July 02, 2009
Flying with the Blue Angels
Here's nearly ten minutes of in-cockpit video of the Blue Angels, the U.S. Navy's aerobatic team, without the irritating, pounding rock score that usually accompanies such footage. It's almost as good as riding in the blue-and-yellow F-18's back seat.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Global warming consensus? What consensus?
I have had countless discussions over the last few years with friends and family who express disbelief that I'm not a believer in anthropogenic global warming. "What about the consensus of scientists who say it's real and we're to blame?"
When I respond that there is no "consensus," except amongst those who have already drunk deeply of the emotion-based Green crowd Kool-Aid, they roll their eyes at me and pronounce me hopeless.
So, it gives me some satisfaction to point them to Kimberly Strassel's piece in the Wall Street Journal.
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief .Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
[...]
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
We'll see if cooler heads prevail in the Senate and drive a stake through the heart of the economy-killing cap-and-trade madness, a bill designed to fix a non-existent problem for which we're not responsible.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 01, 2009
Honduras: What's really happening?
The Obama administration continues to peddle the line -- aided and abetted by a seemingly willfully ignorant press -- that the events in Honduras constitute an illegal coup d'etat.
Donald Sensing, a retired Army colonel, pastor and blogger, did a little bit of research, the results seemingly fatal to the spin favored by Fidel Castro (dictator), Hugo Chavez (tyrant), the Honduran ex-president (would-be tyrant), and the U.S. State Department, that the forcible removal from office of the president was illegal.
Ad fontes: CONSTITUCIÓN DE LA REPÚBLICA DE HONDURAS
Translation by Google (yeah, I know). Since I was once reasonably fluent in Spanish, I have massaged it a little herein; my glosses are in brackets [ ].
Let's consider the following facts seriatim (italics are mine throughout):
Chapter VI, Article 237: "The presidential term is four years... ." There is no provision for self succession. Article 42 forbids inciting, encouraging or supporting the re-election of a president, which Zelaya was unambiguously doing. The Honduran constitution makes no provision for impeachment as we understand the process. However, Article 239 provides that,
No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
This re-emphasizes that a president may not succeed himself in office - having "already served as head of the Executive Branch," Zelaya was constitutionally inelegible to remain in office after his term expired.
Article 239 continues, Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [Sp.: reforma, or amendment], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Since the constitution strictly prescribes a single term for the president, and since Zelaya was openly campaigning for a second term, the country's supreme court properly ruled, on purely constitutional grounds, that Zelaya must "immediately cease" in his function as president.
Chapter 10, Article 272: The Armed Forces of Honduras are ... established to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, keep the peace, public order and the rule of the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage and alternation in the presidency of the Republic.
Consitutionally, it is the military that is charged, in concert with civilian organs of government, to ensure that the one-term limit of the presidency is enforced. It is the military that is constitutionally charged with ensuring the intregrity of national elections.
Therefore, the removal of Zelaya from office by the army was not merely appropriate, it was constitutionally required that the army do so. Why does the army have such responsibilities? See my post, "The role of the Honduran military," in the country's history.
Furthermore, when the army's chief of staff refused to send Zelaya's ballots to polling places, Zelaya personally led a mob to the warehouse, stole the ballots and had his minions start to distribute them. This act also violated the constitution because only the army has the constitutional authority to do so.
Yet somehow, the American MSM, the White House and State Department don't do the simple research to see what Honduran law and constitutionality have to say about recent events. Instead, they knee jerked from the beginning and kept on doing it. Their ineptitude is, sadly, no longer surprising. At least I hope it's mere ineptitude, which can be overcome. The alternative is explained by Roger Simon, and it ain't good.
Something to keep in mind as you read countless stories parroting the "illegal coup" meme.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The uncomfortable contradictions of Obamacare
Jonah Goldberg makes reference to Lebensunwertes Leben in the title to a post on Pres. Obama's infomercial for socialized medicine.
From the LA Times:
Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
There's an interesting contradiction here. According to the pro-choice perspective, it's outrageous for the state to interfere in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. But it's pragmatic and reasonable for the state to consider terminating a person, if some money can be saved.
This logic is nothing new.
That last line is a reference to the eugenics policies of the Nazi regime that ruled Germany from 1933-1945; Lebensunwertes Leben is Life Unworthy of Life, which is how so-called mental defectives and other less-than-perfect members of society were designated.
Lest Goldberg -- and I -- be accused of violating Godwin's Law, the issue is the State deciding who should receive medical treatment, i.e., who should live or die, and not the individual, rather than some sweeping allegation that Nazi-era eugenics policies are resurgent.
I agree with Goldberg that the abortion debate has led the left to take an absolutist position: No one may interfere with a woman's healthcare decisions, but single-payer, government-controlled healthcare will, by definition and necessity ration access to benefits.
The contradictions are plain to see, and the ethical dilemmas strike me as patently obvious.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 30, 2009
The company you keep
The quality of the reporting on events has been pretty poor, with even supposedly knee-jerk rightwingers like Fox News buying into the "coup d'etat" meme, notwithstanding the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress essentially ordering the military to act, in accordance with their nation's laws.
Charles Krauthammer addressed our Supreme Leader's rather misguided response on last night's panel segment of Special Report.
Well, the president has a knack for getting all of these big decisions wrong. Two weeks ago, he refuses to meddle in a country where peaceful demonstrators are getting shot by a theocratic dictatorship. He doesn't want to choose sides.
And now he's eager to meddle on behalf of the president in Honduras who is a Chavez wannabe, who is strong-arming his way to a referendum — that has been declared illegal by his Supreme Court — as a way to...establish a constituent assembly which will establish a new constitution, which will be a Chavez-like dictatorship.
That's what everybody understands in Honduras, and that's why the Supreme Court had ruled the referendum illegal. Only Congress has a right to call it, not the president. Congress had denounced it.
The Supreme Court had told the military not to assist in the referendum because it's illegal. So Zelaya fires the chief of staff of the army. The Supreme Court orders him reinstated; he fires him again.
This guy is acting extra-constitutionally. Yes, he was elected, but Hitler was as well, and Chavez also was. It's easy to dismantle a democracy if you're president and if you are intent on doing it — and [Zelaya] is intent on doing it.
So our decision ought to be: Yes, a coup isn't a nice thing, but it's preferable to having Zelaya dismantle the democracy. And we should insist on the elections of a president as scheduled in November, so it is a temporary situation.
Look, a rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.
Sometimes the company you keep says a lot about who you are.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 28, 2009
Shortchanging national defense
The federal government exists if for no other reason than to provide for the common defense, yet the current budget proposed by Pres. Obama will slash defense spending to levels not seen since before September 11, 2001. Hard though it may be to believe for my pacifist friends, the United States, even under the allegedly bloodthirsty Pres. Bush the Younger, spent less money on defense as a percentage of GDP than did even the Appeaser-in-Chief, otherwise known as Jimmah Carter.
The North Koreans are threatening to launch a nuke towards Hawaii, and the Secretary of Defense announces that we're sending an ocean-going ballistic missile interception system to protect the state. And yet Obama's budget cuts the funding for ballistic missile defense -- which is actually a perfect metaphor for this government, demanding that we get something for nothing, while spending trillions for something we'll never get, like a solvent GM, or better healthcare via socialized medicine.
So, to reiterate, North Korea has gone nuclear and nutty, the Iranians plan on getting the Bomb, no matter how much Obama begs them not to, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez threatens to invade Honduras, and we keep slashing funding for the military.
Well, at least there's money for PBS, NPR and the NEA, to keep us informed and entertained.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
California's top Democrat: Conservative voters are terrorists
This is perhaps the most outrageous thing I've heard uttered by an American politician in recent history. Karen Bass, the Democratic Party's top dog in the California Assembly, was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times' Patt Morrison; the wide-ranging conversation touched on a variety of topics, including why Bass thinks women are better then men when it comes to governing.
But the Assembly Speaker, who talked about her background as a "community activist" (why am I not surprised?) really got going when asked about the relationship between Republicans and voters.
Q: How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?
A: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
Opposition to "revenue" -- notice Bass never says "tax increases" -- is "terrorism"? Voters who demand that Republicans hold fast and vote against tax increases are "terrorists"? My loathing for this politician, this feckless crapweasel who equates fiscal responsibility in this post 9-11 world with terrorism, is incandescent.
And who knew that free speech could be so darn "extremely unfair"? Democracy can be so inconvenient, especially when your putative subjects won't go along with the Politburo's Five Year Plan.
Patterico points out that Republicans pledged to vote against take increases and won the votes of their constituents as a result of their promise to control spending, instead of raising taxes. Pat links to a study from the Reason Foundation laying out in unambiguous terms that California is bedeviled by out of control spending, which cannot be cured or fixed through ever higher taxes.
Examining the state’s revenues clearly demonstrates there is not a revenue problem. Since FY 1990-91, revenues have increased 166.9 percent, or 5.61 percent a year, and have risen rather steadily over this period.
In FY 1990-91, the state took in over $38 billion in General Fund revenues. In FY 2008-09 revenues are $102 billion. Based on these revenues, if California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state’s consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, instead of a $42 billion deficit, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus this year.
The study examines specific problem areas, including the huge increase in the number of state employees (9.3 for every 1,000 Californians), as well as the explosion in education spending (with crap-tastic results); it's an easy read, with informative charts, too. Check it out.
Pat comments about Assembly Speaker Bass and her Democrat cohorts in Sacramento:
This is the sort of attitude we’re seeing in Sacramento. They want to do what they want to do (raise taxes ad infinitum) — and they’re so very irritated at having to deal with petty annoyances like their signed pledges, and the voters’ wishes.
The arrogance is breathtaking, the condescension maddening, and the contempt for the democratic process (from California "Democrats," no less, is, unfortunately, not particularly surprising.
If this is what passes for political leadership, Californians are doomed.
Posted by Mike Lief at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Looking for ammo?
I've been reading that the ammo shortage -- bare shelves nationwide for most calibers -- is beginning to ease, but it's still hard to find a lot of popular and not-so-popular flavors, and what there is to be had is often quite expensive.
This fellow keeps a running post of 7.62mm NATO on the market, with the following info broken out: supplier, country of origin, year of manufacture, lot size, and, most important, cost per round. First posted in February 2005, it was last updated on June 23.
There are links to the retailers selling the ammo, too. It's a convenient and valuable resource.
If 7.62 NATO isn't on your shopping list, the folks at M4Carbine.net have posted links to a number of on-line retailers, making the shopping process a bit less painful. They haven't done the cost-per-round analysis like the fellow I just told you about, but it's still quite helpful.
Check 'em both out.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 26, 2009
Michael Jackson: Puh-leeze
I really hadn't planned on posting anything on the death of America's creepiest celebrity, but the unseemly and undeserving avalanche of media coverage, along with the outpouring of manical adulation from otherwise sane citizens has provoked a response, including -- but not limited to -- nausea and revulsion.
Jonah Goldberg posted his thoughts over at National Review; they're exactly on point, and worth excerpting.
... I find the media’s instinctive rush to sanctify Michael Jackson disgusting.
Look, I understand that Michael Jackson was an “icon.” I understand that some people loved his work and that many people who never met him believed they loved the man too.
But I didn't, and I’m hardly alone. If Michael Jackson were just another famous person, I’d probably stay silent and let the pro forma celebration of his memory roll by without comment. (For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with the media taking a moment to pay respects to Farah Fawcett).
[...]
I think part of [the problem] is the narcissism of our celebrity culture. Here was a guy so many of “us” read about in People magazine for so long. His passing, therefore, isn’t a loss in the sorrowful sense of the word, but in the selfish one. It’s a loss of an interesting subject, a creature to gossip about and to fill a few minutes on E! or Entertainment Tonight.
[...]
Calling Michael Jackson an icon doesn’t let him off the hook for anything. But to listen to the news anchors you’d think it absolves him of everything.
I say: Who cares who his famous friends were? Who cares what a “fascinating” person he was? If you want to talk about his death as an end of an era, have at it. But that’s not what the Barbara Walters set is doing.
I know that Michael Jackson wasn’t convicted of the despicable crimes he was accused of. And that’s why he never went to jail. Three cheers for the majesty of the American legal system. But in my own personal view, he wasn’t exonerated either. Nor was he absolved of his crimes because he could sing, moonwalk, or sell 10 million records. (Though many of us suspect the money and fame he made from those things is precisely what kept him out of jail).
And, while I merely think he was a pedophile, I know he was not someone responsible parents should applaud, healthy children emulate, nor society celebrate.
And while we’re at it, his relatively early death wasn’t “tragic.” He was one of the richest people in the world. He spent his money on perpetual childhood and he was perpetually with children not his own.
Meanwhile, in the last ten days, we’ve seen or heard of remarkable people who’ve given their lives for freedom in Iran. We’ve heard of innocents killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the last decade, America has lost thousands of heroes in noble causes and thousands of innocent bystanders who were denied the simple joys of life through no fault of their own. Those deaths are tragic, and we're hard pressed to think of more than a handful of names to put with the long line of the dead.
If anything, Michael Jackson’s life, not his death, was tragic.
[...]
Michael Jackson had many accomplishments. But the press is sanctifying him because he was famous, deservedly so to be sure, but not because he was good. So much of the coverage seems to miss this fundamental point, as if being famous made him good.
I feel sympathy for Jackson’s family and friends who understandably mourn him. But I can't bring myself to mourn him any more than I mourn the random dead I read about in the paper everyday. Indeed, I confess to mourning him less.
Every channel says this is a sad day for America. I agree. But not for the same reasons.
The only thing I can add is my profound disappoint at the number of long-time friends who have seemingly taken leave of their senses, mourning the passing of this deeply flawed -- I'll go further and say "evil" -- man who preyed upon children, because he also had the ability to entertain.
The most charitible explanation is that my friends are engaging in a bit of self-reverential navel-gazing, mourning the loss of their youth, along with the singer who provided the soundtrack to their school days and parties.
In the meantime, Iranians are rioting for their freedom, Congress is getting ready to pass the most massive tax hike in the nation's history, and the destruction of our healthcare system is fast approaching.
Like Goldberg, I think this is indeed a sad day for America; the media -- and the public -- should take a deep breath and get a grip.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:19 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
June 25, 2009
Choosing to live in the palace of your memories
Gerard Vanderleun has written a remarkably moving piece about his 100-year-old uncle, a man who has lived a long and full life but now sits quietly in a rest home, eyes closed, seemingly lost in the depths of dementia.
But what if dementia was a choice? And what if choosing dementia made sense?
If you knew that everyday for the rest of your life, you'd be dressed in diapers and confined to a wheelchair with blurred eyesight in a small brick walled room what would you do? If you knew that at every meal for the rest of your life a woman who talked to you as if you were a baby would spoon three flavors of baby food into your mouth, what would you do? If, opening your eyes, you knew that all you would see would be a bright fluorescent glare and the blurred shapes of dozens of others, mostly women, lolling about in wheelchairs, what would you do?
If you knew to a dead, solid certainty that you were never going to be released from your room until you were released, at long last, from your body, what would you do? If you were a sane man, just what would you, at long last, do?
I don't know about you, but I would figure a way out and if that way out was only deeper in, that's where I'd go. I'd go deep into my palace of memories and I'd use all my energy to construct a world inside that was made of the most vivid moments of all the years I'd lived.
I'd be building the world's worst sandcastle on the beach in Balboa as my father and uncle tossed a football back and forth on the hot sand. I'd be waking up in the back seat of our 1951 Chevy and seeing my grandparents' faces pressed against the glass as the first snow I'd ever seen fell softly behind them in the twilight. I'd be with my first wife on my wedding night at the Pierre. I'd be at my job on the better days. I'd be in a taxi in New York going downtown at three in the morning making all the lights. I'd go back to a warm field in a California twilight and listen to the breath and laughter of a young girl heard once and never again. I'd sit in the sun in front of a rose-covered cottage in Big Sur. I'd be laughing on the Spanish Stairs or weaving drunk along a cliff road on Hydra under a bronze moon and above a wine-dark sea. I'd be high up in a hotel in Paris looking down at the Seine in the rain. I'd hold my one-year-old daughter over my head while lying on the grass in the Boston Public gardens in the spring and see her face framed with cherry blossoms. Those and a million other rooms in my Palace of Memory I'd visit over and over again until they all ran together in a blur as the train, accelerating, finally left the station and leapt towards the stars and beyond and, finally forgetting all of that, I saw for a fleeting moment the mystery complete.
More than anything else, I would not be in that room any more than I absolutely had to.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:08 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Eyewitness to eruption
Astronauts on the International Space Station just happened to be above a volcano when it erupted, capturing some stunning photos of the initial blast punching a hole through the clouds.
The Daily Mail (U.K.) reports:
Sarychev Peak, one of the most active volcanoes in the world, had been sitting quietly in the Kuril Island chain near Japan for 20 years, when it suddenly sprang to life on June 12.
Fortuitously, the International Space Station was flying overhead at the time, and managed to capture this spectacular image of the ash-cloud tearing through the atmosphere, sending clouds scattering in its wake in a perfect circle.
The station, which orbits the earth from a height of 220 miles, makes nearly 16 orbits of our planet every 24 hours, and happened to be in the perfect spot to see the dramatic eruption.
The unique images have provided a wealth of new information about the eruption process, and volcanologists are now excitedly poring over the data.
Most unique is the mist-like 'roof' to the cloud, believed to be either steam or condensing water pushed ahead of the advancing cloud of ash. Known as a 'pileus cloud', it lasts just moments, making this a rare snapshot.
Also visible, far below on the hillside, is the thunderous pyroclastic flow of super-heated rock as it cascades down the mountainside ... Appearing at the start of an explosive eruption, they can travel at 130mph, meaning there's nearly no escape for anyone or anything caught in its path.
But the most stunning aspect of the picture is the effect on the clouds: As the ash column punches its way towards the top of the atmosphere, the shockwave causes the clouds to scatter.
An alternative theory, one which these pictures is helping to test, is that as the ash rises, the surrounding air is pushed down, where it warms, and the increased heat causes the clouds to evaporate.
[...]
The last explosive eruption from Sarychev happened in 1989, with eruptions in 1986, 1976, 1954, and 1946 also producing lava flows.
Ash from the eruptions has been recorded to reach more than 1,500miles from the volcano and commercial airline flights have been disrupted.
The height of the plume was measured at five miles high - a huge distance into the sky, although not enough to worry the astronauts peering down from above.
The space program has yielded unexpected discoveries over the years, serendipity often playing a part in the process. The odds against astronauts being in the perfect location to observe the instant the volcano erupted must be galactically high, and yet here we are, with high resolution photos of something never seen before.
Oh, sure, pyroclastic flows have been seen over the centuries, just not often by people who live to tell about it.
Vulcanologists must be giddy.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 23, 2009
Ed McMahon, 1923-2009
Boy, do I miss Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon, the once and future king of late night TV and his trusty wingman. Carson was always fun to watch, a gentleman and a pro, and McMahon provided a warm Irish bluster to play off Carson's waspy Midwest reserve.
The irony of their on-air relationship is that McMahon was an officer during World War II, a Marine pilot during Korea, as well, retiring from the Air National Guard as a brigadier general. Carson spent the war as an enlisted man in the navy, dungarees and dixie cups. Carson used to joke about the role reversal, but I don't think I'd ever seen a picture of McMahon during the war.
There are a many obituaries running today highlighting McMahon's years on the Tonight Show, with photos of him in his dotage. I've always liked those obituaries that show the subjects not as elderly, rheumy-eyed pensioners, but rather as they were in their prime, strong handsome men and gorgeous gals in dresses straight out of a '40s Warner Bros. film.
So, let me do you the favor of a couple of shots of Ed McMahon in his prime.
Here's McMahon in uniform during the Big One, looking quite dapper. He was good enough in the cockpit to get instructor duty, training the guys heading overseas.
This shot was taken in 1951, when McMahon was hosting his own TV show in Philadelphia. Although he spent decades at Carson's side, McMahon always had solo gigs lined up, too.
Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon ended their 30-year run in 1992, and late nights just haven't been the same for me -- and millions of other Americans of a certain age -- ever since.
Rest in peace.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
June 22, 2009
The downside of faster-than-light travel
There's some good news/bad news for space travel advocates and sci-fi fans. First the good news: Faster-than-light travel may be possible!
Now the bad news:
"Star Trek" makes faster-than-light travel look easy, but according to new calculations by Italian physicists, a warp drive could easily create a black hole that would incinerate any passengers on a space craft and then suck Earth into a black hole.
[...]
In normal physics, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Einstein's theory of relativity forbids it. In normal space any object approaching the speed of light will increase in mass exponentially, and require an exponential increase in the amount of power needed to propel it forward.
There are two exceptions to this rule however. The first is what's commonly called a worm hole, a bridge connecting two different parts of space. A ship crossing this bridge would move at below light speed, but still arrive before a beam of light that would have had to go the long way around.
Warp drives are the second and more appealing option. A ship can't move through space faster than the speed of light. But with enough energy, space itself can move faster than the speed of light.
Known for the Mexican physicist Michael Alcubierre who originally developed the idea in the 1990's, an Alcubierre warp drive would create a bubble of energy behind the ship and a lack of energy in front of the ship, like a giant cosmic wave a space ship could surf. That particular section of space can travel faster than the speed of light in the surrounding space, and anything on or in that bubble will accelerate with it.
[Researchers] propose creating this bubble of space-time by using a massive amount of "exotic matter," or dark energy. (Exactly how this bubble would be created is still a mystery.) According to their calculations and simplified, it would take a huge amount of energy to create the bubble, and then increasing amounts of energy to contain the highly repulsive dark energy.
Eventually the energy would run out. The bubble would rupture, with catastrophic effects. Inside the bubble the temperature would rise to about 10^32 degrees Kelvin, destroying almost anything on the bubble.
Anyone watching the ship nearby wouldn't be much better off.
Surfing the leading edge of a space/time bubble, before being shredded-vaporized?
Cowabunga, dude!
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 21, 2009
Jib Jab on the powers of the president
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 20, 2009
Are there any grownups in charge at the White House?
"Professional" skateboarder Tony Hawk rides his skateboard in the White House Saturday, with the permission of the current residents.
According to the Daily News, the Obama Administration gave Tony Hawk permission to ride his skateboard in the White House, with photos of the middle-aged man gliding down the hallways on his toy.
I was bothered when I saw the photo on Drudge this afternoon; it strikes me as fundamentally unserious and undignified, an unfitting use of our White House. Greg Gutfeld thinks it says something about the current occupants of the President's home, too.
Am I an old fart or am I right to be pissed that some jackass is skateboarding down the halls of the White House while all this Iranian shit is going down?
We truly have succumbed to the idiocy of the MTV/Mountain Dew/Road Rules backward hat and baggy short culture. Did I miss something, or is the White House the future set for the next Real World? Where are the wallet chains? Is Hot Topic handling our foreign policy? Obama should be grounded for a week for letting Tony Hawk play in OUR house. Where in hell are the adults?
Look: Tony Hawk is in his mid forties. He’s a grown man…and he skateboards. Could you imagine your dad or anyone who lived during World War II treating a man who skateboards with anything less than scorn and ridicule?
Right now, people are risking their lives for the glimmer of freedom, and Tony Hawk is in the White House tweeting about Frosted Flakes.
Someone please dig up Reagan. I’d take a dead leader with balls over a living camp counselor who wants all the cool kids to like him.
What a screaming joke.
It's a joke, alright. The joke's on us.
So why am I not laughing?
George Bush, a president with whom I had numerous disagreements -- hell, he ultimately drove me away from rejoining the GOP -- believed that the White House and the office of the president deserved respect, and as such declared that the era of jeans and sneakers, favored by his predecessor, was over on the day he took office. Suit and tie was the dress code, and class and dignity were the watchwords.
The Bush years were derided by liberals, who claimed that our international reputation suffered as a result of the supposed rube in charge. These same folks proclaimed that Pres. Obama would swiftly restore us to our proper place of honor on the international stage, through his spectacular oratory, intellect and charm.
Instead we're treated to days of waffling and indecision as millions of Iranians demonstrate against the repressive regime of the mullahs -- and the spectacle of eternal adolescents goofing off in the heart of the American presidency.
Can you imagine what the mullahs are thinking? What the steely eyed Russian strongman Putin must think? How this looks to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il? Serious men all. Deadly serious.
Does "serious" seem like the most accurate adjective to describe our nation's leaders?
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Iko Iko
Man, does this song ever take me back to the '80s. It's a cover of the Dixie Cups "Iko Iko," this version recorded by the all-girl English group The Belle Stars in '82 and subsequently used in Rainman and another Tom Cruise film, Mission Impossible 2.
Make sure to hit the "HQ" button for a better picture.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 18, 2009
Barbara Boxer: What an embarrassment
Barbara Boxer has long been an embarassment, perhaps the stupidest senator in a chamber chock-full-o-idiots, but this is compelling evidence that California is represented by an insecure maroon.
Overheard at a Senate hearing yesterday:
"Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I'd appreciate it."
--Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Brigadier General Michael Walsh during Senate hearing Tuesday, when he the general repeatedly said, "Yes, ma'am," and "No, ma'am," when answering Boxer's questions at hearing she chaired on New Orleans' levee system.
In the military, it is a sign of respect to refer to someone as "Sir" or Ma'am," and is also a means of recognizing that the person being so addressed is higher in rank. Futhermore, if one watches C-Span on a regular basis, it becomes apparent that military officers refer to male senators as "Sir" far more often than "senator." As a matter of fact, referring to someone by his rank -- instead of "Sir" -- can sometimes be perceived as a subtle act of insubordination.
One would think that Boxer, having been in the Senate for far too many years, would have noticed her male colleagus being called "Sir," as well as her fellow Californian, Diane Feinstein, being addressed as "Ma'am."
Furthermore, Boxer hasn't "worked so hard to get that title." She is an elected representative of the People. I'd say she was a feckless crapweasel, like the rest of the politicians, but that's just me. We don't have royalty in this country, no peerage; if "Mr." is good enough for the president, then Boxer can accept the same honorific as the rest of her colleagues.
If her deep-seated insecurity about her incompetence and stupidity will allow her to stop demanding special treatment from General Walsh.
Way to go, Babs. Nothing screams gravitas and dignity like a whine and a pout.
Jimmy Dugan: Are you crying? Are you crying? ARE YOU CRYING? There's no crying! THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!
Doris Murphy: Why don't you give her a break, Jimmy...
Jimmy Dugan: Oh, you zip it, Doris! Rogers Hornsby was my manager, and he called me a talking pile of pigshit. And that was when my parents drove all the way down from Michigan to see me play the game. And did I cry?
Evelyn Gardner: No, no, no.
Jimmy Dugan: Yeah! NO. And do you know why?
Evelyn Gardner: No...
Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying!
Cripes.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Mark Steyn: Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody
Mark Steyn, whose political expertise is dwarfed only by his encyclopedic knowledge of all things musical, recently noted the passing of Sam Butera, the saxophonist who engaged in spirited note-for-note duels with Louis Prima.
Steyn also discussed perhaps their most famous number, Just A Giggolo/I Ain't Got Nobody, reintroduced -- some might say stolen -- to a new generation by rocker David Lee Roth in the '80s.
Sam [Butera] died in Las Vegas a few days ago, and, if you never saw him during his half-century at the Sahara and other landmarks on the Strip, you missed a treat. As Louis Prima's saxophonist, he was an indispensable component of what was billed as "The Wildest Show In Vegas". And they were: Butera, Prima, Keely Smith, together in a rowdy, bawdy on-stage party that did a lot to define the desert resort in its early days.
[...]
The on-stage dueling - with Louis scatting lines of ever more frenetic gibberish and demanding that Sam instantly recapitulate them on the sax - delighted audiences right up until the day, in 1975, when Prima fell into an irreversible coma. After the shock, Butera picked up his horn and went back to work, providing customers for another quarter-century almost as much fun sans Prima. Almost.
[...]
"I Ain't Got Nobody" was written before America entered the First World War, and "Just A Gigolo" was composed over a decade later and thousands of miles to the east as a melancholic Teutonic reflection on what had happened to the Habsburg Empire in the wake of that war. In 1928, a composer called Leonello Casucci and a lyricist by the name of Julius Brammer enjoyed a big hit in Austria called "Schöner Gigolo". And, as was often the case back then, a New York publisher noticed its success in Europe and snapped up the English-language rights (one feature of our supposedly more "multicultural" age is how comparatively parochial the music biz is compared to 80 years ago).
The US publisher handed it to my old friend Irving Caesar to adapt. As you'll know if you read my obituary of him in Mark Steyn's Passing Parade, I adored Caesar, mainly because, to the impressionable lad I was back then, he was exactly what you were looking for in an old-time songwriter: A small man with a shock of white hair and a bow tie, he chewed cigars, sang songs, and regaled you with well-honed anecdotage about his biggest hits - and flops. Among the latter was a disaster of a Broadway show called My Dear Public, which earned him the worst notices he'd ever had. He served as the show's lyricist, librettist, co-composer and producer. "Okay, they didn't like it," he told Oscar Hammerstein. "But why blame me?" He went to a costume party dressed as his near namesake, Julius Caesar, but got pulled over for speeding. "Name?" demanded the cop.
"Caesar," said Caesar.
"A wiseguy, huh?"
When I knew him, he lived in the Omni Park Central in New York, having moved in many decades and several remodelings earlier. So you'd pass through a lobby of chrome or leather or whatever that season's hotel decor was, and then cross Caesar's threshold and step back through the years, to a Tin Pan Alley publishing house, circa 1924. Irving would recline in his BarcaLounger, singing "Swanee" or "Tea For Two" or another of his hits, squeaking the chair in time to the music.
I asked him about "Just A Gigolo" and, for a few minutes, he stopped squeaking. His credo was simple - "I write fast. Sometimes lousy, but always fast." So, when he was handed "Schöner Gigolo", he decided he liked the tune - a simple melody, but given a wistful bittersweet quality by the underlying harmony - and that he'd get someone to translate the German text and tell him what it was all about, and then he'd write it, fast. When he saw the translation, he realized Julius Brammer had written an allegory of Austro-Hungarian post-imperial decline in which a former hussar who still recalls the good old days is forced to eke out a living as a gigolo. Caesar reckoned that nobody in America cared about social upheaval in the Habsburg Empire but thought the basic scenario had potential. "I moved him to France," he told me, "and then I begin by describing him":
'Twas in a Paris cafe that first I found him
He was a Frenchman, a hero of the war
But war was over, and here's how peace had crowned him
A few cheap medals to wear, and nothing more
Now ev'ry night in this same cafe you'll find him
And as he strolls by, the ladies hear him say,
'If you admire me
Please hire me...'I loved how Irving sang that line to me in his BarcaLounger that day: "If you admire me/Please hire me..." He put a real yearning into it, really getting into the part. Which was impressive, because it would be hard to conjure anything less like a Parisian gigolo than a genial bachelor pushing ninety. (Irving told me he didn't want to get married too young. In the end, he waited till he was a hundred to tie the knot, and died the following year at 101.) Anyway, after that bit of Jolsonesque pleading, complete with outstretched arms, he went into the chorus. "Schöner Gigolo" translates as "beautiful gigolo", but Caesar decided to go for something more alliterative:
I'm Just A Gigolo
Ev'rywhere I go
People know the part I'm playing
Paid for ev'ry dance
Selling each romance
Ev'ry night some heart betraying...And, if you know the Louis Prima record, that line is most likely unfamiliar to you. But that's how everyone sang it when Caesar unleashed it on the English-speaking world 80 years ago. That's how Crosby did it, and Ted Lewis, Ben Bernie, Leo Reisman and the other bandleaders who made the first recordings. That's how it went on the big screen, too, after "Just A Gigolo" proved so popular that they used it as the title for a 1931 feature film and a 1932 Betty Boop cartoon.
But that was all ancient history by the time Louis Prima and Sam Butera were reconstructing the song a quarter-century later. So here's what Louis sang:
I'm Just A Gigolo
Ev'rywhere I go
People know the part I'm playing
Paid for ev'ry dance
Selling each romance
Oooooooh, what they're saying...In Prima's version, he sings two choruses of "Gigolo", and then:
When the end comes, I know
They'll say Just A Gigolo
Life goes on without me
'Coz
I...
Ain't Got Nobody...Somehow, Prima and Butera had hooked up Julius Brammer's metaphor for post-Habsburg Austria with a somewhat self-pitying ballad from 1915, written by a fellow son of New Orleans, Spencer Williams. The composer of "Basin Street Blues", "I've Found A New Baby", "Everybody Loves My Baby" and more, Williams has an enviable catalogue, but in 1956, having relocated to Stockholm, he'd more or less given up on "I Ain't Got Nobody", for whom there'd been few takers since the bluesier mamas like Sophie Tucker and Bessie Smith had given it some mileage back in the Twenties. Who knows how or why the muse descends? But somehow Butera and Prima decided to combine "Just A Gigolo" with "I Ain't Got Nobody", and make it a nightly Vegas ritual:
I'm so sad and lonely
(Sadandlonelysadandlonely)
Won't some sweet mama
Come and take a chance with me?
('Cause I ain't so bad...)That lyric's wandering some ways from the 1915 original, too. But the Prima medley rescued the song, using the exotic scenario of "Just A Gigolo" as a foundation to pile on, tongue in cheek, the self-pity of "Nobody". In April 1956, Sinatra's producer Voyle Gilmore brought Prima, Butera, and the Witnesses (with Keely Smith among the backing vocalists) into the Capitol studios in Los Angeles and put "Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody" down on record. It wasn't a big chart hit, but it became a classic of sorts.
Three decades later, I called Irving Caesar to wish him a happy 90th birthday. For an old guy, he always seemed to have a new lease of life, professionally speaking. And so it was this time. "I'm back in the Hit Parade," he barked down the phone. "'Just A Gigolo.' Some black fellow out on the coast covered it." Actually, it was a white fellow - David Lee Roth of Van Halen - and, if memory serves, he's from Indiana. But, other than that, Caesar had got the essentials right: "Just A Gigolo" was back in the charts. Or, rather, "Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody". And, to my amazement, upon hearing the record, I discovered he'd lifted the Louis Prima medley note for note (albeit without Sam's sax).
As I say, I was amazed. Sam Butera, on the other hand, was mad as hell. "He copied my arrangement note for note," Butera told The New York Times, "and I didn't get a dime for it."
[...]
In essence, David Lee Roth decided to launch his solo career with an act of karaoke. And not only did he lift another guy's arrangement but he couldn't understand why Butera would be miffed about it. One night, while the Witnesses were playing in Vegas, Roth swung by to catch the act and, afterwards, hailed Butera with a cheery, "Hey, Sam!"
"Who are you?" asked the sax man.
"I'm David Lee Roth," replied the rocker.
"Then where's my money?" said Butera.
[...]
Five years ago, during the 2004 presidential election, here at SteynOnline, thanks to an avalanche of lyrics submitted by readers, we started running a weekly "John Kerry Songbook" of pop parodies: An extraordinary number of them were versions of "Just A Gigolo/I Ain't Got Nobody" - or in John Kerry's case, as one reader put it, "I'm Just A Gigolo/I Don't Like Nobodies". One day someone will figure out something new to do with "Just A Gigolo", and somewhere on the other side of the planet someone else will come up with a new wrinkle on "I Ain't Got Nobody". But for now those whom Sam Butera joined together no man can put asunder. A three-minute medley cooked up at the Sahara Hotel that will play forever:
When the end comes, I know
They'll say Just A Gigolo
Life goes on without me.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:51 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
June 14, 2009
Introducing the newest member of my family: Roscoe!
This is the newest member of our family: Roscoe. We found him at the Camarillo shelter, the same place that brought Bogie into our lives seven years ago. Roscoe's about a year old, a quiet, gentle dog. He and Bogie get along, although it remains to be seen if he and Pepper the Cat can achieve peace in our time.
Bogie (foreground) and Roscoe (background) quickly discovered that they were good partners for the U.S. Dog Olympics Synchonized Napping Competition.
Here's another view of Bogie and Roscoe, enjoying the numerous dog beds scattered throughout our home. It truly is a dog's life around here. Where do I sign up?
This is the view that greeted me when I rounded the corner at the animal shelter when we first met. Roscoe's reacting to a weird noise I was making.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Why do GM interiors suck?
The Truth About Car's Robert Farago says an inside source -- dubbed "Agent X" -- has given him the scoop on why GM's interiors haven't measured up to the standards set by the foreign competition:
[E]ver since GM was founded, its execs have either been driven by a chauffeur or provided with carefully prepared and maintained examples of the company’s most expensive vehicles. Of course, there are times when the suits must sign off on the company’s more prosaic products. Since 1953, this intersection between high flyer and mass market occurred at GM’s Mesa, Arizona, Desert Proving Grounds (DPG). The execs would fly into Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport, limo out to the DPG and drive the company’s latest models.
Our agent says that all the vehicles the execs drove were “ringers.” More specifically, the engineers would tweak the test vehicles to remove any hint of imperfection. “They use a rolling radius machine to choose the best tires, fix the headliner, tighten panel and interior gaps, remove shakes and rattles, repair bodywork—everything and anything.”
Did the execs know this? “Nope. And nobody was going to tell them . . . As far as they knew, the cars were exactly as they would be coming off the line. That’s why Bob Lutz thinks GM’s products are world-class. The ones he’s driven are.”
I asked Agent X if the GM execs would ever drive the cars again. Did he know if Wagoner or Lutz dropped in at a dealership to test drive a random sample off the lot? He found the idea amusing.
Well, did the DPG at least send a list of changes to the design and production teams? “The tweaks were never reported to anyone,” he says. “That would’ve been a sure way to kill your career . . . We’d see the cars come back to us after production with the exact same problems.”
According to Farago's source, the problem is getting worse, too, which should really help GM (Government Motors, thanks to the bailout) reclaim market share.
Make sure to read the comments following the article.
I particularly like the fellow who purchased two Corvettes -- and noticed that "The Legend Lives" sticker on the door was applied crooked to both of them.
Years ago, when I was at The New Jersey Herald, I picked up an Oldsmobile Achieva at the plant to drive for a week and review. The fit and finish was horrendous, leading me to become probably the millionth journalist to dub it the "Unda-Achieva." Did I mention the razor blade left in the pocket behind the door handle? Ouch.
It was around the same time that I took a good look at the Cadillac CTS, the supposed reputation-making car at the New York AutoShow. Glue on the carpeting, glue on the headliner, misaligned interior panels -- it was a quality-control nightmare.
However, in all fairness, my GMC Sierra pickup has a pretty sweet interior, with high-grade plastics and soft-touch surfaces.
Well, there is that rattle from the A/C vent the dealer couldn't figure out. And the diesel exhaust smell in the cab, but that's only when the REGEN cycle for the particulate filter is running, nothing having the windows down and an air-sickness bag close by can't fix.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 12, 2009
Dems endangering the troops
Jed Babbin notes that Democrats seem intent on placing our own troops at risk.
The Democrats forced a House - Senate conference (by a straight party line vote, 17-13) to remove the Graham-Lieberman prohibition of release of more prisoner "abuse" photos.
Obama backed off the release earlier when Generals Petraeus and Odierno objected on the grounds that such a release would endanger the lives of our troops.
So now the Dems are on record (again) in favor of endangering the lives of our troops.
If, as liberals contend, alleged mistreatment of prisoners serves as a potent recruiting tool for terrorist groups, why would American politicians seek to release photos that would swell the ranks of violent terror cells hellbent on killing U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines?
What is to be gained by releasing the photos? Who profits from their release?
I'll tell you who stands to lose: The Americans troops killed and the families who lose loved ones as a result of this idiotic and immoral betrayal of the military by our political leadership.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 11, 2009
Is it time to worry?
The Wall Street Journal just issued this news alert:
The World Health Organization has told its member nations it is declaring an H1N1 flu pandemic -- raising the pandemic alert level from phase 5 to 6 and marking the first global flu epidemic in 41 years. The move came Thursday as infections climbed in the U.S., Europe, Australia, South America and elsewhere.
The linked article notes:
The pandemic declaration will require all countries, including the dozens that haven't yet reported any cases, to launch pandemic-prevention plans.
Peter Cordingley, a spokesman for the WHO based in Manila, noted that the term pandemic was "a measure of the spread of the virus, not the severity of the virus." The virus's effects are moderate at the moment, he noted. "But it's still going to infect an awful lot of people."
Just over half the world's confirmed H1N1 cases, or 13,217, are in the U.S., including 27 deaths, according to the WHO.
The numbers don't seem huge, and the fatalities have been few, leading many to question the need for global hypochondriasis, but here's the thing about viruses: they mutate. And history shows that devastating plagues -- pandemics -- have sometimes been preceded by large outbreaks of more benign versions of the bug, seemingly innocuous head- or chest-colds that cause only minor discomfort.
Until the virus involved mutated for reasons unknown, going from cute-and cuddly rhinovirus knock-off to a microscopic cross between a Polar Bear and a T-Rex.
What, me worry?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 10, 2009
Lawfare strikes again
That sneaking suspicion you've had that no one in the Obama White House understands the first thing about fighting and winning wars? As it turns out, looks like you were right to be worried. The Weekly Standard's blog reports that unlawful combatants -- terrorists, brigands and jihadis -- captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan are being read their Miranda rights
[T]he Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according to a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
“The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
That effort, which elevates the FBI and other law enforcement agencies and diminishes the role of intelligence and military officials, was described in a May 28 Los Angeles Times article.
The FBI and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
Thanks in part to the popularity of law and order television shows and movies, many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning – so named because of the landmark 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs. Arizona that required police officers and other law enforcement officials to advise suspected criminals of their rights.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”
But Republicans on Capitol Hill are not happy. “When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.”
According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, has now started telling people – ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”
Can you imagine what World War II would have been like with these clowns in charge?
POWs are not entitled to lawyers, access to the American criminal justice system, or the same protections afforded to criminals; they are protected by the Geneva Conventions, provided their nations are signatories to the treaty.
POWs are not entitled to Miranda warnings. POWs have a different set of obligations than do criminals: POWs are honor-bound to resist, to escape, and to kill the enemy.
Criminals, not so much.
Notwithstanding the bleatings of the Left, terrorists, brigands and other unlawful combatants are not members of a uniformed military fielded by a recognized nation-state. As such, they cannot be -- and indeed are not -- signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and are therefore afforded none of its protections.
Unlawful combatants may be summarily executed under the laws of war; to grant them the full protections of the American criminal justice system is not to treat them the same as POWS; rather, it is to treat them better than POWS, better than soldiers fighting honorably in uniform and under the flag of a recognized nation.
If the rationale for ratifying the Geneva Conventions is to seek better treatment of your POWs, and even better treatment is afforded to terrorists who were never signatories to the treaties, then it would seem that there's little reason to seek the lesser protections of the Conventions.
And so we come to the (perhaps) unintended consequences of this dangerous policy: The American people at home, and the GIs fighting on our behalf overseas, are placed at risk, because the interrogations that save lives become Verboten! as a result of lawyers telling their terrorist clients to keep their mouths shut.
And so the GIs in the field are faced with the unappetizing and dangerous prospect of capturing prisoners, shepherding them back to the POW camps ... and being sued. Or killed after the evidence against them is suppressed, thrown out of court, and the jihadis return to the battlefield to resume the fight against American troops.
Can you think of a better incentive for our GIs to simply refuse to take prisoners?
This is no way to fight a war.
But it is how Pres. Obama wages lawfare.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 09, 2009
Sockin' it to the media
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| "i" on News | ||||
| ||||
I feel a little conflicted about embedding a clip of the snarky, often unbearably smug John Stewart, but he does such a nice job of skewering all the cable news networks, right and left, that I'll get over it.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Closeted conservatives
Liberals are forever berating conservatives (and Republicans -- not one and the same) for alleged intolerance, but it's interesting to note that many conservatives (and Republicans) are afraid to (ahem) come out.
Power Line's John Hinderaker notes:
Dan Blatt (Gay Patriot West) attended a Claremont event last night, at which George Will spoke. Dan took a date:
[W]hile he proudly sported a name tage with his real name at this shindig, he asked that I not include his name here, lest the revelation of his conservative politics hurt him professionally.
Once again, it was easier for us to be "out" as gay at a conservative event than to be out as conservatives in Hollywood circles.
Ah, the famed tolerance of Hollywood's liberal elites, where all lifestyles are accepted ... so long as you follow the Party line.
I've long held that the most illiberal group of people you're likely to meet fancy themselves "liberals."
Can you smell the hypocrisy?
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
How many balloons does it take to lift a house?
Pixar's latest hit, Up, is drawing nearly unanimous praise for it's astonishing animation and touching plot, but curious minds want to know: Just how many balloons does it take to life a house?
Slate is on the case.
Between 100 thousand and 23.5 million.
Which is the technical way of saying "It depends..."
I would have said one, provided it was zeppelin-sized.
Details here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 08, 2009
The legal profession ain't what it used to be
Tough times at venerable law firms, with blueblood names like White & Case laying off hundreds of associates -- and partners, too.
The New York Times covers the bloodbath, noting that firms in existence since before the Civil War have shuttered their doors.
But I found this passage most interesting -- and a bit dismaying, too.
The gentleman's profession of the law is becoming a vestige of the past, removed enough from reality to be remembered, like phone booths or fedoras.
Philip K. Howard, a senior partner at Covington & Burling, another multinational firm, may be the closest thing to a gentleman lawyer that one is likely to find these days. He is courtly, white-haired, civic-minded and blessed with an aristocratic pair of arching eyebrows. While he declined to speak directly about White & Case ("I'm not really interested in the business of the law"), he touched on the firm's current troubles by suggesting that as the bottom line increases in importance, the traditional role of the lawyer as a trusted counselor slips away.
"To the extent that lawyers are simply churning out the same problems one after the other and are treated as factors of production to be laid off or not because of market forces or marginal declines in profitability," he said, "the emotional and professional commitment that goes along with being an adviser and a solver of problems begins to diminish."
The reality of being a lawyer often enjoys only the most tenuous relationship to how the profession is portrayed in the arts and popular culture.
But attorneys like Mr. Howard are living reminders of a time when becoming a lawyer held the promise -- or at least the possibility -- of a more rewarding career, based more upon sound advice and counsel than the soul-crushing grind of billable hours.
The big law firm never really held any appeal for me; they've always struck me as the last example of the plantation economy, associates laboring in the fields while the senior partners sit on the veranda sipping mint juleps.
I can't help but think that law school enrollments would drop dramatically if would-be Atticus Finches learned how mechanical and impersonal the profession truly is.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 07, 2009
Steyn on Obama's Cairo speech: American weakness on display
Mark Steyn takes a close look at Pres. Obama's Cairo speech and notices it ought to give you the willies -- provided you think we ought not be rolling over like a submissive dog and present our throats to our enemies, while simultaneously undermining one of our most reliable allies.
Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department Web site, "President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo."
Let's pause right there: It's interesting how easily the words "the Muslim world" roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who'd choke on any equivalent reference to "the Christian world." When such hyperalert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they're implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too.
[...]
But, of course, there is no "Christian world": Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Barack Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Perhaps we're eligible for membership in the OIC.
[...]
The speech nevertheless impressed many conservatives, including Rich Lowry, my esteemed editor at National Review, "esteemed editor" being the sort of thing one says before booting the boss in the crotch. Rich thought that the president succeeded in his principal task: "Fundamentally, Obama's goal was to tell the Muslim world, 'We respect and value you, your religion and your civilization, and only ask that you don't hate us and murder us in return.'" But those terms are too narrow. You don't have to murder a guy if he preemptively surrenders. And you don't even have to hate him if you're too busy despising him.
The savvier Muslim potentates have no desire to be sitting in a smelly cave in the Hindu Kush, sharing a latrine with a dozen half-witted goatherds while plotting how to blow up the Empire State Building. Nevertheless, they share key goals with the cave dwellers – including the wish to expand the boundaries of "the Muslim world" and (as in the anti-blasphemy push at the U.N.) to place Islam, globally, beyond criticism. The nonterrorist advance of Islam is a significant challenge to Western notions of liberty and pluralism.
Steyn then moves on to what was -- for me -- the most galling portion of the speech, wherein Obama abases himself and the United States before the world, confessing that "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons," telling the Iranians, the North Koreans, and any other tyrannical regime that's jonesing for some nuclear weapons, that the green light is lit. Go for it, my America-hating Third-World Brothers. The U.S., with its (supposed) long history of oppressing minorities and exploiting smaller, weaker nations, will no longer muscle them around, imposing Uncle Sam's will on its ankle-biting enemies.
Except for one nation. Can you guess which one?
On the other hand, a "single nation" certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel regarding its West Bank communities, there has to be "a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions."
No "natural growth"? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you've got to talk gran'ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn or wherever?
At a stroke, the administration has endorsed "the Muslim world's" view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: the Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow.
Would Obama be comfortable mandating "no natural growth" to Israel's million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced "the Muslim world's" commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the West but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.
Nuclear proliferation amongst madmen and putting the screws to the only Western democracy in the Middle East. Man, this guy's good.
Read the rest of Steyn's piece; he even manages to tie in the GM debacle, too..
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It's not easy being green
While the Obama Administration wants us all to drive hybrids and ditch our SUVs, the reality is that mass transit may not actually be better for Mother Earth. As a matter of fact, that humongous SUV just might have a smaller carbon footprint -- if you believe in any of that stuff -- than the trains and buses we're all supposed to be riding.
Now, those who have drunk deeply of the Moonbat Kool-Aid tell me that having a smaller carbon footprint is better than having a big one, and that driving my GMC diesel-powered leviathan is an act of ecocide, one that has me stomping on Gaia with size 14 Air Jordans.
As it turns out, though, the authors of a new study say it's all a little ... complicated.
These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.
Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.
In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.
[...]
The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.
Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.
By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.
The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.
These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.
In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.
And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.
A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.
"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.
So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.
For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.
Hmm, politicians ignoring the costs associated with the construction, manufacture and maintenance of their favorite modes of transit. I'm astonished that our Political Overlords could possible promulgate the policies that control the tiniest nooks and crannies of our lives, based on incomplete and often inaccurate data.
Not.
We're in the very best of hands.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 06, 2009
Remembering D-Day
GIs from Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division, are amongst the first Americans to set foot on Hitler's Festung Europa in the early morning hours of June 6, 1944. The waiting German troops greeted them with a hail of steel, MG-42 machine guns mowing down men with their distinctive "ripping-cloth" buzz. (Click on image for larger version.)
Having left the relative -- and illusory --safety of the landing craft, GIs from the 16th Infantry Regiment begin the maddeningly slow slog toward the beach, as the German defenders hit them with mortars and machine gun fire.
Men from the 16th Infantry Regiment try to find protection from the German machine gunners, hiding for a few moments behind anti-tank obstacles placed on Omaha Beach as part of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel's plan to keep the Allies from establishing a beachhead on the Normandy coast.
Photographer Frank Capa lay in the surf of the Easy Red Sector of Omaha Beach, snapping pictures from the furthest edge of the American assault, capturing the frenzied rush to get ashore and stop being a sitting duck in the surf. Capa's photos were rushed back to London, where the majority were destroyed in an accident in the lab. Only a few survived, comprising the most compelling images of the D-Day landings taken on the American beaches.
A wounded GI is helped ashore at Omaha Beach my some of his fellow soldiers. Note the still-inflated life preserver on the soldier to his left. (Click on image for larger version.)
An Army medic moves down the beach providing aid to the wounded, as exhausted troops huddle against the base of chalk cliffs, protected for the moment from the barrage of incoming German fire. (Click on image for larger version.)
Less than 24 hours earlier the same GIs had marched through the streets of seaside English towns, on the way to the docks where they'd board the troop transports for the ride across the English Channel to the Normandy coast. It's impossible not to wonder how many of these men made it off the beach the next morning. (Click on image for larger version.)
General Dwight Eisenhower issued this proclamation to the men before they set sail for France. He also wrote another letter to the American people, in case of a catastrophic defeat, accepting blame for the loss. The success of the invasion was not taken for granted by Ike. (Click on image for larger version.)
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 05, 2009
How to tarnish a reputation: Tom Brokaw edition
I remember Tom Brokaw before he was an NBC Nightly News anchor, way back when he was on KNBC-4, the Los Angeles station's local rush hour show in the late '60s and early '70s.
During his years with the network, Brokaw garnered a reputation for being a thoughtful guy -- or at least appearing to be thoughtful. He was, after all, a blowdried newsreader. Still, I can't remember him saying anything particularly partisan or stupid. In later years, he became something of a gravitas-laden spokesman for the network, lending his midwestern-inflected, somewhat mush-mouthed voiceover work to a number of documentaries. He also wrote bestselling books about the Greatest Generation who fought and won World War II.
Today, though, Brokaw said something so offensive, so remarkably wrongheaded and idiotic, that even Pres. Obama, the king of moral equivalence (see his Cairo speech), was forced to slap him down.
During an interview with the president on this morning's Today show, the TV journalist asked about Obama's visit to a concentration camp. The question comes at the 4:05 mark.
BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?
Hmmm. What can the Israelis, a nation born from the ashes of the Holocaust, a nation of Jews the victims of Hitler's genocidal obsession, learn from Obama's visit to a Nazi death camp?
What a great question! Because, you see, it wasn't until the Obamassiah visited Buchenwald, 66 years after the killing stopped, that those darned Jews thought there was anything to learn from the Holocaust.
And, of course, when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians -- who have been dedicated to the destruction of Israel itself, much as the Nazis were dedicated to the destruction of the Jews, it's only appropriate to draw a parallel between the Israelis and their Nazi oppressors, casting the Arabs in the role of put-upon victims.
Power Line's John Hinderaker -- no fan of Obama -- gives credit where credit's due, noting that the president pointedly disagreed with the moral equivalence propounded by Brokaw.
Still, how bad do you have to be to draw Obama's disapproval?
Tom Brokaw bad.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Contrarian View: Not so high on Up
The reviews of Pixar's latest film, Up, have been uniformly top-notch, which reveals more about the critics than it does the movie, according to the Weekly Standard's John Podhoretz.
Here's what you won't hear about Up: It is, for long stretches, very boring.
[...]
The fact is that you won't hear anyone say Up is boring because it would be, well, improper to say it-just as you never heard anybody say its Pixar predecessor, Wall-E, completely ran out of steam in its disastrous second half, even though everybody knew it did. A cultural orthodoxy has been imposed on us, according to which it is impermissible to criticize a Pixar film.
Pixar, the cartoon maker whose 10 feature films since 1995 have set a new standard for the animated film, has now become an Object of Cultural Piety (OCP), which is simultaneously one of the deadliest and most potent forces known to man. Once someone or something becomes an OCP, it must be the subject of veneration.
Podhoretz goes on to tell the sad tale of the most prominent example of OCP, a man who scaled the heights of cinematic acclaim, only to hit such a low that his last film Nuked the Fridge -- which is like jumping the shark, only with a cultural icon much more beloved than the Fonz.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
June 04, 2009
Huh?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
June 01, 2009
How's Obama doing so far?
Not great, if Rasmussen's numbers are accurate -- and the polling firm has a pretty good track record.
According to three recent polls, Obama's failing to convince a majority of Americans that he's heading in the right direction on a variety of issues,
Let's go to the numbers, shall we?
Last week the Obama administration floated a trial balloon for a national sales tax -- a "VAT," or Value Added Tax like the Euros pay -- to close the humongous Obama-made national debt. Only 18 percent of Americans are in favor, with a whopping 68 percent opposed.
How about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court? Obama says she's an inspirational figure, and an obvious sop to women and Hispanic voters. According to Rasmussen, 87 percent of Americans think she'll be confirmed to the High Court. Great news for Obama, right? Not so fast, Floyd. Only 45 percent think she ought to be seated on the Supreme Court, hardly an overwhelming vote of confidence in the nominee -- or her patron's judgement and powers of persuasion.
And what about GM? On the morning when the world's largest automaker declares bankruptcy and the Obama administration pays billions of dollars to become the majority shareholder, what do the American people think?
According to Rassmussen, only 21 percent of those polled favor Obama paying $50 billion dollars for a 70-percent stake in the automaker, with 67 percent opposed to the bailout. When the pollster followed up by asking if GM should be allowed to go under, the numbers didn't shift all that much: 32 percent favored saving the automaker, but 56 percent still preferred letting GM die.
But Inside-the-Beltway Washington types, who consider themselves much smarter than the great unwashed masses, favor the bailout by a more than 2-to-1 margin.
As an aside, I'm curious how the United Autoworkers are polling after receiving huge stakes in GM and Chrysler.
While a small statistical sample, I think this bodes ill for Obama's continued plans for a radical economic makeover of the nation; what did Pravda call it? Oh, yeah, a "rapid descent into Marxism."
Up next: Socialized medicine.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:53 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
May 30, 2009
Pravda: The American descent into Marxism
For those of you who are old enough to recall the Cold War in some detail, you'll remember that Pravda was the official propaganda outlet of the Soviet Union. Ostensibly a legitimate newspaper with correspondents accredited 'round the world, in reality it was the most obvious of government-controlled purveyors of press releases -- penned by Communist Party functionaries -- with as tenuous a grasp on journalistic ethics and standards as, well, The New York Times (especially since January 20th).
Pravda spent decades singing the praises of Communism and the Soviet Workers' Paradise, while gleefully pointing out the supposed failures of capitalism and the West.
So, when the current iteration of Pravda gives prominent play to an op/ed columnist who notices a certain fundamental change in the U.S., well, let's just say that they know of what they speak.
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
[...]
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
[...]
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Who would've thought we'd read an article in Pravda, even an opinion piece, warning Russian investors to divest themselves of their American holdings, in order to escape the economic meltdown made worse by the apparent slide into Socialism?
Strange days, filled with hope 'n change.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Sotomayor: Clearly wiser than any juez masculino blanco
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh is troubled by Judge Sonia Sotomayor's claim that Latinas make for better judges than white men, concluding that taking the statement in context -- as her defenders demand -- does nothing to ameliorate the wrongheadedness of the belief, or the underlying logic.
[T]he statement – read in context – appears to be that Latina womanhood gives people something of an edge when it comes to wisdom, richness of experience, and decisionmaking over white men.
That strikes me as factually implausible; white men strike me as no less likely to have wisdom or rich experience as Latino women, even if on balance they may on average have slightly different kinds of experience.
And it strikes me as very much the wrong attitude for a judge to take, and to publicly express.
Perhaps this was just inartful wording, and Judge Sotomayor meant to say something else; and of course this is just one sentence out of a long legal and judicial career.
Still, I think the sentiments that the statement on its face expresses are not the sorts of sentiments that we would like our Supreme Court Justices to have, whether those sentiments would refer to the allegedly greater wisdom of Latino women or white men.
I think Volokh gives Sotomayor too much credit with his "just inartful wording" line; she was speaking from a prepared text, and repeated the claim in an article, too. Given that information, Occam's razor demands we ask, "Is it likely that the opinion expressed -- more than once, in written and spoken form -- is either: (a) An inadvertent slip of the tongue (and pen); or (b) The speaker merely expressing what she truly thinks?"
Assuming that an experienced federal judge who speaks from a prepared text she presumably wrote herself, far enough in advance to read through at least once to check for "inartful wording" and other things a judge ought not to say, nonetheless proceeds to laud the superiority of Latinas over juez masculino blanco, there logically follows another question: Could such a judge even qualify for jury service?
National Review's Andy McCarthy reminds us:
In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror.
Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused "for cause" — the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or "peremptory") jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.
[...]
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning."
If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
Well, should we?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 28, 2009
Michael Ramirez
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Gangster Government
How quickly is the United States devolving to banana republic status? If Mark Tapscott has the details right about a growing scandal in today's Washington Examiner, the day is fast approaching. In the meantime, Michael Barone's "Gangster Nation" seems appropos, favors and cash flowing to the Capo's lackeys, veiled threats and economic ruin to his enemies.
Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.
The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?
[...]
Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. Go here for a detailed look at this situation. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor.
A lawyer representing a group of Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.
[...]
RedState.com's Josh Painter has a useful roundup of what has been found so far by a growing number of bloggers digging into what could be a very big story indeed. Also, see my column on this issue and how it fits into the larger context dubbed by the Examiner's Michael Barone as "gangster government."
As part of Chrysler's bankruptcy agreement with the White House, the company plans to close roughly a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships. Lists of the dealerships being cut and those retaining their Chrysler franchises can be found here in pdf format. Many dealers contend the criteria being used to determine which dealerships survive is not clear and that many of those that are being closed in fact are profitable businesses, despite the current recession.
I suppose it's possible that there's an innocent explanation for the horse's head left on the showroom floor of dealerships owned and operated by businessmen who haven't drunk the Obama KoolAid, but I prefer the accuracy of Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is often the most accurate.
This is not the way things are done in free nations. This is not the way things are done in a nation dedicated to the rule of law.
It is, however, apparently, how things are done in the Banana Republic of America.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 27, 2009
It's hard to be Goode
Mike Judge -- the creator of King of the Hill, Beavis & Butthead, and director of the best movie ever made about the modern workplace, Office Space, has a new animated series premiering tonight on ABC: The Goode Family.
How can you not love a show that pokes fun at the impossibility of always asking "WWAGD?" That is, of course, the acronym for "What Would Al Gore Do".
Check your local listings.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 26, 2009
Martin Luther King vs. Sonia Sotomayor
A great question, courtesy of National Review's Jim Geraghty:
When, Precisely, Are a Judge's 'Sympathies and Prejudices' Appropriate?
From Latin/a Rights and Justice in the United States: Perspectives and Approaches, by Jose Luis Morin, p. 104:
As a Latina member of the judiciary, Judge Sotomayor maintains that Latino and Latina judges must retain their identity and be able to use their experience and background, not to curry favor for their own, but to make the system fair for all: "[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate."
Perhaps Judge Sotomayor could explain when it is appropriate for a judge to approach a case with sympathies and predjudices?
Don't federal judges specifically take an oath to avoid sympathies and prejudices?
"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I guess the dream of a colorblind society, a society where justice is blind, too, is passe.
Folks, we are in big trouble.
Do you think Dr. King would approve?
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:26 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
