12-year old kills man attacking his mother, now worrying about jail

It would be a travesty to charge this boy with any crime. Defending your mother against a man clearly intent on murder should call for praise, not fear of charges.

...he heard his mother cry out. Rushing to her aid, he found her on the kitchen floor, straddled by a fellow resident of their Prince George's County boarding house, the man's hands wrapped tightly around her neck, the boy said yesterday." I kept saying, 'Stop! Stop! Stop!' " the boy said, describing the events of Monday night. "But he just ignored me. He didn't stop. He just kept hurting her."
The boy said he grabbed a knife and swung, slashing 64-year-old Salomon Noubissie across the neck and opening an artery. Noubissie [the attacker] was fatally wounded

I'm reminded (tangentially) of an incident during a rugby game (bear with me.) My teammate Ike who stood 7'+, weighed over 300 lbs. kept getting punched in the ribs when he jumped for passed balls. Finally he had had enough and laid the offender out with an elbow to the face. The cheap-shotting punk sniveled to the referee who replied "Play on; you had it coming."

The lesson here: if you do wrong don't cry about just retribution. In the absence of new information, this child shouldn't have to worry about going to jail; he should get one of those medals the police give to citizen heroes.

Ruggers straighten out airliner drunk

An irritating airline passenger gets a 'tuned-up,' courtesy of a South African rugby team. Sadly enough, while I was playing rugby BITD I recall being the disruptive guy. . .

For Your Own Good

America shares a certain legal sensibility with paragons of liberty Mongolia, Indonesia, and Palau. Palau shouldn't even count, as it only became fully independent from US trusteeship in 1994. That legal sensibility is of course, the minimum age which a citizen is allowed to use alcohol.
I suppose by now most people think that the arguments for a drinking age of 18 are a bit stale. At 18 (or before,) Americans can sign contracts, enter into marriage, exit marriage via divorce, adopt children, pursue political office (exclusive of presidency,) enlist in the armed forces, be drafted into the armed forces, become a policeman, fireman, or physician. At 17, an American can join the armed forces and in the course of events be forced into mortal peril with the sure knowledge that survival might be impossible, if the mission is important enough. Americans can do many things at age 18. It seems shameful that drinking alcohol is prohibited.
I understand the arguments used by the prohibitionists at MADD. Eighteen year-olds don't make good choices. Their bodies are still developing. Drunk people are more likely to cause automobile accidents if driving. But still. Eighteen seems an arbitrary number. Why not thirty-five? Why not forty-five? As long as we are using arbitrary figures, might as well shoot for the moon. After all, by age forty-five development has stopped, judgement has improved, and the accrued life experiences of the middle-aged should lead to better decisions all around. Don't worry, I smiled when I wrote that last passage. But using arbitrary cutoff ages to restrict behavior can be tricky. Where exactly should the cutoff be, anyway? And since its Mothers Against Drunk DRIVING perhaps what should instead be restricted is DRIVING age. Why doesn't MADD advocate increasing the driving age to 21, or 35, or 45? After all, their stated mission is to prevent death from automobile accidents after one or more drivers have used too much alcohol. If they feel (and they do) that underage drinking is a major cause of drunk driving deaths then not allowing any driving by persons unable to legally drink by virtue of low age would seem the most effective route.

Sadly enough, when enough MADD literature and press releases are examined we find that MADD is actually nothing more than a modern-day prohibitionist lobbying firm. Through various initiatives like the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, they are attempting to eliminate alcohol use in almost all social settings. The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (AIID) is a system which when installed into an automobile will disable that vehicle if an "unauthorized" alcohol level is detected in the driver. Setting aside concerns about exactly whose alcohol-laden breath might actually be measured (after all an automobile IS essentially a closed container itself,) the likelihood that the sensor will measure blood alcohol levels accurately (there is a reason police breathalyzers aren't installed into a wall, with suspected offenders asked to breath in the 'general direction' of the sensor,) and the likelihood that other atmospheric contaminants might adversely affect the AIIDs accuracy (i.e. perfume, diabetic's ketotic breath, cleaning solutions, etc.) What is also concerning is this; at what level does the AIID shut off the ignition? At .08% BAC, the limit it many states? But cars are sold in all states, and are expected to be used by anyone who has a license. Many states are now considering lower BAC limits in general, and specifically for those previously convicted of a DUI/OWI. Lets not forget that minors (under 21 in this case) might also purchase and drive automobiles. For them no amount of alcohol is legal. Most states define a BAC of .01 or higher evidence of alcohol use. So, automobiles would be unable to be started, or will quit running if the dashboard breathalyzer detects a BAC of .01 or higher. Everyone will effectively be prohibited from using an automobile with any measurable amount of alcohol in their (or possibly a passenger's) system. Forget about going to dinner and having even one drink, or if the sensors get finicky, forget the perfume too.
But, you say, couldn't there be a switch installed in the AIID which set the interlock at a different limit based on who was driving? I suppose so. It couldn't be a manual switch because the underage would just set it for the higher limit. The mindset which demands AIIDs in the first place wouldn't allow such a measure, anyway. Then how to set variable limits? Perhaps one's drivers license would work like an ATM card; insert/swipe it in the dashboard to activate the car. Again, easily bypassed by using another person's ID, or using a fake ID. I don't see any solution which would appeal to a MADDite other than the universal .01% BAC cut-off. Hey, that's alright; I wasn't using my civil rights anyway. What you should perceive by now seems to be the real goal of the MADD crowd, a new prohibition. Restrictive legal limitations upon private activity "for your own good." Most of us know by now that "for your own good" rarely is anything of the sort. Generally those words are a reliable indicator that what follows next is oppression of some sort.
Thinking of the most egregious forms of oppression extant in America today I note a common theme: "for your own good." Campus speech codes, censorship of media (remember Tipper Gore?), and the calls for dissenting climate scientists to be subject to Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for calling into question global warming hypothesis' (George Monbiot in his book Heat.) Oddly enough, these are all proposals put forth by our freedom-loving friends on the left side of the political divide. Even the most right-wing of the right-wing-types hasn't called for all beds sold to be equipped with sensors to detect gay sex and/or underage and/or unmarried sex. It would take a leftie to come up with a proposal so intrusive and which bypassed civil rights so egregiously. But of course, it would be for my own good so I'd better not complain. If I do, maybe they'll have me stand before a Nuremberg tribunal, too. For my own good.
Returning to the topic at hand, though. Minimum drinking age laws in America are a disgrace, and should be changed to reflect the reality of our society. At age eighteen we are considered adults, and should be considered so before the law. Not just the laws which MADD condescends to permit. Telling me that a twenty-one year-old drinking age saves lives is like telling me that a thirty-five year driving age saves lives. Interesting, but hardly persuasive in a free society.

Irony, defined

After a real-world road test in Europe driving ". . . just over 200 miles of autoroute, about 200 miles of B roads, including winding ascents and descents in Switzerland, and 100 miles of urban driving," a head-to-head competetion between a BMW 520d and Prius ended thusly:

BMer guy: ". . . I had averaged more than 50mpg."

Prius guy: "For all my defensive driving, slippery bodywork and hybrid
technology, my average fuel consumption was 48.1mpg. I’d lost to a Beemer and I
was disappointed; I had never driven so slowly or carefully for so long in my
life."

The Prius is a wonderful car, depending upon what you need and what you plan to do with it. Sadly enough, just like in real life, good at one thing doesn't necessarily equate to good at another.

Brits at their Best

Brits at their Best

Now, for something completely different.

The Canadian Space Agency’s radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density
Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.

Wouldn't this be a bit of non-delicious irony? Perhaps I'd better install a wood-burning stove and buy an SUV before its too late.

iPod Update

Now that I've had an iPod for several months, let me give an update to those few of you who don't already own one. You know who you are. Its a nice gadget, I'll admit. I'm not sure if its worth the 250 clams that I laid out, but since my daughter hasn't had to go hungry I guess I could afford it. Other than a replacement related to a sledding tragedy I've had no complaints thus far. I'm still waiting for it to change my life, as a doctor I worked with insisted that it would. I drive an hour to work each way, so I listen to a podcast on the way to work and music coming home. I use it in the gym, and I keep some photos to share with others. Truth be known I'd be just as well off with another MP3 player with a capacity of 4GB or so. I'll update again when I have the life-changing epiphany.

Columbia University and Ahmadinejab

I may need to apologize to Columbia University. When given a chance to get up in front of an audience of American college kids, the president of Iran managed to make himself look like a complete tool. I don't know if that was Columbia's President Lee Bollinger's aim, but it was certainly the result. Judging from his introduction I think that he had an idea what Ahmadinejad's speech would sound like. "We have no homosexuals" and "What Holocaust?" He might be somewhat deluded and hyper religious, but Ahmadinejad isn't stupid. My best guess is that he just doesn't realize the demographics would include a sizable number of both Jews and homosexuals, at least compared with a representative sample of the rest of America. Then again, maybe he did and was just playing to the home audience knowing that in America, not even Bush-hating lefties would warm up to him. (for an exception read here)
In Iran there probably aren't as many open homosexuals as there are in NYC, not least due to the unfortunate risk of stone-based kinetic energy poisoning so common in Tehran. As for hoping that New Yorkers will buy the story that there was no Holocaust, tell them that Babe Ruth never lived and 9-11 never happened.
I'll say this about Ahmadinejad; he does have balls. While I'd like to think that someday an American-built smart bomb will blow them off, its more likely that he will die in bed. Just not in another guy's bed because they don't have that in Iran.

Photographic Evidence of American Troops Abusing Children

Those children look terrified. Just another jack-booted Bush-loving thug out to oppress the indigenous victims of Big Oil. Those kids are in fear for their lives...

Seriously, from my experience I'm guessing that the kids are looking for some candy or Beanie Babies.

(photo courtesy of http://www.mnf-iraq.com/)

Taxing the Hand That Feeds Us - New York Times

Taxing the Hand That Feeds Us - New York Times
While Democrats might not be saying much about tax increases (yet,) they aren't saying much about new restrictions on gun ownership (yet) either. Both are key components of the Democrat parties guiding philosophy. Increased governmental spending programs, regulation, and oversight should be the primary method to enact social agenda; and that requires more government tax receipts which in turn require more tax collection. Increased tax collection requires more taxes which require tax increases. Tiresome to write and more tiresome to live through.
This article however is about the apparent lack of interest by the Republican presidential candidates in talking about tax cuts per se. I'm glad for that, though. It gives me hope that somebody may be more interested in spending less money instead.

Belgium to split in two, world yawns and goes back to sleep

Color me unexcited