Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

I'd forgotten about the "Osama!" chants during the soccer match; it was appalling then, and no better in retrospect.

And it requires greater understanding and empathy than I'm capable of mustering to write off the behavior of the Mexican mobs as merely the socio-economic/cultural equivalent of teenage angst and a bad case of moral acne.

And lest someone feel compelled to say that it was just a stupid beauty pageant or sports event, there are times when -- paraphrasing Freud -- a cigar isn't just a cigar.

Notice how your fellow citizens aren't trekking across the border by the millions, heading to Mexico, Canada, and that balmy workers' paradise off our Southern coast, Camp Castro?

America: the worst place on Earth -- except when compared to every other nation.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 29, 2007

Cost-benefit analysis in action

Why is the so-called War on Drugs doomed?

David Hardy provides the answer, and proves that a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Seems like the potential rewards clearly, vastly, definitively outweigh the risks.

Take a look below.

This is the bankroll of a Mexican drug runner.

And those are a boatload of Benjamins.

Yep, they're all $100s.

Aye, carumba!

Do you know what the nightmare scenario is for the drug kingpins?

Legalization.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

McCain is McDone

Dean Barnett pens a great opening to his post on the sputtering, gasping McCain campaign.

The general trend of the polls is unmistakable. John McCain’s campaign is sinking like the Titanic after having run into the iceberg of immigration “reform”.

Oh sure, we can expect the McCain campaign and its misguided sympathizers to cling to the occasional outlier poll that shows the opposite much the way Leo DiCaprio clung to that piece of driftwood after the Titanic sank.

But the rest of the Republican Party is like Kate Winslet, desperately trying to pry the McCain campaign’s frozen clammy hand from our own as we prepare for a limitless future.

That's good stuff -- and good news, too.

Read the rest.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The stuff nightmares are made of

The Daily Mail ran a story on a swimming white Bengal tiger, a beast nothing like it's domesticated cousins, who have a well-known aversion to water. The photos -- spectacular, don't you think? -- make the predator seem even more fearsome than usual; check out the look on its face. It makes a Great White Shark look like a koi by comparison.

He looks a little peeved that there's glass between him and the observing humans. Odin, who lives near San Francisco, is more than 10 feet long, but he looks bigger to me. E-freakin'-normous.

The article says the trainer first enticed the tiger into the water by tossing hunks of meat into the pool. You realize we're just bigger steaks to this guy, right? Dinner on the hoof.

You get a sense of just how big the animal is when it towers over its trainer. And yet it doesn't seem as threatening on dry land.

What a magnificent animal. Especially when viewed from the safety of my couch.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 28, 2007

Dishonoring their memory

Check out what happened to the American flags placed on the graves of servicemen in the great Pacific Northwest.

ORCAS ISLAND, Wash. - Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.

Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

The sheriff has this exactly right; the First Amendment does not protect this despicable, cowardly act. Notice how these common crooks desecrate the flags under cover of darkness, when there are no witnesses.

I suspect it's because even these idiots know that someone would likely use force to stop them from dishonoring the flags -- and the memory of the heroes who slumber the dreamless sleep of the fallen.

Of course you know that if caught, they'll claim to "support the troops."

Is it alright to question their patriotism?

Un-American, treasonous bastards.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:08 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Companies that give a damn. Or not. Pt. 4

As I've noted in the past, Google will often mark the existence of a holiday by adding festive images to its logo: a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo; pumpkins and bats on Halloween; leprechauns and a pot of gold on St. Patrick's Day.

But if the holiday is explicitly Judeo-Christian (Christmas, Easter, Chanukah) or patriotic (4th of July, 9-11, December 7), the ever-so sophisticated Google-nauts leave their logo unaltered.

Little Green Footballs posted a list of the "important" dates that Google commemorated by changing its logo during 2006.

Edvard Munch’s Birthday - December 12, 2006
World Cup - June 9, 2006
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Birthday - May 22, 2006
Mother’s Day - May 14, 2006
Birthday of Percival Lowell - March 13, 2006
Winter Games: Torino 2006 - February 2006

Nice to know what's important to them. And what's not.

As is the norm for Google, Memorial Day has gone unobserved.

But that's not the case for a couple other sites, who never fail to recognize days that have great meaning to Americans.

Ask.com has a low-key addition to its homepage, a tasteful, somber way of noting this time for remembering our fallen citizen soldiers.

But my favorite, as is often the case, is the one from Dogpile.com.

Go ahead and click on the image above so you can see the whole thing. Of great interest to me is what it says to the right of the uniformed critters.

We Salute You

Please join us in honoring the U.S. men and women who have given their lives for our great country.

"Our great country."

Not your country. Not this country.

Our great country.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of great importance; it simply highlights the degree to which traditional values -- love of country, the importance of faith -- mean nothing to the people who run some corporations, but still have some meaning for others, like the folks at Ask.com and Dogpile.com.

All things being equal, I know which companies I'd prefer to patronize. Don't you?

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 27, 2007

And another thing ...

There's an aspect of the rush to provide amnesty for the law-breaking illegal aliens in our country that makes me even more furious, and that's the gall of the people who seek to give these foreign nationals not only the same rights and privileges as American citizens, but more rights than you or your kids.

Take the issue of in-state tuition for illegals. If your kids want to go to school in California (for reasons that escape me) and they're from one of the 49 other states, they will pay a lot more to attend U.C.L.A., or any of the other well-respected state schools.

After a couple of years, it's possible for your kids to establish California residency, at which time they could qualify for the in-state rate.

On the other hand, illegal aliens could cross the border and enroll their kids for thousands less than you.

It seems to me that the smart move is to renounce your U.S. citizenship, go to Mexico, sneak back in, and begin reaping the rewards of your illegal status: don't pay into Social Security, lots of fun demonstrations to attend, and cheap college tuition.

What? You won't do it because it's ... wrong?

Sucker

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

FNS: Republican senators want more illegals

Sen. Arlen Spector (RINO, Penn.), tells us that the (Illegal Alien Amnesty) bill he’s sponsoring isn’t an amnesty, before adding with the utmost condescension and contempt,

“Look here. We’ve got 12 million people here, and we’ve got to deal with them one way or another.”

Okay, I choose “another.” No amnesty. Benign neglect. Employer sanctions. They’ll self-deport.

Chris Wallace asks the senator why not say no reforms until the borders are demonstrated secure?

Spector: Blah blah blah. He doesn’t answer the question, but blathers on about process, mentioning all the senators who worked on the bill. Unbelieveable. He’s filibustering.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Rep. RINO, Texas) says the bill is better than the status quo. I don’t get it. The bill only encourages more illegals to cross the border, without doing anything to stem the inflow.

Spector want “more elements of family unification.” That means he want illegals to be able to bring MORE OF THEIR FAMILY across the border, too.

Because it’s not enough that we have Dad; we need his wife and kids and parents and cousins and siblings.

Specter is KILLING me. They’ve got two alleged Republicans debating how many more illegals we need to bring in –- in addition to the 12 million they say are already here.

Not a word about sending ANYONE back.

Pathetic.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

FNS: Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee is facing Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Wallace asks Huckabee about his support for in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens, as well as a host of other benefits he backed when he was governor of Arkansas.

The GOP candidate’s response?

“You don’t punish a child for the crimes of the parent.”

Really? When I send a father to prison because he committed a crime, his children lose a parent; their income goes down; their standard of living declines. Those innocent children are not allowed to keep the stolen loot their father had, even though the property -- cash, guns, drugs -- could be sold and the cash used to enrich their lives.

How is that materially different from saying that the children of illegal aliens -– whose parents broke the law by crossing our border, jumping to the head of the line, cheating those foreign nationals who have patiently, lawfully waited their turn -– shouldn’t be deprived the benefits of their parents’ ill-gotten gains.

Scratch this fellow from the list of Stupid Party candidates I'd consider.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 26, 2007

Memorial Day: Strangers in our midst

Lt. Commander Michael D. Christian, shot down over Vietnam, personified courage and honor while a prisoner of the North Vietnamese for more than six years of beatings and torture.

The surviving members of the most elite fraternity -- Medal of Honor winners -- have come to be strangers in our midst, their warrior ethos at odds with the metro-sexual, therapeutic values held so dear by our nation's elites.

The following excerpt is a litmus test; those of you left dry-eyed, unmoved by it are part of the post-martial society, unable to recognize true bravery and patriotism.

Any man who has ever served in uniform will undoubtedly feel the urge to come to attention and render a salute -- after wiping away a tear or two.

One story that expresses this isolation and comradeship involves a SEAL team ambushed on a beach after an aborted mission near North Vietnam's Cua Viet river base.

After a five-hour gunfight, Cmdr. Tom Norris, already a legend thanks to his part in a harrowing rescue mission for a downed pilot (later dramatized in the film BAT-21), stayed behind to provide covering fire while the three others headed to rendezvous with the boat sent to extract them. At the water's edge, one of the men, Mike Thornton, looked back and saw Tom Norris get hit. As the enemy moved in, he ran back through heavy fire and killed two North Vietnamese standing over Norris's body. He lifted the officer, barely alive with a shattered skull, and carried him to the water and then swam out to sea where they were picked up two hours later.

The two men have been inseparable in the 30 years since.

The POWs of Vietnam configured a mini-America in prison that upheld the values beginning to wilt at home as a result of protest and dissension. John McCain tells of Lance Sijan, an airman who ejected over North Vietnam and survived for six weeks crawling (because of his wounds) through the jungle before being captured.

Close to death when he reached Hanoi, Sijan told his captors that he would give them no information because it was against the code of conduct. When not delirious, he quizzed his cellmates about camp security and made plans to escape. The North Vietnamese were obsessed with breaking him, but never did. When he died after long sessions of torture Sijan was, in Sen. McCain's words, "a free man from a free country."

Leo Thorsness was also at the Hanoi Hilton. The Air Force pilot had taken on four MiGs trying to strafe his wingman who had parachuted out of his damaged aircraft; Mr. Thorsness destroyed two and drove off the other two. He was shot down himself soon after this engagement and found out by tap code that his name had been submitted for the Medal.

One of Mr. Thorsness's most vivid memories from seven years of imprisonment involved a fellow prisoner named Mike Christian, who one day found a grimy piece of cloth, perhaps a former handkerchief, during a visit to the nasty concrete tank where the POWs were occasionally allowed a quick sponge bath. Christian picked up the scrap of fabric and hid it.

Back in his cell he convinced prisoners to give him precious crumbs of soap so he could clean the cloth. He stole a small piece of roof tile which he laboriously ground into a powder, mixed with a bit of water and used to make horizontal stripes. He used one of the blue pills of unknown provenance the prisoners were given for all ailments to color a square in the upper left of the cloth. With a needle made from bamboo wood and thread unraveled from the cell's one blanket, Christian stitched little stars on the blue field.

"It took Mike a couple weeks to finish, working at night under his mosquito net so the guards couldn't see him," Mr. Thorsness told me. "Early one morning, he got up before the guards were active and held up the little flag, waving it as if in a breeze. We turned to him and saw it coming to attention and automatically saluted, some of us with tears running down our cheeks. Of course, the Vietnamese found it during a strip search, took Mike to the torture cell and beat him unmercifully. Sometime after midnight they pushed him into our cell, so bad off that even his voice was gone. But when he recovered in a couple weeks he immediately started looking for another piece of cloth."

Remember our warriors this weekend.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 24, 2007

My grandfather

With a click on the touchpad and a few strokes on the keyboard, I found my grandfather's draft registration card last night, a ghostly apparition on the web, written in his own hand more than 60 years ago.

Cpl. Harry (Weiner) Lief, somewhere in France, circa 1918.

Grandpa a veteran of WWI, as well as the pursuit of Pancho Villa down into Mexico, wanted desperately to reenlist after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But my grandmother, with three children, was afraid he'd be shipped overseas and she'd lose her husband -- and the kids their father.

And so my grandfather didn't answer the call to arms, something he regretted to his dying day more than thirty-five years later.

It gives me a chill to look at the card; I recognize Papa's writing, and for an instant I can recall the feel of his white-stubbled cheek against mine as I give him a hug, the smell of his aftershave, Nana making silver-dollar pancakes, all part of my daily after-school routine after Riverside Drive Elementary lets out for the day and I walk to their apartment.

I also found this, a page from the 1930 U.S. Census.

Go ahead and click on it; you can read the larger version. Grandpa is on line 15, along with Nana and my Aunt Phyllis; Dad and his younger sister, Leona, hadn't yet made their debut.

Grandpa is only 34, a decade younger than I am now, and Nana is a mere 24, a youngster. It's hard to reconcile the old folks I knew and loved with this young family in New York, only a year after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

As I looked at the rest of the page, it struck me that so many of their neighbors spoke Yiddish, were born in Eastern Europe; my roots in this country are relatively recent, yet I can't imagine being anything but an American. And yes, that's my family's original name, "Lifschutz," before Papa and his brothers picked a more suitable, American name in 1940.

Grandpa's been gone more than 30 years; grandma, more than 20. I miss them both and think of them often.

I found these images on Ancestry.com.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

This is how to support the troops

Lieutenant Colonel Bob Bateman describes a typical day in the Pentagon, when Cheers on Corridor Three greet our nation's finest men.

10:30 hours (local EST), Friday, 11 May 2007: Third Corridor, Second Floor, The Pentagon:

It is 110 yards from the “E” ring to the “A” ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls. There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the “Army” hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew. Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area. The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.

10:36 hours (local EST):

The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is an applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway. A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating.

By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class. Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events on Altercation, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden … yet.

Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier’s chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel. Behind him, and stretching the length from E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

10:50 hours (local EST):

Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. “My hands hurt.” Christ. Shut up and clap.

For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway — 20, 25, 30.

Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts. They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals.

Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband’s wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son’s behalf.

No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past. These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home.

This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

Remember these warriors -- and their brothers in arms who sleep in graves 'round the world -- on this Memorial Day, honor their sacrifices, their courage and grit. If you see a veteran, tell him, "Thank you for your service."

Or, like LTCOL Bateman, you could shut up and clap.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Finally, a real Jeep

Although Chrysler is circling the drain after Daimler ditched it like a coyote-ugly, drunken dive-bar conquest the morning after, Jeep is still showing signs of life, as evidenced by this brawny, back-to-basics concept truck.

The last twenty years have seen four-wheel drive vehicles larded with more and more luxury options; leather upholstery, deep-pile carpeting, wood panels on the dash, and power gee-gaws more at home on a minivan than a serious go-anywhere ride.

The only truck that held true to its utilitarian roots was the Land Rover Defender, a plain, no-frills beast that looked like it belonged on the African Veldt, but they haven't been imported to the U.S. for years.

That leaves a large, underserved market segment: people who don't want to pay an extra $10-$20 thousand for a gussied up wanna-be.

This looks like the answer: the Jeep Wrangler JT.

I hope Jeep (and Chrysler) doesn't screw it up.

Many more pictures here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Don't do the crime

If you can't do the time.

A federal judge gives eco-terrorists 13 years in prison for their anti-capitalist, anti-SUV arson spree.

Good show.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 23, 2007

Meanwhile, in Israel ...

This is the reality of life in Israel, what the Israelis endure at the hands of their "Partners in Peace," as Palestinian Qassam missiles rain down on Sderot, a purely civilian -- and Jewish -- target.

How can I begin to describe the experience I went through yesterday? How can you capture the shaking ground, the unbearable noise of the impact, the tears, the screaming, the mothers in hysterics -- how can you, the reader, feel what I felt, see what I saw -- just by reading these words? I ask you, leave your homes, your offices, your classrooms -- and step into this world for a moment, into Sderot.

The first 'TSEVA ADOM' alarm went off as I was across the street from my office, borrowing a friend's computer on the fourth floor of an apartment building. Like usual, we stepped into the corridor -- the safest place in the house -- and waited. 15? 14? 13? I had gotten to twelve when I heard the screaming. A type of scream I couldn't recognize, half laughter, half terror, complete madness. 11? 10? it fell. Maybe a block away at most. Everyone in the apartment raced outside, and it wasn't until 30 seconds later -- when I woke from my daze - that I realized the screaming hadn't stopped. I was about to step outside to join the rest when, 'TSEVA ADOM'. Again. 15? 14? I had barely reached 13 when it crashed, shaking my entire body -- half a block away.

Make sure to scroll to the bottom of the page, where you can watch video taken in the moments before the missile hits; the cheerful sounds of Spring continue -- birds chirping -- until the blast silences them.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It's not too late

John Hawkins thinks the Senate Illegal Amnesty Bill is "harder to kill than Jason Voorhees," with 30 GOP senators still backing the legislation, despite Americans overwhelmingly opposing it -- but Hawkins has faith that you can make a difference.

You know what that means? That means you need to pick up the phone, write an email, or send a fax to make your voice heard. If these bubbleheads in the Senate don't keep hearing it from the base, they will, because they're bubbleheads, assume that the outrage has died down and that it's safe to vote for the bill. So,

#1) Pick up the phone and call your home state senators. You can get the numbers and/or email addresses of your home state senators here.

#2) Call the National Republican Senatorial Committee at (202) 675-6000 and let them know that you will not support the reelection of any senator in 2008 who votes for the amnesty bill in the Senate.

#3) Call the Republican National Committee at (202) 863-8500 (option 1) and let them know you will not support any candidate in 2008 who votes for the amnesty bill in the Senate.

#4) Call, email, or fax Mitch McConnell's office at (202) 224-2541 and tell them that you expect him to resign as Senate Minority Leader if this bill passes.

#5) Call, email, or fax Trent Lott's office at (202) 224-6253 and tell them that you expect him to resign as Minority Whip if this bill passes.

Again, if you don't want to call them, email them or fax them. But also remember to be POLITE, but firm.

Do you want to know what a failing democracy looks like? If the Senate approves this bill -- even though The People -- whom they supposedly represent -- say, "No!", then I think it's safe to say that representative democracy is on life support in the U.S.

Because whomsoever actually likes this abomination -- whether it be illegal aliens or agri-business -- it sure ain't going to pass as an expression of what the vast majority of Americans want.

Get on the phone. Please.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

TANSTAAFL?*

Not always.

Well what do you know -- it looks like the air-powered car is legit.

I previously wrote about the ultimate zero-emission vehicle here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Moonbats observed

I was waiting to see the doctor this morning, leafing through the latest issue of U.S. News, World & Reports, when a conversation across the room made me glance up.

He: Fifty-something, with a pitted, bulbous drinker's nose, gray hair, ponytail, earring, goatee, pda and cell phone on his belt in leather holsters, short-sleeve Hawaiian shirt, khaki pants, Birkenstock sandals (of course) with brown socks

She: Dirty-blonde shag cut, sun-weathered skin, could be anywhere between late thirties and early fifties.

He: I was hoping we’d have a war crimes trial and they’d hang him.

She: Uh-huh. Bill Clinton couldn't get a b**w job, but (said with venom) he can get us into an illegal war --

He: He’s turned us into a third-world nation.

She: Mm-hmm.

He: All those soldiers dying and being dismembered for nothing.

She: Right.

He: And his daughters aren’t in the military; he’s out of touch. If his daughters were over there, it'd be different.

She: It’s so true. I have young sons … I can’t believe people have forgotten everything we learned in Vietnam, the lessons we learned.

He: Yeah, I’m surprised he hasn’t been assassinated.

She: I know, but it seems it’s only people like Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy who get killed –

He: Yeah –

She: Mmm-hmm.

He: I have a bumper-sticker on my car, “How many people died per gallon for your car?”

She: Wow!

There was more but I missed most of it; between my deep-breathing relaxation exercises and the pounding of my heart, beating a tattoo in my brain, I could barely hear the nurse call my name.

That they could so blithely carry on such a stupid, poisonous conversation in a public setting reminded me of the late film critic Pauline Kael's surprise upon hearing of Richard Nixon's landslide victory in the election of 1972: "How can that be? Nobody I know voted for him."

These people are in a bubble, too, happy in their shell of ignorance, stupidity and hatred.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 22, 2007

Next time you're traveling

You probably don't want to have this running on your laptop.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bogie the Rascal

I'm so completely fed up with the dolts in Washington, D.C., that I'm in a self-imposed moratorium on discussing their antics (we'll see how long I can hold out).

In the meantime, if you want to see a creature with greater problem-solving skills than the average congresscritter, I give you my dog, Bogie.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What those opposed to the war need to ask themselves

Great opinion piece this morning in the Wall Street journal.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

[...]

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

[...]

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give that neocon Bush apologist (not), former Nebraska Gov. and U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey. Why isn't this Vietnam-era, Medal of Honor winner, real war hero Democrat running for the White House?

Could it be that the Democratic base doesn't want to hear what he has to say?

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 20, 2007

The Stupid Party's binge

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

FNS Roundtable, with Juan Williams: race pimp

Fox News contributor and columnist Juan Williams just said that conservatives who oppose the Amnesty Bill are "xenophobes."

Because, you see, only a RACIST can oppose illegal immigration.

Sorry, Juan, but just 'cause you play the race card doesn't mean it's true.

Opposition to this bill, with its costs -- financial and societal -- and its reduction (read: elimination) of border fencing is entirely logical, clear-eyed, and racism free.

I loathe all illegal aliens equally, regardless of their national origin. Hell, my grandparents were immigrants -- legal immigrants, who had to receive permission to board the boat back in Eastern Europe, who had to process through Ellis Island, before getting a chance at the American dream.

I married the daughter of immigrants; her parents came from Tunisia and Germany.

So, to say that my opposition is based upon a racist hatred of immigrants?

Screw you, Juan, and any other race pimp who thinks they'll silence the opposition by deploying the left's WMD, the prejudice bomb.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Her most benificent majesty Sandra Day O'Connor

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is exercising her First Amendment rights on Fox News Sunday to say that it's okay for the rest of us to use our Free Speech rights to criticize judges, just so long as we don't go "too far" in being critical of judges.

So she's setting up a website to continue lecturing us, hectoring us, teaching us that we need to defer to wise judges, submit to the judicial ruling class.

According to this unbelievably condescending loon, we can talk about judicial overreaching in some general sense, but if we -- or our elected representatives in the legislative branch -- attempt to do anything about specific judges who overstep their authority, well, that's an impermissible breach of the Constitutional scheme in her august, majestic opinion.

Now she's talking about Iraq, telling us that we need a "consensus" to move forward; that it's disturbing that there's so much disagreement.

Lady, it's a rough and tumble world out there, once you take off the robe, descend from your legal Mount Olympus and start living amongst the rest of us mere mortals.

Sorry you find the contentious reality of America, circa 2007, is giving you the vapors. Heck, not only do we disagree about Iraq, but just about every other issue, too. And I think Pres. Reagan, whom you've just lauded -- and who put you on the high court -- would vehemently disagree with your elitist view of judges as some sort of protected class, isolated from the effects of their often wrong-headed rulings.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Is Lindsey Graham a nut?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-South Carolina) is on Fox News Sunday, insulting the intelligence of viewers with his defense of the Illegal Alien Amnesty Act of 2007.

First, he says it's not an amnesty. Which of course is a lie. They get to stay, and deportations are so severely constrained as to become darn near impossible.

Then he says this is the solution to a problem that must be solved.

Which is simply wrong. The solution to the problem of millions of illegal migrants crossing our border, taxing our nation's medical, educational and welfare systems, depressing the wages for low-income, blue-collar Americans is not by giving them legal status; it's to take back control of our border.

Graham crosses the line from crapweasel to lunatic when he says, "Ah believe that the American people overwhelmingly support this bill."

You do? Based on what? I haven't met anyone -- at least any of my fellow citizens -- who thinks letting these millions of illegal aliens stay in the U.S. is an acceptable solution.

Pres. Bush said Friday that this Senate amnesty is important because it shows respect for these people.

Respect? Have they respected our borders? Have they respected our laws? I don't want to show them respect; I want to show them the door.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thompson on the amnesty

If you haven't yet read Fred Thompson's essay on the execrable Senate illegal alien amnesty bill, take a moment, will you?

Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem – secure our nation’s borders.

But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.

I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break.

We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.

Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do — secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.

You can read the rest below; it's the critique I wish we were hearing from the Senate GOP "leadership."

The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier — at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2007

She's back!

Rachel Lucas is back, along with her grackle-hating dogs Sunny and Digger.

I'm looking forward to her guffaw-inducing essays -- and so should you.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Too good to be true?

How about a car that runs on compressed air?

I'm not quite sure what to make of this; Robert A. Heinlein coined the acronym "TANSTAAFL," which means There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, which might also serve as a paraphrase for the Law of Thermodynamics.

Not being an engineer, I can't say if it's feasible or not, but the site sure does look legit.

Business Week ran an article on the company behind the aircar, and the stats sound impressive.

[T]he first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility.

[...]

[I]t is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.

Refilling the car will, once the market develops, take place at adapted petrol stations to administer compressed air. In two or three minutes, and at a cost of approximately 1.5 Euros, the car will be ready to go another 200-300 kilometres.

As a viable alternative, the car carries a small compressor which can be connected to the mains (220V or 380V) and refill the tank in 3-4 hours.

[...]

How does it work?

90m3 of compressed air is stored in fibre tanks. The expansion of this air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, [an] oil change is only necessary every 31,000 miles.

If this technology works, the oil-producing nations should be getting pretty nervous about their long-term prospects -- and we can finally tell the Middle East, with it's Petro-Sheiks and corrupt royal families, to pound sand.

Which is a very good think, wouldn't you say?

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 18, 2007

Tales from Iraq

Colby Buzzell blogged about his experiences as a Stryker gunner in Mosul for eight weeks before the Army shut down his blog. Now a civilian, Buzzell has turned his on-line diary into a book, and one of his stories has become a compelling anime-style video, with some pretty amazing sound and visual effects.

It's a fascinating first-person portrayal of the stress of combat.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

McCain translated

Hugh Hewitt performed a tremendous public service, posting Sen. John McCain's statement celebrating the capitulation of the Senate Stupid Party on amnesty for illegal aliens -- and then translating it into English for those of us who live outside the Washington, D.C., bubble.

First, McCain's words.

This is the first step. We can and must complete this legislation sooner rather than later. We all know that this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as opssible. This is a product of a long hard trail of negotiation, and I am sure that there are certain provisions that each of us would not agree with, but this is what the legislative process is all about, this is what bipartisanship is all about when there is a requirement for this nation and its security that transcends party lines. I am proud to have been a small part of it.

Now we have the unvarnished McCain, thanks to Hewitt's ability to strip away the B.S., leaving us with what the Senator is really saying.

Deal's done. I am the guy. I made it happen. My opinion mattered, not yours. What I do in the middle of a campaign for president has nothing to do with politics. My critics are all motivated by politics. Since I have already made up my mind, no debate is necessary, so shut up. Republicans especially shut up. This is how things get done in D.C.: You roll over for Democrats. And by the way, cutting half the fence and leaving the other half subject to the whims of the anti-border security bureaucracy equals protecting national security, just like the Gang of 14 was good for the confirmation process and McCain-Feingold good for the First Amendment. So, if you didn't hear me the first time: Shut up. Sit down. I'm your nominee.

What a maroon. Thank goodness we're watching the end of his political ambitions. For McCain, the road to the White House ends at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Must-see video

Check out Fred Dalton Thompson's response to liberal propagandist Michael Moore, who challenged the would-be GOP presidential candidate to a debate on Cuban health care -- as well as accusing the Republican of hypocrisy for his love of (Cuban) cigars.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Steyn on the immigration surrender

Mark Steyn weighs in on the illegal alien amnesty during his weekly appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show.

I think in a two party system, there ought to be one party that is committed to enforcing the borders, and having legal immigration. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to ask for in an advanced democratic state.

The fact of the matter is, this is like all Senate bills, or certainly like an awful lot of Senate bills, and in particular, Senator bills that showboating types like John McCain get their names on, in that it’s a fraud. You simply cannot toss this number of people into an already sclerotic, slow and incompetent legal immigration, and expect it to work.

What will happen is the people who follow the law, and I feel strongly about this, because I made the mistake of following the law when I emigrated to the United States, and believe me, I wouldn’t make that mistake again.

Those who follow the law will find that the people dealing with their applications are suddenly cut to the minimum, and the political pressure from the likes of the showboaters like McCain will be to process vast numbers of law breakers, who will move ahead in the process, while people sitting and waiting to hear from U.S. consulates around the world, people who have done it legally, will be shunted to the back. It’s disgraceful, and it speaks very poorly for this nation.

[...]

I think it’s very difficult to turn it around, in part because of the dishonesty in the way the issue is framed.

I hate it whenever people … you hear about these like protest marches of immigrants, and what of course that means is not immigrants. It means illegal immigrants. And speaking as a legal immigrant, I kind of get insulted when I’m lumped in the same category with people who are here breaking the law, and who project to the American people the idea that an immigrant is someone who breaks the law, and then complains because he’s not getting backdated social security benefits, and his method of complaining is to stand in the street and waive Mexican flags.

If that is what an immigrant is in the United States of 2007, then the United States has serious, profound structural problems. But the fact of the matter is that these supine Senators don’t really want to go near this issue, because they think it gets mixed up with racism, and not liking Hispanics, and all kinds of things that supine, craven politicians don’t want to get mixed up with.

Call your Senators and Congresscritters, let then know that you'll never donate a dime, never vote for an incumbent who refuses to defend our borders, refuses to enforce our laws, refuses to punish law-breakers, who places a higher premium on the wants, needs and approval of foreigners over the desires and demands of Americans.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The stupendously stupid stylings of Rosie O'Donnell

Wherein the reprehensible, libtard celebrity calls her countrymen terrorists.

ROSIE: Because you think that they’re [terrorists] innately evil people? So they just grow up and decide for no reason to kill themselves?

ELISABETH: Islamic terrorists? Extremists? Who blow their own children up?

ROSIE: I don’t like to use the word “terrorists” –

ELISABETH: I will use it time and time again because those are the people that flew planes into our buildings and killed our people. Terrorists. Those are people who were in Fort Dix, New Jersey who were plotting to kill our soldiers in cold blood. Those are terrorists. What do you want to call them, Sweet peas? …. What’s a murderer? A nice guy is a murderer?

***

ROSIE: 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?

ELISABETH: Who are the terrorists?

ROSIE: 655 Iraqis — I’m saying look — we invaded

ELISABETH: Who are you calling terrorists then?

ROSIE: I’m saying that if you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest country in the world invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?

ELISABETH: Are we killing their citizens or are there people also killing their citizens?

ROSIE: We invaded a sovereign nation and occupying a country against the UN.

***

ROSIE: The vast majority of Americans no longer are falling for the trick of the bad “terrorists” who are out there “to get us.”

ELISABETH: I’m not a fool and I’m not an American who is falling for a trick that people are terrorists. I don’t believe everyone in a foreign nation is a terrorist — there are people who believe if you use that word you’re a fool, you’re brainwashed (mainly Rosie), you’re not informed. I believe that there are certain people who are terrorists ….

***

ROSIE: But then it gives the leaders the authority to do whatever they want whenever they want because this invisible, hard to find force field of terror.

ELISABETH: Do you not believe in terrorism?

ROSIE: I believe, Elisabeth, that 6,000 dead Americans from 9/11 and this war is a lot less than 655,000 dead Iraqis.

ELISABETH: But, do you believe in terrorism?

ROSIE: I believe that every human life is equal.

ELISABETH: DO YOU BELIEVE IN TERRORISM?

ROSIE: I believe in state sponsored terrorism. I believe there is government sponsored terrorism in every nation in the world, including ours.

If you really want to suffer, you can watch the video here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2007

Amnesty

Michelle Malkin has a good round-up on the amnesty bill heading for the Senate floor -- if you can stomach it. And she takes a look at the bogus touch-back provision here.

By the way, how about this: It'll cost us more then 2 trillion dollars.

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

ABM

Scott Johnson of PowerLine thinks John McCain's chest-thumping over his role in the amnesty bill has had at least one positive result.

Clarity.

Usually a presidential candidate waits at least to secure his party's nomination before he reaches beyond (sells out) his party's base.

It seems to me that for those of us who have kept an open mind on Senator McCain, hoping that he might pay us that minimal respect, the time has come to check out on his candidacy.

Claiming paternity of the prospective immigration amnesty along with Senator Kennedy and others today, Senator McCain has saved me the traditional buyer's remorse. Pending further developments, I've narrowed the field of acceptable Republican candidates.

I'm opting for Anybody But McCain.

I was there a long time ago. McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, his mollycoddling of brigands, jihadis and Teddy Kennedy -- all but made it impossible for me to vote for the man.

His proud sponsorship of the amnesty for illegal aliens is simply the final betrayal.

Scott's right: ABM.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The law, it ain't what it use'ta be

David Hardy attended the rarest of creatures: a Continuing Legal Education seminar that sounds like it was a hoot. Four old-timers held forth on what it was like practicing law in Arizona way back when.

I particularly enjoyed this one.

One of the presenters had sat on the Court of Appeals. He smoked. They never wore fancy clothes, since it would all be under the robes anyway. He'd been in the Marine Corps and had a collection of tattoos.

So he's outside the courthouse smoking, in casual clothes and tennis shoes, when a group of Phoenix attorneys in fancy suits asks him where the court of appeals is. He replies, that building over there, there's a directory inside, you can find it.

Then he asked them, are you attorneys?

One says yes.

The judge jokes "I bet your clients would be worried to find out you didn't know the way to the courthouse."

One of them snaps "smartass."

As the judges come out on the bench, he's first in line. He sees the attorney who spoke close his eyes in shock and then bang his head on the table.

You never know who you're talking to. Everyone in the community is a potential juror, another reason to avoid being a jerk -- if good manners weren't enough.

Then there's this one.

A tough county judge who, upset by how long an attorney was taking to get documents admitted into evidence, told him to bring that stack of documents up to the bench.

The judge looks at them, takes the stack, leans over the bench and slaps the attorney in the face with them, lets them fall to the floor.

The attorney gathers them up, goes red, opposing counsel realizes what is about to happen, grabs his arm, but with the other arm the attorney slaps the judge in the face with the same stack.

The jury watches in shock. The judge calls a ten minute recess. Then he comes back in and says to the attorney, "you may proceed."

Good stuff. More here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stop the amnesty!

Hugh Hewitt says: Stop the GOP Senate Cave-in: Call 202-225-3121!

This deal -- which takes down about half of the fence that was mandated last fall -- is the result of the McCain-Kennedy absurdity that McCain and Lindsey Graham pushed through the Judiciary Committee and then the Senate and which froze out serious border security as part of a comprehensive bill.

Now the greatly reduced Senate GOP caucus is running for cover not realizing that the only cover they have is to stand and fight for enforcement first in the form a fully funded 700 miles of fence, the completion of which would trigger regularization of illegal aliens in an era of new stiff employer sanctions and counterfeit-proof identification card.

If there aren't 41 Republican senators willing to fight for the common sense solution, the Senate GOP will be staggered again, just as it was by John Warner's and Susan Collins' attempt to agree to slow surrender in Iraq some months ago.

Apparently the bulk of the Senate Republicans simply do not understand that an opposition party is supposed to oppose bad laws, not attempt to merely dilute them.

Michelle Malkin has many links, but despite the obvious anger in the ranks of the party's base, this bill will move quickly unless stopped immediately. Call 202-225-3121 and ask for the offices of Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott or Jon Kyl, the three leaders of the GOP in the upper chamber.

Surrendering half the fence is the first step in surrendering half the seats they are trying to defend in '08, and Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, John Sununu and others ought to be demanding the caucus stop this national security and political insanity.

The Senate GOP can and should filibuster any bill that dismantles half the fence before it was built, and any bill that is vague on the details of amnesty-lite.

The Senate GOP may believe that the anti-illegal immigration absolutists are far noisier than their numbers justify, and they would be right. But the common-sense conservatives hate being told that the best the Senate GOP can do is lose gracefully. They will be the folks outraged by the sell-out of the security fence.

What the heck is wrong with these people? Does the Stupid Party even care what its members think? Get on the phones, people; call the Stupid leadership and let them know you're against, opposed, putting away your checkbook, thinking about voting for anyone-but-the-incumbent in the primary.

More details, commentary and analysis at Hugh's place.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 16, 2007

Bloody hell

The Senate GOP is about to raise the French white flag and join Teddy Kennedy in passing an amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. -- including a provision allowing them to bring their spouses and children in, too.

Hugh Hewitt has seen the talking-points memorandum being distributed by the Stupid Party's leaders; he calls it "Four pages of crap."

More details here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An actor who knows

I always liked Bruce Willis. Now I like him a little more.

"I don't think my opinion means jack s**t, because I'm an actor.

"Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act? You just caught a break as an actor. There are hundreds - thousands - of actors who are just as good as I am, and probably better.

"Have you heard anything useful come out of an actor's mouth lately?" He adds, "Although I liked George Clooney's documentary on Darfur."

Finally, something worth listening to from a celebrity.

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

Why Londonistan?

Christopher Hitchens examines how his childhood home in England has become a breeding ground for sharia, jihad and Jew hatred.

The British have always been proud of their tradition of hospitality and asylum, which has benefited Huguenots escaping persecution, European Jewry, and many political dissidents from Marx to Mazzini. But the appellation "Londonistan," which apparently originated with a sarcastic remark by a French intelligence officer, has come to describe a city which became home to people wanted for terrorist crimes as far afield as Cairo and Karachi.

The capital of the United Kingdom is, in the words of Steven Simon, a former White House counterterrorism official, "the Star Wars bar scene," catering promiscuously to all manner of Islamist recruiters and fund-raisers for, and actual practitioners of, holy war.

Surprising no one, Hitchens finds that the multi-culti left has a hard time dealing with the reality of what has been happening in the liberal heart of the nation. Sure to discomfit sensitive, tolerant, We-Are-The-World types, Hitchens also tells us where to find the source of the poison: in the mosques.

Anyway, you can't be multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews, Britain's oldest and most successful (and most consistently anti-racist) minority.

And you can't be multicultural and preach equally homicidal hatred of India, Britain's most important ally and friend after the United States.

My colleague Henry Porter sat me down in his West London home and made me watch a documentary that he thought had received far too little attention when shown on Britain's Channel 4. It is entitled Undercover Mosque, and it shows film shot in quite mainstream Islamic centers in Birmingham and London (you can now find it easily on the Internet).

And there it all is: foaming, bearded preachers calling for crucifixion of unbelievers, for homosexuals to be thrown off mountaintops, for disobedient and "deficient" women to be beaten into submission, and for Jewish and Indian property and life to be destroyed.

"You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews, you kill them physically," as one sermonizer, calling himself Sheikh al-Faisal, so prettily puts it.

This stuff is being inculcated in small children—who are also informed that the age of consent should be nine years old, in honor of the prophet Muhammad's youngest spouse.

Again, these were not tin-roof storefront mosques but well-appointed and well-attended places of worship, often the beneficiaries of Saudi Arabian largesse.

It's not just the mosques, either. In West London there is a school named for Prince Charles's friend King Fahd, with 650 pupils, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia.

According to Colin Cook, a British convert to Islam (initially inspired by the former crooner Cat Stevens) who taught there for 19 years, teaching materials said that Jews "engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan," and incited pupils to list the defects of worthless heresies such as Judaism and Christianity.

It's a sobering read. And don't miss the Q&A with the author when you're done.

He's not exactly a supporter of Israel (that's dry, understated humor, if you can hear me), but he does have an interesting take on the need for surveillance by the police.

Vanity Fair: From your story this month, I get the feeling you think extremists such as Abu Hamza, the former Finsbury Park Mosque imam, should not go unnoticed. Would you eavesdrop on suspected extremists in Britain?

Hitchens: You don't have to eavesdrop on someone who gets up in public and says, "Kill the Jews."

VF: True—

CH: Someone who's bellowing racism and malice through a megaphone, I don't need to tap his fucking phone.

VF: But you might want to tap the phone of the people who are listening to him.

CH: If the Metropolitan Police are not listening to his phone and the phones of people like him, then they should be impeached and removed from office. I don't think you'd have much difficulty getting that warrant.

Like I said, interesting.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 15, 2007

Debate: Ron Paul

He thinks 9-11 was our fault, that America provoked the terrorists.

Disgusting, appalling, and Giuliani jumped on it, demanding a retraction.

Jim Geraghty finds himself wanting to check out the New Yorker's footwear.

I want to see Rudy’s shoe. Yup, I want him to show all of us his shoe. Why, you ask? Because I’ve never seen a candidate put his foot up another candidate’s tushie the way he did to Ron Paul tonight.

What a creep; with his blame-America-first mentality, Paul oughta be running for the Democratic nomination.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:25 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Debate: Guns

Romney's response to a question about his record elicited an unforced error:

I support the Second Amendment, but I support the assault weapons ban.

You say you support the Second Amendment, but you clearly don't understand it, Governor. And you've lost the vote of gunowners everywhere.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:04 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Debate: Torture

Brit Hume offered a hypothetical involving nuclear weapons, the loss of thousands of American lives, and the potential of more nukes, more devastation -- the classic ticking time-bomb scenario.

John McCain categorically rejected all forms of "torture," and said he found it interesting that everyone who served in the military agrees with him that torture is a bad idea, that it never produces good intel.

Setting aside the efficacy of waterboarding -- not to mention whether or not it is torture -- there's something else about McCain's answer that bothered me.

It's essentially a chickenhawk argument, one that imparts greater moral authority to those who have worn the uniform, and one that is antithetical to our civilian control of the military.

I don't give a damn whether the person opposing torture served or not; make the argument on the merits, darn it, not by telling civilians their opinions carry less weight.

Proving that his military service doesn't prove that he understand our enemy, McCain also said that we shouldn't use "torture" because it would result in the jihadis abusing American POWs.

Ahem.

Because their record with regards to the treatment of non-Muslim prisoners is so gentle. Not.

And if we want to look to McCain's own experience, he was tortured by the North Vietnamese, despite the fact that the U.S. made every effort to obey the Geneva Conventions. His injuries -- which cause him pain even today -- should be a daily reminder that our enemies don't follow international law, don't hesitate to abuse our POWs, and view our adherence to Marquess of Queensbury rules with contempt.

Rudy Giuliani had a good response, provoked by a post-debate question from the always-infuriating Alan Colmes.

If Americans are facing a WMD attack, the president should tell the head of the CIA to get the information, use your best judgement, do what it takes, and the president will take responsibility.

Giuliani (paraphrasing), "If you can't make those tough decisions and be willing to take responsibility for them, you have no business running for the presidency."

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:44 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 14, 2007

Is this the diabetes silver bullet?

My father was diagnosed with a rare form of adult-onset juvenile diabetes during the Korean War, forcing him to inject himself with insulin several times a day for the last 54 years. Recently Dad started wearing an insulin pump, which allowed him to administer small, precisely metered doses through a small needle under his skin by clicking a button.

Although a little inconvenient, it prevented the large swings in his blood-sugar levels that sometimes sent him into severe insulin shock.

But it looks like a better solution may be close at hand, a technological blend of man-made materials and life-saving cells, creating an artificial pancreas, thanks to some researchers and students at Johns Hopkins.

The press release offers hope to people like my Dad, as well as some pretty mind-boggling science.

Johns Hopkins undergraduates have invented a device to improve cell therapy for diabetes patients by anchoring transplanted insulin-producing cells inside a major blood vessel.

A team of five seniors and two freshmen, working with Johns Hopkins doctors and engineers, devised a protective "pouch" that should fit inside the portal vein, which feeds into the liver. This pouch would keep microcapsules of therapeutic cells in one place, allowing them to thrive and send out needed insulin. The inventors say the same approach could be used in cell therapy for other ailments, including liver disease.

[...]

The pouch is formed by sandwiching a porous band of nylon mesh between two concentric metal stents, similar to the ones used to keep clogged blood vessels open. Once the stents are in place, microcapsules filled with helpful cells are injected into the gap between the stents, where they become trapped within the nylon mesh. Blood flowing through the vessel should nourish the encapsulated cells and circulate the proteins, such as insulin, produced by these cells.

[...]

Progress in cell therapy has been slow for several reasons. First, the injected cells are often attacked by a patient's immune system. Also, the injected cells cannot survive long without plentiful oxygen and nutrients, which are not available throughout the body. Finally, once they are inside the patient, the injected cells need to settle in a place where they can provide effective treatment without interfering with healthy body functions.

Something about the device -- described in greater detail below -- reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage, with killer antibodies threatening the lifesaving intruders.

Anyhow, it would be nice if this technology entered the human testing phase soon; I know of several diabetics (and those at risk -- are you listening, Wild Bill?), much younger than my father, who would have a much better chance of reaching their senior years if something like this becomes practical.

Arepally and Bulte have overcome some of these hurdles by working with semi-permeable alginate microcapsules - tiny spheres that surround the injected cells and protect them from the body's immune system. At the same time, the spheres allow beneficial proteins to flow out and oxygen and glucose to flow freely in. Arepally and Bulte, both faculty members in the Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, also have developed ways, covered by a pending patent, to track the microcapsules with various imaging technologies.

They and researchers elsewhere have struggled, however, to keep these encapsulated cells alive within the body, mainly because the cells often situate themselves where they do not have access to a plentiful blood supply. To address this challenge, the radiologists last year asked undergraduates in the university's BME Design Team course to devise a way to keep the microcapsules in one place where their cells could thrive and deliver effective therapy.

During the past school year, the engineering students researched the topic, tested biomaterials and constructed the prototype, designed to fit inside the portal vein. This large blood vessel, about the diameter of an index finger, carries blood from the digestive system into the liver.

The pouch components are made to be compressed and inserted with catheters that a physician can snake into the abdomen through the femoral vein in the leg. Using real-time imaging technology, an interventional radiologist can view and guide the minimally invasive procedure as it takes place. First, the doctor would insert the stainless steel outer stent, which would push out harmlessly on the elastic interior of the vein. Next, the doctor would insert the inner stent, surrounded by the porous nylon mesh. The inner stent is made of nitinol, a metal that snaps back into its original shape after being compressed for insertion. The inner stent matches the interior diameter of the vein. When all of the pieces are inserted, the nylon mesh is held snugly against the inner stent. A gap forms between the mesh and the outer stent, allowing blood to pass through.

At this point, the physician would use another catheter to inject the encapsulated cells between the stents, where the mesh would hold them in place. The tiny openings in the mesh, each about 250 microns in diameter, would allow blood to pass through to nourish the cells and disperse helpful proteins. But the openings are too small to allow the microcapsules to escape.

In lab tests using latex tubing to represent a vein, the students used ultrasound imaging to confirm that fluid can flow smoothly through the mesh and can spread the microcapsules throughout pouch. They also demonstrated that the device causes no pressure drop in the model blood vessels and that the microcapsules can easily be injected and withdrawn.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Unbelievable shot

And they say bowlers aren't athletes.

Hmmph.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

What hath the Stupid Party wrought?

The GOP (commonly known in my house as The Stupid Party) seems to be doing everything in its members' power to ensure that people who might ordinarily consider themselves conservatives -- and thus prospective members -- run as fast as they can from identificiation with the Party.

The folks at Galley Slaves wonder if the performance of the President is adding to the effect.

The Wages of Bushism?

Charles Barkley--who might as well be Cincinnatus in my book--now says he isn't a Republican (and never was). He says a lot of other things, too.

I wonder if we'll be seeing more of this in the next couple years: People who are basically conservative being repulsed from the Republican party in general by the incompetence of the Bush administration?

Given the abysmal performance of the Congressional Republicans, as well as the gasping, sputtering end to the Bush term, it seems like a reasonable prediction.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 13, 2007

Mark Steyn on Fat Al Sharpton -- and Mormons, too

Columnist Mark Steyn raises a fascinating angle on the future of race and religious relations in American -- inspired by the loathesome Al Sharpton -- during his weekly discussion of current events on Hugh Hewitt's radio show.

HH: Well now, let’s turn to politics. Al Sharpton managed to slander all the Mormons in America, including the one who plays on the Rutgers basketball team this week, by saying they don’t believe in God. Did you follow that story?

MS: Yes, I did. You know, what is disgraceful is that we actually have to talk about Al Sharpton as a figure of consequence in American public life, because this is a disgusting man. And I resent the way you’re obliged to say the Reverend Al Sharpton every time you mention him, because in a sense, he’s a political figure for whom this is a kind of handle of convenience, yet we are obliged to take with great respect his own religious identity when he doesn’t accord the similar respect to those of other faiths. And I think this was a stupid and ignorant remark.

The fact of the matter is, I’ve become a big demography bore as you know, Hugh. The fact of the matter is that Mormons have one of the fastest, highest fertility rates in this country.

Simply put, Mormons are on course to overtake blacks as a percentage of the American population in a couple of decade’s time. It will not be possible when Mormons are running for public office to make these kind of cheap insults about them.

I've never heard anyone raise that point, proving once again that Steyn provides a very different take on what's happening, far beyond the pap you'll read in the local fish wrap.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Rudy breaks a sweat

Chris Wallace is interviewing Rudy Giuliani on Fox News Sunday, and -- to put it charitably -- the former mayor isn't doing well.

Wallace is pressing him on a variety of issues -- including abortion and Iraq -- and Giuliani is struggling to provide answers that square the circle and falling short.

Sweat is beading on his upper lip, glistening on his forehead, and I don't think it's because it's unduly warm in Tyler, Texas, where the interview is being conducted; Chris Wallace is in the same room, and he looks cool as a cucumber.

Okay, back from the commercial break and someone has clearly been working on the mayor, mopping his brow.

Wallace asks Giuliani about his fiscal record as mayor, when New York's spending ballooned, as well as the fact that Giuliani sued the Clinton Administration over the President's use of the line-item veto -- which was ultimately held to be unconstitutional.

Rudy maintains his bona fides as a fiscal conservative, as well as a strict-constructionist on the Constitution.

Guns: Wallace notes that Giuliani backed the Clinton-era gun control strategies, including holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed with their products -- a profoundly unconservative theory of personal liability.

Giuliani offers a weak defense, cliaming to be a strong advocate for gunowners' rights, with nothing to back up the assertion.

Illegal immigration: Wallace says Giuliani's positions on the issue are 180-degrees out as a presidential candidate from what they were as mayor.

Giuliani says he had to take a different tack because of the practical problems of running a city with a large number of illegals, making sure that their children could go to school instead of sitting at home; seek medical treatment instead of spreading diseases; and report crime to the cops without fear of deportation.

Thanks to the wonders of Hi-Def, I can see that Giuliani's finger nails are long; I'm just saying.

All in all, I don't think it was a great performance, and won't do much to quiet his critics.

UPDATE

The panel chimes in.

Brit Hume: I think he got tangled up in this issue ... but can get past it. Pro-choice with restrictions is his postion. The question facing the voter is, "Which is more important: 9-11 or abortion?"

Bill Kristol: I think he's good at making his case. Will he be sufficiently superior to McCain and Thompson on terrorism and economics to get the nomination desite his stand on abortion?

Juan Williams: There's blood in the water. The other candidates are going to be all over him at the next debate. Guns, gays -- Rudy Giuliani is out of the Republican mainstream on all these issues.

Holy smokes! I agree about something -- anything! -- with Juan Williams. I guess it's true; a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 11, 2007

This Brit's got stones -- big ones!

I don't know who this gent is, but he delivers a blistering attack on the jihadis, Muslim militants, hypocritcal clerics, the Koran and Islam in general, all in a tone reminiscent of John Cleese at his most indignant.

A few choice excerpts.

But because we live in a liberal democracy, and therefore have certain double-standards to maintain, any criticism of Islam or of Muslims always draws the immediate accusation of Islamophobia, a dishonest word which seeks to portray legitimate comment as some kind of hate crime, when the truth is that Islam has a chip on its shoulder the size of a mosque and it looks to take offense at every opportunity.

Some Muslims, it seems are almost permanently offended about something or other, and yet you never hear a peep out of any of these people when some young Muslim girl is murdered for bringing dishonor upon her insane family – suddenly, everyone’s looking at the floor then.

[...]

Also, I think Muslim women in Britain who cover their faces are mentally ill. Now I realize that in some parts of the world women don’t actually have any choice in this matter, governed, as they are, by primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis in one hand and a Koran in the other.

But it just seems to me that if God had intended you to cover your face, then, in his wisdom, he would have provided you with a flap of skin for the purpose.

Of course if it gave you any sexual pleasure, it would have to be removed. That goes without saying.

You can read the whole thing by clicking the link below, or you can just watch the video -- it's much better hearing the delivery, which adds a frisson of sarcasm, anger and even a bit of humor to the words.

Good show!

If you can't view it here, try going here.

Hi, I’d like to say a few things about Islam, if I may.

Now, here in the U.K., religion was always pretty dormant, until Muslims came along and started burning books and passing death sentences and generally demanding special treatment for no good reason.

But they’ve shown everybody else what can be achieved by bullying and intimidation. So now, every crackpot in the country feels entitled to respect for their precious beliefs, beliefs often lifted wholesale from the ramblings of some ancient desert nomad with a psychological disorder

It does seem quite ironic to me that the very people who have clearly made no attempt to think for themselves are always the most vocal in demanding respect for their ideas.

But some Muslims go further than this and claim that they’re being victimized in British society – but I don’t really believe that’s true. I do think a lot of people are getting fed up with hearing about Muslims all the time, and they wish that Muslims would just shut up and get on with their lives instead of constantly bellyaching about nothing, but that’s not the same as being victimized.

But because we live in a liberal democracy, and therefore have certain double-standards to maintain, any criticism of Islam or of Muslims always draws the immediate accusation of Islamophobia, a dishonest word which seeks to portray legitimate comment as some kind of hate crime, when the truth is that Islam has a chip on its shoulder the size of a mosque and it looks to take offense at every opportunity.

Some Muslims, it seems are almost permanently offended about something or other, and yet you never hear a peep out of any of these people when some young Muslim girl is murdered for bringing dishonor upon her insane family – suddenly, everyone’s looking at the floor then.

They keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace, but all the evidence points to a religion of war. Its holy book urges Muslims to conquer the world and subjugate everyone to the rule of God.

If Islam had its way, elections would become a thing of the past, and the rest of us would be living in the past – for the foreseeable future.

And some people are very keen to bring this situation about -- especially the loudmouth, rabble-rousing Islamic clerics who we always hear praising the suicide bombers as “glorious martyrs.”

And yet curiously you never hear about any of these enthusiasts blowing themselves up for the glory of God. They’re always very keen to delegate that particular honor

Despite the guarantee of all those luscious virgins waiting for them in heaven, these guys are so selfless, that they can always find somebody more deserving.

Now, of course, the whole 72 virgins scenario has become something of a comedy staple, and with good reason. But it does have one serious problem, and that is that the virgins are likely to be good, wholesome, Islamic virgins, because there won’t be any infidel riffraff in heaven.

So, presumably they’ll have brothers and cousins and uncles who are all determined to defend their honor by killing anyone who makes eye contact with them. They haven’t really thought this whole thing through, it seems to me. For this they blow themselves up? Wouldn’t it be easier just to get an inflatable woman and blow her up? And then, if one of your friends happens to glance at her with lustful eyes, why you can simply stone her to death and get another one in the usual way.

Also, I think Muslim women in Britain who cover their faces are mentally ill. Now I realize that in some parts of the world women don’t actually have any choice in this matter, governed, as they are, by primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis in one hand and a Koran in the other.

But it just seems to me that if God had intended you to cover your face, then, in his wisdom, he would have provided you with a flap of skin for the purpose.

Of course if it gave you any sexual pleasure, it would have to be removed. That goes without saying.

But I don’t want to be too hard on Islam here for two reasons.

Firstly, because I don’t want to be murdered by some hysterical, self-righteous, carpet-chewing, book-burning Muppet with shit for brains.

And secondly, I think we do need to make allowances for Islam, because we have to remember that it is quite a young religion, so, maybe right now, it’s just going through a difficult age. A little headstrong, full of itself, thinks it knows all the answers, but I’m sure it’ll learn.

I think, years from now, a lot of intelligent Muslims will be looking back on all this medievalism and jihad nonsense with embarrassment and shame.

Like the Germans do with the Nazis. And maybe then, we can all have a good laugh about it.

But, in the meantime, I think that any religion that demands earthly vengeance and retribution for any reason is not really a religion at all, but an illness, and should be treated as such.

Peace, and I mean that, most sincerely.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Where do you read about heroes?

Well, if by "Hero" you mean something other than a crusader for Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-GlobalWarming-LaRaza-IllegalImmigration-AmericaHatred-BushDerangment issues, it won't be in the daily newspaper or the TV newscasts.

Try Reader's Digest.

Yeah, I know, today's sophisticates sneer at the little magazine found in doctors' waiting rooms -- and on coffeetables in your grandparents' homes. But Reader's Digest is still popular with middle-America, traditional-values folks, because of regular features like Humor in Uniform, Unforgettable Characters, and profiles of heroes like Jeff May.

What's that? You've never heard of Jeff? I'm not surprised. What did he do to merit your attention?

Well, Jeff was a 15-year-old student when another teen, armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber pistol and a .40 caliber semi-automatic, walked into his classroom and murdered his teacher, then began shooting the students.

And Jeff jumped up and attacked the gunman.

With a pencil.

Although gravely wounded, he gave his classmates time to get away.

Read about this remarkable teen courtesy of that ever-so-square Reader's Digest; you won't find word one about him anywhere else.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reparations for the Chamorros

My post on Congress voting to pay reparations for Japanese war crimes drew this comment:

Of course I could be wrong, but I think the reason the US is paying this is that our peace treaty with Japan (the one that ended the occupation, not the Unconditional Surrender) cut off such claims against the Japanese. It is either the US or no one who pays.

This is kind of similar to the situation regarding the claims in Europe against the Nazis.

That, of course, does not answer the question if whether the Guamanians should be compensated in the first place.

If the choice is, as stated, "It is either the US or no one who pays," I'll take the latter.

To the extent that there's an argument the Chamorro people should be compensated, let them petition the Japanese for reparations. That there is a sixty-year-old treaty releasing the Japanese from legal responsibility doesn't also free them from the moral burden of their conduct.

The Japanese are free to pay reparations -- even though not legally obligated to do so -- should they so desire.

And if the Chamorros can make a compelling argument, don't you think the Japanese would compensate them, if for no other reason than to shut them up?

But whether or not the Japanese choose to pay for their crimes, you and I are under no obligation to pay their victims for their misdeeds.

War is a nasty, brutal affair; that's why it's called "war" and not "beer and pretzels" or "tailgate party."

It's a shame that the Chamorros were brutalized by the Japanese. But it isn't our fault. And it's not our place to beg forgiveness -- or to soothe their wounds with our greenbacks.

And, by the way, Congress passed the bill, which now goes to the Senate. What the hell, it's only $126,000,000.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

State of our Nation

When I was in Mrs. Cortwright's kindergarten class many years ago at Riverside Drive Elementary School, we took part in activities that would seem bizarrely old-fashioned to today's kids.

In that low-tech, Baby-Boom era, we viewed film-strips, threaded through big, crinkle-finish metal projectors, then waited for our teacher to place the needle on the well-worn long-playing records that provided the soundtrack; the crackles, pops and hisses serving as an intro to the booming, stentorian voice of the narrator.

And then there was the BONG that signaled it was time to turn to the next picture.

But it wasn't all static images; we had movies, too, usually produced by industry groups, featuring white-coat clad scientists and engineers, telling us about the wonders of Milk! Plastics! Trains! Nuclear Power! I loved the clackety-clack of the sprockets being pulled thought those old Bell & Howell 16-mm projectors, the splices from past breaks making the image jump.

And then there were the holidays: Labor Day, Armistice Day, Thanksgiving, Chanukah, Christmas, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Easter.

We learned about the Pilgrims, the important presidents, and participated in the annual Christmas Show. I got on stage with the other pee-wees and sang "Up On the Roof Top," "Jingle Bells," "We Wish You a Merry Christmas," and "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel."

Although a Jewish kid from Brooklyn, neither I nor my parents ever expressed any discomfort with the emphasis on Christmas tunes -- and I was never bothered by the idea of joining in the festivities.

I particularly remember Thanksgiving. Mrs. Cortwright told us all about the Indians and the Pilgrims, and we had all sorts of arts and crafts projects, decorating the classroom with construction-paper Pilgrim hats and Indian headdresses.

We also made the classic kindergarten turkeys, tracing the outline of our spread-fingered hands to make the bodies, then gluing yarn along the edges, adding heads and feet.

The class, filled with kids of all races -- from many countries, too -- was well on its way to making us all little Americans.

And that was a good thing.

Speaking of Thanksgiving, let's flash forward in time about 40 years to last fall, when Maricopa County Community College District Professor Walter Kehowski sent his colleagues an e-mail with the text of George Washington’s “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789.”

Some people complained about his provocative actions, and now the college is trying to fire him.

Welcome to the new-and-improved America.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 10, 2007

LAPD: No good deed goes unpunished

Want to know what happens to smart, aggressive, courageous -- no, wait, make that heroic -- cops who police the streets of Los Angeles?

Well, they get citations for valor from Gov. Schwarzenegger. They also get investigated, Monday-morning quarterbacked and sanctioned by the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners.

Then they leave.

Which explains why more than 60 percent of officers with more than five-years' experience have quit the LAPD.

And it also explains the ongoing farce unfolding in the aftermath of the MacArthur Park illegal-immigation-rights riot.

Patterico has an infuriating account of the ordeal two officers endured after they confronted a violent gangster; good cops disciplined, driven into the welcoming arms of other cities by the craven, finger-in-the-wind "leadership" of Chief William Bratton.

The amazing subtext is the amount of power the criminal lobby has amassed, courtesy of the race pimps who dominate local politics in the City of Angels.

In L.A., the complaints and second-guessing create a paranoid ambiance that causes officers to prioritize political perceptions over capturing criminals — and even their own safety.

“I know a lot of cops who don’t carry batons,” said a South L.A. gang investigator who refused to be identified in print, fearing LAPD retribution. “They’d rather watch a crook run away than risk a fight,” he explained.

“Gangsters ask me why I don’t carry one and I say ‘I’m not gonna end up on YouTube. If you want to fight me, we’ll do it with fists.’”

It's a great essay, telling yet another important story the Los Angeles Times can't be bothered to publish; check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 08, 2007

Rule Brittania!

The Brits are beginning to give the public a glimpse of their newest class of nuke sub, the Astute, featuring the latest in submarine technology -- albeit in the nuclear propulsion area. The Germans are leading the way in non-nuclear powerplants with their U-212A Class boats.

Carrying the American-designed nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles, the sub will be able to cruise the seas for more than 25 years without refueling, limited only by the need of the crew for food and an occasional glimpse of the sun.

That bit about refueling isn't really very newsworthy, even though folks outside the submarine community are still amazed by it; American subs have featured reactors good for the life of the sub for more than twenty years.

The big breakthroughs are in improved sonar capabilities, stealthier propulsion units, as well as increased automation, reducing the number of men needed to operate the boats -- the human factor being the key limitation in how long the subs can remain on patrol.

The first boat should be operational in 2009, with surrender and transfer to the Iranians likely during the inaugural deployment to the Middle East.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 07, 2007

The Democrats idiots in Congress have finally hit bottom

Take a look at House Resolution 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act. It would allocate $126 million dollars to compensate Guamanians -- or their surviving spouses or children -- who were the victims of war crimes.

The United States recognizes that, as described by the Guam War Claims Review Commission, the residents of Guam, on account of their United States nationality, suffered unspeakable harm as a result of the occupation of Guam by Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II, by being subjected to death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment.

[...]

(1) RESIDENTS INJURED- The Secretary shall pay compensable Guam victims who are not deceased before any payments are made to individuals described in paragraphs (2) and (3) as follows:
(A) If the victim has suffered an injury described in subsection (c)(2)(A), $15,000.
(B) If the victim is not described in subparagraph (A) but has suffered an injury described in subsection (c)(2)(B), $12,000.
(C) If the victim is not described in subparagraph (A) or (B) but has suffered an injury described in subsection (c)(2)(C), $10,000.

(2) SURVIVORS OF RESIDENTS WHO DIED IN WAR- In the case of a compensable Guam decedent, the Secretary shall pay $25,000 for distribution to eligible survivors of the decedent as specified in subsection (b). The Secretary shall make payments under this paragraph after payments are made under paragraph (1) and before payments are made under paragraph (3).

(3) SURVIVORS OF DECEASED INJURED RESIDENTS- In the case of a compensable Guam victim who is deceased, the Secretary shall pay $7,000 for distribution to eligible survivors of the victim.

"Sounds like reparations," you say.

You are correct. The Democrats -- and some members of the Stupid (GOP) Party, too -- are asking you and me to pay reparations for war crimes committed by the Japanese.

Let me say it again, because it's so stupendously stupid that I still can't believe it.

U.S. taxpayers should foot the bill for war crimes committed by our enemies.

It takes self-loathing, America-hating to an all-time high (or low, depending on your point of view).

Red State lists all the American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who were killed or wounded fighting the Japanese on Guam. It's a long list, written in the blood and sweat of our fighting men.

If one were moved to spend $126,000,000 compensating the victims of the Imperal Japanese military, then the right people to compensate would be the aging -- and rapidly vanishing -- members of the Greatest Generation, and their survivors.

This disgusting proposal, the handiwork of, among others, Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer, is a slap in the face to the surviving veterans and their families. But it perfectly captures the worldview of the Democrats: We are the enemy. It doesn't matter who actually committed the atrocities, because the United States is at fault, and we'll pay those slain, wounded, maimed or raped by our enemies from the bottomless well that resides in the pockets of the American taxpayers.

Why? To assuage our guilt.

Guilt for what? For being Americans.

My contempt for the politicians who dreamed up this garbage is limitless.

UPDATE

Well, here's the list of the idiots who co-sponsored the bill:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1]
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5]
Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1]
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Davis, Susan A. [CA-53]
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS]
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR]
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5]
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1]
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3]
Rep Rehberg, Dennis R. [MT]
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23]
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Scott, Robert C. [VA-3]
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5]
Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4]
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]
Rep Young, Don [AK]

I noticed that Elton Gallegly, the Republican from my district, has added his name to this idiocy. I'm disappointed -- to say the least -- and can only wonder what kind of whoreshorsetrading went on behind closed doors to get him to join the party.

Trust me, I'm going to call his office to complain, and you should call your conrgresscritters too; we can kill this thing.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Lead, follow, or get out of the way

It doesn't get more to-the-point than this message to the Democrats, courtesy of Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive.

You can't end a war, you can only win it or lose it. Movies end, meetings end, wars are won or lost and the cost associated makes that a vital distinction. So if you want to end this war that is causing you so much angst and anguish then grow a pair and vote to lose it now. Rescind the President's authority to conduct the war and shut off the funding immediately.

If not, then STFU and stay out of the godamn way! We are trying to end it too, just by winning.

Have you signed the petition yet?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The judge, the Korean cleaners, and the $65million pants

One of the folks at Patterico's blog has some interesting thoughts and background information on the $65-million-dollar lawsuit filed against a Korean-owned dry-cleaner by an administrative law judge -- because they lost his pants.

As Justin Levine notes, the outrageous legal action is allowed under a statute very similar to the one we used to have in California -- until it was amended via the initiative process.

California voters fixed the problem because the legislature was unwilling to go against the trial lawyers. As a result, these kind of abusive shakedowns are no longer common in my neck of the woods -- no thanks to the pols.

And you wonder why so many special interest groups want to do away with the initiative process?

Levine also notes there may be a racial angle to the story; the judge is Black, and there's been a long, contentious history between Asian immigrants and the Black community (remember the Korean stores targeted during the L.A. riots?).

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 06, 2007

Sean Penn meets his match

This is priceless. Sean Penn receives a point-by-point rebuttal to one of his looney Bush-hating speeches.

From a 15-year-old girl.

This video is not to be missed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Well, I guess I know what tonight's nightmare will be

Hoo, boy, this doesn't make for sweet dreams.

ALBANY, Ore. — A 9-year-old boy who complained of an earache was a little surprised when the doctor told him that a pair of spiders had tried to make a home out of him.

"They were walking on my eardrums," said Jesse Courtney.

One of the spiders was still alive after the doctor flushed the fourth-grader's left ear canal.

His mother, Diane Courtney, said her son insisted he kept hearing a faint popping in his ear — "like Rice Krispies" — before the earache sent them to the doctor.

Dr. David Irvine said it looked like the boy had something in his ear when he examined him, but he could not immediately identify it. So he irrigated the ear, and the first spider came out, dead. The other spider took a second dousing before it emerged, still alive. Both were about the size of a pencil eraser.

I knew a Navy SEAL who could kill you with dental floss and one of those little umbrellas that come in fruity alcoholic drinks with silly names.

The only thing that gave him the heebie-jeebies was spiders.

I always knew I had something in common with those special forces types.

Spiders. Living. In. Your. Ears.

Mommy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kent State: The context changes everything

Joe Sherlock notes a Class-A Cranky Rant from the Relapsed Catholic (aka Kathy Shaidle), taking aim at the Left's favorite massacre: Kent State.

Shaidle points out what the press consistently fails to give: the context, the events leading up to the moment when the National Guard troops opened fire.

What happened was: a bunch of stupid hippies got themselves (not to mention some innocent bystanders) killed during an anti-war protest. We're supposed to feel sorry for them to this day -- like everything hippies did, however pathetic, the rest of us never hear the end of it.

[...]

There are Kent State movies and books and even operas. We hear more about this handful of red diaper babies and their dupe friends than we do about the millions who were slaughtered after the hippies got their way and the US left Vietnam.

[...]

Here's what the peaceful protesters got up to days before the shooting:

"On the evening of May 1, 1970, a day after Richard Nixon announced an American counter-attack into Cambodia, students rioted in the main street of town, broke windows, set fires, and damaged cars. On May 2, a crowd of about 800 assembled on campus, disrupted a dance in a university hall, smashed the windows of the ROTC building, and threw lighted railroad flares inside. The building burned to the ground. A professor who watched the arson later told the Scranton commission, which investigated the shooting and the events leading up to it, 'I have never in my 17 years of teaching seen a group of students as threatening, or as arrogant, or a bent on destruction.'

"When fireman arrived students threw rocks at them, slashed their hoses with machetes, took away hoses and turned them on the firefighters. The police finally stopped the riot with tear gas. The National Guard was called in by the governor on May 2 and student rioters pelted them with rocks, doused trees with gasoline, and set them afire. Students attempted to march into town on May 3 but were stopped by the National Guard, the Kent city police department, the Ohio highway patrol, and the county sheriff's department. The protesters shouted obscenities and threw rocks.

"From May 1 to May 4 there were, in addition, riots in the town's main street, looting, the intimidation of passing motorists, stoning of police, directions to local merchants to put antiwar posters in their windows or have their stores thrashed, and miscellaneous acts of arson."

Then on May 4:

"Guardsmen arrived and, probably unwisely, ordered the crowd to disperse. The order was predictably ignored. The Guard fired tear gas canisters into the crowd. The Guard, consisting of a hundred men surrounded by rioters shouting obscenities and chanting 'Kill, kill, kill,' were under a constant barrage of rocks, chunks of concrete and cinderblock, and canisters. Fifty-eight Guardsmen were injured by thrown objects. Several of them were knocked to the ground."

Fifty-eight soldiers injured; firefighters attacked; buildings torched. Not quite the peaceful, academic enclave filled with non-violent protestors popularized by the myth-makers.

I'm surprised more weren't killed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:23 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Mark Steyn's greatest hits: LIGHTS! LAUGHTER! LESBIANS!

Remember the hoopla ten years ago when a TV comedienne decided to use her show to reveal her heretofore hidden sexual preference?

Mark Steyn noted the occasion in his usually acerbic -- and hilarious -- fashion.

Three or four years ago in Britain, on a Sunday Times list of "funny people," I found myself directly under Ellen DeGeneres - which is not something many guys can claim.

[...]

Howard Stern, the "shock jock" whose radio show includes Lesbian Dial-A-Date, has long maintained that, just as in real estate it's "location, location, location", the formula for showbiz success is "lesbians, lesbians, lesbians". But not until now has a female star tested the theory.

First, it was announced that Ellen the sitcom character would be coming out; next, the actress who plays the sitcom character came out; then, the movie star girlfriend of the actress who plays the sitcom character came out; then, at "Come Out With Ellen" parties thrown by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Resource Center and other groups across the fruited plain fans of the movie star girlfriend of the actress who plays the sitcom character also came out.

The lesbian publicity blitzkrieg was in the end so successful that there was no one left to come out except the publicist. So she did. ABC publicist Jill Lessard came out on the set of "Ellen" after "getting swept up in the moment." She didn't issue a press release - but Ellen mentioned it to Chastity Bono, lesbian activist daughter of Sonny and Cher, who then passed it on to Newsweek.

[...]

For non-lesbians, it was hard to get a look in. In other news, John Major led Britain's Conservative Party to electoral defeat, no doubt because he lacked the courage to come out as a lesbian; in Zaire, President Mobutu's regime crumbled because of a lack of visible lesbian role models.

Needless to say, America's chief of state, with his usual opportunist cunning, managed to wangle himself a bit part in the only story that mattered. At the black-tie White House Correspondents dinner in Washington, Miss DeGeneres and the other half of Hollywood's first out celebrity lesbian couple, Anne Heche, were graciously received by President Clinton.

There were two types of photos taken to mark the occasion. In one, the president is trying, as usual without success, to look presidential; in the other, he's grinning like a travelling man who's decided to blow the last night of the convention on the two-girl double-action special.

Slick Willie must have felt like the Dutch Boy when he saw the barometer dropping and the skies turned dark and threatening.

Heh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 04, 2007

Bump: Speak up, dammit!

I've bumped this to the top of the blog, hoping that you folks will take a minute and add your names to the petition by filling out the form below.

It's a quick way to register your disgust with the Democrat's craven political posturing -- posturing that costs lives by sending the message to our enemies that our troops are fighting for nothing, that if the jihadis can keep the pressure on, their unwitting allies in Congress will do what they can to end the American presence in Iraq.

Whether you think going into Iraq was a good idea or not, we're there now, and the actions of Pelosi and Reid are not in the best interests of the United States, or the troops fighting on our behalf.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Michael Ramirez

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 03, 2007

The Supreme Court's slippery slope

I had a discussion with a colleague back in 2003, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down as unconstitutional laws that had criminalized homosexuality between consenting adults.

What troubled me about the decision wasn't the elimination of Texas' ban on gay sex, but the underlying premise that anything between consenting adults -- anything -- was okay, and therefore anything that interfered with the if-it-feels-good-do-it ethos was unconstitutional.

The Court essentially eliminated morality-based, societal-normative rationales for setting public policy, which inevitably led to slippery-slope arguments.

Analogizing from the Lawrence decision, I argued that same-sex marriage inevitably followed, and following the same logic, polygamy and incest couldn't be denied.

My colleague scoffed, saying that I was clearly engaged in wild-eyed rhetorical excess. All the government needed to do was articulate a compelling state interest, and the Court would uphold a ban on such conduct, even when between consenting adults.

Take incest, he said. Because the state has a clear, uncontroverted need to prevent the birth defects and mutations that arise from incest, the marriage of parent to child could be banned without violating the U.S. Constitution.

"Well," I said, "what if we have a father and daughter who have themselves sterilized -- rendered incapable of having children and polluting the gene pool -- eliminating the compelling state interest needed to restrict a 'fundamental privacy right,' because it's not kids they want. Maybe they just like hot, sweaty father-daughter monkey sex."

Yeah, I know.

Gross.

Which was his reaction, too.

But the rationale of the Supreme Court in favor Lawrence is broad enough to easily be adapted to darn near any human mania -- including those who practice animal husbandry with unseemly fervor.

Let's flash forward four years, to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby's article.

When the justices, voting 6-3, did in fact declare it unconstitutional for any state to punish consensual gay sex, the dissenters echoed [the slippery slope argument]. "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today's decision," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the minority. Now, Time magazine acknowledges: "It turns out the critics were right."

Time's attention, like the BBC's, has been caught by the legal battles underway to decriminalize incest between consenting adults. An article last month by Time reporter Michael Lindenberger titled "Should Incest Be Legal?" highlights the case of Paul Lowe, an Ohio man convicted of incest for having sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter. Lowe has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, making Lawrence the basis of his argument.

In Lawrence, the court had ruled that people "are entitled to respect for their private lives" and that under the 14th Amendment, "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." If that was true for the adult homosexual behavior in Lawrence, why not for the adult incestuous behavior in the Ohio case?

The BBC program focused on the case of Patrick and Susan Stubing, a German brother and sister who live as a couple and have had four children together. Incest is a criminal offense in Germany, and Patrick has already spent more than two years in prison for having sex with his sister. The two of them are asking Germany's highest court to abolish the law that makes incest illegal.

" We've done nothing wrong," Patrick told the BBC. "We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family." They dismiss the conventional argument that incest should be banned because the children of close relatives have a higher risk of genetic defects. After all, they point out, other couples with known genetic risks aren't punished for having sex. In any event, Patrick has had himself sterilized so that he cannot father any more children.

Some years back, I'd written about a similar case in Wisconsin -- that of Allen and Patricia Muth, a brother and sister who fell in love as adults, had several children together, and were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned as a result. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence, they appealed their conviction and lost in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Lowe will probably lose too.

[...]

In Germany, the Green Party is openly supporting the Stubings in their bid to decriminalize incest. According to the BBC, incest is no longer a criminal offense in Belgium, Holland, and France. Sweden already permits half-siblings to marry.

Your reaction to the prospect of lawful incest may be "Ugh, gross." But personal repugnance is no replacement for moral standards. For more than 3,000 years, a code of conduct stretching back to Sinai has kept incest unconditionally beyond the pale. If sexual morality is jettisoned as a legitimate basis for legislation, personal opinion and cultural fashion are all that will remain. "Should Incest Be Legal?" Time asks. Expect more and more people to answer yes.

Shush! Listen carefully; is that Nero fiddling?

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:23 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Ward, don't you think you were a little hard on the Beaver?

When you see characters reading something in a play or a film, they're usually pretending to read -- acting! -- and most definitely not referring to actual text in their sweaty hands.

But sometimes they are.

Thanks to the wonders of modern science, someone grabbed a screenshot from a 1958 episode of Leave it to Beaver and was able to read the letter sent home by the school principal.

Kevin Kelly, over at TV Squad, captures the appeal of this Eisenhower-era ephemera.

You can just imagine this writer sitting in a warm office somewhere, a desk fan blowing tepid air around the room. He has his shirtsleeves rolled up and a pencil behind one ear and is pounding this letter out on a typewriter to take to the set. The baseball game is playing on a radio in the corner, and for some reason I picture this all in black and white. Nowadays, they'll probably just have a PA punch something up using a Lorem Ipsum generator.

File this one under "Useless reminders of afternoons with my grandparents spent watching old sitcoms."

Check out the rest of Shorpy's blog; it's a fascinating collection of old photos.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 02, 2007

The green and blue Air Force

This is a great essay on the deep-seated culture clash between warriors and ... anti-warriors.

The Air Force is culturally divided into two camps: The Blue Air Force and The Green Air Force.

The Blue Air Force wears the blue uniform to work while the Green Air Force wears fatigues and flight suits.

The Blues do essential tasks like stock the warehouses, maintain the motor pool, and push piles of paperwork around base.

The Greens take wing in chariots of fire like sky gods. The Greens are shooters, the Blues shoe clerks.

The Blues are preoccupied with trivia like stopping people from whizzing in the woods outside the Officer’s Club after Happy Hour and making sure your ribbons are in the right order on your official photo. The Greens are preoccupied with putting bombs on target.

There is a clash of cultures within the Air Force, where the Blues impose their spit-shined, regulation-happy, utopian culture on the Green’s realist, pragmatic, quick and dirty combat rules culture.

The Air Force Memorial is a monument to the Blue Air Force. I’m surprised they don’t have a bronze statue of a clerk at his desk typing a form in triplicate. That’s what it’s all about for the Blues.

The payoff is a series of photos, highlighting the differences between the Air Force and the other services, using their respective memorials as exhibits.

As you may have guessed from the excerpt above, the Air Force memorial comes up short.

When you're done looking at that post, be sure to read the follow up, wherein the author (a) says that he's still ticked off about the memorial, and (b) explains how "Jazz Hands" have a role in the Air Force of the 21st Century.

I'm glad Gen. Doolittle didn't live to see this. I wonder what Gen. Chuck Yeager thinks.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Palestinian leader calls for peace with America, Israel

Just kidding.

Thanks to the folks at the Jerusalem Post, you can find out what one of the top dogs in the Palestinian leadership tells his fellow Arabs when he thinks we're not listening.

Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, declared during a Friday sermon at a Sudan mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." Following are excerpts from the sermon that took place last month, courtesy of MEMRI.

Ahmad Bahr began: "'You will be victorious' on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] 'you will be victorious,' but only 'if you are believers.' Allah willing, 'you will be victorious,' while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere."

Bahr continued and said that America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "'will be victorious, if you are believers.' Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel."

The Hamas spokesperson concluded with a prayer, saying:

"Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet, defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.

I know, I know, he doesn't really mean it; it's like when Harry Reid says the war is lost -- he's just playing to the nuts in the left-wing bleachers.

But there's something else I want you to ponder.

As Captain Ed notes:

This speech took place in April. Coincidentally, that was the same month that we sent $59 million in aid -- to the same Palestinian Authority in which this lunatic serves as Speaker. The US has provided the Palestinians with more than $1.6 billion in aid since Oslo. This is what our money buys.

That's your money, folks. We fund those who want to destroy us.

The diplomats will not be denied their fantasies of peace in our time; GOP or Democratic administrations come and go, but the demented, deluded denizens of Foggy Bottom are eternal.

And our enemies gladly take our Dane Geld with smiles and outstretched hands -- and murder in their hearts.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 01, 2007

The Supremes get one right

Patterico has posted the video -- with commentary -- that convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that a suspect injured during a high-speed police chase has no right to sue the cops who forcibly ended the pursuit.

The decision is 8-1 for the good guys, with "Justice" Stevens authoring a truly idiotic dissent, one that can charitably be explained only by dementia-related diminished mental capacity. If ever there was an argument for the proposition that a lifetime breathing the rarified atmosphere present at the high court causes dain bramage, this it it.

Justice Scalia's opinion, wherein he takes the lower Court of Appeals to the woodshed for its ... fanciful interpretation of the video, is priceless.

The videotape quite clearly contradicts the version of the story told by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals. For example, the Court of Appeals adopted respondent’s assertions that, during the chase, “there was little, if any, actual threat to pedestrians or other motorists, as the roads were mostly empty and [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle.” 433 F. 3d, at 815.

Indeed, reading the lower court’s opinion, one gets the impression that respondent, rather than fleeing from police, was attempting to pass his driving test:

“[T]aking the facts from the non-movant’s viewpoint, [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle, slowed for turns and intersections, and typically used his indicators for turns. He did not run any motorists off the road. Nor was he a threat to pedestrians in the shopping center parking lot, which was free from pedestrian and vehicular traffic as the center was closed. Significantly, by the time the parties were back on the highway and Scott rammed [respondent], the motor-way had been cleared of motorists and pedestrians allegedly because of police blockades of the nearby intersections.” Id., at 815–816 (citations omitted).

The videotape tells quite a different story. There we see respondent’s vehicle racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast.

We see it swerve around more than a dozen other cars, cross the double-yellow line, and force cars traveling in both directions to their respective shoulders to avoid being hit. We see it run multiple red lights and travel for considerable periods of time in the occasional center left-turn-only lane, chased by numerous police cars forced to engage in the same hazardous maneuvers just to keep up.

Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.

[...]

When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. That was the case here with regard to the factual issue whether respondent was driving in such fashion as to endanger human life.

Respondent’s version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him. The Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.

But you have to look in footnote 7 to find the most devastating indictment of the lower court's so-called analysis.

This is not to say that each and every factual statement made by the Court of Appeals is inaccurate. For example, the videotape validates the court’s statement that when Scott rammed respondent’s vehicle it was not threatening any other vehicles or pedestrians. (UndoubtedlyScott waited for the road to be clear before executing his maneuver.)

Scalia gives credit where it's due; at least the entire lower court opinion wasn't of the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" standard.

The final triumph of old fashioned common sense can be found in the final paragraphs of the opinion, where Scalia articulates an easy-to-understand, bright-line test for law enforcement -- and crooks -- to follow.

[W]e are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, and runs a few red lights.

The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent by-standers does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injuryor death.

The car chase that respondent initiated in this case posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others; no reasonable jury could conclude other-wise. Scott’s attempt to terminate the chase by forcing respondent off the road was reasonable, and Scott is entitled to summary judgment. The Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary is reversed.

Bravo! A case well decided.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack