Sometimes it's the little things....

...in the newspaper that catch your eye. Yesterday I was perusing the Register and came across one of the lead stories in, I believe, the Iowa Life section. It dealt with the recent death of Santana, a favorite sea lion at the Blank Park Zoo here in town.

What caught my eye was the following passages in which zoo CEO Terry Rich discusses Santana's death from complications related to surgery to treat a tumor:

“It’s obviously something we never expect, and with all the caring and time the keepers put in, we hoped her life would be longer,” said Blank Park Zoo CEO Terry Rich. “She had a good life here and she was well cared for.”

Dress said sea lions typically live about 25 years. Santana’s body will be shipped to Iowa State University for a necropsy and for research and learning purposes. A memorial is not likely, Rich said.

“We discussed that, but we really don’t want to devalue human death in the process,” Rich said. “Obviously our caretakers grieve and this is something that is part of the circle of life that we teach at the zoo.”

It was decided that a memorial service for Santana might devalue human life.

I really appreciate that sentiment. We all become very attached to our animal companions, myself as much as anyone else. But it's not wrong to remember that maybe human life is a little bit different, just a little more important.

A few notes on the SOTU

The speech began with kind words all around, from Ms. Speaker to the president and from the Prez right back at her. The comity would not last long.

Bush promised to propose a budget that would be balanced within five years and received his first standing ovation of the evening. “…without raising taxes,” he added, and received his first partial standing O – Republicans only. Then he included the need to restrain spending and Nancy Pelosi quit applauding.

Notwithstanding the need to restrain spending, he proposed incentives to increase the use of renewable fuels to 35 billion gpy by 2017 and Chuck Grassley was so excited I thought he would wet his pants.

When he asked for a prompt up-or-down vote on judicial nominees, the reaction was extremely mixed – as in sharply divided along party lines. But it was when he began discussing the GWOT that the divide between Dems and Repubs really came out. Any reference to supporting the troops brought out a standing O, and a remark about owing a debt of gratitude to those stopping the terrorists brought out perhaps the longest sustained applause of the speech, but any suggestion that we should win the war on the Iraqi front left the Dems cold.

He asked that the congress “turn toward victory” and the Dems didn’t stand. He said he was sending 4000 Marines to clean out al-Anbar Province, and the Dems didn’t even clap. And when he summed up, “Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching”, Pelosi and her people sat with hands folded.




Look, I know that much about the SOTU is pomp and performance for an audience, and I couldn’t help but be struck by the way people who usually appear to despise him laughed and joked with the president as he entered and left the hall. Also, Bush autographed a lot of programs for members of the opposition party. I found it amusing to watch the reaction of the congresscritters from both parties as the president made his points.

But I remain stunned with disbelief at the cavalier reaction nearly all Democrats and a disgusting number of Republicans have to our ongoing struggle with a committed, persistent enemy that wants us dead. All of us. Dead. Not just because we support Israel, or because we have need for their oil, but just because we exist.

Within minutes after the speech ended, Democrats like John Kerry were sending out press releases promising to continue the fight to defeat American efforts in Iraq. Senator Webb (D-VA), in the opposition response to the SOTU, denied his party wanted a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq but instead wanted to – I’m sorry, I can’t read my notes on the exact term he used, but it means “get the hell out”.

The people who sat on their hands when the president pleaded for the chance to let the troop surge work think the GWOT is “Bush’s War”. They think “stronger diplomacy” will work. With people who want us dead. Here’s a news flash. There ain’t no stronger diplomacy than when we’re shooting at their people, and they’re shooting at ours.

Even if we quit shooting them, they’re not going to stop killing us. The more we appear weak to them - and that’s how they will see “redeployment” - the stronger and more ruthless they will become. And, they want us dead. All of us – even those of us who don’t think we’re in a war.

Thank a non-theistic hypothetical androgynous superbeing for the Iowa ACLU

Mark it down. This may be the first and last time you find the ACLU praised on this site but they deserve no small measure of credit for the victory over big brother traffic enforcement. If you're so inclined let them know how much you appreciate their work (at least in this regard) here.

Here's something I ran across while unsuccessfully trying to find the briefs or the opinion in the case Jeff cited below (Seymour v. City of Davenport). It is a study conducted by the Center for Transportation Research and Educatation at Iowa State University supporting the use of big brother traffic enforcement. (One more reason to hate the Cyclones) It's long but interesting.

One of the most interesting things is the incident data starting on page 31. They recorded an average of about one violation per hour or 2-3 violations per thousand vehicles. That's a heckuva lot of violations. One left turn in Davenport recorded 636 violations in 65 hours of study. (Interestingly no right turn or straight violations. Don, as a denizen of Davenport what is special about the intersection of Locust St. & Dodge St.? Or did they just have a overly aggressive definition of violation?) If we assume these data are accurate, what does that say about red light enforcement, automated or otherwise? Less than 1500 hours of observation, spread across a baker's dozen of intersections produced thousands of violations. This translates into millions of violations across Iowa in a given year resulting in a mere 12 fatalities, and 5800 injuries. In addition, the study does not exclude from those accident rates cases where alcohol was also cited as a factor in the crash. I strongly suspect true red light fatalities are in the low single digits, maybe even zero if you also take out excessive speed for conditions and weather factors (like fog).

Another interesting point is the poll conducted by CTRE of Iowa "professionals." A Louisiana politician would be ashamed to run such a biased push poll. Look at the cover letter in the appendix on page 93. I'll quote it for you:

Motorist disregard of traffic signals--red light running--is becoming more common. In Iowa from 1996 to 1998 over 4800 collisions involve someone who ran a red light. Such collisions can result in serious injury or death.

As you may know, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Center for Transportation Research and Education are studying the scope of red-light running across the state, public and professional recognition of the problem, and the possible need to revise the Code of Iowa to permit the issuance of traffic citations based solely on photo evidience as signalized intersections.

Lo & behold, after this very unbiased presentation, the educators, cops, traffic engineers, drivers ed instructors, emergency responders, and DOT employees (Seriously that's who they surveyed, look it up.), reported that red light running was a very serious problem indeed and needed to be addressed through automated enforcement. Shocking!

Any way watch out because they just completed another study the results of which the world wide crack research staff of Tusk&Talon eagerly await.

Trade Deficit Schmade Deficit

Love this open letter to CNN blowhard anchor Lou Dobbs from Professor Boudreaux of the econ department at George Mason University. In the letter, the good professor explains why the U.S. trade deficit isn't a sign of a bad economy or tough times for the middle class. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Go check it out.

Davenport Red Light Cameras Ruled Illegal (aka, One Judge Don Won't Have to Vote to Remove)

Over in Don's neck of the woods, Judge Gary McKenrick ruled that those red light camera city revenue machines traffic safety devices are illegal under state law. The judge reasons that state law requires that cities give criminal citations for traffic violations. However, Davenport treats the fines issued under the system as a civil matter.

In the linked article, the police chief is quoted as saying that these systems are commonplace throughout the country and world, so he doesn't think that the issue is over.

Um...the judge ruled that its a violation of state law. With that as the basis of the decision. It doesn't matter if these types of systems are popular in other states or nations. If the system is a vilation of Iowa law, it is a violation of Iowa law. Now obviously, the state legislature could change the law (and I won't be surprised if they do). But saying these systems is popular in other jurisdictions doesn't cut the mustard.