easy to just dismiss people like him, the way that "moonbat professors" are dismissed by conservatives here. Ahmadinejad is a very skilled man, capable of balancing two demanding, high-profile jobs that require a great deal of intelligence to manage. He has consistently shown that he can control his tongue when he needs to, and far from being a typical sabre-rattling despot, he is closer to Hitler in terms of being passionate, but eloquentl toward the middle and upper classes.

If that poll is even remotely true, most won't even see him starting to play his hand until it's too late. This guy is serious, and he aims to seriously destroy his enemies. Unlike the Jacksonians who are big on bluster and looking for a fight, Ahmadinejad wants total war. My money will be on Ahmadinejad, not the Jacksonians, to win the first round if our leadership doesn't straighten up.

I have yet to see a burden of proof in the United States this low:

The program takes advantage of a December 2002 municipal ordinance that allows police to seize the vehicle of anyone accused -- not convicted -- of soliciting a prostitute. That accusation can be based on the vaguest of exchanges with the "trick task force" member.

"You just know," a 38-year-old officer identified only as Heather told the Los Angeles Daily News. "You look. You see. You smell it."

Isn't it hard to argue with logic like "you just know?" I'm sure that she wouldn't mind playing judge, jury and executioner either then, since she's got a psychic power to determine guilt on sight.

I wonder if she can also psychically detect threats and respond to them up to ten seconds before they happen. Wouldn't that be a great way to get out of all sorts of police brutality charges?

Reporter: "how did you know that the guy was going to attack you with his windshield scraper?"

Heather: "You just know..."

Reporter: "Well, you can't argue with that! No police brutality here!"

What I want to know is, what does a john smell like? Petunias? Does a john smell like "rich guy with expensive car?" How about "foreigner on visa?" Judging from the looks of that picture, I'd say that a john smells like at least a new Honda SUV and sometimes a wiff of new Lexus or Acura. At least she has taste.

Hat tip: Nobody's Business.

Introduction of sorts

Alright. Movable Type and WordPress have pretty similar template paradigms. Archives are both based on a looping mechanism that iterates over the appropriate number of entries for a given archive. In WordPress, "The Loop" is what gets this fun started, and in Movable Type, <MTEntries> is its approximate match. What's important is that the magic which causes your archives to be generated happens inside of these loops. From that point on, the important tags/function calls act from that perspective.

Generally speaking, the safest way to get things started is to open up a WordPress template file such as index.php and save it as a new file such as index.template. This will make preserving the layout a lot easier than doing a cut-and-paste job. Go through and start systematically taking out all of the PHP code blocks, replacing them with the appropriate Movable Type template tags.

We're going to do this visually where possible, so here are three illustrated screenshots to get us started with the main template/index template:

Now, if you compare the first two entries with the third, you will notice that they are very, very similar. Movable Type eschews the usage of PHP, Perl and other languages in favor of special markup tags that execute commands on the server side.

The PHP foreach loop becomes a <MTEntries< block, which is the Movable Type equivalent. The WordPress function calls such as the_content(); are also almost 1:1 mappable to equivalent Movable Type variables or markup commands. The only big difference, if any is that the Movable Type version contains some conditional tags which cause it to do slightly different things if certain information, such as the author, is not availible.

In general, the other archive templates in Movable Type function similarly to the index template so it is not particularly difficult to translate these concepts from the main index template which was converted here, to the date-based, category-based and individual archives. The main difference is that with the individual archive template you will need to drop the <MTEntries> tags so that only one post is retrieved per individual archive.

How to get your categories and archives listed in the sidebar

The WordPress PHP call for this is actually pretty simple, it's just wp_list_cats('sort_column=name&optioncount=1');