Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

Holy crap! It's a man with a tramp stamp! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you People's Exhibit 1, circumstantial evidence that the modern American male has lost his mind (not to mention his self respect). Ladies, you can't possibly think that's attractive, can you?

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:06 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Mexico

Port security in Mazatlan. Click on photo for larger image.

Looking out over the adults-only pool on the stern of the Oosterdam, I got a reassuring glimpse of the American economic imperium's global gladiator: Maximus Walmartus.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Judicial Jackassery - Friday morning edition

Is there no limit to the arrogance of judges?

Is there something, anything about which they are willing to concede, “This court does not have the expertise to rule in this area, nor is it this court’s place to insert itself into this argument”?

Apparently not.

In the circus that is the federal judiciary, the members of the Freak Show – otherwise known as the distinguished and esteemed members of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals – hold a special place of (dis)honor.

These out-of-control judges have decided to insert themselves (again) into military planning, doffing their robes in favor of something more suitably martial (Pirates of Penzance, anyone?)

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered the U.S. Navy to lessen the harm its high-power sonar does to whales and other marine life during exercises off the Southern California coast.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sent the matter to a trial judge in Los Angeles to figure out exactly how to fix the problem it says is apparent with the sonar.

The three-judge panel said the sonar needs to be fixed before the Navy's next planned exercise in January. The action was taken because the court said it's likely the Natural Resources Defense Council will win its lawsuit to force the Navy to lessen the harm.

The appeals court previously overturned a blanket ban on the naval exercises, ruling that prohibition was too broad.

The council's lawsuit alleges the Navy's sonar causes whales to beach themselves among other environmental harms. In 2000, naval sonar contributed to 16 whales and two dolphins being beached in the Bahamas, according to a federal study.

"There are simple, proven ways to avoid this problem without compromising the Navy's readiness," said Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the NRDC.

The Navy maintains it already minimizes risks to marine life. It has monitored the ocean off Southern California for the 40 years it has employed sonar without seeing any whale injuries, said spokesman Capt. Scott Gureck.

"These integrated sonar training exercises are absolutely vital for our strike groups to conduct before they deploy," Gureck said.

With more nations, including China, acquiring quiet, hard-to-detect submarines, the Navy says training sailors in the use of high intensity sonar is a priority.

As I’ve said previously, the president, acting as the commander in chief, should order the Navy to ignore the court. The American military is tasked with protecting the U.S. against all enemies, and the reason why we’ve become the world’s preeminent power is because our soldiers, sailors marines and airmen train constantly, using the same techniques and tactics in peacetime that they’ll need when the shooting starts.

Realism in training is of paramount importance. Preventing our military from training will -- will -- result in unnecessary U.S. casualties.

Let me be even more plainspoken. This ruling will result in U.S. sailors dying, because federal judges, driven (virtually) insane by the hubris that comes with lifetime appointments and years of having their asses kissed by sycophantic courtiers, have decide that they know what’s best when it comes to national security, that the well-being of whales trumps the safety of our men and women in uniform.

Want proof of an out-of-control judiciary? You need look no farther than this ruling.

As I've said before, who will defend the U.S. from the judiciary?

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:21 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 15, 2007

Killing killers deters more killers

Death penalty opponents are fond of the old saw that the ultimate criminal punishment deters no-one from murder; saves no innocent lives; and plays no role in falling crime rates.

I’ve read a study –- the data collected through interviews with hundreds of hardened, life-long criminals, more than a few, killers -– that concluded that criminals themselves considered the death penalty when planning and carrying out their crimes, restraining their most violent impulses.

Actually, the study noted that the death penalty had a measurable effect only in those states where the time between verdict and execution was seven years or less (Texas, anyone?).

In those states where prosecutors, judge and jury might die of old age before the prisoner began the long walk to the death chamber, the criminals said they were less concerned by such a distant, possibly never-arriving date with the hangman (California, anyone?).

In the latest effort to seek hard data in support of continued executions -– at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court is set to address yet the latest argument in favor of banning the practice (lethal injections hurt too much!) –- two professors at Pepperdine University (Roy Adler and Michael Summers) crunched the numbers, publishing their results on the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal (Friday, November 2, 2007, page A-13).

Recent evidence … suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

[…]

The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources.

They graph the data, in a chart reproduced in the Journal, showing executions rising as murders decline, and murders increasing when executions are fewer.

In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.

It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the executions took place.

The authors address the problem of causation, acknowledging that it can be a two-way street –- but not when it comes to the death penalty, arguing that, “it may be logical that more executions could lead to fewer murders, but it is not at all logical that fewer murders could cause more executions.”

They also address the interaction of causation and timing.

Causes should come before effects, so we correlated each year’s executions to the following year’s murders and found the results to be even more dramatic. The association was significant at the .00003 level, which meant the odds against the random happening are longer than 34,000 to one. Each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year.

Professors Adler and Summers anticipate that death-penalty opponents will attribute the decrease in murders to be a product of other, unrelated factors -– increased policing, demographic shifts, the elimination of dodgeball from public schools -– but they say that Occam’s razor provides the cleanest statistical shave, in the absence of any other data-rich explanations for what seems to be a clear-cut, solid connection between the two variables: more dead crooks equals significantly fewer innocent victims.

They also point out the ethical dilemma this creates for those lawyers, scholars and ACLU types zealously working to abolish the death penalty.

It now seems the proper question to ask goes far beyond the obvious one of “do we save the life of this convicted criminal?” The more proper question seems to be “do we save this particular life, at the cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?”

I’d go further, turning the defense attorney’s mantra, “Better a thousand guilty men go free than an innocent man lose his freedom!” on its head and ask another question.

Assuming for the purposes of my argument that the convicted killers on death row are guilty of the crimes alleged, does anyone believe that society and justice are better served if we adopt, “Better 150 innocent men, women and children murdered, than a murderer’s life ended”?

I know how I'd answer that question.

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

I hate to wait (for my PC)

One of life’s minor annoyances -– made more irritating for those of us who have thrown off the shackles of Windows-based computing –- is leaving our Macs at home and then enduring all the glitchy behaviors on our work PCs that drove us crazy before we switched.

Aside from driver conflicts, programs locking up and, worst of all, the dreaded Blue Screen of Death, there are the ENDLESS waits for Windows to shutdown, and … eventually … re-boot.

Walter Mossberg, The Wall Street Journal’s tech guy, recently got some mail from a reader who was bothered by the slowness of Bill Gates’ favorite operating system (Thursday, November 1, 2007, page B-3).

Q: Last week, you compared the start-up time of Windows Vista to Apple’s new Leopard operating system, and found Vista to be much slower. But you used different laptops for each. What would the numbers be on the same Macintosh running the two operating systems?

A: I ran the tests again on a single computer, a fairly new Apple iMac, which can be started up and restarted, in either Vista or Leopard. I used the Mac’s Boot Camps feature, in which only one operating system is running at a time, has its own dedicated portion of the hard disk and fully controls the hardware. The machine uses an Intel processor and other key components commonly found on Windows machines, and runs Windows just like a Dell or any standard Windows PC, without any involvement from the Mac operating system.

… The test results were very similar – Leopard started and restarted much more quickly than Vista did.

In this simple test, I timed both operating systems from a cold start and a restart until the computer was fully ready for operation, with the hard disk quiet and the network connection established. The cold start, beginning with the computer completely off, took Leopard 46 seconds, but took Vista one minute and 42 seconds. A restart, beginning with the computer running an email program, the Firefox Web browser, and Microsoft Word, took one minute and two seconds for Leopard, and three minutes and 17 seconds for Vista.

When you’re filing felony cases on a deadline and the PC needs a reboot, that extra time spent staring at the screen is darn-near stroke-inducing.

At least our IT guys have something to keep ‘em busy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2007

Some things ought not be discussed

I joined Mom and Bob up on the 10th-deck lounge overlooking the bow for the daily trivia contest.

When I arrived, they were sitting with a blowsy-haired fifty-something woman and her remarkably well-preserved ninety-year-old mother, working on the answer to the second question. I pulled up a chair, was introduced to the two women, and began brainstorming with the rest of the team.

The daughter – let’s call her “Cindy Sheehan” – is a therapist who was traveling with her mom and her “partner.”

We were all getting along, having a good time puzzling out the arcane answers to the questions posed by the young cruise director, who paused after reading one to tell us that, yes, the questions were America-centric – with apologies to the non-American passengers.

Cindy Sheehan leaned forward and said to me, “I’m glad he acknowledged that.”

“Why?” I asked, “Are you Canadian?”

“No,” she answered, “But I have a lot of Canadian friends, and talk with them all the time about how much we hate this government.”

She smiled, leaned closer and with a gleam in her eye, said, “They’ve destroyed this country.”

I didn’t react, wanting to see what she’d say next.

My mother interrupted her, asking, “Well, where else would you want to live? It’s still the best country in the world.”

Cindy Sheehan didn’t skip a beat.

“Oh, Canada, definitely! My partner and I would move there tomorrow, but –“ she gestured at her elderly mother, “I couldn’t leave Mom.”

She made a few more comments about George Bush, illegal wars, Halliburton and global warming, and then we resumed play.

We made a good team – moonbat politics notwithstanding – winning the contest, claiming our tastefully-understated keychains, then shook hands and moved on to other leisurely pursuits as we sailed the high seas.

What I found so interesting about Cindy Sheehan was her assumption that, because we seemed like smart, well-educated people, we simply had to agree that the nation was being destroyed by the eeeeevil Re-thug-licans, led by Chimpy McBusHitler.
It reminded me of the late Pauline Kael, the Manhattan-based film critic, who lamented after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, “I don’t understand how he won. Nobody I know voted for him!”

I’m not shy about speaking my mind, but I’m mindful that there are times (and places) where my opinions on sex, politics and religion are best kept to myself, and in the interests of meeting as many interesting people as possible, avoid those subjects while traveling.

Avoiding these topics in the company of strangers used to be the most basic precept of social etiquette, one that has sadly fallen into disuse in these less civilized times. What I find most fascinating about this encounter is Cindy’s inability to recognize that a not-insignificant portion of her fellow travelers – in the Holland America sense, not ComSymps – might be offended by her anti-American rhetoric. After all, most Americans – even liberals! – don’t hate this country, or admit that they’d rather live elsewhere.

Another example of this behavior was on exhibit recently in San Francisco. Shocking, I know.

I had finished doing some active-duty JAG work with the troops at Camp Roberts and headed north to the Bay Area to spend some time with my cousin and her family.

There was a vintage poster show being held at the Fort Mason Center, so I stopped in to see what the dealers had on display. Sipping wine and eating sinfully-delicious pate, I stood by one booth as the owner kept up a running commentary while his assistant moved the brilliantly-colored lithographs from left to right.

Most of what he had to say had little or nothing to do with the artists or posters being shown, focusing instead on the depredations of Dick Cheney, our idiot president, and the unjust and illegal war in Iraq.

As is my custom, I smiled encouragingly and sipped my wine; he didn’t disappoint, upping the rhetoric to black helicopter territory.

Here’s the thing: these lithographs range in price from $600 to well north of $10,000, and I’d presume that – notwithstanding his fever-dreams of living in a socialist utopia – he’d like to sell some and turn a nice profit. So why indulge in an opportunity to offend potential customers?

I know, he probably figured he was amongst friends, what with the show being in the most anti-Bush city in the world. But, I can’t have been the only undercover conservative with an appreciation for the lost art of stone lithography, brilliant-hued lead-based pigments and stunning graphic design of the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s – as well as a credit card with plenty of headroom left.

I’m not saying that cruiseship Cindy or power-to-the-people Poster Guy ought to be silenced; hell, I like to know who the nutjobs are, and it’s great when they out themselves.

But the social fabric that ostensibly binds us together as a nation becomes a bit more tattered and threadbare when our fellow citizens – er, comrades -- forget that not everyone agrees with or wants to listen to their bilious ranting and barking-at-the-moon ravings.

That’s what blogs are for.

So, in a roundabout way, I guess I’m longing for the days when we could enjoy each others’ company, meet interesting people on ocean voyages, and not end each encounter feeling like I’d been covered in the psychic muck of some stranger’s deepest, darkest, most passionately held hatreds and obsessions.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Alternatives to an awful ending

Seinfeld, the sitcom about four people obsessing over nothing, is now available in a box set covering the entire series.

I’m a relative latecomer, catching an episode here and there during the last season, before the creators pulled the plug on it in 1997.

The writing was good, the chemistry between the players, perfect, but the neurotic, selfish nature of the characters was eventually off-putting; I can take Jason Alexander’s George Costanza in small doses, before reaching for the remote – he reminds me too much of some nuts clinging to the branches of my family tree.

What Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David and the writers did very well was taking stories about nothing – the insignificant irritants familiar to city-dwelling singles in the 1990s – and spinning them into half-hour, rage-filled, bilious rants, concealed beneath a thin layer of laughs.

But their only misstep was a big one: the series finale is widely reviled as one of the worst ever lensed, an intensely unfunny pastiche of every major character brought back for a cameo in a strange courtroom ordeal/kharmic comeuppance.

The characters – and the audience – apparently got what the show’s creators thought we deserved.

Jason Alexander – who has gone on to star in The Producers on stage (and a string of failed sitcoms), spoke about the series finale in an interview this week.

Q This megaset will give "Seinfeld" fans another chance to rehash the infamous finale, which some viewers loved, others loathed. What's your take on it?

A It's weird from the inside. I felt there were really great things about it. We were a really unsentimental group, but we always did love our bench of players -- people like Wayne Knight [Newman] or Partick Warburton [David Puddy], or people who became big successes off the show, like the Soup Nazi [played by Larry Thomas]. The way [co-creator] Larry David found to get everyone on who had been part of our success over the years was poetic. And the fact we had these four characters who were the most selfish people on the planet getting what they deserved? That was great. But as a story it was a mishmash.

Q Was another approach ever considered?

A Jerry [Seinfeld] had once pitched a way for the show to end -- it would be a regular episode, and we would be in the coffee shop afterward talking and talking and talking until we ran out of things to say ... and Jerry would say, "That's enough."

Q OK, here comes the "Beatles reunion" question. How do you handle people wanting a "Seinfeld" reprise?

[…]

A We talked about doing a final scene for the DVD where we come out of jail and go to the coffee shop -- Michael Richards [Kramer] had come out all tattooed and become a rough rider; Julia Louis-Dreyfus [Elaine] was a lesbian; I had a sex change ... and Jerry was exactly the way he was. And he would say, "Boy, that was rough."

I can’t think of a better way to end the show than to have the four of them sitting in their booth at the diner in silence, staring at each other, nothing left to say about anything, realizing they didn’t even like each other.

But George after a sexchange ain’t bad, either.

You can read the rest of the interview here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Scaring the enemy to death

The Brits have produced a suitably high-tech helmet for the pilots who will fly the soon-to-be acquired Joint Strike Fighter, with some rather amazing features, according to Engadget.

Within the tinted faceplate are two projectors which sync up with plane-mounted cameras and display images from the outside for the pilot to view. Essentially, this enables the operator to view high-resolution images (yes, even at night) of areas previously imperceptible without a warplane constructed entirely of plexiglass, and onboard sensors make sure that the imagery reflects exactly where the pilot is looking at any given moment. Furthermore, computerized systems can even feed in "essential flight and combat data on to the display," as well as target symbols of friendlies / enemies.

I prefer the analysis provided by the folks at Gizmodo, who take note of another advantage -- and an alternative weapons system -- provided by the helmet.

The British Ministry of Defence has eliminated missiles and other projectile weapons in favor of a more open, glass covered cockpit offensive.

Why?

Their new tactic is to fly as close to enemy aircraft as possible while wearing this prototype helmet to make the opposition shit themselves to death. Victims won't be reincarnated as anything good either, but that's just a side effect.

Can you imagine the reaction if some Iranian jet jockey got a close look at this on his six?

Scarier than Darth Vader. A lot scarier.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 12, 2007

The (unnecessary?) last year of World War II

Max Hasting’s book, Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-45 , is one of the best accounts I’ve read about the final year of the war in Europe, and David Frum offers a compelling analyis of why it’s required reading.

Opening in September 1944, after the battle for Normandy, when the western Allies believes the war was all but over, Hastings plunges into seven months of violence more total than anything our planet had ever suffered before, or ever will again barring a nuclear war.

For the Jews of Europe, it was already too late by September 1944; the Nazi work of extermination had largely run its course. But a more prompt collapse of Germany would have saved the lives of millions of fighting men, Allied and German, and millions of civilians, not to mention the cultural treasures of Dresden.

Among the questions Hastings addresses in this lucid and deeply researched book: Why did the war last so long?

His answer leads us to consider some of the deepest themes in his emerging multi-party history of World War II.

1. The poor quality of the Western Allied generalship and the weak will to fight of the Western Allied armies.

Hastings does not offer much comfort to the vanity of American, British, or Canadian readers. He disparages the generalship of every high Western commander except George C. Marshall. Eisenhower was too cautious, Montgomery too boastful and unreliable, Crerar too stolid and unimaginative. He contrasts all of them with the Soviet commanders, especially Zhukov, who took strategic risks and won huge encircling victories.

He blames Montgomery for allowing his ego to drive him to reach German territory first in Operation Market Garden, the air drop at Arnhem - thus missing a chance to seize Antwerp before the Germans dug in, and open the deep water port that the Allies would need to supply an early drive into Germany proper.

He blames Eisenhower for insisting that all Allied fronts advance in neat tandem, so as to avoid exposing themselves to flank attacks. German flank attacks could not inflict serious damage given Allied air supremacy - while the constant "tidying up" delayed Allied advances enough that winter arrived in 1944 before the Western Allies arrived in Germany.

Hastings esteems Patton rather better than any of the other field commanders. He describes Patton, disgusted at the slow movement of one of his corps, ordering the corps commander to act as a traffic policeman. Yet Hastings harshly condemns Patton for his willingness to put thousands of lives at risk to stage an operation whose main purpose seems to have been to liberate his son-in-law from German captivity.

Here though he makes another and even more uncomfortable point: Even when Allied commanders showed aggressiveness and verve, they were thwarted by the hesitancy and passivity of their troops. In contrast to stereotype, it was the German soldiers who most consistently acted independently. Americans and Brits awaited orders and shunned risks.

Among other shibboleths, Hastings takes aim at the "greatest generation" myth. While there were real heroes on the Anglo-American side - and while the troops at the tip of the spear did often fight valiantly - overall (he insists) British forces in World War II displayed nothing like the devotion and courage of the British forces in the First World War, and American units fell far short of the standards set, North and South, during the Civil War. Hastings' emphasis on the extreme problems of corruption in the US Army lead one to wonder whether Sergeant Bilko may not be a much more representative figure than Captain Winters.

And yet, Hastings - always very reflective in his moral judgments - counters these harsh assessments with a consoling thought. In a nightmare encounter like the last year of World War II, great generalship meant great ruthlessness - and great disregard for human life. The best commanders came from the worst societies, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The failure of the Anglo-Americans to produce such fighters was a tribute to the positive qualities of the commercial, civilian Anglo-American societies. And thanks to the amazing productive capacity of these free societies, the Anglo-Americans won anyway, not by out-generaling or out-fighting the Germans, but by out-taxing and out-producing them. My favorite anecdote from the whole book expresses this thought:

General Erich von Straube, after signing the surrender of his forces in Holland to First Canadian Army, was being escorted back to the German lines by Brigadier James Roberts. After driving some twenty minutes in silence, von Straube's aide tapped Roberts on the shoulder and said that his commander wished to know what the brigadier had done before the war: "Were you a professional soldier?"

Roberts was momentarily bemused by the question. He had indeed been a soldier for so long that his other life seemed impossibly remote. Then he realized that the German was seeking some crumb of solace for his defeat. He answered von Straube: "No, I wasn't a regular soldier. Very few Canadians were. In civilian life I made ice cream."

It's a terrific book, and Frum's review does it justice; both are worth a read.

Even better is the news that Hastings is planning a volume on the war in the Pacific. I'm looking forward to his analysis.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:11 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 10, 2007

Bon Voyage

Standing on the stern of Holland America's Oosterdam, we watched the Ryndam leave San Diego ahead of us; they were heading north on a three-day crusie, while we were heading south to the Mexican Riviera.

Within a half hour we were backing out of our downtown San Diego berth, ready to begin our Mexican getaway.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Debating the Second Amendment

Clayton Cramer flew to Houston for a gun-control debate at a local college, taking on a professor who says that changing technology makes the Second Amendment obsolete at best, a dangerous and ill-advised "right" for 21st Century Americans.

Cramer disagrees.

During the debate at Houston Community College, Professor Rakove a couple of times made the claim that the Second Amendment is obsolete because it is "about the militia" which is pretty well gone, and also claimed that firearms technology has advanced so much that what might have made sense then didn't make sense now. In particular, he claimed that one person with an assault weapon has as much firepower as a company of soldiers in the 18th century.

This didn't sound quite right, but I settled for pointing out that "assault printing presses" are capable of printing hundreds of thousands of pages an hour today--perhaps freedom of the press is obsolete. The Internet and modern telecommunications, perhaps, make traditional warrant requirements obsolete, too, by the same reasoning.

If I had been feeling really cheeky, I might have suggested that in the era of suicide bombers, that "cruel and unusual punishment" provision might not make sense anymore--that perhaps we need the ability to inflict suffering on convicted terrorists that keeps them alive, and in excruciating pain, for many years as a discouragement to terrorist acts.

I like that last paragraph; perhaps nothing is more disingenuous than judges finding that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishments now includes criminal penalties that were sanctioned, widely known and commonly used in the thirteen colonies at the time the Bill of Rights were drafted and adopted.

Cramer expands on this point, using "The Constitution is a living, breathing document" argument to great advantage, in a way sure to make ACLU-types get the vapors.

3. The most destructive individual weapon system of the 18th century was a warship, which could, conceivably, cause hundreds of deaths if it attacked a major port like New York City. The most destructive individual weapon system of today against which we have to defend ourselves as a society would be a nuclear weapon, which would likely cause at least a hundred thousand deaths from direct effects, and radiation aftereffects. This is at least three, and perhaps four orders of magnitude more severe of a threat to American society. By the same reasoning, if the technological advancements of firearms justify calling the Second Amendment obsolete, the protections against unreasonable search and seizure are far more obsolete. Oh, and for the same reason--to find out if such a weapon has been smuggled in--the 24 nightmare--not just waterboarding, but techniques that everyone recognizes as torture could be justified by Rakove's logic.

Makes sense to me.

He uses the same order-of-magnitude argument to question the current applicability of the First Amendment to freedom of the press, given technological innovations, and, interestingly, uses the same argument to undercut the perception that firearms are unimaginably more dangerous that those used in the eighteenth century.

It's an interesting read, and it would have been nice to see and hear the debate.

Too bad the gun control advocate was opposed to the debate being recorded.

So much for the public's right to be informed, eh?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 09, 2007

When Mr. Wizard meets Mr. Goodwrench

Ever wonder what goes on inside your car's engine to make it move on down the highway? Thanks to the wonders of highspeed microphotography -- and a pretty tough video camera -- you can see for yourself.

The valve on the right opens, spraying fuel into the cylinder; the piston moves up, lightning flickers from the sparkplug's electrode: combustion, flames dancing briefly across the chamber. Then the exhaust valve opens on the left, drawing the hot gases out.

Neat stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 07, 2007

Waiter! Pity party for one!

Apparently, this photo -- and the criticism it generated -- is getting under Obama's skin.

BURLINGTON, Iowa (AP) - Barack Obama complained on Wednesday about an Internet photo that claims the Democratic presidential candidate didn't hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"This is so irritating," Obama said when asked about the photo in Muscatine, Iowa.

The photo, which has circulated widely on the Internet, was taken in September during Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's annual Democratic fundraiser. A message accompanying the photo claims Obama didn't observe the pledge.

Obama said the photo was taken during the singing of the national anthem, not the pledge.

"My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 2," Obama said, his annoyance obvious. "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing."

A woman also asked Obama about the photo Tuesday night during a town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids, evoking a similar reaction.

"This is the classic dirty trick of the campaign," Obama said.

He added that he's often the target of anonymous criticism on the Internet.

"You've got e-mails saying I'm a Muslim plant trying to take over America," Obama said. "We've seen this before."

He advised the woman to tell the sender of the e-mail the real story.

"You don't have to curse them out, just tell them they've got their facts wrong," he said.

Is Obama saying that Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, and the unidentified lady in the background don't know what to do during the national anthem? Because, notwithstanding what his grandfather taught him, the U.S. Code says they're right and he's wrong.

Sec. 301. National anthem

(a) Designation.--The composition consisting of the words and music
known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.--During a rendition of the national
anthem--
(1) when the flag is displayed--
(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at
attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;
(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with
their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,
the hand being over the heart; and
(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute
at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until
the last note; and
(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face
toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag
were displayed.

(Pub. L. 105-225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1263.)

If the photo looks familiar, it's because I ran it before; you'd think that Obama would have left the story alone. Now that we've ascertained that -- in addition to being stubborn and just plain wrong -- he's also remarkably thin-skinned, it seems to me that it calls into question his ability to withstand the sure-to-be rough and tumble campaign to come.

There's an American witticism often raised in relation to feckless crapweasel politicians: When you're in trouble and in a hole of your own creation, stop digging.

Apparently Obama's not famliar with this pearl of folk wisdom.

And referring to the photo as a "dirty trick" is pathetic.

Keep digging, buddy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The results of waging lawfare

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An inconvenient truth

You can always count on a politician to combine ignorance and arrogance -- with a dash of snark, just for good measure.

Hillary Clinton doesn't disappoint.

At a recent gathering of the Democratic pols pursuing the presidential nomination, the topic of the day was forcing American automakers to build cars that get better mileage.

Clinton demanded a 60 percent increase, pulling the number from where the sun don't shine.

Clinton, who has courted the UAW and met with domestic automaker CEOs, argued that engine technology has stagnated.

"Henry Ford would be dumbfounded until he opened the hood. Because he would recognize the internal combustion engine underneath. It is the same basic concept that he put in to the Model T almost a century ago. In fact, that Model T got better gas mileage than your typical SUV does today," Clinton said. "We can't continue this. It's time for a change."

Really?

Now, to be fair, Clinton really didn't pull that "Model T got better gas mileage than your typical SUV does today" line from the same funky place as the "60 percent." She got it from a repository of even less useful knowledge: The Sierra Club. National Review's Henry Payne checked with some people who might actually know something about the Model T.

The comment is revealing for the Left’s continued nostalgia for “the good ol’ days” of pre-modern America. It is also a convenient untruth.

Her misinformation apparently is sourced form those auto experts at the Sierra Club which claimed in a 2003 ad that the Model T got 25 mpg while the average SUV gets 18 mpg.

Wrong, says Ford Motor: The typical Tin Lizzy got 15 mpg.

Furthermore, the Model T weighed just 1,200 pounds, lacked any safety equipment, and had a top speed of 45 mpg with a tailwind. Today’s SUVs weigh 4,200 pounds thanks in part to federally mandated bumpers, airbags, catalytic converters, roof-crush standards, side-impact steel bars, and so on – not to mention creature comforts like AC and heated leather seats.

When adjusted for all these amenities, a Ford SUV is 4.5 times as efficient as Henry Ford’s original.

And that's why complaints of a "do-nothing" Congress are so misguided. At least when they're doing nothing -- in most instances -- they're not screwing things up any worse.

There's an old saying in engineering circles that a camel is a horse designed by committee. Imagine what a car designed by Congress would be like.

As bad as the American automakers may be about misreading what the public wants, when it comes to fuel efficiency and technological innovation, they're much more qualified than pols to figure out what needs to be done to meet the ever-changing demands of the market.

The bottom line -- from an engineering perspective -- remains in the realm of hard science: physics, mass, acceleration.

Crash safety is affected by speed and weight. Lighter cars means more dead and injured. There's a tradeoff to be made in the pursuit of better gas mileage.

Ford was pilloried twenty years ago for the exploding Pinto debacle, a result of a cost-benefit analysis that led to weakened gas tanks -- and predictably terrible consequences.

What Congressional dolts like Clinton and environmental do-gooder groups like the Sierra Club don't seem to realized is that they're essentially forcing the same sort of safety compromise on the public. All things being equal, the only way to meet these draconian fuel-efficiency standards is to make cars lighter. And notwithstanding the tremendous strides made in automotive safety features, more Americans will die in collisions that would otherwise be survivable in larger, heavier vehicles.

So, what do you want to drive?

Would I mind getting better mileage? Of course not. But it depends on what I have to give up to get it.

And my family's safety is non-negotiable. Give up our safe, acceptably-fuel efficient vehicles to satisfy the idiotic demands of politicians who want to tell us how to live -- as they motor about in their ginormous black SUVs and fly on their donors' private jets?

I don't think so.

But I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary trade-in her broomstick for a Model T.

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

November 06, 2007

Why do they hate us?

Because we're not Muslims, you fools!

As Ed Morrisey notes, when you look at what Al Qaeda is saying in Arabic -- as opposed to the bilge being peddled to useful idiots in the Western media -- what the terrorists want becomes much clearer.

Ray Ibrahim has painstakingly translated hundreds of previously unreleased al-Qaeda documents that he found in a search of the Library of Congress. His efforts led to the publication of The Al Qaeda Reader, published in August. He told a recent George Washington University audience that these documents address jihadis directly and have a much different message than the propaganda AQ aims at the West (via Newsbeat1):

The documents address many ideas supported by Al Qaeda, such as suicide bombings and violence against the west. Bin Laden and his allies use Muslim beliefs and laws to show that these actions are acceptable in certain cases, Ibrahim said.

He said the documents offer three options for non-Muslims - submit to Islam, live under Islam or die.

"The bottom line is the West is damned if they do and damned if they don't unless they accept the three choices," Ibrahim said. ...

In the documents, Bin Laden proclaims that the root of terrorism rested in Israel. However, Ibrahim said support for Al Qaeda would not dissipate even if the western world ceased supporting Israel.

"Once they do have the power, the next step will go back to waging a powerful jihad," he said.

The hand wringing over American friendship with Israel, and the supposedly central place this has in the war on terror, seems a little overblown. Undoubtedly, Muslims in the region oppose Israel and the Palestinian standoff makes the region less stable, which amplifies the impulse for radicalism. However, Osama bin Laden treats Israel as an appetizer for a much larger banquet, according to the theological arguments he makes to his followers. Israel's destruction will only begin al-Qaeda's real mission, not end it.

What does Osama want? He wants a world that bends its knee to Islam, one way or the other. He has actually made this plain in his propaganda, too, although Western analysts dismiss it as meaningless rhetoric. Osama doesn't see it that way at all. He offers the West the peace of submission -- to Islam, to Osama's authority, and to the Muslim world as our new benevolent despots.

As we have repeatedly seen over the last 14 years, these are not idle threats. Anyone who doesn't want to submit will die. Those who believe that we can buy them off with trade will die. Those who want to surrender Israel will still die. Even pulling back from the Middle East entirely will not save us from their intent to kill those who will not submit to Islam.

They are lunatics, put simply, with lots of money and lots of company. They may play on regional friction points, but al-Qaeda is not interested in scoring a few policy victories and capturing Jerusalem. They want it all -- and they want it now.

Sometimes, when your enemy says he wants to conquer or kill you, the reasons don't really matter all that much. The more compelling question is whether or not you're willing to submit, to comply or die.

Those who continue to ignore the ultimate goal of Muslim supremacists are engaged in the worst kind of denial -- with lethal consequences.

Why do they hate us?

Because we're not like them, because we dare to reject their values, their prejudices, their intolerance, their veneration of an 8th-Century warrior chieftain.

And most of all, they hate us for our success, our power and affluence, all accumulated despite -- in spite of -- our rejection of Islam.

And no amount of multi-culti inclusiveness will make them hate us any less.

As is often the case, the Jews are the canary in the coal mine. When the Muslim supremacists decide the time has come to target Israel for "special treatment," it will be only the most delusional Westerners who believe that the jihadis will be satisfied, their bloodlust sated, the West made safe by the sacrifice of Israel.

Bad times are coming, unless we can face the unpleasant fact that Al Qaeda means what they say: The West can convert, submit, or die.

I prefer the fourth option: We can fight.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oh, my aching head

We truly live in a glorious age, where science and technology can rid us of age-old bedvilments. Like that blasted kill-me-my-Gawd-my-brain's-exploding red-wine induced headache.

The effects are all too familiar: a fancy dinner, some fine wine and then, a few hours later, a racing heart and a pounding headache. But a device developed by University of California, Berkeley, researchers could help avoid the dreaded "red wine headache."

Chemists working with NASA-funded technology designed to find life on Mars have created a device they say can easily detect chemicals that many scientists believe can turn wine and other beloved indulgences into ingredients for agony.

The chemicals, called biogenic amines, occur naturally in a wide variety of aged, pickled and fermented foods prized by gourmet palates, including wine, chocolate, cheese, olives, nuts and cured meats.

"The food you eat is so unbelievably coupled with your body's chemistry," said Richard Mathies, who described his new technology in an article published Thursday in the journal Analytical Chemistry.

Scientists have nominated several culprits for "red wine headache," including amines like tyramine and histamine, though no conclusions have been reached. Still, many specialists warn headache sufferers away from foods rich in amines, which can also trigger sudden episodes of high blood pressure, heart palpitations and elevated adrenaline levels.

The prototype — the size of a small briefcase — uses a drop of wine to determine amine levels in five minutes, Mathies said. A startup company he co-founded is working to create a smaller device the size of a personal digital assistant that people could take to restaurants and test their favorite wines.

The researchers found the highest amine levels in red wine and sake and the lowest in beer. For now, the device only works with liquids.

I know, "the device only works with liquids," but I'm confident that scientists will discover that really annoying people generate amines, too. Won't it be a happy day when you can set your aggravatometer to beep before you get near those people?

In the meantime, we'll have a bottle of the Chianti, please.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Now that's strange!

Hey! Who's the white guy on the cover of Ebony magazine?

He looks vaguely familiar.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 05, 2007

Remember, remember, the Fifth of November

I posted this some time ago, but seeing as how today is November Fifth, it seems appropriate to take another look.

The internet can be an amazing resource, with the ability to take an entertaining diversion and turn it into hours of educational reading via the wonders of the mouseclick on a hyperlink, as well as the Google search.

The coincidences and connections aren't limited to impromptu research sessions, either, but more on that later.

I was checking out the latest movie trailers, viewing two for the upcoming flick from the Wachowski brothers, V for Vendetta, a thriller set in an alternate future where the Nazis conquered Britain. The Wachowskis, who also made the Matrix trilogy, can put some slick and stunning images onscreen, and their depiction of a fascist United Kingdom is, at least for the duration of a coming attraction, oddly compelling.

The protagonist is an anarchist/freedom fighter who wreaks havoc on the repressive regime while disguised behind a mask and wig. The first advertising slogan I came across for the film said, "Remember remember the Fifth of November."

The Yahoo webpage for the film spoke of the release date having been pushed back from the Fifth of November, making the catchphrase moot.

Actually, no. The phrase triggered a memory of a plot to destroy Parliament, and a rhyme commemorating the plot's failure.

Remember Remember the fifth of November

The gunpowder treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes Guy, 'twas his intent
to blow up king and parliament

Three score barrels were laid below
to prove old England's overthrow

By God's mercy he was catched
with a dark lantern and lighted match

Holler boys Holler boys let the bells ring
Holler boys Holler boys God save the King

The name was familiar, and I vaguely recalled the broad outlines of the plot, so I googled Guy Fawkes and started reading, beginning with the Britannia web site's bio of the would-be bomber.

I then turned to the entry in Wikipedia, which, for all the potential pitfalls of a reader-created encyclopaedia, was very informative. Besides, there were tons of links for me to fact check with other sources.

In no short order, I was reacquainting myself with the English Civil War, the regicide of Charles I, the reign of Oliver Cromwell, the Restoration of the Monarchy and the origins of it all, beginning with the plot against the murdered king's father, James I, which ended with the grisly demise of Mr. Fawkes (he was hanged, drawn and quartered).

It turns out that the mask in the movie is modeled after Guy Fawkes, which also explains the wig and cape. It will all resonate with British audiences, given that it was illegal until 1959 to not celebrate the capture of Fawkes and the failure of the Gunpowder Plot, but I wonder if American audiences will get it, absent a history lesson.

Anyhow, click click click, I found myself reading about Samuel Pepys, who is remembered more than 300 years after his death for the meticulous diary he kept for ten years during the 1690s. Pepys detailed his affairs in the service of the King, as well as his affairs in the pursuit of a little slap and tickle, Mrs. Pepys notwithstanding.

Pepys witnessed a tremendous amount of history, including the Great Fire of London, the Plague ravaging England, the beheading of King James and the execution (hanging, drawing and quartering, again! ) of one of the men responsible for the regicide, after the late king's son won back the throne and exacted a cruel revenge.

So, I click over to Gerard Van der Leun's web site this morning, to find that he's been reading . . . wait for it . . . Pepys' diary, linking to the same site I'd been studying the day before.

I know, it's not the most earth shattering coincidence, but really, what are the odds.

So, at the end of the day, I've learned about English history, politics, intrigues, methods of torture and execution, as well as how kidney stones were removed in the 17th Century (don't ask).

And of course, that Van der Leun and I are apparently treading the same cyber path.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Consumer Reports for combat

Michael Yon, the freelance journalist showing the MSM how a war ought to be reported, checks in with his take on the best camera for combat photography.

In addition to making for interesting reading, Yon re-posts some of his best photos, too.

Check it out.

And don't forget to hit the tip jar; readers like you keep him in the field.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Actors who served

I spent some time learning about the history of Camp Roberts during my recent stay on post, visiting the museum in the old Red Cross building. The exhibits cover the history of the base, from the early 1900s, when it was still privately owned, to its construction in 1940-41, through Korea, Vietnam and beyond.

The photo above was displayed just off the lobby, where it notes the military service of one of my favorite actors.

Can't see him?

Well, he parlayed his rugged good looks and don't-give-a-damn attitude into a decades-long career as a movie tough guy.

Although he'd had parts in top Hollywood films like Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, Robert Mitchum's first starring role came in 1945, when he played the Army lieutenant leading his men through the ordeal of the Italian Campaign in Story of G.I. Joe, for which he received a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

G.I. Joe, based on the writings of war correspondent Ernie Pyle, is a tremendous tribute to the dogfaces slogging their way across Europe. It gains additional power when you realize that many of the extras on camera are real G.I.s, veterans of the fighting against Nazi Germany -- and were later killed in the battle to capture Okinawa, the same battle in which Pyle was killed by a Japanese sniper.

If you've never seen it, it's well worth watching.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 03, 2007

Talk about job-related benefits!

I was reading this message thread at Surplus Rifle Forum when a photo caught my eye.

Some guys have all the luck! I wonder if this gunsmith's client is hiring.

Just a tease ... here's what 30 brand-new old FA Tommy guns looks like. Sorry about the picture quality; hadda use my camera phone as I forgot to take my good camera.

These belong to a very wealthy Texas entrepreneur. Just how he located the receivers is anyones guess. They are all original Auto Ordinance pieces, all fully-transferrable NFA items. The kits used to assemble them are all unissued ones that we imported from Russia a few years ago.

These were guns we sent over that the Russians never used; they were stored in huge caves, along with tanks and halftracks, etc., that also never got used. Many have put forth that the reason the Russians never used these guns was 'cause they had no .45 ACP ammo. This is totally wrong. In fact, in the same facility that these guns were stored in, is probably 45 million rounds of USGI .45 ACP ammo still in sealed containers, as well as huge quantities of USGI .30 ammo (30/06) also never even opened.

Don got some better pics with his lil camera while I was getting these ready for test fire, 2-twenty round mags through each, then we hadda clean 'em all and put 'em in the original crates they were shipped to russia in.

We are told these are to be gifts to executives in this man's corporation! Talk bout a Christmas bonus! From right to left you have 10 M1s, next 10 M1A1s, and last 10 1928A1s. All of the '28A1s got original Lyman target sights.

I'm wonderin' how many more of these receivers are still in the same stash and how much $$. They were still in grease and literally in new condition, other than a few very minor spots of surface rust.

I've come across stories over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, of intrepid treasure hunters finding all manner of military hardware stored in warehouses, undisturbed for more than 60 years, with even rarer items -- like German planes and tanks -- being pulled from Russian bogs and lakes.

That American collectors are (for the most part) precluded from getting their hands on these incredibly well-preserved parts of our military heritage is a crying shame.

It's also noteworthy that the gunsmith and his client live in the great state of Texas.

Did I mention that I've always felt a deep, abiding kinship with Texans?

And what I wouldn't give for access to some of those caves and warehouses in Mother Russia.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack