About
Captain Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather. He lives with his wife Marcia, also known as the First Mate, their two dogs, and frequently watch their granddaughter Kayla, whom Captain Ed calls The Little Admiral.
Read More
The Crows Nest
Would Early Primaries Allow More Donations?
Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot believes that candidates will benefit if primaries and caucuses get pushed into 2007. A loophole in campaign finance regulation appears to allow an extra $2,300 per donor for candidates if those elections are held this year. Be sure to check out Jim's analysis, and the surprising candidate that may benefit the most.
When Tom Met Jeralyn
One of the interesting aspects of politics is finding out that opponents are people, too. Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft met Rep. Tom Tancredo backstage at NBC's studios, and found him more likable than she had anticipated. Perhaps it was their mutual interest in Dog, The Bounty Hunter ...
Joe Lieberman A Right-Wing Nut?
That's what CAIR says, according to Joe Kaufman. He has a link to a CAIR official's blog post that calls Lieberman, along with John Bolton, former CIA director James Woolsey, and the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes as "extremists". Affad Shaikh also calls Dick Cheney a "fat bastard of a liar," apparently not meant as a pop-culture reference to the Austin Powers movies. (via Let Freedom Ring)
Broadband Homelessness
The Japanese have made homelessness more efficient, and more Net-friendly, too. Their Internet cafés have become homeless shelters for the struggling manual-labor sector. The problem has grown into such a problem that government intervention will shortly become a political priority.
Found My Law Firm
Power Line links twice to this story regarding an attorney at Faegre & Benson who refused to become a victim and helped capture a very dangerous man. Keith Radtke is a partner in the firm as is Power Line's John Hinderaker. Radtke is listed in satisfactory condition after getting shot in the back, but that didn't keep him from locking up his attacker in a wrestling grip until police could arrive. I don't know about you, but that's the kind of man I'd want as my counsel ....
Don't Click That YouTube E-mail
The latest in spam seems to be redirections from YouTube links in e-mail to IP addresses without domain names. They attempt to entice people by making it seem that they have been inadvertently YouTubed. I'm sure most people can see through this scam, but just in case, you've been warned ....
Rick Moran Escapes The Floods
Rick Moran has kept us up to date on his travails along the Algonquin River. Yesterday, the police showed up to get him evacuated before the river flooded his home -- but today, Rick finds that a minor miracle has taken place, and that his house survives ... at least for now. Keep Rick in your prayers, and keep checking in at Right Wing Nut House for updates.
Rule 1: Drag The Corpse On Over First
If I've learned anything in four years of blogging, don't try to be out in front of the death rumors, especially with the villains of the world. Saddam died a hundred deaths before we caught him alive in his spider hole, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi almost as many before his demise last year. Osama may or may not be alive, but everyone's avoided speculating on his fate for a while now. Maybe Val at Babalu Blog will get luckier with his "Castro Is Dead" story. We all hope so. I'll wait for the announcement ....
Hobbs Choice
Volunteer Voters is holding its annual "Best of Nashville" on-line polls, and one of the categories is for the best political writer. Our friend Bill Hobbs, now posting at Newsbusters, and he'd like his on-line fans to cast their votes. Drop by and put one in for Bill if you get a chance!
Murtha Getting Backlogged On Apologies
Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring sees another case collapsing on the Haditha charges. He's called for Murtha to apologize earlier, and adds another reason to the tally.
No Such Thing As 'Moderate' Islam?
Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a television interviewer that he finds the label "moderate Islam" offensive. Shrink Wrapped has a lot more on this, but at least in the same interview Erdogan acknowledged that "radical Islam" exists, and that it's been a catastrophe. Be sure to read the whole post.
MS-NBC Gets Punk'd
Power Line has a great post on a lack of journalistic effort on the part of MS-NBC. In covering the Michael Vick story, they reported on what they thought was Al Sharpton's website proclaiming Vick's innocence. I guess Alex Johnson and two other MS-NBC reporters couldn't bother to read the title bar of the site, which proudly proclaims it as a "parody site".
New Instapundit Podcast On Pharmaceuticals
I just caught this e-mail from Glenn Reynolds about his new podcast with Richard Epstein, the author of Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the topic is important enough to make sure I carve out time for it tomorrow. Get their first and tell me what I'm missing ....
Fed Trying A 'Stealth Easing'?
The Federal Reserve seems to have conducted a quiet campaign to steady markets that started spinning out of control, according to King Banaian at SCSU Scholars. He thinks that the Fed has conducted a "stealth easing". Be sure to read his explanation and follow his lnks.
A Shameless Bit Of Sel-Promotion
Gateway Pundit and Val at Babalu Blog note a crass PR move by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has responded to Peru's eathquake disaster with food shipments -- and with Hugo's smiling picture on the cans. He also uses the tuna-can label to undermine President Garcia of Peru, who narrowly defeated Chavez' pal Ollanto Humalla, whom the labels extol for his "solidarity" with Chavez.
Tacky beyond belief.
Comments (22)
Posted by vet66 | July 30, 2007 9:19 AM
The pendulum appears to be swinging in the correct (right?) direction. I believe the public is getting tired of having no rights until they become a victim. Of course the perps have all the rights because they are, (DRUM ROLL, please) perps who are entitled.
Let's hope that these CCTV's actually have a memory chip in them that lasts 30 days!
Posted by RBMN | July 30, 2007 9:41 AM
I think people are sick of bad guys getting away with crimes because the jury didn't have enough evidence to look at, or because witnesses lied, or because there wasn't even enough evidence to go to trial in the first place. Cameras can solve that problem--be the honest witness.
Posted by SonnyJim | July 30, 2007 10:44 AM
I don't understand how the "civil libertarians" always manage to miss the point. I wouldn't allow the government to have CCTV pointed into my back yard or my house, but I also don't expect that I have some sort of privacy in a public place. If the government wants to put CCTV's in places that are public, then it should be up to a vote of the public and nothing else.
I mean, I'm totally for a right to privacy, as long as we keep that privacy private; if you know what I mean.
Posted by essucht | July 30, 2007 11:38 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that libertarianism has never been a popular ideology in modern America.
You can get a fair number of people to *claim* to be libertarians, but if it is more then a moniker it is usually only a isolated issue, not the whole ideology.
The classic example of this being the dope smoking college student that wants to end the War on Drugs but also wants draconian environmental laws more restrictions on gun ownership, higher taxes, etc.
I do not particularly think this is a good thing I'll note.
To the issue at hand - the best way to minimize the effects at home of the War on Terror was always to fight it aggressively abroad but while that seemed politically possible four years ago it certainly isn't now.
Posted by Karl | July 30, 2007 11:56 AM
So-called 'privacy' groups should spend more time educating people about freely giving away their personal information by telephone or on the internet.
Why is there such a problem with cameras monitoring public places when everyone wants to post what they had for breakfast on a blog with a link to a youtube video of it?
Posted by doug in colorado | July 30, 2007 11:56 AM
This is all well and good right now...but think about a serious amoral socialist in the whitehouse...I'm no more paranoid than the next guy, but a President that was willing to pull the FBI files on his enemies and send IRS auditors around to opponents and their friends and families... could direct that his opponents be tracked by camera whenever they're in the field of view, and with face recognition software and continually improving resolution, this system could be put to some very evil uses that would ensure an incumbent's opponents would always be targets for observation. In the right hands, you think it's great, but think about what it could do in the WRONG hands...like Hillary's? Combine that with a smart highway system that is already in development that would be able to identify and track any vehicle anywhere along the major road network and you have pretty complete surveillance capability.
Posted by doug in colorado | July 30, 2007 12:01 PM
The point is it's none of anybody's bloody business who goes where and who meets with whom on the street unless there's Probable Cause established. Freedom of association and assembly could be seriously chilled.
Posted by Continuum | July 30, 2007 12:04 PM
Cameras?
"Give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Patrick Henry must be vomiting in his grave.
We have become a nation of scared sheep.
Posted by FedUp | July 30, 2007 12:26 PM
I'm all for privacy, but I'm also infavor of a strong national security as well. By all means put cameras on the street - if it cuts down on crime that's gotta be a bonus!!!
Let's put the ACLU out of business... they've gone over to the dark side and now only the bad guys have representation.
And let me go on record as being a proponent of profiling. I want my family, home and country secure! As a frequent flier I'm ok with taking off my shoes and walking through the screening area. I show my ID and submit to random personal screening. In a plane, I'd rather be safe than sorry!
Our country is being over-run with people who do not feel that they need to become American to live here - that we should accomodate their language, customs and laws . Time to put a cork in that bottle!!!
Posted by Quenton | July 30, 2007 12:51 PM
Bah! I can not comprehend why people clamor for CCTV cameras. They don't "protect" anyone. Witness London. Those cameras didn't stop any of the terror attacks there. They simply sat there and passively recorded. Suicide bombers don't care if you watch them. Hell, they seem to love recording their acts and then publishing them to Youtube!
And these cameras can't be used to actively scan for possible threats either. Sure, you can concentrate manual surveiliance on a few key facilities but all of them? With a network of thousands of cameras it impossible to have a human watching every screen. And even if you could, that is a LOT of extra hardware. No, these cameras are there to "record evidence for future prosecutions". You know, prosecuting whats left of the suicide terrorists.
One final question. If Osama bin Laden were caught tommorow and every radical Muslim in the world laid down their arms and renounced terrorism (and meant it) would the camera's be taken down or would they stay up? I don't mean do you wan't the cameras to go or stay, I mean do you think the government will voluntarily take them down afterwards.
Posted by docjim505 | July 30, 2007 1:16 PM
What's next? Telescreens?
Here comes a candle to light you to bed.
Here comes a chopper to chop off your head.
Posted by lexhamfox | July 30, 2007 1:20 PM
Many of the benefits of the UK system are after the fact. This type of surveillance is not terribly helpful in preventing terror acts but it certainly is useful once something has happened.
I would think US Constitution would have to be changed in order to deploy this type of surveillance ...popular or not.
Posted by K | July 30, 2007 1:25 PM
30 years emphasis on equality over freedom have now borne fruit. I hope the ignorant folk who agreed with the big brother concept never have to find out why you don't give the government the power to watch you all the time.
The control freaks are licking their lips.
Posted by Jazz | July 30, 2007 1:45 PM
This is another of those areas where my friends who veer off further to the left leave me scratching my head. I saw no less than two immediate blog reactions that included the word "fascist" commenting on this story. I'm sorry, but that shows a lack of critical thinking in my opinion.
I do not in any way want the government putting cameras or mics into my home, pointing into my fenced yard, my garage, etc. without a full judicial process, probably cause and a warrant. But I know from my moviemaking experience that, even in the most casual or "light" circumstances, citizens simply don't have any substantive expectation of privacy when you wander out into public places. It's also well established that having a camera recording actvities in any place where a police officer might, through their normal course of duties, witness the same activity, makes the recording the same as if you did it in front of a cop.
I see nothing in conflict between even the more strenuous liberal or libertarian positions and the use of cameras in the public square, as long as such policies don't wash over on to private property.
Posted by Continuum | July 30, 2007 1:54 PM
" . . . . By all means put cameras on the street - if it cuts down on crime that's gotta be a bonus!!! . . . . "
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of easily we give up our liberties for a false sense of security.
Posted by FedUp | July 30, 2007 2:03 PM
If I'm out in public, then it seems to me that I am fair game - for cameras or criminals or hit-n-run. As long as they stay out of my house, put up the cameras. And for anyone who thinks big brother doesn't have his finger on your pulse - just mess with the IRS!
Posted by Jazz | July 30, 2007 2:45 PM
Just curious, Continuum, which "liberties" you're referring to? Did you mean this?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Secure in your home and person, your possesion, etc. yes. Free from anyone *looking at you* when you're out in the public square? I don't think the biggest government in the world could accomadate you there.
And when anyone's wife - daughter - sister - girlfriend gets nabbed off the street and the cops have film of the car and use the license number to track them down and save her, I wonder how many of these "concerned citizens" are going to say, "No... no. You can't use the video to prosecute him."
Posted by Quenton | July 30, 2007 3:34 PM
Sorry Jazz, but your defense of cameras fails. Remeber that it took the Brits nearly a week to identify those responsible for the 7/11 bombings from the CCTV footage. This was a matter of high national importance and yet it still took that long to identify these people. How much effort will the local PD put into investigating the footage for random street crime?
The police don't even show up when I call 911 anymore to report multiple gunshots in my neighborhood. In the rare instance the police do show up they simply shrug off anything you say and say "nothing we can do about it". To think that these people will actually protect you in any way is hilarious. They want to put up these silly cameras to make you think they are "doing something" when in fact they are completely helpless.
So what if the cameras don't work? By the time everyone realizes they were a sham the government will be pushing the next "sure-fire way" to catch the bad guys. Just like how the FBI and CIA were supposed to protect us from terrorists. They failed us on 9/11 and their reward? Tons of cash, new toys, and new powers. I wish I got paid so well for screwing up.
Posted by Jazz | July 30, 2007 4:08 PM
"Remeber that it took the Brits nearly a week to identify those responsible for the 7/11 bombings from the CCTV footage."
Gee... wonder how long it would have taken without them? Until the next bombs went off? Defense fails? I'd say you just proved it.
Posted by Frank | July 30, 2007 7:46 PM
Guess no one in America reads stories like these from London: " Road with 100 cameras is plagued by crime"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ncctv111.xml
Posted by Poker Player | July 30, 2007 8:42 PM
Everyone loves cameras until they get the ticket in the mail...
If the government wants to put them up for security, let them, by law, limit them to such acts.
Posted by runawayyyy | July 31, 2007 1:31 PM
The argument that we're losing freedoms as a result of cameras in public places is silly and shows how childish this argument can get. There have been cameras in public places for as long as there have been cameras. Hell, my cell phone has one.
But we're not talking about all cameras here, we're talking about government cameras. I have no problem with anyone taking pictures of anything in the public square, but since we know they have little deterrent effect on criminals why would the government need them, other than to watch the people (as opposed to watching OVER the people)?
Mind you, I really hate being on the same side of this argument as continuum (silly as her argument was), but this is merely an incremental step. How many government programs ever get smaller?