July 06, 2008
Stupid Party's RINO of the Day
Will someone please save me from meddling, know-it-all busybodies, supercilious, smug, condescending bastards who live to tell people like you and me how to live our lives?
I am speaking, of course, about politicians, who exist to make public pronouncements about things they don't understand, proposing new laws accomplishing nothing useful -- other than to place greater limitations on our freedom to decide for ourselves how we want to spend our money, and, incidentally, turn over more power to the government.
And no member of the genus Feckless Crapweasel is more infuriating than the RINO.
"Mike, you're always talking about rhinos; why do gigantic African animals upset you so?"
It's RINO, not rhino, genius, as in Republican In Name Only. Politicians who call themselves Republicans, yet never seem to advocate smaller government, lower taxes, fewer stupid laws, and greater economic freedom.
Like this idiot, Sen. John Warner, who hails from the great state of Virginia.
"Shut up, sit down, and drive 55. Why? Because the New York Times will sing my praises for being an unusually-enlightened Republican when it comes to solving our energy crisis -- and telling y'all to drive slower is a lot easier than casting a vote to increase domestic energy production."
Warner sent a letter to the U.S. Dept. of Energy last week, asking the agency to look into the benefits of reimposing the hated national 55 mph speed limit on highways, which was repealed back in the 1990s.
As you may recall, the double nickel did nothing to help with the oil shortage during the 1970s, nor did it result in lower oil prices; all it did was foster nationwide contempt for the law and inspire at least one decent song from Sammy Hagar.
Warner's call for a return to a Federally-mandated speed limit is classic big-government, nanny state-style politics, the basic premise of which is that no one knows better what's good for you than the so-called experts in Washington, D.C.
In the months leading up to the final repeal of the national speed limit, so-called safety advocates lamented that the highways would be running with the blood of innocents, slaughtered by speed-crazed motorheads and maniacal long-distance truckers.
The reality is, however, that the overall fatality rate on highways dropped, thanks in part to a combination of safer, better-engineered cars and American drivers not being the morons that the safety Nazis thought we were.
From a conservative perspective, the Feds have no business telling us how fast to drive, especially as a means of supposedly reducing oil consumption; free market principles will help drivers determine whether or not they want to slow down.
There's an opportunity cost to driving fast: more fuel consumption, which means that drivers fill up more often and may more at the pump. If the pain of allocating more of the household budget for gas is too great, some drivers will decide to slow down and spend less.
On the other hand, there's an opportunity cost to driving slowly over long distances: it takes longer -- sometimes a lot longer -- to get where you're going, and some consumers are willing to spend more money to tell the kids, "Yes, we're there yet!" sooner, rather than later.
I have had to make multiple trips between Southern California and the Sacramento area over the years, and the difference between 55 and 75 mph is 2 hours less time spent on the road. That's a big deal, and well worth the extra fuel cost that I'm willing to pay.
Republicans -- conservative ones, that is -- used to understand the concept of free market capitalism, believed that Americans were in the best position to decide for themselves how to do many things, including having the States pass their own laws. This was also once known as a key feature of Federalism, wherein the 50 states served as "laboratories of Democracy," where people are free to live their lives as they and their neighbors saw fit, in accordance with local desires, not the diktats of distant rulers in Congress.
But RINOS like Warner are far more interested in compromise, which seems to always be another way of saying, "let Congress control."
Warner is set to retire in January, the 81-year-old millionaire finally shuffling off the national stage.
Good riddance.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 04, 2008
Independence Day tribute to a fallen hero
Petty Officer Michael A. Monsoor was killed in battle in Iraq in September 2006, and posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in April. His funeral in Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego was attended by “nearly every SEAL on the West Coast,” said his grandfather, George Monsoor, Sr., who described his grandson as an “outgoing guy.” During the service, as Monsoor's coffin was taken from the hearse to the gravesite, Navy SEALs lined up in two columns. As the coffin passed, video shows each SEAL slapping down the gold Trident from his uniform and deeply embedding it in Monsoor's wooden coffin. The slaps were reportedly heard across the cemetery.
"This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day"
Petty Officer Michael Monsoor, 1981-2006.
Requiescat in pace.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:37 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Death penalty for medical malpractice?
Actually, I think execution is too good for this butcher surgeon.
BUCHAREST — A court has ordered a Romanian surgeon to pay $795,000 in compensation to a patient whose penis he accidentally severed during an operation.
In July 2004, Naum Ciomu made a surgical error while operating on the man's testicles, severing the penis instead of making an incision to the testicle.
The Bucharest Magistrates Court ruled Friday that Ciomu had been 'superficial' in his approach to the operation, ordered the fine and handed Ciomu a one-year suspended prison sentence. The ruling can be appealed.
A piece of muscle from the man's arm has now been attached to where his penis was, but its function is aesthetic.
'You don't have to be an expert to realize that the 33-year-old victim does not have a good state of mind,' said Mihai Olariu, the victim's lawyer.
Being a man of the Old Testament, I'd prefer a below-the-waist variant on "an eye for an eye."
Cripes.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
July 03, 2008
Sunflowers
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The worst Supreme Court justice?
Patterico has some pretty solid reasons for his choice (and mine, too).
Why did the Founders bother toiling in the summer heat of Philadelphia in 1787 writing a Constitution when they could have relied on the consciences of Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy instead?
Kennedy is the Supreme Court’s most important swing vote and its worst justice. Whatever else you think of them, a Justice Scalia or Ginsburg has a consistent judicial philosophy, while Kennedy expects the nation to bend to his moral whimsy. With apologies to Louis XIV, Kennedy might as well declare “la constitution, c’est moi!”
Lowry’s sentiments find resonance in the statement of Justin Levine yesterday:
Kennedy has proven that he does not have the temperament worthy of the power afforded to those sitting on the nation’s highest court. I say this even though the practical results of his decisions will more often comport with my own views when compared with some other Justices of the Court. But if I had the power to vote one (and only one) Justice off the island, Kennedy would easily be the first choice.
I don’t know if I’d go quite that far — but he’s certainly the justice I respect the least. Kennedy is smug and patronizing; a toady to elite opinion. He is serenely indifferent to the chaos and turmoil his poorly reasoned decisions cause to the legal system.
His flowery and meaningless language provides litle guidance to lower courts, which are often thrown into confusion by his obtuse phrases — but no matter. The key is to be quoted in the New York Times, rather than to be understood by the judges who must carry out his diktats.
The ultimate clue to his result-oriented jurisprudence comes in the public reaction to the fact that Kennedy fundamentally misstated the extent of support for the death penalty for child rape. Linda Greenhouse says that Kennedy’s factual mistake related to “a central part of the court’s analysis.” Yet no legal observer believes, even for a moment, that Kennedy will change his mind, simply because a critical pillar of his analysis has been shown to be flawed.
Everybody knows that he decides on the result and reasons backwards from it.
Nobody thinks that the facts actually matter to him.
You want Kennedy to consider changing his vote? Show him that the editors of the New York Times decry his decision. But don’t bother the man with facts going to the essence of his analysis.
Yes, Lowry is right. Even though Kennedy very often gets the result right, he is the nation’s worst justice. He is a model of what a justice should not be: drunk on his own power, yet at the same time, utterly powerless in his groveling to the dictates of elite opinion.
You can despise the results reached by a David Souter or a Stephen Breyer, but at least you can respect them.
I can’t respect Justice Kennedy.
I don't think Patterico goes far enough. As I said when Kennedy granted habeas rights to brigands held by U.S. forces, decisions like these undercut whatever presumed legitimacy the courts hold in the eyes of the public.
When Kennedy decides to tell the Legislative and Executive branches of government, as well as the legislatures of the 50 states and their governors, that they're wrong, based upon his evolving standards of (in)decency and misreading of the national consensus and existing law, and then gets four of his colleagues to join in, he brings the entire institution down with him.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
July 02, 2008
E pluribus unum pluribum
The slow-motion dismantling of the United States as an idea continues, the latest sign that those who once sought integration into American society now prefer segregation and disdain comes from Denver.
Mayor John Hickenlooper's annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn't included than what was.
At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.
Instead, she performed the song "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," which is also known as the "black national anthem."
When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.
Marie told 9NEWS she kept her plans to switch songs quiet until the very last moment. She says only she, her husband and a friend knew she was going to sing something other than the "Star-Spangled Banner."
She says she wanted to express her love of her country by mixing the lyrics of "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" with the melody of the "Star-Spangled Banner."
"When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: 'I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person,'" said Marie.
Hickenlooper's staff picked Marie to sing the national anthem. The mayor says he believes Marie did not intrend to offend anyone or make a political statement.
When asked if he was offended, Hickenlooper said, "You know I was more confused and I think I was more – what I was, was disappointed and confused and that's why I wanted to talk to her."
City Councilman Charlie Brown took to talk radio Tuesday afternoon to criticize the absence of the national anthem at the State of the City proceedings.
"There is no substitute for the national anthem, period," Brown said. "And that's what really bothered me. You know when we fly the flag, the American flag, it's always the highest flag, as it should be. And that didn't come across today, that didn't happen today."
In hindsight, both Brown and Hickenlooper say they should have stopped Marie or began singing themselves.
Marie says if she had the benefit of doing it over, she would sing the same song.
When asked if she would apologize for what happened she said, "No I do not."
First, can you think of a better example of the if-it-feels-good-do-it ethos, as well as the it's-all-about-me-24/7 lifestyle than this woman?
"When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: 'I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person,'" said Marie.
Newsflash!
No one gives a crap about how you feel, what's going on in your head, your deep thoughts on gender and race -- not there and not then.
The National Anthem is a unifying cultural artifact, traditionally sung at the beginning of public events (much like the Communist "Internationale" is at meetings of Moonbats) as a means of reaffirming our status as American citizens, part of a great nation founded upon the idea that freedom -- as it had never been experienced before -- was something worth fighting to preserve.
Forty years after Francis Scott Key penned the lyrics to the "Star Spangled Banner" on the back of an envelope as he watched a battle during the War of 1812, Americans were once again fighting and dying to preserve the Union, to prevent the nation from flying apart. Brave men fought and with much blood and sweat, steel and shot, ensured that E pluribus unum -- Out of many, one -- was more than the motto of a failed nation.
I find it dispiriting that E pluribus pluribum fails to rouse much in the way of righteous anger. That pathetic excuse of a mayor should have cut that woman off and had her escorted out, then led the audience in the anthem.
Instead, all we got was a Milton Milquetoast, "I was confused and disappointed" whinge.
Given that shame is a foreign concept in modern society (unless you say something deemed politically incorrect), it's just perfect that the singer feels no remorse and would do it again.
Who was it that provided the definitive rebuke to the race pimps, more than 40 years ago?
Right, the Rev. Martin Luther King, who said that he dreamed of the day when his children "would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin."
Thanks to Marie Whats'ername and her fellow pigmentocentrists, that day is nowhere near.
But at least we still have the Pledge of Allegiance, right?
Never mind.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
July 01, 2008
2nd Amendment ascendant
As GFWs* wail, gnash their teeth and screech in outrage over the Supreme Court's decision declaring an individual, Constitutional right to possess firearms, Steve Chapman asks the key question: How did gun control lose?
It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three main things:
• Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade.
During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined—but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.
• Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated—with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention—and notoriety—by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.
People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.
• The 2nd Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Numerous legal scholars, spurred to examine the record, reached the same surprising conclusion. Before long, even some liberal law professors were coming around.
In 2000, Harvard's Laurence Tribe published a new edition of his influential constitutional law textbook, asserting that the 2nd Amendment had an undeniable meaning: "The federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes . . . "
Of course, I prefer a simpler explanation, one that is true to Occam's Razor:
The plain text of the Second Amendment secures and safeguards a preexisting right of the People to self defense; that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from governmental tyranny; and that it requires Olympic-class mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty of Herculean proportions to argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the government to control and disarm the People, to render the same People -- who are the beneficiaries of the protections enumerated in the rest of the Bill of Rights -- supplicants and subjects of the government in the Second Amendment.
*Gun Fearing Wussies, courtesy of Kim Du Toit.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
New Navy uniform leaves this swabbie cold
050220-N-6932B-008 Kuwait Naval Base, Kuwait (Feb. 20, 2005) - Gunner's Mate 1st Class David K. Bartlett, assigned to Inshore Boat Unit Two Four (IBU-24), Squadron Two Five, is one of 30 volunteers from IBU-24 putting the Navy's newest concept uniforms to the test as participants in Task Force Uniform. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Richard J. Brunson (RELEASED)
Petty Officer Gerald Lief models the traditional Navy working uniform -- dungarees, chambray shirt and dixie-cup -- somewhere in the Sea of Japan during the Korean War.
Well, it looks like the Navy has officially decided its time to ditch dungarees and dixie-cups in favor of a copycat camo uniform.
Five years after canvassing the fleet for suggestions on new and more practical uniforms for the 21st century, the Navy has started rolling out a year-round service uniform for Sailors E-6 and below and a Battle Dress Uniform, or BDU-style, working uniform for all ranks.
[...]
The new Navy working uniform (NWU) replaces the utilities, wash khaki, coveralls, woodland green, aviation green, winter working blues and summer whites.
With a digital print pattern incorporating Navy blue, deck gray, haze gray and black, the NWU is a wash-and-wear 50/50 nylon and cotton blend. The majority of Sailors surveyed preferred a BDU-style uniform, one that doesn't show spots, stains or heavy wear like a solid color uniform and allows mending of small tears in fabric, saving money in replacement costs.
Worn with a blue cotton T-shirt, the new Navy working uniform comes with an eight-point cover, a black web belt with closed buckle and black smooth leather boots, with black suede no-shine boots for optional wear while assigned to non-shipboard commands. Cold-weather options include a unisex pullover sweater, a fleece jacket, and a Gore-Tex parka.
"Besides reducing the seabag and providing ease of maintenance, a camouflage-style uniform puts us more in line with our sister services in terms of our appearance," said Master Chief Arthur Rivers, assistant head for the Navy's Uniform Matters Office.
In the future, Sailors operating in tactical environments, including expeditionary Sailors and SEALs, will wear either woodland or desert digital patterns.
The year-round service uniform for E-6 and below includes a short-sleeve khaki shirt for males and an over-blouse for females, made from a wash-and-wear 75/25 polyester and wool blend, with permanent military creases, black trousers for males with beltless slacks for females and optional beltless skirt, and a black unisex garrison cap. Silver anodized-metal rank insignia will be worn on shirt and blouse collars and cap, replacing the rating badge with a collar device that can be taken on and off a uniform and easily updated upon promotion. The service uniform's non-vertical match – tops and bottoms are different colors – is in line with equivalent uniforms of the other service branches.
Great. Nearly a hundred years of tradition out the window, so sailors can look more like soldiers.
Will someone explain to me why men working aboard warships need camo working uniforms? And why a camo pattern that incorporates colors and patterns designed to blend with ocean, ship and sky?
"MAN OVERBOARD!"
"Where is he?"
"I dunno; that new uniform is so stealthy."
"Yeah, and it hides stains, too."
"I like all the pockets"
"Me too."
"Say, what ever happened to Smitty?"
"Oh, yeah. Hmmm."
Great idea. The article mentions that SEALS and other Naval types operating ashore will get camo patterns with terrestrial color schemes, so it seems that the only folks who will be hiding in plain sight with these new uniforms are the men in the fleet.
What a wasteful boondoggle.
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 30, 2008
Bogie hates Mondays
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
San Francisco: One big nuthouse
And I'm talking about their so-called law enforcement community.
Check out what the idiots are doing with their foreign, juvenile drug runners.
San Francisco juvenile probation officials - citing the city's immigrant sanctuary status - are protecting Honduran youths caught dealing crack cocaine from possible federal deportation and have given some offenders a city-paid flight home with carte blanche to return.
The city's practices recently prompted a federal criminal investigation into whether San Francisco has been systematically circumventing U.S. immigration law, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.
City officials say they are trying to balance their obligations under federal and state law with local court orders and San Francisco's policies aimed at protecting the rights of the young immigrants, who they say are often victims of exploitation.
[...]
Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney in charge of the San Francisco area, said he was "flabbergasted that the taxpayers' money was being spent for the purpose of ferrying detainees home. You have to have a perfect storm of dumb moves to have it happen."
William Siffermann, chief of San Francisco's Juvenile Probation Department, said federal agents have never specifically told his office not to send immigrants back to their home countries, but that he has stopped the practice until differences between the city and immigration authorities are resolved.
He said the city's stance is that it does not have to report illegal immigrant minors to the federal government, even if they are found in Juvenile Court to have committed a crime.
"We are not obligated to," he said. "We are abiding by the sanctuary city ordinance."
[...]
Siffermann stressed that the city ships out juvenile offenders to their home countries only after all other rehabilitative efforts have failed, including probation, foster care and juvenile detention.
The strategy is appropriate, Siffermann said, because deporting young offenders would doom them from ever becoming productive residents of the United States.
"It might prevent them from obtaining citizenship," he said, denying them a chance to "take a different course."
So let me see if I understand this: the lunatics running the probation department don't want to report drug mules because to do so might make it difficult for the foreign crooks to become U.S. citizens.
Words fail me.
Honestly, I sat here, staring at the screen, not sure what to say.
What was it the fed said? Right, a "perfect storm of dumb."
Here's what I don't understand -- why haven't the feds cut off every last cent of federal funds flowing into that sanctuary cesspool? The feds were willing to blackmail states using the power of the pursestrings to raise the drinking age to 21; surely going after cities that block illegal immigration enforcement -- especially when the protected darlings are working for international drug cartels -- is a little more important than whether or not Johnny can have a beer before his 21st birthday.
Perfect storm of dumb, indeed.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 28, 2008
We've got trouble!
Right here in River City! With a capital "T" that rhymes with "P" that stands for pool!
Robert Preston is a revelation in this number from the definitive version of Meredith Wilson's love note to the Iowa of his youth, The Music Man. Has anyone ever become a more convincing flim-flam man?
Wilson's lyrics, delivered with rat-a-tat precision by Preston in a career-defining role, are interesting for their unapologetic use of early 20th-century slang, some of which has survived into the 21st without need of translation. Yeah, sure, it's a sugar-coated view of life in an earlier time, but taken with a grain of salt, it's still a wistful look back at a long-gone time from a man who clearly loved growing up in a small town.
The play has been performed countless times in schools and remains popular today, although only with drama teachers with a fondness for Americana. And, yes, I was a part of the chorus in my school's production back in the early '70s.
Wilson was an interesting lyricist, relying upon rapid-fire delivery and rhythms to carry his songs, even eschewing traditional musical accompaniment, like in this number from the beginning of the film.
With a radiant Shirley Jones as Marian the Librarian (she was pregnant during filming), a cute carrot-topped kid with a speech impediment who went on to become a famous director (and the star of Happy Days, too), and the Barbershop Quartet harmonies of the Buffalo Bills, The Music Man is a terrific family film.
Well worth a rental.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 27, 2008
Gloriously articulate idiots
I was listening to Slate.com's GabFest on XM Radio's POTUS '08 (channel 130) just a few minutes ago, apparently because I'm a glutton for punishment.
As I've mentioned before, they typically have some of their young, snooty writers shoot the breeze about the week in politics, giving us their ever-so-sophisticated take on things.
When I tuned in the discussion had turned to their dismay over Democrats "caving" to the Republicans on the latest FISA Bill, reauthorizing a variety of national security-related surveillance measures. One of the women -- legal "experts" Dahlia Lithwick or Emily Bazelon -- lamented that wiretapping doesn't seem to offend Democrats and couldn't understand why this was the case, especially since Americans seemed to have lost their supposed fondness for torture, now that habeas rights were being given to foreign terrorists (ACLU be praised!)
Host David Plotz responded that he wasn't bothered by wiretapping because he wasn't saying anything worth eavesdropping on, making the whole thing a tremendous waste of time and money -- missing the point that it's the needle in the haystack that the spooks are looking for, the lone conversation amongst billions that contains hints of an attack on the U.S., meaning, of course, that it's inevitable that innocuous talk will comprise most of what is being heard.
One of the females riposted with her dismay at the increasing levels of passive surveillance that people seeming willing to accept, pointing to England's vast number of CCTV cameras blanketing the U.K.
This is where it gets good.
She said that we're approaching "East German fascist" levels of surveillance, like that of the STASI.
"East German fascist."
Ahem.
The East Germans were Communists, not fascists -- although the Nazis were essentially a Socialist movement (see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning).
But that's the point, isn't it? All things bad and oppressive are fascist, like Nazis and Republicans, Hitler and George Bush.
Communists and Socialists? Hell, they were just misunderstood, their violence and excesses merely aberrations caused by foreign fascist influences, like an infection or a malevolent conservative virus.
I think it's just perfect that the Slate moonbat couldn't bring herself to identify a repressive regime with the Left, rewriting history to convert East Germany from a Communist prison into the Fourth Reich.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 26, 2008
Supreme Court gets one right and one very, very wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 in two major decisions today and yesterday, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller, with the four liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens) dissenting, and that the death penalty is a violation of the 8th Amendment when the person facing execution merely raped a child, instead of murdering her, too, in Kennedy v. Louisiana (Breyer, Ginsburg, Suiter and Stevens joined by Kennedy in this one).
Time constraints will keep me from writing more for the moment, but let me leave you with this: Obama said that he was against yesterday's decision sparing the life of a man who raped his own step-daughter so savagely that he tore her vagina apart, then called a friend for advice on getting blood out of his rug, noting that his little girl "had become a woman."
But Obama also has said that he'd appoint justices like Ginsburg, Suiter, Stevens and Breyer, who found that protecting the pedophile rapist's "dignity" was more important that punishing him for his depraved crime.
And Obama opposed Alito and Roberts, and would have voted against Scalia and Thomas.
Which means, notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, this anti-death penalty, pro-rapist decision is exactly the kind of thing we'd get from a court packed with Obama appointees.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
June 25, 2008
Totally inappropriate family relationships
IDontLikeYouInThatWay.com is a scabrous, smutty, celebrity-obsessed gossip site, but the writing is often laugh-out-loud funny.
Like today's entry on a certain father and daughter who have a relationship best described as "icky."
A few months ago Hulk Hogan put suntan lotion in his hands and rubbed it out his 20 year old daughter's ass. He was even thoughtful enough to rub it in her ass crack. You remember that being creepy as hell, right? Yeah, apparently Brooke Hogan doesn't think so. US Magazine reports:
I know I'm a grown woman, but it's like he's touching an old car," the singer tells Us Weekly in its latest issue, on newsstands now. "He used to change my diaper!" she adds."
The last time I checked Brooke Hogan wasn't caught in a chemical spill that left her with T-Rex arms, so I'm gonna take a wild stab and say that she can put suntan lotion on her own ass. But she wants her dad to do it.
Her dad.
On her ass.
If my mom wanted to put suntan lotion on my ass, they'd have to cut off her hands and let a chick in a Hooters calendar wear them as gloves. Even then they'd have to put glitter on them or paint rainbows on them or something, because I'd still know, man. I'd still know.
The Hogans are seriously disturbed, but IDLYITW is darn near always good for a laugh -- provided you're not easily offended.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Global warming doomsayer wants heretics burned at stake
Honestly, this report is like something out of the middle ages.
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."
He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated.
Yes, how dare anyone disagree with the high priests of the Church of Global Warming.
Heretics!
It brings to mind another episode wherein a religion demanded intellectual fealty, the science be damned.
By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas.
In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically.
For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
However, the Pope was displeased by the tone and tenor of the arguments in Gallileo's book, feeling that he -- and the Church -- had been made the subject of ridicule, which bode ill for the scientist.
However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
Galileo was required to abjure the opinion that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth is not at its centre and moves; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[89]
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[90]
After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, and where he later became blind.
When will the fanatics who preach and proselytize the gospel that all the world's ills are born of humanity admit that their beliefs are based on faith, not fact, that "Global Warming" -- conveniently morphed into "Climate Change" to counter the inconvenient truth about recent cooling trends -- is a religion?
Seems to me that we're not far removed from putting modern day Gallileos' on trial for daring to disagree with Church of Global Warming -- for the crime of "actively spreading doubt about global warming" -- if fanatics like Hansen have their way.
And that's a bigger threat to intellectual freedom than anything advocated by mainstream American religions. Seems to me that it's the EcoWarriors who need an Enlightenment or Reformation. Where is their Martin Luther?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Where in the world is Matt?
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
I started smiling right around the 2:50 mark. How 'bout you?
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
June 24, 2008
Do not borrow this guy's phone
Trust me, no matter how dire the circumstance, you absolutely, positively do not want to borrow this fella's cell phone.
Don't believe me?
Well, maybe you'll listen to the Smoking Gun.
Meet Jeffrey Barrier. The Ohio man allegedly used a cell phone camera to snap photos of a naked woman at a tanning salon Saturday and then hid the phone in his anus in a bid to thwart police.
Standing on a chair, Barrier, 41, took the photos at Cincinnati's Aloha Tanning, where a 35-year-old woman was "in the nude in a tanning room," according to a Hamilton County Municipal Court affidavit.
When cops later confronted Barrier, "he kept denying any involvement of the incident" and claimed to not have a camera.
However, a second search of the suspect turned up the camera. As noted in a Hamilton County Sheriff's Office report, Barrier "did hide evidence in his anus."
Barrier, pictured in the mug shot, was charged with disorderly conduct for taking the photos and obstructing official business for hampering a police investigation. Barrier, due in court today, is free on $1500 bond.
You can check out some of the police reports here.
Dude. Your parents must be so proud.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
George Carlin
The comedian George Carlin died Sunday, and amidst all the glowing accolades for his free-speech routine about seven dirty words you can't say on TV, I found myself thinking, "When was the last time I thought Carlin was actually funny as opposed to just being angry?"
Turns out I wasn't the only one.
Stephen Green, aka VodkaPundit, had this to say:
It’s been nearly 30 years now since George Carlin was funny, other than a handful of somewhat amusing movie appearances. It will be said that he’ll be missed, but I’ve missed him for ages.
I think the last time I laughed out loud at one of Carlin's routines was back in the late '70s, so it seems that Green and I are on the same humor timeline.
Seems like Carlin suffered from that syndrome where comedians decide that making people laugh just isn't good enough.
"Why are you laughing? I'm talking social commentary, not jokes. Take me seriously, dammit!"
So, like Vodkapundit, I'm afraid I lost the Carlin I enjoyed a long, long time ago.
Condolences to his family.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 23, 2008
Legal motion of the day
Click on image for larger version.
This in-your-face notice of appeal was filed by the defendant while in custody. I'm thinking this was probably one of those times when it would have been better to let your defense attorney do the talking.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 21, 2008
Why the death penalty?
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty; as a conservative with an instinctive antipathy for governmental powers of life and death -- as well as a recognition that nothing made or administered by man is perfect -- arguments in favor of alternatives to the gallows draw my interest.
But then there are the crimes so heinous, so unbelievably cruel and depraved, that it becomes obvious to me that society ought not allow the killers to enjoy another sunset.
Setting aside for the moment cases with the "perfect" murder defendant (multiple eyewitnesses, a video of the killings, a full confession and conclusive physical evidence confirming the killer's guilt), what about the so-called run-of-the-mill capital cases, the ones where the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, without reaching the level of metaphysical certitude that supports 100 percent accuracy?
While public support for the death penalty in the United States has been rock solid for decades, death penalty opponents are fond of pointing to polls that show a majority of Americans supporting the abolition of capital punishment if there exists an iron-clad life sentence, without the possibility of a judge, politician or parole board deeming the convict worthy of parole.
But then stories like this hit the web, and I realize (again), that without the death penalty, there's simply nothing we can do to some people, no punishment the ACLU will allow, that will protect the innocent from men with murder in their hearts.
ATWATER, California — Officials say a guard has been stabbed to death by inmates at a federal prison in Central California.
Merced County Sheriff Mark Pazin says 22-year-old Jose Rivera was taken to a hospital with stab wounds Friday afternoon and declared dead a short time later.
The U.S. Penitentiary in Atwater says the officer was stabbed by two inmates with homemade weapons.
An autopsy is planned and the FBI is investigating.
The prison is in the San Joaquin Valley about 64 miles northwest of Fresno.
Why do I support the death penalty?
Because without it, the convicts who murdered Corrections Officer Jose Rivera would only get another life sentence -- and be free to kill again.
And again.
And again.
Until they grew bored with spilling blood.
If nothing else, the death penalty prevents killers from killing again, which is -- or at least ought to be -- enough.
My condolences to Officer Rivera's family, friends and colleagues.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Alcohol
Brad Paisley at the Grand Ole Opry performing his hit "Alcohol," sung from the libation's perspective.
As with darn near all of Paisley's songs, the lyrics are witty, tell a story and bring a smile to the listener's face.
Just some of the reasons why I find myself enjoying country music more and more.
Keep reading for the lyrics to "Alcohol."
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 20, 2008
No love
Thinking about seeing Mike Meyer's new flick, The Love Guru?
Slate's Dana Stevens hopes you'll reconsider.
There are good movies.
There are bad movies.
There are movies so bad they're good (though, strangely, not the reverse).
And once in a while there is a movie so bad that it takes you to a place beyond good and evil and abandons you there, shivering and alone.
Watching The Love Guru (Paramount Pictures) is a spiritual experience of a sort, but not the sort that its creator and star, Mike Myers, intended. This tale of a guru who brings joy to all who meet him is the most joy-draining 88 minutes I've ever spent outside a hospital waiting room. In the course of those long minutes, Myers leads you on a journey deep inside himself, to the source from whence his comedy springs—and it's about as much fun as a tour of someone's large intestine.
I'm not surprised; the coming attraction -- which often contains the funniest parts of the flick -- is about as laugh-inducing as a root canal.
Makes me pine for So I Married an Axe Murderer:
Heed! Pants! Noooow!
It makes sense if you've ever put your enormous Sputnik-sized head on your gigantic pillow and cried yourself to sleep.
Do yourself a favor, skip the Guru and check out Murderer, if for no other reason than the scenes with his parents.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Section 8 will kill ya'
The July/August edition of The Atlantic features an article that explains why it is that big cities saw violent crime level off across the nation, while mid-size American cities suffered an explosion of homicides.
Guess what?
It has a lot to do with a certain social program much beloved by the Left.
An eye-opening article.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 18, 2008
Supremely foolish
It's been a week since the U.S. Supreme Court issued what may be the single most dangerous, unjustified -- and intellectually dishonest -- decision in the history of the American judiciary, when five justices ruled that unlawful combatants, captured on the battlefield, are entitled not only to more rights than POWs receive under the Geneva Conventions, not only more rights than members of the U.S. military, not only more rights than illegal aliens in the United States, but to the same rights as American citizens.
Former Justice Department official John Yoo has this to say in today's Wall Street Journal.
Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling is judicial imperialism of the highest order.
Boumediene should finally put to rest the popular myth that right-wing conservatives dominate the Supreme Court. Academics used to complain about the Rehnquist Court's "activism" for striking down minor federal laws on issues such as whether states are immune from damage lawsuits, or if Congress could ban handguns in school. Justice Anthony Kennedy -- joined by the liberal bloc of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- saves his claims of judicial supremacy for the truly momentous: striking down a wartime statute, agreed upon by the president and large majorities of Congress, while hostilities are ongoing, no less.
First out the window went precedent. Under the writ of habeas corpus, Americans (and aliens on our territory) can challenge the legality of their detentions before a federal judge. Until Boumediene, the Supreme Court had never allowed an alien who was captured fighting against the U.S. to use our courts to challenge his detention.
In World War II, no civilian court reviewed the thousands of German prisoners housed in the U.S. Federal judges never heard cases from the Confederate prisoners of war held during the Civil War. In a trilogy of cases decided at the end of World War II, the Supreme Court agreed that the writ did not benefit enemy aliens held outside the U.S. In the months after the 9/11 attacks, we in the Justice Department relied on the Supreme Court's word when we evaluated Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold al Qaeda terrorists.
The Boumediene five also ignored the Constitution's structure, which grants all war decisions to the president and Congress. In 2004 and 2006, the Court tried to extend its reach to al Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. It was overruled twice by Congress, which has the power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Congress established its own procedures for the appeal of detentions.
Incredibly, these five Justices have now defied the considered judgment of the president and Congress for a third time, all to grant captured al Qaeda terrorists the exact same rights as American citizens to a day in civilian court.
Judicial modesty, respect for the executive and legislative branches, and pure common sense weren't concerns here either. The Court refused to wait and see how Congress's 2006 procedures for the review of enemy combatant cases work. Congress gave Guantanamo Bay prisoners more rights than any prisoners of war, in any war, ever. The justices violated the classic rule of self-restraint by deciding an issue not yet before them.
Judicial micromanagement will now intrude into the conduct of war. Federal courts will jury-rig a process whose every rule second-guesses our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. A judge's view on how much "proof" is needed to find that a "suspect" is a terrorist will become the standard applied on the battlefield. Soldiers will have to gather "evidence," which will have to be safeguarded until a court hearing, take statements from "witnesses," and probably provide some kind of Miranda-style warning upon capture. No doubt lawyers will swarm to provide representation for new prisoners.
So our fighting men and women now must add C.S.I. duties to that of capturing or killing the enemy. Nor will this be the end of it. Under Boumediene's claim of judicial supremacy, it is only a hop, skip and a jump from judges second-guessing whether someone is an enemy to second-guessing whether a soldier should have aimed and fired at him.
[...]
Just as there is always the chance of a mistaken detention, there is also the probability that we will release the wrong man. As Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion notes, at least 30 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay -- with the military, not the courts, making the call -- have returned to Afghanistan and Iraq battlefields.
The Michael Ramirez cartoon at the top of this post is not mere hyperbole; former Gitmo inmates have indeed returned to the fight and killed Americans. Many, many more will do so, thanks to this decision.
It's hard to overstate just how damaging this opinion is, not just to our nation, but the system of checks and balances put in place by the Framers. The Imperial Judiciary is supposed to be anything but, the weakest of the three branches of government, its members unelected and answerable to no one.
Rather, it is the Congress and the Executive branches which are tasked with legislating and fighting wars, their political fates held in the hands of the People.
The biggest loser -- apart from the Americans who will be needlessly slaughtered as a result of this gift to the jihadis -- is the Supreme Court itself, for nothing anyone can say or do can do more damage to its reputation and standing with the American People than what the Justices have done to themselves.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:19 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
June 17, 2008
No warm fuzzies here for conservatives
Larry Correia doesn't have a warm, fuzzy feeling about the upcoming election. He does a pretty good job summing up why conservatives are less than thrilled with their choices, calling it a ballot where the voters get to choose between a conservative Democrat and a Marxist.
That said, McCain is still 1000 times better than Obama. Yes, McCain sucks by most conservative standards. But still pick any single issue and McCain is better than Obama. And I don’t know if that says just how stupid we Republicans were this time around, or just how extremely far left Obama is.
And then he starts to sound angry and bitter.
Correia actually manages to hit all the major issues in short order, without letting the Stupid Party (aka, the Republicans) off the hook.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Hail Nino, defender slayer of the activist dragon
Justin Levine considers Justice Antonin Scalia's take on judicial activism to be spot on -- dubbing Scalia the primary defender against the problem -- and Levine offers this concise statement of the problem:
The initial test for judicial activism can be summed up in a fairly straightforward manner:
1. Does the outcome derive directly from the text of the law (statute or Constitution).
2. Is the interpretation of the text reasonable.
Point # 1 explored - [Apart from well known and accepted common law going back hundreds of years] Courts should be able to cite the specific text of the law, and draw conclusions directly from it without the need for additional steps. When the Supreme Court decides a case primarily by further interpreting one of its own past decisions rather than the text of the (Congressional, state or Constitutional) law, chances are that it is in activist mode. Supreme Court decisions are interpretations of the law - but that is very different from the law itself. Once you start basing outcomes on past judicial decisions instead of directly from the law’s text itself, you become stuck with an interpretation of an interpretation - becoming further and further removed from the law’s base and causing distortions in it.
Point # 2 explored - The interpretation of the law’s text must be reasonable. How does one have an ‘unreasonable’ interpretation of the text? By interpreting it either too narrowly to give the law any practical effect, or too broadly such that it deprives it of any practical meaning.
A popular example of interpreting text too broadly was the infamous Kelo decision that interpreted the phrase ‘public use’ so broadly as to be practically meaningless. (Many proponents of judicial activism still decried the Kelo decision due to its practical outcome, but they regretfully did so for the wrong reasons, thus helping to ensure that similarly flawed decisions will likely continue in the future).
Levine ends by quoting from Scalia's dissent in Dada v. Mukasey, wherein Nino savages the majority for making it up as they go, arrogating to themselves power and authority they don't properly hold -- but for the fact that they say they do.
I'd say the single biggest threat to the continued viability of the American system, the three separate-but-equal branches of government paradigm, is the weakness (read: cowardice) of the Executive and Legislative branches, who meekly stand by and await their marching orders from the black-robed judicial masters, surrendering to them more and more control with every benighted ruling.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 16, 2008
Well, that explains a lot
Meet Ohio Judge James Burge, who attracted the attention of the national media last week.
ELYRIA, Ohio (AP) — A judge in Ohio says the state's method of putting prisoners to death is unconstitutional because two of three drugs used in the lethal injection process can cause pain.
Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said Tuesday the state's lethal injection procedure doesn't provide the quick and painless death required by Ohio law.
Burge said Ohio must stop allowing a combination of drugs and focus instead on a single, anesthetic drug.
The ruling is likely be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
He's pictured in his chambers, speaking to the press about the case. Don't take my word for it. The caption, running beneath the photo taken by Associated Press photographer Tony Dejak, says:
Lourain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge speaks in his office in Lorain, Ohio as posters of Che Guevara and Barack Obama hang on his wall.
So, to recap, this judge has chosen to decorate his chambers with huge posters of a dedicated Marxist, a radical who dedicated his life to changing society, avoiding the drudgery of a 9-to-5 job.
And he's also got a poster of Che Guevara, too.
Snark aside, it's awesome that the mental midget decries the death penalty while exalting a man responsible for the execution of thousands of Cubans, many of them by his own hand. Guevara even shot a teenager in the head, pumping a bullet into his brain for stealing food.
As Humberto Fontova wrote:
A Cuban prosecutor of the time who quickly defected in horror and disgust named Jose Vilasuso estimates that Che signed 400 death warrants the first few months of his command in La Cabana. A Basque priest named Iaki de Aspiazu, who was often on hand to perform confessions and last rites, says Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad during the period. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book Yo Soy El Che! that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad.
In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to "a couple thousand" executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of "imperialist spies and CIA agents."
The rest of Fontova's article is worth reading, as a reminder of who Guevara really was.
But it also speaks to the profound stupidity of this so-called judge, who fashions himself a defender of human rights while working beneath the watchful gaze of a mass murdering Communist.
Perfect.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 15, 2008
Sunset over the Ventura Keys
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
M. Night Shyamalan's latest horror
My sister mentioned to me over our Father's Day brunch that she was thinking of seeing M. Night Shyamalan's new flick, The Happening. I told her that I'd heard the film was stupefyingly awful; she said she'd catch it on DVD.
Shyamalan, who once upon a time made the entertaining Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, has apparently descended into creative madness. Or mundaneness. Or hackdom.
WIth that in mind, here's the beginning of a savage review.
Shyamalan's latest movie, The Happening, is not merely bad. It is an astonishment, so idiotic in conception and inept in execution that, after seeing it, one almost wonders whether it was real or imagined. It's the kind of movie you want to laugh about with friends, swapping favorite moments of inanity: "Do you remember the part when Mark Wahlberg ... ?" "God, yes. And what about that scene where the wind ... ?"
The problem, of course, is that to have such a conversation, you'd normally have to see the movie, which I believe is an unreasonably high price to pay just to make fun of it. So rather than write a conventional review explaining why you should or shouldn't see The Happening (trust me, you shouldn't), I'm offering an alternative: A dozen and a half of the most mind-bendingly ridiculous elements of the film, which will enable you to marvel at its anti-genius without sacrificing (and I don't use that term lightly) 90 minutes of your life. As this is intended to be an alternative to seeing the actual film it is, of course, overflowing with spoilers. Those who still intend to see the film despite my warnings should probably stop reading now ....
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Okay, so they're not all crapweasels
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 13, 2008
Safer wheels for diabetics
People suffering from Juvenile-Onset Diabetes have to contend with closely monitoring their blood sugar levels; when they fall too far, a coma is in the offing, which is especially disastrous when behind the wheel of a car.
However, an innovative bit of technology looks like it will provide an early warning for diabetic drivers.
At this year's ADA scientific session at Moscone Center in San Francisco, Medtronic Diabetes unveiled its new M-POWERED car, a Lincoln sedan equipped with a system that wirelessly incorporates a patient's continuous glucose monitor with a dashboard to make driving safer for those who can go from 120 to 60 mg/dl within a matter of seconds.
The only problem I can see is that the system's in a Lincoln.
Still, great idea, don't you think?
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
For the boss who fancies himself a mix between Darth Vader and Old Scratch
To be perfectly honest, if I walked into a job interview and found my prospective employer sitting at -- er -- in this thing, I'd expect that there was a contract to be signed in blood and a soul traded for some sort of wild benefits package.
According to the gadget gurus at Gizmodo, this thing is for real.
Behold the Greatest Workstation of All Time: the Emperor. I mean, come on, anything that looks like it can control a turbolaser battery or fire a giant anti-matter death ray must be the greatest workstation of all time, period. But according to Patrick Laflamme Duval—business developer for manufacturer Novelquest—the name is not a Star Wars nod, but a reference to the emperor scorpion's tail:
At the press of a button, the Emperor’s tail section (the large articulated arm that holds the monitors) rises to allow the user to be seated, then lowers back into position the three monitors at the perfect height and angle for perfect viewing comfort.
The Emperor has three large monitors for a panoramic view, THX Dolby surround sound, air filtering, light therapy (so you can get a tan without having to go out under the sun,) webcam, battery backup, and other niceties. It can be built to order with a desktop Mac or PC, as well as the biggest docking station ever for laptops. If you want one, you will have to go rob a bank—price is not listed yet, but we can imagine lots of zeros in it—and wait for the release date: July 2008.
If you think this reflects the inner you -- shudder -- or you just want to scare the bejabbers out of your pathetic underlings, check it out here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
June 12, 2008
Congress: Quick! Let's do nothing about gas prices!
A proposal to tap more than 80 billion barrels of oil in American waters was deep-sixed along partisan lines yesterday.
A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.
With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.
Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
[...]
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."
But the Democrats disagree, insisting that increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas is not going to ease the pain at the pump.
I guess the mysterious theory of supply and demand doesn't resonate with the Dems. Instead they want us to accept the higher prices as an incentive to switch quickly to cars powered by rainbows and self-esteem.
Hugh Hewitt comments:
The U.S. uses about 20 million barrels a day. 86 billion barrels of new reserves would dent the price of gas at the pump and provide more time for alternative fuels and new technologies to continue to advance.
Here's a Congressional Research Service report on off-shore reserves. The ones the Dems refuse to explore or exploit.
The Dems don't care. Obama doesn't care. The "change" they are bringing is $6 a gallon gas.
Vote to stay home in a dark, hot house. Vote Obama.
It's a perfect solution -- blame the GOP for high gas prices and do nothing about bringing the price down, because, of course, that would only help the Republicans.
And the rest of us, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
June 11, 2008
Man, some guys have all the luck
As long as I'm on a warbird binge, check out this first-person account of what it's like to fly a P-51 Mustang at a school where a whole slew of bombers and fighters were available for would-be aces to learn to fly.
Then head over here, to read many more flight reviews of rare and historic birds.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:19 PM |