U.S. Navy gives China the middle finger

Recently the Chinese government refused to allow a U.S. warship to dock in Hong Kong. The USS Kitty Hawk has in past years docked in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving, giving it's crew a chance to meet with family who fly in for the occasion. Rather than argue over the matter the carrier battle group returned to Japan, taking a somewhat controversial route.

After the Chinese government initially refused to allow a U.S. warship to dock in Hong Kong last week, sources say the Navy ordered the vessels to return to port in Japan, and to specifically travel along the contentious Taiwan Strait on its way back to Yokosuka.

The United States has cautiously avoided traveling through the Taiwan Strait since 1996, when Taiwan's first presidential vote created turmoil. However, sources say that following China's rejection on November 21, six aircraft carriers, including the USS Kitty Hawk, moved in the South China Sea, crossing the Taiwan Strait. (source)

As far as I can tell that article is in error on it being six carriers. Only the one carrier battle group was involved. Another article has more on the matter.

"USS Kitty Hawk carrier strike group has transited the Taiwan Strait," Navy spokesman Shane Tuck said. "This was a normal navigational transit of international waters, and the route selection was based on operational necessity, including adverse weather."

While some are downplaying the chosen route, it is a contentious area and has been for some time.

China has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since their split in 1949 when Mao Zedong's Communists drove Chiang Kai-shek's defeated Nationalists to the island.

Tensions between the two countries have played out in the strait several times since then, most recently when China conducted military exercises there in 1995 and 1996, prompting the United States to send warships there.

Diplomats are doing their diplomacy thing, though the Chinese seemed to have missed that bulletin.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has told President George W. Bush that the incident is a misunderstanding, according to the White House, but a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman denied that account on Thursday. (source)

I prefer to think that someone in the Navy or the administration decided to give the Chinese government the bird. After all, it's not as if President Bush has never ever ever done something like that before.

*update*

Michael Turton has in depth posts on this matter and the deeper issues at his blog. He provided the links via commenting here, so I thought would bring them up front for everyone.

Le Roi Soleil as a Responsible Regional Player: L'Affaire Kitty Hawk
More on the Kitty Hawk

Check out his blog, The View from Taiwan for more on the region.

---

Filed under: News

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: USS kitty hawk -- taiwan -- china -- Taiwan Strait -- Yokosuka -- japan

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Erectile dysfunction sufferers can now rejoice!

CNN has defined "extremely hard" to such a ridiculously low level that you will now have no need of expensive medications, dubious folk cures or need suffer embarrassment because of your condition. If your significant other is concerned, merely explain what "extremely hard" now means, thanks to CNN, and you'll be fine.

Regarding CNN's efforts to avoid partisans asking questions at the recent Republican youtube debate, Howard Kurtz includes this, from CNN:

"Had we known that, we probably wouldn't have used the question," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief, who produced the debate. He added that "you could spend hours Googling everybody. What we cared about was that he was real." CNN deleted Kerr's question from a rebroadcast of the debate.

[...]

Bohrman said he had no problem using questioners who have voiced support for other candidates as long as they are not donors or formally affiliated with any campaign. "We bent over backwards to be fair," he said. "We're not perfect. But we tried extremely hard." (source -emphasize in bold mine)

Captain Ed deals with this claim quite well:

Extremely hard? That seems very questionable, as James Joyner points out in a quote Kurtz includes just before this. Within minutes of the broadcast, bloggers using nothing more than Google unearthed Kerr's connection to the Hillary Clinton campaign. With the other questioners, CNN apparently didn't even bother to peruse their posted profiles on their YouTube accounts, where they could have easily discovered their professed support for their candidates. (source)

Peggy Noonan also makes an excellent point. (Thanks to Ace)

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you? (source)

While it's difficult to imagine CNN blowing something now that they've defined extremely hard down to that of a bowl full of Jello, they seem to have demonstrated a talent at doing that very thing. I'm impressed, but I doubt shareholders and what viewers they still have, care to be impressed in such a manner. Despite that, I really won't be surprised if they next try to fix that by lowering expectations for such words as professional, excel, competent, objective and knowledgeable. They have a pretty good start on that task anyway.

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: CNN -- Repulican debate -- giuliani -- politics -- presidential election -- thompson -- romney -- huckabee -- election 2008

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Unfinished business and global warming

It's taken me some time to respond to a particular blogger who had something to say about one of my posts. Considering the lack of substance, let alone his missing the point of my article, I really wasn't sure a reply was worth the effort. It didn't help that my eyes ached a bit from rolling them after reading what he had to say. But since I'm bored, and his knee-jerk reaction, arrogance and stupidity make it so easy, I thought I would now address his comments here.

I suppose I could have simply referenced his blather, as it says nothing positive about him on its own, but I tend to lean towards being thorough when I have time and resources. Also, a related exchange occurred after his post, that I include here in my reply, so this post will be longer than usual, hence the click to expand it.

This began with my post, Time travel has actually occurred. Therein, I commented on the changes NASA had to make to US temperature records recently. Did I deny that global warming has occurred? Nope. Did I say it was nothing but a conspiracy? No on that as well. As should be obvious to those with even average reading comprehension and no axe to grind, I emphasized the media hyping 1998 as the hottest year and wondered if they would report with the same enthusiasm, that it no longer was. I also included from the post at HotAir, Allah's comment about how this will hopefully change for the better, the way earth science is reported to the public.

For that, I get the following from Shawn Wilkinson:

Spengel's Confusion and Whig Whag Over 1934

I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Perhaps its a reflection of my arrogance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe.

There are three topics that I am knowledgeable in that my masochistic side comes out: historical criticism, global climate studies, and the theory of evolution. These three topics come up with various frequency on my favorite baboon's web log, Mark Sprengel.

Recently, he commented on the recent hub-bub surrounding the 1998 temperature readings. For the full scoop beyond Sprengel's comprehension, read RealClimate's comment.

And don't worry. I expect fully well that everything will continue to fly over Sprengel's head.

I didn't provide a link, as that's the entire post, and I would rather not reward such foolishness with traffic.

click for more

It's probably obvious that this twit and I have some history, so I'll briefly explain. We've butted heads a few times in several groups on Myspace, mostly over religion. He's an atheist and quite certain of his position despite having his views knocked down a few times by several articles I've referenced from apologetics sites. Such arrogance is typical of the new atheists and he's certainly one of those, having defended the (ir)Rational Response Squad on several occasions. Having seen his Photobucket account I can attest to some of the contents only serving to emphasize his membership in this group of arrogant anti-theists, who far too often think mere rhetoric and "humor" are sufficient arguments against the faith.

I only ran across that post of his because he brought it up in a thread on Myspace, as I haven't bothered to keep track of his blog. It really isn't that interesting to me and it doesn't bother me that he might be disappointed that his apparent ongoing obsession is unrequited. My initial reaction to his latest ejaculation was to show it to some friends and note that I needed more impressive "enemies", to which they agreed. Beyond that and much eye-rolling all around, I didn't see the need to respond to his comments. I later changed my mind when he brought me up in another thread on Myspace, which I had yet to participate in. He decided to respond to someone else's comment in that thread with this:

Ice cores. A true critic at least knows the entirety of the opposition's side. It is the nitwit who grasps onto his position with a complete disregard of learning what he's actually arguing against.

He was oh so clever at bringing me into the discussion by making nitwit a link to my blog. Yes, impressive that. Since I'm a regular in the group, I thought it was about time that I responded to the fool:

*rolls eyes*

True nitwittery is displayed by someone who not only had the point of my blog post about this go over his head, but then popped a blog post out of his ass displaying his own idiocy and then decided to repeat nearly the same here.

As for knowing the entirety of the opposition's side. I don't think you're much of an authority when you toss "your" arguments around about the trial accounts in the NT or try to claim the cosmological argument merely assumes God is uncaused.

He then flippantly replies:

lol! You're referring to the one which I point you in the proper direction of the 1934 tidbit? Sorry if it hurt your feelings to refer you to a more proper source on climatology than your blogosphere circle jerk.

His claim of a more proper source would be RealClimate in his original post, which I'll come back to in a moment. Let's get my reply in that thread out of the way first. His original blather in bold, my reply in regular text.

lol! You're referring to the one which I point you in the proper direction of the 1934 tidbit?

Yes, the one in which my actual point went over your head and apparently still is.

Sorry if it hurt your feelings

Don't flatter yourself. My first reaction was to raise an eyebrow and show some friends and note that I needed more impressive "enemies", to which they agreed. The reaction overall consisted of *rolling eyes*

to refer you to a more proper source on climatology than your blogosphere circle jerk.

Which wasn't very relevant to the point I was making. Do try and pay attention next time you read my blog.

As for circle jerks, that's rather funny coming from the guy who tosses around typical arguments from skeptics.net and Doherty droppings.

I suppose you'll spin your non-response to my other points but what I said still stands regarding your lack of knowledge of the other side's arguments, either that, or you just spin them to attack straw men.

And now what of this, as he claims, proper source? I'll refer to Steve McIntyre's comments concerning that. An excerpt from his blog:

In less hysterical tones over at realclimate, Hansen’s colleague and NASA spokesman, Gavin Schmidt, has also minimized the error:

Another week, another ado over nothing.

…

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings …

NASA spokesman [Gavin] Schmidt also went to the trouble of misrepresenting my role in identifying the specific error. Both at the blog and in my email to Hansen, I specifically identified the error as probably coming from use of one USHCN version prior to 2000 and another version for 2000 and later - a diagnosis confirmed by NASA. Unwilling to even concede me this gruel, Schmidt denied that I even “speculated” as to the cause of the error”

Steve M pointed out where the error came from in his blog posts and his email notifying GISS of the problem. The GISS people simply confirmed that he was correct.

[Response: Not so. He saw the jump but did not speculate as to the cause. - gavin] (source)

He goes into more detail regarding the downplay of this matter compared to how it was treated in the past. Be sure to read it all and keep his blog in mind on the global warming issue. A more recent post on the matter here is also interesting. He isn't extreme on the issue, from what I can see, and really is trying to make sure we're working with accurate data when making such potentially huge decisions regarding public policy.

As for circle jerk, it's rather interesting while attacking me for that, this kid referenced a source that's a colleague of the scientist who's data was in error (nice circle there) and also happens to be a NASA spokesman. That last point further illustrates the shallow thinking of Shawn Wilkinson. If he had only taken the time, he could have clicked on the link to HotAir in my post and read this:

That said, there were people within NASA’s earth science groups like Dr. Michael King who said that they found the agenda-driven science frustrating, an in particular the effect that overzealous public affairs officers were having on the way the science was being reported to the press. In one story relayed during a meeting I attended at Goddard in 2005, several of the scientists and visualizers talked about public affairs reporting on some Landsat (iirc it was Landsat) imagery of Mt. Kilimanjaro and its icecap. The satellite photos showed the moutain’s ice cap receeding due to seasonal change; public affairs reported the photos as evidence that global warming was causing the ice cap’s retreat. Public affairs was hyping the stories to the press, which in turn added even more hype. The public has been getting earth science reporting that’s hyped, squared.

McIntyre also has an excellent essay, here, concerning due diligence and disclosure in the climate science field.

Taking all this into account, I have some additions to the original misguided comments criticizing my post, to make it a bit more accurate. My improvements in bold.

In a rare moment of honesty Shawn Wilkinson says:

I can't help myself. I'm such a masochist that I actually read the writings of idiots for my own self-pleasure. Of course by this I mean my own blog, The Natural Skeptic. Perhaps its definitely a reflection of my arrogance and ignorance, or perhaps I have some deep doubt of my own self-confidence and need faux reassurance that I'm more intelligent compared to the average Joe. Unfortunately, I've failed again, only proving that I'm still just an arrogant fool. My only recourse is to continue with chest beating rhetoric and hope nobody actually notices.

Finally, his additional stupidity was to think that when I said "enemies" I meant that literally or that I was commenting on his view of me. I think most people understand my use of quotation marks there and that my view of this individual is merely dismissive, and for good reason.

Ah the Internet. Ain't it wonderful, the special people we can run up against?

roll it up

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics -- Misc. -- 4GrinsNGiggles

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: global warming -- shawn wilkinson -- nasa -- rational responders

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Stem cells, minus the destroyed human embryo

A recent advancement in stem cell research may eventually avoid the moral controversy and also provide a more efficient method than cloning human embryos. This has prompted a pioneer in cloning, Prof Ian Wilmut, to turn away from that technology and focus on a new method that shows more promise.

The scientist who created Dolly the sheep, a breakthrough that provoked headlines around the world a decade ago, is to abandon the cloning technique he pioneered to create her.

Prof Ian Wilmut's decision to turn his back on "therapeutic cloning", just days after US researchers announced a breakthrough in the cloning of primates, will send shockwaves through the scientific establishment.

[...]

Prof Wilmut, who works at Edinburgh University, believes a rival method pioneered in Japan has better potential for making human embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient's own cells and tissues for a vast range of treatments, from treating strokes to heart attacks and Parkinson's, and will be less controversial than the Dolly method, known as "nuclear transfer."

His announcement could mark the beginning of the end for therapeutic cloning...

Most of his motivation is practical but he admits the Japanese approach is also "easier to accept socially."

His inspiration comes from the research by Prof Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University, which suggests a way to create human embryo stem cells without the need for human eggs, which are in extremely short supply, and without the need to create and destroy human cloned embryos, which is bitterly opposed by the pro life movement.

As for that breakthrough regarding the cloning of primates:

And Prof Wilmut believes there is still a long way to go for therapeutic cloning to work, despite the headlines greeting this week's announcement in Nature by Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov and colleagues at Oregon Health & Science University, Beaverton, that they cloned primate embryos.

...Dr Mitalipov himself admits the efficiency is low and, though his work is a "proof of principle" and the efficiency of his methods has improved, he admits it is not yet a cost effective medical option.

Cloning is still too wasteful of precious human eggs, which are in great demand for fertility treatments, to consider for creating embryonic stem cells. "It is a nice success but a bit limited," commented Prof Wilmut. "Given the low efficiency, you wonder just how long nuclear transfer will have a useful life."

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, had more to add concerning that primate cloning breakthrough.

"We read that 15,000 monkey eggs were used in order to develop the new protocol; that the current application of this protocol required 304 eggs to derive 2 embryonic stem cell lines, one of which was chromosomally abnormal, delivering an extremely low success rate of 0.7 per cent.

"...it is unlikely that anybody could obtain the number of eggs necessary for such experiments.

"...embryos created were morphologically poor and attempts at pregnancy on 77 occasions were all unsuccessful. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, the lead scientist is quoted as saying, 'No pregnancy made it even to day 25.'" (source)

Be sure to read the entire three page article.

I do have to wonder if this will get as much play in the MSM as the primate cloning breakthrough.

Hopefully all sides surrounding this issue can see this as an advancement that should be vigorously pursued. Unfortunately, some may react negatively to such an achievement, if their actual motivation has more to do with strengthening abortion "rights". However, while many of  us consider pro-life moral issues to be primary, it appears this may also appeal to those who disagree with us. The greater efficiency being possible, those who are entirely utilitarian in their consideration may still find this an attractive solution and join with those of us who are concerned first with moral issues. Perhaps this is another substantial reason to give much support to research in this technology.

---

Filed under: News -- Culture -- Abortion

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: cloning -- stem cells -- abortion

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

I'm an undecided voter

According to CNN I'm undecided enough to ask questions of the candidates in a Democrat primary. Those who know me or read my blog are probably well aware of my criticism of Hillary! Obama and Edwards. In recent conversations I've also stated that I currently lean towards Fred Thompson as my first pick and that I would not vote for any of the Democrats that are in the running. How can I say CNN considers me undecided? Let's see what we can learn from very recent history.

In the last Republican debate, CNN labeled several questioners as undecided who turned out to be partisan or clearly supporting a particular candidate. Michelle Malkin has an excellent post with these "undecided" voters revealed.

Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants: Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers (source)

Be sure to read her entire post, as there are more than those listed above.

Some are portraying this as an intentional conspiracy by a biased media and Democrat campaigns. Until there is serious proof of this, I think incompetence is a sufficient explanation. I can't see that it would really take many people for this to happen. One low level flunky tasked with sorting through the questions that came in, neglecting to check in a serious manner that the voter really is undecided, let alone relevant to a Republican primary, is all that would be necessary. That's assuming of course that the one who delegated was competent enough to think of such tasks to hand down in the first place.

Of course I'm not saying that such people can never ask Presidential candidates questions. But this is a Republican primary and such things should be saved for the general election, when the entire nation votes, rather than it being just Republicans selecting their candidate. Though I vote as a conservative, I'm registered as an independent and I would be surprised if I was asked to question candidates for a Republican primary.

So now that CNN has shown how incompetent it is in removing bias from their debate presentation, will the Democrat candidates have enough testicular fortitude to participate in a debate hosted by what many claim is the conservatively biased Fox News? I suppose that's one of those questions answered merely by asking.

But maybe it's nice to know that by CNN standards I haven't rushed to make a decision, that I'm still undecided, except that I won't vote for any Democrat candidate in the running and lean towards one Republican candidate. Then again, perhaps the term "CNN standards" is now an oxymoron.

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Republican National Convention Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: CNN -- Repulican debate -- giuliani -- politics -- presidential election -- thompson -- romney -- huckabee -- election 2008

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Trespass, and then you can own it

That's the lesson to take from the actions of a former District Judge, who has managed to make a couple's land worthless, while he and his lawyer wife tie up a good portion of the property in court.

Don't worry if you're thinking this is entirely implausible. As the author of the following article noted:

The story is so absurd, so unfair, so ludicrous, I had a difficult time believing that it could actually happen - even in Boulder.

The couple had purchased the land in the mid 80s and took care of it over the years, paid taxes etc. but that would not be enough. Unfortunately, an unscrupulous man and his wife, who have more connections, decided they wanted it for themselves.

Former Boulder District Judge, Boulder Mayor, RTD board member - among other elected positions - Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens, used an arcane common law called "adverse possession" to claim the land for their own.

All McLean needed was to develop an "attachment" to it.

Undoubtedly, his city connections couldn't have hurt, either.

In the court papers, McLean and his family admit to regularly trespassing on the Kirlins' property.

They created paths. They said they put on a political fundraiser and parties on it (though not a single photograph of these events surfaced in court documents).

This habit of trespassing developed into an affection.

If we take McLean at his word, he should have been treated appropriately: like a common criminal. Instead, the former judge demanded a chunk of the land for himself - and implausibly he got it

The land is currently tied up in court and so far has cost the Kirlin's $100,000 in legal fees. McLean conveniently received a restraining order to stop the Kirlin's from constructing a fence on the property in 2-1/2 hours.

All of this adds up to District Judge James Klein ordering the Kirlins to sign over about 34 percent of their 4,750-square-foot lot to McLean and his wife last month.

"Now the lot is just about worthless," explains Don Kirlin. "We estimate the land was worth about $800,000 to a million dollars. Now, we can't build anything on it."

Surely, that was the goal.

The Kelo decision was bad enough for property rights. Yet, the McLeans have apparently decided to show everyone that as bad as that decision was, they can one up that stupidity with their criminal trespass and entirely unethical abuse of the law by way of their connections. Even if the Kirlin's fight off the criminal McLeans, they are out at least $100,000. Is there any legal recourse for them to recover that money? Doubtful, but even if there is, can they afford to pursue the matter?

It's too bad the Kirlins are probably not as unscrupulous or connected as the McLeans. If they were, they could just walk on the land they were forced to give up and eventually claim an attachment to it. After all, they owned and cared for it since the 80s. But this just brings us back to the incredibly absurd nature of the story. They already had more attachment to it than someone acting like a common criminal, and look how that's worked out for them.

Perhaps a grassroots movement can be started up in Boulder Colorado, wherein people traipse across the property of the various sleazy politicians and government functionaries that are part of this story. Eventually, they can use the "adverse possession" law and claim an attachment to those properties. Sometimes turn about really is fair play.

---

Related posts:

If this is true - BLEEEP!!!!
"It's good to be the king"

---

Filed under: NewsPolitics

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Public Domain Clip Art, third world county, MyHTPC, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Richard McLean -- Don Kirlin -- Boulder -- Colorado -- Kelo

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions