Saturday, December 30, 2006

Saddam Hussein is done

Hussein was hanged, as planned, in the wake of the trial for crimes against humanity. I heard reports that quite a few Iraqis offered to take the job as executioner.

Here's the report (partial) from a Pakistani news source:
BAGHDAD: Ousted Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein has been hanged to death here couple of hours after he was handed over to Iraqi authorities by the US, the reports said.

Saddam was hanged at about 8am PST.

The scaffolding where Hussein was hanged was in Baghdad's Green Zone, the center of power for coalition officials.
(The News)

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Kearny church/state issue update

Regarding the teacher accused of proselytizing in the classroom, the offended student's father has been posting to message board dedicated to the town of Kearny.

Check it out (you may find some of my comments here and there, assuming the moderators find them insufficiently inflammatory for banning).

This issue is near and dear to my heart, since I see the modern court's view of church/state separation as an effective death sentence on U.S. unity with the growth of multiculturalism.

The constitution isn't threatened by Christian fundamentalists at all compared to the threat from folks who do not hold these truths self-evident ...

For the nation to have unity, it must have a substantial common culture. I'm not a big fan of talk radio host Michael Savage, but he's spot on with the borders/language/culture distillation of the problem facing the US. A common culture of multiculturalism is self-contradictory. It cannot lead to unity where the various cultures have no substantial common ground.

It was trendy in times past to regard all of the world's religions as essentially similar. That's why the founders of the nation found it easy to find unity between deists and theists. They weren't all that different respecting morality and civil law.

Times have changed. Moral relativism looks philosophically attractive to many, including academic elites. Moral relativism sits uncomfortably with self-evident rights.
That trend will undermine the constitution one way or another. Either the constitution will be amended unrecognizably, or reinterpreted by the courts so that the authors would no longer recognize it.

One of my first blog posts:
The Constitution of the United States is Unconstitutional.

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Kearny controversy

A teacher in Kearny, New Jersey has become a focus in the news after talking about religion in his history class.
The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, was recorded on the job by a Matthew LaClair, a junior at Kearny High School. LaClair, for what it's worth, is apparently an atheist and the son of a lawyer.

This case seems to show the degree to which secularists are thin-skinned about the mention of religion in the classroom. My computer hasn't helped me listen to the sound files of Paskiewicz's classes, but judging from the transcripts I've seen this far (like this one), it seems that he respects other religious beliefs while leading a productive discussion.

The biggest question I've got about his methods would concern the context--exactly what aspect of history is he illuminating through this type of discussion? There may well be a good answer, but I couldn't hazard a guess at the moment.

A self-described atheist commenting at one of my bloghopping destinations (Talking in Circles [Scratch that, it was at "The Questionable Authority]) summed up my opinion pretty well, though it didn't address my concern about how the discussion fits with the curriculum.

I'm atheist and anti-religion. I came onto this discussion shocked and outraged, but not ready to throw stones until I knew exactly what was said, and some context. Couldn't understand the audio, but thanks to Stephen's transcript, I begin to get a pretty good idea what kind of teacher this guy is.
And, god, I wish I'd had teachers like that.
Wake up, people! He gets high school kids engaged in animated discussions about abstract ideas! Anybody who can achieve this is a hero.
He gets preachy, but he encourages debate and allows disagreement; it's worth it. I don't agree with anything he says, but if I were in that class I'd sure be thinking. And learning.

Posted by: dzho | December 21, 2006 12:37 PM

Well said.

Monday, December 18, 2006

More on TiC, O'Reilly and Jefferson

I don't trust the TiC folks to publish my comments any longer.

Here's what I sent in reply to the Jefferson/church-state separation issue.

Separation of church and state was completely different in Jefferson's day.
Take a look at the letter that Media Matters cited.
The context clearly indicates that Jefferson was referring to the federal government. O'Reilly is dealing with a local (city) government issue.
Jefferson wouldn't recognize today's separation of church and state, and he would be extremely surprised that the "self-evident" basis for the revolution was no longer self-evident to many. He believed in a natural law that undergirded every religion, giving them all a common morality. Today's application of church/state separation would stand Jefferson's understanding on its head. Something would have to give in his views--would you suggest he'd become a moral relativist?

I didn't link to the letter in the original, since it was clear in the original context (or should be) what I was talking about.

TiC on O'Reilly and Jefferson

Here's a twofer from Talking in Circles, under the heading "bill o'reilly lies about thomas jefferson."
Bill O’Reilly wrote that the “separation of church and state argument” is “bogus” because it “does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.”

The post is lifted (with a head-nod attribution) from the Media Matters website.
Word up: Don't trust Media Matters. Here's the Media Matters version:
Bill O'Reilly wrote that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it "does not appear anywhere in the Constitution."
(Media Matters)

And, finally, here's the Bill O' Reilly version:
The anti-Christmas forces are still clinging to the bogus separation of church and state argument that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would mock these secular fools and then retire to his Virginia estate for Christmas dinner.
('Tis The Season, by Bill O'Reilly)

TiC and Media Matters are nice enough to provide all the necessary links, I should add. It's like they either can't think well enough to realize that their evaluation of O'Reilly is bogus, or they're trusting that nobody will bother to double-check.

1) O'Reilly's logic, as it comes from the quotation, does not suggest that the "separation of church and state argument" is "bogus" because it doesn't appear in the constitution. He merely states that the argument is absent from the constitution--and he's perfectly correct on that point.
If the critics want to take O'Reilly to task on that point, they should quote him specifically to that effect. Media Matters failed on that point, thus they probably misrepresented O'Reilly's position on the matter.
2) The better argument--the one that O'Reilly probably adheres to--rests in the fact that the early United States allowed considerable public expression of Christianity. There was no thought that the First Amendment would be applied broadly to all state and local governments through the extension of the Fourteenth Amendment. Check the date on the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't believe me.

So, Thomas Jefferson probably wouldn't celebrate Christmas with the same mindset of Linus van Pelt, but O'Reilly makes a valid point in the context of applying federal law to restrict municipalities from permitting a nativity scene.

I think that Jefferson would have come to realize that not all religions may be accomodated in the laws of one nation. If you took a poll today, a large number of people would disagree that it is self-evident that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights--and apparently that's exactly what Jefferson and company believed as they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson would, I think, be flabbergasted that the self-evident has largely gone out of vogue in terms of popular belief.

Vying for the Naughty List

I've had occasion to mention "Talking in Circles" on my bloghopping reports.

It's a blog by a left-of-center atheist, like Kele's Journey except he doesn't take such extended vacations.

Unfortunately, it has started to look like the blog belongs on the Naughty List after all. I had first accorded respect to the blog since the host apparently welcomed dissenting opinions in the comments. My recent experiences there suggest that might no longer be the case.

Just failing to post my inimitable commentary doesn't qualify a blog as bad, of course. Bad blogs spread bad information by censoring the truth from their commentary section while continuing to broadcast patently false or misleading data.

Like this, for example:

Bush misunderstands Vietnam


What are the lessons we can learn from Vietnam, and how does it relate to the current war in Iraq? According to the President, what he took away from his visit to Vietnam was:

“We’ll succeed unless we quit.”

Yup. He said that.

My response:

This post seems designed to promulgate the notion that President Bush's notion that Vietnam was winnable is an inarguable falsehood. That's a common idea among Americans in general--not just those on the left. It's just not true, however.

I composed a rather lengthy reply pointing out that the Tet offensive had the odd dual effect of leaving the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong armies broken (they suffered staggering casualties) as well as the will of the U.S. to continue the fight--perhaps a suitable analog to Iraq today (winnable fight, no will to win it).
I also commented on one of the comments to the original blog post, since one of the regulars at the site had offered the opinion that getting out of S. Vietnam was a great idea. The truth is that millions lost their freedom resulting in death, torture, and a pathetic economy that has only begun to recover when the nation began to inplement capitalistic reforms. Yippee?
Defeat North Vietnam and how much faster do we get those capitalistic reforms, kids?

Alas, my comments haven't been published, though I know they were registered because I tried to publish again just to make sure it had registered. Sure enough, I got a message assuring me that I had already posted the information.

Is it a good thing to forget how many died and suffered because of the U.S. pullout (and failure to sustain promised support for S. Vietnam)?

Convince me.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Guantanamo in the courts: district court judge finds no federal jurisdiction under new U.S. law

President Bush's framework for handling detainees in the war on terror won a victory when U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson ruled that the law removed the detainees from the jurisdiction of the federal court system.

That means that Guantanamo detainees cannot challenge their detention in the Federal courts.

Instead, the cases will be heard by military commission. The decisions of that commission may be challenged in the D.C. court of appeals.

Here's a winning quotation from the opposition:
"This is the first time in the history of this country that a court has held that a man may be held by our government in a place where no law applies," said Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the US Centre for Constitutional Rights.
Apparently Ms. Olshansky considers military commissions and the D.C. court of appeals lawless, as well as the duly-passed law that establishes the arrangement.

Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh, who mentioned the story during his radio program.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

General Hayden on the NSA wiretaps

I just got through watching General Hayden conduct a press conference concerning the NSA surveillance program. One of the reporters present accidentally helped clarify a critical point in the context of this issue. The reporter, who appeared to be emotionally charged as he spoke, suggested that the NSA program went against the Fourth Amendment. He said that the Fourth Amendment established a "probable cause" standard for searches and seizures.

General Hayden correctly replied that the Fourth Amendment actually established a reasonableness standard.

The questioning by the reporter helped to focus the issue, I think.

If taken to exclude presidential wartime authority (as many critics of the program seem to believe) the FISA system bars the executive branch from exercising the reasonableness standard that comes to us from the Fourth Amendment.

In its place, they would substitute the Fourth Amendment's standards for the issuing of a warrant, which is the "probable cause" standard.

In that case, Congress would have exercised its power to constrain the executive branch of the federal government from exercising a power that a city police department might apply every single day (without a warrant).

Does that make sense?

The Fourth Amendment:
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.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Bucs fall prey to Falcons, suffer NFC South sweep

I haven't been posting after the Buccaneer losses, starting with Thanksgiving at Dallas.

I'll just sum it up like this: The Bucs won't win again (except maybe against Cleveland) until they either develop a pass rush or win the turnover battle decisively.

1) The Bucs' pass rush has been pretty much absent since Simeon Rice injured his shoulder earlier this year. Ellis Wyms has actually improved the pass rush filling for the traded Booger McFarland (now with Indianapolis), but he has also been injured and has missed a few games. The defense put some pressure on Michael Vick, so it's not impossible that the pass rush will still develop this year (though too late to help the team make the playoffs).

2) I've been on the Gradkowski bandwagon since early on, but I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses, either. The rookie QB has grown tentative in the pocket and isn't seeing the field well. He also continues to struggle throwing the deep ball, missing a wide-open Joey Galloway with an overthrown pass today. Granted, today was a windy day and Gradkowski has thrown some deep passes that should have been caught, but I think it's fair to say that he's struggling with the long pass this year.

Despite the Bucs' struggles, this game against Atlanta could easily have been won. The team came away from two early drives with field goals instead of touchdowns. The Bucs were winning 6-0 and on the way to more points when Gradkowski was sacked and fumbled. The Falcons scored to take the lead on the play.
The defense surrendered only 10 points, with three of those coming off a turnover that was already within easy FG range.

The fumble that Atlanta returned for a touchdown was a key play in the game--probably the key play of the game--and it was reviewed by officials after they told coach Gruden that the play could not be reviewed. Most in the crowd (judging by the impressive booing) thought that the officials blew the call after the review, since a Buccaneer player clearly comes down on top of the ball. Unfortunately, I think the officials made the right call on the play. While the Buccaneer player does come down on top of the ball, it would have been a stretch to claim that he ever controlled it, regardless of whether an opposing player touched him while he was on top of the football. It was the right call by the officials, and some bad luck for the Bucs that the play turned out as it did.

I'm really not happy seeing my team get swept in its division. The bottom line is that if the team does the things that bad teams do on a relatively consistent basis, it's a bad team. I don't like having to make that admission. I thought the Bucs would stay near .500 on their off years because of good coaching, low taxes, and a good front office (and I didn't even think that this would be an off year until it became apparent that Chris Simms' struggles early in the year were not purely a fluke).
There are some fairly good excuses available, but I'd hate to use any of them. Every team struggles with coaching changes and injuries to one degree or another. On the good side, this team does have some decent talent so the turnaround could be just around the corner. I think the team needs a QB who can read defenses, consistency on the offensive line, a defensive tackle who disrupts things at least 75 percent as well as Warren Sapp did it, and a new safety or two.

We may already have the quarterback (though I couldn't yet name him from the group we've got--I've trusting that potential plus time might solve the problem). The offensive line just needs to avoid key injuries and get some experience--I think they will do okay. The defensive tackle is a key need unless Ellis Wyms proves that he's more than a backup and that his tendency to get injured isn't going to be a problem (right now I don't see it). The safeties might look a whole lot better if the team were getting a pass rush, but there have clearly been some breakdowns in the back line this year, so I'm sticking with calling it a problem.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Old Haloscan comments temporarily added at the bottom of the page

I'm not entirely satisfied with the result ... I figured out how to get rid of that utt bugly brown color when it appeared behind the blog description, but it's not obvious how to get rid of it for the Haloscan display.

Since it's temporary, I'll just put up with it for a bit.

This is Blogger Beta

I've made the switch to Blogger Beta and so far I like it.

I got my main two blogs switched over, restored the lost formatting and accomplished a few modifications that I had hoped to install in the HTML code once I figured out some bits of the language that I hadn't figured out yet.

One main problem remains. Haloscan commenting hasn't figured out the Blogger Beta system yet, so I'm back with the Blogger default commenting system and the past Haloscan comments are temporarily lost.

An indirect commentary on congressional oversight

The left loves to criticize President Bush as an intellectual lightweight.
He's much smarter than they give him credit for, of course.

This post is about congress, on the other hand. The left likes to talk about the need for congressional oversight.

Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein found that Nancy Pelosi's current favorite for the chairman of the Congressional Intelligence Committee didn't know that al Qaeda was predominantly Sunni.
Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, this is not a problem limited to Democrats. Just a few lines prior:
For example, [Reyes] knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.

It's not even limited to congress (see FBI mention at the end).

I'd like to think that Rep. Jane Harman (D, Calif.) knows how the Sunni/Shiite divide stacks up. It speaks to the Democrats' misplaced priorities that Pelosi isn't supporting Harman for the chair.

Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

Insider's view on Lebanon

I had planned to blog on the reaction of some Lefty blogs to the ISG recommendations, but I couldn't find any that were doing other than criticizing those who were criticizing the ISG's recommendations. That would be okay if the criticisms were accompanied by some statement of position, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Let's hope I'm just looking in the wrong places.

The pleasant surprise was the material on Michael J. Totten's blog--not that it should be surprising that Totten wrote something good. In this case, however, Totten is on hiatus and he's letting a Lebanese Shia do updates on the situation in Lebanon. The guy is apparently no fan of Hezbollah.

Maybe check it out. There's a whole bunch of posts there from Abu Kais.

Friday, December 08, 2006

"Day By Day" keeper

I'm not posting much about the Iraq Survey Group stuff thus far, but today's "Day By Day" cartoon pretty much sums things up, it seems.

Please let me be wrong, or better yet let the U.S. government follow a better plan from the Pentagon or some other more competent source.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Depressing example of debate

In an earlier post concerning the "Liberal Avenger" blog, I praised a response from "Dana," who provided the perfect counterpoint to the original blog post.

The issue in that earlier post concerned chiding from the Liberal Avenger that conservative blogs had been silent over PM al-Maliki supposedly blowing off President Bush over diplomatic talks held in Jordan.

Dana pointed out that the talks had taken place after all, which seems to put the mysterious silence of conservative blogs in its proper perspective--they were not jumping to conclusions as did "LA" of the Liberal Avenger blog.

With not much to say in defense of the original blog post, the discussion thread quickly degenerated.
  1. Stram Says:

    “it’s pretty difficult to imagine that he’d simply “blow off” President Bush”

    Yeah, I agree. It’s more likely Bush would blow Maliki.

  2. blubonnet Says:

    I wonder if Condi blows Bush?

  3. Theerasak Photha Says:

    Egad! What would Bob Jones think?

  4. Dana Says:

    Well, Blu, if she files a sexual harassment suit against him, and he lies under oath about it, y’all will finally have the impeachable offense you want.

I'm guessing that the three comments preceding Dana's came from liberals or progressives--something to the left of the political spectrum. Dana's response played off of the mean-spirited comments that ran before in a somewhat clever way. But then there was this:
  1. Jimmy Says:

    There are plenty more meaningful charges that can be brought against Shrub. What kind of starkly ignorant comment is that Dino? Way below your regular “standards”.

  2. gordo Says:


    Nice mixing of events there. Paula Jones filed a harassment suit, based on no evidence at all. She also filed a defamation of character suit, then appeared nude in Penthouse.

    The Lewinsky matter involved consensual sex. Therefore, it was a red herring, and the question should not have been allowed.

    If you think that the impeachment of Clinton was legitimate, that’s fine, as long as we put ALL of our presidents under oath and grill them about their sexual escapades. If not, then it’s not legitimate.

    On the other hand, violating the FISA law should be an impeachable offense.

Jimmy's comment about "more meaningful" charges is interesting. Is it meant to minimize the charge of lying under oath? Then he asks a question that is more an attack on Dana (the "starkly ignorant comment"). Dana made a fairly decent joke, and he apparently succeeded in putting the left-leaning commentators on the defensive. Then he says that the comment is way below Dana's usual "'standards.'" If Dana's standards are so low to require using quotation marks around the word, we find that Jimmy has placed his latter attack on Dana in doubt.

Gordo is the one who produced the howler that accounts for the current post, however.

Gordo starts off saying that Dana was mixing events. It seems fair for Dana to mix events given that the thread had gone from al-Maliki blowing off Bush to Bush blowing al-Maliki and then to Condi Rice blowing Bush.

Then Gordo starts to defend Clinton (perhaps Dana's aim in the first place). Paula Jones' case against Clinton was based on no evidence, supposedly. One wonders how Gordo determined that there was no evidence, given that Jones had a witness testifying to corroborate portions of her account. As for what went on in the room in which Clinton was alleged to have propositioned Jones, what kind of evidence is there supposed to be? Sound waves imprinted on the walls? Fibers from Clinton's underwear on the carpet? That's not the way the U.S. justice system works. If a person experiences an event such as the one alleged by Jones, the system allows her to make the allegation and pit her word against Clinton's in a court of law. Most particularly, it allows Jones to buttress her case by providing evidence of Clinton's sexual dalliances, used to establish a pattern for the consideration of the judge or jury.

Gordo says that since the Lewinski affair consisted of consensual sex, therefore it was a red herring and (if I read Gordo's intent correctly) no question on the matter should have been posed to Clinton.

Gordo's logic doesn't follow. Jones did not need to show that Clinton had done to others precisely as he had done to her, though certainly such instances would also help her case. A mere pattern of infidelity by W. J. Clinton would strengthen her case. The Lewinsky dalliance did that. Gordo further supposes that the question should not have been asked, so apparently Clinton was off the hook for his answer. Well, Clinton was a lawyer at the time (he hadn't yet been disbarred), so why didn't he realize that the question shouldn't have been allowed? Is Gordo that much smarter than Clinton? Somehow, I doubt it. Clinton knew that the could have declined to answer the question. That much was discussed during the time of his impeachment. Instead, he elected to answer it with a falsehood, knowing that it affected the development of Paula Jones' case. It's classic perjury. There's no excuse.

From there, Gordo blathers on to the effect that Clinton's impeachment wasn't legitimate unless we allow prosecutors to grill all presidents about their sexual lives. That actually is allowed, in principle, where presidential immunity is not successfully invoked.
And any president can take the avenue not chosen by Clinton: Don't answer the question.

In Clinton's case, not answering the question didn't do enough to damage Jones' case against him. So he chose to lie.
One wonders what motive other presidents would have to lie instead of simply not answering the question when questioned about their sexual history.

Gordo finishes by claiming that violating FISA ought to be an impeachable offense. Not everyone agrees with that claim, for what it's worth, but I wonder what evidence Gordo has that Bush violated FISA?

I'll have to consider Gordo's blog for Bad Blogs' Blood since he's put himself on the map like this.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

MSM Distortion 101: Wauwatosa brawl suspect collared

I've been following (albeit not especially closely) a story about a brawl that took place in Wisconsin, apparently related to a gay marriage statute that was coming up for a vote up there.

In a series of posts (including this one), I pointed out the rather lousy job the media outlets have done in telling the story.

This news release just compounds that effect.

WAUWATOSA - Wauwatosa police arrested a man in connection with a brawl at a George Webb restaurant in September.

Police believe the 26-year-old Milwaukee man is responsible for starting the fight.

It all started when patrons were discussing the gay marriage amendment on November's ballot.

The man got upset and started throwing chairs, ketchup bottles and anything else he could get his hands on.
There's one part that's actually an improvement. This story acknowledges that there was a fight ("responsible for starting the fight"), at least at first.
The latter portion makes the other participants out merely as victims, even though at least one of the supposed victims threw a chair about 10 feet through the air at the suspect.
I wrote the television station that received the surveillance tape evidence, asking for an explanation of the way they edited the tape for its on-air presentation. I received a couple of courteous replies that contained no useful information.

The suspect did not go from the discussion to throwing things directly, as implied by the above account. Instead, he was sitting eating his meal when one of the victims approached him in his seat. Though the video had sound, I haven't been able to make out what was said at that point (that's one of the things I asked the TV news editors about--why no transcript?

I just found a version of the story from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. More distortion.

Wauwatosa police were called to the George Webb Restaurant at 6108 W. Blue Mound Road early Sunday on a report of a fight over homosexuality and Wisconsin's upcoming referendum on gay marriage.

According to witnesses, three friends - a lesbian, a gay man and a transgendered man - were discussing the marriage referendum with patrons nearby when others joined in. As the topic turned to homosexuality and became more heated, they said, one man left his seat in the corner of the diner and began arguing with the three before punching the lesbian and transgendered man, and then threatening to shoot up the restaurant.

They said the attacker left the restaurant, then came back - though without a gun - and started throwing glass ketchup and sugar containers.
(Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept 29, 2006, "Hate charge sought in diner fracas;
Man punched lesbian and transgendered man involved in discussion of marriage referendum" by Annysa Johnson)
... obtained through Lexis Nexis.
The part about the man leaving "his seat in the corner of the diner ... before punching the lesbian and transgendered man" is very misleading.
The suspect apparently left his original seat to join the three "victims" at the restaurant counter area. He is seated there when Jorryn, the lesbian, leaves her seat in order to confront the suspect. She comes within easy arm's reach of the suspect, and he pushes her backward.
In my judgment, she takes a dive when she falls backward. It doesn't look to me as though the push should have sent her to the ground unless she were drunk (which is possible, I suppose).

That's not a punch by any stretch of the imagination. I should mention that the suspect does rise from his seat as he pushes Jorryn. He stands his ground as he is confronted by all three of the victims, who have now left their seats to confront the suspect (one remains in the background, certainly).

It is at this point that the suspect delivers a punch at the other "victim" but the person is not completely in the picture at that point, so it's hard to say what happened, exactly. The film clips I've seen are choppy enough that it's even possible that the supposed victim threw the first punch.

Again, the video clips had sound, so using the whole of the evidence should give a fairly clear picture of what happened--but the press in Wisconsin have done an incredibly poor job of giving people an accurate picture of what happened.

Using the taped evidence, it should at least be possible to provide a version that doesn't contain obvious distortions.