New Development in JFK Assassination

A Digital Forensics expert has recently examined the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald that shows him holding a rifle and Marxist newspaper. The photo appears to have been taken is his backyard. The photo is evidence that Oswald owned a rifle similar to the one found in the Dallas Book Depository just after JFK was assassinated. It also gives insight into Oswald's possible motivation.

Oswald and conspiracy theorists have claimed that this photo, around since the mid-1960's, was a forgery. In large part, this claim is based on what the theorists see as inconsistent lighting.

Hany Farid, a computer science professor at Dartmoth and a digital forensics specialists has concluded that the photo shows no signs of having been manipulated.

While not conclusive by itself, the photo does prove that Oswald had the means to have committed the assassination (he possessed a weapon). It is also fairly strong circumstantial evidence in that the rifle in the photo is the type of weapon recovered at the sniper's nest in the Book Depository.


I personally am not old enough to remember JFK, and have no personal emotional attachment to his Presidency. For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the assassination is how some people reacted to it, rejecting the idea that it was a lone gun-man and instead had to have been a conspiracy.

Examining the evidence rationally, there is absolutely no reason it could not have been perpetrated by one individual.

The Ig-Nobel Non-Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee has just announced the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. They've given it to President Obama.

At first I thought it was the worst possible choice. After all, what has President Obama done to deserve a Peace Prize. Then I came across this site.

Nobel stated that the Peace Prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". After reading that, Obama getting the award makes perfect sense, especially when you compare him to the other two sitting presidents to receive the award: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Teddy Roosevelt won for the creation of a "peace conference" that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations.

The last is extremely ironic as the League of Nations failed to achieve peace.


And Obama? Well, he is basically subordinating American sovereignty to the U.N.

Subordinating the United States to a body composed of leaders like Putin, Ahmadenejad, Hugo Chavez, Khadafy, et al. is hardly likely to create world peace. It just allows those bad actors to do whatever they please.


Obama has been awarded the Peace Prize for his unwillingness to confront those leaders responsible for the lack of peace. Time to call the prize what it actually represents an ignoble non-peace prize.

Time to Boycott the Roman Polanski Supporters

There are a large number of people that have signed a petition for the immediate release of Roman Polanski and for all charges against him to be immediately dropped.

In case you missed it, Polanski was arrested when he arrived in Switzerland for a film festival on an outstanding arrest warrant stemming from his fleeing the U.S. after pleading guilty to having sex with a 13-year old girl after getting her drunk and slipping her drugs.

And the authorities had the gall to arrest him on the way to their all-important film festival.


The signatories are almost exclusively members of the French Film industry, but there are a couple of Americans on the list: Woody Allen and Penelope Cruz.


Add Whoopi Goldberg to the list of American apologists for Polanski.


These people are defending the indefensible and need to face the consequences.

Bureaucracy Run Amok

The latest illustration of the problems caused by overly-intrusive Government comes from Michigan.

A woman in Irving Township, Michigan has been told to stop watching neighborhood children in her home while they wait the bus. She was told she was in violation of laws targeting unlicensed day-care providers.

Lisa Snyder's home is a designated school bus stop. She agreed to watch three school children in her home so their mothers could drop them off early on their way to work.


Some nosy neighbor complained, and the Michigan Department of Human Services wrote her a letter telling her she was violating the law.


The law in question prohibits looking after unrelated children for more than four weeks in any calendar year, unless they are licensed day-care providers.


I think they way that is worded says enough about the "intelligence" of the legislators that wrote it. And the letter it provoked from the Michigan Department of Human Services says enough about the people in that agency.

Public Policy by Lawsuit, bad Idea

Two recent Court Rulings set a bad precedent when it comes to formulating public policy.

1) A Court Ordered Grizzly Bears remain on the endangered species list.

This is despite the fact that the Grizzly Bear population had increased dramatically since they were put on the list. The Court also made the ruling, despite the fact that the regulatory body given the responsibility for listing endangered species found that the bears were no longer endangered.

What happened? "Environmental Groups" found a friendly judge to rule the way they wanted, despite any information to the contrary. He found they were threatened by Global Warming.

Federal Courts are not the place to set this kind of public policy. Judges do not have to face the negative implications of their rulings. Nor is there a guarantee that the judge making the ruling has all the pertinent facts. Far too often they are only going to get the argument from the side pushing for Government action.


2) A Federal Court ruled that states could sue Utilities over emissions.

What is happening here is that the Liberal States (i.e. California) is now suing Electric Companies that burn coal in other states.

In other words, these states are trying to regulate energy production in another state by using the federal judicial system. And if you need a reminder, California's energy policies have resulted in that state facing rolling black-outs in the past. Now they are trying to do the same for other states.

The people in these states do not get a say in who runs the state of California, and the state of California should have no say in how those states are run. Ever heard of taxation without representation?


The Federal Courts have now given us regulation without representation.