The TSA is issuing subpoenas to bloggers who leaked information.
As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.
Maybe it’s the bloggers who should subpoena the TSA. After all, bloggers fly in airplanes.
Now I’m all in favor of keeping our security procedures out of the hands of terrorists, but the Keystone Kops couldn’t script this any better. TSA did its own massive information dump earlier this month, giving details of what is inspected in airport screenings and, more importantly, what is not. That disclosure was apparently inadvertent, and TSA immediately claimed it did no harm.
It’s a classic diversion: blame your security lapses on the bloggers – after the fact.
This from the administration that has intentionally declassified much sensitive data concerning the Nation’s anti-terrorism efforts. Hey, how about a National Declassification Center?
Maybe they will start issuing subpoenas to the New York Times for publishing leaked . . . (Oh, never mind.)
Maybe TSA should strike a serious pose and ask the bloggers point blank, “Has this suitcase blog been in your possession at all times, and did anyone give you any items information to take aboard write about?” Then just wait for the answer.
Maybe TSA workers need a union to make them happy and less prone to leak data. Yeah, that’ll do it.
December 31st, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law, Politics |
no comments
Legal Insurrection says Pete Hoekstra is owed an apology:
Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) commented soon after the attempted bombing of an airplane over Detroit that the Obama administration needed to do a better job at connecting the dots regarding terror threats from Yemen:
“People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration.”
Think Progress immediately went into attack mode. Not against al-Qaeda or the officials who failed to prevent this near-disaster, but against Hoekstra for “politicizing” the issue. And the left-wing blogosphere responded to the Think Progress whistle, attacking Hoekstra and dismissing the incident as a “joke’ and nothing to “fear.”
There’s a lot of backpeddling going on now. Notwithstanding Janet Napolitano’s ridiculous statements that “the system worked,” it seems clear at this point that the Pantybomber posed a real danger and that danger was known in advance to the people who are supposed to protect us.
But real dangers and real terrorists don’t fit the Narrative. Dick Cheney said it well. And, I’m afraid, the Narrative will continue to trump common sense at virtually every level of this administration.
December 30th, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
If you have not visited Professor Carol’s “Circle of Scholars,” you should. There you will find the focus on things more enduring than politics. Think about it. Kings used music as a symbol of their power, and now the music remains long after the monarchies have crumbled.
On the other hand, the Church uses music as a reminder of things transcendant, and now unto us a child is born.
This Christmas Eve I commend Professor Carol’s elaboration on “O Holy Night.”
December 24th, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music |
no comments
The current health care bill working its way through the Senate has numerous infirmities, and people are highlighting the curious provision on page 1020 that purportedly makes part of the bill unrepealable.
That provision is so blatantly void on its face that I’m struck by the statements of some who say merely that they “doubt” its constitutionality.
Congress derives its authority from the Constitution, and the 112th Congress will have the same powers as the 111th Congress in spite of what the 111th Congress may say. Harry Reid can insert whatever statements he wants in an attempt to limit the power of future legislative sessions, but it won’t work. He can even disguise it as a change of Senate Rules (which violates the current Senate Rules), but that legerdemain doesn’t change the analysis.
The legal principle is well settled. As Justice Scalia wrote in Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 14 (2005) (concurring opinion):
“[O]ne legislature,” Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature.” Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 6 Cranch 87, 135, 3 L. Ed. 162 (1810). “The correctness of this principle, so far as respects general legislation,” he asserted, “can never be controverted.” Ibid. See also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) (unlike the Constitution, a legislative Act is “alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it”); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 90 (1765) (”Acts of parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not”); T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 125-126 (1868) (reprint 1987). Our cases have uniformly endorsed this principle. See, e.g. , United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 872, 116 S. Ct. 2432, 135 L. Ed. 2d 964 (1996) (plurality opinion); Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315, 318, 53 S. Ct. 177, 77 L. Ed. 331 (1932) (”[T]he will of a particular Congress . . . does not impose itself upon those to follow in succeeding years”); Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 487, 26 S. Ct. 127, 50 L. Ed. 274 (1905); Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U.S. 548, 559, 25 L. Ed. 710 (1880) (in cases involving “public interests” and “public laws,” “there can be . . . no irrepealable law”); see generally 1 L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 2-3, p 125, n 1 (3d ed. 2000).
There are many outrages in the proposed legislation, but the attempt to make any part of it unrepealable is just a joke.
December 23rd, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law |
2 comments
What is the most famous four-note melody in the world? One where three of the four pitches repeat the same note?
Now that’s a toss-up: either the opening of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, a.k.a. “Fate Knocking at the Door” (dah-dah-dah dum) or . . . ready?. . . “Happy Birthday!” (dah-dah-de-dah).
But today, December 16th, you don’t have to choose. It’s Beethoven’s birthday! He’d be 239 years old today, not an anniversary that sparks commemorative festivals, but still a date to note.
Beethoven lived a tumultuous life of 57 years (1770-1827), a reasonable lifespan for his day. Subsequent generations took this restless, reclusive composer and turned him into the standard-bearer for Romanticism. And those portraits of his, the ones with rushes of hair and dark eyes piercing your soul [Joseph Carl Stieler]—well, they serve today as icons of “Artistic Genius.”
Beethoven would find all of this astonishing.
As it turns out, Beethoven’s music outlasted 200+ plus years of stylistic change. It still speaks to vast numbers of people. And although we consider Beethoven the quintessential “genius-rebel” today, he had little choice but to bow and scrape continually. It was customary, then, to write in self-deprecating prose to achieve every objective. Trying to learn in 1823 how King George IV responded to his gift of a score of Battle of Vittoria, Beethoven couldn’t simply ask. He had to write:
In thus presuming, herewith, to submit my most obedient prayer to Your Majesty, I venture at the same time to supplement it with a second [letter]. . . . For many years the undersigned cherished the sweet wish that Your Majesty would graciously make known the receipt of his work to him; but he has not been able to boast of this happiness. . . .
In other words “Hey, King George, what about that piece I sent you?”
Beethoven might have preferred our modern age, where celebrities’ personalities rise up flamboyantly and, if there’s enough media attention, give them leave for seemingly any action. But it’s highly unlikely our present age would inspire the depth, intensity, and originality found in those impassioned note he scribbled on paper.
Happy Birthday Beethoven!
December 16th, 2009
Posted by
Professor Carol |
Music |
no comments
Cranach, Velázquez, Gauguin, Delacroix, Eyck, Rubens, Rembrandt, Caravaggio, the list of artists who chose to depict Christ’s crucifixion goes on and on.
Add one 8-year-old boy who gets suspended from school and is required to undergo psychological evaluation.
Is the boy’s work more horrific than that of Cranach? Does he exult in the details of suffering more than Rembrandt or Kriss? Should he have softened his image by adding cherubs in attendance, or did he intend some dark message by employing Xs for eyes and apparently omitting one leg. Picasso, your couch is waiting.
If our public schools get any sillier than this, it might be a welcome change because all indications are that the schools are deadly serious about stamping out Christianity.
Meanwhile, the boy has learned Paul’s lesson concerning the folly of proclaiming Christ crucified.
Image: Hinterglasbild Kreuzigung, Rudolf Kriss
December 15th, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Education, Religion |
no comments
The Strafer (occasional contributor to his blog and curator of destroyers) writes:
WTF? Evil exists? We must fight it? Singing Kumbaya and apologizing will not solve all world problems? This is refreshingly close to the Bushman, except he does not want to “go pre-emptive” . . . or does he? Does Robert Gates have this much sway?
Please explain, Fitzroy! What’s the catch?
I’ll give it a try, Strafer. First, as you should know, answers can sometimes found at the bottom of the glass.
We live in unserious times, which means very serious times lie ahead. Going preemptive is something only serious people do. Whether preemptive action is right or wrong in a particular instance is a different question, but preemptive action is at least a serious act.
Unserious people elect unserious leaders who borrow speeches, ideas, and serious thoughts from other more serious people. They don’t do preemption because they don’t admit that inaction has consequences.
Let’s approach the problem from a new angle. Martinis were once the drink of serious people, and serious people made martinis with gin. Along came some less serious people who made pretend martinis with vodka and popularized them in the fictional world of James Bond. Proof of slippery slopes followed with chocolate martinis and the post-modern, relativist lie that anything in a martini glass is a martini.
That relativist lie can be applied to empty suits in a variety of professions. Unserious drinkers who prefer some syrupy blue slush with a parasol borrow the trappings of serious drinkers – the martini glass. Unserious politicians borrow the speeches of their more serious counterparts, complete with fighting words and references to evil.
Speaking of Robert Gates, former head of the CIA – yes, this is a leap – Ingo Swann writes about the spy world post James Bond and describes the “eight martini result.”
Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone’s realities. So they have to go out and drink eight martinis to recover.
Obama talking like Bush is an eight martini occasion: it cracks everyone’s realities. The people who supported him in the hopes that he would never call anything evil are already at the bar and a few rounds ahead of you. They are easy to recognize. Their martini glasses will be full of blue slush, chocolate, and parasols.
I suggest you have the bartender fill your glass with gin in preparation for the more serious days that lie ahead.
Image by Ken30684 - Creative Commons
December 11th, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure, Politics |
2 comments
What’s the point of remembering Pearl Harbor? Or, for that matter, 9/11, Gettysburg, the Alamo, and myriad other days of conflict? It’s a relevant question given the current reluctance of many to remember 9/11 and the concerted media effort to keep photos of 9/11 out of the public eye.
9/11 generated the truthers, and a similar crowd sprang up around Pearl Harbor. Even posting the human interest story below concerning a pulley from the mast of the U.S.S. Arizona brings out the nut cases who believe every bad thing results from a conspiracy among a cabal of warmongering bankers and whoever occupies the White House. Giving the truthers their say has some benefits. The paranoid will always be with us, and it’s useful to know just how deranged they really are.
But there are better reasons to remember such things. They are defining events in our culture - rallying points. The concerted effort and sacrifice of a nation or people to meet such challenges speaks well of humanity. Storytelling sustains a culture, and the content of those stories defines it. In remembering the rallying points, we do well also to remember the stories of ordinary people who rallied to a worthy common cause.
December 7th, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Ammo, Reflections |
no comments
Kraalspace cites Chesterton on Climategate:
Even in those things he [Sir Arthur Keith] betrayed a curious simplicity common among such official scientists. The truth is that they become steadily less scientific and more official. They develop that thin disguise that is the daily wear of politicians. They perform before us the most artful tricks with the most artless transparency. It is like watching a child trying to hide something. They are perpetually trying to bluff us with big words and learned allusions; on the assumption that we have never learnt anything - even of their own funny little ways. Every leader-writer who thunders “Galileo” at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock. These are in a sense true demonstrations of science. They are in a sense right in saying that they are scientists. Where they are perhaps wrong is in supposing that we are savages.
But it is rather amusing for us who watch the preparations for giving us an electric shock, when we are seriously expected to be shocked by the shock. It is rather a joke when we, the benighted savages, are ourselves not only quite capable of predicting the eclipse, but capable of predicting the prediction. Now among these facts that have been familiar to us for a long time is the fact that men of science stage and prepare their effects exactly as politicians do. They also do it rather badly - exactly as politicians do. Neither of these two modern mystagogues has yet realized how transparent his tricks have become.
And isn’t that exactly how the skeptics have been portrayed - as savages? For more see Melanie Phillips’ takedown of the reporter who contrasts the “formidable array of scientist” supporting global warming with those “noisier, less qualified pundits” (i.e. savages).
December 3rd, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
Bill Whittle reminds us of Eisenhower’s Military-Industrial complex speech, which included this:
“. . . the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
(Emphasis mine – BW)
I wonder if this admonition from Eisenhower – uttered a few moments after he warned of the influence of the Military-Industrial complex – will be repeated among the Left with the same grave sense of somber warning as his previous few sentences?
Don’t be on it.
December 2nd, 2009
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Education, Politics |
no comments
