April 30, 2007
Road rage
Have you ever been stuck behind a slow-moving car on a two-lane road, and you really, absolutely can't miss your plane?
Twenty-five miles per hour. On a derestricted national road. That’s how fast the little Peugeot was going. Queen Victoria would have called it slow. There were tribes in pre-human Ethiopia that would have called it slow. On the Beaufort scale, twenty-five miles per hour isn’t even classified as a light breeze.
Naturally, there was a huge snake in the Peugeot’s wake. Trucks. Vans. Bicycles. Oxen. People going to work. And me, on my way to Birmingham airport. If I’d known I was going to be travelling so slowly I’d have used a horse.
To begin with I was mildly irritated, mostly by my children in the back who wondered out loud and quite often if we were going to miss the plane. “Miss the plane?” I sneered. “At this rate we’ll probably miss the end of the world.”
But after 15 minutes the irritation had become rage. “Why,” I shouted, “doesn’t he just commit suicide.”
After half an hour I was incandescent. If I’d had a knife and fork I’d have forced his car to the side of the road and eaten him.
Finally we reached the motorway, and as I tore past I noted he was a hundred and forty twelve, a walnut-faced osteoporotic and grey shadow of his former self. I should have felt remorse that I’d harboured such unkind thoughts about a man who’d served his country in the Crimea and in the Spanish war of succession, and probably at Hastings too. But instead I gave serious consideration to ramming his Peugeot into a bridge parapet.
Gawd, I love the way Jeremy Clarkson writes. And the best part is this is just the beginning of a review of the Mitsubishi Evo IX FQ-360.
He loves the car, if you're interested.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is nothing sacred?
The clash of civilizations extends to the bathroom -- and we're circling the bowl.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Why do they hate love us?
I found an interesting counterpoint to McCain's lament that poor public relations makes America an international pariah; John Derbyshire's tale of his Chinese friends.
We have two Chinese friends, a husband-wife couple who came out of China in the late 1980s and have done pretty well, working at unspectacular jobs but salting away savings in that Chinese way. Now they are in their early sixties and looking at retirement. Since both are now U.S. citizens, they can draw Social Security wherever they live. With that, and their savings, they could go back to China and live pretty well.
However, they have two daughters in China. Both married well, to entrepreneurs who have got rich in the new China. They live in gated communities, their kids are in pricey private schools, and they have two cars per family — still pretty sensational in China. But guess what: They want to come out.
Our friends are in a quandary. The only chances their daughters (and their husbands) have to come out are if our friends sponsor them as close relatives, which they can. To carry through the process, our friends will have to stay here, scotching their plans to go and spend a prosperous retirement in China.
But why do these two successful, wealthy young couples want to come to the U.S.A., where they’d have to start over at some drudge jobs, with the handicap of not speaking much English? Have our friends explained the situation to them? “Of course. A hundred times!”
So why do they want to come out?
[Sigh] “Everybody wants to come to America!”
The only thing was than America is everyplace else.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why do they hate love us?
I found an interesting counterpoint to McCain's lament that poor public relations makes America an international pariah; John Derbyshire's tale of a Chinese family.
We have two Chinese friends, a husband-wife couple who came out of China in the late 1980s and have done pretty well, working at unspectacular jobs but salting away savings in that Chinese way. Now they are in their early sixties and looking at retirement. Since both are now U.S. citizens, they can draw Social Security wherever they live. With that, and their savings, they could go back to China and live pretty well.
However, they have two daughters in China. Both married well, to entrepreneurs who have got rich in the new China. They live in gated communities, their kids are in pricey private schools, and they have two cars per family — still pretty sensational in China. But guess what: They want to come out.
Our friends are in a quandary. The only chances their daughters (and their husbands) have to come out are if our friends sponsor them as close relatives, which they can. To carry through the process, our friends will have to stay here, scotching their plans to go and spend a prosperous retirement in China.
But why do these two successful, wealthy young couples want to come to the U.S.A., where they’d have to start over at some drudge jobs, with the handicap of not speaking much English? Have our friends explained the situation to them? “Of course. A hundred times!”
So why do they want to come out?
[Sigh] “Everybody wants to come to America!”
The only thing worse than America is everyplace else.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
E.B. Sledge
http://www.studsterkel.org/gwar.php
E.B. Sledge was born in Mobile, Alabama in 1923. He dropped out of college in 1942 to join the Marine Corps. He then served as a front line infantryman with the fabled First Marine Division on Pelileu, Okinawa and North China occupation. After the war, Sledge earned a PhD in zoology from the University of Florida. He taught at the University of Montevallo for twenty-eight years, specializing in ornithology. In 1981, Presidio Press published Sledge's war memoir, With the Old Breed at Pelileu and Okinawa. Author Paul Fussel has referred to this book as "one of the finest memoirs to emerge from any war," and John Keegan called it "one of the most important personal accounts of the war that I have read." The book is currently in print as an Oxford trade paperback and is also in the Naval Institute Press' Library of Naval Classics.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:55 AM
McCain on Fox
John McCain was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday for the first half of the show (transcript here), and he provided countless examples of why he'll never get the GOP nomination, starting with this one:
WALLACE: How would you fight the War on Terror differently than it's being fought now?
J. MCCAIN: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone.
I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some image problems in the world. I think that we've got to understand — diplomatic, intelligence-wise.
Clearly, in the area of, quote, "propaganda," in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning as much as — well, in some ways we are behind.
Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in the view of some — my view — may sometimes do a better job than we are.
At the end of the day, it's how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.
Close Gitmo? Bring the brigands to Kansas? Has his election-addled brain forgotten that doing so will -- thanks to the feckless U.S. Supreme Court -- bring these jihadis into our criminal justice system? Does McCain realize that we'll have to give these men, who deserve nothing more than a short drop and a quick stop, the full protections of the U.S. Constitution, the same as any other domestic crook?
But that's to be expected, because the real problem is our P.R. crisis, 'cause it's our fault that the rest of the world hates us, and all we need to do is start treating our enemies a little better and everything will be copacetic.
That last bit was priceless, as if the jihadis want to kill us because of our ineffective publicity, as if they just don't know enough about us -- that to know U.S. is to love U.S.
For Pete's sake, the 9-11 terrorists had lived in the West, knew the West, and loathed the West (although the movies, booze and strippers were alright).
Next on display was the legendary McCain arrogance, courtesy of his new-found categorical rejection of torture.
WALLACE: Senator, you talked about torture. Former CIA Director Tenet now says that the intelligence that they got from harsh interrogation techniques against some of these big Al Qaida types, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the intelligence they got from them using, reportedly, things like water-boarding, extreme temperatures, was more valuable than all the other CIA and FBI programs.
Were you wrong? I mean, this is the CIA, former CIA director, saying this. Were you wrong to limit what CIA interrogators could do?
J. MCCAIN: A man I admire more than anyone else, General Jack Vessey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, battlefield commission, told me once — he said, "John, any intelligence information we might gain through the use of torture could never, ever counterbalance the image that it does — the damage that it does to our image in the world."
I agree with him. Look at the war in Algeria. Look, the fact is if you torture someone, they're going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.
It's interesting to me that every retired military officer, whether it be Colin Powell or whether it be former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — everybody who's been in war doesn't want to torture people and think that it's the wrong thing to do. And history shows that.
We cannot torture people and maintain our moral superiority in the world.
WALLACE: But when...
J. MCCAIN: And that's a fact.
WALLACE: But when George Tenet says...
J. MCCAIN: I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior.
WALLACE: But if I may, sir...
J. MCCAIN: Yes, sir.
WALLACE: ... when George Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...
J. MCCAIN: I don't accept it. I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history.
Did you get the part when McCain was told that lives were saved, and he responded, "I don't accept it. I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history."
Problem is, McCain has acknowledged the need for coercive interrogation during extraordinary circumstances, because it works
Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?
In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted.
But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis.
It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices.
National Review's Andy McCarthy points out the fatuousness of McCain's outraged response to Wallace.
So, confronted by the do-or-die starkness of a ticking-bomb, McCain acknowledged in 2005 that it "might well" be necessary to use "extreme measures," and that so doing might in fact "save an American city or prevent another 9/11." Was his bottom-line position that coercive interrogation doesn't work? Of course not. It was that such interrogation might very well work but that it would be a mistake to write an exception permitting it into our law because the exception would be abused.
That is a perfectly respectable position — there is a serious (though beneath-the-radar) debate about whether the best way to minimize the use of coercion is (a) to regulate it tightly and prosecute all violations, or (b) categorically ban it and assume that interrogators would know enough to ignore the ban in true emergencies. But, it is just plain bluster to argue, as McCain continues to insist, that coercion never works and he doesn't care what anyone else says. As his answer on the ticking-bomb demonstrates, even he doesn't believe that.
[...]
Sometimes the information will, indeed, be false — just as criminals who testify in exchange for leniency sometimes provide false information because they know the value of their cooperation to prosecutors (which determines how much leniency they get) calls for them to inculpate other people.
But very often, the information from such criminals proves to be true. That, of course, is why we permit the government to offer incentives (like generous plea deals, money, relocation, etc.) to get people to cooperate. Our experience tells us that just because people have an incentive to lie — even a powerful one — does not mean the information they provide will be false. Often it is true.
That is not an argument for widely permitting coercive interrogation; but it does underscore that McCain and others should stop making the silly claim that coercion never works.
Color me unimpressed by the whole interview. Read it yourself and see what you think.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Be prepared
That's the warning from Clayton Cramer, in a post titled, If You Have a Concealed Carry Permit For Your State.
You should feel obligated to be carrying at all times right now. The media attention to the Virginia Tech massacre--and now this tragedy in Kansas City--is going to put ideas into people who may have been thinking homicidal/suicidal thoughts. Protect yourself, your loved ones, and the general public.
He's right; we're all ultimately responsible for our own safety, the safety of our families, and, yes, even our neighbors.
That's the extended rationale for police; we pay taxes to fund them, so they can confront criminals in our stead.
On a side note, it's ironic that those who argue the most vehemently for police being the only people who ought to be armed -- often the same folks who don't particularly care for law enforcement -- are are all-too quick to condemn the idea of paid mercenaries (i.e., Blackwater security consultants) working in the employ of the U.S.
Where was I? Oh, right, taking responsibility for our safety.
Until the police arrive on scene, the only thing capable of stopping a would-be killer is an armed law-abiding citizen, and in 40 states, odds are you're surrounded by people packing heat.
Now, I know that makes most Californians break out in a cold sweat, but as Michael Barone points out, the ease with which Americans obtain concealed carry permits has not caused the streets to run red with the blood of innocents.
When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very, very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.
[...]
So far as I know, there are no politically serious moves to repeal any state’s concealed-weapons laws. In most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it. But that’s all right. Experience has shown that these people aren’t threats.
Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of its administrators, a “gun-free zone.” Those with concealed-weapons permits were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they did. A bill was introduced in the state House of Delegates to allow permit-holders to carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator hailed the action and said that students, professors and visitors would now “feel safe” on campus.
Tragically, they weren’t safe. Virginia Tech’s “gun-free zone” was not gun-free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their guns to stop the killing.
The traditional advice given to airline passengers was to cooperate with highjackers; cops likewise advised civilians to do what gunmen wanted in a confrontation.
That advice presupposes that what the terrorist wants can be achieved with the survival of the hostages. However, as we saw at Virginia Tech -- as well as on September 11 -- when the death of the hostages is the point of the crime, then cooperation is pointless.
The passengers on Flight 93 figured out that they couldn't wait for the professionals to rescue them, and that cooperation was what the terrorists wanted, to make killing them and countless others that much easier. When they said, "Let's roll!" the passengers were reasserting the fundamental right of self-defense -- and the defense of others.
Guns on another campus played a vital role in ending another slaughter. When Charles Whitman took to the clock-tower on the campus of the University of Texas back in 1966, it was the return fire from civilians -- who grabbed rifles from their trucks -- that kept him pinned down and on the defensive, until he could be shot and killed by the police.
I suppose there's a place for civilians who choose not to get involved, who don't want to be armed. But when confronted by the likes of the Virginia Tech killer, I'd prefer having the ability to do something other than cower and hide.
And if I wasn't able to carry a weapon, I'd sure like someone other than the guy on the killing spree to have a gun (or two), for his protection -- and mine, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2007
Stranger than fiction
This is like something out of a summer day's potboiler beach reading.
Experts are "lost for words" to have found that a medieval prayer book has yielded yet another key ancient text buried within its parchment.
Works by mathematician Archimedes and the politician Hyperides had already been found buried within the book, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest.
But now advanced imaging technology has revealed a third text - a commentary on the philosopher Aristotle.
[...]
The prayer book was written in the 13th Century by a scribe called John Myronas.
But instead of using fresh parchment for his work, he employed pages from five existing books.
[...]
In 1906 it came to light that one of the books recycled to form the medieval manuscript contained a unique work by Archimedes.
And in 2002, modern imaging technology not only provided a clearer view of this famous mathematician's words, but it also revealed another text - the only known manuscript of Hyperides, an Athenian politician from the 4th Century BC.
So, more than 100 years after scholars thought they had found all that was hidden in the manuscript, another lost work, more than 25 centuries old, reemerges.
And, while the portion translated is a rather cerebral discussion of the intricacies of classifying different species, it's still strongly reminiscent of a real-life Da Vinci Code.
Which is both thrilling and humbling, for it means that -- despite our arrogant belief that we know everything -- there are mysteries all around us, waiting throughout the millennia for intrepid researchers to unlock their secrets.
And that's very, very cool.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
He said what?
The Daily Mail ran a story today discussing the potential risks to humans posed by the proliferation of increasingly intelligent and autonomous robots.
While the article is interesting, it's the pungent, U.K.-style prose that cause the reader to do a double-take.
Buried in the article is this passage.
Many experts question the whole idea of building a humanoid robot at all.
As one expert, based in the U.S., told me: "If you just want a servant to cook and look after the garden, there are plenty of Mexicans. Why buy a hugely expensive machine?"
Leave it to the Brits to question the underlying economics of robot proliferation in the most coffee-spewing, keyboard-soaking manner possible.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This is simply too good to be true
WASHINGTON -- A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.
For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.
No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2007
Top 5 ways "Lost" should end
Courtesy the snarky folks at Pajiba.
Make sure to read the comments, too. I particularly like this one:
6. Tye and the crew from Extreme Home Makeover float onto the island and build a treehouse for everyone. With hammock beds.
Shark. Ramp. Fonzie.
At last, the circle is complete.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The moonbats must hate this
Talk about cognitive dissonance -- how can the United States not be the worst polluter in the world?
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - China will pass the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gasses this year, an official with the International Energy Agency was quoted as saying.
China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, was quoted as saying in an interview appearing in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper.
"In the past couple of months, economic growth and related coal consumption has grown at such an unexpected rate," Birol was quoted as saying. China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out attempts by other countries to reduce their own, he said.
Those comments follow the weekend release of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher than average temperatures meant spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. It said emission limits were unfair and would constrain China's current energy and manufacturing industries.
China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country.
But -- but they're communists! Doncha understand? It's a workers' paradise! They have to be better, more eco-friendly than the U.S.!
Heh.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2007
Serious people addressing serious problems
What's particularly amusing about Cheryl Crow's demand that we use one square of toilet paper per ... visit to the 'loo to save the forests, is her ignorance of the impact tree farming has had on deforestation.
The United States is home to more acres of old-growth forests than it has been since the early 18th century; trees are a renewable resource, and the fast-growing species used by the paper industry have essentially made old-growth forests unnecessary as a source of materials for T.P.
If you were in school during the '70s, you remember the newspaper recycling drives; I collected tons of old papers from the neighbors, to raise money for the Valley Jewish Community Center.
Thanks to tree farming, no one collects newspapers anymore; it's more expensive to recycle and turn yesterday's news into newsprint than it is to just harvest the latest crop of pine.
Of course, realizing that she's become a laughing stock, the stinky-fingered singer backpedalled frantically, reassuring us that it had all been a misunderstood joke.
Riiiiight.
Funny, I thought it was simply the latest example of a celebrity telling you and me how to live our lives, the sacrifices we -- but not they -- need to make for our own good.
Take a look at Crow's contractual demands for her concert appearances, including parking for her three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars -- not to mention the thousands of pollution spewing-cars that clog the roads driving to her performances.
Doesn't seem exactly Earth friendly.
What a hypocrite.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:14 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Will he run?
Cal Thomas' take on why a man not in the race for the White House might have a shot.
I have no idea whether Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, will run for the Republican nomination for president, but he should. He has Ronald Reagan's communication skills and speaks plainly in ways most people can understand. Thompson conveys Middle American, common sense values.
When he is asked a question, he doesn't sound as if he's giving a poll-tested pabulum answer. Agree or not, his statements spring from conviction
There's something else to like about Fred Thompson. He doesn't appear to be lusting after the job as if he needs it for his self-image. This, too, is much like Reagan, who knew who he was before becoming president and was the same after he left office
Fame and the presidency may be about to follow Fred Thompson. That would be good for the Republican Party and, should he win, good for the country.
Based on what I've seen so far, Thompson would leap to the front of the pack, given the rather unimpressive slate vying for the GOP nomination.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A dog's tail never lies
While a wagging tail is usually the sign of a happy hound, if it's more to the right, then you've got a particularly cheerful example of man's best friend.
Every dog lover knows how a pooch expresses its feelings.
Ears close to the head, tense posture, and tail straight out from the body means "don't mess with me." Ears perked up, wriggly body and vigorously wagging tail means "I am sooo happy to see you!"
But there is another, newly discovered, feature of dog body language that may surprise attentive pet owners and experts in canine behavior. When dogs feel fundamentally positive about something or someone, their tails wag more to the right side of their rumps. When they have negative feelings, their tail wagging is biased to the left.
More on the research behind this rump-wiggling theory here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 23, 2007
Are they seized?
Interesting take on today's scheduled arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a California case dealing with the Fourth Amendment rights of passengers in a car pulled over by the police.
Prof. Orin Kerr, regular poster at the Volokh Conspiracy, plans to attend when the Court hears Brendlin v. California; he'll post his comments about the proceedings later today.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Oh, how I hate to get up in the morning
But not quite so much if Jeeves does the reveille business.
There are 50 different versions of "Rise and shine!", all delivered in the plummiest tones one would expect from a proper English butler, masterpieces of dry, droll, sophisticated sarcasm.
I am delighted you have survived another night.
If you will allow a personal note, sir, may I add my own small congratulations to the roar of the world's approval?
Thank you, sir.
Then there's this greeting.
I'm so sorry to disturb you, Sir, but it appears to be morning. Very inconvenient, I agree. I believe is the rotation of the Earth that is to blame, Sir.
But my favorite of the samples posted is this one.
I feel sure that you have slept soundly, feel thoroughly refreshed, and await the day with the anticipation of an energetic gazelle.
Good heavens, Sir, I saw a pig flying past the window.
If you're a fan of Jeeves and Wooster -- or just tired of the nails-on-chalkboard DJ hosting the morning show programmed on the clockradio -- this might be a nice way to ease the transition from dreams of luxury and leisure to the cold, grim work-a-day of us uncouth salarymen.
Discovered via Engadget.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Reaction to Reid
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 22, 2007
You know you're a country music fan when ...
I'm not a big fan of comedian Jeff Foxworthy; a little bit of his "You know you're a redneck when ..." shtick goes a l-o-n-g way. But this monologue from the CMT Awards, detailing why he likes country music: the values -- love of God, family, country -- that seem to be so important to the fans and the musicians, setting it apart from rap and rock.
Buried in the comments to the Hot Air post is this pungent jibe from Foxworthy about the Dixie Chicks, who won the Grammy for best Country Album, despite alienating their country fans with their politically-barbed attacks against Pres. Bush.
… and I understand that all the songs on that album are great, but I listen to country radio, so I haven’t heard any of ‘em yet. Their big song was called ‘Not Ready to Make Nice’, which is perfect, because we’re not ready to care.
I don't care where you're from, that's funny gotta sting.
I previously discussed the Dixie Chicks here and here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Fear of reality
Mark Steyn applies his rapier wit to the broader implications of Yale's ban on realistic-looking swords in its theater productions, an idiotic overreaction in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech murders.
I think we have a problem in our culture not with "realistic weapons" but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already "fear guns," at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life?
Virginia Tech, remember, was a "gun-free zone," formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It was a "gun-free zone" except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody.
Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived.
But you can't do that at Virginia Tech. Instead, the administration has created a "Gun-Free School Zone." Or, to be more accurate, they've created a sign that says "Gun-Free School Zone."
And, like a loopy medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would make it so. The "gun-free zone" turned out to be a fraud -- not just because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world.
[...]
The "gun-free zone" fraud isn't just about banning firearms or even a symptom of academia's distaste for an entire sensibility of which the Second Amendment is part and parcel but part of a deeper reluctance of critical segments of our culture to engage with reality.
Michelle Malkin wrote a column a few days ago connecting the prohibition against physical self-defense with "the erosion of intellectual self-defense," and the retreat of college campuses into a smothering security blanket of speech codes and "safe spaces" that's the very opposite of the principles of honest enquiry and vigorous debate on which university life was founded.
And so we "fear guns," and "verbal violence," and excessively realistic swashbuckling in the varsity production of ''The Three Musketeers.'' What kind of functioning society can emerge from such a cocoon?
The answer, I fear, is a society incapable of defending itself, which seems to suit those elites who relentlessly pursue the ever-increasing infantilization of all Americans, using higher education as a means to finish the years of indoctrination begun in the public schools.
And so the mantra continues: Don't fight back; don't resist; wait for the police; the authorities, with their training, weapons and monopoly on the use of force will keep you safe.
Except when they can't and won't.
Because the hard, cold reality is that each of us is ultimately responsible for our safety, our survival, and no law, no campus rule will shield us from evil men intent on taking all that we hold dear.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Noted in passing
During a recent dinner with friends, one of them referred to the latest collection of high-end furniture and decorating catalogs on the coffeetable as "House Porn."
I thought that was a marvelously descriptive phrase, both for the mainstreaming of pornography in the national lexicon, as well as the way it captures the almost sensual pleasure many people derive from langorously leafing through the glossy pages of these lushly photographed, mailbox-clogging magazines.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:40 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 21, 2007
Now that's lawyering
Richard "Racehorse" Haynes is a famed Texas trial attorney, whose courtroom skills and flamboyant ways have made him amongst the most successfull of modern American litigators.
Here's just one example of how he strategizes for trial.
Racehorse's philosophy toward the defense was simple. He planned on diverting as much attention from Cullen as possible to allow for reasonable doubt to be introduced. Still, his tried-and-true approach was not limited to putting all of his eggs in one basket.
Haynes explained his philosophy years later before a speech to the American Bar Association:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
Said one Houston prosecutor who faced him in court, "He develops several scenarios simultaneously, and when it gets to final arguments, he picks the one he thinks will work."
You've got to admire a man who's not afraid to think outside the box.
I guess you could say he was anything but dogmatic.
Ahem.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Ivy League public safety
Yale has acted to prevent a campus rampage by sword-wielding thespians.
In the wake of Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech in which a student killed 32 people, Dean of Student Affairs Betty Trachtenberg has limited the use of stage weapons in theatrical productions.
Students involved in this weekend’s production of “Red Noses” said they first learned of the new rules on Thursday morning, the same day the show was slated to open. They were subsequently forced to alter many of the scenes by swapping more realistic-looking stage swords for wooden ones, a change that many students said was neither a necessary nor a useful response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Don't you feel safer?
Defenders of Liberal Academia -- a.k.a. the Edjimicated Class -- say they're not disconnected from Red State reality.
Heh.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sometimes a gun is just a gun
A commenter to the post below puts me on the gun-nut ultra-right wing of the blogosphere, before noting:
I just don't understand this almost sexual lust for guns that pro-gun advocates seem to have.
WIth regards to the assertion that folks who like to shoot are trying to deal with some sort of psycho-sexual dysfunction, I'll turn my defense over to a well-known icon of the Left.
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
-- General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
Thank you, Dr. Freud. That was most helpful.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2007
They don't understand the laws; they just write them
This is simply the most perfect demonstration of the idiocy of the anti-gun Democrats, who know nothing about the scary, eeeeevil, ugly, vewy, vewy scawy weapons they want to ban.
Proving that he's not the worst dancer in the world -- despite his performance on last season's "Dancing With the Stars" -- journalist Tucker Carlson nails Democratic New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy on the details of an assault-weapon bill she recently authored.
Check out how the pathetic politician tries to tapdance around the fact that she has no idea what her proposed law means.
Carlson: In February you introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007; it would regulate semi-automatic assault weapons including weapons that have pistol-grips or forward grip and something called a "barrel shroud." Weapons with a "barrel shroud" would be regulated. What’s a "barrel shroud" and why should we regulate it?McCarthy: I think – I think the more important thing is that it also would have banned the large capacity clips that Colin Ferguson had used, and also the killer.
Carlson: I’m sorry – I read the legislation, and it said that it would regulate "barrel shrouds." What’s a "barrel shroud" and why should we regulate them?
McCarthy: The guns that were chosen back in the – in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill but that was the best bill we could get out at that particular time –
Carlson: Do you know what a "barrel shroud" is?
McCarthy: I actually don’t know what a "barrel shroud" is –
Carlson: Oh, okay, because it’s in your legislation.
McCarthy: I believe it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.
Carlson: No, it’s not.
For the record, a barrel shroud is a piece of metal with holes in it, designed to protect the person firing the firearm from burning his hand on the hot barrel concealed beneath the shield. It has nothing to do with how the weapon operates, but it can make a gun look scary, in an "ooga-booga!" sorta way, if you wear Birkenstocks and wear pleather.
Why did it need regulating? Well, don't expect an answer from the congresswoman; she just writes the laws.
She doesn't claim to understand what they mean.
You can watch the video here. I particularly like the diffident way Carlson tells her, "No, it isn't."
You can almost hear him mutter, "Idiot" under his breath.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:17 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Nothing to be learned from the rant of an evil man
I was eating breakfast in the chowhall this morning as the idiots on NBC's Today Show tried to justify the airing of the videos made by the Virginia Tech murderer, with Matt Lauer and Meredith Viera ever so serious, their hushed, somber tones and mournful music leading into the break.
Lauer gazed sincerely into the camera as he told me that it was a difficult decision, but NBC thought the public would be well served if it learned something about the killer's motivations.
I liked James Lileks' thoughts on what is a sociopath, and what can be learned from listening to a man without a soul.
There is nothing to learn from listening to the killer. From looking at him or reading his writings or poking through his background or sticking mikes in the face of anyone who saw him across a cafeteria.
Maybe it’s just me, but when I first heard of the case I thought: sociopath. A modern word for the man without a soul, the man who either had it stolen by deed or smothered in the womb.
I think you can make a sociopath, if you hurt them early enough in a way they can never get their hands around.
Others are simply bad seeds from the womb on up, I suspect. No matter what you do, you get a vacant Narcissus with an infinite supply of masks, a clever manniken who cannot apprehend the humanity of others.
He could only feel empathy for the object in the mirror, and it’s hardly surprising this example spent his last hours posing for the camera. It was the only thing that understood him, and accepted him for the glorious, tragic creature he knew he was.
I may well be wrong, but I don’t think there’s anything more to it than that.
That's a great description of the emptiness at the core of an amoral killer.
As to the videos, I can't help but think that NBC gave the killer what he wanted: immortality, fame infamy, a face and a voice that millions will remember; how many of us have any idea what the victims sounded like, how they looked?
We should burn the murderer's remains and scatter the ashes over a garbage dump, erase him, and forget his name.
Posted by Mike Lief at 02:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 18, 2007
Dinner in Paso Robles
Had a fantastic dinner in Paso Robles with my fellow officers at a little Italian restaurant called Ristorante da Gaetano, which I'm guessing is named after the gregarious owner, who stopped by our table constantly to chat and make sure we were happy.
We started off with the calamari, which was perfect; tender, not overcooked and just lightly breaded, accompanied by a tasty tomato broth with a little zing.
For the entree, I decided on the chicken breast, stuffed with goat cheese, pine nuts and sun-dried tomatoes, in a pesto sauce. It may have been the single best chicken dish I've ever had, moist and tender, each mouthful an explosion of complementary flavors.
It came with potatoes that elicited Frank Barone's most famous exclamation: "Holy crap!" I don't know what the chef did, but these lowly spuds were to die for.
We washed down our dinners with a couple bottles of Felsina Chianti Classico 2002, which proved a popular pick with the other JAGs, who quaffed it happily with the gnocchi, the veal special, as well as the pollo.
The tiramisu was probably the second best that I've had; not too sweet, not too dry, not too soggy, perfect with a cup of coffee. Some of my companions tried the chocolate tart; it too earned rave reviews, although I didn't try the proffered sample. I did sample some of the sorbet, which was unlike any I'd ever had, with fruit mixed into the ice, creating a kind of sweet slurry, cast into the shape of a cheesecake with larger bits of berries to be found. As with everything else I tried, it was simply delicious.
By the time we took our leave, it was quite frankly a perfect meal, for about $50 per person -- including wine and dessert.
Ristorante da Gaetano, 1646 Spring Street (at 17th) · Paso Robles, CA 93446 · 805.239.1070
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:45 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Gaetanos
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:37 PM
I could use a laugh; how 'bout you?
Nobody writes like the Brits, especially when it comes to obits and reviews, and nobody writes car reviews like Jeremy Clarkson.
“I could have one of these,” I thought as I pulled into my yard. But of course I can’t, because I am a man and the Audi TT is so completely girlie that I’m surprised it isn’t supplied with a bra and high heels. It really is Jane Austen with windscreen wipers.
Or is it? If you believe hardline feminists, the sort of people who have Amazonian lady-gardens and wear dungarees made from hemp, then all men are intrinsically rapists and the only reason we don’t actually molest every single girl we see is because we’re all at home beating up our wives.
Males, thanks to their physical size and their muscles and their need to spray seed into everyone and everything, are threatening, dangerous and deeply unpleasant.
Really? I only ask because if we look at nature, it’s normally the other way round.
[...]
Then you have the praying mantis. As we all know, the female celebrates a successful impregnation by biting the head off its lover.
Other examples include the Mills-McCartney, a curious one-legged animal that infests the male’s nest for a short period of time and then leaves with most of its contents.
I damn near sent piping hot coffee spraying across the keyboard when I read that description of the soon to be ex-Mrs. McCartney. Whew.
Anyhow, that's just the windup, as Clarkson works himself up into a lather, ready to do justice to the Cadillac SRX4 luxury SUV.
This is a very ugly car. So ugly in fact that you’ll want to get inside it and shut the door as quickly as possible. But sadly when you are inside it’s even worse.
Cadillac has gone for a half-timbered look with bits of wood nailed to every flat surface, and some that aren’t flat at all — the steering wheel, for instance. Now this kind of thing worked in Elizabethan times. Team it with some wattle, some daub and a hint of thatch and all is well. But polish your wood until it gleams and then team it with plastic and I’m afraid the end result will be, and is, absolutely revolting.
Still, it could be worse, and it is, when you fire up the big 4.6 litre engine and go for a drive. Because immediately you run out of petrol.
Officially the SRX can achieve 16mpg, but unofficially, on the school run say, you’d struggle to get more than 12. Couple that with the £36,895 asking price, and the likelihood of piano-falling-from-a-tower-block depreciation, and this car could well turn out to be more expensive to run than the Iraq war.
It gets worse, too, because it’s marketed as a seven-seater, but it isn’t really. To fit into the rear seats you’d have to be so badly deformed that you’d need all manner of specialist equipment to keep you alive. An iron lung, for instance, and that isn’t going to fit.
What’s more, you can only get into these seats from the driver’s side, and only then if you have no legs, no arms, no head and a torso that can be twisted like Plasticine. Best to push the little button that electrically folds these seats away and pretend they don’t exist.
[...]
The Cadillac? It has no discernible sex. But then it has no discernible purpose. If it were a creature, it wouldn’t be a lion or a praying mantis or even a chimp.
No, I think it would be a wasp — useless and hateful in equal measure.
Man, that's good stuff.
I found this on Joe Sherlock's site, which always has an eclectic mix of postings -- not all of them car-related.
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 17, 2007
GOP stupidity alert!
Someone please tell me this is a tardy April Fools joke: 'Hardball' host selected as GOP moderator at Reagan Library.
Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," will moderate the May 3 GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library, officials announced today.
In addition, Matthews will air one "Hardball" program from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum with analysis of the presidential debate.
"Debates put presidential candidates on the same stage. That's the way voters like to see them, squaring off, testing their wits, competing with ideas," Matthews said in a press release. "It's an honor to be moderating the first Republican debate."
This will be the first presidential debate to be held at any presidential library, and a landmark event for the Reagan Library.
Chris "Say It Don't Spray It" Matthews, the drooling, left-wing host of the low-rated hackfest on MSNBC is the best the GOP could do for their debate?
At the Reagan Library?
Whatsamatta, Keith Olberman was busy?
Given that the Democrats are boycotting Fox News, why not have Brit Hume moderate the discussion?
I'm simply staggered by this stupidity, but then it serves as a perfect example -- writ small -- of why I think of the GOP as the Stupid Party.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Noted in passing
The infuriating use of treacly, "Hallmark moments" music on the news as the anchors tut-tut over the Virginia Tech murders.
Since when did news need a soundtrack -- and such a bad one, too.
And the usually solid Fox News isn't exempt from the madness, with an on-air correspondent talking about 40,000 people attending a candle-light vigil tonight, seeking "catharsis."
Catharsis? The dead haven't even been buried and the nattering nabobs are bleating about us moving on already.
Grieving, folks. This is the time for anger, hatred and, yes, grief.
Catharsis? Give it a rest, sweetie.
Posted by Mike Lief at 03:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The same old story; only the victims change
Almost exactly 8 years ago to the day -- April 22, 1999 -- the Los Angeles Daily News ran an op/ed piece I wrote about the Columbine murders.
I took another look at it this morning, and, with minor adjustments, it's just as relevant today as it was in '99.
THE echoes of gunfire have barely faded in the high-school hallways and already the punditocracy is hard at work. Grief "experts'' and school administrators offer platitudes and reassurances.
Surf the television channels and you find: "It couldn't happen here in Los Angeles-Phoenix-Mayberry-Ventura-wherever''; "We need to look for the warning signs''; "This is the result of our kids growing up in a violent society''; and of course, the biggie, "Why?''
The real problem is that we live in a messy, violent, unpredictable world.
Let me confess my biases. I am by profession a deputy district attorney. Every day I deal with defendants who want to "get on with my life, man.'' People who are looking for "closure, y'know?'' Criminals who are willing to accept responsibility for their actions, "But only if I can plead 'no contest' instead of 'guilty.' ''
There are no easy answers and no solutions, no measures we can take to prevent certain crimes.
An administrator from the Los Angeles Unified School District spoke of how our kids are safer in one of the Southland's schools, equipped as they are with metal detectors.
Yeah, right.
Doesn't it stand to reason that those same teens who at latest count had slaughtered 15 of their classmates and teachers, when confronted with a metal detector, probably wouldn't say "The jig is up, for if we attempt to enter the school these confounded machines will reveal the presence of our weapons and clue everyone in to the mayhem we seek to sow 30 seconds before we planned to begin, so maybe we'd better go home and watch "Celebrity Death Match'' on MTV.''
Wouldn't they instead say, "Let's shoot the rent-a-cop working at the metal detector, too.''
Americans are without question among the most ahistorical of people; we don't know the names of current members of the president's Cabinet, much less any of the important figures of past decades.
Our collective attention-deficit disorder enables us to quickly forget yet another important lesson of history: Since the beginning of time, people have committed the most monstrous acts for the most unfathomable reasons.
If we look back, say to this evening's news, we saw images of terrified Albanian Kosovar refugees, Nike-clad teens and wide-eyed tots who look just like your neighbors. Why are they on the move? Because their neighbors, people they see every day at work, the market, the cafe have decided to kill their neighbors, classmates, former friends.
Does the "why'' really matter?
Why did the Nazis decide to continue slaughtering Jews in the final days of the war, when the military resources could have been used to delay the Russian advance?
Why is it that for every Oskar Schindler who fights evil (a man who also acted for reasons known only to himself), there were millions of ordinary citizens who did nothing, and thousands who whole-heartedly joined in the slaughter.
Closer to home, why would someone kidnap a mother and two teen-age girls, murder them and leave their incinerated bodies in a car trunk?
Why would an elderly woman's next-door neighbor, a man she likes and trusts, help her put her Christmas tree in the trash and then return later to rob her, stuff her in the trunk of her car and beat her to death?
It is not an easy answer but the answer is that evil exists.
Americans claim to be a God-fearing, churchgoing people, but why, oh, why are they so willing to accept angels but so resistant to the concept of evil, real evil?
This isn't the evil of a demon; we're talking Hannah Arendt's banality of evil, the kind of evil that lets bitter little men put on uniforms and oversee the bureaucracy of genocide, the Hitlers and Himmlers and Milosevics of the world, the kind of men perhaps these Colorado killers might have grown into had they had the patience.
Americans are suckers for the easy answer; the painful truths that the rest of the world lives with are best left to others. Turn on the television. Observe this truth: If you change channels fast enough, it's almost impossible to tell which shocked, grief-stricken woman is looking to see if her child survived the hell of Kosovo or the hell of homeroom.
It is as it ever was. Unfortunately.
This morning I heard nothing but vapid, banal, intensely stupid reporting from hushed TV journalists, who interviewed gloriously inarticulate and ill-informed college students from the East Coast, all of whom were quick to mention how important it was for the "healing" to begin.
One co-ed offered that perhaps metal detectors might be useful outside the classrooms.
A college student who was also a resident assistant in the dorms at NYU offered a shout out to his fellow fraternity brothers at Virginia Tech, adding that he was available if anyone wanted to talk through their feelings.
What a bunch of revolting pyscho-babble and pie-in-the-sky meanderings.
The only good thing to come of this is that the killer is dead, saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial and his incarceration.
But it's also noteworthy that the killing continued until the murderer decided it was over. No one else ended the mayhem; he did, when he put a bullet in his brain. Not the campus cops, not the local police or SWAT. Students died until the killer decided he'd had his fill.
And then -- and only then -- he fired his final shot.
Good riddance.
Posted by Mike Lief at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 16, 2007
Mr. Wizard would have appreciated this
Interesting look at the science behind fluids acting strangely. The video is fascinating. For fluidic dynamics theory geeks only.
And, yes, I am a geek.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One man?
One man with a gun kills more than 30 people, methodically, deliberately, in a state that has liberal concealed-carry laws.
Of course, he does it in a place where the law-abiding -- albeit, soon to be dead law-abiding citizens -- are barred from carrying weapons.
Beldar points out that Virginia Tech refused to allow students-- or anyone else -- to possess firearms on campus, much to the delight of anti-gun advocates, who lauded the continued ban as a victory for campus safety.
Worked out really well.
As I read the reports of students lining up as commanded by the killer -- and then predictably executed -- I can't help but wonder how things might have played out if any one of the students had been armed.
Or if they had rushed the gunman; although an act of tremendous bravery, a culture that taught its youth to aggressively confront evil would produce men and women that understood that courage can defeat killers, that he wouldn't be able to shoot them all before he was overcome.
The real tragedy is that we've trained our kids to go to their deaths like lambs to slaughter. I'd have hoped that Flight 93 -- Let's roll! -- would provide the blueprint for future confrontations with madmen.
My condolences to the families of the slain students.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Some things were better way back when
I don't know about you, but I agree that the 1950s got a bum rap.
2. Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1956 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.
2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
3. Scenario: Jason won't sit still in class, disrupts other students.
1956 - Jason sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.
2006 - Jason given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jason has a disability.
4. Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad gives him a whipping.
1956 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy's sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
5. Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.
1956 - Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2006 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.
I don't think it's an exercise in nostalgia for a world that never was; my childhood was filled with real-life examples of this kind of stuff, and no one I knew was scarred by being disciplined, or playing with firecrackers, riding bikes without helmets, jumping off roofs or shooting .22s.
More examples can he found here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 04:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 12, 2007
A gentleman's diet
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article1640930.ece
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:52 PM
This is how Britain fights
Michael Yon -- the freelance American journalist who has become the 21st century's Ernie Pyle -- provides a pungent counterpoint to the cowardly British sailors and marines who so embarassed their nation with this up-close-and-personal dispatch from Iraq.
Lieutenant Colonel Justin Maciejewski MBE, the Battle Group Operations Commander (equivalent to an American Battalion Commander), allowed this writer unprecedented access to the planning details of Operation Arezzo, part of three simultaneous strike and arrest operations in the al Quibla district of Basra, designed in part to bait the enemy into attacking British forces.
In all, 13 platoons would partake, and I’d accompany 5 Platoon. LTC Maciejewski further permitted me to record both video and still camera images during the operation, and to get as close to the combat as I dare. 5 Platoon has seen a lot of fighting in recent months, and had already taken me on several minor missions. For Operation Arezzo, they adopted me as one of their own.
They opened on us with massive small-arms fire from many directions, and RPGs. One RPG slammed into a British vehicle and exploded in the slot armor, but the vehicle took the hit, and the men inside continued to fight. The enemy pounded at one of the platoons with at least one large machine gun, possibly a 12.7 mm, which can blow a man in half and easily defeat British or American armor. But soldiers in that platoon responded with blistering fire, and silenced the gun.The ensuing firefights were vigorous. As more enemy joined and the battle progressed, British elements maneuvered and fired, making adjustments to the plan to mold the fight. With no helicopters above to help develop ground awareness or to help shape the combat by engaging targets, British commanders directed their elements by map and ground-feel. Having no helicopters also left rooftops open to the enemy, adding another dimension to the combat. In addition to small arms, British soldiers used 7.62mm machineguns, grenades, and 30mm guns with deadly focus. As soldiers ran out of ammunition, they dropped back to reload, while other soldiers kept up the aimed shots.
Read the whole thing -- and consider hitting the "tip jar" on Yon's site; he funds his work with contributions from folks like you and me, so we can get the kind of coverage no one else is providing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
When your ass calls for help
When I pulled up behind the farmhouse, I heard a sound that made my heart thump. Lulu was calling me.
[...]
Donkeys are not like dogs; they don't respond to commands. They will do what you want—amble into the barn so a farrier can check their hooves, for instance—but in their own time. You have to make them think it's their own idea. Carrots help.
Lulu's braying alarmed me. I dropped the bag I was carrying, turned on the truck's headlights to illuminate the barnyard, and opened the back door of the house to let out Rose, my border collie and herding associate. Then I hustled—slid, mostly—toward the pasture gate.
In general, I don't believe that animals talk to people, but that night I was sure Lulu was telling me she needed help. She was talking to me. I was sure of it, and it was eerie.
Go ahead and read the rest of the story; it's another great animal tale from Jon Katz.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2007
Silent Simming
http://www.subsim.com/sh4/silent_hunter4.php
There has never been a subsim that looks this good. ... S[ilent] H[unter] 3 broke new ground in the graphics area and SH4 continues to close the gap between game graphics and photo-realism.
The clear Pacific ocean allows the player to see a few feet beneath the surface and underwater views have a distinctive shimmer and distortion, with algae floating by the rocks and seaweeds. Ships, subs, and the ocean look alive with new "postprocessing" effects and lighting effects.
Even with the effects and textures scaled back, SH4 is stunning. It's a great world when one can play a game like Silent Hunter 4 and just enjoy the view of a sunset and shimmering waves from the bridge of a Gato class sub.There's more to "how good" a game looks than particle density and polygon counts. The motion and physical behavior impact how real a game looks and SH4 pours it on, putting the player in a virtual world we could have only dreamed of with SH1.
Everything looks great, moves great, feels great. When you execute a sharp course change, you lose a little speed until the sub gets straightened up on the new course. Torpedo impacts and explosions (which cause the victim to throw off chunks of the ship and cargo, including planes in breathtaking arcs) have the just the right timing and motion.
Your torpedo and deck guns now have more visual effect than the black smudges we are accustomed to in SH2 and 3; now the target will take 3D damage--gaping holes that allow you to peer inside the guts of the target. As with SH3, ships sink in a wonderful variety of ways--bows blown off, broken in two, rolling over keel up, the sudden lift of the stern and plunge to the bottom.Ships are dotted with small sailors and officer, manning guns, depth charge racks, and keeping watch. For the first time, life boats are launched when a ship goes down.
The sound effects seem to borrow heavily from the SH3 catalogue. No complaints here, the SH3 sound effects were top-notch and a hatch closing on a German sub sounds like a hatch closing on a US sub. ... The crew voices sound authentic and vary between urgent shouts and wary whispers, depending on this combat situation, a big plus for immersion.
Numerous audio effects such as the hull creaking, waves lapping on the side of your sub, screws heard from the hydrophone station, howling winds of typhoon sea states, and the subtle clicking of the TDC dials all bring the player deeply into the Silent Hunter 4 world.
I especially liked the destroyer's pinging sounds, which varies in pitch and frequency depending on their combat situation--I got goosebumps the first time I heard them switch to short range pinging.Silent Hunter 4 continues the proud Silent Hunter tradition of scalable simulations rich with gameplay functions and realism for hardcore subsim junkies and fantastic visuals and action for casual gamers. It is saddled with more than a few bugs and was released too early, but there's real muscle to this sim. With great graphics, a standout dynamic campaign, and tons of thoughtful details throughout that add to the ambiance, Silent Hunter 4 is a must-have for intrepid subsim skippers everywhere.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 10, 2007
Another inconvenient truth
Markets are remarkable for detecting and neutralizing B.S. When it's your money that's at stake -- as a bettor or investor -- only an idiot bases decisions on trendy, politically-correct moonbat theories.
So, what does the smart money have to say on the agricultural futures market?
Last year was record warm, this year record cold! April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history.
The Southwest is the one exception, but even here temperatures will cool dramatically late in the week. And, the snow is not over! Short range computer models hint at the possibility of a stronger snow storm from Colorado to Wisconsin late in the week into the weekend. This will be the heavy wet variety.
The week overall is expected to show the greatest change toward wetter weather in two years - another very big negative for retail sales and for early planting of this years Corn and Bean crop.
Weather Trends had forecast this to be the coldest April in 7 years and the wettest in 3 years. It will very likely be the coldest in 10 years and wettest in three.
Global warming. Nuclear winter. The Goreacle must be pissed.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 09, 2007
Sick Squiggy Cat
Bad news today. We'd taken Squiggy to the Anacapa Animal Hospital, where Dr. Burner was treating him for his recent bout with thyroid cancer. All had seemed well, except that Squigs wasn't gaining the expected weight after his thyroid function returned to normal.
Dr. Burner ran some tests; the ultrasound revealed what looks like a big tumor (or series of tumors) along his intestine, with some indications that it has spread to his liver. We're weighing our options, trying to figure ought what we ought to do; the next step is a needle biopsy, to see what kind of cancer we're dealing with, which will also tell us what the best course of treatment will be.
The animals in our house are a constant source of joy and amusement, each with very distinctive personalities. Although a dog guy, Squiggy and Pepper have grown on me over the last couple of years, and I'm taken aback by my concern for the critter. Bogie spends all day in the house with Squigs, and they've become pals, often lying next to each other on the rug, a closeness the finicky feline won't permit with other cats.
I have a friend who won't own pets; watching a loved companion die was so painful that he's unwilling to experience it again.
Yet the unconditional love these animals give us is so complete, their trust so total, that the worry over their welfare seems a small price to pay for the years of happiness they've brought into our house.
Life and death are impossible to unravel; we begin dying the moment we begin living, yet we reject the knowledge that the end is always in sight. Moments like this, when the doctor -- or vet -- gives us the bad news, simply shines a bright light on the approaching terminus, reminds us that no matter how mightily we struggle, we will all arrive at the same destination.
Although I'd prefer a substantial delay in my scheduled departure. And, if there's any way I can arrange it, Squiggy's departure, too.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Pathetic
The more the faint-hearted fifteen talk, the worse their conduct, their unbelievable lack of military grit and courage, becomes apparent.
Check out this excerpt from an interview with one of the sailors, talking about his scarf-wearing female shipmate.
"The guards got really aggressive whenever they heard us communicating. Topsy really put her neck on the line to make sure I was holding up."
That was the last time Arthur saw Faye for six days as they were both put in solitary.
[S]peaking of the moment they were reunited, he told how he wept and begged the 26-year-old for a hug. Arthur said: "I missed Topsy most of all. I really love her, as a mum and a big sister. Not seeing her and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the whole thing.
"Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.
"They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.
"I can't describe how that felt...just every emotion rolled into one. I ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.
"When I'd calmed down, she asked, 'Do you need another hug, a mother hug?' and I said, 'damn right'.
"Topsy said she'd always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.
"We asked to be put together in a cell, but the guards wouldn't have it. She had to stay on her own with a female minder." Arthur, of Plymouth, told how the group were given a stark choice - seven years in jail or seven days' captivity if they co-operated with Iran.
He said: "All I wanted was to get back to my family but I didn't want to let the side down by agreeing with the Iranians.
"I talked it through with Topsy and she wanted to get back to her husband Adam and daughter Molly. As the only woman, she'd been treated very badly and feared for her life as much as the rest of us. The thought of seeing her family again kept her going.
"And being with her gave me the boost that I needed." Arthur told of the moment he and his comrades were paraded on TV and forced to confess they had strayed into Iranian waters.
He said: "A guard was saying, 'smile, smile, smile for camera'. We felt it would help if we obliged."
Six days. Six whole days.
It's no wonder these hardy military professionals broke, having undergone such an interminable ordeal.
It's almost as awe-inspiring as the more than six years Adm. James Stockdale spent in captivity, enduring torture at the hands of his captors, as well as self-inflicted wounds intended to make him unusable for enemy propaganda films.
Six years, six days; whatever. Who are we to judge?
Brit columnist Toby Harden is less than impressed by his fellow Brits' behaviour, the complete absence of military discipline and structure, even now that they're back home.
I've re-watched the return press conference (in which Carman, Air, Massey, Batchelor, Tindell and Sperry spoke). Note how Air and Carman refer to LS Turney as "Faye" (Carman: "Faye is a young mother and a wife"; Air: "Being in an Islamic country, Faye was subjected to different rules than we were.")
To me, that betrays a lot. Officers should refer to sailors by their rank and surname. To do otherwise is an insult to their professional status. But then look at the MoD website in which Air and Carman are listed as "Chris" and "Felix" - this slack ethos comes from the top.
Any sense of a command structure appears to have broken down. Carman stated: "We all at one time or another made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of non-operational information."
He also said that the choice they were given was "if we admitted that we had strayed we would be back on a plane to the U.K. pretty soon; if we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison". It seems clear what most chose.
In her depressing paid interview with "The Sun" today, the effing, fag-smoking (well, she is a matelot) and deeply unimpressive LS Turney states: "If I did it [confessed] , I feared everyone in Britain would hate me. But I knew it was my one chance of fulfilling a promise to Molly [her daughter] that I'd be home for her birthday on May 8th." Oh, so that's OK then.
And that's really the core problem, isn't it? It's no longer about service to country, keeping faith with your comrades in arms; courage, bravery and honor are wonderful traits, but they don't mean anything when it means breaking a promise to a little girl.
Awwwwwwwww.
The last word should go to John Derbyshire, who is in high dudgeon over the pusillanimous performance by his former countrymen.
I am at the point with this business about the British hostages where I really can't trust myself to post any more, I'm so mad. I think [Toby Harnden] is too kind to the enlisted men. They are saps and worms, insults to the Queen's uniform.
One thing the whole business has revealed to me is how it is possible to hate your own country, a thing I never understood before. Not that I hate my country—which is, as of five years this coming April 19th, the blessed U.S. of A. I maintain strong sentimental ties to England, though, and I've been burning with anger and shame at the dishonor these giggling buffoons have brought to their country, the country of my ancestors (all English, for as far back as I know), the country I was raised in. Yes, there have been moments when I've hated England.
I've told this story before, so I hope I'll be forgiven for telling it again. My Mum, Esther Alice Knowles (1912-98), eleventh child of a pick'n'shovel coal miner, in one of the last conversations I had with her, said: "I know I'm dying, but I don't mind. At least I knew England when she was England."
I discounted that at the time. Old people always grumble about the state of the world. Now I understand it, though. I even feel a bit the same way myself. I caught the tail-end of that old England—that bumptious, arrogant, self-confident old England, the England of complicated games, snobbery, irony, repression, and stoicism, the England of suet puddings, drafty houses, coal smoke and bad teeth, the England of throat-catching poetry and gardens and tweeds, the England that civilized the whole world and gave an example of adult behavior—the English Gentleman—that was admired from Peking (I can testify) to Peru.
It's all gone now, "dead as mutton," as English people used to say. Now there is nothing there but a flock of whimpering Eloi, giggling over their gadgets, whining for their handouts, crying for their Mummies, playing at soldiering for reasons they can no longer understand, from lingering habit. Lower the corpse down slowly, shovel in the earth. England is dead.
It's just as well Winnie's gone; seeing England like this would kill him.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 08, 2007
Too late for that
The Associate Press reports on the latest twist in the tale of the Brits seized by the Iranians.
The 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran for nearly two weeks have permission to sell their stories to the media, the Ministry of Defense said, citing "exceptional" interest.
The decision drew complaints from some opposition politicians Sunday who said it could tarnish the image of Britain's armed forces.
Funny. I thought the failure of the sailors and marines to fire a shot; their willingness to cheerfully appear on camera for their captors; to apologize for England's transgressions; to wear a head scarf or a cheap suit instead of their uniforms; and to thank the Iranian dictator and shake his hand did a thorough job of "tarnish[ing] the image of Britain's armed forces."
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Companies that give a damn. Or not. Pt. 3
Continuing their tradition of honoring religious and patriotic American holidays, the folks at Dogpile, the other search engine, incorporate an Easter theme into their logo.
And, as they have in the past, the folks at Ask.com show that they're not allergic to the religious holidays of Christians.
Last -- and most certainly, least -- continuing their tradition of ignoring Judeo-Christian and other holidays popular with neo-con white people, the folks at Google make no changes to their logo.
Hostility or apathy? I favor the former over the latter.
Sure, it's not the biggest deal, but Google is consistently hostile to the kind of token gestures that show respect or affection for the holidays that are meaningful to at least half the country.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:23 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The problem in the pews
Seeing as how so many of my Christian friends are celebrating this Easter Sunday in church, this is as good a time as any to renew my criticism of the lack of decorum, mystery and majesty from worship services -- of all faiths, my own included.
I can't tell you how many times I've walked into the synagogue for Shabbat eve or morning worship, to find I'm the only man wearing a tie -- much less a coat. One time, I saw a father and son wearing matching dirty t-shirts, and there is no end to the teenage girls wearing midriff-baring, cleavage-displaying clothes, flirting, chatting and text-messaging throughout the service.
But it's not just me; Jennifer Graham quit attending services at her Catholic parish, fed up by inappropriate behavoir on display every Sunday.
I am a ruthless church shopper, not because my family spends so much time in a sanctuary, but because we spend so little. I figure if we are going to spend only an hour or two each week in formal worship of the Almighty, it better be a quality hour, one with a challenging sermon, soaring music and no Game Boys in the next pew.
This is why we spent the better part of Lent shopping for a new church. The Game Boys did me in.
[...]
Now, I know there are many people who have meaningful religious experiences inside ugly churches, but I’m not one of them. I dislike modern structures that resemble gyms with crucifixes, with their rows of folding chairs. I want a church that looks like a church; the grander, the better. And this one looked the part. It was both majestic and simple, with stained glass befitting an anteroom of heaven. It was old. It was loved. Surely the people who worshiped within appreciated beauty and recognized its importance in the adoration of the Creator.
I'm in total agreement; the time spent in worship ought to be ... erm, uplifting, doncha think? And there's nothing -- NOTHING awe-inspiring about the bland, utilitarian, sleek, modern houses of worship I've attended. Give me a traditional church, and even if it's housing a congregation that's never experienced the joys of gefilte fish, challah or hamentashen, I can still feel a chill run down my spine, a recognition that there is something greater than the ego, the id, Gen X, Y or Z.
I attended midnight Mass at Notre Dame when I was studying in Paris, and listening to the voices of the worshippers echoing off the ancient vaulted ceilings was profoundly moving, even to a Jewish kid from Brooklyn.
Anyhow, Graham found was troubled by many of the same things that bothered me at my local shul.
But, over the next few months, we discovered things we could not deal with, starting with the attire of our fellow worshipers.
Fleece and denim prevailed, with Spandex close behind. Washing appeared to be optional; ironing discouraged. Men collecting the offering wore T-shirts from their latest 5Ks. Whole families went to Communion in blue jeans with ragged edges that dragged on marble floor. Altar servers wore cowboy boots and Crocs.
For a while, some children were wearing Heelys in the fellowship hall, until the church posted a sign saying they were no longer allowed because they weren’t safe. WEREN’T SAFE? How about because they are disrespectful and inappropriate?
But we were new; I said nothing. These people may be dressed for a horse auction, but at least they were going to church. We would continue to dress up, believing that God (if not our neighbors) was deserving of our very best. More than once, someone would smile at my four-year-old, conspicuous in her smocked dress and polished shoes, and ask what was the special occasion was. “Uh….. Sunday?” I thought to myself, but kept quiet.
[...]
What kind of people expect so little of their children? What kind of priest expects so little of his congregation?
There's a lot to be said for a religion that asks something of its worshippers; asking -- no, demanding that congregants show some respect for the church, for the clergy and for themselves is a small start.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 05, 2007
Rosie O'Donnell: destined for the dustbin -- with your help
Gerard Van der Leun has a suggestion about the best way to respond to Rosie O'Donnell's on-air rantings about the supposed role of the U.S. government in faking the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
And another thing ...
And here's Popular Mechanics' response to Rosie O'Donnell's insane ravings, wherein her conspiracy theory is demolished by men wielding facts and science, which are anathema to spittle-flecked, tinfoil-helmet wearing morons like the talkshow host.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 04, 2007
Examining why they hate us
This is a rough transcription of a tremendously thought-provoking speech given last month by Evan Sayet, a writer and humorist, at a conservative think-tank.
You can watch the video -- it's quite long -- or you can read the transcript in a few minutes; either way, it's well worth your time.
Sayet offers a mediation on his awakening in the days after 9/11, his growing realization that Western culture -- or at least a portion of it -- truly hates itself.
He begins with a story.
I'll tell a story. It's not a true story, but I think it clarifies what happened to me. Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend and you're catching up, and suddenly, he blurts out: "I hate my wife." And you kind of chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together and you know he doesn't hate his wife -- they've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. "Ah, no," he doesn't hate his wife.
You're having some dinner and you look out the window and you spot his wife, and she's being beaten up and you grab your friend and say, "Come on, come on, let's help her!" and he says: "Naw, I'm sure she deserves it." At that moment it dawns on you, he really does hate his wife.
Well, that was what 9/11 was to me. I would hear my friends on the left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd laugh to myself: "Oh, they always say that; they love America." Then on 9/11 we were beaten up and I grabbed them by the collar and jumped up and said, "C'mon, let's help her, let's help America", and they said: "No, she deserves it." At that moment I realized they really do hate America.
Sayet examines a recent phenomenon in the West: the inability -- the unwillingness -- to distinguish between right and wrong, to choose a side, to choose our side.
The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Give the Modern Liberal the choice between Saddam Hussein and the United States, he will not only side with Saddam Hussein, he will slander America and Americans in order to do so.
Give him the choice between the vicious mass murderer and corrupt terrorist dictator, Yassir Arafat, and the tiny, wonderful democracy of Israel, he will plagiarize maps, forge documents, engage in blood libels (as did our former President, Jimmy Carter) to side with the terrorist organizations and to attack the tiny state.
But it's his discussion of terrorism that I found the most compelling, including the inability of Modern Liberalism to recognize the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, let alone the possibility that one can actually distinguish between the two.
Once you belong to this cult of indiscrimnateness, there is no other conclusion you can come to other than that good is evil and that evil is the victim of good.
We all know what standard practice is, in fact, it's official policy at the leftist media outlets to never call Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade, or any of the other Islamic fascist terrorist groups around the world "terrorists."
And you know why, you've heard it a million times. In fact, it's even in one of the official memos -- I forget the news organization, probably the Times -- to the reporters, ordering them not to use the appropriate word. And that reason is "Hey, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are we to employ critical, rational judgment?"
But if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, see, you and I can tell the difference. At least, at a very minimal standard can't we at least agree that in order to be called a freedom fighter you have to be fighting for ... Freedom?
We know what Osama bin Laden is fighting for; he's told us. It's not freedom. It's an oppressive theocracy in which women are covered from head to toe, and unless we all change to his religion, we are considered the offspring of pigs and monkeys.
Quite literally being indiscriminate leaves people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore -- they will call Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter -- because quite literally being indiscriminate leaves them unable to tell the difference between freedom and having your head hacked off. That is quite literally how sick this mentality is.
[...]
See, you and I ... think George Washington risked his personal fortune to personally lead his troops into battle. Battles fought nobly against other uniformed warriors, for the purpose of creating the finest nation in the history of the world. Pretty noble, pretty heroic stuff.
Yassir Arafat , on the other hand, stole his people's money; sent 14 year olds out to fight his battles, battles fought against kids and women and civilians at pizza parlors and at Passover ceremonies and what not -- all for the purpose of maintaining his corrupt dictatorship. Pretty villainous stuff.
But to the folks of the New York Times who have established as official policy that there is no objective difference between the terrorists and freedom fighters, why do we teach our children that George Washington is a hero? The only possible explanation is because he's a white Christian of European descent.
If there is no difference between the behaviors of the terrorist, then why do we teach that Yassir Arafat and Saddam Hussein are villains? There can be no other reason then that they're dark skinned Muslims of Middle Eastern birth.
So when push comes to shove, after 18 United Nations resolutions and ten years of having our airplanes shot at (in direct violation of our very clear agreements), after Saddam Hussein had invaded Iran and invaded Kuwait, bombed Saudi Arabia, and bombed Israel, committed atrocities against the Kurds in the north, and committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs in the south, we finally, reluctantly go to war to liberate those poor people.
You and I know why, because we think. Because we make critical, rational, moral judgments. But to the Modern Liberal, to the mindless, to those who cannot discriminate between these behaviors, the only possible explanation for us going to war is some nefarious "cause" -- because we're evil and Saddam Hussein therefore is a victim. And they will rush there as we've seen, and act as human shields to protect his rape rooms and his torture chambers, because they won't judge rape rooms and torture chambers -- that requires a judgment.
And if you listen to the chants of the mindless minions who march down the streets at their anti-America rallies, which the forged document users and the leftist press euphemistically call anti-war rallies, you can hear their chant: "1-2-3-4 we don't want your racist war."
What race, exactly, comprises Iraq? What are they talking about? They don't know; they have not a clue; it's not a factual statement; it's not an accurate statement.
Wait a second, didn't we just recently go to war to protect Muslims in Kuwait? Didn't we bomb the Christians of Europe to protect the Muslims of Europe? What is this based on?
It's based on the reality that once you subscribe to indiscriminateness, anything other than indiscriminateness is the evil of having discriminated.
I'm trying to find the flaw in his thesis, but it seems to hang together, and meshes with a criticism I've long held about the Left, one that is apparent in the language favored by my ideological opponents: the preference for feelings over thought.
In any given arena, in any forum, one can hear people discussing the most contentious issues -- war, terrorism, crime, politics -- and I can tell you with better-than 80-percent accuracy if the speaker is a liberal or conservative without hearing more than the first few words of whatever they want to say.
How is this possible?
It's easy. If the statement begins with, "I think that X," they're probably a conservative. Conversely, if the argument begins, "I feel that Y," they're probably a liberal. Feelings over thought, emotion over analysis.
Sayet's entire speech is worth hearing (or reading), even if you don't agree with what he's saying. Why? Because it's raises questions that must -- must be answered, because the survival of all that's good and worthwhile in the West depends on an ability to recognize that some things are worth fighting for.
Feel free to leave a comment explaining why Sayet's wrong.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Aw, crap
A drunken driver has killed the director of the best Christmas film ever, along with his son.
LOS ANGELES - Film director Robert Clark, best known for the beloved holiday classic "A Christmas Story," was killed with his son Wednesday in a car wreck, the filmmaker's assistant and police said.
Clark, 67, and son Ariel Hanrath-Clark, 22, were killed in the accident in Pacific Palisades, said Lyne Leavy, Clark's personal assistant.
The two men were in an Infiniti that collided head-on with a GMC Yukon around 2:30 a.m. PST, said Lt. Paul Vernon, a police spokesman. The driver of the other car was under the influence of alcohol and was driving without a license, Vernon said.
The driver, Hector Velazquez-Nava, 24, of Los Angeles, remained hospitalized and will be booked for investigation of gross vehicular manslaughter after being treated, Vernon said. A female passenger in his car also was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and released, police said.
My condolences to the family.
Why is it that the miserable, unlicensed, worthless bastard responsible always seems to survive these wrecks? It's a triple tragedy, really, that two innocent people died, and that one waste of skin survived.
Posted by Mike Lief at 05:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 03, 2007
Justice is blind ... isn't she?
http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/county_news/article/0,1375,VCS_226_5457362,00.html
Ventura County and the state could also see more minority judges in the near future because the governor has made a commitment to have a more ethnically diverse judiciary, said Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the governor.
Criticized for appointing few minorities to the bench, Schwarzenegger is working to prove that he isn't giving lip service to judicial diversity. Earlier this year, he appointed Sharon Majors-Lewis as judicial appointments secretary. Majors-Lewis is both the first woman and the first black to hold the post in California, said Lockhart.
The governor's office has been successful in attracting more minority candidates. Its pool jumped 29 percent last year, said Lockhart.
Judge Colleen Toy White, presiding judge for the county's Superior Court, said diversity is welcome and encouraged qualified candidates to apply.
"We are aware of the need to have the bench reflect our community, and I think we are all committed to doing that," she said. "It is important so when people walk into the courthouse it doesn't intimidate them."
Ventura County has 28 judges and four commissioners, of whom three are minorities. There are six female justices.
Schwarzenegger is going to be busy appointing dozens of new judges.
Lockhart said Senate Bill 56 created 150 new judgeships to be added to the state's courthouses within the next three years. She said $5.5 million was appropriated to begin adding the first batch of 50 judges for fiscal year 2006-2007.
The remaining 100 judgeships will be added to the state's judicial system when more money is appropriated, Lockhart said.
The judge's salaries, staff and new trial courts will be funded by the state.
Minority lawyer advocacy groups say diversity is important because it builds a sense of trust and fairness in the judiciary.
Attorney Greg Ramirez, vice president of the Ventura County Mexican American Bar Association, said the reality is that the majority of those using the courthouse are Hispanics, and many don't speak the language. Judges on the bench should reflect the population, he said.
Ramirez said he understands those who would make the argument that everybody should learn and speak English.
"I appreciate it. The reality is that they don't," he said.
Selecting a Hispanic or minority to fill judicial shoes is much more than adding color to the bench, Ramirez said.
"It is someone who understands the community through their own experience. It doesn't just mean putting a brown face up there," he said.
Alvin Arzu, president of the African American Bar Association of Ventura County, said diversity gives people a sense of trust in a justice system.
He called the governor's decision to appoint Majors-Lewis as the headhunter for judicial job applicants a step in the right direction.
Dien Le, the outgoing president of the Ventura County Asian American Bar Association, said his group would like to see an Asian American judge because there are none in Ventura County.
He said the Asian American population is growing rapidly in the county.
The group is throwing its support to Leah Gasendo; the African American Bar Association is backing Prosecutor Chrystina Jenson. Ramirez said the Mexican American Bar isn't supporting any specific lawyer at this time.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 01, 2007
Pepper wants to be left alone
Pepper was enjoying the weekend, lurking in the shrubbery at the Lief estate, waiting for careless critters to come within pouncing range.
His contemplative, almost zen-like state was shattered by the approach of a creature far too large to be batted about and disassembled into component parts. Not only that, but this goofy beast was going to blow his cover, revealing the location of his lair.
Get outta here, you stupid mutt! Don't you have a ball to chase? Can't you see I'm woikin' here?
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Steyn alert
Check out Mark Steyn's tribute to the only song every American knows.
And if you haven't sung it at least once, in the appropriate place and at the appropriate time, loud and happy with a grin on your face, then you're missing out on one of the last, best, pieces of Americana.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
The triumph of feelings over history
Because history, education, knowledge must always strive for accuracy the lesson plan least likely to irritate the politically correct victims d'jour in England . . .
Teachers are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.
A lack of factual knowledge among some teachers, particularly in primary schools, is also leading to “shallow” lessons on emotive and difficult subjects, according to the study by the Historical Association.
The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education, said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial history, their motives were generally well intentioned.
“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship,” it concluded.
However, it was concerned that this could lead to divisions within school, and that it might also put pupils off history.
Which children of what "races or religions" are likely to be offended by learning about the Holocaust or the Crusades? Why can't the gutless journalists actually spell it out for us? It's all the more insulting that they can't bring themselves to say "Muslims."
They're actually rewriting history to avoid angering the Caliphate.
Is it any wonder that the Brits are willing to let their captured marines be used by the Iranians with only mild protestations of "disappointment"?
The attack on the West continues apace from within and without.
UPDATE
At least the Daily Mail isn't afraid to tell us whose feelings we musn't hurt by telling the truth.
However, the details are even more disturbing. According to the Mail, one of the reasons cited by teachers for avoiding lessons on the Holocaust and Crusades is that the objective, reality-based historical record might contradict what Muslim students are being taught in their Mosques.
Which is the same thing as giving a Mullah's veto over secular public schools. Funny how we never allowed neo-Nazis to eliminate the Holocaust from the syllabus.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One nation?
Before the Civil War, The United States was comprised of the original 13 colonies -- and additional latecomers -- who had voted to join the Union as quasi-autonomous entities. Bound together by choice, as well as culture and language, they thought of themselves as being part of a grand experiment: the first modern democracy.
There was a change in the national zeitgeist after the Civil War; the blood and fire of battle between brothers was the foundry, the hammer and anvil that forged many states into one, stronger state.
Where Americans said "the United States are," after the war, Americans said, "the United States is...."
In the years that followed, including the massive immigration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the melting pot was the guiding principle. It didn't matter where you came from; all became Americans, the sooner the better. And speaking English was the glue that served to bind the newly-minted citizens to their new nation.
While my Polish-born grandmother never lost her accent, her children -- my mother amongst them -- spoke colloquial English, without a trace of the old country. Within a few years of her arrival at Ellis Island, my grandmother had added four new Americans to the melting pot.
For generations, immigrants urged their children to speak English, to become Americans, to begin their climb up the socioeconomic ladder. While the mother tongue -- the language of the past -- might be spoken at home, everyone realized that the future was English.
Our cousins to the North, with former colonies of France and England joined together, were unable to surmount Gallic pride; Canada remained an officially bilingual nation -- aggressively, litigiously so. Commerce must be done in English and French in the Great White North.
And the rest of the world knows it. Business wants to make money, so international corporations do what they have to in order to access the marketplace.
Go to the website for Citizen watches and pick their Canadian division; you'll be prompted to select your preferred language.
Not us, though. After all, America is still the foremost English-speaking nation in the world.
Right?
Erm, not so much.
The marketplace reacts to the reality on the ground. The rest of the world perceives us as a bilingual nation.
And that's not a good thing. It represents the Balkanization of our society. Language can bind us together, or it can keep us apart. The irony is that as the rest of the world speaks English -- the international language of business, banking, aviation and science -- we increasingly cater to the self-ghettoization of increasing numbers of our own.
My grandparents would be appalled.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack