Look at her face


Why is she important? Read this.

Neale, you need to read the entire post Neale Talbot has responded at warblogger watch to my post below on tracking unique visitors, and once again, his math is suspect.

Let the festivities begin!

First, yes, I used a projection for this month, because the trend shows that traffic at Instapundit is growing, and that Instapundit has a monstrous retention rate. As proof, consider the following:
At the time of Neale's post, the average daily unique visitor count was 14560. Right now, at 7PM EDT, his daily average is 14773. These averages are computed over 31 days. Since the average is increasing, that means that he is getting more uniques per day than the previous average. Further, if Neale had looked past the averages to the daily uniques for the month of June, he would have found, as I did, that Instapundit's traffic has remained fairly constant at about 14,000 to 18,000 uniques per day during the week, and 7,000 to 9,000 uniques per day on the weekend. Unless you assume he is making a one shot splash on a daily basis, you must conclude that he is retaining a large portion of his increase in regular readers, which means that the total for this month is liable to be retained in large part through the next several months. It is not unreasonable to expect that Glenn will keep 70% of his increase this month over the long haul.

Second, Neale's good friend Jeff's analysis is right on. In fact, I addressed that in my post, assuming that approximately 80-90% of his daily total represent daily readers, not new readers, which is why my estimate stayed around 12,000 uniques PER DAY.

Next, Neale compares two numbers with different origins.

Using Richard's maths, Insnayapundit gets on average 225691 hits on average per month. So 225691/30 should equal 7523 hits a day. Why doesn't that match the average uniques? Why is it less? Isn't that a sheer impossibility?

There's no conspiracy Neale, just another analysis error on your part. You used the average monthly uniques, divided by thirty, then wondered why that doesn't match the average daily uniques. Here's why:
The daily average is computed over the last thirty one days, as is clearly labelled on the readout. The average monthly uniques is calculated over the last two months. The numbers are computed using different data ranges. You're comparing apples and oranges, especially since the current month is significantly higher than the past month.

Next, Neale questions my math, revealing his own weakness in the area.

7523 multiplied by 8% gives 602 for AOL users. Applying the AOL factor of 3, we can assume that 1805 (Richard multiplied wrong on his page, multiplying by 2). 7523-1805 = 5718. At the upper AOL level of 14% that leaves 4363.

From my post:

Now for more calculating. 13,000 daily hits multiplied by 8% gives 1040 hits from floating IP's. Applying our hit factor of 3, we can assume that 2080 hits represent repeat page views (1040 AOL users visiting 3 times each, count only the first visit, discard the remaining 2 visits),

I multiplied by two because, as I showed above, I still counted one unique visit out of the three. 3-1=2. Get it this time, Neale? If you subtract all three visits from the typical AOL user, you are now undercounting by a third.

Further from my post:

Also from eXTReMe, we find out that AOL traffic represents less than 4% of Instapundit's total traffic, which indicates that our first estimate was too conservative.

Of course, Neale continues to use the 8-14% estimate, rather than looking at the actual report, because it bolsters his total. Looking at eXTReMe, we see that AOL surfers represent about 0.19% of Instapundit traffic. However, I include half the Netscape 6 users, who may be AOL users. This is a complete guess, and could vary significantly in either direction. So we have a total of 3%

So, 7523 multiplied by 3% equals 14 visitors multiplied by (3 minus 1) equals a correction of 451, leaving 7072 uniques per day, within Neale's range, but at the upper limit, and certainly higher than his 3000 lower limit. However, taking into account the retention rate discussed above, we get the following:

14,799 uniques per day (current 30 day average) subtract losses of 30% (estimated at 4400) gives 10,399 uniques per day on average. Applying the AOL correction of 3% times 2 ( approx 623) leaves 9776 daily unique visitors.

If he maintains his traffic, as seems likely by looking at his daily tracking numbers (they aren't falling off) the total will exceed my original estimate of 12,000.
14,799 uniques per day. Applying the AOL correction factor of 3% times 2 (approximately 888) leaves 13,911.

From Neale:

Prove me wrong, children, prove me wrong!

Consider it done, Neale! Only the most conservative estimate manages to fall within your range, and that just barely.

Yep, here we go again I’m having trouble reconciling our modern outlooks on science with our current philosophy. The problem is that the two worldviews are in direct opposition. Both cannot be true, yet we try to act as if they were. Here’s what I am talking about:

Science tells us that the world is naturalistic, that everything that exists can be explained through mechanistic processes. This is the assumption that forms the basis for the scientific method, and is the overriding principle of modern science. Any theory, postulate or observation that casts doubt on that principle is subject to a quick and complete dismissal, regardless of its merits. In short, science denies the divine.

On the other hand, in our daily lives, we embrace the divine and I’m not just talking about church on Sunday. Our fundamental principles, our core beliefs are rooted in a belief in and a respect for the divine.

We hold these truths to be self evident:

• that all men are created equal,
  
• that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
  
• that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

(italics mine)

These weren’t just words the Founding Father used because they sounded good; they represented the core principles upon which they founded our nation, and we still revere those principles today, despite the sarcasm and cynicism of modern times. We do believe that men are endowed with unalienable rights, although it is no longer fashionable to attribute those rights to some divine origin.

But if they aren’t divine, then where do they originate? Why do men have a right to life and liberty? Is there some naturalistic process that we can look to, that we can base these rights on, or are they nothing but noble nonsense dreamed up by overly romantic primitives?

In order for those words to be true, we have to make a couple of assumptions. First, we have to assume that life has some intrinsic value. Second, we have to assume that human life is more valuable than other lives. Of course, neither of these assumptions is compatible with a naturalistic point of view.

In the latter case, if the scientific viewpoint is correct then there is absolutely nothing that qualitatively distinguishes man from the other animals. We evolved guided by the same process responsible for the rabbit and the wolf. We may be more intelligent, but that intelligence is derived from a naturalistic process, and is therefore subject to the same rules and limitations as all other attributes of nature.

Put another way, we can ask ourselves this question:

Does a rabbit have the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?

Answer: “Only as long as he is faster than a hungry wolf.”

Rights in a naturalistic world are not intrinsic but are firmly rooted in the exercise of power. Your rights exist only as far as you can enforce them, and conflicts between competing rights are resolved by the application of force, i.e. violence. This is the only possible conclusion if you start from a naturalistic worldview, but it is one rejected by most scientists. Their usual excuse is that science is not meant to answer questions like this, but that is a cop out. If all is naturalistic, then science should be able to answer every question.

Next, we consider whether life itself has any intrinsic value, regardless of form. Viewed from a naturalistic framework, life is not precious, but cheap. Everywhere we look, we find life; in deserts, frozen tundra, at the bottom of the sea, in the most inhospitable landscapes, we find some form of life. There is evidence that suggests that bacterial life existed on Mars. Life is ubiquitous. It is also savage.

Living things kill other living things, whether by crowding them out of their habitat, or slaughtering them for food, or killing them to claim a mate. For any number of reasons, and in the case of man, just for the fun of it, life kills other life. How then can it be said to be precious, to have any intrinsic value? The answer obviously is that it can’t. If this is a naturalistic world, then we are animals, nothing more, and our behavior is governed by the same rules which apply in the jungle.

In denying divinity, science denies the very qualities that set us apart from the rest of the animals. Most scientists, as pointed out earlier, avoid this contradiction; they put on blinders like a modern day Scarlett O-Hara. “I’m not going to think about that today. I’ll think about it tomorrow.” They understand that their professional beliefs break down as they approach the real world. The few that do follow the logic through to completion either reject the conclusion, or adopt an almost sociopathic detachment from the human race. I’ve met one such fellow; he is a biologist, and he firmly believes that we are nothing but animals, and that the law of the jungle is the only law there is. Mercy, compassion, altruism are all false concepts to him, existing only as traps for weaker minded individuals. Repulsive as that may seem, that is the only logical conclusion of a naturalistic worldview.

So, how do we reconcile these two pictures of the world? Do we live in the jungle, or is there something higher than “dog eat dog” competition? Is there some quality in man that elevates him above the other animals? Is life itself precious? Are their unalienable rights?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are saying that the world is divine, not naturalistic, in which case you may wish to review your views on science.

Sweet dreams. It’s my bed time.

Here's a tip for Neale Talbot If you want to perform a mathematical analysis, be sure you can do basic math, OK sport?

Neale attempts to dissect Instapundit's traffic numbers to determine just how many regular readers he has. He first links to this Instapundit post, which notes that as of June 17, Instapundit had 226,916 unique visitors for the month.

Then he proceeds to analyse this number, and the mistakes begin to fly. We'll take it step by step:

According to the quoted figures, Instapundit gets about 15,000 unique visitors each weak.

Hmmmm. 226,916 divided by 4 comes out to 56,729, which is just slightly higher than the 15,000 per week claimed by Neale. In addition, Neale neglects to extend the total to get an entire month's traffic. Adjusting the total for 17 days to a projection for 30 days is done by the following:

226,916/17*30

which gives us a projected count of 400,440 unique visits in a month, or roughly 100,000 per week, which is even higher than Neale's claim of 15,000.

It is possible that this first mistake was due to calculating daily visits, but calling it weekly visits, which would explain why his figures are off by a factor of about 30, unfortunately, the next segment of Neale's analysis shows this to be untrue:

Assuming the figures are correct, if Reynolds is getting ~211,000 uniques a month, then about 6,800 of his 15,000 average visitors/week are floaters, with the remaining 8,200 his actual loyal audience ((6,800[floaters] x 30[days]) + 8,200[repeaters] = 212,200). This, of course, is only accurate if the repeaters only count once. The problem is, they don't.

No, the problem is that simple math continues to elude Neale.

• First, 226,916 does not round to 211,000 but 227,000.
  
• Second, as I demonstrated above, the actual monthly count is closer to 400,440 which would round to 400,000.
  
• Third, Neale does not give us his methodology for determining how many visitors are floaters, and how many are repeats.
  
• Fourth, Neale constructs a faulty equation to account for total number of visits.
  
• Fifth, he carries forward his error from the first section, insisting that 212,000 monthly visits equates to 15,000 weekly visits.

So, let's try a methodology that's a little more open, and much more accurate.

Starting with an accurate monthly count, 400,000 hits per month, we can assume 13,000 hits per day. Next, we have to figure out how many of these hits are repeat visits from floating IPs. According to this, AOL has about 14% of the market. Of course, that number changes dramatically with demographic groups, and is significantly lower among traditionally internet savvy groups, like your typical blogger. Checking my own referral logs, I find that on average about 8% of my visits come from AOL. Since I do my posting when most sane Americans are in bed, my repeat traffic is virtually nil, which tells us that the 8% figure should be relatively free of distortion. So we'll set these numbers as our boundaries, 8-14% of visits come from floating IP's.

Next, we have to determine how many revisits come from these floating IP's. Glenn posts quite frequently, which makes his page attractive for multiple visits throughout the day. However, most users only log in once or twice a day, so that would become the limiting factor. While 1.5 to 2 is probably a more reasonable estimate of page reloads, I'm assigning a multiple hit factor of 3, which makes a nice conservative estimate.

So, now we see that of Instapundits daily hit tally, 8-14% come from floating IP's, and that those hits are overreported by a factor of 3.
Now for more calculating. 13,000 daily hits multiplied by 8% gives 1040 hits from floating IP's. Applying our hit factor of 3, we can assume that 2080 hits represent repeat page views (1040 AOL users visiting 3 times each, count only the first visit, discard the remaining 2 visits), leaving 10,020 unique visits per day. Using the upper limit of 14%, we come up with 9360 unique visits per day. Now, if we reduce our multiple factor to a more reasonable one, say 2, our numbers shift to a low of 11180 and a high of 11960 unique visits per day. So our range is now 9360 to 11960 unique visits per day.

Let's check our work using another method. Looking at the tracking patterns on Instapundit's eXTReMe counter, daily traffic during the week is fairly constant, at an average of 14,550 unique hits per day. This stability indicates a strong repeat traffic. If a significant amount of traffic were event driven, the numbers would not be as stable. Based on this, we can assume that 80 to 90% of the daily total represents regular readership, with the remainder accounted for by one shot readers. 80% of 14,550 is 11,640. This falls well within the range we determined above. Also from eXTReMe, we find out that AOL traffic represents less than 4% of Instapundit's total traffic, which indicates that our first estimate was too conservative.

In this analysis, we found that Instapundit gets in the neighborhood of 12,000 unique visitors each day, most of whom are regular readers, as opposed to Neale's estimate of 3500-8200 per week. Neale's numbers only came as close as they did because some of his mistakes cancelled each other out.

He finishes his analysis with this sentence:

With 8,200 loyal readers at best, the New York Times need not fear Reynolds just yet

Big journalism doesn't fear bloggers because of their circulation, if it fears bloggers at all. Reynolds himself has made this point several times. But bloggers have shaped how print media covers some stories. Bloggers have changed the vernacular as well. Several major news outlets are now calling suicide bombings 'homicide bombings', a term first used in blogs. A minor change to be sure, but one which shows the power of blogging, even if you only reach 12,000 people a day.

Bloggers are having an impact on print journalism that is similar in scope to the impact of home video on TV journalism, and under much the same circumstances. Viewed with suspicion and scorn at first, both provide journalists with another tool to find and report stories

Another Tennessee blogger! Welcome to Newton's Kumquat, the latest to join the growing blogger community in Tennessee.

I'm not alone NZ Bear , James Lileks , and I are on the same page.

The Bear:

But I am past the point of believing that they, as a people at this point in time, have a right to a state. Nor can they be trusted with even the basic freedoms a civilized society should expect and aspire to......

It is not time for yet another incursion into the territories, to be followed by a pullout in a few days. It is time for Israel to take full control of the West Bank and Gaza. All of it. And it is time for the complete and total disarming of the Palestinian people. No armed PA security force(s). No militias. No police. No guns, no bombs, no mortars, nothing. Israel should sweep in, and when they do, they should pack for a long stay. For they will have to be there a long, long time.

Mr. Lileks:

Let’s talk oppression. Let’s talk occupation. Let’s talk genocide, as Arafat likes to call any Israeli action. In college I fell in with a group of Ukes, and learned a good deal about the Soviet horrors visited on their nation. Churches: razed. Language: forbidden. Menfolk: off to the camps. Land: collectivized. Population: starved to death by the millions. You’d talk to the old men, the partisans who made it to America after the war, and their hatred of the Soviets was white-hot forty years later. Ukraine at the time was still under Soviet control, remember. And let’s pause a moment to remember all the campus protests over Russia’s illegal, genocidal occupation.

Didn’t take long, did it.

We housed a dissident who’d been kicked out of the USSR after spending a few years in a “psychiatric” hospital, where they’d done all sorts of horrible things to him and broken his health for good. Sixty years of occupation, oppression and mass extermination, and not one of these men would have taken the war to girls on a bus bound for a Moscow high school. Not one.

As for me, well, you saw what I had to say below.

More info please! According to this brief story, scientists in Australia have managed to 'teleport' a laser beam.

Teleportation is usually found in science fiction programs like Star Trek, but a team of researchers from the Australian National University (ANU) has carried out a successful teleportation experiment in a gravitational wave lab.

Team leader Dr Ping Koy Lam says it involved creating a laser beam, its disembodiment and the recreation of the original beam in a different location.

How? details, man, I need details!

Time for a boycott Ted Turner has crossed the line.

Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN, accuses Israel today of engaging in "terrorism" against the Palestinians, in comments that threaten to lead to a further decline in the news network's already poor relations with the Jewish state.
"Aren't the Israelis and the Palestinians both terrorising each other?" says Turner, who is vice-chairman of AOL Time Warner, which owns CNN, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian.

"The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have. The Israelis ... they've got one of the most powerful military machines in the world. The Palestinians have nothing. So who are the terrorists? I would make a case that both sides are involved in terrorism."

This is the same man who called the terrorists of 9-11 "brave," then tried to excuse himself by saying that since he owns the Braves, that word is always on the tip of his tongue.

You know he's gone too far when he's too liberal for Jane Fonda to hang out with.

I'll have nothing to do with anything Ted Turner has a hend in, whether it be movies, sports, TV, whatever. Let him sit alone in irrelevance on one of his mega-ranches.

Proud Papa According to this Reuters story, the father of the bomber who slaughtered 20 Israelis, most high school kids, is proud of his boy's accomplishment.

Mohammed al-Ghoul was a student of Islamic studies at al-Najah University in the West Bank city of Nablus. He had apparently disappeared about three days ago. His father told Reuters from his home in the al-Fara refugee camp, near Nablus, that he was "very happy" to hear that his son was the bomber.

Most fathers are proud when their kids hit a home run in a baseball game, or score a goal in soccer. Palestinian fathers are proud when their sons become mass murderers of children.

The time for making excuses is over. The Palestinian culture is diseased beyond hope of a cure, and needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

New day, same story Here's the FoxNews report:

JERUSALEM — A homicide bomber blew himself up on a crowded city bus in Jerusalem during rush hour Tuesday morning, killing at least 14 people and injuring more than 40, police said. Many aboard the bus were students on their way to school, witnesses said.


The blast shattered the bus just before 8 a.m. local time, peeling off its roof and sides. The explosion went off as the bus waited at a traffic light near a busy intersection in southern Jerusalem.

And Ha'aretz:

At least 14 people were killed and 40 injured Tuesday morning when a suicide bomber blew himself up on a bus full of passengers, most of them high school students, in southern Jerusalem. Five people were in serious condition, 3 sustained moderate wounds and 32 were lightly injured.

The explosion took place near the Pat Junction on Egged bus line 32A from the neighborhood of Gilo. The blast ripped through bus, leaving it a charred, mangled hulk at the side of the road.

The Israelis have more experience than anybody in identifying and stopping terrorists, but some still get through. It would be sheer arrogance for the US to think that we could stop all of them. This is what Cheney and Co. were talking about when they said future attacks on the US are inevitable.

The only way to avoid such attacks is to go on the offensive, to act rather than react.

War on Terror The Age, an aussie site, has this report on the three Saudi al Qaida members captured in Morocco:

Osama bin Laden, besieged in December in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, commanded his fighters to disperse across the globe to attack "American and Jewish interests", according to accounts officials say they have obtained from three al Qaeda operatives captured in Morocco.

The three Saudi citizens are said to have told interrogators that they escaped Afghanistan and came to Morocco on a mission to use bomb-laden speedboats for suicide attacks on US and British warships in the Strait of Gibraltar, senior Moroccan officials said.

I'm shocked; shocked to discover that Saudis are supporting terrorism!

Upset win? According to Reuters, the US defeat of Mexico was an 'upset.'

Hmmmm. The US has won 4 of their last 5 meetings with Mexico, not counting this mornings game. How is a fifth victory an upset? Yes, Mexico won their group, and the US finished second in theirs, but Mexico was in a weaker group than the US.

Ah well, a win is a win. Next up Germany, and they look very good.

Now this is a decision I don't like. The SCOTUS has ruled that the police can search your person and belongings without informing you of your rights first.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote, said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in ruling that a bus search should be considered unconstitutionally coercive unless the police first warn passengers they have the right to refuse to cooperate.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.

To me, this represents the true erosion of our constitutional rights, not some silly dust up over a graduation ceremony. The decision striles me as a bad one, although I have to admit I don't know anything more about the story than what is in this article. Why did the police focus on this bus, and on the two men? Was this a routine/random search, or was it specifically targetted at these two? If they had refused to co-operate, would that have been considered probable cause?

Home Depot just says"NO" to business with the feds:

ST. LOUIS (AP) - The Home Depot Inc., the nation's biggest hardware and home-improvement chain, has told its 1,400 stores not to do business with the U.S. government or its representatives, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Sunday.


The newspaper checked with managers at 38 Home Depot stores in 11 states. All but two said they had received instructions from Home Depot's corporate headquarters in Atlanta this month not to take government credit cards, purchase orders or even cash if the items are being used by the federal government.

"Engaging in business practices with the federal government is not a strategic focus of the Home Depot," company spokesman Tom Gray said. "The Home Depot is not and does not plan to become a federal contractor or subcontractor." He said it was an old policy.

Why would they do this? The following quote from the memo promulgating the policy gives a good answer:

The notification has a section that says commercial credit-card customers will receive a notice with their June bill that purchases could not be made "that would cause the company to be covered by or responsible in any way for compliance with" three federal laws or executive orders:

_Executive Order 11246 of 1965, which bans discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

_Section 503 and Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires affirmative action and prohibits employment discrimination by federal government contractors and subcontractors.

_The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, which requires that anyone doing business worth $25,000 or more with the federal government must take affirmative action to hire and to promote qualified targeted veterans.

Apparently, these regulations would cost the company too much money, so they are acting to ensure that they don't become subject to them.

Love vs lust A way to plan your date accordingly. An excerpt:

WHEN THE BILL ARRIVES

IF IT'S LOVE
Discreetly take it as soon as it arrives, and don't allow her to see it. Decline her offer to split it with you. After all, her company is payment enough.
IF IT'S LUST
Look at the bill. Then look at her. Say, "So. Are you coming over?"

via goodsh*t

Ten Reasons To Go To Work Naked"

10. No one ever steals your chair.

9. Gives "bad hair day" a whole new meaning.

8. Diverts attention from the fact that you also came to work drunk.

7. People stop stealing your pens after they've seen where you keep them.

6. You want to see if it's like the dream.

5. To stop those creepy programmer guys from looking down your blouse.

4. "I'd love to chip in... but I left my wallet in my pants."

3. Inventive way to finally meet that 'special' person in Human Resources.

2. Can take advantage of your computer monitor radiation to work on your
tan.

And...drum roll...the Number One reason to go to work naked :

Your boss will never say, "I wanna see your ass in here by 8:00!"
ever again.

New Knoxville Blogger! Welcome Notes from the Underground to the fold. His first post is on the Tennessee financial crisis.

OSU Graduation This post at the Democratic Underground purports to detail instructions given to the graduates about their behavior during the commencement address given by President Bush.

The story goes that the Graduating class was warned that if they carried out a planned protest by standing and facing away from the President while he was speaking, they would be arrested, and their diplomas withheld. This action is not without precedent at OSU as this article shows, but finding any corroboration for this incident has been difficult.

In trying to find any documentation from a reliable source about this claim, I came across this article (reg req) from the OSU paper, documenting protests outside the stadium, which were allowed to continue witout molestation. Also from The Lantern comes this report on the speech:

There were few disruptions during Bush's speech despite efforts from protesters who urged graduates and guests to "turn your backs on Bush." Three graduates and six audience members — one draped in a Palestinian flag — actually did turn their backs but were hardly noticed by the crowd of about 60,000.

A further search found this site, where the protest, such as it was, was organized. The site has a link for people to post their personal accounts of the graduation. There is a grand total of 2 entries, one from a student, and one from the fellow who posted the account on DU, Jeff, AKA the Angry White Democrat. As the graduates who turned her back on Bush admitted, she was not harrasses, nor arrested, and she did get her diploma. Even Jeff was not arrested, although he also admitted to heckling during the President's introduction

When I first read this post, I couldn't believe my eyes. Now that I've researched it a little bit, I can see my skepticism was well founded, and my anger has shifted to the fools propagating this non event. You don't go around making up stuff like this. If there had been true repression of free speech, then outrage is the appropriate response BUT:

• The protest was allowed to continue outside the graduation ceremony;
  
• graduates who protested were allowed to remain, and receive their diplomas,
  
• the only person who was escorted out was Jeff, who came to the stadium for the sole purpose of protesting.
  
• there were no arrests made, even though some did participate in the protest.

This is not repression folks, and the furor being raised over at DU and other lefty locales merely confirms their fringe status. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech does not give you the right to co-opt a public function in order to espouse your views. The other graduates, their families and friends, have rights as well. Unfortunately, most extremists think that their cause gives their rights precedence over anybody else's, which leads to such disruptive acts as shouting down guest lecturers to prevent them from speaking, or staging political protests at graduation ceremonies. Then when they are appropriately spanked like the spoiled brats they ape, they whine about 'repression,' and and cry about 'jack-booted thugs.'

The wonderful truth is that, living in America, they don't have the first idea what true repression is. They don't have to fear the midnight knock on the door, or the fear that they may disappear, becoming an 'unperson.' Newspaper offices are not burned out if they write an editorial criticizing the government, although supporting the government has been known to result in entire print runs being vandalized on some college campuses. There are reasonable controls placed where individual rights come into conflict, and those controls do not equal repression.

With everything that is going on, and the legitimate concerns over the erosion of certain Constitutional rights, I'm surprised that the left is getting itself into such a lather over this.

Light posting for the next few days. Work has gotten busy, and like so often, every other facet of my life has followed suit. (Except for my social life, darnit!)