Tuesday Open Thread

OK, I'm not really surprised. Good investigative work though.

rumproast lists an e-mail corespondence with the creator of Puma PAC, Darragh Murphy where Darragh is forced to conceed she has only previously given money to John McCain (2000), voted for McCain in the 2000 Massecusetts primary (where only republicans can vote in the primary). This was linked from:

pandagon where they actually pulled the FEC documents showing the PAC was formed days before Hillary withdrew from the race.

So....more republican bait & switch. No actual persons will admit to being members of PUMA, but they seem to be showing up all over internet blogs claiming themselves to be angry Hillary supporters who will now vote for John McCain.

Straight Talk Express my ass!

Good morning all. I am still sick with fever so I am glad I am not actually near any of you :) The internet is fortunately fairly sterile.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

You guys probably talked about this yesterday (I was home sick), but in case not:

A federal appeals panel found that the designation of a Chinese detainee held in U.S. custody as an “enemy combatant” was “not valid” (pdf) because the classified evidence offered by the government was not sufficient to sustain the charge.

In the first legal challenge to enemy combatant status, Huzaifa Parhat, an ethnic Uighur, admitted to being an enemy of the People’s Republic of China but denied any connection with al Qaida or the Taleban and specifically denied that he was an enemy of the United States.

Military prosecutors argued that he qualified as an enemy combatant because he was “affiliated” with military forces that were “associated” with al Qaida and the Taleban.

In a straightforward but nevertheless thrilling exercise of judicial authority, judges said that the classified evidentiary basis for that argument could not be independently validated and was therefore inadequate.

“We must be able to assess the reliability of that evidence ourselves,” the judges wrote.

Amusingly the court found that the GOvernment's case was literally based on Alice in Wonderland nonsense:

“The government suggests that several of the assertions in the intelligence documents are reliable because they are made in at least three different documents. We are not persuaded,” the court said.

Adding a literary flourish, the judges wrote that “the fact that the government has ’said it thrice’ does not make an allegation true. See LEWIS CARROLL, THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK 3 (1876) (’I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.’).”

Likewise, they wrote, “the government insists that the statements made in the [classified evidentiary] documents are reliable because the State and Defense Departments would not have put them in intelligence documents were that not the case. This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true, thus rendering superfluous both the role of the Tribunal and the role that Congress assigned to this court.”

In a court of law, the prosecution must prove its case and not simply assert it, the judges explained.

Source

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

From CNN : "Scientists set sights on invisibility cloaks." It's a lot less exciting than the headline suggests, but still interesting. And there's more futuristic technology to come: Besides the cloaking models, Milton is working on a different project, "something similar to a force shield in 'Star Trek,' " he said.

I can't get to the site but I assume they are talking about metamaterials. While the idea of invisibility materials has captured a lot of media attention I suspect they won't be much more than curiosities. The real developments with metamaterials will probably be much more esoteric. I wouldn't be surprised to see them start showing up in cutting edge optical computing and signals. Probably a bunch of applications I can't even imagine too :)

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

...if you lost one, it would be impossible to find.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein

who seems shocked that faith-based charity might involved actual religious organizations.

Some days I just hate the internets.

Look, this is really simple. Suppose I run a Catholic church. I have the legal right to discriminate in my hiring practices for religious positions (like priest) on the basis of faith. Now suppose that same church runs a non-religious charitable program. I no longer have the legal right to discriminate if the work isn't religious in nature.

Along comes the government, and they think my charity is sweet, so they want to kick in some $$. I'm cool with that. GG, not so much, because my church still "discriminates" in matters entirely unrelated to this charitable program by not hiring Buddhists as priests or whatever. OMG the horror!

Then we get the argument that there's some shell game going on such that I'd be discriminating with the federal funds anyway. From the usually logical Digby, quoted approvingly by GG: Money is fungible. Catholic charities using "government money" for child care but using "their own" money to discriminate in other areas is an accounting method not a meaningful distinction.

WTF does that even mean? So if they swap out the collection plate money for the federal check, then turn rapidly in a circle and ask you to pick a hand, does that mean they can suddenly discriminate within the charitable program? Nope! Does it mean they can take the money earmarked for the charitable program and spend it on churchy stuff? Of course not! Oh, wait, those tricky Catholics might mix the different accounts together and then reseparate them... somehow the federal money might get dirty, even though the AMOUNT that is spent on churchy and charity doesn't change.

Do GG and Digby seriously think that the feds just give the churches a wad of unmarked bills and say hey, go do good... but not churchy stuff!

Probably not. Probably GG and Digby just don't like the idea of federal funding for faith-based charity, period. Heaven forbid they just said that, instead of tripping over nonsensical arguments while puffing righteous indignation.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

(from the "of interest" area in the left column)

1) I found out recently that Theremin, the guy who invented the musical instrument of the same name, was also the first person to develop an electronic "bug" (as in an audio recording device for listening in on conversations illicitly).

2) An online acquaintance some years back said he knew someone working with the NSA on Bee migration. Third hand internet rumors for the win!

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Wow. One of the most interesting threads I've read on Redstate in a long time. The topic is that of 2nd amendment rights and being able to carry a concealed gun in an airport.

The thread is interesting not only because there is some actual debate on the matter but also due to who lines up on the various sides. For instance I'm not entirely surprised to see Achance taking a more nuanced view of the matter, but Joliphant? He/she is almost always hard right, reflexively so. It ends up being pretty fascinating to witness.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.