June 20, 2008 by Ian.

HT to Al Mohler for this one:

Father doesn’t know best, court rules in girl’s fight to get grounding overruled:

Toronto’s Globe and Mail reports that a father ruled too harshly when he grounded his daughter from a school camping trip after she broke his rules on the internet. Now, this isn’t a father who is punishing his daughter by tying her to a tree, she was JUST grounded! More than that, his rules against internet use which she willfully waltzed over were created for HER PROTECTION. She had created an account on online dating sites and published her pictures for all to see. If that were my daughter I would have deleted the accounts and banned her from not only any contact with friends but from all electronic media for at least a month. The child that is in a home is under the Biblical authority of the parents and we should be allowed to punish as we see fit short of physical abuse. I completely understand how the court should step in if there child is being beaten, that makes perfect sense to me. If there’s sexual abuse, fine. To overstep the authority of parents on a grounding? That’s blatant abuse of authority and if this ruling isn’t overturned the Canadian justice system will show itself to be a worthless institution that looks out for the interests of no one.

Now, what does this have to do with us? For that, I turn to the end of Albert Mohler’s commentary on it:

The logic of this ruling is not limited to Canada. In 1970, Hillary Rodham, then a young lawyer (and later Sen. Hillary Clinton), wrote a law review article, “Children Under the Law,” in which she argued that minors should be treated as “child citizens” who should, under at least some conditions, be able to challenge their parents in court over parental decisions.

This father may win his appeal — we must hope that he does — but the damage is already done. This 12-year-old girl has defied her father and been rewarded by a secular court. The judge and the court have now become complicit in the girl’s disobedience. This father has had his rights as father denied and his authority undermined. We can only imagine the costs of this judicial malpractice in the life of this girl and her family. Beyond this, the precedent is now set for further judicial mischief.

Is this the kind of worthless judicial system we have to look forward to in this country? With the continual pending hate crime and homosexual “inclusiveness” legislation, it’s only a matter of time.

Posted in Ian, Pointless Lawsuits, Current Events | Print | 6 Comments »

June 18, 2008 by Jeremy.

On the Second Amendment,

Don’t Believe Obama!

Just a link today because it has some good information.

Posted in Decision 2008, Second Amendment, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts, Politics | Print | 3 Comments »

June 10, 2008 by sbrammer.

I came across the following article and thought that the people that come up with crap like this have little or none common sense. But then again, what government agency does have common sense?

In a major change of policy, the Transportation Security Administration has announced that passengers refusing to show ID will no longer be able to fly. The policy change, announced on Thursday afternoon, will go into force on June 21, and will only affect passengers who refuse to produce ID. Passengers who claim to have lost or forgotten their proof of identity will still be able to fly.

As long as TSA has existed, passengers have been able to fly without showing ID to government agents. Doing so would result in a secondary search (a pat down and hand search of your carry-on bag), but passengers were still permitted to board their flights. In some cases, taking advantage of this right to refuse ID came with fringe benefits–being bumped to the front of the checkpoint queue.

For a few years after September 11, 2001, TSA’s policies when it came to flying without ID were somewhat fuzzy. The agency, like many other parts of the Bush Administration, has hidden behind the shroud of classification–in TSA’s case, labeling everything Sensitive Security Information.

Seeking to clarify the rules, activist John Gilmore took the U.S. government to court in 2004. Gilmore chose to take a particularly hard line, by refusing to show ID to TSA and also by refusing to undergo the more thorough “secondary screening” search. He eventually lost his case before the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

While the judges were not willing to let Gilmore avoid the secondary screening search, they did at least recognize the right to travel without showing ID–providing that passengers are willing to be subject to a pat down and a bit of probing:

“The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and consistent with a full recognition of appellants constitutional right to travel.”

Since then, in at least two letters to citizens, TSA has re-affirmed this right. In March 2008, a TSA official wrote that:

“If a traveler is unwilling or unable to produce a valid form of ID, the traveler is required to undergo additional screening at the checkpoint to gain access to the secured area of the airport.”

A change in policy

In a press release issued on Thursday with little fanfare, TSA announced a major change in its rules.

“Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports. This change will apply exclusively to individuals that simply refuse to provide any identification or assist transportation security officers in ascertaining their identity.”

This new procedure will not affect passengers that may have misplaced, lost or otherwise do not have ID but are cooperative with officers. Cooperative passengers without ID may be subjected to additional screening protocols, including enhanced physical screening, enhanced carry-on and/or checked baggage screening, interviews with behavior detection or law enforcement officers and other measures.”

To clarify: Passengers who refuse to show ID, citing a constitutional right to fly without ID will be refused passage beyond the checkpoints. Passengers who say they have left their ID at home, will be searched, and then permitted to board their flights.

While TSA’s announcement stated that the goal of the change was to “increase safety,” this blogger disagrees. The change of rules seems to be a pretty obvious case of security theater. Real terrorists do not refuse to show ID. They claim to have lost their ID, or they use a fake.

TSA’s new rules only protect us from a non-existent breed of terrorists who are unable to lie.

Fixing flaws vs. security theater

In a research paper published in 2007, I outlined a number of glaring loopholes allowing the total circumvention of the much criticized no-fly lists. The two main flaws were that passengers can modify boarding passes, and that they can refuse to show ID.

In December 2007, TSA began testing out a secure, authenticated, tamper-proof boarding pass scheme. It has since been rolled out to a number of major airports around the country.

With hundreds of millions of dollars having already been spent on the various no-fly lists, it is at least interesting to see that someone at TSA is now spending time on fixing the loopholes in the system. The most glaring of this has long been the fact that passengers can refuse to show (or claim to have forgotten) their ID. Simply put, without being able to know who is walking through a checkpoint, there is no way to know that the “bad guys” have been caught by the no-fly list.

TSA’s new rule, while perhaps motivated by a desire to beef up security, is significantly flawed. Terrorists will lie, and claim to have lost their ID–while law-abiding citizens wishing to assert their rights will be hassled, and refused flight.

Of course, all of this is premised on the idea that the no-fly list is actually a useful safety tool–something that I, and a number of other prominent security experts, strongly disagree with. Simply put, terrorists do not pre-register their intent.

As Bruce Schneier has noted before, the no-fly list is a collection of hundreds of thousands of people who are too dangerous to fly, but not guilty enough to be charged with a crime.

These are interesting times, indeed.

Posted in sbrammer, Current Events | Print | 1 Comment »

June 7, 2008 by Jeremy.

Obama Jedi Mind Trick

Just because someone is for change doesn’t mean they are going to change it for the better…

Posted in Decision 2008, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts, Politics | Print | 4 Comments »

June 6, 2008 by Jeremy.

Taken from Dirty Harry comes clean:

Clint Eastwood folds his gangly frame behind a clifftop table at the Hotel Du Cap, a few miles up the coast from Cannes, sighs deeply, and squints out over the Mediterranean. “Has he ever studied the history?” he asks, in that familiar near-whisper.

The “he” is Spike Lee, and the reason Eastwood is asking is because of something Lee had said about Eastwood’s Iwo Jima movie Flags of Our Fathers, while promoting his own war movie, Miracle at St Anna, about a black US unit in the second world war. Lee had noted the lack of African-Americans in Eastwood’s movie and told reporters: “That was his version. The negro version did not exist.”

Eastwood has no time for Lee’s gripes. “He was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that’s why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else.” As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, “but they didn’t raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people’d go, ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ I mean, it’s not accurate.”

 Eastwood pauses, deliberately - once it would have provided him with the beat in which to spit out his cheroot before flinging back his poncho - and offers a last word of advice to the most influential black director in American movies. “A guy like him should shut his face.”

I don’t understand why Spike Lee can’t use some Common Sense and realize that there is no need to make this movie a “race issue” because the movie deals in what I like to call “fact” and that is how Clint Eastwood did the film. I’ve seen the film and it is very moving and told the story of the Iwo Jima flag raising very well.

I am so tired of people making racial issues out of something that should not be racial at all. I cannot stand racism from either respect. There are those that are racist by hating someone of a particular race and then there are those that are racist because they think their race deserves special treatment. Both of these thought are racist and deserve to be called such.

So I will put myself out there right now and say that Spike Lee is a racist. I think that is just Common Sense.

Posted in Entertainment, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts | Print | 4 Comments »

June 5, 2008 by Jeremy.

Netflix is dead if it listens to Wall Street. I am totally with cnet on this one. I think Netflix is wise in looking to the future. Digital distribution is coming and its coming sooner than you think. Think of all the XBOX 360 owners and PS3 owners that have the opportunity to download movies and television shows that they want to watch right on their respective consoles.

These people are already being trained to use the digital distribution process and its not even mainstream yet. So Netflix is wise in getting an install base for their system as early as possible.

The biggest problem with what they’re doing is PC users can do the same thing without the $99 unit price. I can download and watch all of the movies that will be available to this system right on my PC right now. So all I have to do is plug my PC into the back of my Sony Bravia and enjoy the same thing without paying the $99. So Netflix will need to drop that price down a bit or offer the hardware for free with a membership contract for a certain time length kind of like a cell phone plan.

So maybe some of my more tech readers can fill in what I’ve missed or offer a better thought to the process but the way I see it Netflix is ahead of the game and this move will pay off in the future.

Posted in Technology, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts | Print | 3 Comments »

June 3, 2008 by Jeremy.

I swear I can’t make this stuff up and I hope you all find it remotely entertaining and mildly worrisome especially in light of our previous blog here on the site.

Yesterday in London a man said he was threatened with arrest at a city airport because his “Transformers” T-shirt depicted a cartoon robot with a gun. Apparently they thought the man might be a risk or might offend someone because his shirt had a gun printed on it.

This whole “guns are evil” thing is really starting to annoy me. We have a government and a news media that want to vilify any type of firearm so that people will fear them and want people to get rid of them. I’m to the point where I just don’t know what to do to convince people otherwise anymore. Common Sense is being drained from this world and I’m doing what little I can (with this blog) to stop it but it may be a losing battle.

Posted in Second Amendment, Jeremy, Coherent Thoughts | Print | 3 Comments »