Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 30, 2006

Bond, James Bond.

I just watched the trailer for the upcoming Bond film, Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig as the most famous of the double-0 agents.

Notwithstanding my previous comments regarding his choice to take over the role, it actually looks quite good. My problem with the series over the years -- especially the horrific Roger Moore era -- is that the hard edge of the books had been lost in a morass of snarky, smirky, ha-ha-nudge-nudge-wink-wink moments that undercut any sense that the players were involved in dangerous dealings.

A move to set the series in the '50s or '60s would be the perfect solution, in my humble opinion, but absent that, simply playing it straight would be a big improvement.

The sense one gets from the coming attraction is that Craig actually seems like a killer, and the villain looks like a bad guy, without descending into risible end-of-the-world-megalomania pretensions.

And the action scenes, while outrageous, don't look like something out of a computer game.

I think I'll take a chance and see this one in the theaters.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 28, 2006

Red hot diesel love

A reminder, passed on to me from a colleague, that my California-compliant diesel-mania is coming closer to fruition

I previously posted about Honda's entry into the diesel market here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 27, 2006

Overwrought bilge from the newspaper of record's reporter of record

Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times go-to-gal when it comes to reporting on the U.S. Supreme Court, recently opened up and shared with us about her thoughts on our society on -- where else? -- Hahvahd.

Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, reminisced a bit about the 1960s idealism that defined her college years, and told an audience of 800 she had wept at a Simon and Garfunkel concert when she was struck by the unfulfilled promise of her own generation.

Greenhouse went on to charge that since then, the U.S. government had "turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world — [such as] the U.S. Congress." She also observed a "sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism. To say that these last few years have been dispiriting is an understatement."

Puh-leeze.

To paraphrase Greenhouse, to say that the press is filled with overwrought, feverswamp, moonbat lefties is an understatement.

Bias? More like toxic shock.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 26, 2006

Tuesday Bogie

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:52 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 25, 2006

That's not funny

I've always maintained that the most telling character trait is one noted by its absence: No sense of humor. Krauthammer notes its close cousin, irony, and the missing funnybone's role in the clash of civilizations being fought -- er, appeased in much of the world.

Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It's hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.

Today's Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:

· In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.

· In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.

· In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down" the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children's hospital.

"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it" is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.

First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons. And now a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.

And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons; Saturday's craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam -- this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.

[...]

The pope gives offense and the Mujaheddin al-Shura Council in Iraq declares that it "will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' [head] tax; then the only thing acceptable is conversion or the sword." This to protest the accusation that Islam might be spread by the sword.

As I said. No sense of irony.

Like the man said, irony and humor is missing in action. Must be hiding from the fatwa.

The Pope -- and the West -- have done and said nothing for which an apology is owed to the throat slitters.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Wanna face Mecca for all eternity? Too bad

The fellow who blogs at the wonderfully-named Drinking From Home has a post that made me reach for the Scotch, another example of the creeping dhimmitude spreading throughout the West.

In this instance, the Nottingham City Council has decided to appease, even when local Muslims say the latest toadying is not necessary, if other faiths don't want it.

A multi-faith cemetery will have all its graves aligned with Mecca, despite Christian burials traditionally facing east...

Ancient tradition shows they should look east in anticipation of the second coming of Jesus Christ.

But all headstones at the new £2.5m High Wood Cemetery in Bulwell will be plotted to face north-east, in line with Islamic faith...

Raza Ul Haq, Imam at the Madni Masjid Mosque, in Gladstone Street, Forest Fields, said: "It is part of our religion for dead bodies to face Mecca. It is very important.

"If for the Christians, this is part of their religion that they should be facing towards somewhere else, then we are 200% in support of them. It is our job to help and support them. If that is their requirement, then we will be supporting the Christians."

Steve Dowling, services director for Environment and Public Protection, said many graves in Nottingham often do not follow the tradition of facing east.

He said: "High Wood is a large and beautiful site with room to meet everyone's needs.

"In the first phase of development it has been agreed that the graves will face north east.

"For people of the Muslim faith this fits in with a religious requirement, but it will also ensure a tidy appearance for the site as a whole.

Interesting, isn't it? If a tidy appearance is the goal, and the U.K. is 70 percent Christian, might it not make sense to orient the graves in a manner consistent with the customs and practices of, hmmmm, somebody other than the Mohammedeans?

I guess neatness -- and avoiding the unpleasantness associated with standing up for Western cultural values -- is what's really important in Old Blighty.

Winston Churchill must be spinning.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 24, 2006

Bubba has a meltdown

Did you see Chris Wallace's interview of Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday? It was pretty impressive. It's not often you get to see a full-bore temper tantrum from a former president of the United States.

It was, all in all, a most unimpressive display, one rife with easily rebutted accusations and wild-eyed charges. The man has no shame.

As usual, Michelle Malkin has the goods -- and lots of links, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Christians? Who gives a fig about them?

The suits at NBC are still trying to decide if they'll televise that portion of the Madonna concert where she makes her grand entrance while crucified on a giant, gaudy cross.

The best summation of their thought process comes courtesy of Greg Gutfield:

NBC won't approve the stunt until they're absolutely sure it won't offend any Muslims.

Brilliant. Pathetic, and brilliant.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 23, 2006

Tequila!

Some songs are such a part of the fabric of popular culture that it's hard to remember a time when we didn't know the words.

Or word.

Or the guy who shouted the word.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. — Danny Flores, who played the saxophone and shouted the word"tequila!"in the 1950s hit song"Tequila!", has died. He was 77.

[...]

The man sometimes called the"godfather of Latin rock"was born in Santa Paula but grew up in Long Beach. By age 5 he was playing guitar in church and at 14 he was a member of a trio that performed Mexican music.

In 1957, Flores was in a group that recorded some work with rockabilly singer Dave Burgess. One of the songs was based on a nameless riff Flores had written. He played the"dirty"saxophone part and repeatedly growled the single-word lyric:"Tequila!"

The next year it appeared as the B-side of a single, credited to the Champs. Flores used the name Chuck Rio because he was under contract to a different record label.

"Tequila!"went to No. 1 on the Billboard chart and won a Grammy in 1959 for best rhythm and blues performance. Flores continued to play it for the next 40 years.

"I can honestly tell you he never got tired of playing that song,"said his wife, Sharee.

The song has been used in numerous commercials and TV shows. It became popular with a new generation after it was used in the 1985 movie"Pee Wee's Big Adventure."

"After that, we got shows all over the U.S.,"said Mrs. Flores, who sang in the shows."All these younger people who hadn't heard it were suddenly in love with the song. Danny was just so proud of it."

Besides his wife, Flores is survived by seven children from previous marriages and 15 grandchildren.

Rest in peace, Danny Flores.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 22, 2006

Because it's a religion of peace (and tolerance, too)

Proving that I'm simply an exaggerration-prone fear monger, comes this report from the land of intellectual inquiry, reason and fellowship.

LAHORE, Pakistan - About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.

Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The meeting was organized by the radical Islamic group Jamaat al-Dawat, which runs schools, colleges and medical clinics. In April, Washington put the group on a list of terrorist organizations for its alleged links with militants fighting in the Indian part of Kashmir.

The meeting came after the pope said Sunday he was "deeply sorry" about the reactions to his remarks and that they did not reflect his own opinions.

[...]

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.

Any questions?

Seems perfectly clear to me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 21, 2006

Making the Pope's point

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Another day at the office, but four different ways

Are you awaiting the season premiere of NBC's The Office tonight? Steve Carrell is cringe-inducingly brilliant as the socially inept boss Michael, and the folks who work for him at Dunder Mifflin are familiar to everyone who has worked in an American office.

There was much discussion about whether this remake of the British series of the same name could possible do justice to its dyspeptic view of the workplace, but, with the assistance of the creator and star Ricky Gervais, the NBC series has surpassed the original -- at least in the opinion of some viewers.

Building on their success, the series has been remade in two other versions, one in France, and the other in Germany, after the Brit version bombed -- er -- failed to tickle the Frogs' funny bone, and couldn't find the Kraut one. According to an article at Slate, the four shows reveal much about what's similar -- and what's very different -- about work and humor in the countries.

Watching all four versions back-to-back is not only a strangely unmooring experience—like seeing the film Groundhog Day over and over—it's a crash course in national identity. And if any conjecture could be made about the cultural differences that these subtly contrasting programs reveal, it might be this one: These days, Germans and Americans are doing much of their living in and around their offices, while the Brits and French continue to live outside of them.

Here, in broad strokes, are the chief differences. In the British version, nobody is working, nobody has a happy relationship, everyone looks terrible, and everybody is depressed.

In the French version, nobody is working but even the idiots look good, and everybody seems possessed of an intriguing private life.

In the German version, actual work is visibly being done, most of the staff is coupled up, and the workers never stop eating and drinking—treating the office like a kitchen with desks. Stromberg continually calls his staff "Kinder," or "children," further blurring the line between Kinder, Computer, and Küche.

I'm fascinated by the idea that our culture separates us from other peoples, that the day-to-day grind of work and life is so different -- in ways subtle and not -- that what is funny to Brits leaves the French and Germans cold, while many Yanks are mystified by the alleged humor of Monty Python and Black Adder (Not me; I'd kill for more seasons of Rowan Atkinson and a pre-House Hugh Laurie teaming up with Baldrick.)

It's a reminder that as much as some we-are-the-world types like to claim we're all the same, the reality is that when it comes to humor, we're very, very different.

How different? The French think Jerry Lewis is a genius.

If you like any version of The Office, check out the rest of the Slate article.

And don't forget, the season premiere is at 8:30 tonight.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:31 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 20, 2006

What real facism is like

With all the overheated rhetoric from the Moonbat Left about Pres. Bush creating a fascist regime, it's useful to remind ourselves what it was like to live in a real fascist state, rather than the one that exists in the fevered dreams of the speak-truth-to-power kidz. James Lileks is on the job.

I went up to the library and got the Klemperer diary. [I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941] ... I’ve mentioned this before – it’s a meticulous account of life in Dresden during the Nazi regime, written by a Jewish academic whose “Aryan” wife kept him from the chimney.

The diaries start in the early years of Hitler’s rule, and it’s unutterably depressing; in 1937 the diarist is insisting that the government cannot last, and all the decent people believe it will fall soon. (He survived the war, incidentally; the diaries go to the end.)

I was reading the 1941 passages today. Klemperer had his house confiscated by the state, although he was still obliged to pay for a new roof. He was put in a Jewish Home with his wife. Every month, the noose tightens, and not just for him; shortages are rife, and the planes begin to drone overhead.

His descriptions of the media give you an idea of where Orwell got the tone and flavor of “1984” – the state’s incessant pronouncements are heroic and brash and uncomplicated by nuance. Every battle is the greatest ever; every tactic the most brilliant in history.

What interested me was his description of the dreaded Sunday announcements: The week would begin with stock phrases, such as “the plan is unfolding as expected;” the middle of the week would offer a glimpse of the news to come, and Sundays were always the same: blare of trumpets, drum roll, Deutschland Uber Alles and the Horst Wessel song, followed by an announcement of a victory on the whichever front the government chose to spotlight.

The diarist found Sundays depressing; every victory meant the attenuation of the regime, a continuation of his torments. But surely it would fall soon; surely people would turn. Why, he’d noted that fewer people said “Heil Hitler” instead of “Good Morning” – this must mean something. It must. Perhaps it did, but it didn’t matter.

By “torments” I don’t mean he was hauled down to the station and beaten. No. He was just denied something different every week.

Once the Jews had become accustomed to being banned from public libraries, they were banned from private lending libraries. Once they had gotten used to the special taxes, the taxes were raised. Once they had settled into the special apartment buildings after their homes were taken, they were denied common areas after dark and confined to their apartments. And so on. That was 1941. He had four years to go.

Imagine yourself standing on a street at 7:30, watching the taxis pour past, knowing you must be in your room by eight, or it’s the train and the barracks.

Imagine telling that detail to a friend, and noting his shock: he had no idea. He was appalled. (As Klemperer relates it, his German friend, an eminently liberal humanist, nevertheless hoped for the defeat of England; he had managed to separate his dislike of Hitler from his abiding hatred of Great Britain. You infer that the latter blinded him to the former, and that allowed him to reconcile his humanism with the deprivations he knew his Jewish friends faced. In the end we must all make sacrifices, no?)

That was fascism.

And that's how it begins, with the belief that these lunatics cannot possible get power; cannot retain power; that one's educated friends cannot possibly be blind to the threat from the fascists.

And yet, like Klemperer's friend, who allowed his hatred of the English to ameliorate his distaste for Hitler and the Nazis, the American Left has become so consumed by their hatred of Pres. Bush that they've made common cause with the forces of Islamo-facism, ignoring the fate that awaits the multi-culti coalition should its members ever fall into the hands of the jihadis.

They've become apologists for those who would destroy us, gleefully hooting as they point out the flaws in the "repressive" United States, ignoring the contempt manifest throughtout the ranks of our foreign and ideological opponents for the Western values we -- and I include the Left -- hold dear.

It's 1937 again.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 19, 2006

Worst political ad ever

The California Democrats are just pathetic, and their contempt for the electorate is boundless.

I just saw an ad for the upcoming Gubernatorial contest, in which the incumbent is being challenged by the feeble Phil Angelides.

Never heard of this Democratic hack? Imagine Don Knotts minus the charisma and machismo, then imagine his sister. That's Angelides.

Anyhow, the entire ad is based on identifying the governor with the presumably toxic Pres. Bush. Lifting footage from the GOP convention, we hear Schwarzenegger introducing "George W. Bush!"

Then a graphics overlay tells us that there are more than 150,000 troops in Iraq.

We hear Arnold say, "George W. Bush!"

Another subtitle tells us energy costs are up, then we hear the governor's voice.

"George W. Bush!"

Yet another tells me that the GOP hates puppies and baby seals -- or something.

"George W. Bush!"

Here comes the payoff, where they sell the ad. In ominous, voice-of-doom tones, the announcer speaks.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is for George W. Bush.

"Is he the right governor for you?"

That's it? We're supposed to reject Arnold because he supported Pres. Bush?

Did we hear anything about the governor being responsible for any of these allegedly bad things?

Did we hear anything about the governor's record?

Did we hear anything about what the Democrats are going to do differently?

Did we even hear a single word about the Democratic candidate for governor?

Eh, no.

Pa. The. Tic.

I thought the Democrats were against the concept of guilt by association.

Oh, right. Only when it's a liberal who's being tarred for the actions of others.

Did I say the Democratic Party is a dessicated husk of a political organization, bereft of ideas, fat, bloated and gasping, like the captain of the Chappaquiddick Swim Club?

"Don't vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor, because he likes Pres. Bush, and we really, really hate Chimpy McBushitler."

Keep up the good work, guys. You are secretly working for Karl Rove, right?

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:09 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

September 18, 2006

DDT saves lives -- again

DDT is coming back, and Kim Du Toit has some choice words.

Too bad it’s about 29 years too late for about 50 million people who have died unnecessarily because of the stupid Green ban on DDT.

Of course, the dead people are only Africans—had these deaths been in, say, Los Angeles, the WHO, United Nations and the U.S. Department of Health would now be involved in trillion-dollar lawsuits.

I think I’m going to go out and punch a hippie. And then I’m going to spit on Rachel Carson’s grave.

I suffered through Carson's sanctimonious bilge of a book when I was in grade school, and it's a bitter irony that the patron saint of the evironmental movement and its bible, Silent Spring, may have killed more Third World residents than every war and plague since its publication. It's great to hear that millions of poor people living in the hovels and shantytowns of Africa and South America may finally avoid the disease and pestilence spread by bloodsucking bugs.

But then, that's only if you believe that humans have a higher place on our priority list than mosquitos.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:19 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Bike helmets can get you killed

File under: Law of Unintended Consequences. According to a researcher in the U.K., wearing a bike helmet increases your likelihood of being turned into road guacamole.

Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without

The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.

[...]

The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars.

The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer.

However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.

Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.

Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.

In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders, or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s roads.

Helmets kill; crossdressing saves lives. The mind reels.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Tired of the Moonbats dissing the GIs

Finally fed up with the "rude and disrespectful treatment of our soldiers," Citizen Smash goes to the Walter Reed Army Hospital and has someting to say to the Code Pink protestors.

"Good evening."

Several of them turn around. One man starts to approach me. Then he sees [Major] Pain, and has second thoughts.

"You know, for the past few weeks, I've come down here, and listened politely and respectfully to any of you who would talk to me.

"Tonight, you're going to listen to me.

"The military is my family. My grandfather and great uncles served in the World Wars. My father served as a physician for over thirty years. My older brother served in peacetime. And my younger brother and I are both veterans of the Iraq War.

"I was born in a hospital not unlike this one right here. And I swore an oath to fight, and if necessary die, to defend your right to stand here and protest the war I served in. I'm not here to tell you, or to try to change your mind about that war. But I am here to ask for a little respect for me and my family.

"Last week, Bruce asked me to leave. He told me that you're here to support the soldiers, not to do interviews. He told me I wasn't welcome.

"Not long after that, a couple of men who I am proud to call my brothers -- who I had never met before -- a couple of wounded soldiers from this hospital came down to talk to you. They wanted to understand why you're here.

"You did not treat my brothers with respect. You refused to acknowledge them, like you're refusing to acknowledge me. You mocked their southern accents. You literally turned your backs on them, like you're turning your backs on me tonight.

"You should be ashamed of the way you treated those soldiers. Ashamed! If that is what you think supporting the troops means -- turn your backs on them when they come to talk to you -- then you are either a fool, a coward, or a hypocrite. I leave it to each of you to decide which word fits you best.

"The charade is over. We all know that you do not support the troops. If you did, you wouldn't turn your backs on them. You disrespected my brothers, on our front porch. So let me be absolutely clear: You may have a slip of paper from the City of Washington recognizing your right to stand here, but you are not welcome here.

"I want you to think about what I've said. Your vigil here does not support the troops. It does not comfort them in any way. It only aggravates them. When you go home tonight, reflect on the pain that you have caused. And if you have a shred -- an ounce -- of human decency, don't come back.

"Goodnight, ladies."

Smash has a great blog; cruise on over and check out the rest.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 17, 2006

Listen up! The Gunny's talking

The folks over at Galley Slaves had an opportunity to have lunch with R. Lee Ermey, who portrayed the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket.

Gunny Ermey is making the rounds, talking up a worthwhile charity, Unmet Needs, that provides for the families of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are in dire financial straits as a result of their dad/husband being deployed overseas. An offshoot of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), it sounds like a worthy cause. You can find out more about it here.

During Victorino Matus' lunch with Ermey, he got an opportunity to hear from the man himself how he got the role of a lifetime.

"I was a technical adviser on the set," said Ermey, who in fact wanted the role for himself, despite director Stanley Kubrick already having someone else in mind for the part of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. And so Ermey waged a behind-the-scenes campaign of auditioning and interviewing until it came to Kubrick's attention. The director relented, gave Ermey a shot, and was easily won over. (Ermey does not reveal who was the original actor cast for the role.)

As for the dialogue, Ermey wrote most of it himself, "taking lines I used when I was a drill sergeant in San Diego and taking a few other lines from other drill sergeants as well." It was all written down ahead of time, he explains, except for the "reacharound" line. "I don't know where that came from," he admits sheepishly, "and it sort of threw me off, but Stanley liked it and kept it in."

Ermey had argued forcefully with Kubrick over the instances of Hartman striking a recruit. "That would never happen," he insists, except for the occasional subtle jab in the solar plexus.

Ermey has had quite a career since then (103 roles, according to IMDB), playing -- among other things -- the corrupt mayor in Mississippi Burning, and hosting the History Channel's Mail Call. But nothing he's done has surpassed his performance in Full Metal Jacket.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 16, 2006

FMJ

This is the best depiction of boot camp ever filmed, from the first half of Stanley Kubrick's flawed Vietnam film Full Metal Jacket.

It's hilarious -- to veterans, at least -- and unbelievably profane to anyone who never served in the military, where entire conversations can be had using only various conjugations of an Anglo-Saxon word dealing with the act most essential to the continuation of the human race.

The drill instructor is played by R. Lee Ermey, who was hired by Kubrick to serve as a consultant. Unsatisfied with the performance of the actor hired to play the D.I., Kubrick asked Ermey for some input on how a real drill instructor would curse. Ermey, a Marine who had been a drill instructor, launched into an unbelievable curse-filled rant, never repeating himself over the course of several minutes, and a star was born.

According to IMDB:

Much, if not all, of R. Lee Ermey's dialogue during the Parris Island sequence was improvised. While filming the opening scene, where he disciplines Pvt. Cowboy, he says Cowboy is the type of guy who would have sex with another guy "and not even have the goddamned common courtesy to give him a reach-around". Stanley Kubrick immediately yelled cut and went over to Ermey and asked, "What the hell is a reach-around?" Ermey politely explained what it meant. Kubrick laughed and re-shot the scene, telling Ermey to keep the line.

The entire bootcamp portion of the film is often very, very funny, capturing the essence of the transformation of a bunch of American individuals into a cohesive military unit, while being laugh-out-loud funny right up until the end of training.

The film then moves to Vietnam for its second, deeply flawed and ultimately unsatisfying second half.

But all that notwithstanding, I've seen the film many times over the last twenty years, usually not watching the Vietnam portion. It never fails to dredge up my own memories of bootcamp, and always makes me laugh at how miserable I was at the time, and how amusing much of it is in retrospect.

And Ermey is something to behold, a primal force of nature, the Ur-D.I. Wanna turn mama's boys into Marines? Watch how it was done in the pre-P.C. Corps.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 15, 2006

Outwitting the dog-breed banners

An ingenious way to turn an allegedly dangerous hound into a gentle pooch.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Greatest TV gameshow ever!

Y'know, anyone can produce a TV gameshow about contestants trying to rush through mind-bendingly difficult tongue-twisters.

But it takes the Japanese to add a brilliant twist, juxtaposing the influence of two millennia of asian sophistication, subtlety, and an appreciation for the comedic tragedy that is the life of the modern man.

As an American, I am humbled. We truly have much to learn from other cultures.

Heh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Literary lion Oriana Fallaci still roars 1929-2006

I posted this in June; it provides a glimpse of an incredibly courageous, passionate and articulate defender of the West. Today came the news that Oriana Fallaci had succumbed to the cancer that had ravaged her body for years, but left her fighting-spirit undiminished.

Her fight -- against jihadis and the cowardly Westerners who sought to imprison her for daring to speak out -- is over, but the battle continues. Though her voice is stilled, it lives on in her writing. Order her books (The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, and The Apocalypse, published in Europe and not yet available in the U.S), read them, and pass them on.

Rest in Peace.

The New Yorker's interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci is a fascinating read, both for the insight into her life's experience, as well as her more recent role as a vocal opponent of the spread of Islam into the West.

Fallaci, energized by the attacks of September 11, has seen three non-fiction tomes (The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, and The Apocalypse, published in Europe and not yet available in the U.S.) on the topic become bestsellers -- and faces trial in several nations for blasphemy and hate crimes.

As in past years, she remains particularly repulsed by perceived acts of rank hypocrisy.

According to Fallaci, Europeans, particularly those on the political left, subject people who criticize Muslim customs to a double standard.

“If you speak your mind on the Vatican, on the Catholic Church, on the Pope, on the Virgin Mary or Jesus or the saints, nobody touches your ‘right of thought and expression.’ But if you do the same with Islam, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, some son of Allah, you are called a xenophobic blasphemer who has committed an act of racial discrimination.

"If you kick the ass of a Chinese or an Eskimo or a Norwegian who has hissed at you an obscenity, nothing happens. On the contrary, you get a ‘Well done, good for you.’ But if under the same circumstances you kick the ass of an Algerian or a Moroccan or a Nigerian or a Sudanese, you get lynched.”

The threat we face is nothing new, according to Fallaci, merely a more recent iteration of a struggle in which she participated more than 60 years ago, when she was a young teen living in Mussolini's Italy.

Fallaci sees the threat of Islamic fundamentalism as a revival of the Fascism that she and her sisters grew up fighting. She told me, “I am convinced that the situation is politically substantially the same as in 1938, with the pact in Munich, when England and France did not understand a thing. With the Muslims, we have done the same thing.”

She elaborated, in an e-mail, “Look at the Muslims: in Europe they go on with their chadors and their burkas and their djellabahs. They go on with the habits preached by the Koran, they go on with mistreating their wives and daughters. They refuse our culture, in short, and try to impose their culture, or so-called culture, on us. . . . I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture. Toward my values, my principles, my civilization. It is not only my duty toward my Christian roots. It is my duty toward freedom and toward the freedom fighter I am since I was a little girl fighting as a partisan against Nazi-Fascism. Islamism is the new Nazi-Fascism. With Nazi-Fascism, no compromise is possible. No hypocritical tolerance. And those who do not understand this simple reality are feeding the suicide of the West.”

Fallaci, who was shot three times during the 1968 riots in Mexico City, is no stranger to controversy and danger, and she refuses to back down when questioned on her seeming intolerance.

I started wondering if Fallaci would tolerate any Muslim immigration, or any mosque in Europe, so I asked her these questions by e-mail, and she sent back lengthy replies.

“The tolerance level was already surpassed fifteen or twenty years ago,” she wrote, “when the Left let the Muslims disembark on our coasts by the thousands. And it is well known . . . that I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam. I do not believe that a Good Islam and a Bad Islam exist. Only Islam exists. And Islam is the Koran. And the Koran says what it says. Whatever its version.

"Of course there are exceptions. Also, considering the mathematical calculation of probabilities, some good Muslims must exist. I mean Muslims who appreciate freedom and democracy and secularism. But, as I say in the ‘Apocalypse,’ . . . good Muslims are few. So tragically few, in fact, that they must go around with bodyguards.”

(Here she mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born former member of the Dutch parliament, whom Holland, shamefully, declared last month that it would strip of her citizenship, citing an irregularity in her 1997 asylum application.)

She wrote that she found my question about whether she would tolerate any mosques in Europe “insidious” and “offensive,” because it “aims to portray me as the bloodthirsty fanatics, who during the French Revolution beheaded even the statues of the Holy Virgin and of Jesus Christ and the Saints. Or as the equally bloodthirsty fanatics of the Bolshevik Revolution, who burned the icons and executed the clergymen and used the churches as warehouses.

"Really, no honest person can suggest that my ideas belong to that kind of people. I am known for a life spent in the struggle for freedom, and freedom includes the freedom of religion. But the struggle for freedom does not include the submission to a religion which, like the Muslim religion, wants to annihilate other religions. Which wants to impose its ‘Mein Kampf,’ its Koran, on the whole planet. Which has done so for one thousand and four hundred years. That is, since its birth. Which, unlike any other religion, slaughters and decapitates or enslaves all those who live differently.”

The whole interview is a fascinating picture of a woman who, despite the best efforts of cancer and age (she's 77), remains a vigorous, articulate and impassioned intellectual force, as much a threat to the forces of political correctness and appeasement today as she was to tyrants and politicians 40 years ago.

Read the whole thing, will ya?

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 14, 2006

So, what does a "peace activist" do when with friends?

Would you believe you're looking at "peace activists"? Yeah, that's right, the two idiots posing with AK-47s as terrorists smile approvingly in the background.

Oh, and the woman? She's disguised herself as an Orthodox Jew to evade the attention of Israeli cops.

The details on these revolting sycophants, terror groupies, members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), can be found here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 12, 2006

And they wonder why Americans hate the press

ABC news has posted an article on its website, proudly proclaiming, "Exclusive: New U.S. Government Videotape Simulates Terrorist Attacks."

The article describes various countermeasures being tested to protect U.S. embassies, and presumably, any other American buildings thought to be targeted by terrorists. Not content to provide these details, the network kindly provides links to videos of the various devices being tested, complete with test dummies showing the relative effectiveness of each in frustrating the aims of the would-be bomber.

Under what theory of journalism does this constitute news? What "right" do the people have to know about these efforts? How does revealing them -- with videos -- to the entire world help make us safer?

Or are we to believe that our enemies don't read, don't surf the web?

Honestly, as the Catholic chaplain I knew in college used to say, "Jesus wept."

The only thing that can happen as a result of the publication of this story is that our enemies can more quickly implement measures to defeat the technologies touted on the ABC networks.

Do they understand that stories like this get Americans killed? Do they even care?

Let me play a thought experiment with you.

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6 -- The Columbia Broadcasting Company has obtained films and documents from the War Department, detailing the latest scientific advances designed to protect American convoys from enemy attack, inventions that perhaps might even have prevented last month's attack on Pearl Harbor

Called "Sonar" and "Radar," they use invisible electromagnetic waves to detect unseen submarines and aircraft, allowing ships to locate and destroy the approaching vessels before they can wreak havoc on the transports carrying war materiel to the British.

The New York Times, in cooperation with "News of the World" newsreels, will present never-before-seen test footage of these new technologies before the screening of all movies playing in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Publisher Arthur Sulzberger said in a statement, "Some have complained that this story will only help the Nazis in their fight against America. To this I say, 'Nonsense!' The journalist belongs to no nation; he owes allegiance to the truth, and the American people are stronger when they know what their government does."

Laughable, right? Wouldn't happen in a million years.

Maybe sixty or sixty-five years, but not in a million.

Can anyone tell me that these kind of stories serve any purpose other than to inflate the egos of the journalists? And undermine the efforts to protect our people, even before these technologies reach the field?

We're doomed, and the press is doing their best to speed the process. The First Amendment is under attack? Look in the mirror, Mr. Network correspondent. The enemy of your First Amendment protections is staring you in the face.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who's the "dumb f***" now?

Proving that stupidity and arrogance go together like John and Kerry, the country left-wing agit-prop band The Dixie Chicks have a movie coming out. Would that they had followed the advice of the title, "Shut Up and Sing."

In one memorable scene, [lead singer Natalie] Maines watches news footage of the president being interviewed about the furor that followed the singer's on-stage comment that she was ''ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas,'' which resulted in the group being dropped from most radio stations, as well as protests and plummeting sales. ''The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' Bush told Tom Brokaw at the time, adding, ''They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.''

After watching this footage, Maines repeats the president's comment about how the group shouldn't have their ''feelings hurt,'' incredulous, and then says, ''What a dumb f---.'' She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''

No, Natalie, Pres. Bush is most certainly not a stupid man; but you are most certainly a crass, disrespectful, spoiled celebrity.

Just in case the Yale-educated, twice-elected, often-misunderestimated leader of the United States was talking over your head (a sure thing, actually), he was defending your right to criticize him, as well as pointing out that free speech may have consequences for the speaker, as the listening audience may not like what you had to say.

And when he spoke of hurt feelings, well, that was understandable, given your tantrums and other childish behavior since you took your CDs home and told your former fans you didn't want to be friends any more.

Too bad, really. I liked their songs, back when they were content to let their music entertain rubes like me. They should have just shut up and sang their songs -- and kept their politics to themselves. Then they could have laughed their way to the bank.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Don't question her patriotism sanity, as she questions his faith

Editor & Publisher, the industry bible of the newspaper biz, noted in a recent story that former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson was a devout Christian, something he shared in common with Pres. Bush.

A resident of Ojai, a town near me reknowned for being a wee bit to the left of center, simply couldn't let that characterization go unremarked upon.

Bush's Christian Devotion Questioned

Was Time magazine kidding? Must have been a joke! How can anyone who is a critical thinker write that Bush is a devout Christian? He is a fascist who spit on the people, the country, the constitution and the name of Christ by his evil actions. Can you spell w-a-r c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l? And now these fools at The Washington Post are hiring Gerson. Wonder what sort of quid pro quo that involved.

Marge Hackett
Ojai, Calif.

Nice going, Marge. It's reassuring to see critical thinkers like yourself 'splaining it all to us dullards.

And it's always nice to see a Ventura County resident making the rest of us look good by comparison.

Gotta run; the next shift of black helicopters need refueling before they resume monitoring Marge's shack for the NSA.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 11, 2006

What we need to see, to remember, and what needs to be said

Gerard Van Der Leun begins an open letter to the terrorists with this photo. Go ahead and click on it, look at the full-sized version, study those men and women who were forced to decide between incineration in the fires raging at their backs, or taking that last step off the ledge and falling -- falling, flying for the last seconds of their lives, before the combined effects of gravity and terminal velocity ensured their families would have nothing to remember them by, nothing but panicked phone calls to say "I love you," and these photos.

It made me realize how long it's been since we've seen these pictures. The MSM pulled them down, off, out by 9-12, afraid our tender 21st Century Psyches couldn't handle the terrible images.

Of course, I suspect the real reason was that these images inspire a reaction in the Great Unwashed Masses that makes the Solons of the Media recoil in horror, for righteous anger is an appropriate response to the murder of our fellow Americans, and white-hot retribution must -- must! -- be visited upon those who forced these men and women to make such a terrible choice.

Van Der Leun's letter is a direct response, not only to the jihadis who would put us all to the sword, but the jurors who decided that death was not appropriate for the conspirators -- and to the politicians who insisted that the terrorists are criminals, entitled to the protections of our courts.

DEAR ISLAM,

Yes, it's true. We thirst for death. We would like you, at your earliest opportunity, to expunge our guilt by slaughtering us wholesale. We have so much while you, the petulant children of a whacked-out god, oppressed by your own ratty cultures and fascist governments and unable to contribute anything to civilization for over 500 years, have so little except your "trauma" that it is only fair that you get to incinerate more of us at will.

We have a problem with our self-esteem in this country, and that problem is that you are not killing enough of us quickly enough.

We don't ask for much in this regard. We only ask that next time you plan more carefully and thoroughly. We note that, during the unfortunate events of the 11th, only a few of our children were killed by you. They died because they just happened to be on our airplanes that you borrowed for the day.

This is unacceptable to a nation like America that believes in including children in all our important events. After all, they're citizens too. Therefore, please make sure to be more inclusive in the future. If you could please manage a mass hostage taking at, say, The Mall of America that replicates Beslan Massacre where 344 innocent civilians were killed, 186 of them children, we'd turn out for it in droves.

[...]

Don't forget, before you touch off the explosives that incinerate ten thousand or more of us here and there across the land, to get Katie Couric and Maureen Dowd to visit so they can interview you about your abusive fathers and traumatic childhoods. If possible, could you answer their questions while slitting the throats of our children for the cameras. It makes for much more interesting reality-TV than the dull screeching-mullah clips you've been releasing of late. Ratings will soar when this stuff is shown in heavy rotation on Fox, CNN and MTV. If you could start with the smallest and cutest and cut throats upward until you reach our teenage daughters, you can keep this thing rolling for days. Don't worry about our police or even the National Guard, they'll spend days "assessing" the situation, and pausing for interviews and reactions from the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy.

Don't rush it. You'll have plenty of time. With any luck, our President (whomever he or she may be) will reconvene the 9/11 Commission to examine the motivations for your throat slittings in real-time. It is for this reason that you should confine your terrorism to the week-ends in America so you can be sure of having enough of our children on hand. It wouldn't do to run out of throats to slit or heads to cut off while you have the nation's attention. You don't want people clicking away to watch "The Sopranos," do you?

The whole letter is worth reading; take a moment and cruise over to Gerard's site.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Companies that give a damn. Or not.

I started making an effort to wean myself off the Google information teat this summer for a variety of reasons, first and foremost: the company has a distinctly anti-American, anti-religious, hell, anti-conservative bias.

How can I possibly know that about a site that simply serves as a search engine?

I'm glad you asked.

Google routinely adds art to its name -- turning the "O"s in the middle into pumpkins for Halloween, for instance -- but seems to studiously avoid any theme or occasion where patriotism or religion might blacken the corporate identity.

Because, you see, Google isn't American; we wouldn't want to offend any America-hating foreigners -- or nominal American citizens either.

Don't believe me? Check out how Google noted the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

But not every search engine is the same. The folks who run Dogpile don't seem to have a problem recognizing that they're Americans first, with a love for their nation and a willingness to recognize the losses inflicted upon us, and the sacrifices made in the fight against our enemies.

Dogpile notes things like the Fourth of July and Christmas, and, yes, 9/11.

The difference is rather stark, eh?

Remember, when you need to search, go to the Dogpile.

And no, I don't have a vested interest in Dogpile; I just like their attitude.

UPDATE

The folks at Ask.com really did themselves proud, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Putting faces to the names

It's easy to lose track of the individuals, the men and women who died on 9/11, who become our collective war dead.

But each one left behind a family, friends, a lifetime of memories, destroyed in an instant.

Anwyn remembers one of the almost 3,000. Take a moment and read about Frederick H. Kelley.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

They were always there

It seemed like they were always there, in the background. I never really liked them; too sterile, too modern, lacking any of the lush style and flair of the older buildings that made Manhattan such an architectural delight.

Rockefeller Center; the Empire State Building; the Chrysler Building. Man, they're beautiful.

But the behemoths that claimed lower Manhattan for themselves were so cold, devoid of human warmth or scale. The plaza between them was always a windy, barren patch of concrete, too cold and desolate for even the bums and pigeons. One hurried through the space as the wind howled, anxious to get inside, blind to the hidden charms of the twins.

But now, paging through a stack of old vacation photos, I spy a shot taken from Brooklyn, and there, in the background, they stand, beneath an oddly dark cloud.

And now they're gone, with their thousands of occupants and the brave firefighters and policemen who perished with them, too.

Only now do I realize that I miss them, never mind their ugliness or their ever-so-sophisticated design. They were a part of Manhattan, and if they were going to be stay or go, well, that was our decision.

And every time I look at the skyline, I'll think that it just looks wrong, and then I'll get mad. Because the appropriate response isn't sadness or sorrow or mournful contemplation.

Rage. White-hot fury. The need -- NEED, damn it! -- for vengeance. These are what the perfidious act of war inflicted upon our citizens require, and what our war dead demand. Our enemies sneer, laugh and mock any talk of healing, forgiveness and moving on. The jihad doesn't require our consent; only our necks stretched bare for the blade.

And what of those ugly Twin Towers, laid low by our enemies? I miss the skyline I knew and took for granted, and all the New Yorkers I had yet to know -- and never will after 9/11.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 10, 2006

Why do they say "destroy"?

Why do journalists refer to wildfires as having "destroyed" an area? The newsreaders on ABC just told of a wildfire near my neck of the woods "destroying" more than 13,000 acres.

Fires can destroy structures -- homes, schools, Zankou Chicken restaurants (heaven forbid!) -- but they don't destroy the land itself. The plants burn, but they grow back. In fact, fires help fertilize the soil, and some plants require the high heat of brushfires to germinate.

Wildfires damage 13,000 acres of brush, scrub and trees; they kill wildlife, but they most assuredly do not, in and of themselves, "destroy."

Precision in language is everything if news is to mean anything.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Confronting reality

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 09, 2006

Profiles in courage, Gallic Edition

I received a stern rebuke the other day for cracking wise about the French (zut alors!).

Hey, I love the idea of France; the food, the wine, the Louvre, Notre Dame, the Foreign Legion, gorgeous, chic women and delicious little pastries. As you may have noticed, I even like some of their cars.

But whenever my fond memories of time spent as a student in Paris seem ascendant, I receive a reminder of why ze French are not to be trusted, admired, or respected.

Remember how Israel was supposed to stand down and step aside for a French and Italian force of U.N. peacekeepers? The U.N. force was supposed to ensure that Hezbollah abided by the terms of the ceasefire.

Well, according to Captain Ed, things haven't worked out.

When Israel agreed to lift the air and sea blockade of Lebanon two days ago, the UN promised that the forces replacing them would interdict arms intended to resupply their enemy, Hezbollah. France, which will provide substantial forces in controlling sea access to Lebanon, now says its military will not use force to stop anything:

France announced on Friday that the international naval force designated to patrol Lebanon's territorial waters would not be authorized to employ force to stop ships from entering or leaving Lebanon.

A spokesman for the French defense ministry said that the international craft would only provide assistance for Lebanese ships, and would not interfere with other nations' boats, Israel Radio reported.

Earlier Friday, Israel began to remove its naval blockade of Lebanon, imposed almost two months after Hizbullah launched its cross-border raid and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

One has to ask why France and Italy even bothered to show up. Relying on the Lebanese is what started this war in the first place. The Siniora government never bothered to make an attempt at compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which required them to disarm Hezbollah. They were either unwilling or unable, or a combination of both, to make that common-sense move; they stood by and watched Hezbollah add to their arsenals.

Now the UN forces propose to do the same thing all over again. France sent a military force to the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon to essentially do nothing but observe boats going in and out of the harbor. They may just as well have sent a regatta crowd to Tyre and fired up a few barbeques. Perhaps the French believe that a simple finger-wagging and a vicious tongue-lashing will force arms merchants to flee from Lebanon, with French scolding ringing in their ears?

This is another example of the UN's betrayal of Israel during this cease-fire process. At every step, the UN has promised to provide the security Israel requires in order to get the IDF to withdraw, only to see the component forces declare openly that they have no intention of fulfilling the mission. And of all the nations complicit in this disaster, France has been the most perfidious. They insisted on setting the terms of the cease-fire, and then have consistently reneged on support. It proves yet again that the only thing worse that having France arrayed against you is having them allied with you.

When will the world learn? You don't tug on Superman's cape; you don't spit into the wind; you don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger; and you don't bet you life on the French providing a knock-off Maginot Line, answerable to the United Nations.

Or on a navy that scored it's last notable victory when it sank the Greenpeace research ship Rainbow Warrior.

In all fairness to the French military, it's not really their fault; it's the political leadership that's been reprehensible, for more than 200 hundred years.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:25 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 08, 2006

Cindy Sheehan wants to kill a baby

I just heard on Special Report with Brit Hume that Cindy Sheehan has admitted fantasizing about going back in time and killing the infant George Bush.

What's fascinating -- apart from the fact that she's barking-at-the-moon insane -- is her cowardice. In the fevered depths of her pea brain, she could dream of hunting the once-and-future leader while he attended college, or while he was a dissolute partying fool in his thirties.

But no, she'd prefer to commit infanticide.

Let's be clear, Cindy Sheehan dreams of murdering an infant, the worst of all possible homicides, the most powerless of all victims. Perhaps the only thing worse than a child molester is a woman, so devoid of empathy that she would contemplate taking an infant's life.

Sounds like a sociopath to me.

What a disgusting creature Sheehan is, clearly in need of immediate institutionalization.

And how telling that her perverse fantasy is not immediately condemned from all points of the political spectrum.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

AllahPundit on the Path to 9/11 uproar

"Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it."

That's how Allah Pundit paraphrases the letter from the Democratic Senate leadership to Disney regarding the upcoming broadcast of the less-than-flattering look at the actions of the Clinton -- and Bush -- administrations in the runup to the attacks of 9/11.

Allah says:

I remember Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee saying a while back how disappointed he was in the Democrats over something, and I told him there’s an easy fix for that: expect nothing from them, like I do, and you’ll never be disappointed. Turns out I was wrong, though, because even with zero expectations, I can’t quite believe they’d stoop to this.

As naked an example of intimidation as you’ll see this side of British Muslims playing good cop/bad cop with Tony Blair. If the GOP pulled this crap, it’d be top of the f’ng fold tomorrow in the Times. As it should be.

My only question is this: was that letter typed, or did they use letters cut out from magazines?

Allah also posted some fun to be had with the Disney website, by merely restating Democratic minority leader Sen. Harry Reid's talking points.

Honestly, what are the Clintonistas and the DNC thinking?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ze French, ze are tres chic, no? Part deux

So, what's up with the French? Three to-die-for concept cars?

Detroit just may have to take a page from the French and hoist the white flag realize that sex sells cars, too. Not with bimbos in the ads, but sensuous, sophisticated design.

Ooo la la.

And check out the gullwing doors -- yeah, that's right, gullwings on a four-door convertible.

Wow. Renault.

Who knew?

Tons more pictures here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Day By Day

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 07, 2006

Democratic Senators attack First Amendment

In my lifetime I've never seen such a naked assault on the media, so blatant an attempt to bully a studio into submission.

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

[...]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

[...]

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

And don't lapse into the moral-equivalency double-talk of the left, comparing this to the contretemps over The Reagans; the TV movie about the former president and his wife never generated threats by the GOP to yank CBS' broadcast license.

The meme of the Left has been that the precious independence of the Fourth Estate has been under constant threat from the nefarious forces of Chimpy McBushitler and his Rovian stormtroopers.

The reality is that the GOP represents little threat to freedom of speech; it's the Democratic Senate leadership doing everything it can to ensure that only government-approved speech hits the airwaves.

Shameful. Bloody shameful.

I'm waiting for the ACLU and those advocates of unfettered public discourse to condemn the disgraceful actions of these "statesmen."

Captain Ed has a typically well-reasoned take on this bone-headed move by the Dems.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 06, 2006

Ze French, ze are tres chic, no?

According to Autoblog, the Citroën C-Métisse 4-door coupe -- debuting at the Paris Auto Show -- has a drivetrain to match its exotic supercar looks.

The Hybride HDi system consists of a 208-horsepower diesel V6 driving the front wheels, and a pair of electric motors -- each putting out 20 horsepower and 300 lb-ft of torque powering the rear. In urban environments, the car can operate in zero-emissions mode, running on the electric motors only at speeds up to 30 km/h. In addition to that, the car switches between 2-wheel-drive and 4-wheel-drive automatically depending on traction conditions.

And, using technology pioneered during the 1930s by the French military, the hi-tech hybrid is just as fast in reverse, thanks to its rear-mounted high-output motors.

Which is quite handy when facing ze Germans.

Make sure to check out the Peugeot 908, too. It's the most macho ride to come from the French since the Facel Vega.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:45 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Hacking to victory

The hanging chad controversy from the 2000 presidential election led to calls for electronic voting machines, on the theory that voters too stupid to cast a paper ballot could successfully use the latest hi-tech hardware and software to do the same thing.

With one very important difference.

No paper trail.

Although the nation suffered through the spectacle of manual, hand-tallied recounts in Florida, at least there was a means of validating the vote.

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, the computer-based voting machines are paper-free, but, according to their proponents, tamper proof.

Critics -- myself included -- have maintained that a paper ballot is the only reliable means of ensuring that elections are not stolen, and that anyone too stupid to cast a valid ballot has disenfranchised himself, and therefore doesn't deserve to participate in the electoral process.

Furthermore, while not a Luddite, I'm suspicious of the integrity of the so-called tamper-proof electronic voting machines.

Apparently with good reason.

It's an old adage in politics that you need truckloads of money to get elected. Apparently you can now buy an election for what you'd spend in a few days on cups of coffee. Black Box Voting found that given $12 in tools, four minutes, and a little determination, you can access a Diebold voting machine's memory card, remove and replace it without a trace. This new development really isn't all that surprising given that it's been shown that these machines can be hacked in more than one way, even by monkeys. Concerned citizens, just switch to absentee paper ballots from now on -- it may be low-tech, but it's a hell of a lot more secure going the "old-fashioned" way.

Paper ballots have worked well since 1776; imagine an election dispute like we had in 2000 with no means of confirming the result.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Misunderestimated again

Pres. Bush gave another speech today; when I saw the headline on Drudge, my heart sank. "BUSH REVERSES: AL QAEDA TO GET GENEVA CONVENTION RIGHTS."

But then the analysis started pouring in, and it seems the president has been misunderestimated again.

Via National Review's Corner comes this from Mario Loyola.

The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes.

And if that were not enough, the President also frontally attacked the Hamdan ruling's potentially chilling effect on CIA extraordinary interrogation techniques, by arguing that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is too vague, and asking Congress to define clearly the criminal law limiting the scope of permissible interrogation.

Taken as a whole, the President's maneuver today turned the political tables completely around. He stole the terms of debate from the Democrats, and rewrote them, all in a single speech. It will be delightful to watch in coming days and hours as bewildered Democrats try to understand what just hit them, and then sort through the rubble of their anti-Bush national security strategy to see what, if anything, remains.

It'll be interesting to see how the Bush-hating wing of the Democratic Party reacts to the speech -- and the ju-jitsu-like shift in strategy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 01, 2006

Tales from the Jury Room

Prosecutors -- hell, all trial attorneys -- always wonder what exactly goes on in the minds of jurors during a case, and how twelve strangers arrive at some of the odd results we see when the verdict is read.

Although high-paid jury consultants have carved out a lucrative niche for themselves, applying their "expertise" to the arcane process of winnowing out "bad" jurors, most D.A.s don't have the resources to retain such professionals. And so we muddle through the process of voir dire, following the advice of our peers and professional organizations to ask open-ended questions, engage in a conversation with jurors, try to get a feeling for their ability to play well with others, their prejudices and biases, and whether or not they'd be good company to shoot the breeze with over drinks after work.

Because, after all, what Hollywood screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid; Marathon Man; All the President's Men) said about the film biz picking blockbuster hits applies as well to jury selection: "Nobody knows anything."

There are all sorts of general bromides that get passed along: Never keep an engineer on a DUI; no social workers, teachers or church workers if the defendant is young and poor; young adults and slackers make terrible jurors for the prosecution 'cause they take nothing seriously.

Sometimes I've followed the "rules," other times I've trusted my gut feeling about a juror. In one case I kept a heavily tattooed, multiply-pierced twenty-something guy on the panel, much to the dismay of the wizened major crimes attorney watching me and taking notes for a recommendation to the boss on whether or not to keep me around.

During a break in jury selection, he asked why I'd kept the guy, instead of using one of my peremptory challenges to boot him out of the jury box. I replied that I simply had a good feeling about the fellow, notwithstanding his ink, youth, inappropriate courtroom attire and junk hanging from his face.

My evaluator smiled and shrugged, telling me, "It's your funeral," and the trial resumed.

The jury convicted the defendant -- I think it was a residential burglary -- and as is often the case, the jurors didn't spend much time chatting with the attorneys afterwards. But a week or two later, I received a memo from the front office, with a note from the District Attorney, attached to a letter from a juror in my last case, praising our office for the way the case had been handled.

It was from Tattoo Boy.

Which goes to show that you never really know.

Anyhow, L.A. prosecutor Patterico posed a question to his readers.

I am a prosecutor. I will never be on a criminal jury.

I want to hear from those you who have been.

Tell me about your criminal jury experience. What was the charge? What was the result? What was your vote? What did the jury talk about?

I may ask you questions. I’m on a Treo, so my questions will be appended to the end of your comments. Please watch for them.

I’ll be polite.

Even if you’re a lurker, please answer. I’ll learn a lot from the answers.

Thanks for participating.

P.S. I’m interested in stories about civil juries as well.

The responses have been interesting. Juries sometimes ignore the clear-as-mud instructions read to them by the judge, fixate on minor issues that the attorney never imagined would be pivotal, and simply lie about themselves and their ability to be fair and impartial.

This comment caught my eye, because it's in my courthouse, and I suspect the identity of the witness will be known to all in my office . . . .

I sat on a drunk driving trial in Ventura many years ago. The cops had bagged the defendant driving erratically as she was pulling out of a Mexican restaurant where she’d been knocking back margaritas. She failed field sobriety and Alcosensor, and then the breathalyzer once they booked her. I don’t understand why she didn’t plead out since she was clearly caught red handed.

The thing I remember most was the prosecution’s expert witness who testified for hours in the most monotonous, droning voice you could imagine, and in detail you’d have to be in his field to appreciate. It was a Herculean challenge to stay awake through his testimony.

The thing about DUI trials is that the experts testify over and over and over and over and over again, using the same stories and anecdotes, and the judges, attorneys and court staff hear the same testimony over and over; only the jurors get a fresh presentation. When the expert starts talking it takes a real effort to focus on his voice, and not have it morph into the honkings and bleatings of the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon: "Wah wah. Wah wah wah wah. Wah wah wah."

Imagine how dry it had to be to have this effect on a first-time listener.

One juror says of his experience:

Most striking things? How well most of the jury behaved: they listened to the judge’s instructions, paid attention to other viewpoints, and in general really did pretty much what was asked of them. Second most striking was that while you know intellectually how some people can cling to views that might charitably be described as “whacko,” it’s a real shock to encounter it face to face and damned frustrating to try to reason with them.

A few lengthy excerpts from Patterico's commenters about other trials follow below.

Criminal case, marijuana smuggling. The defendant was a 50ish guy caught trying to bring about 100 pounds of marijuana into the US via a border checkpoint. The goods were wrapped in plastic wrap (about 34 bundles, if I recall) and hidden in various compartments within the extended cab of his pickup truck and the locked truck bed toolbox just behind the cab.

The lone defendant claimed that he was unaware of the presence of the marijuana –- he was in Mexico with a friend visiting a dentist (recommended by this friend) since he needed to get better fitting dentures. The defendant claimed his ill-fitting dentures had been an embarrassment for him for several years prior, and he had had to resort to gumming his food and was thus entirely unable to eat in social settings.

Supposedly while the defendant visited the dentist, the friend had borrowed the truck for several hours. On the return trip back to the US, the friend had claimed he needed to use a restroom and left the defendant to cross the border solo in the truck, claiming he would walk through and rejoin him later. The entire defense strategy could be summarized as “the friend did it, my client was unaware of anything”.

On the stand during cross-examination, the defendant was asked the name of the dentist, the gender of the dentist, where the dentist was located, if the dentist had offered a good price for dentures, when and if a followup visit was scheduled, etc…

The defendant basically answered “I don’t remember” to all of these questions. He was also asked if he had thought it odd that the contents of his truck bed toolbox (a pretty large amount of storage) had migrated to his cab after his friend had borrowed his truck, and did he ask his friend why all of his stuff was now on his backseat? His answer was “I don’t remember”.

There was other testimony that I don’t recall–none of which was favorable to the defendant. My thinking at this point was that this was pretty much open and shut.

I was shocked to death by our initial vote: 9 guilty, 3 not guilty. We flipped two of the holdouts within 2 hours -– they’d somehow mistakenly gotten the impression that the guy had provided reasonable dentist/toolbox-related answers. The last holdout was a much tougher nut to crack–she insisted that the guy couldn’t possibly be guilty, and gave the following reasons:

1) “he doesn’t look like someone who would do something like this”
2) “he reminds me of my grandfather, so kind and gentle-looking”
3) “when he said that he couldn’t eat publicly, I almost cried”
4) “the prosecution hasn’t proved that the other guy didn’t do it”

We finally flipped her after another 2 days … even then, she hesitated for a scary 2-3 seconds when the defense polled the jury after our guilty verdict.

Miss Holdout was about 25, with a bachelor’s degree (Biology, IIRC). She was reasonably cute and seemed to be an otherwise level-headed and intelligent person. This was my only experience on a jury, and largely due to Miss Holdout, I dread serving on another.

Patterico then asked the commenter what advice he could offer to beleagured prosecutors trying to get rid of prospective jurors like the one mentioned above. The juror's reply is interesting.

Trying to convince this woman was like talking to a brick wall -– we would point out evidence, she would “refute” it with non sequiturs and wishful thinking: ”how can we be POSITIVE he really doesn’t remember?” “We could be sending an innocent grandfather to jail for something he didn’t do.”

I was somehow elected foreman, and prior to her finally flipping I was very tempted to send a note to the judge noting that Miss Holdout was disregarding evidence and jury instructions.

During voir dire this woman seemed normal enough … a bit on the mousy, shy side, but she gave no indication that she was so emotionally fixated.

While we were deliberating, she gave an indication that she was “playing possum” during voir dire -– she linked the “gentle-looking grandfather” and “doesn’t look like someone who would do something like this” quotes to her very first sighting of the defendant, and even said something along the lines of “I knew I needed to try to give him another chance” (via serving on his jury, I assumed). At this point I realized that her behavior during voir dire (fidgeting and excessive nervousness) was probably an indication that she was being deceptive in her statements to the court.

Miss Holdout somehow managed to take what little testimony/evidence that she couldn’t entirely disregard and use it to reinforce her preconceived notion of the defendant’s lack of guilt. It’s frightening to consider how many other Miss Holdouts are out there in the juror pool.

As to avoiding such jurors, I would guess that asking more questions of them during voir dire could help weed out some of the Miss Holdouts -– my guess is the average juror during this trial was asked no more than 10 questions during voir dire. I am far from an expert on body language, but I’m assuming that it would be much more difficult for someone to be successfully deceptive during say, 30-40 questions. Of course, this would slow down the procedure by quite a bit.

This next one is a perfect example of how a commonsense juror can save a trial from an eleven-to-one mistrial.

Snohomish County, Washington about 12 years ago; 4th degree assault.

Two-man construction company working on a kitchen/garage remodel out in a rural area. Helper is a bit on the dim side, boss has a temper problem. The day hasn’t been going well, and boss has already tossed helper’s tools into the bushes because he’s pissed.

Boss is up on a ladder with a nail gun, asks helper to go get something. Helper comes back with something else entirely. Boss gets down off ladder and proceeds to berate helper close up. Boss uses nail gun to punch helper in chest for emphasis.

Nail gun goes off.

Boss and helper are now looking at the head of a 3.5″ framing nail which is pinning helper’s shirt to his chest -- it’s ALL the way in. Both panic -- any resemblance to Bluto and D-Day after the horse had the heart attack is purely coincidental, I’m sure -- and run to boss’s pickup and drive over the crappy roads in the Clearview area to get to the hospital at Monroe where a cardiac cutter removes the nail from helper. Fortunately, they didn’t hit any really big bumps on the way in or the nail would have ripped helper’s heart in two.

Charge is 4th degree (reckless) assault. Boss has hired a well-known, very effective local lawyer who is pretty much willing to do any criminal case where the defendant has cash.

Prosecutor lays out what happened; calls the surgeon who testifies about just how serious the injury really was. Defense calls the helper; points out that helper is cooperating with prosecutor because a guilty verdict will help the civil lawsuit the helper has already filed (no fooling). Defense further goes on that this was just an accident, just two guys fooling around and it turned out badly.

Jury goes out. We elect a foreman. I figure maybe 30 minutes tops. Foreman polls. 10-2 for guilty. I’m stunned.

Foreman - very politely - asks #1 hold out why. She says that she knows he did it, but doesn’t think he should go to prison because he didn’t intend to do it. I comment to the effect that a conviction on 4th degree is -- per the judge -- a conviction for RECKLESS disregard and does not involve premeditation. In other words, the motivation doesn’t matter but what does is whether an average person would consider whacking someone in the chest with a live nail gun to be reckless. It doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily going to prison.

“Oh. He’s guilty then”.

Great. One down, one to go. Still pretty much on schedule for that 30 minute deliberation.

#2 is an older guy. He’s convinced that this is just horseplay and that your average construction worker engages in this sort of thing a lot (I have subsequently tested that assertion on various people who’ve been building houses for us and reactions range from horror to ridicule). We go round and round and round and round.

Lunch break. I figured we’d be done by now. No such luck.

Back from lunch. 2 more hours of “No, they’re just goofing around, construction guys do this all the time”. I’m desperate -- the last thing I want to do is spend another day in the jury room with this guy. But if we don’t resolve in the next 30 minutes or so, that’s what’s in the cards.

So I try a last shot. “Carleton,” I say (his name wasn’t Carleton, but there was a character on “Wings” by that name that sounded just like this guy), “Carleton, I’d like you to try a little thought experiment here. I give you an air compressor and a nail gun -- no nails -- and the world’s longest extension cord. You go over to Colby Avenue and walk up to the first dozen guys that look like construction workers and slap that nail gun to their chests. I will give you $1000 for every time you do NOT pick yourself up off the sidewalk. At the end of the day, how much money do you think you’d have?”

Silence for 30 seconds.

“Aw, f**k it, he’s guilty.”

Yay! Back in, verdict to the judge, defense guy polls to force us each onto the record. We stay unanimous. Judge gives the boss a short sentence to be served on weekends and a trip to the anger management class.

Most striking things? How well most of the jury behaved: they listened to the judge’s instructions, paid attention to other viewpoints, and in general really did pretty much what was asked of them. Second most striking was that while you know intellectually how some people can cling to views that might charitably be described as “whacko”, it’s a real shock to encounter it face to face and damned frustrating to try to reason with them.

Been called for selection a couple of times since, but always a bridesmaid and not the bride. Carleton must have passed the word about me.

Like I said, nobody knows anything. But every trial attorney I know has a story about a juror who somehow neglected to reveal that he had some rather enormous reasons why he shouldn't be on a case, reasons that just didn't get mentioned until after the jury hung -- or the defendant walked.

Ah, the mysteries of the jury room.

If this topic is as fascinating to you as it is to me, head over to Pat's site and read the rest of the comments.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:32 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack