August 22, 2005
Fusileer reporting for duty
CPT Chuck Ziegenfuss, who was wounded in Iraq and is a moving force behind
Project Valour-IT got
a nice mention in the WaPo yesterday. You can also read
Chuck's account of the interview on his blog.
You can also read about how Chuck's desire for a voice-activted laptop started the project here and there's a lot more info at the PV-IT blog.
Have you contributed to Project Valour- IT yet? If not, click here or on the button on the left to make a donation. Every little bit helps!
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.
May 30, 2005
Memorial Day 2005
On Memorial Day, take the time to remember the soldiers in your life, and what they mean to you, as well as what their service has meant for all of us. Take the time to think about it, and you might be surprised at how many people in your life have served our country.
These are mine:
My maternal grandfather, who worked in a transportation company in WWII, deployed to Canada. He helped to build the Al-Can highway.
My paternal grandfather, a recent immigrant to this country who volunteered for the army and was sitting on a platform, waiting to ride the train to basic training on November 11, 1918.
My maternal grandmother, a Red Cross nurse at Camp Stockton. Incidentally where she met my grandfather, before he went to Canada.
Her sister, also a Red Cross Nurse, a WAVE, too if I recall, and her husband, a naval officer.
Uncle L who went from a Captain to a Private in France in WWII because he told a general that "Engineers are not lumberjacks" and that the general's men could "cut their own f*cking wood".
My mother's cousin, a Marine who volunteered for 4 tours in Vietnam, and is now the proud father of a Naval Academy graduate (and another NA student)
Uncle D who was a radio operator for 13 months in Vietnam and came home with a bronze star for bug watching which led him to see the enemy approaching...
Cousin D who flies B-2s and once saved the Air Force $1 billion.
His Brother B who just finished medical school and will be a USAF doctor
My sweet husband who fixed artillery in peacetime, and stood guard after 9/11.
My B-I-L who has spent less than 6 months living as husband and wife with my S-I-L; their 3 year marriage encompassing a tour in Korea, a brief return to Ft. Hood, and a year long deployment in Iraq. Now they'll be able to be together.
My friend's husband, who served in the Navy, and then switched to the Army and became a Blackhawk pilot.
Our good buddy H, who served with my hubby, as well as a year in Korea followed by another in Iraq. He's off to Germany next.....
And don't forget the milbloggers who bring us the real stories of what's going on in the "Sandbox" these days, and who do their duty unselfishly and with pride.
Thanks.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:37 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Thank you baby! I'll tell H. about what you said!
Love you and see you soon.
Posted by: Grand Moff Trojan at May 30, 2005 07:15 PM (MyDiA)
2
what a proud heritage you have! We all have MUCH to be thankful for and MANY to be thankful to! :-)
Posted by: Pam at June 04, 2005 12:07 AM (UMYVh)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 13, 2005
Bleeding (and Blogging) Dodger Blue
Seems blogging has found its way into the clubhouse and the front office... Guess who's got a blog now?
He Who Bleeds Dodger Blue. He blogs Dodger Blue too. Check it out!
If you click through to the MLBlogs page, there are links for the blogs of a number of other baseball notables, including Brooks Robinson.
(h/t Cap'n Ed)
Posted by: caltechgirl at
04:34 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
zzzzzzzzzzzzz .... wake me up when Tony LaRussa or Albert Pujols starts blogging. Tommy Lasorda is so two decades ago. What's next? A Steve Garvey blog?
Posted by: CitadelGrad at May 13, 2005 08:50 PM (HDsIw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 03, 2005
It doesn't matter where you die
A hero is still a hero. DeoDeuce of The Daily Spork lost a dear friend this week when he was killed in an accident during training prior to his upcoming depolyment to Iraq.
You can read about Pvt. Paul Varner here, and Deuce's tribute to him here.
My deepest condolences to his family, and all the families who've lost a soldier here and overseas.
Posted by: caltechgirl at
09:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.
April 15, 2005
Now that the cat is out of the bag
The Bear Flag League has filed an amicus brief in the
Apple case many of you have heard so much about.
Here's the press release (lifted from SoCalLawBlog):
Irvine, CA.
April 15, 2005.
Today, the Bear Flag League -- a coalition of 80 bloggers who are current and former California residents -- filed a friend of the court brief with the California Sixth District Court of Appeal in O'Grady v. Superior Court. The O'Grady case is an appellate proceeding arising from a lawsuit filed by Apple Computer in Santa Clara County in December 2004. Apple sued unnamed individuals who are accused of leaking information regarding Apple's new products to several news websites. Apple has initiated discovery procedures available under California law to identify the source of the leaked information, including serving a subpoena to the Internet service provider for one of the news websites. Apple hopes that the subpoena will reveal the identity of its employees or other parties involved in the leaks. The publishers of the news websites have asked the Santa Clara County Superior Court to block Apple's discovery in order to protect the publishers' confidential sources. When the Superior Court denied that request, the publishers filed a petition with the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The lawsuit involves the competing interests of the First Amendment guarantees of a free press on the one hand and Apple's rights to protect the unlawful dissemination of its trade secrets on the other.
The Bear Flag League is an unincorporated association of current and former residents of the State of California who operate and/or contribute to 80 blogs. The League was formed in July 2003 in order to collaborate and publish articles concerning California culture, current events, legal issues and politics for the reading public.
The brief filed by the League today urges the Sixth District Court of Appeal to afford these website publishers and all bloggers the same privileges and protection from discovery that traditional print and broadcast journalists enjoy under the United States and California Constitution. Because these website publishers targeted by Apple are engaged in the same news gathering and reporting activities as print journalists, broadcast reporters and Internet bloggers, they have the right to protect their confidential sources and thereby maintain a strong, independent and free press.
The League's brief was prepared by a number of the League's lawyer members, including, Justene Adamec of Pumilia & Adamec LLP and Jeffrey Lewis and Benjamin P. Pugh of Enterprise Counsel Group, ALC.
For more information on the case, go
here and
here.
The brief can be found here. (PDF format)
Posted by: caltechgirl at
03:57 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hi,
I would like to help and join the Bear Flag League.
Is membership open?
Posted by: Flap at April 15, 2005 11:55 PM (xHzi+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 07, 2005
This is why I will never be more than a Large Mammal
If you haven't been there yet, you really should drop by
Captain's Quarters and bear witness to Ed Morrisey's
own version of the South Park movie, starring in the real life role of Kyle's mom (but he's no b*tch!).
Update: looks like Kyle's Mom
wins in this one!
Ed is single-handedly taking on the nation of Canada and their idiotic law which allows them to keep the proceedings of public hearings out of the media. How ironic it is that Canadians can't report the goings on, but an American can.
more...
Posted by: caltechgirl at
01:27 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Normally, I'd be keeping my little Canuck fingers offa the keyboard on this, but I'd just like to point out a couple of things:
1) When the ban was imposed, Gomery made it clear that
it was a temporary measure. All the testmony given still remains part of the public record. No rights have been taken away.
2) You
are correct that the hearings are not
in camera; the Commission in fact has a small conference room (about 200 seats) available where interested citizens can go to view the testimony - including the testimony covered by the publication ban (this, of course, is only really useful if one lives in Montréal; and according to our MSM, the room has been at near-capacity since the start of the inquiry. Québecer's are quite passionate about their politics - and their scandals). Nothing in the ban prevents the viewers from relaying any information learned to others
by private means (including e-mail; I have a friend in Montréal who e-mailed me some of the choice bits from the first couple of days of Brault's testimony. I'd discussed them privately with a couple of my friends here on the West Coast, but I did
not publish that info on
my blog. I may not exactly agree with the ban, but I am
not stupid.), but we Canadians also know that any testimony given under the ban will be released to the media with a reasonable degree of dispatch (as has been the case with this), and our "right to know" has never been taken away from us (unless, of course, by "right to know" you mean "right to know, RIGHT NOW!!!").
I agree that the publication ban is a bit stupid in this modern age of the internet, but I truly wonder if your outrage is, shall we say, for real.
If such publication bans abridge the people's (in your words) "right to know what their government is doing and what the truth is in this matter", I'd really like to know your own opinion of your government's ban on the photos of the coffins returning from Iraq (which is still in force). The dead (honoured or otherwise) are a sad fact of war, so why should that fact be kept from the American public?
Or are such bans only considered good when they are covering the ass of the faction you support?
While I agree with the fundamental stupidity of the ban (in this case, at least), I know how our system of public inquiry works, and I know that it
does work (quite well, thank you, and it's done so since 1867). I also know it's an historic given that any Federal scandal involving Québec is going to a) be nasty; b) probably involve some sort of criminal wrong-doing; and, c) reflect badly on both sides in the mess (and this goes all the way back to the Pacific Scandal of 1873 - for which a Conservative government was responsible, I might add).
We Canadians have our system, and we are quite comfortable with it, thank you very much (despite what people in your country might think about it).
Ta.
Posted by: Doug McKay at April 08, 2005 08:05 PM (Cp5LT)
2
The dead deserve respect in death. I don't mind when our national news shows their pictures every night as they were in life. The current policy has been in place since WWII and was implemented not to cover the government's ass, since most people supported that war, but to spare the feelings of the families who had lost their loved ones.
All of the network news programs show the service photos and on occasion, family photos, of the recently dead. I'm not real thrilled with all of the media coverage of JPII's dead body on display either.
Does all the "banned" information really come out? Or does it get sanitized by holding it? Why is the Canadian government afraid of letting people know what's going on in a timely manner? It seems designed to cover the ruling party at the expense of the citizens. I don't doubt that the system works, per se, probably better than ours in some cases, but this kind of policy is ridiculous in a free society.
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 08, 2005 09:06 PM (iCaDI)
3
Hi there, Ctg! Sorry I'm late getting back to you on this (see last para).
Fair comment on the coffin issue. Well put (and I'll consider myself justly - and politely - slapped for the CYA comment). I wasn't aware the policy dated from WWII; I've only been aware of in in the context of Vietnam and television coverage.
As for the "banned" information coming out: I believe it does. Because it's a public inquiry, it's a pretty fair bet that both sides will have people in the audience taking notes, for eventual comparison with what comes out in the published reports. I can say this with a high degree of certainty, as I ended up doing that - even though I'm not the greatest at shorthand - during the Vancouver hearings of the Krever inquiry (that was our Red Cross/Health Canada tainted blood scandal). Given that the published testimony from these kinds of hearings can run into the thousands of pages, I will grant that some things can be missed (and probably are - there's only so much legalese and bureaucratese you can wade through before the circuit breakers in your brain start demanding anaesthesia). I can't really give you an exact percentage for all inquiries, but from my experience with the Krever commission, there was (I'd say) about a 95% accuracy/disclosure rate on that one (and that was a scandal that encompassed 4 governments - 2 Liberal, 2 Conservative). It is really tough to judge just how accurate these sorts of commissions are (think of how many questions the Warren commission left in it's wake).
As for your sanitising question; I suppose it can be regarded as an expanded version of the common governmental practice of releasing controversial press notices late on Friday afternoons, hoping that some of the controversy will slip through the cracks (but I'm not sure that's the right context to put it in, so that's the best thought I have on the subject). Besides, a scandal of this magnitude tends to make a mere rat's nest look like the winner of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, so trying to "sanitise" any information is pretty much a dead issue right off the bat.
Now we get to your
really tough question (
Why is the Canadian government afraid of letting people know what's going on in a timely manner?), and I'll answer as best as I can.
The core of the whole mess is the Québec sovereignty/separation issue, which has been running at a good simmer (with occasional outbreaks of high-rolling boil) for forty-plus years (the best, if inexact, analogy for you would be your Civil War. We're just fighting our version via Parliament, the courts, and public-relations firms rather than grabbing the weapons and having at it - although I've always been afraid it could come down to "seeing the whites of their eyes'). We still haven't solved it. I don't think we will ever
really solve it. I sometimes think the only reason Canada has remained whole is because of the sheer ineptitude that the players on both sides of the issue have displayed over the years.
Right now the government fear about AdScam is driven more by the realities of being a minority government, and I'll try and summarise as best I can.
Our parliament has 308 seats (we can ignore our Senate for now...but then again, most of we Canadians tend to ignore our Senate anyways, as the Senate tends to be mostly harmless). As a result of the June '04 election the Liberals (135 seats) and NDP (19 seats) - these two parties are reasonably natural, if uneasy, allies - hold half the seats in the House. The Conservatives (99 seats), the Bloc Québecois (54 seats) and one independent make up the other half.
Small (but pertinent) digression: Our Liberals are analagous to your Democrats (mostly); our Conservatives are analagous to your Republicans; the NDP is social-ist (originally rising out the philosophy of the Methodist Social Gospel, rather than Debsian-type social-ism) with Naderist leanings (60's Nader rather than the Nader of last year); the Bloc is mixed-bag (left, right, whatever), but their main mantra is "Québec first". The independent is a wild card. He was the incumbent candidate (for the Conservatives) in his riding (re-nominated unopposed), but the party brass disallowed his candidacy and replaced him with someone more "acceptable". He ran as an independent and still won the seat.
Back to the mess. This is all complicated by the fact that the Speaker (who cannot normally vote, except to maintain the status quo in the event of a tie vote on the floor of the House) is a sitting Liberal. This leaves the Liberals with 134 voting members. The government is on an incredibly thin footing. If the government falls (by a vote of non-conference), our Governor-General
could ask the Conservatives to form a minority government with the Bloc. That alliance is about as likely as a mongoose making friends with a cobra, as the Conservatives have a very large anti-Québec streak running through the party, so the likely outcome of a Liberal defeat.
Historically, the party who makes a successful non-confidence motion so soon (ie. within two years) after the previous election has been slaughtered in the election they triggered. The Conservatives could trigger the vote mostly because they hate the Liberals (but they might bank on gaining enough votes from disaffected Liberals - in Ontario, mostly - to make the exercise worth it). The NDP could trigger the vote on principle. Up to the partial lift of the publication ban, the Bloc could have triggered a non-confidence vote without doing themselves any damage. Now that they are implicated in AdScam they may have second thoughts about bringing down the govenment.
I have no idea how this is going to play out (the minority government situation is the one time I start thinking that your two party system is better, but I console myself with the fact that our minority parliaments are nowhere near as bad as Italy's or France's), but I do know it's going to get a lot uglier before it gets better.
Sorry for this being so long (I tried avoiding writing a poli-sci textbook), but I hope this all makes sense and answers your questions (I've been fighting a nasty sinus infection, and the antibiotics - and pain - don't necessarily contribute to coherence).
Posted by: Doug McKay at April 11, 2005 03:09 PM (Cp5LT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
38kb generated in CPU 0.0179, elapsed 0.0647 seconds.
73 queries taking 0.0533 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
