Page Nine

Corrections: Shot-put and Obama

I reported that Olympic shot-put records for women are 15% inferior to men (60-foot vs. 70-foot throws), contradicting the politically corrupt myth that men and women are equal. Thanks to Rick D. of Arizona for noting that women get to use lighter shots than men too, making the deception worse. This helps hide the inequality of the sexes, perpetuates the lie of equality, makes men look less capable than they are (or makes women look more competent than they deserve), and is just one more bias the news perpetrates on the public without compunction, regret or ethics. How much lighter? A lot: Men throw 16 pounders, women toss a mere 8.8 pounds -- and still throw 15% shorter. Discus uses dual standards as well. High schools have a similar double standard. I didn’t say men are superior, the Olympics did. And it’s OK -- don’t deny the difference, celebrate it.

Although I was correct that B.H. Obama’s 64-page policy guidelines don’t mention “gun” in any form, he has sent letters (which have since been discontinued) to people asking for that information. Two readers sent copies. It ain’t pretty -- leans on all the things we need to do to stop filthy guns, while mouthing hollow support for 2A:

From Barack Obama:

Dear Friend, Thank you for contacting me about gun laws and the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected. We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background check system. We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights. I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last Congress allowed to expire, and effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the culture of violence that traps so many of our young people. Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.

Sincerely, Barack Obama
Paid for by Obama for America

Obama’s unbroken record of anti-rights votes on guns are documented here.

Correction: Parker Gun Case

I've just learned that some people complained about this line from "Parker Gun Case":

"Asked why the change was made, an insider with knowledge of the case suggests, "D.C. has switched to Heller probably because Parker is an African-American female and Heller is a less sympathetic figure as a white male. Our side will probably keep the name Parker when responding to the D.C. cert petition, and ultimately, it'll be up to the Supremes."

My info came from a reliable source but it shows my own lack of understanding. While the reason above has a certain appeal and describes an ugly and not uncommon politic, it had nothing to do with the case as I later learned and never got around to posting. Parker was found to not have proper standing, her fear of threats was held insufficient. Heller however had applied for and been denied a handgun permit, and was thus sufficiently aggrieved to bring the case. The name of the case then took D.C. first, since the practice is to name the petitioner first. This once again proves I'm human, despite the rumors to the contrary.

Corrections: Waterboarding (2)

After three grillings by Congress, including humiliation by Senators Kennedy and Durbin, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to label waterboarding as torture, meaning it may not be strictly illegal, and could possibly be used by U.S. operatives. The Uninvited Ombudsman had said the technique, which involves getting a suspect safely but scarily wet to extract information, was not torture, then recanted when a public uproar (seven correspondents) and further research found one official source (out of five) that did in fact list the process as torture. (See "Waterboarding Isn't Torture" and "Corrections: Waterboarding.") It seems unlikely the debate will end anytime soon.

In committee, Durbin (D-Ill.) asked, "What about the circumstances where the information would save lives, many lives, would that justify it?" Mukasey replied, "Those circumstances have not been set out," dodging a harder answer. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a BBC interview on 2/12, said, "it would be absurd to say you couldn't" include harsh methods if a bomb was about to go off and you held a person who knew the details. He mentioned "stick something under the fingernails" and face slapping, both of which meet the "inflict pain" aspect of torture that waterboarding does not.

Tags: waterboarding, Michael Mukasey, Antonin Scalia

Corrections: Waterboarding

Waterboarding is torture, according to the 2006 U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (See "Waterboarding Isn't Torture.")

It also bans hooding, hypothermia, forced or simulated sex acts, religious degradation and certain types of threats. The Geneva Convention says, "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

The Field Manual allows 19 "approaches" to questioning, including incentives, emotional appeals, Mutt-and-Jeff routines, various deceptions, rapid-fire questions, falsely accusing the captive of a crime to elicit denials, posing as agents of another government and more. Muslim jihadis are not known to have a similar policy in place.

What irks me, I guess, is the incessant news-media pounding that there is equivalence between what we have done and what Muslim jihadis do. Equivalence is a dangerous and bogus standard used to sway debate and promote a destructive agenda of the socialist left.

"We're completely corrupt and as bad as they are because waterboarding is torture." I don't buy this news-media and leftist-promoted reasoning, and you shouldn't either.

One source (of five I checked, including DOD and the Code of Military Justice) specifically forbids waterboarding, and the Geneva Convention basically allows nothing. So what's right?

It seems to me we must differentiate between: beating a person to death, dismemberment, crushing, electric shock, stabbing, poisoning, whipping, amputation and mutilation of civilians and soldiers -- from extracting information from non-uniformed murderers by using harsh techniques -- or else we're arguing for moral equivalence.

The media and the left want you to believe that Muslim prisons and torture chambers reeking with the smell of death, are the same as American interrogation rooms, clean from all the water they pour, and prisons where detainees are forced to wear panties. Hey, in American prisons, women's clothing is considered a benefit.

I'm not saying waterboarding isn't cruel and unusual. I'm not saying the practice should continue, I don't know. But I am saying we don't peel back fingernails to punish people or get at information. Our enemies do. That's a significant difference. Congress isn't debating the propriety of using a blowtorch on a suspect, because they don't have to, because we don't. Our enemies do.

How rough can you get in an interrogation when innocent lives are at stake? That's a tough question, one I have not addressed and can't really answer.

If you're angry at me (seven people unsubscribed citing my waterboarding entry as cause), because I raised the issue and questioned one group's logic, so be it. I have to say what seems obvious to me. If the debate's too harsh for you, go have a few glasses of water and chill.

Tags: interrogation, Geneva Convention, U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, waterboarding

Corrections: Small Arms, the Gun Lobby, and DNA

As expected, a number of Page Nine readers wrote to argue about the definition of "small arms" and the meaning of "arms" in the Second Amendment, a point that remains unresolved. (See "New Ray Gun.") There was agreement however that "arms" was not then and is not now limited to guns. This means we still have a good shot at getting ray guns when they become available after Army testing (stun guns are already available along with all sorts of hand implements "the people" might need).

The often rebuked "powerful gun lobby," frequently criticized in lamestream reports as the most powerful lobby on Earth, is ranked 32 on one list of lobbyists, and 22 on another, according to writer Howard Nemerov. Page Nine had referred to a list that had NRA ranked at #78, after the forest industry, Walt Disney, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. (See "Gun Lobby Power.") We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

The double-helix structure of DNA was found in 1953, not 1962, as reported in "Intelligence Levels Vary." I used the Associated Press date without checking myself. Sorry.

Tags: DNA, Second Amendment, ray guns, gun lobby

From the Comments: Department of Peace

Linda Henderson wrote in the comments to "Department of Peace":

Well, it seems clear why this column is named the "Uninvited" Ombudsman. The dismissive and arrogant nature of your report on the Dept of Peace legislation (HR 808), was heavy on the superficial fiscal critique, without analyzing in depth the reality of spending our tax payer money on the wrong end of the equation.

The World Health Organization identified that we spend $300,000,000,000 a year on interpersonal violence in this country alone.

What is so scary for you about having our government research the underlying causes of this violence and address them on the front end? Nonviolent conflict resolution is not a left or right issue...it is a less expensive means to a less expensive end. Rather than falsely conjuring up fears about more bureaucracy and people taking away your guns...perhaps you could bring yourself to consider the wisdom of this proactive initiative to address murder, rape, domestic assaults, gang violence, racial violence, school shootings, prison overcrowding, mental health crisis, homelessness...the list goes on.

As to your allegation that the Defense Dept would have to clear everything with the Dept of Peace before it could act...this is simply not supported by a reasonable reading of the legislation...which by the way...this supporter of the bill has in fact done many times.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my assessment of the Dept. of Peace proposal. On re-reading it I see it is a bit more snide than I would prefer. Thanks for making me aware of that. Further proof that, despite the rumors, I'm only human.

As to your other points,

1- In reviewing the merits of the proposal, I saw no need, as you suggested, to examine existing federal spending patterns (a huge subject worthy of scrutiny to be sure), so there is none. The gigantic spending proposal for DOP was a sufficient topic in and of itself.

The WHO "interpersonal violence" budget (spending?) figure you quote seems highly politicized and not germane, but I imagine it would make a fascinating study I'm sure. What does it comprise? Who spends the most? On what exactly? Protection and aggression costs combined?

From the comments

"Fun Bob" wrote in the comments to "Gun law update: CORRECTIONS":

I appreciate you going to the trouble to publish a comprehensive errata and own up to your errors. However, I would rather see you correct the text in the original post and make note of the corrects with your errata published later.

I want to link to your original post but I must also provide a link to your errata and any readers I send your way are going to have to flip back and forth--mentally filling in the correct text for themselves as they go. Too much trouble. So much so that I hesitate linking your excellent analysis.

Dear Fun Bob,

Thanks for the observation, and I agree.
You can get the corrected version, now posted on my website here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate.htm

Integrating the fixes was a lot of effort as you surmised. The corrections themselves received acclaim though -- thanks for admitting the errors, and some new info and insight was provided; I'll run some replies in the next Page Nine. Had I just corrected the original release, I don't think many would have bothered to read it again -- and tried to sort out the new tidbits from the familiar.

So hopefully this is the best of both worlds.

If you run the update or other reports, would you like a link in Page Nine?

Followup: Craig Cantoni and the Police (2)

Special Guest Correspondent Charlie Cutshaw responds to Craig Cantoni's remarks about idolizing police officers who kill themselves while breaking the law: click here.

Followup: Craig Cantoni and the Police

On Craig Cantoni's article about the police officer idolized for days as a hero, after killing himself while breaking traffic laws --

According to reliable talk leaking out of the fallen officer's Tempe Police Dept., motorcycle cops routinely avoided traffic by ignoring barricades at the construction site, and illegally used the closed highway ramp where the officer was recently killed. The officer was going full tilt when he hit construction equipment that had been recently moved there, sending him flying more than 150 feet to his self-inflicted death.

The equipment was gear for the controversial highly tax-subsidized light rail system being built, and may be the first reported light-rail death.

Lamestream reports have not followed up on this news, leaving intact the impression that he was a hero. One former policeman, upon reading about the incident, asked to be removed from Page Nine postings. Others commended the candid coverage on this media-fueled unspoken travesty that intrinsically says government agents' lives are worth more than yours.

Craig Seventh 007

Daniel Craig will be the 7th actor to play James Bond, not the 6th, and all their guns were fakes. (See "James Bond's Guns".) Thanks to Charles Heller of Liberty Watch radio.