Blind Justice?

The big news in the US last week was the confirmation of Obama's pick to the US supreme court, a hispanic woman by the name of Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor is most well known for her saying:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Overlooking the blatant relativist fallacy of that statement, and the Democrats defence that it was a once off taken-out-of-context remark (which by the way...it wasn't), it smacks of an ideologue that puts their worldview before the Law which isn't necessarily a desirable aspect in a 'prospective' Supreme Court judge.

To demonstrate how this worldview translates to action, whilst being an Appellate Court judge on the 2nd Circuit (whatever that means), there came before them a case of Ricci vs Stefano, where the city of New Haven had set aside results of a legal and vetted promotions exam for firefighters because, get this, not enough African-Americans passed with high scores. Fearing a discrimination lawsuit, the city of New Haven decided to throw out the baby with the bathwater and denied promotion to a bunch of whiteys and a hispanic that had passed the test. From the Slate article:

"They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

In other words, Judge Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven but didn't say why. The high court recently sided with the plaintiffs (the firemen) and Sotomayors lack of, if you'll excuse the pun, judgment was especially noted by the Supreme Court.

So now you have the background, here's a column from the New York Times, Maureen Dowd, who is kind of like The Age's Catherine Deveny, except Maureen can write, is occasionally funny, and despite being a dyed in the wool Bush/Republican hater, she can sometimes see opposing arguments. However, this is not one of those times. Dripping with barely disguised hatred of 'dem old white males, speaking of the serving justices:

"After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. They’ve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that."

Any of the achievements and/or hardships these guys may or may not have overcome are not expanded on, just the age old trope of old school tie network and shadowy secret societies that put these guys on the bench, not merit.

And for the meat and potatoes:

"President Obama wants Sotomayor, naturally, to bring a fresh perspective to the court. It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men. And Sotomayor made it clear that she provides some spicy seasoning to a bench when she said in a speech: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on gender and my Latina heritage.”

And for those not familiar with of US Supreme Court history, there's no mention that the "disgraceful W.'s" dad (George H.W. Bush) nominated the second African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Freakin' racist Texans...

Looking past that, the idea that any job can be done better by someone due to their race or ethnicity is quite simply racist if it is 'minority' ethnicities discriminated against, and "diversity" if it is whitey that gets the sharp end of the stick. Artificially enforced sex or racial quotas seems to go against that idea that "all men are created equal" (and yes, that is "men" as in "mankind" which also includes wise latina women). Whilst not arguing that wrongs were not committed in the past, primarily by white males, I don't see how appointing someone on the basis of race rather than merit is a way of redressing those wrongs.

Cyber-rhetoric

On July 4th this year (American Independance Day), a cyber-attack was launched against a bunch of US websites including the Secret Service, Department of Defense, New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A lot of these websites went down for a couple of days, and by Tuesday 7th July, most of them were up and running. However the attack had shifted to a few South Korean websites including the Ministry for Defense and the presidential Blue House. Given the targets, both the South Korean and US authorities implicated North Korea as the big Bad behind the attacks.

A US politician Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan)

"the lead Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the U.S. should conduct a “show of force or strength” against North Korea for a supposed role in a round of attacks that hit numerous government and commercial websites this week."

At first glance, I thought the honorable Representative was, to put it mildly, speaking out of his a***, giving in to the well established political instinct to be seen to be reacting to things and speaking authoritatively on matters that they know nothing about. The actual attack came from 'infected' computers in over 74 countries (with Australia coming in as number 6 in the total numbers of infected "zombies"), and the relevant authorities have yet to conclusively prove where the attacks originated. Since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog the attack could just as easily have been initiated by an elite team of super hackers in some super secret bunker working for an 'evil' regime, or some fat kid somewhere, working from his bedroom at his parents house with too much time on his hands and a beef against the US government; not necessarily a small demographic by any stretch.

A North Korean super-hacker?

The ethics of initiating a cyber-attack, or in this case a cyber-counterattack, are still a bit hazy. Whilst the injuries and casualties may be less obvious than a convential armed attack, the effects of a cyber-attack could theoretically be just as damaging. One could be excused thinking that that the inability to view the latest episode of Sea Patrol on ninemsn.com.au could lead to death or injury, but what if the website being attacked was CFA bushfire information line or the Department of Health in the middle of a pandemic?

Most large governments are developing offensive cyber-capacities and for an elected politician to suggest a cyber-attack as "pay back" is perhaps reaching for the gun a bit to early. And given the internet penetration of domestic households in North Korea, one could argue, totally ineffective. However if we look at Rep. Peter Hoekstra's comment in the context of recent geopolitical events, I suspect that the comments are not aimed at the North Koreans but perhaps made to embarass Obama-wan-kenobi into action. On July 4th this year, the North Koreans decided to test fire 7 missiles. This followed a test launch of their long-range ICBM on April 5th this year. Given the collective world-wide yawn on that particular test, Kim Jong "Insane" Il clearly decided he could test a few more.

North Korea fires 7 missiles off coast

Obama's reaction to the April launch:

"We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council."

-- (ooooh scary scary. That'll put fear into the heart of a dude that runs a country with concentration camps)

Biden (US Vice President) reaction to the July 4th launch:

"Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior,"

So the Obama administration has a recent history of belittling the angry squeaks of the NORKS, which in all fairness is not too surprising given the Nork regime's inability to provide electricity to their whole country, or indeed feed all their people, however there is a clear trend of escalation. And for a country that allegedly has nukes and is only separated by 5km of bushland from their 'sworn enemy', it would behove the US to support their ally South Korea with perhaps a bit more teeth in their rhetoric and actions.

Instead, we get this:

"This administration -- and our military -- is fully prepared for any contingencies," Obama told CBS when asked about the possibility that North Korea could fire a missile toward Hawaii on or about July 4, the US Independence Day.

Asked if that meant Washington was "warning of a military response," Obama answered: "No. It's just we are prepared for any contingencies."

No no military response, just 'contigencies'. I predict that the emptiness of Obi's rhetoric will rebound on him, sometime in the next four years, and the world will be a poorer place for it.

Links:

"U.S., South Korea Targeted in Swarm Of Internet Attacks" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070800066.html

Good technical breakdown and analysis of the cyber-attack - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/mydoom/

Cry me a river

So one of the men charged with the highly vicious (and thanks to the Hungry Jacks CCTV) very public assault of a 19 year old in Chapel St on the weekend

"fears an angry public will retaliate against his family, a court has heard." (source)

Not wanting to interfere with his 'day in court', but if the charges hold true (and if you check the CCTV footage link above, you can be pretty sure the police got the right man), maybe, just maybe, the poor little lamb should have thought about his family before viciously bashing a guy unconscious, in front of half a dozen witnesses and a CCTV camera.

Further on:

"The family are very concerned about repercussions,'' Mr Gattuso said.

As they damn well should be. Here's a thought, if the accused's family had perhaps impressed on the 'young' lad (32yrs old) that bashing one guy along with five of your mates is perhaps not the best way to resolve your differences, he probably wouldn't be facing a jail term right now.

Best picture...

of the lowest altitude fly-by you will see today:

(picture source)

Al Gore vs the Nazis

A headline from the office of the totally balanced, impartial, and most scientifically-consensused Super Eco Warrior Al Gore:

"Al Gore invokes spirit of Churchill in battle against climate change"

Don't bother watching the video. It doesn't even have the line in question. Anyhoo, allegedly when speaking about the 'battle" for climate change, the Amazing Goracle said:

"“Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two. We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.” "

Winston Churchill was the wartime president of England, held out and defeated the Nazis (with a bit of help) that threatened the entire world. The official death toll of the war is around 59 million people , from 1939-1945. (source). This blog would be in japanese if not for Winston Churchill and his pals.

The exaggeration and profanity of Gore's statement is hard to understate.

A very small fraction of what the Nazis did	What Global Warming does

UPDATE (13/07/09): Fixed formatting on table.

Reverse chill

I don’t know if there is a better writer alive or dead that can come close to Mark Steyn. Writing about the insidious, velvet-booted tyranny that’s taking over Canada, and in some ways, the West. The ability to freely dissent from official dogma has been one of the greatest innovations of liberal democracies. Protesting and attacking the status quo where it is seen wanting has allowed western civilization to evolve. Without free speech and public dissent, you end up with with North Korea. Canadian “Human Rights Commissions” have had a particularly rocky couple of years thanks to Mssrs Steyn and Levant. Steyn, writing about a “human rights” sub-committee hearing in the House of Commons (Canada):

“Professor Martin very politely suggested that free societies do not “establish an official version of history and punish anyone who might deviate from the official version.”

And so it went, the Liberal members declining to engage with the very concept of principle. Indeed, their principal principle seems to be a principled objection to principle: They disagree with what you say but they will fight to the death for the right not to have to listen to it. That’s why we need government agencies to police all these opinions and determine which ones are sufficiently homogenous to be compatible with a diverse society.”

Read the whole thing.

And here’s Ezra on the chief of the Canadian Human Right’s Commision, Jennifer Lynch, and her definition of “debate”:

"When Lynch heard it would be me against whom she would have to debate, she tried to veto my appearance.

She tried to censor me -- and, much more ominously, CTV.

She tried to bully CTV into blackballing me from their show.

She tried to tell them how to run their news business.”

Free speech is more than just a nice side-effect of a liberal democracy, it is perhaps the central tenet from which all other aspects of a democracy are possible. Everyone should have a right to their opinion, no matter how obscene or offensive, and in the same way, be prepared to have said opinions ridiculed and taken apart. State enforced protection from "offense" is both unachievable and pointless. Take any single opinion about anything, and someone will be 'offended' by it. In Canada, they now have star chambers"Human Rights Commissions" that decide what opinions Canadians are allowed to hear. And if you think that these institutions (and the ideas motivating them) are confined to the North American continent, think again.

Super Tuna

Clearly nothing bad will come of this:

"A team from Japan’s Fisheries Research Agency, The University of Tokyo and Kyushu University is close to completing the genome sequence of the bluefin tuna to unravel the secrets of the chemical building blocks of the fish and expects to be able to start a breeding programme next year."

Artist impression of one of the new super tuna herding the other tuna to their inevitable demise.

Irrelevance in reporting

In an article about an Australian spy (?!?!?) that was jailed 10 years ago in the US for well, trying to sell documents to an "unknown" country, there's this little gem at the end:

"He is believed to have spent much of his time in jail learning Spanish and has been visited by Quakers."

??

Picture source