May 07, 2008
Stephen King: Thin-skinned celebutante
According to an Associated Press report, author Stephen King reacted badly when taken to task for remarks he made at a conference last month.
A blogger jumped on King’s statement at the Library of Congress about the importance of reading in which he suggested poor readers have limited prospects, including service in the Army.
"I don’t want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don’t, then you’ve got the Army, Iraq, I don’t know, something like that. It’s not as bright," King said at the April 4 event in which he was accompanied by his wife Tabitha and son Owen.
Blogger Noel Sheppard likened the comment to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s remarks that if you don’t get a good education, "you get stuck in Iraq."
"Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen," Sheppard wrote.
King posted a heated response on his website.
A message from Stephen
That a right-wing-blog would impugn my patriotism because I said children should learn to read, and could get better jobs by doing so, is beneath contempt.
Noel Sheppard says, “Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen.”
I guess he feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder. I guess he also feels that the war in Iraq has nationwide approval.
Well, it doesn’t have mine. It is a waste of national resources. . . and that includes the youth and blood of the 4,000 American troops who have lost their lives there and for the tens of thousands who have been wounded.
I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise.
If you agree, find Sheppard on the internet, and send him an email:
“Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”
Steve
Now, I've enjoyed reading King's novels since I was in junior high (Salem's Lot scared the bejabbers out of me!), but this is really disappointing.
To begin with, the "impugning my patriotism" line is weak, very weak. On the other hand, I think it is fair to question King's purported support for the troops, given that he thinks only unedjimicated, illiterate buffoons, lacking any other possible alternatives, would volunteer to serve in the military.
I guess [the conservative blogger] feels ignorance and illiteracy are OK when the country needs cannon-fodder.
[...]
I live in a national guard town, and I support our troops, but I don’t support either the war or educational policies that limit the options of young men and women to any one career—military or otherwise.
Wow.
"Cannon-fodder"?
"[L]imited prospects"?
Who knew that King held the troops that he supposedly supports in such contempt?
I've spent the last few days working with National Guard troops getting ready to deploy -- many for their second or third trip into the combat zone -- and they don't seem to fit the stereotype that King clings to, that of a loser who ends up in the military because he's too stupid to do anything else.
Many of the GIs I've dealt with are college grads; some have their own businesses; none have been illiterate; and to a man (and woman) have been anything but the drooling, slack-jawed yokels waiting to be marched headlong into the blazing muzzles of enemy cannon that King imagines them to be.
I'm reminded of the soldiers I met during a previous mission
Sergeant First Class C. is a boyish-looking soldier with a ready smile and laid-back demeanor. You wouldn't think he'd deployed twice already, once to Iraq and later to Kuwait.
"Which did you prefer?" I ask.
"Kuwait was like a vacation," he answers.
He pauses for a moment, then continues in a mild tone.
"On the other hand, I got shot and blown up in Iraq, so there's really no comparison."
Did I mention he wears the Combat Infantryman Badge on his ACUs?
That probably explains the jagged scar running from beneath the collar of his blouse, up along his neck, running uncomfortably close to his carotid artery.
He's a CHP officer in civilian life, and we trade stories about DUI arrests and prosecutions in our respective counties.
As he initials the pages of the will I've prepared, I notice the aluminum wristband he wears honoring a fellow trooper killed in combat; I'm curious, but don't want to pry.
Fallen comrades; torn flesh. He seems remarkably angst-free, not at all tormented by his experiences.
And yet -- despite what he's seen and suffered -- the sergeant has volunteered, eager to take part in another mission, leaving behind a wife and two young kids as he returns to hunt down and kill our enemies.
Later, I meet his commanding officer, Lt.Col. T., a man who decided to give up a career in the pharmaceutical industry back in the early '80s, enlisting in the army because he was too old to get a commission. He took his chances as an enlisted man, hoping he'd get the waivers necessary to become an officer. At 32, he was years older than his fellow recruits, but he persevered, earning his commission and serving as an active duty officer in the Regular Army for a few years, before joining the National Guard.
In the ensuing years, Lt.Col. T. founded an environmental consulting firm, raised a family, and always thought about resuming his military career, full-time.
In the days after 9-11, that impulse became more urgent, tamped down only by his obligations to his family.
Not too long ago, his wife told him she knew how much he longed to answer the call to arms ... and that it was okay.
Now in his 50s, Lt.Col. T. is getting ready to lead his GIs into battle with a cadre of experienced NCOs, men like Sgt. C., to watch his back and help shepherd his troops safely through the challenging days ahead.
And the environmental consulting firm? He's shutting it down, so he can do something really important.
Yeah, clearly cannon-fodder, Steve-O, men who joined the Guard for lack of anything better to do, given their horrendous public-school, taxpayer-funded educations.
King ended his spittle-flecked response by asking his fans, "If you agree [with King], find Sheppard on the internet, and send him an email:
“Hi, Noel—Stephen King says to shut up and I agree.”
I'd invite you lend your support to Noel Sheppard, and leave a comment on his site.
As for King, well, I wish he'd take his own advice and just shut the hell up.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The morning after
Well, that was interesting. Obama met expectations, winning a decisive 14-point victory in North Carolina, while Hillary Clinton underperformed, barely ekeing out a 51-49 win in Indiana -- although Obama outspent her by as much as 3-1, softening the blow.
Still, Clinton's argument that she's the more electable of the two took a body blow last night; I think it's likely that we'll see more and more Democratic superdelegates committing to Obama.
The most revealing part of the evening was watching Bill Clinton and Chelsea in the background while Hillary spoke; Chelsea looked stricken, a smile that never seemed to reach her eyes plastered on her face, seemingly experiencing one of those moments where you want to be supportive, but don't have the heart to tell a loved one that they're completely deluded.
There were moments where I thought Bill was either going to fall asleep or wander off stage, but I was more concerned by his pallor, red blotches on his cheeks; the man looks unwell.
Emily Yoffe, who blogs at Slate's XX Factor, captured the moment -- and some of what I was thinking.
I also enjoyed watching the backdrop behind Hillary—the shifting facial expressions of Bill Clinton. I'm always intrigued by the semiotics of what she does with Bill.
At the last few election nights she's had him in camera range as she spoke; whenever she has him close it seems to signal she feels she's in trouble.
At first Bill watched her with that lip-biting look of enchantment we know so well, but as the speech wore on the mask seemed to drop and you could almost read his thoughts:
"Hill, you haven't got it. I've got it, and you haven't, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Hill, guess what, all those years you sacrificed for my career—well, it turns out I wasn't holding you back. You're only on this stage because of me, and even so, now that it's your turn and you had everything in your favor—Hill, you just haven't got it. And let's face it, Obama, he's got it."
The Clintons are positively Shakespearean, don't you think? I remain convinced that the only thing worse for Bill Clinton than seeing his wife fail would be seeing her succeed -- and ending up as the First Husband.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
May 05, 2008
Man bites dog
Stop the presses! The media is in the tank for the Obamassiah.
You knew that, didn't you?
The newsworthy part of the story is the person pointing the finger at the journos: one of their own.
Salon's editor-in-chief Joan Walsh -- no neocon she -- dished on her colleagues during an appearance on a Sunday morning gabfest -- and revealed that Hillary is not exactly their favorite, either, which may go a long way toward explaining the way this campaign is being covered.
I was struck when I got to Iowa and New Hampshire in January by how our media colleagues were just swooning over Barack Obama. That is not too strong a word. They were swooning.
I was at a speech, I remember it, I will write about it some day, in Manchester, and every, the biggest names in our business were there, and they were, they could repeat some of his speech lines to one another. It was like a Bruce Springsteen concert where the fans sing along.
And, you know, I respected it to some extent. He's a towering political figure. Of our generation, he's probably the best politician, he's inspiring. And, reporters, white reporters, black reporters, reporters of every race, we want to get beyond racism in America. So, he was, he was inspiring, I understood it, they're humans, they responded.
The downside though is that they hate, hate Hillary Clinton, most of them. Hate is not too strong a word.
But -- but, they're journalists! They're professionals! They're supposed to be impartial!
Yeah.
And I'm Napolean Bonaparte.
Video of Walsh's interview here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Idiotic energy policy
As Clinton and Obama spar over her support for a "gas tax holiday" -- she thinks it's good for consumers and he thinks it's just political pandering -- the Wall Street Journal points out that all of the candidates are economic retards when it comes to energy policy.
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.
[...]
You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.
Less is more, up is down, energy independence is more dependence on Middle East oil. The kind of brilliance one can only get from a presidential candidate.
Here's the nut 'graf, where the Journal knocks it out of the park.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
Our politicians are, to put a fine point on it, illiterates -- cretins -- when it comes to understanding something as basic as supply and demand. They're also seemingly interested in crippling our economy, rather than doing anything to increase our domestic energy supplies.
What a hopeless, hapless bunch.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Moonbat Watch: European edition
Just when you think you've heard it all, something comes along to prove how wrong you are.
Thanks to our more highly-evolved, incredibly ethical European betters comes the latest in politically correct jackassery: "Human rights" for plants.
At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the “dignity” of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called “plant rights” is being seriously debated.
A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring “account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms.” No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants,” is enough to short circuit the brain.
It's almost enough to make me want to eat my veggies -- but only after boiling them alive first, then dismembering them with a dull knife and using my jagged, dangerously sharp teeth to rend them into soggy little bits.
Oh, the horror.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
May 04, 2008
Carole King
Carole King is the talented singer-songwriter responsible for a number of monster hits, including "You've Got A Friend":
You just call out my name
And you know wherever I am,
I'll come running
To see you again.Winter, Spring, Summer or Fall,
All you got to do is call,
And I'll be there (yes I will),
You've got a friend.
King has a lovely voice -- her album "Tapestry" is a constant source of aural pleasure -- so I was pleasantly surprised to find an interview with her on XM radio this afternoon.
Not only did I learn that she's a New Age-y space cadet, deeply taken with the inane cliches of some swami type, but she also has a speaking voice that is just like that of the Long Island Jewish-American princess that Mike Meyers used to play in drag on SNL!
Oy vey!
And such a liberal moonbat, too.
That's what I get for listening to Allan Colmes.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
May 01, 2008
Thursday Bogie
Bogie enoys a quiet moment with Sheriff Bob, sitting in the morning sun with the purple lawman.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
April 29, 2008
Airstreaming
Click on picture for larger version.
We hit the road this weekend for our first trip with the Airstream, heading up to Lake Cachuma (Gesundheit!), about 24 miles north of Santa Barbara. Our truck handled the climb up through the San Marcos pass better than I did; it was a little nerve wracking, looking for a turnout to let the cars backing up behind us get by. But the GMC pulled the trailer with ease, the Duramax diesel and Allison six-speed transmission barely seeming to break a sweat under the load.
It was already close to 80 degrees when we arrived at the campground around 10 in the morning, with record-breaking temperatures to come. We checked in at the gate with the ranger to see what was available; he gave us a list of campsites and off we went to scope them out.
After a couple of loops around the sites, we settled on one with utilities, but the most important feature was the tree: a massive oak, it's canopy more than 60 feet wide, more than enough to shelter our aluminum trailer from the blazing sun.
Click on picture for larger version.
The Airstream stayed pretty cool inside, the exhaust fan pulling enough air through the screen door and windows to keep things relatively comfortable -- notwithstanding the rapidly-rising mercury. I walked over to the general store, where the thermometer on the porch read 90 in the shade by a quarter to eleven.
I walked down to the boat ramp just in time to see a bright red Amphicar drive into the lake, the water coming to within inches of the passenger compartment as the occupants hooted and hollered. Then I headed back to our trailer, sweat pouring off me, the sun seemingly growing hotter with every step I took.
By the time I arrived, I was definitely overcooked -- and overdue for a soda and a nap. After taking care of the former, I collapsed on the couch and took care of the latter, staring up through the skylight at the leaves fluttering overhead, woodpeckers and jays zipping by, perching for a moment, then leaping back into the air.
Click on picture for larger version.
I wasn't the only creature who found the heat enervating. Bogie had a hard time keeping his tongue in his mouth and off the floor.
Click on picture for larger version.
And we weren't the only ones who enjoyed roughing it; Airstream corner had five of the silver twinkies clustered together. It was a blinding sight when the sun hit them just right.
Click on picture for larger version.
Some people scoff at the very idea of Airstreaming as camping, but even the folks in tents seem to have gone a bit soft at the edges. Check out the fratboy encampment above, with all the essentials: multiple coolers, Miller Lite beer signs, Tiki torches and, of course, a satellite dish.
Different strokes, and all that.
Still, I preferred our digs, with their classic, streamlined exterior and the cool, sleek, aluminum-clad walls.
Click on picture for larger version.
We can't wait to hit the road again, and the best part is that we can take Bogie with us. Do vacations get any better than this?
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:05 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
"Smiley Face" serial killers
Criminal profilers say that the typical serial killer works alone -- the pathology doesn't seem to lend itself to turning it into a social event.
On the other hand, sometimes the experts allow themselves to be blinded to the possibility that a killer -- or killers -- elect to play by their own rules.
For instance, a couple of retired New York City homicide detectives are convinced that the Feebs (aka the FBI) are wrong, dead wrong, about the gumshoes' theory.
According to the detectives, more than 40 young men have been murdered in 25 cities -- across 11 states -- by a gang of killers roaming from New York to the Midwest, the slayings staged to look like suicides, the only clue that they're not what they seem to be: a smiley face drawn at the scene of each crime.
But the experts at the FBI think the theory is just a bunch of bunk.
[Kevin] Gannon and [Anthony] Duarte have done something that no other law enforcement agency has ever done in this case -- they looked at the big picture and visited each site where the young men disappeared.
While most local investigations focused on where a body was recovered, Gannon and Duarte tried to figure out where the body went into the river.
City after city, when they'd find the spot where the body went in, they would find something else: The symbol of a smiley face.
"It's very disturbing," Duarte said.
The paint color and size of the face varies, but the detectives are convinced that it's a sick signature the killers leave behind.
They found one eight years ago in Wisconsin and then others in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Then most recently, they believe they've found one in Iowa.
In Michigan, they found something strange among the group's graffiti: the word 'Sinsiniwa.' They couldn't figure out what it meant until a few months later when they arrived in Dubuque, Iowa to investigate the death of Matt Kruziki.
His body was found on Sinsiniwa Avenue. Plus, they've discovered the nicknames of people in the group at more than one location.
It sounds like something out of a Hollywood thriller -- or an episode of Law & Order, but I'm not surprised; the existence of evil is a given to me, its handiwork visible in bodybags the world over.
Mull over the fact that child molesters prey upon kids, steal their innocence. Not content to destroy a youngster's psyche, some molesters then graduate to serial killer, murdering their victims. Once you ponder that fact, that evil men willing prey on the most defenseless members of society, nothing is surprising, no depravity beyond the realm of what is possible.
What does make the heart sink is the nature of the symbol present at the murders, the smiley face. It speaks of soul-deadening irony, the snarkiness of a generation that finds humor in everything, sneering hipsters who take nothing seriously, laugh at conventional morality, snort in disbelief at middle-class conventions.
I think I've just described most of the audience of The Daily Show and Bill Maher's series on HBO.
How long before these killings are the punchline to some wink-wink, nudge-nudge joke? I suspect the laughter's already begun, the too-cool-for-school crowd yucking it up over the drawing technique of the killers.
Happy Tuesday.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 27, 2008
Old hound
We took the Silver Twinkie (also known as an Airstream) out for its inaugural road trip, a quick 24-hour shakedown cruise to Lake Cachuma, about 25 miles north of Santa Barbara. I was sitting in the dinette, reading, when a flash of blue and white caught my eye, accompanied by the clatter of a big-bore diesel and the pop and hiss of air brakes.
A few minutes later, our new neighbor was backing into the campsite next door.
It was a 1947 Greyhound bus, all gleaming chrome and shiny paint, corrugated skin and art deco curves.
Her new owners clearly have a sense of humor about their ride; notwithstanding her moniker, she's a beaut.
Everywhere you look on the Greyhound are graceful curves in unexpected places, from the arc of an emergency exit on her rear flanks to the windows next to the driver and in the passenger door. Although the bus line was named after a dog known for speed, I think this model captures some of the lines of her namesake canine.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Who's policing the U.S. Attorney?
The entire criminal justice system depends on law enforcement behaving ethically, the police conducting themselves honestly in the field, testifying truthfully in court. No less important is the conduct of prosecutors, who are charged with seeking justice, not just convictions.
When the public loses faith in the honesty and integrity of the system, guilty men go free, along with the victims of dirty cops and dishonest DAs (Mike Nifong, anyone?).
Via Patterico comes word that the corruption may have reached deep inside the Department of Justice, jeopardizing the conviction of a former Louisiana governor and calling into question the actions of a U.S. Attorney.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 23, 2008
Profiles in Courage: Charles Durning
Charles Durning as Gov. "Pappy" O'Daniel in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
Charles Durning is one of my favorite actors, a big, blustering guy who often harbors a surprisingly sentimental heart beneath the hard shell on display for the world. Viewers have seen him most recently as Denis Leary's father in Rescue Me, the FX series about a bunch of New York firemen, but it was his role as "Pappy" O'Daniel, the Huey Long-like governor in O Brother, Where Art Thou? that I prefer; Durning is beginning to slow down, his 85 years weighing heavy, and it's a more lively, vibrant performance on view in Brother.
The man is nothing, if not prolific, having achieved screen fame relatively late in life (he was 50) with his breakout performance as the corrupt cop in The Sting, the Academy Award-winning 1973 blockbuster starring Robert Redford, Paul Newman and Robert Shaw.
Durning followed up with another baddie, playing the villain in The Muppet Movie, before moving on to the often hilarious portrayal of Jessica Lange's clueless father, in love with the unbelievably ugly Dustin Hoffman in drag in Tootsie.
He's one of those actors who, even if you're not a movie buff, you'll still recognized as "that guy" in a number of flicks you've seen.
Durning's received many honors over the years, including two Academy Award nominations, eight Emmy nominations, a Tony win for best actor, and a lifetime achievement award from the Screen Actors Guild.
But there's another side to Durning, one that's little known (at least to me), but something for which he deserves recognition. And he recently got it, when France awarded him the nation's highest award for valor, the National Order of the Legion of Honor, at a ceremony at the ambassador's residence in Beverly Hills.
It turns out the Durning is, quite simply, a warrior.
As a 17-year-old infantryman, Durning was among the first wave of men to land on Omaha Beach. During that campaign and later in the war, he was wounded three times and awarded three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.
... "There's only so much you can witness," he said of his time overseas. Indeed, his war decorations were hard-earned. Durning was the only man to survive a machine gun ambush on Omaha Beach - and he had to rise above serious wounds and kill seven German gunners to do it.
Months later in Belgium, he was stabbed eight times by a German teenage soldier wielding a bayonet; Durning eventually bludgeoned him to death with a rock. He was released from the hospital in time to fight in the Battle of the Bulge, where he was taken prisoner. After escaping a subsequent massacre of the other prisoners, he was obliged by American forces to return to the scene and help identify bodies. Finally, a bullet in the chest a few months later ended his relentless tour of duty - and began four years of repeated hospitalizations for his physical and psychological injuries.
In an interview with Parade Magazine, Durning said of his initial post-war years, "I dropped into a void for almost a decade. The physical injuries heal first. It's your mind that's hard to heal." And, as he points out, it's not just a matter of what is done to you, but what you find yourself capable of doing. "There are many secrets in us, in the depths of our souls, that we don't want anyone to know about. There's terror and repulsion in us, horrifying things we keep secret. A lot of that is released through acting."
It's hard to reconcile the heavyset (Durning fluctuates between portly and corpulent) actor with the lean, tough teenage GI narrowly escaping the Malmedy Massacre, but there you have it.
There's a reminder there for me: we are surrounded by heroes, elderly men who rarely engage in self-glorification, content to keep to themselves their tales of self-sacrifice, courage and honor in the face of the unrelenting savagery of WWII. I try to thank them for their service whenever I get a chance; their numbers are dwindling, reportedly by as many as 1,500 a day.
I'm glad the French government has decided to recognize Durning for his bravery 64 years ago.
Bravo.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 21, 2008
Pissed at the pump? Blame Democrats
I attended the Passover Seder at my mother's house, and as we cleaned up after the last of the guests had left, the talk turned to politics (what a shock, I know).
My mother is a life-long Democrat, a depression-era kid who believes that all that is good in America began with FDR. She works as a substitute teacher in the L.A. Mummified Unified School District, believes in the "Global Warming Crisis," and cannot fathom how she produced a son who dropped out of high school to serve in Reagan's military, drives a big truck, likes to shoot and hunt, and has a hard time deciding if he prefers the taste of veal to spotted owl or bald eagle.
We don't agree on much.
As is often the case, Mom complains about some form of economic burden under which she chafes, leaving me an opening to point out that the relief she seeks is blocked by her beloved Democratic Party.
Mom, Bob and I stood in the kitchen, chatting, the conversation turning at one point to talk of the high price of gas, with She Who Gave Me Life (and reminds me constantly of that fact) griping about how much it cost to fill the tank of her car.
I pointed out to Mom -- as I have to you, dear readers -- that America has done precious little to increase the domestic supply of oil, other than blaming oil companies for allegedly earning "obscene" profits at our expense.
Democrats refuse to open off-limits areas in the U.S. to drilling, preferring to complain about our dependence on foreign oil and recruiting disgruntled voters via expensive, gasoline-fueled class warfare.
National Review's Deroy Murdock agrees, although I suspect even he couldn't have changed Mom's mind.
[Congress should a]pprove new Alaskan oil drilling already. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s pertinent parcel covers just 2,000 acres — a veritable raindrop in the Olympic swimming pool that is Alaska’s 365-million-acre territory. ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels could match or replace for 19 years the 1.5 million barrels of Saudi oil that America imports daily.
ANWR also could equal or provide a substitute for American purchases of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s oil for 25 years. Interestingly enough, Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), who presided over the House’s late-March public dunking of top petroleum executives, applauds former Rep. Joe Kennedy’s (D., Mass.) program to provide poor people with Venezuela’s anti-American heating oil.
One year’s worth of Chavez’s authoritarian charity equals just one day’s worth of ANWR’s all-American output. Guess which one enjoys the approval of the chairman of the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee?
[...]
I welcome the day when planes, trains, and automobiles can operate on fuel squeezed from shredded junk mail and pulverized rap CDs. Such alternative sources will deliver minimal benefits . . . eventually. The International Energy Agency’s 2007 World Energy Outlook forecasts that fossil fuels will still generate 82 percent of Earth’s energy in 2030, with 9 percent from biomass. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other renewable sources will satisfy just 2 percent of demand. Refined petroleum propels vehicles today, and yet oil languishes beneath our sovereign soil, even as Americans go jobless and our republic meanders into recession.Will we finally grow up and harness our resources, or will we childishly weep over imaginary threats to wildlife, dispatch supertankers of cash to the Middle East, and watch our petrodollars sponsor bomb belts and exploding aircraft?
Merely asking this question illustrates how desperately this nation needs adult supervision.
Murdock puts the screws to those "obscene" profits the Dems like to talk about, noting that when a fair-minded observer compares Exxon's costs, the company's profit margin is about 10 percent, decent, but nothing like Coca-Cola's 20.7-percent profit margin, or Bill Gates' Microsoft, turning a 27.5-percent profit -- but that's okay, because Gates believes in Global Warming and gives to the "right" charities.
If the Democrats really cared about the poor, oppressed, downtrodden working stiffs, they'd do something to free us from our dependence on foreign oil -- like tap our enormous domestic oil reserves and build the refineries to turn the crude into gas.
But that's such a ... conservative solution. It's so much more satisfying to knock capitalism, evil corporations and the GOP.
What was it Murdock said?
Will we finally grow up and harness our resources, or will we childishly weep over imaginary threats to wildlife, dispatch supertankers of cash to the Middle East, and watch our petrodollars sponsor bomb belts and exploding aircraft?
Merely asking this question illustrates how desperately this nation needs adult supervision.
You can say that again, Bub.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:42 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 20, 2008
Sen. Chuck Schumer (Shmuck-NY)
Chris Wallace is interviewing two Democratic senators about the state of the race between Clinton and Obama. He plays an audio clip of Hillary Clinton complaining that Democratic activists from the left, the party's base, attend caucuses and intimidate her supporters, scare them away from backing her and forcing them toward Obama:
"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
So, Wallace asks, does Sen. Clinton really believe that it's bad when the Democratic base mobilizes and turns out during the primaries?
"No, Chris, that's not what she's saying," Schumer says -- which completely contradicts what we've just heard Clinton say.
Schumer than tries to argue that Clinton agrees with the vituperative criticism aimed at ABC for the last debate -- the Obamassiah's believers are unhappy that the moderators dared to treat their prophet as a politician and not The Savior -- and Wallace ain't buyin'.
The host tells Schumer that Hillary Clinton took every question about Obama's relationship with the America-hating pastor Wright, his relationship with the America-hating domestic terrorist William Ayers, and piled on during the debate, going after her opponent hammer-and-tong. Wallace tells Schumer that Clinton and her husband Billy Jeff, then continued the attack after the debate, telling the press that she's been subjected to the same questions and treatment in previous debates, pointing out that Obama is -- in the opinion of the former president -- a big, fat whiner for whinging on and on about how unfair the last debate was.
Schumer insists that Wallace is being unfair, that Clinton thinks the questions thrown at Obama by the ABC moderators were biased, trivial and unfair.
Wow.
Schumer is such a reptilian hack, an unblinking, lip-licking, filibustering, insincere schmuck, that it's inconceivable that any campaign would send him out as a surrogate to do battle on the Sunday morning news shows.
Who likes this guy? Who finds him in any way convincing?
What a crapweasel.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 17, 2008
You want a thin TV?
The boffins at Sony decided that their last OLED flat-panel TV was too porky, at 3mm thick, so they've come out with the Kate Moss version, one-tenth the girth of the Rosie O'Donnell model that preceded it. The new prototype is a mere .3mm thick, thinner than the lead in your pencil.
Yeah, it's only 11 inches wide, but bigger ones are on the way, and the OLED -- Organic Light Emitting Diode -- technology provides sharper, higher contrast images, lower power consumption and long-lasting screens.
The next step is making the panels flexible, which seems possible, given how thin they are.
Neat stuff.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 16, 2008
Democratic Debate: Oil
Obama: "The only way we can lower fuel prices is by increasing fuel economy standards and reducing demand."
Quick, what's an economic theory that forms the foundation of any market-based system?
C'mon, Obama already gave you part of the answer ...
Demand ....
Demand and ....
sigh.
Supply and demand, people.
Neither candidate said anything about increasing the oil supply to alleviate the high prices resulting from growing demand. There's oil aplenty in the United States, but we need to extract it. Then we need to build refineries to turn it into fuel.
But Obama and Clinton prefer to practice retardonomics, completely ignoring the possibility that big, bad oil companies could help, if only Congress would get out of the way and let them tap the billions of black gold locked beneath ANWR, under the waters of the Pacific coast and the Florida Keys.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Democratic Debate: Taxes
Obama wants to raise taxes on people making more than $100K, citing the importance of paying for Social Security.
Question: Why do we have to pay more taxes? Why not cut spending?
Answer: Because Democrats always -- ALWAYS! -- believe that "fiscal responsibility" means raising revenue (taxes), but never cutting spending.
Moderator Charlie Gibson throws out a good question, prefacing it with the factual statement that cuts in the capital gains tax have always -- ALWAYS! -- resulted in an increase in cash landing in the government's trough. Given that fact, he asks if either candidate is willing to swear off an increase the capital gains tax.
Clinton says she won't raise it above what it was during her husband's administration, which is a limited promise to screw us only a little bit.
Obama disputes the premise of the question, saying it's debatable that increased tax revenue has anything to do with cuts in the tax rates, then engages in a bit of flim-flam, saying that millionaires with lots of stocks are paying less taxes, at a lower rate, than their secretaries.
And, after all, he's for fairness; who can be against fairness?
What Obama doesn't say, of course, is that those millionaires have already paid taxes on their income when they earned it, to the IRS and their states; he wants to tax them again, taking another bite after they try to realize some of the profits on their investments, investments that contributed to the growth of the entire economy.
Obama says we need to raise more money to "finance" health care for those Americans without health insurance.
"Finance" means you and I are forced to pay for health care for people who, through ignorance, sloth, stupidity, poor job choices or just plain bad luck aren't listed on our policies. So, we should be forced to hand over more of our hard-earned cash, to buy for these people the health care they haven't planned or budgeted for.
As I listen to this debate, I have a hard time hearing what they're saying over the shrieks of agony coming from my wallet and my 401K.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
April 15, 2008
The Pope comes to America
Click cartoon for larger version.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Homicidal teens are just misunderstood
There have been a spate of editorials and articles in the local fish wrap lately, urging Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten to prosecute Brandon McInerney as a juvenile, not an adult, for the murder of Larry King.
Sunday's paper featured an opinion piece from Neil Quinn, a former high-ranking public defender who represented another juvenile killer, Tony Throop, who sits in prison, sentenced as an adult to life behind bars.
Quinn's essay was a high-falutin' attack on the very concept of prosecuting juveniles in the adult system, with allegations that the D.A. put justice on the backburner in favor of some barbaric, unduly punitive legal maneuvers.
When justice is sought, it is immoral to knowingly allow the result to rest on a lie. Like a bitter root added to a stew, a falsehood that underlies a criminal judgment taints the result and renders it unacceptable, no matter the other ingredients.
When prosecutors argue that we can tell by a child's crime that he is beyond hope and he should bear responsibility for his crime in the exact same fashion as if he were an adult, such arguments are "misguided" for the simple reason that they rest on falsehood.
We know, and have always known, that children are subject to poor choices, bad influences and bad judgment, but they usually grow up. Law and society have recognized this in innumerable ways in age-related restrictions on driving, marrying, contracting, having sex, owning a gun, drinking, voting, fighting in a war and virtually any other activity with serious consequences.
We even have laws that increase the punishment when a defendant involves a minor in a crime. Why? Because we know the truth that minors are subject to undue influence and don't have an adult capacity to appreciate the consequences of their conduct. We recognize the truth that children are different from adults in every other context, so why must prosecutors ignore this truth? Would you give your child a gun, alcohol and keys to a car and think that it would be safe because you told him to "act responsibly"?
Ventura County prosecutors recently decided to treat a child three weeks into his 14th year as an adult, to be judged as if he were an adult, as if he were not a child. Envision your child (or any child) on his 14th birthday, in junior high school. One need not be an expert to know that this child has a lot of growing up to do. Do we really want a legal system where prosecutors are free to ignore this fundamental truth?
There is a tendency for people to defer to the "experts." Prosecutors sometimes clothe themselves in this "expert" guise and ask citizens, unfamiliar with the law and the facts, to assume they are doing the "right thing." After all, prosecutors are supposed to represent the "people."
I suppose that I could clothe myself with a similar claim of expertise. I have worked in the criminal justice system for about 25 years. I have defended many young offenders and know firsthand the thoughtlessness that is connected with youthful crime. I even wrote some motions long ago in the Throop case, arguing — prior to the recent Supreme Court opinion — that sentencing a minor to die in prison without any hope of parole is cruel and unusual punishment.
[...]
But to cast this question as one to be debated and resolved by experts is fundamentally wrong. We do not defer to experts for our moral reasoning. Any parent is sufficiently expert to know that children are not adults.
Sometimes it is just that simple. We have two parallel criminal justice systems — one for adults, the other for children. To say that a 14-year-old deserves to be in the adult system is to put the bitter root of a falsehood into the mix at the very beginning. No palatable justice can come of it.
While Quinn tells us that "Prosecutors ignore a fundamental truth," he glosses over several truths himself.
Throop was 17 when he murdered his victims, old enough to know the difference between right and wrong; mature enough to consider the implications of his actions before he took a rifle out of the trunk and returned to the party; intelligent enough to recognize that the people at whom he was taking aim had a right to live.
And yet he pulled the trigger anyhow, more than once, in a series of cold, calculating, premeditated acts, and murdered two men.
It gladdens my heart that Mr. Quinn is so impressed by Throop's literary skills; it appears that the man had used the intervening 17 years since his crimes to improve himself, arguably changing for the better.
Rolando Martinez and Javier Ramirez haven't done so well.
They're still dead.
So forgive me if the ashes-and-sackcloth routine leaves me dry-eyed and hard-hearted when it comes to Throop's fate. He got his break when the jury decided not to sentence him to death, a decision one juror said was directly influenced by the killer's age.
As to the lament that "Prosecutors ignore fundamental truths," it strikes me that there are certain truths that undercut Quinn's plea for mercy, amongst them the existence of evil, acts of undeniable cruelty, and the irrevocable -- and irredeemable -- nature of certain crimes and those who commit them.
While Quinn reminds us over and over and over again that Brandon McInerney is 14, McInerney -- like Throop -- will see 17 and beyond.
Larry King, however, won't celebrate another birthday, won't have an opportunity to receive plaudits for his intellectual growth, his writing, his wit and good humor. Like Rolando Martinez and Javier Ramirez, he'll remain unmentioned in countless letters written on behalf of a killer.
Because Brandon McInerney fired a bullet into Larry's brain. Because Larry King was gay. And then as Larry lay bleeding on the classroom floor, he fired again, because one bullet just wasn't enough.
That McInerney could kill a classmate in cold blood, in front of a room of his fellow teens, doesn't strike me as immature; rather, it seems to be cruel, cold, calculating, the very personification of evil.
Why did the California legislature, as liberal a bunch of poltroons as has governed anywhere in the U.S., given prosecutors the ability to prosecute McInerney as an adult?
Because even as craven a bunch as the politicians in Sacramento are repulsed by the increasing violence, the ruthlessness we see coming from our juvenile defendants.
And so, in order to protect society and perhaps deter others, prosecutors are given the discretion to seek the longer sentences, the harsher penalties that come with adult prosecutions.
Unlike Quinn, I'm not confident that killers like Throop and McInerney would be reformed by the time the juvenile system forced their release back into society while still in their mid-twenties, back into our neighborhoods while still young and strong.
Because, you see, that's the truth of the matter: the term of confinement for juveniles is often laughably brief, serving neither to adequately punish nor deter the most savage of crimes -- and criminals.
It's telling that, along with Quinn's failure to mention the victims, he also neglects to tell readers that Throop would have served only eight years for killing two men, shaving decades off his sentence, just because he was a few months away from turning 18.
And McInerney would do just eleven years in the Youth Authority for killing Lary King.
Is that fair? Is that just?
For all the talk of wasted youth, I prefer a more evenhanded approach.
McInerney and Throop -- and all other murderers who have found their blood-soaked calling while still in their tender youth -- can escape the confines of their prison cells the same day their victims can escape the confines of the grave -- but not a day sooner.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:48 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Innocents abroad
Every so often you hear about a member of the moonbat brigade slamming head-first into that most foreign and unfamiliar of concepts: reality.
An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey.
The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday.
She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.
[...]
Ms di Marineo was hitch-hiking from Milan to Israel and the Palestinian Territories with a fellow artist on their "Brides on Tour" project.
[...]
"Her travels were for an artistic performance and to give a message of peace and of trust, but not everyone deserves trust," [Ms di Marineo's] sister, Maria, told the Italian news agency, Ansa.
Yeah, hitchhiking to the Middle East is "an artistic performance." Too bad the critics you find in Third World backwaters are prone to rather brutal reviews of the most personal kind.
I wonder if her murder constitutes a more primitive brand of performance art.
Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic, but this woman was a pretentious muttonhead, with a rather ... unrealistic understanding of human nature.
File this under "Thinning the herd."
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
April 13, 2008
Profiles in workplace heroism: Courage comes to court
Last year I had a case that I dubbed "Dude, where's my ear?" or, in the alternative, "Al Bundy meets Dirty Harry."
It featured a gangbanger who tried to steal a pair of shoes from the wrong shoe store. As the thug tried to leave with his hot hightops, he and his fellow gangmember were confronted by the store manager and another employee. The manager asked if the thug intended to pay for the new shoes he was wearing.
The thug responded by lifting his shirt and showing the store manager that he had a gun tucked into his waistband.
The manager lunged for the gun and the fight was on; at one point, the gangbanger and the macho manager were grappling on the floor as the other gang member kicked the store's defender in the head.
When the cops arrived on the scene, they noted that there was an individual with blood all over his face and head, a large pool of blood on the floor, and what appeared to be a large portion of human ear in the center of the sticky mess.
The manager not only bit off a chunk of the bad guy's ear, he also succeeded in getting the gun from the thug, then used it to pistol whip the thief and knock out his front teeth.
Which officially makes the defendant the world's worst armed robber and gangbanger: he got his ass kicked by Al Bundy!
Joining the roster of unlike heroes is court reporter Ron Tolkin, who was transcribing the proceedings in a federal drug-related hearing when the defendant went after the U.S. attorney with a razor.
The ordinarily mild-mannered stenographer reverted to his Vietnam-era combat experience and leaped to her defense, the assault captured on the digital recorder Tolkin keeps in his pocket.
Then he transcribed the event, later apologizing to the judge for his intemperate language during the fracas.
The transcript makes for some great, profanity-laced reading.
Continue reading "Profiles in workplace heroism: Courage comes to court"
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Still sucking the foreign-oil teat
Click cartoon for larger, easier-to-read version.
It seems that little has changed in the nearly two years since I wrote this, other than gas prices climbing higher as demand outstrips supply -- and Congress refuses to do anything.
Anything useful, that is.
As war in the Middle East helps drive petroleum prices to record highs, it's good to remember that those politicians who pay lip service to the U.S. achieving "energy independence" are resisting efforts to wean us off the foreign-oil teat.
France relies on nuclear power to generate the vast majority of its power; we haven't broken ground on a reactor for decades. What about the "cleaner" technologies? You mean like wind-generated power? Well, there was a proposal to build a wind farm off the New England Coast, but the founding member of the Chappaquiddick Swim Club joined forces with Walter Mitty Flipper John Kerry to kill the unsightly energy alternative.
And let's not forget that, although the U.S. is sitting on oil reserves big enough to completely replace our foreign oil-producing kleptocrats, mullahs and strongmen, Congress won't allow us to tap it.
ANWR, the strip of Alaska that, well, that Alaskans want to open to exploration remains off limits, thanks to the feckless nincompoops in the Senate. The House has voted several times to allow drilling, but their counterparts in the "World's Greatest Debating Society" (Ack!) can't bear the thought of actually doing something that will help Americans -- at least, not when the hated GOP and Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton could take credit for it.
There are also huge energy reserves off our coasts, but again they remain verboten to us, because oil platforms offend our aesthetic sensibilities.
But others aren't so sensitive.
That bastion of free education, universal health care, and economic justice, i.e., Cuba, isn't sitting back on its well-worn heels; they're doing what we ought to do, if we had cojones: drilling for oil off their coast -- and ours.
While American politicians try to extend the ban on drilling to more than 200 miles from the Florida coastline, Supreme Maximum Socialist Commandante Castro has been pumping sweet crude and natural gas from a mere 60 miles from the shores of the Spring-Break mecca.
According to the Washington Times:
Republicans in Congress have tried repeatedly in the past decade to open up the outer continental shelf to exploration, and Florida's waters hold some of the most promising prospects for major energy finds. Their efforts have been frustrated by opposition from Florida, California and environmental-minded legislators from both parties.
Florida's powerful tourism and booming real estate industries fear that oil spills could cost them business. Lawmakers from the state are so adamantly opposed to drilling that they have bid to extend the national ban on drilling activity from 100 miles to as far as 250 miles offshore, encompassing the island of Cuba.
Cuba is exploring in its half of the 90-mile-wide Straits of Florida within the internationally recognized boundary as well as in deep-water areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The impoverished communist nation is eager to receive any economic boost that would come from a major oil find.
"They think there's a lot of oil out there. We'll see," said Fadi Kabboul, a Venezuelan energy minister. He noted that the oil fields Cuba is plumbing do not respect national borders. Any oil Cuba finds and extracts could siphon off fuel that otherwise would be available to drillers off the Florida coast and oil-thirsty Americans.
Canadian companies Sherritt International Co. and Pebercan Inc. already are pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude each day from the Santa Cruz, Puerto Escondido, Canasi and other offshore fields in the straits about 90 miles from Key West, and Spain's Repsol oil company has announced the discovery of "quality oil" in deep-water areas of the same region, the National Ocean Industries Association said.
Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, also has inked a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil, and it is using Chinese-made drilling equipment to conduct the exploration.
That compounds the frustration for U.S. oil companies and other businesses that have lobbied to open up the estimated 45 billion barrels in oil reserves and 232 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in banned drilling areas of the Gulf -- enough to fuel millions of cars and heat millions of homes for decades.
U.S. companies, which have the best deep-water equipment, cannot participate in the Cuban drilling because of the 45-year economic embargo against Fidel Castro's communist regime.
If oil is found in commercially viable quantities, Cuba could be transformed from an oil importer into an exporter, ending chronic energy shortages on the island and generating government revenue.
That prospect and the involvement of China and Venezuela in exploration activities have attracted the attention of the CIA and other national security agencies, even if congressional opposition to offshore drilling has not budged.
Sterling Burnett, a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, said Cuba's activities show that the quarter-century ban on offshore drilling is putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage at a time of increasingly scarce energy resources and record high oil and gas prices that are hampering economic growth and stoking inflation.
"Canada and even economically backward Cuba are moving forward with plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters," he said. "Since pools of oil do not respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba will be accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and for the benefit of Americans."
More than half of the nation's untapped offshore oil and gas reserves lie within the Gulf, much of it within Florida's protected waters. In the latest attempt to exploit the reserves, the House last month passed a bill that would allow coastal states to decide whether to open the first 100 miles of their waters for exploration.
The bill allows states such as Florida and California to vote for a permanent moratorium on drilling but also includes a powerful enticement to allow exploration: half of the hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties and fees from drilling that otherwise would go to the federal government.
Until Congress actually votes to build nuclear power plants, ignore the bleating of namby-pamby NIMBYs, put windmills off Hyannisport, and drill for the energy reserves that we already own, the pissing and moaning about the high cost of gas is nothing more than craven political posturing -- and deserving of nothing more than a shrug and a sigh as we pay for the next tank of gas.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
April 10, 2008
Occupational hazards, extreme edition
And you thought you had a bad day at the office.
A city worker died after falling into a wood chipper while trimming trees in Inglewood, Calif., MyFOXLA.com reported.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the incident as an industrial accident, the station reported.
They are looking for people who may have seen the accident.
The victim was not identified, the station reported.
You should have seen the first draft of that last line:
Authorities are seeking assistance identifying the worker. He's described as a fine puree of meat, bone and gristle, standing about 1/16" tall and approximately 5 yards wide.
Blecch.
What a way to go.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The worst Constitutional Amendment?
How about the 17th?
Yeah, I know, it's not the first one that comes to mind, but trust me, read Tam's explanation and I think you'll agree: Much that ails us as a nation can be tracked back to the progressive reforms of the early 20th Century (don't get me started on the '60s).
On April 8th in 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect. To anybody concerned with checks and balances and separation of powers who had actually read the Constitution, it's hard to see how this could be considered a good idea. As a matter of fact, it's hard to see how it could not be seen as undermining the very concept of a federal republic.
I know some of you are clicking for Wikipedia right now, muttering to yourselves "Seventeenth? Is that income tax, or when they let y'all chicks vote? No, it's Prohibition, right?" No, the Seventeenth Amendment is the one that calls for direct election of Senators. What's so bad about that, you ask? (Go on, ask.) Well, let me tell you...
And she does, explaining in a clear, concise manner how changing the delicate interplay between the Executive and Legislative branches and the Judiciary, along with balance between the States and the Federal Government, carefully, brilliantly designed by the Founding Fathers, has resulted in this horrorshow, the modern U.S. Senate, starring such bilious bobos as Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Byrd.
We repealed the 18th Amendment, the one that inflicted Prohibition on us, when we realized what a terrible mistake it had been; it's not too late to consider doing the same to the 17th Amendment.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
April 08, 2008
Obama + YouTube = Priceless candidate gasbaggery
Want a graphic example of how the internet, bloggers, and viral video are changing elections?
Check out the video above, which neatly slices, dices and makes mincemeat of a classic Barack Obama lie.
There's simply no place for candidates to hide anymore; the nature of the web has eliminated the ability of the media -- traditionally in the tank for liberal politicians -- to cover for these crapweasels when they willfully lie to us.
This is one of those stories that would have disappeared down the memory hole in past elections, ignored by the press.
Now, it's the subject of a short, brutally in-your-face video, one that makes the point, over and over and over, that Obama's full of crap. And it's available for viewing 24/7, just an e-mailed cut-and-paste link or web search away from anyone who wants to see it.
Politicians and their shills must hate that, but it seems like an unalloyed good thing to me.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
April 06, 2008
McCain: Straight talk my eye
John McCain is on Fox News Sunday being interviewed by Chris Wallace. The host sets up a question by quoting McCain's statement from last month, when the GOP candidate said this about one of his rival's qualifications:
"In all due respect, [Obama] does not understand the elemental, fundamental elements of national security and warfare ... [American voters will] understand, if they don't now, that he has no experience or background on these issues."
Wallace then asks, if, in light of that opinion, Obama is qualified to be the Commander in Chief.
McCain responds that it's not for him to say whether a candidate is qualified; the voters will decide that. If they elect someone, then he's been deemed qualified for the position.
Wallace tries again, because McCain had dodged the question. The host reminds his guest (for the second time in as many minutes) that he has previously said that Obama has no experience in foreign policy, in military affairs, and the natural inference is that Obama is, in fact, not qualified to be president.
So, Wallace asks, in your opinion is Obama unqualified to be the command in chief?
McCain shucks and jives, punting again to the electorate, saying it's not his place to say whether his potential opponent is qualified or not; that's up to the electorate. McCain will only say that in his opinion, he's more qualified than his opponents.
He then adds a line about people being able to say that Jack Kennedy wasn't qualified to be president -- an interesting comment for him to make, notwithstanding the fact that JFK was a decorated war veteran who was also a student of international affairs.
And domestic affairs.
Ahem.
Anyhow, McCain won't cowboy up and reiterate his end-of-March criticism of Obama, but neither will he repudiate it.
The best he'll do is weasel, wiggle, obfuscate and filibuster, just like any other Washington windbag or Congressional crapweasel.
So much for the vaunted McCain straight talk.
For crying out loud, the man's ostensibly fighting for the most important elective office in the Western world, and he can't bring himself to knock the qualifications of a man who's manifestly unqualified to be president.
John McCain has seemed happiest beating up on Republicans and conservatives for much of the last decade; rare is the day when I can recall him laying into a Democrat with the savage glee he reserves for his perceived enemies on his own side, in his own party.
This is just more of the same, being given an opportunity to deliver an uppercut to a liberal Democrat with a huge vulnerability, and choosing instead to not just pull the punch, but taking a pass on swinging at all.
The man is infuriating.
Posted by Mike Lief at 03:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
April 05, 2008
Quote of the day
From David Sneath, the 60-year-old Ford parts warehouse worker who won a $136 million lottery jackpot this week:
"I yelled to the boss, 'I'm out of here,"' the Livonia man said Thursday after coming to state Lottery Bureau headquarters in downtown Lansing to pick up his first $1 million check.
Despite his longtime association with Ford, he said he won't be using any of the money to buy one of his former employer's vehicles.
"I worked for Ford Motor Company," he said. "I won't be buying a Ford product."
Ouch.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:32 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
April 04, 2008
Infuriating commercial of the day
HMO Kaiser Permanente -- ostensibly concerned with our health -- tries to give me a heart attack with this ad, delivering at least half its pitch in upbeat, chirpy spanish.
Is it asking too much for advertisers to save the espanol for Telemundo?
Honestly, I've never had an opinion one way or another about Kaiser, but after this ad, I'd rather go to my vet -- or Dr. Kevorkian -- than let these illegal-immigrant-pandering sawbones get their mitts on me.
Arrrgggghhh.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
April 03, 2008
It's not the gummint's money
Kim Du Toit, who relocated to Texas from the gun-forsaken Chicago environs, offers this take on why Texans love, love, LOVE their governor.
If you google “Governor Rick Perry” you’ll find page after page of whining and carping about the man, mostly written, it should be said, by the peculiar species of Lefties, populists and libertarians who infest the Austin area and other parts of the Blue Archipelago in Texas.
Yet in election after election, Perry gets elected and re-elected by thumping margins. How could this be, you ask?
Here’s one reason (my emphasis added):
Gov. Rick Perry announced Monday that an estimated 370,000 Texas businesses will be getting a tax cut of $90 million, thanks to the state’s strong economy and low unemployment.
“I believe in truth-in-budgeting: when government levies a tax and collects more money than is needed, we must either stop collecting the tax, return the money or both,” said Gov. Perry. “Thanks to our healthy economy and low unemployment rate last year, the state collected more money for the unemployment trust fund than we need, which is why I’m directing the state to bring that tax to a screeching halt for this year.”
Man, does California suffer by comparison. Du Toit mentions that companies are fleeing high-tax states. He's right, too. Kinkos moved their corporate headquarters from my hometown to the more business-friendly Lonestar State a few years back.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Design dead end for autos?
Joe Sherlock thinks innovative car design has hit a dead end, with safety regulations and wind tunnels making jaw-dropping new models a thing of the past.
And he's got 75 years of photos to prove the point.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Why guns are a social good
Oleg Volk is a talented graphic artist who has produced some thought-provoking posters targeting gun control. They provoked this strong reaction in a comment at the bottom of the page.
These are bizarre and terrifying ... They totally freak me out.
Other readers then provide a series of well-reasoned responses, most of which go unrebutted by the would-be gun prohibitionists.
You can read Oleg's thoughts next to his artwork here.
Be sure to check out the rest of his site, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Is there nothing red wine can't do?
Rochester researchers showed for the first time that a natural antioxidant found in grape skins and red wine can help destroy pancreatic cancer cells by reaching to the cell's core energy source, or mitochondria, and crippling its function.
The study also showed that when the pancreatic cancer cells were doubly assaulted -- pre-treated with the antioxidant, resveratrol, and irradiated -- the combination induced a type of cell death called apoptosis, an important goal of cancer therapy.
The research has many implications for patients, said lead author Paul Okunieff, M.D., chief of Radiation Oncology at the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester Medical Center.Although red wine consumption during chemotherapy or radiation treatment has not been well studied, it is not "contraindicated," Okunieff said. In other words, if a patient already drinks red wine moderately, most physicians would not tell the patient to give it up during treatment. Perhaps a better choice, Okunieff said, would be to drink as much red or purple grape juice as desired.
Yet despite widespread interest in antioxidants, some physicians are concerned antioxidants might end up protecting tumors. Okunieff's study showed there is little evidence to support that fear. In fact, the research suggests resveratrol not only reaches its intended target, injuring the nexus of malignant cells, but at the same time protects normal tissue from the harmful effects of radiation.
"Antioxidant research is very active and very seductive right now," Okunieff said. "The challenge lies in finding the right concentration and how it works inside the cell. In this case, we've discovered an important part of that equation. Resveratrol seems to have a therapeutic gain by making tumor cells more sensitive to radiation and making normal tissue less sensitive."
Drink purple or red grape juice? The hell with that! Pour me a glass of that cancer-killing Chianti, Luigi.
Once again, more proof of Woody Allen's genius.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:03 AM | Comments (0) |