Final Protective Fire


Links to some interesting places:
R.J.Rummel's blog
Junk Science Blog and debunking discussion forum.
Pirate Ballerina
Dave Kopel's Home Page
Volokh Conspiracy
Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit
Prof Bainbridge Blog
Clayton Cramer
David Friedman's homepage
Vodka Pundit
Tiki Lounge
Jim Dunnigan's site
Cold Fury
Karl's blog

email to finalprotfire at

Note that there is someone sending the KLEZ ( and now SOBIG.F ) virus with forged blogger emails. I will never send you email with attachments - delete any immediately.

Archives ( hard links ):
August 07
July 07
June 07
May 07
April 07
March 07
February 07
January 07
December 06
November 06
October 06
September 06
August 06
July 06
June 06
May 06
April 06
March 06
February 06
January 06
December 05
November 05
October 05
September 05
August 05
July 05
June 05
May 05
April 05
March 05
February 05
January 05
December 04
November 04
October 04
September 04
August 04
July 04
June 04
May 04
April 04
March 04
February 04
January 04
December 03
November 03
October 03
September 03
September 03
August 03
July 03
June 03
May 03
April 03
March 03
February 03
January 03
December 02
November 02
October 02
September 02
August 02
July 02
June 02
May 02


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Thursday, July 31, 2003

At least one of the telecoms is serious about its customers' interests in the face of the overreaching of RIAA.

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

There is inspiration in the fact that the troops understand.

This piece about the lot of United Nations NGO personnel in Afghanistan, poor things.

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Donald Luskin eviscerates Paul Krugman yet again. Glenn Reynolds is pointing to an editorial here that details one newspaper's decision to cease carrying Maureen Dowd's column unless the New York Times issues an explicit correction of Dowd's misquote of President Bush. The descent of the New York Times continues even in the absence of Howell Raines.

Monday, July 28, 2003

Stanley Kurtz asks a question about how different jurisdictions would handle "divorce" decrees from states that might recognize gay marriage. Read his hypothetical here.

I think that the answer is that while Texas, in his hypothetical, would not recognize the marriage, it would recognize the final court judgment regarding the ownership of property. There are parallels in precedents for cases where courts recognize the divorce decree of marriages that they would not sanctify themselves ( for reasons like consanguity or age of consent ).

When one reads the various cases on the Full Faith and Credit clause, one finds that while the U.S. Supreme Court opinions do not require a state to give effect to laws in other states that conflict with its own public policy, the finality of a court judgment in another state is given great importance. To Texas, the final decree is just a court judgment resolving ownership of property. Texas isn't required to "recognize" the marriage, just the ownership of property.

When I get a chance later, I'll add some case citations in support of the above.

Saturday, July 26, 2003

Charles Johnson is astonished at what a blatant liar Abu Mazen is, well maybe astonished is the wrong word ...

Yesterday, a federal judge sentenced three nuns to prison for their anti-nuclear "protest" escapade where they broke into a ICBM compound. Downtown in Denver there was a group of idiots protesting the convictions of the three. I had some fun ridiculing a group of the protestors on the 16th Street Mall during lunch - they lived up to my expectations of ignorance and inarticulateness quite well.

One of the themes of the defenders of these women, and it appeared in Diane Carmen's incoherent Sunday column (not on their website yet) as well, is that these women did little or no damage. The court found that they had done approx. $3,000 worth of damage to a fence to enter the site. But that claim is of course complete nonsense. These women breached the security of a location holding nuclear weapons. The idea that they did no damage is offensively stupid. The U.S. Air Force response to their security breach couldn't be tallied for the court but was no doubt far more than $3,000.

The claim that their actions did no harm to the national security of our country is equally ludicrous. In this day and age, the idea that a breach of security of a nuclear weapons site is harmless ought to make any sane human aghast.

I'm happy to see these three loons doing real prison time for their outrageous stunt.

Friday, July 25, 2003

Charles Johnson points out the hypocrisy of the "Arab Street" being upset at seeing images of the Hussein brothers' bodies.

Another outrageous Ninth Circuit opinion, this one reverses and remands a district court dismissal of a suit designed to overturn Washington state's law disenfranchising felons.

The recent decision of the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn the provisions of Nevada's own state constitution with respect to the vote required to adopt a budget was outrageous enough. But here is something more outrageous, the Illinois Supreme Court ordering that its and other judges' pay be increased. The tyranny of the judiciary is fast approaching.

Wednesday, July 23, 2003

Now back in town, thanks for everyone's patience.

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

Out of town until middle of next week. Don't expect to be able to blog until then.

There was a recent interesting US Supreme Court decision in an Art IV Full Faith and Credit clause case, Iain Murray discusses how it relates to Governor Davis' tenure in California.

Here, Eugene Volokh quotes an email he received which does a decent job of addressing the key reasons why hetereosexual marriage is different from homosexual. I especially like the last three paragraphs of the quoted email as making a point I've made in the past. I don't think Eugene's responses really undermine the point at all.

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

I saw news coverage of the dishonest commercial Democrats are running. The Clinton legacy continues, Democrats as liars.

Monday, July 14, 2003

To properly commenorate Bastille Day, I quote the Duke of Wellington: "We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France." Thanks to NRO The Corner.

Friday, July 11, 2003

Some important links on the Iraq story. First, there is reason to doubt the reliability of the claim that Niger wasn't a potential source of uranium for Iraq. Secondly, the media has been ignoring this huge find of links between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. There will be more to come soon I suspect.

Notice on the first topic above that the Democrats are trying to make hay about a single sentence in the state of the Union speech which occurred many months after a bipartisan vote in Congress to authorize the President to act in Iraq.

Thursday, July 10, 2003

Glenn gives Hesiod a geography lesson.

Wednesday, July 09, 2003

Charles at LGF discusses Ted Rall's latest cry for involuntary commitment.

Tuesday, July 08, 2003

Below I commented on Rep. Pat Schroeder's silly column about the PATRIOT Act. Orin Kerr finds another column with misinformation on it.

UPDATE: Still more from Orin Kerr.

Monday, July 07, 2003

Eugene Volokh posts an excerpt of an explanation by Craig Holman of Public Citizen regarding the true purpose of the Democrats in California funding a counter-petition to Gov. Davis' recall.

Some are celebrating the firing of Michael Savage from his MSNBC TV show. He's not that popular at NRO and Glenn doesn't think much of him. I found him devoid of thought myself.

But wasn't the cancellation of Phil Donahue's show called a huge act of censorship by many Democrats? I expect the double standard will go unnoticed.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds kindly points this way and says "Indeed. It's not censorship in either case, of course, as Eugene Volokh points out." Which is quite correct, I was pointing out the double standard, not the merit of the claim. Thanks Glenn.

Sunday, July 06, 2003

Ex-Representative Pat Schroeder writes today in the Denver Post this incoherent and hysterical column about the ability of law enforcement to obtain search warrants of library records. I found it difficult to believe that this issue gets so much untempered rhetoric and so little coherent thought.

Rep. Schroeder's claim that the Patriot Act is an "endrun" around the First and Fourth Amendments is typical of the ludicrous rhetoric surrounding the Patriot Act. Most informative is that Rep. Schroeder doesn't bother to cite to any part of the Patriot Act for her bold claim that "The Patriot Act gives the FBI access to public-library circulation and Internet-use records and bookstore-purchase records on the mere hint they might be "relevant" to an investigation."

The lack of specificity is not unique. The Patriot Act has been condemned in the strongest words by many for things that it simply doesn't do. The reality is that Rep. Schroeder's rhetoric is simply misleading. There is no reason for public-library records, ISP records or bookstore-purchase records to be any different from any other part of our private lives. The concept of law enforcement searching for and seizing such things is no more and no less disturbing than any other search pursuant to a warrant. So long as law enforcement meets the provisions of the Fourth Amendment in these areas as in all others, something that the Patriot Act did not and under our Constitution cannot amend, there is no more of a threat from these areas than any others.

UPDATE: As I found on the Volokh Conspiracy, others notice these sorts of outrageous claims too. If you follow the link to the article discussed on this link, you'll find another silly claim about the PATRIOT Act yet. The author claims that the FBI can detain you indefinitely under the PATRIOT Act. What this person doesn't understand is that the detentions as enemy combatants are being conducted under US Supreme Court precedent dating back to the FDR administration during World War Two.

In the oppressive post-9/11 world of President Bush, all the suppression of dissent seems to be occuring on liberal campuses. No surprise there of course. Personally, I'm hoping the student in question sues Cal Poly for its violation of his first amendment right to free speech. From these facts, they would lose big time. Glenn Reynolds, commenting on this posting here, also supplies email addresses to the tyrants in question.

Thursday, July 03, 2003

Stuart Buck refers us to this interesting critique of the recent Supreme Court Lawrence decision.

Best line is "[T]he dissent is ultimately incorrect in its conclusion that the Court's decision means the end of morals legislation. Paradoxically enough, the decision confirms that morality is a viable basis for law. The Court's decision was all about morality, the justices' morality."

My own point of view remains that sodomy laws are stupid, and there may be a constitutional argument against them. ( I lean toward the equal protection opinion of O'Connor ) But the majority opinion in this case is a horrible opinion that will undermine Constitutional Law for generations. Thus our Constitution begins its end not with a bang, but a pathetic whimper.

Chris Muir's great strip "Day by Day" has some hilarious ones over the last couple of days, but don't miss this hilarious cartoon.

Pejman has been having fun repeatedly flogging the "Bush Lied" crowd for their logical fallacies.

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Over a Winds of Change, we find this absolutely fascinating roundup of information on the man that Secretary of State Colin Powell cited as Al Queda's link to Iraq.