Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

Main

December 31, 2007

J-Pod on McCain and Rudy

Returning to the well that is the Hugh Hewitt show -- Why aren't you listening on his website, if you can't listen at work? -- here's a trenchant bit of analysis byCommentary editor John Podhoretz.

Hugh Hewitt: Objectively, putting aside who you want to win, who do you think is actually better skilled to conduct the war on terror, Giuliani or McCain?

John Podhoretz: Well, I don’t know about…I mean, I trust Giuliani’s judgment more than McCain’s, in the sense that I think he would come at it from the right angle, and that you know, McCain is often sidelined or sideswiped by personal quirks, I would say, that he gets ornery about. And you know, the thing about McCain is that he, and the thing about Giuliani is that he is a fighter, you know…

Hugh Hewitt: He likes to fight.

John Podhoretz: He goes after his enemies, and you know, McCain’s problem is that he has a certain hunger to go after his friends. That’s the McCain problem.

McCain has spent the past decade jabbing his thumb in the eye of the GOP, doing his best to become the New York Times favorite Republican -- and largely succeeding.

Would that he was as willing to take on the Democrats as he is his ostensible fellow conservatives.

I quote Hewitt again on McCain: "A great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican."

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Mark Steyn on Iowa and beyond

I missed this interview from Hugh Hewitt's show, but as with everything else Mark Steyn says, the analysis seems spot on.

Mark Steyn: Tom Tancredo’s task is accomplished. He was never going to be a presidential runner, but he got his issue in the game, which I think is a critical issue for the base. The base doesn’t want a McCainite policy on immigration. It doesn’t want this, you know, whatever Huckabee claims his position is as of the moment. It wants a reliable border enforcement, and it wants respect. It wants the same respect that the American people have for American citizenship laws, and doesn’t want citizenship corrupted. Tom Tancredo, it’s, you know, it’s cruel, it’s a cruel world, but he was never going to be a presidential contender, but he did his job, and he got his issue there, and if he’s concluded that Mitt Romney is the best person to advance that issue for him, I think that is quite a big deal.

Hugh Hewitt: Now talk to me about what’s going on in New Hampshire, because of course, McCain’s got a little boomlet there ....

Mark Steyn: Well ... I think there is a McCain boomlet in New Hampshire. And even more interestingly, there’s an odd kind of stirrings in Iowa. And I read it this way. I think, you know, clearly, New Hampshire wants to identity the anyone-but-Huckabee candidate. And that, to date, has been Governor Romney. But I think there is also a market for an anyone but Huckabee or Romney candidate. And Rudy Giuliani assumed all along that he would be that man, he would be the alternative to Romney. And I think, you know, McCain, in a sense, is benefiting from the fact that Giuliani is in freefall.

Hugh Hewitt: Now Mark Steyn, we’ve talked many times, John McCain is a great American, a lousy Senator and a terrible Republican. He was anti-tax cuts, he was pro-Gang of 14, he was McCain-Kennedy on immigration. He cannot possibly carry the base. So who is supporting him in New Hampshire?

Mark Steyn: Well, the Union Leader, the state newspaper in New Hampshire, thinks that…independents can vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primary. And to date, a lot of it has shown that most, the independents were breaking and planning on voting in the Democratic primary, where supposedly, they’d be voting for Obama, I guess, and, or even John Edwards as some suggestion he has some independent support. And just in the last few weeks, some of them have been moving back and saying they’re thinking of voting in the Republican primary. And I would assume they have got to be McCain voters. You know, last time around in 2000, he lost very badly in primaries that were confined purely to Republican voters. It was independents who generally provided his margin of victory.

Hugh Hewitt: Now if Romney finishes second in Iowa and New Hampshire, does he have a campaign to continue?

Mark Steyn: I think he does. I think the interesting thing about this campaign season is that there are so many variables, a lot’s going to depend on how things shake out in Iowa and New Hampshire. But if you’re, say, second in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, I think that gives you the ability, and he’s certainly got the money, to stick it out. The problem for someone like Giuliani, who basically had this kind of 1-800 candidacy, he was going to be, he was going to fight a national primary, and ignored ground campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think all the momentum has developed, all the talk, all the buzz has developed about everybody else, and he isn’t even part of that conversation anymore.

I like the way Hewitt describes McCain: "A great American, a lousy Senator and a terrible Republican." Sums up the many reasons why I think the guy doesn't have a shot at winning the nomination. If he changed parties, maybe.

Steyn notes that the Republicans seem to be fighting over ideas, basic differences in ideology and political philosophy, in a way not seen amongst the Donks.

Mark Steyn: I mean, who really knows Edwards-Obama-Hillary? What difference does it make? It’s just a question of putting the prettiest face on the same old same old. I mean, what I have a problem with, in a sense, I can understand someone like Ron Paul, who has a radical but philosophically grounded view of things. What bothers me about Huckabee, and to a certain extent, McCain, is that there seems to be no breaks on any of their inclinations, other than how they happen, personally, to feel about it. So to me, they seem philosophically unmoored. But I thought the Will piece, you know, in presupposing that somehow being pro-life is an optional extra on the Republican side, whereas, you know, a commitment to free trade isn’t, I’m not, that smelled like a bogus argument to me.

HH: I thought it was a cheap shot at Mike Huckabee, because it is part of the Reagan coalition to be Evangelical and be pro-life. 20 seconds, Mark Steyn, I want to get a prediction. Who’s going to win in Iowa and New Hampshire?

MS: I think unless something terrible happens, Huck is pretty much a shoe-in there. I think Romney can still hold on in New Hampshire. The question is, actually, I think whether there’s going to be a little Huckabee boomlet that will put him into third place. But McCain could still pull it off in New Hampshire.

In the week-and-a-half since that interview aired, Huckabee's begun his slide in the polls. The more the GOP learns about this guy, the less appealing he is -- to the base, as well as the general electorate. His comments in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, wherein he said the U.S. owed Pakistan an apology, was so awful it had me checking multiple sites to see if I'd heard correctly.

A blame-America-first candidate running for the GOP nomination?

Oy!

I suspect Huckabee's done.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Patterico on the L.A. Times: From bad to worse

Patterico's fifth year-end review takes a look back at the L.A. Times continuing slide into irrelevance, bias and bile during 2007, with issue-by-issue analysis.

From illegal immigration to terrorism, anti-police rhetoric to pro-Democrat puff pieces, Patterico has the goods.

It was an Annus Horribilis for the Times -- and for Los Angeles residents stuck getting their news from the truly terrible morning paper.

Check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 30, 2007

ONE People! ONE Nation!

Watching Fox News Sunday and just watched an ad for organization called "ONE."

The commercial features a mob of college-age teens in the desert, harmonizing as the voiceover tells the viewer that we can eliminate global poverty.

That Americans can eliminate global warming.

That Americans can eliminate AIDS around the world.

How?

By getting involved in the American political process, by demanding our elected representatives work to achieve these goals.

Oh.

I forgot to add one final ingredient.

By sending gobs and gobs of American cash, taken out of my pocket and yours, and dumped overseas.

Because, you see, money fixes everything.

So I went to the website.

This is the mission statement, taken from the "ABOUT" page.

ABOUT ONE

ONE is Americans of all beliefs and every walk of life - united as ONE - to help make poverty history. We are a campaign of over 2.4 million people and growing from all 50 states and over 100 of America's most well-known and respected non-profit, advocacy and humanitarian organizations. As ONE, we are raising public awareness about the issues of global poverty, hunger, disease and efforts to fight such problems in the world's poorest countries. As ONE, we are asking our leaders to do more to fight the emergency of global AIDS and extreme poverty. ONE believes that allocating more of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world's poorest countries.

ONE is nonpartisan; there's only one side in the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty. Working on the ground in communities, colleges and churches across the United States, ONE members both educate and ask America's leaders to increase efforts to fight global AIDS and extreme poverty, from the U.S. budget and presidential elections to specific legislation on debt cancellation, increasing effective international assistance, making trade fair, and fighting corruption. Everyone can join the fight. The goal of ending poverty may seem lofty, but it is within our reach if we take action together as one. You can start now by joining the ONE Campaign and pledging your voice to the fight against extreme poverty and global AIDS.

My wallet just ran from the room, shrieking. How 'bout yours?

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:06 AM

December 28, 2007

El Stupido defends judge formerly known as El Maximo ...

Wow.

Who peed in Ventura County Star Editor Joe Howry's Cornflakes?

Howry's been attacking the D.A. for the last few weeks for working within the system to deal with a judge who has been handing out uncommonly lenient sentences to criminals in his courtroom.

Today, Howry unleashes one of his flying monkeys, a fellow by the name of Louis J. Pandolfi, who proceeds to embarrass himself and the Star in an opinion piece consisting of personal attacks on the D.A. and one of the D.A.'s deputies, as well as nearly incomprehensible statements of support for the Imperial Judiciary, hobos, thieves and jaywalkers.

And criminal defense attorneys. Which is not surprising, seeing as he's married to a deputy public defender.

Just to be fair, I'm going to refer to Pandolfi as "El Stupido" from here on out, for reasons that will be clear as you read his essay.

El Stupido begins like this:

Assistant District Attorney Groberg's attempt to "hit the nail on the head" misses not only the nail but even drops the hammer. Judge Arturo Gutierrez has been a very tough law-and-order judge for his entire career. His sentences have always been extremely tough and his bail schedule at the top of the chart. In other words, Judge Gutierrez has been a prosecutor's dream. This has always been recognized by the criminal defense bar and earned this judge the well-deserved nickname of "El Maximo."

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:46 AM

Bad day at the office

I know the feeling.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 27, 2007

Why do hybrid owners hate Nature?

If all those holier-than-thou types driving the Toyota Pious Prius really wanted to make a difference about reducing pollution, they'd be clamoring for diesels.

Diesels? Those dirty, stinky, noisy rattletraps we remember from the '80s?

Erm, no.

The latest generation of diesel engines are fast, quiet, clean, and very, very efficient.

Take the aforementioned Prius, widely touted as the most eco-friendly thing on wheels.

Aside from the fact that it contains huge batteries chock-full-'o heavy metals and difficult-to-dispose-of toxic waste, the Prius gets a whopping 54 mpg on average.

That VW gets 74.3 mpg!

And did you notice that the Prius puts out more CO2 than the VW? Which would be important if anthropogenic Global Warming really existed. But still, it's great that the diesel has a smaller "carbon footprint" than the good-for-rainbows-and-unicorns Toyota.

And the Vee-Dub does it without those heavy, expensive batteries that'll need replacing in five years (or less), making do with a diesel engine that ought to last 250,000 miles without blinking an eye.

Other automakers are waking up to the potential of the diesel, too.

Popular Mechanics has a great article with an easy-to-grasp explanation of how the diesel engine differs from its gasoline cousin, as well as details of the new generation of oil burners -- with the scoop on why they're so much better than what we've seen in the past.

Sweet.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Rachel Lucas is back!

Rachel Lucas has returned to blogging, and that makes me very, very happy.

It should make you happy, too, because she's a very good writer, with a rather pungent -- but often hilarious -- take on things.

Like her recent observations on malls, piss-poor parents at malls, and the crap-tastic clothing being sold at said malls.

Or what it's like going to Target.

Or her take on the candidate for taking the top honors in the Darwin Awards.

Good stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Search coding

Search

• Search this site:
  
  

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:13 AM

December 26, 2007

Taps for "Great Escape" survivor

As much as I love the 1963 film "The Great Escape," the thrilling -- and tragic -- account of the ingenuous Allied POWs who pulled off the largest mass escape of World War II, it was Paul Brickhill's book that really brought these heroes to life.

If you've only seen the film, read the book.

And now the last of those brave men to make it to freedom -- if only for a few days -- has left us.

Flight Lieutenant Mick Shand, who died on Thursday aged 92, was a fighter pilot interned at Stalag Luft III at Sagan and survived "the Great Escape" - the last to emerge from the tunnel before it was discovered, he was recaptured after four days on the run.

Shand and his fellow New Zealander Squadron Leader Len Trent, VC, planned to "hard arse" it on foot to Czechoslovakia in the hope of getting to Switzerland.

They had no great expectation of reaching England, and felt it would be impossible to make it across the frozen countryside undetected - but they felt they "had to do something".

The two men moved down the 100-metre tunnel, codenamed "Harry", after midnight on the night of March 24/25 1944. Delays meant that it was almost 5am when they reached the exit, which came out in the open, a few yards from the intended spot in the cover of woods.

Shand was the 76th prisoner to emerge from the tunnel and was running across the dead ground to the woods when a patrolling guard spotted Trent emerging.

Shand threw himself to the snow-covered ground. In later years he observed: "I knew we had been rumbled. I don't think the goon knew what was going on either as we all froze.

"The minute he looked away, I made a run for the woods. That was it, I was out." The startled guard fired his rifle, but the bullet passed over Shand's head as he dived into the woods.

Finding himself alone, Shand began to walk and was on the run for almost four days, travelling at night and resting by day. The weather conditions were harsh, and he was finally caught by two railway workers as he was waiting to jump on a freight train.

He was taken to Gorlitz Prison, where he found himself amongst a group of fellow escapers.

Over the next two days the Gestapo took most of the recaptured RAF prisoners away. Shand was one of a group of four who were collected by the Luftwaffe and returned to Sagan, where he was horrified to learn that most of his colleagues had been shot by the Gestapo.

The final total of those murdered was 50. Some time later the PoWs learned that three men - two Norwegians and a Dutchman - had successfully made it back to Britain.

[...]

After the Great Escape, Shand remained at Stalag Luft III until the camp was evacuated in January 1945, the PoWs being forced to march westwards in the harshest winter for many years.

In May he was liberated. He returned to England before going home to New Zealand in September.

Shand always considered himself extremely fortunate to be one of the few survivors of the Great Escape, in which three of his fellow New Zealanders were murdered.

In later years he said he thought the venture was worth it, explaining: "We had to do something to hit back at the Germans. We did it to cause chaos behind enemy lines, and that's exactly what we did."

Rest in peace.

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

Ounce of prevention update

I went to the doctor for a follow-up to my recent close encounter of the cardiac kind, and he asked me about my immunizations.

Working with the public, especially in the arraignment courts, where a large percentage of the defendants hack, cough, spit, snork and blargle in the audience, sending a D-Day-sized invasion fleet of viruses headed for the back of my neck, leaves many DAs and court personnel compulsive Purel hand scrubbers.

When a 30-year hype thief explains to the judge that she needs a stay on her jail time "Cause my Hepatitis is gettin' real bad!" I generally have two thoughts:

"You know, if I squint really hard, just before everything goes black, she kind of looks like a less used-up Pamela Anderson."

The other thought is, "I wonder if I can hold my breath for the next two hours."

Anyhow, the annual flu shot is absolutely necessary if any time is spent hanging out in packed, stuffy courtrooms.

My physician asked if I'd had it yet, and when I said, "No," he offered to have me jabbed in the shoulder.

He flipped through my charts and suggested I get a DTAP booster, too.

DTAP?

Diptheria, Tetanus (Lockjaw) and Pertussis -- Whooping Cough.

According to the good doctor, the childhood vaccinations we receive for Pertussis -- once thought to provide lifetime immunity -- are wearing off, and increasing numbers of adults are contracting the convulsive, body-contorting, coughing illness.

WILLMAR — Local medical providers are stepping up their efforts to fend off an old infectious enemy — whooping cough. Whooping cough, or pertussis, has traditionally been regarded as a childhood disease. But teenagers and adults can get sick from it too, and often they spread it to younger, more vulnerable children as well. That’s why booster doses of vaccine are now being recommended for teenagers — as well as for many adults, especially those who spend time around very young children or who have certain health risks such as asthma, emphysema or immune-system problems.

If you think whooping cough is a disease of the past, think again. The bacterium that causes it, Bordetella pertussis, has never been completely eradicated.

Bordetella, eh? I wonder if the vaccination Bogie gets for Kennel Cough is related to human whooping cough.

Slate recently took a look at which vaccinations were a good idea for an adult to consider getting, and DTAP was at the top of the list.

Here's some information from the CDC on the vaccine.

It's a painless, low-risk piece of prevention; ask your doctor if you need one, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 25, 2007

Merry Christmas!

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 23, 2007

Another Ventura County Star sliming

If one could hire a gastroenterologist with a specialization in large-animal medicine, the language skills of Dr. Dolittle and the note-taking ability of a court reporter, then station him near the back end of a cow that had been fed a plate of refried beans and cheese and have the good physician listen, interpret and transcribe the emanations from the bovine patient's fundament, you'd end up with an essay more logical, more fact-filled -- although surprisingly less pungent -- than the "editorial" by Ventura County Star Editor Joe Howry in today's paper.

It's a shame, really.

When it comes to dead-tree media, Ventura County residents only have three choices: The Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Ventura County Star.

The Times devotes few resources to our county, and the News -- L.A.'s second-place-because-there's-no-one-else-to-be-in-third-place paper -- has scaled back its coverage of Ventura, too.

Which means that my fellow Venturans are forced to rely on the Star, currently under the (ahem) leadership of editor Howry.

And Howry is a hack of the first order, as he proved recently -- and again today -- when he penned a hit piece lambasting District Attorney Greg Totten for having the nerve to -- oh, what do they call it? -- protect the public.

Totten filed a legal motion last month, seeking to disqualify a certain judge from sentencing criminals because of his reluctance to put convicted crooks on probation.

Howry's editorial was remarkably light on facts, and when commenters criticized the Star's boss, the comments were deleted -- making the Ventura County paper of record a laughingstock throughout the world, thanks to bloggers like Patterico, Charles Johnson and Hot Air spreading the word.

The D.A. wrote a response, explaining his reasons for filing the legal motions to disqualify the judge from hearing a number of cases. Shortly thereafter, one of my colleagues responded to a baseless charge of racism leveled against the D.A.; the head of a local Latino advocacy group had scribbled a scurrilous opinion piece containing no facts, and Howry published the piece in his paper's opinion pages.

Today, clearly annoyed that the public was not storming the Courthouse demanding the D.A.'s head, Howry took another stab at that writing thing.

The results aren't pretty.

Not content with his previous personal attacks on the D.A., Howry now questions Totten's ethics, as well as the ethics of the deputy district attorney who dared to disagree with the race pimps who try to turn the narrative from punishing criminals to putting the wood to La Raza.

The Star's editor claims that the D.A. and his deputy are arrogant, disingenuous, and conscienceless.

But let's put all that aside.

You know what's really troubling -- aside from the fact that Howry's a bully?

It's that he's a bully who can't write.

Check out the end of his rant.

Why did the DA's Office wait until just two months before Judge Gutierrez was scheduled to retire?

This question is perhaps the most profound and revealing. The DA knew full well when he sought to prevent Gutierrez from hearing any more misdemeanor cases that, by the time it was resolved by the appeals court, he would be retired. In effect, the point would be moot because the judge would be off the bench. The DA claims he respects Judge Gutierrez. Sullying his name during his final days on the bench is a strange way of showing it.

"[P]rofound and revealing?"

Erm, no.

Unlike the spittle-flecked, vein-popping ways of moonbat journalists and editors, the legal world is much more dispassionate, more analytical. The fact that the judge is soon retiring has nothing to do with the timing, and although Howry is proud of the way he's used the word "moot" (Look at me, Ma! Just like a lawyer!), he hasn't bothered to do any research into its legal meaning or useage.

Litigating this issue will settle the matter for the future, regardless of which judge is in court.

The legal question is, "Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.6 provides a means for the Prosecution and the Defense to disqualify a judge from presiding over a trial or contested legal hearing. Does an arraignment that proceeds directly to sentencing constitute the type of legal proceeding that falls within the ambit of C.C.P. Sec. 170.6?"

As has been stated by the D.A. in the pages of Howry's paper, the defense can get away from a judge they think is too punitive in an arraignment court simply by setting the case for trial; this allows them to start "judge shopping," looking for a more sympathetic jurist willing to give the criminal defendant a break.

The defense can -- and does -- file 170.6s as a matter of routine; the Public Defender has driven judges out of the criminal courts completely, forced them into civil or family court, because the P.D.s thought the law-and-order judges were too harsh on the crooks.

Oh, did Howry neglect to tell you that filing 170.6s isn't unusual? Did the Star's editor give you an incomplete picture of the system?

Was he being disingenuous, or just ignorant?

That last bit, about "sullying" the judge's name, well, that's just idiotic. The filing of a legal motion authorized by statute and incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure simply cannot sully a judge's name or reputation.

On the other hand, both of Howry's editorials, as well as the article by the LULAC dope, actually are attempts to sully the name and reputation of someone in the courthouse, but, seeing as how the intended recipient of that sullying is a member of the prosecution team, I guess it's okay.

Back to Howry's opus.

They have closed ranks and circled the wagons at the Hall of Justice. They are relying on the blind trust and support of Ventura County residents who place public safety as the No. 1 priority. It is a time-honored tactic that has served them well in the past and has relieved them of any accountability for their actions.

As long as we don't demand true accountability, this will continue and we can only wonder who will be the next victim.

Apparently, Howry wants the D.A. held accountable for ... making public safety his top concern.

Okaaaay.

Howry says, "this will continue," and that's a bad thing. And then there will be more victims. Unless there's "true accountability."

Or something.

The only "victims" I know of -- and the only ones I care about -- are the victims of crime.

Listen, Joe -- Can I call you Joe? This fear that the D.A. is getting away with something, that there's no mechanism for holding him accountable for the way he's doing his job?

Relax.

C'mere.

Closer.

Don't tell anyone, but there's a way we can hold the D.A. accountable.

It's called an "election."

If the voters are unhappy with the D.A. trying to get the judges to crack down on crooks, I'm pretty sure they'll try out that accountability thing that's got you all hot and bothered.

Back to the readers.

If you subscribe to the Star, if you own a business that advertises in the paper, I have a question for you:

Why? Why do you give money to a paper that's opposed to punishing criminals?

If your business is targeted by thieves, why give advertising dollars to a paper that opposes putting a thief on probation and telling him he can't return to your store?

If you like walking around town with your kids and hate having to shield your children from aggressive panhandlers and drunken beggers puking and pissing on the sidewalks, why patronize a paper that is opposed to placing drunks on probation and telling them they have to stay away from the park or business they've disrupted?

Howry's piece notwithstanding, the only victims here are the law-abiding members of the community.

And anyone unfortunate enough to have read his editorial.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

It's official

	I received 86 credits on The Sci Fi Sounds Quiz How much of a Sci-Fi geek are you?
Take the Sci-Fi Movie Quiz canon s5 is

I'm not just a geek.

I'm a Sci-Fi geek.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:18 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 22, 2007

Why I like Fred Thompson

The knock on Fred Thompson from many people (including commenter Bill H.) is that the candidate doesn't have the "fire in the belly," no great desire to be president.

I, on the other hand, like a man who doesn't lust after the job.

Thompson proves over and over again that he's not willing to pander to voters just to win the presidency, making him the authentic "straight talk" candidate.

Check out this interview from the Iowa Waverly Democrat.

AKD: What will you do for the farmers of Bremer County?

FT: (laughs)

AKD: You knew this was coming, right?

FT: I would continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I’ve been looking all over Iowa for a bad steak and I can’t find it. Been trying my best.

It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something. Farmers want fair treatment and a chance to prosper in a free economy and that’s what I would help ensure.

There’s a lot of programs we’ve got out there, some of which are good programs, some of which are not. And I think that we need to work our way through that and make sure we’re doing what’s good for the country, not just the farmers, not just the people of Iowa, not just the people of Tennessee. But good for the country.

[...]

We’re going to have to phase out the corporate welfare system we’ve got, however. There are extremely rich people living in skyscrapers in Manhattan that are receiving subsidy payments. I think that’s wrong. I’d put a stop to that if it was within my power. That still continues in this latest Farm Bill and it’s not right. There ought to be a cutoff at some level and it’s not right ot have millionaires receiving farm subsidies.

Did you get that? Fred Thompson told a bunch of Iowans he favors ending farm subsidies to wealthy farm owners! And he said it in Iowa!

I love this guy.

JANELLE PENNY: What’s something people would be surprised to learn about you?

FT: Me? That I am a fantastic breakdancer.

(laughter)

AKD: Really? Are you going to show us?

FT: What are you laughing about?

(laughter)

FT: That’s very impolite. Are you questioning my credibility on something - I’m pulling your leg. I wouldn’t know if it was a breakdance or another kind of dance if I saw it. I don’t even know what it is. But somebody told me that would be a good answer. I didn’t mean to be flippant with you, young lady, but something you don’t know at this stage of the game is probably going to remain something you don’t know.

(laughter)

AKD: Have you heard a question that has surprised you throughout your campaign? Something you really wish - or perhaps a question you wish the media would ask you, but they just are not asking you that question. There is one question that is inside of you and you really want to talk about it.

FT: I wouldn’t put it quite like that but I’ll tell you what comes to mind if you won’t require me to answer it because it would probably take five minutes and I’m getting all kinds of signals here.

America’s role in the 21st century. Where are we going? What are our goals? What role do we play in relationship to our friends and our foes? How do we see that going? What are the things we’re going to have to do diplomatically, militarily, domestically in order to secure our country now and to preserve us for the future. The trouble with things like that, it’s certainly not the big questions.

There’s hardly a forum, they’re not television questions at all. And they’re almost not media questions unless you’re writing a magazine article, I suppose. And it’s probably the most fundamental issue we have to deal with. And it’s not just the question, I think the process should involve an opportunity for all the candidates, anybody who aspires to be president, get them together, preferably together sitting around a small table and have everybody expound on that. Have them discuss that. Have them probe each other as to the depth of their understanding and knowledge of the kind of world we live in.

It hasn’t happened. It won’t happen. That’s the nature of campaigning for the highest office in the nation. I’m not sure what the solution is, but it’s a lacking in our system that could stand a lot of improvement. Thank you very much.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:42 AM

December 21, 2007

Remembering MSgt Harry Smith

The local obituary page is a constant reminder of the dwindling number of World War II veterans in our midst -- and of the missed opportunities to thank them for their service, and hear first-hand their incredible life stories.

Like that of Harry H. Smith.

Harry "Dick" [Smith] was born in Summerville, Okla., Aug. 29, 1920, to John and Jewell Smith.

He joined the United States Army Air Corps in 1940 and was stationed on the Bataan Peninsula when the Japanese attacked the Philippines. He first avoided capture in the Peninsula by swimming to Corregidor, where he was later captured and made to march in the Bataan Death March. He remained a prisoner of war for 42 months.

As a prisoner of war, he witnessed the mushroom cloud made by the dropping of an atomic bomb. Harry remained in the Army Air Corps and Air Force until his retirement in 1961. Harry retired as a master sergeant and was awarded numerous medals and citations, including the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal.

Harry worked in civil service and retired from the Point Mugu Naval Base.

Those few sentences sent chills down my spine; Bataan Death March, swimming to Corregidor, witness to the A-bomb blast that ensured the war's end.

What a life!

You can leave your condolences here, and tell the family, "Thanks" for Harry's service.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Tainting the jury pool

I drove home from work the other night, enjoying the display of Christmas lights that turned my neighborhood into a sparkling, twinkling Winter wonderland.

Southern California lacks distinct seasons -- something I miss about the East Coast, where the huge changes in the weather helps mark the passage of time. Here in the Southland, it's mainly the visual things, like Christmas lights -- and the songs playing at the local Target -- that tell you whether its Spring, Fall, Winter or Summer.

So, the weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas are when Christian homes go through a metamorphosis, emerging from their Yule-tide cocoons looking like glittering, bejeweled butterflies.

And it makes this Jewish kid from Brooklyn smile, year after year.

Anyhow, as I pulled up to the mailbox, I saw three police cars arrive with great haste, the cops quickly moving in and talking to some people on the sidewalk.

My neighborhood is a quiet one, filled with young families in well-maintained homes, all built within the last few years. It's a low-crime district; stuff like this is unusual.

Curious, I strolled over, still in my formal D.A.-wear, to see what was going on. A shadowy figure had been speaking with two cops, appearing to be very agitated; as I got closer, that person turned and ran to a house down the street. The police then walked 50 feet and joined another cop who was standing with one of my neighbors, a young woman.

I stood on the corner, about 30 feet from the three cops who were speaking with her, my hands in my pockets, unable to hear anything being said. I noticed a fourth cop across the street, talking to a relative of the young woman.

Suddenly, a voice boomed out.

"Can I help you, sir?"

I looked at the group of three cops talking to my neighbor. The tallest of three had barked out the inquiry in hard, command tones, the law enforcement equivalent of a shot across the bow. The "sir" at the end of his question dripped with hostility, suspicion and what sure sounded like contempt.

Surprised by the reaction, I did a mental self-assessment:

Black wing-tips?

Check.

Dark-grey wool suit pants?

Check.

Conservative dress shirt?

Check.

Boring, D.A.-appropriate necktie?

Check.

Dirty clothes, gang attire, threatening behavior or signs of intoxication or drug use?

Uh, no.

"No, thanks," I replied, using a neutral tone of voice. "I just live in the neighborhood and wanted to see what was going on."

The cop stared at me. My cooly-delivered response seemed to piss him off.

"Nothing. That. Concerns. You." he said, in a voice that added the unspoken coda, "So go in your dirty, little house and pound sand, douchebag."

I turned and walked away.

Here's the problem.

I don't give a darn about the fact that he was rude to me; he didn't know me from Adam, had no idea that I'm part of the criminal justice community.

When I first became a deputy district attorney, I received a sage bit of wisdom: when you leave the office, you're surrounded by people who will someday end up in the jury box, trying to decide whether or not they believe the witnesses, evidence and arguments put to them by the attorney standing in the well.

A trial lawyer is always on stage, his behavior in and out of the courtroom affecting his case -- for good or ill.

Encounters like this poison the pool of potential jurors; when cops treat law-abiding members of the community like criminals, the seeds of mistrust are planted.

I -- or any other person -- had a perfect right to stand on the sidewalk and watch the cops at work, so long as I kept my distance and did not try to interfere with their investigation. Remember, I didn't get closer than about eight to ten yards, never said anything to distract.

Had I wanted to, I could have gone back to the house, fetched a camcorder and returned to videotape the goings on.

There is simply no reason for the cops to be rude to the general public, and moments like this serve to make it harder for prosecutors to find jurors who haven't had a negative encounter with the police.

And that's unfortunate, because most cops are great at community relations, unfailingly polite in their encounters with civilians.

All it takes is one jerk to taint the well.

Nice work, officer.

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

December 19, 2007

Holy crap!

These are the most revolting creatures in the animal kingdom -- although I have to marvel at their ingenuity.

But still, bleccch.

You were warned.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:21 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Best Thompson campaign ad

It's not an official Fred Thompson ad, but it sure does make me like him even more.

Although I could take a pass on the music.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Shaking hands with the last quiet justice

Patterico shook hands with U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas last night, and came away favorably impressed with the man; his handshake was firm, friendly but not too effusive.

Oh, the speech was pretty good, too.

Justice Thomas had some amusing stories to tell. He said when he first got to the Court, he was eating with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Stevens. He said he was telling them how awed and humbled he was to be there with them, and how he felt he didn’t belong. He imitated Chief Justice Rehnquist’s low voice saying:

Well, Clarence. The first five years you’re here, you wonder how you got here. After that, you wonder how your colleagues got here.

Asked the eternal question about why he doesn’t ask questions in oral argument, he gave his stock answer (this isn’t Perry Mason) and then told a story about how when the relatively quiet Justice White retired, the also quiet Harry Blackmun came up to Thomas, put his arms around him, and said: “Clarence, it’s just us now.” Then Thomas put his arms around himself and said: “Now I sometimes put my arms around myself and say, Clarence, it’s just you now.”

Mrs. Patterico said he failed to say something witty when he met the justice, but the blogger notes that time was short and there were hundreds of people waiting behind him.

It's a familiar dilemma; face-to-face with someone famous you admire and respect, the urge to say something memorable seems overwhelming, but the risk of sounding self-obsessed -- or like an insane stalker -- is quite high.

I think Patterico took the safe (and sane) option, offering a mundane anecdote noting the last time he'd seen the justice, and moved on.

Thomas sounds like a man successfully resisting the egomania that tempts some of his brethren into uncontrollable bloviation -- on the bench and off.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 17, 2007

Michael Ramirez

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Romney still supports gun bans

Want to know why Mitt Romney can kiss my vote good-bye?

In a word: guns.

Romney was on Meet the Press yesterday, and host Tim Russert elicited some answers sure to enrage conservatives.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?

GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…

MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?

GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.

MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…

MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?

GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…

He supports "the right of Americans to bear arms."

Except when he doesn't.

For those of you who do not shoot, who do not own guns, allow me to explain why this talk of "weapons of extraordinary lethality" is complete and utter bunk.

So-called assault weapons, the Boogeymen of the would-be gun banners, are chambered in a smaller caliber than traditional high-powered rifles. The dreaded M-16 and its civilian variants, and the AK-47 and it's later, more modern cousin, the AK-74, use significantly smaller, less powerful rounds than the previous generation of military surplus rifles they replaced.

So, when talk turns to guns of "extraordinary lethality," what the gun banners like Romney are talking about are anything from the previously-mentioned mil-surps to less scary-looking but much more effective hunting weapons like bolt-actions, lever actions, semi-autos and shotguns chambered in the myriad of traditional hunting calibers.

Because, what these dipsticks conveniently overlook -- in spite of their protestations that they'd never interfere with the rights of Sportsmen -- is that any round capable of dropping a pissed-off elk, moose, caribou, buck or bison in its tracks can also kill a man, too.

And a shotgun that can take down a turkey or a deer will also make quick work of a human.

So, when Romney says he'd only ban guns that present that extraordinary risk to police, what he's saying he's is that he's prepared to sign a ban on everything bigger than .22s.

But if he denies it, walks back from this latest manifestation of East Coast, big city, liberal fear and ignorance about firearms, then we're left with yet another Republican candidate who truly doesn't understand the Second Amendment, doesn't know the first thing about guns -- and who's willing to say anything to get elected.

Mark my words: Millions of conservatives will sit this election out if the choice is between a gun-banning Democrat and a gun-banning liberal Republican.

And don't give me that, "What if it's Hillary?" nonsense. If the GOP nominates a candidate who is so similar to the Democrat that I need a decoder ring to tell their positions apart, then what's the bloody point? I'll not cast a ballot for a man who is too dense to understand that the Second Amendment is the guarantee of all liberty, the ultimate check on the power of the State.

I feel like Michael Corleone when he spoke of Fredo's betrayal: Mitt Romney is dead to me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A close call

A close friend e-mailed with an account of his brush with death this past weekend; with his permission, here it is.

I thought you might enjoy a story about a dangerous event that nearly killed me on Saturday. It seems weird starting it this way, but I haven't been that close to the edge in quite some time.

Saturday, I decided we needed more fire wood for the house -- you know we heat our home with wood from the local forest. We were "green" long before it became fashionable to be so.

Anyway, I drove up to Matilija Canyon to the family cabin to pick up some old wood from the pile I made last spring, and to cut down one or more dead oak trees on the property for next year's stove wood-stash. Things went well, as I cut the old pile into smaller logs with my trusty chain saw and moved the pieces to my truck. A nice day in the forest doing manual labor... I love it.

I walked up on the hill behind the house to an old, dead oak tree that was cracked at the base and partially resting on the ground. I made a few deep cuts and huge pieces fell to the ground around the giant trunk.

I stopped for a while and sat under the tree. The quiet of the day was great -- a doe and her two fawns walked close by to see what I was up to; I thought to myself, "Life is good today."

I moved over to the next large, dead oak tree. The tree was about thirty feet long, twenty-five inches in diameter at the base, cracked from its own weight and leaning across the hillside. I started at the base of the trunk near the fracture with my chain saw.

As I cut, the tree CRACKED loudly and slumped further over into the hillside, but it didn't fall to the ground as I had expected. I moved onto the high side of the tree -- standing about half way down its length looking it over to find the best spot to relieve the tension and make it fall to the ground. I found what I thought was the right spot for a first cut and marked it with a saw line.

As I started cutting, everything looked OK; the tree moved a bit and started to grab the saw blade. I pulled the chainsaw back and forth to make the cut a little wider and then pulled the blade out of the wood. Taking into account the pressure from the weight of the tree, I decided a "V" cut on one side would work to bring the tree down.

The oak was about eighteen inches in diameter at this spot -- I know because I was using an 18" chainsaw and the blade would not cut all the way through the tree on a single pass.

I got about half way down the "V" cut and suddenly the tree explodes! All the pent-up energy and pressure from its massive weight released in an instant, as it fell right into me and knocked me to the ground. I held tightly onto the chainsaw as the trunk pushed me down, and I watched as the whirring blade bent 90 degrees before my eyes, the razor-sharp teeth flying around the gears, inches from my face, until it finally ground to a halt.

Before I knew it, everything stopped; no sound, all was still. The debris and dust around me blurred the sunlight. I was on my back with a tree about the size of a telephone pole laying across my pelvis, my legs wrapped over another smaller limb. I could feel some of the weight of the tree on my body, but it didn't feel like a lot.

I leaned back and took a deep breath. Was I alive? It was the weirdest sensation, no sound, my heart racing (at least I thought it was) ... I couldn't really figure out what had happened, but as I lay on the ground I suddenly realized I was trapped, couldn't move.

I took a few minutes to calm down. I wasn't bleeding (that I could tell), I wasn't in pain; I just couldn't move -- not even an inch. No cell phone to call for help (it wouldn't work up there anyway), no one else around. Here I was on a hill beneath a giant oak.

"Shit! This is not good," I thought, yet I felt surprisingly peaceful. The sun was shining on my face, I looked up into the sky. "Hmm, is this it?" I thought to myself, "Not bad, really -- a nice day in the forest, sun shining, quiet and I don't really hurt anywhere."

After a couple minutes, I ran through what to do next in mind. Should I yell for help? I wondered if anyone was even in the canyon to hear me. I thought George might be home across the road; maybe he would hear my shouts. As I lay there, I wondered how long I could last if I couldn't get out from under the tree. "Maybe I'll be stuck here until night fall, four hours away ... Damn, its cold at night this time of year. Now what?"

It's funny how your mind works in a situation like this. I didn't think I was injured, but I still wasn't real sure I was OK. After a few more minutes, I decided to wiggle around and see if I could pull myself out. As a moved around, the tree shifted a bit and started to push down on my pelvis -- Yikes! I have to be still.

I found a piece of wood about ten inches in diameter within reach, moving it next to my body -- kind of like a jack between the hill and the massive oak. As I wriggled and twisted beneath the trunk, more of the tree's weight was transferred onto the block. Now I could I reach under my body and scoop dirt out from beneath me. I dug and squirmed for about forty minutes and finally cleared enough space to slide my ass out and away from the tree. I was free!

I picked up the bent chainsaw, walked around the tree and down to my truck. The next thing I remember was talking to my daughter on my cell phone as I drove down the canyon.

I went straight home, picked up my wife and daughter and drove to the best hamburger joint in Ojai (Jim &Rob's) for my favorite cheeseburger.

Lucky? I think so.

I drove back up to the site, without the chain saw, on Sunday to see what happened. I walked up to the spot where I was imprisoned and could now see that tree missed landing on my chest by inches. I'd dug a much deeper hole in the hillside with my hands than I had thought, and the wood block I'd used to hold the tree up was still there, lifting the trunk about eight inches off the hillside.

I grabbed a small branch and carefully pushed on the block to see what would have happened if I hadn't put it there.

THUNK!

The earth shook as the tree slammed into the ground, right where I had lain the day before.

In retrospect, two things were clear: someone was looking out for me Saturday, and that Jim & Rob's hamburger sure tasted great.

It's shocking how quickly a normal, run-of-the-mill day can turn deadly. My friend assures me he'll be more careful in the future -- and make sure someone's around the next time he decides to do any work up in the hills.

I told him he ought to buy a lottery ticket; he already had.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 16, 2007

FNS Panel:

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:32 AM

Major League B.S.-ball

Former U.S. Sen. (and current windbag) George Mitchell is on Fox News Sunday, touting his report on steroid abuse in Major League Baseball.

Host Chris Wallace asks him, why not treat the players found to have used performance-enhancing drugs the same way the International Olympic Committee treated gold medalist Marion Jones, when it learned she'd been cheating? The IOC stripped her of her gold medals and deleted her records and stats from the books.

Wouldn't erasing any honors from the record books serve to deter future cheating?

Mitchell responds with this: Baseball players are different from Olympic athletes; it's like comparing apples to oranges. We need to get away from ideas like punishment and retribution, need to move forward in a positive fashion; baseball players are the same as you and me -- I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, they've made mistakes. We don't need to be punished; we can learn from our mistakes without it.

Hmmm.

Understand those who break rules.

Compassion for those who cheat.

Who are we to judge?

Can't we just move on?

Would it surprise you to know that Mitchell was the Senator from Maine? And a quite liberal Democrat, too?

In addition to everything else, he's a pompous windbag, too. Mitchell couldn't help but throw into the conversation the alleged fact that he'd played a key role in ending Catholic-Protestant violence in Northern Ireland, by insisting that punishment and retribution were uncalled for -- just like in Major League Baseball.

Wait a minute.

Didn't he just say that we couldn't look to how the Olympic Committee treated a drug abusing, cheating athlete, because Major League Baseball is so different?

And yet he holds up a three hundred-year-old religious civil war in another country as showing an analagous way of dealing with freaky big baseball players?

What a dolt.

Sounds like Mitchell is doing nothing more than flacking for a whitewash -- and reveling in the attention he's getting in the process.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 15, 2007

Fallen Marine's family adopts his comrade-in-arms

Cpl. Dustin Jerome Lee and his German shepherd Lex set out on daily mission in the Fallujah, Iraq, area before Lee was killed in March.

Did you hear about the Marine whose family mourned his loss in Falujah, Iraq, in March -- and their desire to spend time with his closest pal in the Corps?

When Cpl. Dustin Jerome Lee’s personal effects were shipped to his childhood home in Mississippi after his death in Iraq last spring, his family found some typical items — a laptop computer, a pair of glasses and a few photos from home.

But they also found some things not every Marine would have — several dog toys, a harness and a short, knotted piece of rope, gnawed and frayed at the ends.

Lee was a 20-year-old dog handler who spent the final months of his life with a German shepherd named Lex at his side. They were on a mission together on March 21 when a rocket-propelled grenade killed Lee. As the young Marine lay dying on a street in Fallujah, the dog nudged his handler’s face, then lay loyally at his side while a corpsman treated his fatal wounds, several Marines told his family.

More than eight months later, as members of the Lee family prepare for their first Christmas since Dustin’s death, they have a final request of the Marine Corps: permission to adopt their son’s canine partner.

“I know Dustin would want Lex to be with his family,” said Lee’s uncle, Brian Rich. “They gave their son — he made the ultimate sacrifice. If it brings his family some comfort to see the dog there, then why not?”

But Marine officials say Lex is still on active duty. The 7-year-old dog was wounded in the same explosion that killed Lee, but has fully recovered. The dog is working alongside military police, assisting with force protection at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Ga., where Lee was stationed.

The Lee family hasn’t seen the dog since Marines brought him to the funeral in April.

[...]

Marine Corps Headquarters is aware of the family’s request, and is “working the situation at their level,” according to 2nd Lt. Caleb Eames, a public affairs officer in Albany. Lee was the third of four military dog handlers killed since 2003.

The laws covering adoption of military dogs have evolved in recent years. During the Vietnam War, thousands of dogs were abandoned or euthanized when U.S. troops withdrew. Virtually none came home.

For decades, the military considered the dogs to be “equipment” and had no process for adopting them after they “retired.” That changed in 2000, when President Clinton signed a law allowing adoptions once the dogs could no longer perform their duties.

In 2005, Congress heard the story of Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana, who suffered nearly fatal injuries and asked to adopt her bomb-sniffing dog. President Bush signed a law permitting early adoptions for the individual troops who have worked with the dog.

The case of the Lee family may be the first instance of a deceased handler’s family seeking to adopt a military dog. The Lee family has begun a petition drive and created a Web site to chronicle their efforts to adopt the dog.

Lex is one of about 170 dogs in the Corps, and the canines are in intense demand. Lex “is potentially saving lives by performing his mission,” Eames said.

The relationship between a dog and its handler in a combat zone is unique, said John Burnam, author of “Dog Tags of Courage: The Turmoil of War and the Rewards of Companionship.”

“When that bond finally clicks, you just sort of become one. Once the handler draws down into the level of the dog’s world and learns what the dog knows, he can really communicate with the animal,” Burnam said. “You can see, in the case of Dustin Lee, the dog didn’t get startled by the explosion and run away. The dog was wounded and bleeding, but he crawled over and pawed to get his handler’s attention.”

I'd be lying if I didn't say that last line was hard to read; for some reason, my eyes were blurry.

Marines escort the bomb-sniffing dog named Lex to the funeral for his handler, Cpl. Dustin Jerome Lee, in Mississippi in April.

In what seems like the perfect expression of the meaning of Christmas -- at least to this Jewish kid from Brooklyn -- the Corps has made its decision.

After more than six months of effort, the family of a fallen Marine dog handler got permission Wednesday to adopt the bomb-sniffing German shepherd who was at their son’s side when he died in Fallujah, Iraq, last March.

The family of Cpl. Dustin Jerome Lee is planning to pick up the 7-year-old dog named “Lex” on Dec. 21 at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Ga., where Lee was stationed.

“Lex will always be a special part of our family,” Lee’s father, Jerome Lee, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “Lex was Dusty’s best friend and partner.”

[...]

Lee, 20, spent the final months of his life with Lex at his side. He was killed March 21 on a daily mission when a rocket-propelled grenade exploded nearby. The dog was also wounded but crawled over to his handler, nudged his face, then lay at his side as a corpsman treated his wounds, Marines in Lee’s unit told his family.

My condolences to Cpl. Lee's family, and my congratulations on their newest addition to the Lee household.

May Lex live out his days with those who so loved his master, and may his presence help ease their pain over his loss.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 14, 2007

For the man who has everything

These are unbelievably detailed, outrageously expensive -- and completely, totally, mind-blowingly desirable to every man who loves trains, planes, automobiles, motorcycles and military vehicles.

Check out the many photos; it's hard to believe you're not looking at the real thing.

Way out of my price range, but still....

Just start clicking on the left. And don't forget to check out Development, too; the research and construction details are fascinating.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:55 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Huckabee, Hillary and the (illegal) elephant in the room

Peggy Noonan's piece in today's Wall Street journal concentrates on Huckabee's rise -- a result of his background as a preacher appealing to a narrow-but-influential portion of the GOP base -- as well as Hillary Clinton's seeming fall from invincibility -- a result of, well, her being herself.

At the very end of the essay, Noonan changes topics.

It is clear in Iowa that immigration is the great issue that won't go away.

Members of the American elite, including U.S. senators, continue to do damage to the public debate on immigration. They do not view it as a crucial question of America's continuance. They view it as an onerous issue that might upset their personal plans, an issue dominated by pro-immigration groups and power centers on the one hand, and the pesky American people, with their limited and quasi-racist concerns, on the other.

Because politicians see immigration as just another issue in "the game," they feel compelled to speak of it not with honest indifference but with hot words and images. With a lack of sympathy. This is in contrast to normal Americans, who do not use hot words, and just want the problem handled and the rule of law returned to the borders.

Politicians, that is, distort the debate, not because they care so much but because they care so little.

Hillary Clinton is not up at night worrying about the national-security implications of open borders in the age of terror. She's up at night worrying about whether to use Mr. Obama's position on driver's licenses for illegals against him in ads or push polls.

A real and felt concern among the candidates about immigration is a rare thing. And people can tell. They can tell with both parties. This is the real source of bitterness in this debate. It's not regnant racism. It's knowing the political class is incapable of caring, and so repairing.

I agree with Noonan's analysis regarding Huck and Hill: they're both stinkers, and if either gets the nomination it'll be disastrous for both parties.

But the more troubling concern is the realization amongst the electorate that the issue that matters most to them -- to us -- doesn't matter at all to the frontrunners in either party.

And that's disheartening -- and ultimately very, very damaging to the very idea of participatory politics, because if the People's supposed-representatives don't give a darn about what we think is important, then the very act of voting, of bothering to pretend that there's a tinker's damn difference between the big spending, pro-illegal immigration amnesty Democrat and the big-spending, pro-illegal immigration amnesty Republican, disappears.

If it matters to us, it has to matter to them.

Is anyone really paying attention?

'Cause it sure sound like they're just paying lip service.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 13, 2007

Angry moonbats at family gatherings

We drove to Los Angeles last night for the annual Chanukah party, hosted by my mother's boyfriend, Bob (who we think is a great guy), at his home.

After a two-hour, stop-and-go drive, we arrived to find everyone enjoying corned beef, pastrami, and turkey -- all on tasty rye bread -- and two kinds of crispy potato latkes, with applesauce.

Good stuff.

Anyhow, I found myself standing in the corner of the living room, chatting quietly with Bob's son-in-law, a business owner and the only other conservative in the house. I realize that a Jewish conservative often leads a lonely existence at family gatherings; my modus operandi is to studiously avoid getting into political discussions when surrounded by my liberal friends and family, realizing that these events are tailor-made for following the little-used social prohibition on talk of sex, religion and politics.

So, the son-in-law and I were enjoying our private conversation when we were joined by Bob's nephew, a bald, unshaven, rabid leftist, given to tossing rhetorical hand grenades at the dinner table about Chimpy McBusHitler, Haliburton and Cheney -- comments that usually draw nothing more from me than a bemused look at the son-in-law across the table to see if he shares my silent contempt for this fool.

The nephew (let's call him "Cindy Sheehan") says, "So, you two are the last Jewish conservatives standing. This should be a terrible couple of years for you."

Son-in-law and I looked at each other, puzzled.

"Excuse me?"

"Well, what with a failed war, the economy a wreck, and the elections ...."

"The economy seems to be doing okay," I said.

"No it's not," Cindy said. "Bush has destroyed it and we're in a recession."

"We're not in a recession," son-in-law said.

"Are too," said Cindy.

Son-in-law tried a different tack.

"Perhaps the next quarter might not be as good; it's possible that we enter a recession. But the current numbers don't show that we're in a recession now."

"I don't know what numbers you're looking at," Cindy said, "but if you look at honest statistics, we are in a recession."

"Well, I guess we just disagree," I said.

This morning I see that the Associated Press is reporting the latest economic numbers -- and they're not bad.

WASHINGTON - Wholesale prices and retail sales jumped in November and jobless claims fell last week. Business inventories grew slightly.

Wholesale prices shot up 3.2 percent, the biggest jump in 34 years, propelled by a record rise in gasoline prices. Meanwhile, consumers put aside worries about the weak economy in November to storm into the shopping malls, pushing up retail sales by the largest amount in six months.

The Labor Department reports that new claims filed for jobless benefits dropped to 333,000 last week, an encouraging sign that the job market is holding together despite problems in the economy.

And the Commerce Department reports that business inventories grew by 0.1 percent in October, the weakest advance in seven months.

[...]

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that retail sales surged by 1.2 percent last month, double the gain that economists had expected. That followed a much weaker 0.2 percent rise in retail sales in October.

Half of the November increase came from a big jump in gasoline pump prices and therefore was not seen as a sign of strength in consumer demand. But there were widespread gains across a number of other areas from department stores to appliance and furniture stores.

The big gain in retail sales was the largest increase since a 1.6 percent jump last May. Economists had expected a much weaker 0.6 percent rise, believing that a multitude of problems facing consumers, from a prolonged housing slump to rising troubles in obtaining credit, would dampen spending.

[...]

Excluding gasoline, retail sales would have been up by a still solid 0.6 percent. This strength reflected a gain of 0.9 percent at department stores and general merchandise stores such as Wal-Mart and Target and a solid increase of 2.6 percent at specialty clothing stores. Analysts said colder weather in November and heavy promotional efforts in the period following Thanksgiving helped lift this total.

Retail sales also posted strong increases at appliance stores, furniture stores, sporting goods stores and grocery stores. Sales were down, however, for autos, falling by 1 percent after a 0.6 percent drop in October. Domestic automakers have been struggling with weak demand in the face of surging gas prices.

Like I and the son-in-law were saying, the economy's doing just fine.

The angry, moonbat nephew wasn't even close to being done; he had a lot left to say, including an attack on the troops, an accusation that we were chickenhawks, and that only idiots support the war or Pres. Bush.

More on this delightful holiday-season encounter later.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:03 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 12, 2007

Tales from the ER

Spent some time in the hospital recently (don't worry; I'm not going anywhere anytime soon), including about 10 hours in the ER, laying on a gurney, hooked up to a variety of machines, including the one that goes PING!

There were curtains on tracks hanging from the ceiling to give me and the other patients a little privacy, although not from anyone within earshot; I listened to all the commotion going on around me.

The guy to my left sounded like he was hacking up a lung (or two); the wet, rattling, phlegmy coughs made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Eventually he quieted down; whether they took him to a private room or the morgue I cannot say, but I think he was more likely fit for the latter than the former.

To my right was an interesting fellow, a parolee and thirty-year drug abuser. He'd gotten out of prison recently and was eager to recount how difficult it had been to get his many different drugs -- the legal ones -- while he was incarcerated. I listened to the conversation he had with his MD.

"Sir, do you use any recreational drugs?"

"Uh, yeah. Cocaine, heroin, and meth."

"When was the last time you used?"

"Uh, I been clean a week now."

"Sir, it's very important that you don't use cocaine; mixing atenolol -- your blood pressure medication -- with cocaine could cause cardiac arrest. It could kill you. Do you understand?"

"Uh, yeah, don't mix atenolol and cocaine."

"You take atenolol twice daily; if you use cocaine with it the results could be lethal."

"Yeah, okay, I understand, no cocaine."

Satisfied that she'd gotten through to her patient, the doctor left.

A moment later I heard the guy ask the nurse a question.

"Hey, can I stop taking atenolol, just for the weekend?"

Sounds like he had big plans for Saturday night. Wouldn't want to let hypertension, a weak heart and the drug needed to keep the Grim Reaper at bay come between you and some whack crack cocaine, would ya?

Nahhh.

A little while later all the medical professionals had left the area, and I was laying quietly, wondering when I'd be able to go home.

From the other side of the curtain I heard the parolee clear his throat.

"Hey, neighbor!" he said.

I looked around, wondering if there was any chance he was talking to someone else.

Nope, just me.

Hmmm. Given my line of work, I don't often engage in small talk with fellows fresh out of prison; rather, I usually take their guilty pleas and ask them if they understand the rights they're giving up before they get sent to the slam.

"Hey, neighbor!" he said again, a little louder.

Sigh.

"Yeah," I replied.

"How you doin'?" he asked.

"Not great," I replied.

"Me neither," he said.

He lowered his voice.

"What are you in for?"

" 'What am I in for?' I've seen this episode of Prison Break," I thought to myself.

Dusty the nurse arrived just then, to announce that my chatty friend now had a bed upstairs, cutting short our newly-found friendship.

But with the good came the bad. Unfortunately, my doctor was back.

And he was pulling on a rubber glove.

Aw, crap.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Ventura County Star: The gift that keeps on giving

Reader Robert Worthley wrote me this morning regarding the Ventura County Star's decision to prohibit him from leaving comments.

I was told both by Bruce McLean and Matt Saint of Star digital media that I had been banned from posting because of my harsh criticism of the Star. Even my company IP address was blocked.

I had been banned, along with some other equally disgusted individuals who are known to me personally.

One digital media person, whose name escapes me at the moment, seemed very distraught over the phone. He complained of working long hours with no appreciation and said that our comments were somehow hurtful to him personally. He did not comprehend that the posters were challenging editorial policy.

My approach, however, is to always accentuate the good, while asking for improvements where indicated.

As the Star downsizes and outsources, I strongly support the employees. Editorial policy is my personal target. Balance must be achieved.

Nice to see that the Star -- home to hardbitten reporters and grizzled, thick-skinned editors -- is willing to subject itself to the same scrutiny and criticism as the subjects of its own articles.

Ahem.

Of course, this is the same paper that yesterday published an opinion piece calling District Attorney Greg Totten a racist, without a single supporting sentence to be found in the article providing a factual basis for the assertion.

What's risible about the Star's whinging, whimpering defense is that, had the shortbus-riding president of LULAC posted his screed in a comment, it would qualify for deletion under the "no hurtful words or personal attacks" standard supposedly in place.

Have you cancelled your subscription yet?

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 11, 2007

What voters consider when picking their candidate

Click on image for larger version.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ventura County Star editor's kinda', sorta' mea culpa

As news of the Ventura County Star's hostility to readers who dare to disagree spreads throughout the web, editor Joe Howry has been contacting critics with an apology.

Here's the comment he left on this blog:

Dear Mr. Lief: I was off yesterday and was unaware the comments had been taken down. I have seen to it that they have been restored, and I have written an apology. I don't know why they were taken down, but we are doing what we can to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Sincerely,
Joe R. Howry
Editor
Ventura County Star

P.S. In the interest of accuracy, please note the correct spelling of my name.

I appreciate the fact that Howry is trying to clean up his paper's mess, but there's more to it than that.

Take for instance the selective editing done to the apology.

Howry tells me that he doesn't know why the comments were deleted.

But what did he tell readers on the Star's site, in the newly (partially) restored comments section following his article?

I apologize for the comments about my column being taken down. I neither authorized nor approved of the action. I understand that part of the problem was caused by a commenter who used inappropriate language. I urge all commenters to respect one another and use appropriate language.
Sincerely,
Joe R. Howry
Editor
Ventura County Star

I saved a screenshot of the original because of the way things seem to disappear from the newspaper's website.

Notice the difference between the two statements: Howry blames unidentified employees in his comment to me, with no reason given for the deletions, but then proceeds to lay the blame -- in part -- on someone who made "inappropriate" remarks in the comments.

Except that bob100 never said anything inappropriate or offensive, unless daring to disagree with the Star's editor is enough to be deemed banish-worthy. As far as I know, only one comment was abusive, hardly justifying the mass deletion of all the other substantive criticisms of Howry's editorial.

And that doesn't address why the Star thought that comments left by readers outraged by the quick use of the "delete" key was grounds for deletion, too.

It's also of some note that Howry posted the apology on the Star's site at 9:31 a.m., laying the blame on those "inappropriate" commenters, yet when he posted his more general, "I don't know why" comment on my site 32 minutes later, the (dubious) rationale had disappeared.

But it gets more devious than that.

Little Green Footballs, the website that broke the story about Dan Rather's use of forged documents during the 2004 presidential campaign, picked up a strand from Patterico's post and wove it into a noose: Ventura County Star Caught Using MSM Comment Deletion Trick

It’s a thoroughly evil trick: you post a comment at a mainstream media site that criticizes them, or goes against their prevailing biases, and the administrator deletes your comment. But they delete it in a sneaky way; when you visit the page and are logged in to your account, you still see your comment, but everyone else sees either nothing or a message that the comment was deleted.

It’s Orwellian, in a convoluted Boolean kind of way. They make you think everyone else is simply ignoring what you wrote. And they also insulate themselves from criticism by making you, the commenter, believe your comment was never deleted at all. They turn you into an un-person at their web site, unknowingly posting meaningless comments into a heedless void.

I almost admire the tactic for its sheer deviousness.

The latest paper to be caught using it is the Ventura County Star.

Last time I checked, that post had drawn almost 600 comments.

Another blogger has the details on the Star's skullduggery: JunkYardBlog: Ventura County Star is Pretty Much Busted.

Do you remember the recent unpleasantness when the San Francisco Chronicle was caught using software that isolated particular commenters with viewpoints they didn't agree with?

It worked this way: If you left a comment and had been flagged as a troublemaker using a "Block User" feature, you could still see your comment, but nobody else could. So you were basically talking to yourself. You thought your posts were showing up but simply being ignored by everyone else. Of course, if you weren't logged in as yourself, then you couldn't see your posts.

[...]

That's exactly what I believe is happening at the Ventura County Star, a paper that leaped to internet infamy last night by expunging unpopular comments and hoping the blogosphere wouldn't notice. I posted about that here. Patterico posted about it today at Hot Air, here.

I'm not the only one to notice this. In that Hot Air thread, other commenters who tried to leave comments at the Ventura County Star reported that they couldn't see my comments. And I couldn't see theirs.

Column author and VCS editor Joe Howry blames the elimination of dissent on a technical error.

Well, I submit that Mr. Howry isn't having a technical glitch at all, but rather is just using the "Block User" feature to eliminate dissenting opinion. And, below the jump, I have some pretty little screen captures to prove it.

[...]

Lesson to censors, like Mr. Howry: "Block User" might be a useful tool for dealing with truly lone nuts, but in the blogosphere, the "nuts" hunt in packs. We're aware of the Block User tool and it's completely inadequate for dealing with the distributed intelligence of the blogosphere, where people can actually compare notes and react to your censorship. Using it just makes you look cowardly and dumb.

Restore all the comments, Mr. Howry, and apologize for your deception. If you didn't do it yourself, explain who the responsible party is and why this won't happen again. You are, after all, editor of the Ventura County Star.

When you're in a hole, common sense tells you to stop digging.

But the Star, like the rest of the old-school, main-stream media, just can't get a handle on the new rules: instant accountability, and an end to their monopoly on the flow of information.

It used to be said that it never made sense to get into an argument with a man that buys ink by the barrel, but the interconnected nature of the internet has created hundreds -- thousands of fact checkers and editors, standing by to pounce on the MSM's mistakes or deliberate distortions and falsehoods.

I'm not calling Joe Howry a liar. But his "apology" doesn't begin to explain what the heck is going on at his newspaper. Let's just say that Patterico's description of the editor's mea culpa as "disingenuous" is both fair and rather understated.

When will the editor and his paper come clean?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Star's infamy grows

Word is spreading throughout the blogosphere about the Ventura County Star's cowardice when it comes to readers who leave critical comments. Check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

December 10, 2007

Profiles in Cowardice: Ventura County Star

First they deleted bob100's comment.

Then Patterico noticed, heaping ridicule atop scorn for the Star's use of the magic "delete" button, eliminating comments critical of Editor Joe Howery's poorly-researched hit-job on the Ventura County D.A.

Patterico invited his readers to visit the Star's website and inquire as to "just what the hell is going on here."

Some did, leaving new comments, like this one from "laddy," posted at 10:33 a.m.:

Why did you delete the other comments? That's a pretty bogus thing to do unless they were profantiy laden or somesuch. You have taken over the judge and/or jury role here with regard to the comments, the same charge you levy in the editorial, by the way.

Deleting comments generally indicates you may have something to hide from the rest of us.

Your editorial may indeed be on the money, but deleting comments really casts a shadow over the point of view being offered. If this editorial is on point, it should be able to withstand criticism.

Too bad you can't read laddy's comment on the Star's site anymore; they deleted it.

And then "SeeDubya" left this comment at 10:39:

Why was Bob100's comment removed? It contained no violations of the Star's Terms of Service. It wasn't obscene or abusive or off topic. It only contained a differing, and apparently well-informed, account of the facts.

I don't know which account is accurate, but it seemed like reasonable, cogent criticism, and the Star shouldn't have deleted it. Doing so looks Orwellian, and does a disservice to readers interested in both sides of the story.

Fortunately, curious Star readers can read bob100's deleted post at Mike Lief's blog, here: http://www.mikelief.com/archives/001509 ....

Guess what?

You can't read SeeDubya's comment anymore on the Star's site, either.

As a matter of fact, you can't read any comments on Howery's editorial. The comment button has been deleted from the page, and all the comments have vanished.

Because, you see, the Star encourages a spirited debate, a boisterous use of the First Amendment's protections.

Just so long as nobody criticizes the Ventura County Star -- or its glass-jawed editor.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Let them know what you think using the only means the Star hasn't yet disabled:

Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached by phone at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.

Just make sure to leave a copy of your message in my comments -- where you know they won't disappear.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:11 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 09, 2007

Thin-skinned media can dish it out, can't take it

Why do people distrust the press?

Why does the public believe that journalists are biased?

Allow me to suggest an answer that satisfies the requirements of Occam's Razor, which dictates that the simplest explanation is often the most accurate.

The reason why the press is distrusted is because it is not trustworthy, and the reason why people believe journalists are biased is because they are.

Want an example?

I'll turn to our local fishwrap, the Ventura County Star.

They ran an op/ed piece in today's paper, Howry: Justice for Judge Gutierrez? District Attorney Totten makes himself the judge, slamming the D.A. for trying to remove cases from the courtroom of a judge he believes is putting the public at risk as a result of too lenient sentences.

Go ahead and read the editorial.

Then read the comments that follow it.

You won't see what a fellow named bob100 had to say -- because "(This comment was removed by the site staff.)"

However, I nabbed a copy while it was still up, figuring it was too hard hitting, too -- what's the word? -- factual to survive the editor's delete key.

So, here's what bob100 said this morning:

When you say "It is significant that the DA's Office waited until Gutierrez had mostly completed his mission before registering a complaint" you are ignoring the fact that DA's have been objecting to the judge decriminalizing misdemeanors in this county for quite some time - on the record! This is the first time that the DA finally tried to "paper" (or exercise a 170.6 challenge) to the judge.

You ignore the fact that public defenders paper judges as a group on a regular basis and you don't report on that at all. As a matter of fact, the public defenders are currently angry with Judge McGee in Dept. 14 over security in his courtroom. As a result, they are refusing to waive recitation and reading of rights to punish him - which means that he is required to read the rights to each individual defendant - and that substantially delays and backs up proceedings in that courtroom.

If the backlog is over, it is time for Gutierrez to stop giving away the farm. The number of DAs are down and the board of supervisors has no money to get that back to realistic levels. Sure, the backlog is down - but is compromising public safety a fair price for reducing the backlog when criminals are emboldened by getting a slap on the wrist? Imagine how low the backlog would be if the DA just stopped filing cases? These crimes currently have no punishment, which means these individuals will be committing new crimes and will not be on probation as they should have been, and the crime rates in this county will suffer. A few years from now everyone will say that this used to be the safest county -what happened? What is happening is that judges are not properly punishing defendants and public safety is no longer a priority for the board.

It is interesting that you feel free to question the district attorney without knowing all the facts. If you were the district attorney (who bears responsibility for the safety of the county) and you believed that a judge was not doing his job, what choice would you have but to proceed as he did in this case? He has an obligation to represent the people of the county and followed the proper legal procedures.

Normal judges recuse themselves after a 170.6 is filed. Only Gutierrez refused, and he continues to refuse to do the right thing and give probation when he should, because just as in too many other courts, making the case go away by a plea is a higher priority than the interests of justice.

Frankly, the Star should apologize to Totten for this irresponsible and incorrect editorial. As always, half the facts, half the truth . . .

You can see a screen capture of the comment here.

Now, a little housekeeping. I am not Bob100; I always post comments under my own name, figuring anything worth saying is also worth taking responsibility for having said it. The anonymity of the web leads many people to say outrageous, reprehensible things, statements they'd never make if their names were attached. So I figure it's a speed-limiter, a governor for good behavior, and I prefer to take the extra time for a mental "ten count," cooling off before I post in haste and repent at leisure.

That being said, I also understand that some people can't speak freely, for fear of losing clients, or even their jobs. So, nothing personal, bob100.

As to the subject of the editorial -- and bob100's comment -- I haven't written on the ongoing dispute between my office and the judge because it's all too close.

But it does serve as a perfect example of the media's inability to handle well-informed criticism of its reportage.

Ask anyone closely involved in an industry or profession being targeted by the press, or people involved in an event being reported, and you'll hear a common refrain: "What is that reporter talking about?"

Because most articles are chock-full of mistakes, error after error, misinformation that seems laughable to those persons with first-hand knowledge of what the story purports to report.

In this instance, bob100 -- who sounds like he knows of what he speaks -- posts a critical comment on the Star's website, and within hours it disappears down the memory hole.

And I'm pretty certain it wasn't deleted because it was offensive.

Why do I say that?

Because the following comment by NothingButTheTruth is still available for viewing at 10 p.m., eight hours after it was posted.

Prosecutor bob100, you can take your nose out of Totten's a$$ now. He will reward you with a promotion in due course!

Interesting, isn't it? An ad hominem attack is worth leaving up, but not bob100's criticism of the Star's editor.

Hmmm. I wonder what the Star's guidelines are regarding inappropriate comments?

Well, you can always take another look at the screen capture of bob100's comment; the paper's comments policy is at the bottom.

It says:

You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy.

So, I ask you, which comment fits the above description: the one deleted by Howery's goons, or the one still posted?

What a bunch of pansies.

And two other things.

I can't be promoted by the D.A., so I'm not kissing ass.

And I don't delete critical comments.

UPDATE (9/10/07, 6:40 a.m.): The Star has deleted the comment by NothingButTheTruth.

Bottom line remains the same: a substantive critique (from bob100) was deleted by newspaper staff, while a snarky, content-free comment attacking another reader (NothingButTheTruth, that's you!) survived more than nine hours after posting.

Weak. Very weak.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Solar and wind power -- what's not to like?

This seems like a useful addition to your disaster kit, for hi-tech gear running on rechargeable batteries. The manufacturer hypes it for its "Green" qualities, but it appeals to global warming skeptics and war-backing neocons, too.

The HyMini can run on solar power, wind power, or conventional 110 or 220-volt house current and then be used to power any 5-volt device, like digital cameras, cell phones and iPods.

I ordered one; we'll see if it lives up to the promise.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The war at home

We drove to Los Angeles last night for the annual Chanukah party, hosted by my mother's boyfriend, Bob (who we think is a great guy), at his home.

After a two-hour, stop-and-go drive, we arrived to find everyone enjoying corned beef, pastrami, and turkey -- all on tasty rye bread -- and two kinds of crispy potato latkes.

Good stuff.

Anyhow, I found myself standing in the corner of the living room, chatting quietly with Bob's son-in-law, a business owner and the only other conservative in the house. I realize that a Jewish conservative often leads a lonely existence at family gatherings; my modus operandi is to studiously avoid getting into political discussions when surrounded by my liberal friends and family, realizing that these events are tailor-made for following the little-used social prohibition on talk of sex, religion and politics.

So, the son-in-law and I were enjoying our private conversation when we were joined by Bob's nephew, a bald, unshaven, rabid leftist, given to tossing rhetorical hand grenades at the dinner table about Chimpy McBusHitler, Haliburton and Cheney -- comments that usually draw nothing more from me than a bemused look at the son-in-law across the table to see if he shares my silent contempt for this fool.

The nephew (let's call him "Cindy Sheehan") says, "So, you two are the last Jewish conservatives standing. This should be a terrible couple of years for you."

Son-in-law and I looked at each other, puzzled.

"Huh?"

"Well, what with a failed war, the economy a wreck, and the elections ...."

"The economy seems to be doing okay," I said.

"No it's not," Cindy said.

"We're not in a recession," son-in-law said.

"Are too," said Cindy.

Son-in-law tried a different tack.

"Perhaps the next quarter might not be as good; it's possible that we enter a recession. But the current numbers don't show that we're in a recession now."

"I don't know what numbers you're looking at," Cindy said, "but if you look at honest statistics, we are in a recession."

"Well, I guess we just disagree," I said.

"What about the war?" Cindy demanded.

"What about it?" son in law replied.

"It's a disaster," Cindy said.

Son-in-law said that from what he'd read, the surge seemed to be working, with violence down dramatically.

I refrained from saying much at this point, content to listen to the back and forth.

Then Cindy turned to me.

"What about all those soldiers being killed, forced to join the military just because they need the money?"

"Money isn't the reason why Americans are joining," I said.

"Oh, yes it is," Cindy said.

"Listen," I said, "I've been working with the troops deploying for the last couple of years, drafting wills, giving legal advice, and these GIs aren't doing it for the money; they're not all poor rubes."

"Yes they are," Cindy said.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:44 AM

FDR tells Americans how to wage war

On December 9, 1941, FDR delivered a radio address to the American people, speaking to them about the challenge thrust upon the nation by the Japanese sneak attack.

FDR spoke of things that are as relevant today as they were 66 years ago. These paragraphs are bitterly ironic when applied to the proudly trans-national 21st Century media.

It must be remembered by each and every one of us that our free and rapid communication must be greatly restricted in wartime. It is not possible to receive full, speedy, accurate reports from distant areas of combat. This is particularly true where naval operations are concerned. For in these days of the marvels of radio it is often impossible for the commanders of various units to report their activities by radio, for the very simple reason that this information would become available to the
enemy, and would disclose their position and their plan of defense or attack.

Of necessity there will be delays in officially confirming or denying reports of operations but we will not hide facts from the country if we know the facts and if the enemy will not be aided by their disclosure.

To all newspapers and radio stations-all those who reach the eyes and ears of the American people-I say this: You have a most grave responsibility to the Nation now and for the duration of this war.

If you feel that your Government is not disclosing enough of the truth, you have very right to say so. But -- in the absence of all the facts, as revealed by official sources -- you have no right to deal out unconfirmed reports in such a way as to make people believe they are gospel truth.

Every citizen, in every walk of life, shares this same responsibility. The lives of our soldiers and sailors -- the whole future of this Nation -- depend upon the manner in which each and every one of us fulfills his obligation to our country.

Of course, 66 years ago we knew for whom the journalists were rooting; you'll forgive me if I find their post-9/11 protestations and proclamations of loyalty to our national interest to be perfunctory at best.

Listen to FDR explain the task at hand, and how America would respond.

[T]he United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete. Not only must the shame of Japanese treachery be wiped out, but the sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken.

In my Message to the Congress yesterday I said that we "will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again." In order to achieve that certainty, we must begin the great task that is before us by abandoning once and for all the illusion that we can ever again isolate ourselves from the rest of humanity.

In these past few years -- and, most violently, in the past few days -- we have learned a terrible lesson.

It is our obligation to our dead -- it is our sacred obligation to their children and our children -- that we must never forget what we have learned.

And what we all have learned is this:

There is no such thing as security for any nation -- or any individual -- in a world ruled by the principles of gangsterism.

There is no such thing as impregnable defense against powerful aggressors who sneak up in the dark and strike without warning.

We have learned that our ocean-girt hemisphere is not immune from severe attack -- that we cannot measure our safety in terms of miles on any map.

We may acknowledge that our enemies have performed a brilliant feat of deception, perfectly timed and executed with great skill. It was a thoroughly dishonorable deed, but we must face the fact that modern warfare as conducted in the Nazi manner is a dirty business. We don't like it -- we didn't want to get in it -- but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got.

I fear that as a nation we've lost the grit and determination that our grandparents had, born of the Depression and the memory of the Great War. Rather than the righteous anger and determination of 1941, the current zeitgeist seems more attuned to the fantastically misguided pacifism and isolationism of 1938, and the pie-in-the-sky happy-talk leaking from the would-be Democratic presidential nominees reeks of "Peace in Our Time."

And, unlike FDR's audience, I don't hear anyone telling the American people that we're going to fight our enemies "with everything we've got." Notwithstanding the fact that Roosevelt was a borderline Bolshie, at least he knew what it took to fight and win a war -- and to inspire and prepare his fellow citizens for the ordeal to come.

That is perhaps Pres. Bush's greatest failing: his inabilty -- or unwillingness -- to use the bully pulpit.

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

December 08, 2007

FDR and the day after the Day of Infamy

President Roosevelt addresses Congress the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

As Americans scoured the papers for information and listened to the radio for the latest news from Hawaii, Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a blockbuster speech to Congress -- and the nation.

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

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

December 07, 2007

Day of Infamy

WE INTERRUPT THIS PROGRAMMING!

On December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a sneak attack on the U.S. sailors, airmen and Marines stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, bringing Americans into a war most opposed fighting.

That opposition changed in the aftermath of the attack, and the Japanese guaranteed not victory, but their own eventual destruction. In another blunder, Hitler declared war on the U.S., ensuring that Germany would be forced to fight a war on two fronts.

As the few remaining survivors of the attack gather today to remember their fallen comrades, here is a visual record of the attack, made possible in part by the large number of Japanese pilots and crew who brought cameras with them and managed to take pictures during the attack.

The Japanese fleet steams toward the unsuspecting Americans, hiding behind stormy seas. Luck was on their side; they avoided American patrols and escaped detection.

Japanese planes on deck, waiting for the right time to begin the attack. Months of intensive training was about to pay off.

The pilots throttle up, waiting for the order to launch, their planes straining at the brakes, Mitsubishi radial engines screaming.

As one of the first torpedo bombers races down the deck, Japanese crewmen cry, "Banzai!" and lift their arms in tribute.

The planes lift off slowly, weighed down by the bombs and torpedoes destined for the American fleet, and the fuel needed to carry them to Pearl Harbor. They struggle into the air and move into formation for the journey to Hawaii.

The Japanese arrive and begin their attack. It had been a quiet Sunday morning, the Americans expecting a lazy day aboard ship, or liberty on the beach.

They target the battleships, lined up neatly, unsuspecting giants awaiting their fates. The harbor appeared remarkably similar to the model the Japanese used for practice.

Flak bursts fill the air as the American sailors begin to fight back, targetting the Japanese planes. While some were downed by the U.S. guns, far too often the planes clawed their way back into the sky for another run at the burning ships below.

Japanese bombs pierce the forward magazine of the USS Arizona, triggering an enormous explosion. Witnesses said the entire ship appeared to momentarily rise out of the water. These color images are frames taken from a 16mm motion picture of the attack.

The aftermath is devastating to behold; the Pacific Fleet in ruins, the American West Coast undefended. Fires rage and thousands of sailors remain trapped below decks in the blazing, capsized hulks.

But the Japanese have made two mistakes that will prove fatal to their dream of Empire. The admiral in charge of the attack has cancelled the third wave of planes, leaving intact the oil tanks holding the fuel the Americans will need for their fleet in its defense of the Mainland.

And they've left the American carriers -- out at sea -- untouched.

In a few short months, these carriers will launch dive bombers and torpedo bombers at the Battle of Midway, handing the Imperial Japanese Navy a devastating defeat, dooming their plans for an empire spanning the Pacific.

Dauntless dive bombers, like these pictured above, will make full use of the American torpedo bombers' sacrifice; wiped out by the Japanese as they flew low and slow, they lured the fighters down to sea level, leaving an opening for the high-flying U.S. dive bombers to hurtle down at the enemy fleet, delivering their weapons with incredible accuracy, sending the Jap carriers to the bottom.

And American aces depleted the ranks of experienced Japanese aircrews; by the end of the war, inexperienced cadets were flying their planes on one-way Kamikaze suicide missions, never having had to learn how to land their aircraft.

December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in infamy, marked the beginning. The beginning of a titanic struggle for the American people, and the beginning of the end for the Japanese.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 05, 2007

Can lawsuit-crazed atheist help GOP win big?

If I didn't know better, I'd swear this guy was working for the Republicans.

An atheist pleaded with a federal appeals court to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, saying the references disrespect his religious beliefs.

"I want to be treated equally," said Michael Newdow, who argued the cases consecutively to a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. He added that supporters of the phrases "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."

Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued his daughter's school district in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children in another district.

In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento again found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional. The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Newdow's first case.

[...]

Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust" a year later. Congress first authorized a reference to God on money in 1864.

In describing the historical context for use of the word "God," the government cited the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing the motto's presence on coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him last year, and Newdow appealed.

On Tuesday, Justice Department lawyer Lowell Sturgill Jr. said "In God We Trust" is not an endorsement of a particular faith, but simply a patriotic or ceremonial message.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt indicated support for Newdow's position.

The "In God We Trust" motto "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life," Reinhardt said. "The government has no compelling interest to put a slogan on a dollar bill."

I had thought that Newdow had achieved the rare distinction of being the biggest jerk in the United States, but Judge Stephen Ripston Reinhardt gives him a run for the money. The only thing worse than this self-absorbed radical atheist is the black-robed poltroon who validates his foolishness -- and in the process seems poised to inflict this stupidity on the rest of us.

In God We Trust "affects Mr. Newdow every moment of his life"?

Really?

If Reinhardt believes that, then there's a good chance that he's actually -- what do they call it now? -- mentally challenged.

As to Newdow himself, his renewed attack on the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto on our money seems guaranteed to help the GOP in the upcoming presidential race.

After all, angry atheists represent a tiny fraction of American voters. The rest of us actually resent attempts to purge all elements of religion from our national heritage and traditions.

For instance, there's that troublesome second paragraph from President George Washington's first inaugural address.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

Who knew that the first president was a deist? Where was the outrage?

At the time the Establishment Clause was ratified, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention couldn't conceive of the day that the mere mention of "God" would be deemed a violation of the document they'd drafted.

It would take more than 200 years, the moral and intellectual damage done by the 1960s, and the lawyers and judges spawned by that terrible decade to twist, fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution to the point where it means the polar opposite of what the Founders intended.

And so we seem on the verge of another act of judicial arrogance wherein elitist judges ram controversial and unpopular societal changes down the collective throats of citizens not creeped out by religion, a move that will also serve to help Republican candidates, reminding voters of the importance of who picks lifetime-appointee federal judges -- guys like Reinhardt -- who will plague us for the foreseeable future, like an incurable disease.

So, while I'm predictably angered by the plaintiff and his presumptive ally on the federal bench, I can't help but be a little bit pleased that Newdow has succeeded in reinvigorating a controversy that will help the GOP over the next eleven months.

If only the GOP had a real conservative in the top three . . . .

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:22 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 04, 2007

Food for thought

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The GOP race for the White House

John Hawkins gives his thoughts on the state of the race so far, and who he'd like to see get the GOP nomination.

The candidate I like the best is my former employer, Duncan Hunter. However, he's not doing so well at the polls. After him, I'm a Fred Thompson fan.

Why?

Because Thompson has the requisite charisma to win the nomination and beat Hillary, is a fiscal conservative, favors small government, is tough on illegal immigration, and is pro-life. He's also the only candidate in the top tier who I believe can rally conservatives to vote for him as opposed to simply voting against Hillary and we desperately need someone like that in 2008.

One you get past Thompson, there's an enormous gulf between him and the other 4 contenders.

Out of the top tier contenders, over time, the guy I have really gotten down on is Giuliani. I don't think he's anywhere near as electable as people think, he's pro-abortion, he's not serious about dealing with illegal immigration, he's not a conservative, and he is way too sleazy to be representing the Republican Party.

So him, I really, really, don't want.

After Giuliani, it's essentially a toss-up for me between the other three top contenders. That's not to say that they're all alike, because they're not, but all of them have big drawbacks that keep me from being able to really strongly support them.

McCain is a fiscal conservative, he seems serious about winning the war on terror, and he's currently polling better against Hillary than any of the other candidates, but he's also a little too long in the tooth to be running for President, he will screw us over on illegal immigration, and he has made a career out of selling conservatives down the river for the amusement of the mainstream media.

Mitt Romney has charisma, a pretty decent resume, and he talks a good game about conservative issues, but I think he's one of these politicians who tells people whatever they want to hear to get elected. Also, his head-to-head polling numbers against Hillary and national numbers in the GOP primaries are really anemic, especially given all the positive press he has gotten over the last six months. That makes me think that he can't win a general election.

Huckabee has a great socially conservative resume and so much charisma that I think he'd probably be able to beat Hillary in a national election. However, he probably wouldn't make conservatives happy on illegal immigration or fiscal conservative issues. In other words, Huckabee strikes me as George Bush with charisma on domestic issues. That's not very appealing.

With that in mind, I really don't have a 3rd choice after Thompson and Hunter. If neither of them can pull it off, I'm just planning to shrug my shoulders and resign myself to whoever manages to pull it off -- as long as it's not Giuliani. If it comes down to a two person race between Giuliani and another candidate in the primary, I'm supporting the other candidate.

Granted, that may not be the ideal, but such is life. Sometimes you don't get what you want and you just have to make the best of a bad situation -- oh and personally, I wouldn't have the slightest qualms about supporting any of those candidates, including Giuliani, over Hillary Clinton.

I found myself nodding in agreement as I read. While I like Hunter on the issues, he never broke into the top tier, leaving me with Thompson as my only favorite. Like Hawkins, I don't really care for the rest -- and am developing a case of the heebie-jeebies around the slick-talking, nanny-stater, tax-and-spend huckster preaching Arkansas ex-governor Clinton Huckabee.

Bottom line, 'though: Anybody but Bill's Headache.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:51 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 03, 2007

But wait, there's more!

Forgive me if I return to the well once again for a bit more from Mark Steyn on the Islamic threat.

In a bit of back and forth on National Review's The Corner, Steyn comments on the possibility that Muslims, like Christians, have already had their great reformation (although a few centuries after their New Testament brethren), and are now living with the unpleasant -- but entirely logical -- results.

What if we've already had the reformation of Islam and jihadism is it? It wasn't just Seventies Bryn Mawr Muslims who were "moderates". So were, comparatively, Muslims all over the world.

The Sudan's always been a nutty joint but you'd have had a harder time convincing anyone to jail an English schoolmarm over a teddy bear 50 years ago: The Prophet's authoritative cuddly-toy suras date back all of 20 minutes.

In 1950, a young Pakistani emigrating to Scotland or Canada would have received an education different only in degree, not (as now) wholly foreign in kind and ever more resistant even to the possibility of assimilation. One can detect similar trends in Indonesia, Singapore, the Central Asian stans, the Balkans - and among the de-assimilationist third generation Muslims in western Europe.

The Islamic "reformation" is, in a sense, the opposite of Christianity's. The Saudis have used their vast oil enrichment to promote themselves as a kind of Holy See for Muslims, and the Wahhabization of previously low-key syncretic localized Islams in almost every corner of the planet is testament to their success.

I look at the gazillions of dollars tossed into the great sucking maw of US "intelligence" agencies and I wonder why somewhere in the budget we couldn't put something aside to promote a bit of covert ideological rollback in Chechnya or Bosnia or Pakistan. But we're not that savvy, and God knows what unintended consequences would blow up in our faces.

And at one level the Islamist "reformation" makes perfect sense. After all, they look at Christianity's reformation and see that everywhere but the United States it led to the ebbing of faith and its banishment to the fringes of life.

The jihadist reformation is, as they see it, a rational response to the Christian one.

Rational and logical, if devout Muslims prefer to avoid the spiritual void that typifies much of the secular, Christian-in-name-only West. And a response that calls for a much more aggressive stance against the so-called corrupting influences of the non-Muslim world -- which ought to generate a commensurately vigorous push-back from the liberals in the secular, multi-culti First World crowd.

But no such response seems to be forthcoming, resulting in an emboldened take-a-mile mindset amongst the Muslim militants already seeking special treatment in their host nations, accommodations eagerly provided by the politically correct crowd.

Bad times, my friends, bad times, indeed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The struggle continues

UPDATE: Commenter Little Coach knocks one out of the park with his take on the problem -- be sure to click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this post.

Wretchard posted an account of Muslim inmates plotting to take over Australia's most secure prisons, the attempts defeated after the Aussie's instituted 24-hour surveillance and broke up the groups, redistributing the members throughout the penal system.

Moving from the specifics of the plot, Wretchard examines the difference between how the West's useful idiots view the Muslim threat, and how the jihadis view themselves

From the outset two schools of thought have contended to explain events since September 11. One regards radical Islamists as individual aberrants from an otherwise pacific religion. Radical Islamists are therefore criminals, deviant individuals best dealt with through the criminal justice system. The other school of thought regards radical Islamists as enemy combatants -- non-uniformed soldiers of an organized hostile force. And in fact, this is how radical Islamists understand themselves when they are not otherwise making hypocritical arguments to dopey human rights activists. They see themselves as soldiers of Islam, with a duty to continue the fight within the prison and to escape if possible to fight again.

As with so many of these blog posts, the essay itself serves to start a conversation that continues in the comments section.

In response to a reader saying that the solution may be in Western societies banning Islam, Wretchard says:

I don't think Islam is the problem. Islam is as it has ever been. Nothing about it has changed. Yet in the recent past it posed no difficulties to the West. Why the danger now? What's changed is us.

That global sharia law should want all of Western patrimony atop one monstrous bonfire is to be expected. That's after all its nature. But what is surprising is the endless number of Western "intellectuals" who are stumbling all over themselves to cast the first books into the flame.

Islam is perfectly well equipped to deal with people like al-Qaeda. They have their knives, swords, stones, anthills and whips. It is we who are helpless against them. One fellow asked me how I proposed to solve the Muslim insurgency in Mindanao. I answered, "give it to Malaysia."

The real problem is internal to Western society. It is implicit in its political contradictions, for which Political Correctness has become a shorthand. The War on Terror will never be won by bombing Muslims. It can only be won by changing ourselves. Islam hasn't changed from its inception. We are the deviants; we are the ones who have been untrue to our roots.

A commenter responds by quoting the invaluable Aussie Canadian in New Hampshire:

Mark Seyn sums it up beautifully:

Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose--as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. If this were like World War I with those fellows in one trench and us in ours facing them over some boggy piece of terrain, it would be over very quickly. Which the smarter Islamists have figured out. They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"

A friend recently said to me in passing that all great nations -- like Rome -- ultimately fail, a result of internal rot, a weakening of the collective will, civilizational ennui, if you will; a fatal lack of self-confidence.

Given the perception that the West has grown soft and weak, incapable of aggressively defending its own values -- such as they are -- it comes as no surprise that Islamists, who have come up second-best to the Western world for more than 700 years, should seize upon this moment.

Would that our liberal friends were as anxious to find a cure for the AIDS-like virus that saps our will and clouds our judgement, allowing organizations like the National Organization for Women to remain silent after a British teacher is threatened with death for naming a teddy bear, "Mohammed," for having nothing to say when the Saudis sentence a rape victim to 200 lashes for riding in a car with men, and for maintaining the fiction that our mortal enemies practice a "religion of peace."

Feh.

That previous commenter -- and Arnold Toynbee -- is right. "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:29 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack