Main

January 30, 2008

Not gonna do it (vote for McCain)


Commenter Little Coach is confident that I'll take a deep breath and cast my ballot for John McCain if he goes on to win the GOP nomination.

I've been struggling with whether I can do that.

Kevin Baker provides the rationale given by some conservatives for supporting McCain -- and a devastating rebuttal.

As I've noted before, I sometimes listen to Hugh Hewitt on the way home from work. Today, of course, the show was all about the Florida election and about the two-man race for the Republican nomination. There's been a lot of talk about how much of a RINO John McCain is, but Hugh said that if McCain wins the nomination he will urge everyone to vote for McCain for six reasons:

John Paul Stevens, 87
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 74
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 72
David Souter, 69
Stephen Breyer, 69.

I'm almost convinced. But John McCain is the guy who said on Don Imus's show,

I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

John McCain swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. In that single sentence he proved that he lied when he took that oath. He's willing to do whatever he feels necessary to achieve what he believes is needed - and he is not willing to be constrained by the Constitution - the founding legal document of our government, and one expressly crafted to restrain that government.

So why should I believe that he'll nominate strict constructionists judges that will be likely to overturn any unconstitutional laws John McCain wants passed? Remember FDR and his threat to "pack the court" with judges that would rule his way?

Sorry. That reason doesn't fly with me, and it's the only reason that might have.

I wasn't familiar with the quote about the First Amendment attributed to McCain, but it does highlight one of his most appalling acts: cosponsoring an attack on free speech relating to political campaigns -- inarguably the very core of the First Amendment.

The article that Baker quotes from is "McCain vs. Madison," by the Cato Institute's John Samples, and it delivers a roundhouse blow to the senator's conservative bona fides.

Since McCain is thought to be on the right, the choice might appear easy for conservative voters. After all, both Clinton and Obama are famously Progressive in politics and much else. However, the choice this fall for conservatives may not turn out to be much of a choice at all.

[...]

Madison, and the other founders for that matter, would have rejected the notion that citizens lived for the state, the nation, or some higher collective power. For them, individual liberty and rights were moral goods, not a selfish claim against the state.

Matt Welch's new book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick lays out the senator's philosophy. McCain once said "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest." That cause will be the good of the collective, often defined as the nation or the national community.

[...]

McCain's progressivism may be seen mostly clearly in his primary legislative project: the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The First Amendment to the Constitution is not Progressive. It gives greater weight to the right of the individual to speak, to write, and to associate than to any collective purpose the government might have in suppressing speech. That right includes inevitably a right to spend money to speak, to write, and to associate. Without the right to spend, the other rights would have no concrete meaning.

In contrast, Progressives see speech as a means to a collective good -- improved public debate -- attained by government restrictions on individual liberty. In this view, free speech and free spending are mere self-interest or selfishness, vices to be overcome by benevolent censors.

For McCain, such self-interest should be sacrificed to the higher cause of "clean government." Hence, McCain's infamous statement on Don Imus's radio show: "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

[...]

President McCain -- and yes, the words make me shudder even subjunctively -- would pursue endless "reform" of campaign finance. He would do so in part for political reasons. Such restrictions on speech will quicken his transformation of the Republican Party away from its Reaganite past and toward a Rooseveltian future. But "reform" is more than a political tactic for McCain. For him, the First Amendment is a philosophical mistake that limits our true calling to national greatness. It is a mistake that might be corrected by proper laws and compliant courts.

John McCain does not want to save America for James Madison. He does not want to save America at all, because the Madisonian vision remains, for conservatives at least, what America means, the criterion of our hopes.

The election of a Progressive like Clinton or Obama would deprive conservatives of power. The election of a Progressive like McCain would deprive conservatives of both the government and the means to resist Progressivism. Which is the lesser evil?

I'm less confident than ever that John McCain represents a principled alternative -- conservative or otherwise -- to either Clinton or Obama. The more I see, the less I like.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:58 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Reagan Library debate

Michelle Malkin liveblogged tonight's debate at the Reagan Library; I only caught the last few minutes, so you can see what she thought here.

PowerLine's Paul Mirengoff wasn't impressed.

With any luck, few Americans tuned in to tonight's Republican debate. Those who did saw our likely nominee at his worst. McCain not only persisted in his dishonest claim that Mitt Romney supported a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, he used one evasion after another to try to make it stick.

McCain’s first line of defense was that Romney had used the word timetable which was a “buzzword” for withdrawal. His evidence that “timetable” meant “withdrawal” was that Harry Reid, who favored withdrawal, used the word “timetable.” Guilt by association is, of course, the hallmark of a smear. McCain went one step further to allege guilt by word association. Never mind that, in the same answer upon which McCain bases his smear, Romney said he would veto any timetable for withdrawal. I bet Harry Reid never said that.

[...]

Romney noted that McCain never raised this issue against him in any debate, preferring instead to put it out there just before the people of Florida were getting ready to vote. McCain answered by saying he has questioned Romney’s experience many times. This response is too pathetic to require comment.

McCain completed his cycle of cheap evasion when he noted that Romney had engaged in negative advertising, not just against him but also against Mike Huckabee. But the issue is not negativity, it is accuracy and honesty. This where McCain suddenly and unexpectedly is struggling.

McCain’s desire to smear Romney so overwhelmed his judgment that he returned to this attack in response to a totally unrelated question about his ability to lead the economy. McCain answered the question by talking about his service in the U.S. military, during which he took another shot at Romney over his alleged proposal to withdraw from Iraq. This one had even my wife, who likes McCain and is skeptical about Romney, rolling her eyes.

More generally, if McCain thinks that invoking his military experience is going to persuade voters that he can be trusted on economic issues, he should reconsider. He’s starting to sound like Rudy Giuliani, who answered every hard question by talking about New York. McCain can probably skate past Super Tuesday with this sort of line – his persistent smirk certainly suggests he thinks he can – but it won’t work against Clinton or Obama. But then, McCain doesn’t hate them like he hates Romney, at least not yet.

McCain also took a ridiculously cheap shot at Romney when he talked about how some people at companies Romney helped turn around lost their jobs. This, along coupled with his shot at Romney for being concerned with "profit" as opposed to patriotism, makes me wonder whether even Phil Gramm can help McCain when it comes to economics -- capitalist economics, anyway.

The McCain campaign has been taking the position that, since their guy is the inevitable nominee, Romney’s attacks on the Senator can only help the Democratic nominee. Under our system, McCain cannot stop Romney from damaging him through political speech. He can, however refrain from damaging himself by revealing his darker instincts when he responds to Romney. Or maybe he can’t.

Touching on the issue I've mentioned before (can a conservative cast a ballot for McCain and not feel like a fool?), Malkin ran a poll for registered commenters.

Here’s some food for thought before the debate: Results of the closed poll on McCain vs. Hillary. I kept it accessible only to MichelleMalkin.com registered users, with one vote allowed per day, for cleaner, more useful results (e.g., no Ron Paul trolls). Interesting, no?

1poll.jpg

Yeah, I'd say that's interesting. While a relatively small sample, it does seem to accurately capture the less-than enthusiastic reaction of conservatives to a McCain candidacy. Approximately 42 percent are willing to either stay home or actually vote for the Hildebeast, with another 29 percent trying to figure out just what the hell they'll do on election day.

Meanwhile, only 28 percent are ready to vote for McCain -- and I'm betting that number will drop as conservatives take a closer look at the man's recent history.

Think about that. Almost half of the participants are essentially willing to throw the election to Clinton.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 29, 2008

So, Florida goes to McCain


Interesting. While I'm not backing Romney yet -- he's still the squishy RINO who's positions are far too malleable for my taste -- it's simply amazing to me that Republicans are buying McCain's road-to-Damascus conversion to conservatism.

John McCain is responsible for McCain-Feingold, the single-biggest attack on core first-amendment rights I've ever seen. Notwithstanding his denials, McCain supported -- and still supports -- an amnesty for illegal aliens.

His supposed expertise -- national security -- is predicated on his support for the war in Iraq, but I fail to understand how he thinks he can make America safe by defending Iraqi sovereignty, while not seeming to give a damn about American sovereignty when it comes to controlling our own borders.

Mark Steyn offers this take on the results.

Tonight was a big win for illegal-immigration amnesty, remorseless socialization of health care, and big-government solutions to global warming.

If McCain wins in November, he'll be eager to show he can "work" with a Democratic Congress. If Hill wins, she'll want to make a mark, fast. And, if it's Barack, ditto with bells on. A bipartisan consensus committed to change you can believe in.

If that's not bad enough, Michael Graham offers an even bleaker take on the situation.

So it is over. Finished. In November, we'll be sending out our most liberal, least trustworthy candidate vs. to take on Hillary Clinton—perhaps not more liberal than Barack Obama, but certainly far less trustworthy.

And the worst part for the Right is that McCain will have won the nomination while ignoring, insulting and, as of this weekend, shamelessly lying about conservatives and conservatism.

You think he supported amnesty six months ago? You think he was squishy on tax cuts and judicial nominees before? Wait until he has the power to anger every conservative in America, and feel good about it.

Every day, he dreams of a world filled with happy Democrats and insulted Republicans. And he is, thanks to Florida, the presidential nominee of the Republican party.

And on that note, I'm off to climb into a bottle of Bushmill's. It's going to be a LONG nine months.

This may very well be the first presidential vote I keep in my pocket, for lack of a candidate I can in good conscience support.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Apple's got another hit -- and it ain't a computer


Whether or not you think Apple's latest computer -- the remarkably thin Macbook Air -- is the greatest thing since sliced bread, there's no denying that the hip marketers have chosen yet another great song to pair with the product.

It's "New Soul" by Israeli singer Yael Naim, and it -- and the video -- are terrific. I love her slightly-accented, ever-so-slightly husky voice.

According to Wikipedia, she served in the Israeli Defense Forces, which just makes her more interesting, don't you think?

The other musician I was introduced to thanks to Apple is a singer named Feist. I don't listen to new music on the radio (unless it's country), so this is as much exposure as I get to hip, cool artists.

Feist's song "1 2 3 4" was used to sell the iPod, and it's another catchy tune with a quirky, oddly compelling video.

Enjoy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 28, 2008

SOTU reaction

So, now that I've calmed down from my apparently unhinged response to the deliverer of the Democratic response, what did I think of the State of the Union itself?

Meh.

Pres. Bush was his usual inarticulate self, saying the words as though he were delivering a phonetic speech in Cantonese. There was the usual laundry list of stuff, with a few good tidbits, but all in all it struck me as a fairly unimpressive exercise.

Nothing like that boffo speech by the Kansas libtard-in-chief.

Grrr.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

SOTU reaction

I'm listening to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius deliver the Democrat's response to the State of the Union address by Pres. Bush, and I'm absolutely revolted by her, by every goddam thing she's said, by her schoolmarmish, condescending tone; she makes my freaking skin crawl.

My overall impression -- I was too busy trying to grasp that this mess of a speech was the best the Dems had -- is that she thinks Americans are a bunch of lazy, uncaring, warmongering dolts -- except for those salt-of-the-earth, blue-collar types who are losing their homes and jobs as a result of evil corporations and their GOP masters.

Sibelius accused us of being a do-nothing nation, and that it was time to begin kissing foreign ass, so we can rebuild our national reputation abroad. Because, you see, nothing impresses foreigners quite so much as Americans willing to admit that we suck.

I've never seen nor heard Sibelius -- reportedly one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party -- before tonight, but this was more than enough. What a loathsome, holier-than-thou hack.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

These paws are made for walking


Notwithstanding the fact that I routinely wear the crankypants and have little patience for feel-good stories and happy endings, I do have a soft spot for dogs, and no dog is more awe-inspiring than Faith.

Born missing one front leg and with another that didn't work, she was adopted just in the nick of time; her mother was smothering her to death.

Told by the vet to put her to sleep -- she'd face certain death as a result of infected abscesses, brought on by dragging and rubbing her chin and chest against the ground -- her family refused, trying instead to coax her onto her hind legs with a combination of Gummy Bears, peanut butter and praise.

Against all odds, Faith learned to stand up, hopping around, and, prompted by another of the family's dogs nipping at her heels, she started walking, too.

The video of her on two legs is just amazing. Be careful; it seems to cause excessive ocular hydration.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:13 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 24, 2008

Final word on Fred

Click on image for larger version.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How stupid do they think we are?

Who says politicians can't work together to accomplish great things?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional leaders announced a deal with the White House Thursday on an economic stimulus package that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200, and more if they have children.

[...]

The rebates, which would go to about 116 million families, had appeal for both Democrats and Republicans. Pelosi's staff noted that they would include $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn't have been helped by Bush's original proposal. Republicans, for their part, were pleased that the bulk of the rebates—more than 70 percent, according to an analysis by Congress' Joint Tax Committee—would go to individuals who pay taxes.

Isn't that just great? Tax rebates for those of us who pay too much to the government. And even better, tax rebates for about 30 million families who don't pay any taxes.

Wait a minute -- how can you earn a "rebate" if you haven't paid in to the pot? I guess if you play the semantics game.

You see, it's really called, "bribing the idiotic voters so they'll vote for me again, and doing it by using the other, better-off voters' money for the bribes."

Bribing your neighbor with your money. Brilliant.

It's also nothing but theft.

Isn't it just grand that the GOP managed to keep the percentage of freeloading households who received the undeserved "rebates" to just around 30 million families, instead of insisting that the number be zero?

Sigh

It's typical of the madness that is Washington, D.C., that this compromise is seen as better than no bill at all -- even to the GOP, which used to stand for the idea that forced redistribution of wealth is an unambiguously bad thing.

I can't think of anything more Un-American than the government taking $600 out of your pocket and simply handing it to a stranger because it thinks somebody else needs it more than you do.

Infuriating.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Laughter costs crook 6-1/2 years

Every so often I hear about a judge cutting loose on a criminal defendant, actually punishing the crook's conduct, taking into account things like the seriousness of the offense, as well as something often ridiculed by the defense bar as being of no importance: a lack of remorse on the part of the criminal.

This particular case is a perfect comeuppance for a particularly revolting sociopath.

TUCSON, Ariz. — A judge sentenced a woman to nearly the maximum prison term for negligent homicide after hearing a recorded jail conversation in which she made light of the bicyclist she killed.

Melissa Arrington, 27, was convicted two months ago of negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated DUI in connection with the December 2006 death of Paul L'Ecuyer.


arringtonsentenced.jpg

Who's laughing now, you pathetic, drunken,
heartless pig?


She could have gotten as few as four years behind bars, but Superior Court Judge Michael Cruikshank sentenced her Tuesday to 10 1/2 years — one year shy of the maximum.

Cruikshank said he found a telephone conversation between Arrington and an unknown male friend, a week after L'Ecuyer was killed, to be "breathtaking in its inhumanity."

During the conversation, the man told Arrington that an acquaintance believed she should get a medal and a "f**king parade" because she had "taken out" a "tree hugger, a bicyclist, a Frenchman and a gay guy all in one shot."

Arrington laughed. When the man said he knew it was a terrible thing to say, she responded, "No, it's not."

Assistant Public Defender Michael Rosenbluth told the judge his client has never been "cold, callous or flippant" about L'Ecuyer's death and has always felt remorseful.

Arrington said words couldn't express how she feels, and that once she's out of prison, she hopes to share her story with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his bike the night of Dec. 1, 2006 when Arrington swerved off the road, hit him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping, according to Deputy Pima County Attorney Jonathan Mosher.

Arrington's blood-alcohol content was .156 percent, nearly double Arizona's .08 legal limit. She had been driving on a suspended license for a prior DUI.

A couple of points: It's noteworthy that Arrington had a prior DUI and was driving on a suspended license.

When it comes to DUI, past behavior is a great indicator of future performance. And it's just classic that Arrington not only did it again, but on a license suspended for drunken driving.

It's almost enough to make you think we ought to get serious about DUI-related offenses, probation violations and driving on suspended licenses.

And you'd be right. In Ventura County we used to treat all this quite seriously, with substantial jail sentences for defendants who were caught driving on suspended drivers' licenses after DUI convictions, as well as additional time for violating terms of probation like, "abstain from alcohol," and "do not operate a motor vehicle with alcohol in your system."

No longer.

For reasons that escape me, the very idea of imposing an additional sanction on criminal defendants for violating the terms of their probations has become laughable, a source of derision from the public defenders and much unhappy eye-rolling and harrumphing from impatient judges.

While it's impossible to say with any certainty that Arrington could have been prevented from killing the cyclist who ended up sprawled, lifeless, in the bed of her pick-up truck, I think it's a given that 30, 60 or 90 days spent in the county jail for violating DUI probations provides the rest of us a welcome respite from the alcohol-induced mayhem perpetrated by other drunks.

My hat's off to Judge Cruikshank, who went 6.5 years beyond the low-term and nearly maxxed her out.

That was one expensive laugh, eh?

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Kodachrome history

Good man, good gun: a private of the armored forces does some practice shooting with a 30-calibre Browning machine gun, Fort Knox, Ky. The gun is mounted on a pedestal for anti-aircraft work. June 1942. Palmer, Alfred T., photographer. (Click on photo for larger version)

Tank crew standing in front of their M-4 "Sherman" tank, Ft. Knox, Ky., June 1942. Palmer, Alfred T., photographer. (Click on photo for larger version)

The Library of Congress has posted more than 1,600 color photographs taken between 1939 and 1944 onto the Flickr website, where the public is invited to view and download the images, as well as leave comments with any information about the subjects depicted.

The quality of the photos is arresting; rich, vibrant color and often striking compositions serve to grab the eye and make you want to linger over each image. The detail is astonishing, and the color gives the pictures a sense of immediacy that is lacking in the more common black and white photos of the era. There are times when it's difficult to believe that more than 65 years have passed since these pictures were taken, the details of everyday life visible in the photos so little changed in the intervening years.

And it's more than a little sobering to think that so many of the young, handsome men in the pictures would soon be dead, and that everyone else -- the kids, the Rosie the Riveter types photographed at the factories, the civilians at home -- are almost all gone, now.

Time lays low what the Axis could not.

Anyhow, I'm going to post some of these images over the coming days. Tell me what you think.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 23, 2008

Scumbag lawyer learns not to mess with Marines

Douchebag Grodner.jpg
People's Exhibit 1


If you ever wondered why everyone thinks lawyers are scumsucking dirtbags, allow me to introduce into evidence People's Exhibit 1: Chicago attorney Jay Grodner.

This piece of work vandalized an enlisted Marine's car -- because it had Marine Corps plates -- and then promised to fight any charges in court, because he wasn't going to make it easy on the so-called "hero."

The aggrieved Marine battled a bureaucracy that didn't give a damn about his car, nor about bringing Grodner to justice. However, some small measure of justice was finally done -- in his absence -- thanks to a judge and a prosecutor who weren't going to let this shyster weasel slide out of taking responsibility.

Jay Grodner, the Chicago lawyer who keyed a Marine's car in anger because the car had military plates and a Marine insignia, finally got his day in court last week.

Grodner pleaded guilty in a Chicago courtroom packed with former Marines. Some had Marine pins on their coats, or baseball jackets with the Marine insignia. They didn't yellor call him names. They came to support Marine Sgt. Michael McNulty, whose car Grodner defaced in December, but who couldn't attend because he's preparing for his second tour in Iraq.

Grodner was late to court for the second time in the case. Grodner called Assistant State's Attorney Patrick Kelly, (Marine Corps/Vietnam 1969-1972), informing Kelly that he would be late to court.

"He wanted to avoid the media," Kelly said Friday. "So he's coming a half hour late."

"I don't run my courtroom that way!" responded Judge William O'Malley, ordering Grodner be arrested and held on $20,000 bail when he arrived. Finally, Grodner strolled in. A short man, wide, wearing a black fedora, dark glasses, a divorce lawyer dressed like some tough guy in the movies.

Grodner told me he'd describe himself as a "radical liberal" who's ready to leave Chicago now with all this negative publicity and move to the south of France and do some traveling.

Judge O'Malley has also traveled, but in his youth. He was a police officer on the West Side during the riots before law school. And before that, he performed another public service. Judge O'Malley served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961-1964.

During the proceedings, the judge described the offense as anger rose in his voice, especially as Grodner started balking on a plea arrangement he'd made with prosecutors.

"Is this what you did? Yes or no," Judge O'Malley asked Grodner.

"Without knowing, yes," Grodner said, sticking to his I-might-have-done-it-but-didn't-really-mean-it defense.

O'Malley asked again, in a stronger voice, not that of a judge but of a cop on the street or a Marine who meant business.

"DID YOU KNOWINGLY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THIS CAR?" O'Malley asked.

Grodner bowed his head, meekly, and responded in an equally meek voice:

"Yes," he said.

After the admission, came the details and Grodner was lucky, getting off with a misdemeanor and no jail time, and not a felony even though he caused $2,400 in damage to Sgt. McNulty's car.

So Grodner received a $600 fine, which will go to a Marine charity, 30 hours of community service and a year of court supervision. If he doesn't pay up in a month, the judge promised to put him in jail for a year.

Judge O'Malley had something to say. He looked out into his courtroom, at all those men who'd come to support a Marine they didn't know.

"You caused damage to this young Marine sergeant's car because you were offended by his Marine Corps license plates," said Judge O'Malley.

Grodner stood there, hands behind his back. He grasped the fingers of his left hand with his right, and held it there, so they wouldn't wiggle.

"You're probably also wondering why there was a whole crowd of people here, Mr. Grodner," said Judge O'Malley.

"I don't want to wonder," said Grodner, continuing in his new meek voice, not in his tough divorce lawyer voice, but the gentle, inside voice he'd just learned.

"That's because there is a little principle that the Marine Corps has had since 1775," the judge continued. "When they fought and lost their lives so that people like you could enjoy the freedom of this country. It is a little proverb that we follow:

"No Marine is left behind.

"So Sgt. McNulty couldn't be here. But other Marines showed up in his stead. Take him away," said the judge and former Marine.

They took Grodner away, he was processed, and everyone left. The lobby was dark, quiet, except for two court deputies running the metal detector. Then Grodner came through an inside door, put his fedora back on, the dark glasses, a tough guy again.

We stood outside, in the parking lot, talking for 20 minutes. He smoked, and I didn't. He explained that he wasn't anti-military and why he pleaded guilty.

"The judge, he's the guy with the black robes," Grodner said. He could have been slapped with a felony, but Sgt. McNulty's family said they wanted to put this behind them and let it go as a misdemeanor. Grodner showed no remorse, and I asked if he'd apologize.

"Yes, I'd say, 'I'm sorry if I scratched your car.' It escalated. That's when he wanted me locked up and thrown away," said Grodner, always the victim.

Grodner tells me he plans to leave for the French Riviera and get some sun.

Sgt. McNulty will get some sun, too. In Iraq.

Thanks to the wonder that is the internet, I'm confident that should Grodner decide to resume the practice of law somewhere -- anywhere -- in the U.S., this story will follow him, making him an outcast even amongst lawyers, which is beyond pathetic.

I think he got off light; at least some jail time would do this idiot a world of good -- but then again, I'm an extremely punitive, Old Testament kind of guy.

Best wishes and Godspeed to Sgt. McNulty.

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

G'day, mate!

If I ever find the right box of photos in the rafters, I'll scan a photo from 1983 of me and some shipmates ready to hit the town in Bremerton, Washington, where we were about to win the local lip-synch, air guitar battle of the bands.

We'd decided to "perform" Men At Work's "Down Under," and if memory serves, I was the drummer. Based on the audience reaction, I was superb, a warmer-than-room-temperature version of Keith Moon, but with a military haircut and an -- ahem -- distinctly Jewish profile.

For those of you of a certain age, you'll remember the tune, which charted at No. 1 in the U.K., Australia and the U.S. that year.

Mark Steyn, who somehow knows something about everything, has penned a column on the song to mark the upcoming Australia Day observations.

"Down Under" has become a kind of musical shorthand for contemporary Australia - you'll recall it was used on the Kangaroo Jack soundtrack, the trailer for Finding Nemo, etc - in part because of its most famous couplet:

I said, "Do you speak-a my language?"
He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich

- which is a truly atrocious rhyme but, at least for a while, did wonders for Vegemite sales in the northern hemisphere. I can't speak for Aussies but I think what the rest of the world likes about the song is that it captures Australians as most of us first encounter them - the backpacking globetrotter in a bar in Earl's Court, or Dublin, or Hong Kong, or Vancouver or Delhi or a thousand other spots. I did my share of traveling in my youth and, like a lot of folks, I was always glad to find myself on a barstool next to an Australian: wherever you're from, they never seem that foreign to you, if you know what I mean. And, if you don't, well, see for yourself. They're out there, all over the map:

Traveling in a fried-out combie
On a hippie trail, head full of zombie
I met a strange lady, she made me nervous
She took me in and gave me breakfast
And she said:

Do you come from a land Down Under?
Where women glow and men plunder?
Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
You better run, you better take cover...

Steyn points out that when it comes to sophisticated lyrics and unexpected rhymes, Cole Porter faces some pretty tough competition from the Aussies.

Colin Hay pulled off something similar in the chorus of "Down Under". What does the title rhyme with? Well, "thunder" you'd expect, but I love this:

Do you come from a land Down Under
Where women glow and men plunder?

That's such a great word for a pop song, and it captures all the buccaneering swagger of Oz. But then the guys manage to better it in the second chorus:

I come from a land Down Under
Where beer does flow and men chunder...

"Chunder"? That's Australian for what men do when the beer flows too readily: vomit. There's all kinds of stories about the origin of the word. It's First World War rhyming slang based on a boot-polish advertising character called Chunder Loo of Akim Foo - ie, "chunder loo"="spew". Alternatively, it's what queasy emigrants to Oz in rough seas used to shout to the chaps on the deck below before they let fly: "Watch under", or "'chunder". That sounds a bit too neat to me, though Barry Humphries, who helped popularize the expression, still subscribes to it. Still, how many Number One songs mention vomiting? And how many manage to rhyme the sentiment? It's that kind of attention to detail that gives "Down Under" its distinctive flavor, so to speak.

And it's just one reason why, after twenty-five years, that darn song still lingers in my memory, the words so familiar that I can still sing along with a stupid grin -- and an oilcan of Foster's in my hand.

Happy Australia Day!

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:02 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 22, 2008

Fred calls it a day

Fred Thompson -- the only thing close to a conservative in the race for the GOP nomination -- has decided to end his campaign after failing to do well in the South Carolina primary this past weekend.

Am I disappointed?

You bet. As I've said before, if the choice comes down to a liberal, kinda' sorta' Republican versus a liberal, kinda' sorta' Socialist Democrat, I'll be hard pressed to care enough to go to the polls.

But I'm not as disappointed as Kim Du Toit, who reacted ... badly to the news.

Note to Fred Thompson:

Last in, first out. Thanks for nothing. Good-bye, go back to Hollywood, and f**k you.

Ouch.

I'm really at a loss right now; there's truly no one left in the GOP race that can pass the laugh-test for conservative bona fides.

McCain believes in Global Warming, wants to shut down Gitmo, won't waterboard terrorists, is against tax cuts, stifled free speech in elections via McCain-Feingold, and is the favorite Republican of the New York Times.

Ack.

Oh, wait a minute, the wife reminds me of three more reasons to loathe McCain: Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. Notwithstanding his last-minute conversion to the merits of border enforcement, McCain has been an adamant supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Giuliani is an anti-Second Amendment, big government pol; and Romney is a classic RINO squish, barely distinguishable from moderate Democrats on a whole host of issues.

I'm depressed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:49 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The GOP needs a bigger boat

Byron York reports on the Democratic race for the nomination.

I went to Barack Obama’s rally here [Columbia, South Carolina], on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before.

Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.”

He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat.

I watched the Democratic debate the other night, and while Obama still doesn't impress me on substance (there's no there there), he blows the doors off Clinton when it comes to charisma. He's handsome, smooth, youthful, tall and thin, with a terrific speaking voice.

Hillary is a hectoring, shrill, angry harridan who makes my ears bleed.

She's beatable -- in large part because of her extreme quasi-socialist positions, but also as a result of her cancerous personality.

Obama?

He's another story entirely.

Oh, sure, his policies are just as old-school, state-controlled, socialist B.S., but the packaging is so much more appealing.

Who would beat him: McCain? Romney? Giuliani?

Any one of those guys has a shot at knocking Clinton out of the ring, but I'm not sure there's a sure-fire winner to take on Obama in the general election.

Read the rest of a Byron York's piece on the juggernaut that is Obama.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 19, 2008

Aw, for Pete's sake!

Romney and Leno.jpg


Michelle Malkin posts "Five words a GOP presidential candidate shouldn’t say" -- courtesy of Jay Leno and his mid-week guest, Mitt Romney.

“Frankly, I like Ted Kennedy.”

What the hell?

Who does Romney think he's impressing with his (uncalled for) kind words? Who will be moved to vote in a GOP primary for him because of his magnanimous, it's-nothing-personal, wink-and-a-nod toward the Democrat who best exemplifies a lifetime spent bashing conservatives, blaming America for all that's awful in the world?

Romney likes Ted Kennedy? The man who used his family connections to gain entry to Congress, then spent decades in the U.S. Senate, bullying, bloviating and smearing his way through the halls of power.

And, of course, taking time out to abuse his liver -- and various women, including Mary-Jo Kopechne, who could not be reached for comment.

I can't be the only old-school conservative repulsed by Romney's blow-dried, it's nothing personal, ain't politics a hoot!, glib style.

I'm telling ya', with every passing week, the reasons to sit this election out are becoming more obvious.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Guess who's sick of illegal aliens

This is just priceless!

Apparently, illegal aliens put so much of a burden on local government -- from education to medical care, social services to crime -- that Mexico doesn't want its own citizens back.

A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson on Tuesday to say Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora - Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns - cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

The law, which took effect Jan.1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of a business license.

Its intent is to eliminate or curtail the top draw for immigrants to this country - jobs.

[...]

"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales.

"There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," she said in Spanish.

"Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems" it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said.

"We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, represents San Luis, south of Yuma, one of Arizona's agricultural hubs, which employs some 28,000 legal Mexican workers.

"What do we do with the repatriated?" he asked. "As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people - fathers and mothers and young people with jobs" who won't have work in Sonora."

He said the Arizona law will lead to "disintegration of the family," as one "legal" Mexican parent remains in Arizona and the other returns to Mexico.

No jobs in Sonora? Not my problem, amigo.

Families ripped apart? Keep the family intact and go home with those who can't legally stay in the U.S.

Seems to me Mexican politicians need to get their house in order, reform their political system, fix their economy, work on improving things at home -- including dealing with the fact that the U.S. is no longer interested in serving as a relief valve, an excuse for refusing to deal with their dysfunctional nation.

The best part of this story is the underlying theme: Americans are cruel, heartless racists for not wanting illegal immigrants -- who apparently aren't wanted by their cruel, heartless (but not racist) fellow countrymen.

You'd have to have a heart of stone to not find that hilarious.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 17, 2008

The Few, The Proud, The Marines


I saw this commercial for the first time last night -- and it did what every ad exec dreams of: it stopped me in my tracks, made me forget what I was doing, sent chills up and down my spine.

And brought tears to my eyes.

What was it selling?

Courage. Honor. Patriotism.

The United States Marines.

Take a little less than two minutes and give it watch. Then read about it here.

And, yeah, those are M-1 Garands.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:47 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Will the real Republican please stand up?

National Review's Peter Robinson takes a look at two of the GOP candidates and points out why one is a pale shade of the Gipper, and the other a reasonable facsimile.

Everybody knew just where Reagan stood. And therefore everybody knew, again, when Reagan was advancing his program and when he was merely maneuvering, as best he could, through the politics of the day.

[...]

The reason I find Romney so flawed is precisely that he is so utterly unlike Reagan in this critical regard.

First Romney was pro-choice. Now—a scant two years later—he’s pro-life.

First Romney was a social conservative. Now he’s some sort of managerial moderate.

Until about a week ago, Romney was in favor of limited government. Then he began campaigning in Michigan, where he suddenly discovered that the American automotive industry required the close and intensive supervision of the federal government to recover—and federal handout of some $20 billion to engage in research that Toyota is already conducting.

Over and over again, ceaselessly, with his inimitable chirpiness, Romney claims the Reagan mantle. Yet when Teddy Kennedy accused Romney of being a Reagan-Bush Republican during a 1994 debate, Romney appeared shocked. “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush,” Romney replied indignantly. “I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

People who know Romney well—people such as Dean Barnett, with whom, as it happens, I just had a cup of coffee—tell me that the true Romney, the inner Romney, really is a Reagan Republican.

Maybe.

But I’d sure like to be able to do more than take Dean’s word for it. (Not, come to think of it, that his knowledge of the inner Romney has enabled Dean himself to view Romney’s conduct with equanimity. As Dean wrote this very week in the New York Times, Romney has “mounted a campaign that was, at its most basic level, insincere.”)

Fred Thompson? Could any candidate have proven more exasperating?

Not until he began his bus tour of Iowa, a scant couple of weeks before the caucuses, did he even really begin to campaign. And not until the debate in Myrtle Beach last weekend, just a week before the South Carolina primary, did he really begin to fight, landing jabs on Huckabee and taking a swing at McCain.

But could any candidate have proven more authentic?

Thompson has done just what Reagan did. He has stated his principles. He has let voters in on his program. And when Fred Thompson says he intends to secure our borders, defeat the Islamofascists, cut taxes, reduce regulations, control spending, and defend the unborn, he’s not flipping or flopping. He’s demonstrating fundamental consistency with his entire record in public life.

If he lacks college liaisons, direct mail experts, and other appurtenances so in evidence on the Romney campaign, so be it. Thompson isn’t relying on some giant, gleaming juggernaut to carry him along.

Like the Gipper before him, he's standing on principle.

Setting aside the Reagan worship for a moment, I think Robinson gets what it is about Romney that I find so off-putting -- and what it is about Thompson that appeals to me:

Romney says he's a conservative. Thompson is conservative.

Oh, sure, it's impossible to know what's in a man's soul -- and even more difficult to discern the same for a politician (given the rather small chance that he has one) -- but the only thing we have to go on is a man's record, his public history, and Romney's tendency to say what he thinks voters want to hear has been remarkably elastic, even by the tolerant standards of 21st-century politics.

I get the sense that Thompson truly know what he believes in, is comfortable in his own (baggy, saggy and wrinkled) skin, won't pander shamelessly like the rest of his competitors. And I like that. A lot.

The GOP has a choice: nominate a conservative and regain its reason for being, or nominate the Dem's favorite Republican (McCain) or one of the other "moderate" (Ack!) candidates in a futile quest to tack left and recapture the so-called independents by out demming the Dems.

Won't work, my friends. Someone like Thompson offers voters a real choice from what the Dems are selling, instead of a Rino-lite, GOP version of the nanny state.

I've got my fingers crossed for the upcoming South Carolina primary; if Fred can keep McCain or Huckabee from running the board in the Palmetto State, the race remains open -- and when it comes to states where independents and Democrats don't get to pick the GOP nominee, Thompson may surge ahead, thanks to the votes of fed-up conservatives.

Like me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 16, 2008

Our Saudi friends


Proving that there's no end to the lost causes Pres. Bush so dearly loves -- nor any baseline below which he won't limbo dance in an effort to curry favor with our so-called Saudi allies -- the man who famously said he had looked into the eyes of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and judged his soul to be pure has figured out a way to end our energy problems, thanks to the selfless nature of our Saudi friends.

He'll get down on his knees and beg ask the Saudis to increase their oil production, just to help us out.

And then he'll buy a bridge I've got for sale on the Hudson River.

One GOP presidential candidate had a swift response.

[Fred] Thompson, a former Tennessee senator, said the problem was a "little bigger" than Saudi Arabia.

"It's not in the United States' long-term interest to go hat in hand begging people to do things that in the end we know they're not going to do," Thompson said.

"What we need to concentrate on is diversifying our own energy sources here in this country and opening up what oil reserves that we have here ... using nuclear more, using clean coal technology more and all the other things that we can do," Thompson said.

Let's see, work to increase domestic energy supplies or flatter a bunch of Machiavellian sheiks who fund terror groups and would like nothing more than to see the United States laid low.

I'm gobsmacked by the sheer stupidity of it all.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Adrift without a moral compass

President Bush is determined to throw away the few remaining scraps of his once easily-understood foreign policy: You're with us or you're with the terrorists.

Derided at the time as a laughably simple-minded view of the world, it nonetheless had a bracing impact on our friends and enemies. Strength is respected in international affairs, and Pres. Bush was taking a strong stand, forcing foreign governments to pick a side in the aftermath of 9/11.

But Bush has lost his way, ripping up his roadmap for peace in the Middle East, forcing the Israelis to accept that the Palestinians will no longer have to end terrorist attacks on the Jewish nation before receiving U.S. recognition, U.S. funds, and a wet, sloppy kiss from the State Department hacks -- up to and including the ever-so-disappointing Condoleezza Rice.

Jeff Jacoby said of the repulsive spectacle that is the U.S.-sponsored peace talks:

Whatever happened to the moral clarity that informed the president's worldview in the wake of 9/11? Whatever happened to the conviction that was at the core of the Bush Doctrine: that terrorists must be anathematized and defeated, and the fever-swamps that breed them drained and detoxified?

Bush's support for the creation of a Palestinian state was always misguided - rarely has a society shown itself less suited for sovereignty - but at least he made it clear that American support came at a stiff price: "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state," Bush said in his landmark June 2002 speech on the Israeli-Arab conflict, "until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." He reinforced that condition two years later, confirming in a letter to Ariel Sharon that "the Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Now that policy has gone by the boards, replaced by one less focused on achieving peace than on maintaining a "peace process." No doubt it is difficult, as Rice says, to "move forward on the peace process" when the Palestinian Authority glorifies suicide bombers and encourages a murderous goal of eliminating the Jewish state. If the Bush Doctrine - "with us or with the terrorists" - were still in force, the peace process would be shelved. The administration would be treating the Palestinians as pariahs, allowing them no assistance of any kind, much less movement toward statehood, so long as their encouragement of terrorism persisted.

But it is the Bush Doctrine that has been shelved. In its hunger for Arab support against Iran - and perhaps in a quest for a historic "legacy" - the administration has dropped "with us or with the terrorists." It is hellbent instead on bestowing statehood upon a regime that stands unequivocally with the terrorists. "Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Rice says.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton, he was determined not to replicate his predecessor's blunders in the Middle East, a determination that intensified after 9/11. Yet now he too has succumbed to the messianism that leads US presidents to imagine they can resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Clinton's legacy in this arena was the second intifada, which drenched the region in blood. To what fresh hell will Bush's diplomacy lead?

It's the latest in a series of disappointments from a second-term Bush Administration that seems adrift, meandering aimlessly in its final months, seemingly intent on undoing any good that it had accomplished during the preceding 7 years.

It's hard to believe that Bush would fall prey to the same pie-in-the-sky optimism of Clinton and Carter, the belief that his legacy depended on a deal -- any deal -- being inked between the Israelis and the Arabs, no matter how terrible the terms.

It seems, however, that there's something in the water, something that dissolves the stiffest of spines, turns wise men into fools.

I'm sickened by the spectacle of U.S. diplomats sowing the seeds of more death and destruction, a bitter crop to be watered with my taxes, my friends and family in Israel forced to live -- and die -- with the consequences.

George Bush should be ashamed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Some things never change


It's an inescapable truth that some things never change; the truth is constant. But it's not the truth that changes. Sometimes society evolves -- or devolves, losing its ability to grasp truths that were once self-evident.

Even though this was made during my father's school days, I can recall seeing it -- or films just like it -- when I was a kid. These films were designed to teach children an important civics lesson, to instill a love for our nation, to explain why America was different from other countries.

They helped turn kids into Americans, into patriots.

It's a sign of how far we've come (in the wrong direction) that the very idea of showing this to kids today is unthinkable.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 15, 2008

Shut the hell up!

The writers at Pajiba -- home to snarky reviews and much scabrous language -- offer their pet peeves for 2008, and Daniel Carlson lets loose on something that makes my list, too.

People Who Talk in the Theater: Shut up. Shut the f**k up. Every single last worthless one of you stupid braindead sh*ts. This is not your home. This is not your space. You are sharing this space with me, and I am younger and smarter and quicker and I could kill you with my mind, so just shut up.

When the hell did this even start? People suddenly think it’s OK to speak up or whisper or talk to their friends or significant others or whatever other mouth-breathing bottom-feeding moron they’ve dragged with them to the theater. But the movie theater is not a living room, and you just have to shut up.

I’m completely on board with laughing, crying, gasping — any of those pure gut reactions that spring forth unforced when the movie is doing its job. But to talk, to offer commentary, to SPEAK ALOUD ABOUT THE FILM is never acceptable, and it marks you as a giant douchebag.

The problem is that it’s everywhere. Even here in Los Angeles, which purportedly can draw (very very) slightly more discerning audiences than other cities, it never fails that there’s always some dumbsh*t talker sitting near me.

I was at the ArcLight to see There Will Be Blood, and when the action shifted to the mansion that Daniel Plainview has built with his oil money, including a shot of a pair of bowling lanes he’d installed in his house, the woman behind me whispered loudly to her friend, “That’s what Uncle Dave could do with his spare room.”

Who gives a flying f**k about Uncle Dave’s spare room, lady? What makes you think this is the time — in the middle of a darkened theater, in the film’s final sequence — to talk about your stupid Uncle Dave? I can guarantee that you will never hope to understand what was happening, and I mean really happening, in that movie; no one who was emotionally connected to the film, to any film, would speak up like that. You hear me? No one. You will never get this. You will never get any of this. You will probably not even understand why I’m asking you to shut up or go home and die, so just trust me on this one: I need you, all of you, to stop talking. Forever. Starting right now.

I've basically sworn off going to the movies because of the unbelievably rude, self-obsessed, ill-mannered louts who can't shut up for a couple of hours.

One of the commenters came up with a truly-inspired response to a cinema chatterbox.

One time I had sweet sweet revenge on a theater-talker. This girl was sitting in the row in front of mine. She came to the movie late, talked to her friend throughout the whole movie, and ate candy that must have wrapped in the crinkliest paper known to man.

As we were getting up to leave, she told her friend that she was late because she was picking up the sixth Harry Potter book. I told her the ending. The look she gave me is one I will treasure until the end of time.

I'd have given anything to see that look, too.

Now that's entertainment.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Light rail not the answer

I've always been a fan of mass transit, especially trains. Nothing makes a big city more liveable, more civilized than a subway. Paris' Metro made getting around a snap when I was a college student, and Manhattan sports an incredible subterranean people-moving system, supplemented by buses on the surface.

I commuted into New York City from the New Jersey suburbs for a semester at the U.N., alternating between riding the trains to Hoboken, taking the PATH under the Hudson River, and riding the Lakeland bus to the Port Authority on 42nd Street.

What all the rail-based systems have in common is that they were built during the early years of the 20th century, when the cost of labor -- and materials -- was quite low.

Today? Not so much. And as much as I like riding the rails, it's no longer the obvious solution to what ails American cities. In fact, notwithstanding the anguished howls of protest from the eco-weenies, the automobile provides the most cost-effective and efficient means of moving us from here to there.

Joe Sherlock makes the argument, with the facts and figures (and links) to back it up.

"Three light-rail lines have been added to L.A. county's transit system in the last 20 years. Together, these cost $2.5 billion in capital costs, they serve about 125,000 passengers per day and account for a fiscal loss of approximately $252 million per year - if one acknowledges that capital costs are real, something that transit operators and boosters often neglect."

"So if you do the math, the capital costs alone come to $20,000 per daily rider (and that's making a generous assumption about how many "regular" riders there are). Add in the annual operating loss, and it would have been cheaper to buy each rider a compact car and a full tank of gasoline each week for the rest of his life."

All of this for a negligible decrease in traffic congestion: In no city in the country does light rail ridership equal more than 1.2 percent of travel.

How much does it cost taxpayers to move one person one mile? About six cents for freeways and $2.75 for light-rail. Therefore, light rail costs 40 times more than freeways. The person-mile cost of buses is $1.59 - still much more than roads but considerably less than rail.

The answer is more. More roads and more cars. For less money.

It's a win-win.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 13, 2008

Target hits the spot

Tiki head.jpg

That spot being my funnybone.

Who knew that Target (pronounced, "Tar-jay" by the in-crowd), in addition to being kinda' hip, was also funny?

This is clearly the best tissue-box cover ever made. Of course, it begs the question, "Why does anyone need a cover for a box of tissue?"

If I may be so bold, it does two very important things: It pokes fun at the cult of "Everything primitive is important," as well as making the mundane amusing.

It's nothing new, really, for the retailer. Back in 2006 I pointed out this awesome doormat, still pretty darn funny, notwithstanding my working for The Man.

Good stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mmmmm, meat

We had friends over last night for dinner; the entree came from (where else?) Costco. The warehouse carries Morton's pre-seasoned tri-tip roasts, which are absolutely delicious.

Being a fan of BBQ, I'd cooked them on the grill in the backyard, but never approximated the moist, tender cut of meat we'd had at the restaurant. So we decided to try baking it in the oven for about an hour.

Let me tell you, simply leaving this cut of meat in the oven until the interior temperature of the roast hits about 140 degrees yields a perfectly moist, tender, restaurant-worthy meal.

It's enough to make me ignore my grill.

We served the tri-tip with a classic American side dish -- green-bean casserole -- and garlic bread, salad and more than a few bottles of the very-tasty Red Diamond Merlot.

Now, I've been on something of a tri-tip tear lately, going to lunch at a local place called Marshall's Bodacious BBQ, where I'd stumbled across "Bruce's Bodybuilder Burrito," a tortilla wrapped around a half-pound of tri-tip, cheese, and nothing else.

None of those sissyfied vegetables or condiments to confuse matters. Just meat and cheese (and maybe a little of Marshall's BBQ sauce).

So, not being in the mood for eggs this morning, I stood before the refrigerator, eyeing the leftover tri-tip.

Could I? Should I?

I could, I should, and I did.

Straying just a bit from the caveman's creed, I added three stalks of asparagus to the thinly-sliced strips of meat, melted some cheese over them and wrapped them in a whole-wheat tortilla.

Heaven.

California Condor Casserole or Spotted Owl Soup was never this good.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 10, 2008

Thompson turns it up

I watched most of the debate tonight, and listened to a portion in the car.

Impressions?

In reverse order, this is how I think the candidates did.

Cuckoo for Coca Puffs: Ron Paul. From his ranting about Israel (those pesky Joooooos!), to his ranting about the Gulf of Tonkin and the peace-loving Iranians, to the other candidates laughing at him when Brit Hume asked, "What are you talking about?", the barking-at-the-moon Texas congressman was awful. This guy makes Dennis Kucinich sound normal.

ZZZZzzzzz: Mitt Romney. I don't get this guy; he's been the liberal GOP governor of an overwhelmingly liberal state, with no apparent deep-seated conservative beliefs that have played a role -- any role -- in his political life ... until he decided to run for the presidency. A transparent phony, without an authentic bone in his body. Apart from his vast fortune and good looks, I'm not sure why so many think he's the guy to take down McCain. A very ineffective performance tonight.

Birds of a Feather: Mike Huckabee and John McCain. I can't stand either of these guys, but they managed to have some good moments tonight, if you're inclined to back a liberal Democrat masquerading in GOP clothing. Huckabee had a nice response to a softball question on marriage and religion, and McCain kicked the bejabbers out of Romney on the economy. But the two RINOS were body-slammed on illegal immigration by Fred Thompson, and McCain even volunteered that he was on the Al Gore global warming bandwagon.

Ack.

Who put meth in his coffee?: Fred Thompson. Whoa. The charge has been that the former senator from Tennessee didn't have the fire in his belly, didn't want the job bad enough. Apparently he didn't get the word. Thompson was on fire tonight, savaging Huckabee for his positions, defining the Arkansan as a fine nominee.

For the Democrats.

Thompson had a number of good moments, including his take on illegal immigration: America should have a high fence and a wide gate, and we'll decide who gets to come in.

Boo-ya! In your face, Huckabee! And you too, McCain!

If I have a criticism of the Tennessean, it's that he didn't hammer McCain enough. McCain's campaign has been invigorated by his New Hampshire victory, and South Carolina is a conservative state, one not sympathetic to many of the Arizona senator's contrarian positions on amnesty, judicial appointments, free-speech restrictions (i.e., campaign finance reform, aka, McCain-Feingold), gun control or tax cuts.

As a conservative, the more you know about McCain, the less you can conceive of ever voting for him. That's some mighty fertile ground for Thompson -- if he decides to hoe that row.

Did I leave anyone out?

Oh, yeah, Rudy Giuliani.

Did you know he cleaned up New York City? And that he's proud of the fact that as mayor he turned it into an illegal alien sanctuary city? And that he believes that he's the best candidate to solve the problem of illegal immigration and secure our borders?

It is to laugh.

Giuliani phoned it in tonight. I think he's holding his mud for Florida, betting that he can recoup lost ground. I think it's a sucker bet; like Huckabee, Rudy's not a conservative, and the GOP base will soon figure that out.

I wonder if Thompson can keep those fires burning?

Waitress? A little more "special sugar" for his coffee, please.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:07 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

iPhone changes the paradigm

Wired has the story behind the iPhone's amazing success, and how all consumers -- no matter which carrier they're using -- stand to benefit.

But as important as the iPhone has been to the fortunes of Apple and AT&T, its real impact is on the structure of the $11 billion-a-year US mobile phone industry.

For decades, wireless carriers have treated manufacturers like serfs, using access to their networks as leverage to dictate what phones will get made, how much they will cost, and what features will be available on them.

Handsets were viewed largely as cheap, disposable lures, massively subsidized to snare subscribers and lock them into using the carriers' proprietary services. But the iPhone upsets that balance of power. Carriers are learning that the right phone — even a pricey one — can win customers and bring in revenue.

Now, in the pursuit of an Apple-like contract, every manufacturer is racing to create a phone that consumers will love, instead of one that the carriers approve of. "The iPhone is already changing the way carriers and manufacturers behave," says Michael Olson, a securities analyst at Piper Jaffray.

If you're a techie -- or just interested in the story behind one of the biggest business successes in recent memory -- read the whole thing.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 08, 2008

McCain wins one. Yipee.


I was chatting with a colleague today about the New Hampshire primary; he's a law and order type, but less conservative than me. We differed over McCain's ability to win the GOP nomination; I maintain that his positions on a host of issues are anathema to the Republican base, making him an unlikely standard bearer for voters who consider themselves stalwart conservatives. My colleague thinks McCain will appeal to moderate Republicans who are tired of "partisan bickering."

In a day that gave me little to smile about -- How did Hillary pull it off? -- cartoonist Michael Ramirez is always good for a chuckle (and a wince). He really does capture the prickly, pugnacious, thin-skinned, F*$% You! essence that is John McCain.

I return yet again to the best description I've seen of the man, courtesy of Hugh Hewitt:

John McCain is "a great American, a lousy Senator, and a terrible Republican."

Hopefully he'll flame out, as Republicans remember all he's done -- ACK! -- for conservatives over the last decade.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 07, 2008

Noonan nails what ails Huckabee

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan nails what ails Huckabee -- while also highlighting what he gets right in his critique of America's jaundiced national character.

Mr. Huckabee likes to head-fake people into thinking he's Gomer Pyle, but he's more like the barefoot boy of the green room. He's more James Carville than Jim Nabors.

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know.

Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it. Clever fellow. To me, the tipoff was "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

In many respects, our culture reminds me of nothing so much as an ultra-violent, ultra-decadent amalgamation of the Roman Empire and Germany's Weimar Republic -- Spartacus meets Cabaret.

Huckabee correctly focuses on the rot at (or near) the core of our society, but then acts like a classic liberal politician, promising all manner of taxpayer-funded solutions from Big Daddy Gummin't

Combine that with his seeming affection for populist class warfare and foreign policy know-nothing-ism, mix in a dash of ignorance of free-market capitalism and the favorable impact of tax cuts and reduced government spending on the economy, season with a record of pardoning and releasing killers and rapists, and you've got a toxic stew that tastes a lot like a reduced-fat version of Huey Long.

I suspect that -- like Hillary Clinton -- the more the voters get to know Huckabee, the less they'll like what they see.

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

George Orwell's 1984 had nothing on California

big brother 4.jpg


And he's spying on -- and controlling -- the temperature in your house.

This is the biggest infringement in personal property rights I've ever seen -- and it's coming to Californians by the end of this month, unless people get seriously upset.

What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT. Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision.

Each PCT will be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature setpoint or decrease your heater temperature setpoint to any value they chose. During "price events" those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During "emergency events" the new setpoints can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.

In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.

But the discomforts of compliance will fall unevenly across the state. Come the next heat wave, the elites might be comfortably lolling in La Jolla's ocean breezes or basking in Berkeley by the Bay, while the Central Valley's poor peons are baking in Bakersfield and frying in Fresno. California's coastal climate, where the elites live, seldom requires air conditioning.

[...]

How will the state ensure compliance and prevent free riders? As above, coastal elites are already free riders as they will see the benefits while paying none of the costs except for the higher first cost of a PCT. For initial construction or home remodeling, it will be one of those items a building inspector will check before signing a certificate of occupancy. Replacing one's mandated PCT with a bootleg unit from Nevada should be within the skill of most homeowners. A low powered FM transmitter might easily be devised to override the broadcast commands for low cost. Even a metal wire shield around your PCT could block its FM reception. Adding a window air conditioner or an electric space heater are other work-arounds as neither have requirements for PCTs - yet. Sweating for the common good is for the chumps.

The article goes on to note that this interference in the free market also disrupts the ability of power producers to build more plants, invent new sources of energy, much in the same way rent control destroys the incentive to create more housing.

But that's the least of it.

Are you in the least bit troubled by the concept of Big Brother seizing control of your thermostat? Will the same people who shriek about BushHitlerCheneyHallliburton on the federal level intruding into our lives, violating the Constitution, have the same level of outrage over this outrageous move by the extremists in Sacramento?

This is exactly the kind of thing George Orwell anticipated in 1984, with Big Brother in every subjects' home, watching, listening, controlling.

Outrageous.

Infuriating.

Revolting. In every sense of the word.

Speak up, folks.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 06, 2008

The Democratic slate


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

FNS Panel: Last night's debate

NPR's Mara Liasson says it was "adorable" when Hillary Clinton told one of the moderators at ABC's Saturday night debate that "it hurts my feelings" to hear that some people don't like her.

"Adorable"?

Uh, no. It was silly, out of character, patronizing and deeply, unutterably fake. Hillary Clinton has spent years perfecting her public persona of toughness, of going for the throats of those who dare oppose her.

Which is actually perfect, because last night's "adorable" moment captures Clinton's essential inauthenticity -- and liberal reporters' willingness to buy whatever snakeoil she's selling.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Huckabee on FNS

Chris Wallace is grilling Huckabee on some of his foreign policy shortcomings.

Huckabee says that an example of the "Bunker mentality" of the Bush administration -- of acting to alienate our allies and the rest of the world -- was the president's call to arms: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

Huckabee helpfully explains that statements like that violate the first rule of politics; that it's nice to have people with you 100 percent, but that's not always possible, and sometimes it's better to have them with you 80 percent.

So, in the context of September 11 and the global jihad against the U.S. and the West, Huckabee thinks its acceptable for a president to tell foreign leaders, "The choice is clear: You're either with us, or you're kinda', sorta' with us -- but still with the terrorists (just a little bit), but that's okay, 'cause you're more with us than with them."

Inspiring foreign policy leadership from another Arkansas deep thinker.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 05, 2008

And another thing ...

What's up with the Democrats suddenly sounding like the Pakistani grocer on Seinfeld?

Every last one of these phonies is pronouncing the name of a certain hot-spot nation as "PAHK-EEE-stahn."

In my more than 40 years on this planet, I've never heard an American use the pronunciation of native Punjabi-speakers; the common useage amongst U.S. natives is "PACK-is-stan."

It reminds me of that Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Latino actor Jimmy Smits attending his first meeting at a new job.

In an effort to make him feel at home, his Anglo colleagues go our of their way to use the most exaggerated, "Mexican" pronunciations of common words.

"So, I like your new CAH-ma-rrrrrrrro."

Man, I had the best BOO-RRRRRRRRRRRR-ito for lunch!"

"Look! It's a TORRRR-NAH-DOH!"

It's just so silly.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Bill Richardson in tonight's debate

The sweaty, corpulent, podium-pounding also-ran of the remaining would-be Democratic nominees just gave the most idiotic foreign policy answer I've yet heard -- from either party.

In response to a hypothetical about the U.S. acting on its own to get Bin Laden in his Pakistan hideaway when Pakistan's leader refuses to act, Richardson says he'll use diplomacy first -- and demand that Musharaf resign.

Because, you see, we have so much leverage over this sovereign, nuclear-armed Muslim nation, that all we have to do is snap our pudgy fingers and *POOF* their elected leader is gone.

Doing wonders for the insane theories in the Arab world that our allies are merely puppets of the Israel-loving U.S. government.

Look, Musharaf may indeed be a bastard, but he's the only thing standing between those nukes in his arsenal and the iNsAnE, fundamentalist Muslim moonbats who want to seize control and use the Pakistani military as the Sword of Allah, swinging for our necks.

Pardon me if the idea of magically forcing him out of office strikes me as naive, stupid, arrogant, and finally, just bizarre.

With this evening's earlier debate in mind, I think the dream ticket for the psycho set would be Ron Paul & Bill Richardson in '08.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ron Paul at tonight's debate

Ron Paul's recitation of U.S. foreign policy and history in tonight's debate is wrong on the facts -- and more than a little bit crazy.

He says that, for the first time, the U.S. is starting wars, a result of its adoption of the doctrine of preemptive war. Paul says it's crazy that the U.S. is starting from the premise that all options are on the table.

But most importantly, Paul reiterates the meme that we -- the United States -- deserved the attacks on the World Trade Center, that we brought it on ourselves by "occupying" nations, by basing our troops in unnamed countries.

Stop and consider that for a moment: Ron Paul thinks we're responsible for the Islamic terrorists targeting us.

Paul repeats the charge that we're "occupying" -- Fred Thompson says, "Occupying?"

Paul says, "Saudi Arabia --"

Thompson (with delicious sarcasm) : Occupying? We've got bases there.

In the weird world view of Paul, the mere presence of our troops in foreign countries, at the invitation of those countries, provides a legitimate causus belli for our enemies. Ron Paul thinks we need to retreat to the borders of the Continental United States, raise the drawbridge, and everything will be hunky-dory.

Ahem.

As to his initial charge, that it's outrageous that the U.S. be willing to attack before our enemies strike the first blow, I would have thought that September 11 settled that. First, the war was declared against us a long time ago; we are therefore justified taking the fight to our enemies wherever they are.

And, in a time when nukes, chemical and biological weapons are desperately sought by terrorists and rogue regimes, the butcher's bill that comes with letting the enemy strike first is far too high for our nation, our people, to pay.

Paul's insistence that the U.S. be forced to take one on the chin before hitting back is simple-minded, wrong-headed, and very, very dangerous.


Posted by Mike Lief at 07:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 04, 2008

The GOP roster according to Kim

Kim Du Toit sums up the GOP slate in a spot-on bit of analysis:

The Republican candidates in a nutshell:

Fred Thompson: the only true conservative in the race. No wonder he’s so far behind. Liberal Republicans hate him, and conservative Republicans are either stupid, apathetic or our views are so far in the minority that his candidacy will be irrelevant.

Huckabee: backwater religious populist / economic illiterate / foreign policy yokel. That’s not going to do real well in any state where the average Republican voter has an IQ higher than room temperature.

Romney: smooth-talking East-Coast liberal Republican and Big Government apparatchik. If he wasn’t a Mormon, the Establishment Republicans would be fawning all over him.

Giuliani: Romney, with an authoritarian streak. Power-obsessed uber-lawyer.

McCain: maverick (polite word for “self-serving asshole") authoritarian.

Other than Thompson, I wouldn’t trust any of the above with my gun rights, either.

Paul: still an asshole. He did okay in Iowa because of the stoner student vote in Iowa City. He may do okay in New Hampshire because those morons once voted for McCain (!) over GWB, so anything’s possible.

Gah.

Honestly, I can't remember a more open primary season -- and one with so many uninspiring choices.

Four RINOs, a raving moonbat, and one lonely conservative.

Sigh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Best response to the Iowa GOP

VodkaPundit Stephen Green pens a letter to Iowa Republicans -- and pretty much sums up my thoughts, too.

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

I’ll give you some credit where it's due: you guys had sense enough to give Fred Thompson a breather, and Ron Paul a pretty solid kick in the (ahem) nuts. But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is... every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked -- which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit


PS You're making Iowa Democrats look like Albert freakin' Einstein. How's that feel?

What he said.

There's only one conservative in the GOP race, and it ain't Huckabee, Romney, McCain or Giuliani.

Fred Thompson's still alive and kicking, edging out McCain for third place; on to Wyoming.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 03, 2008

Huckabee wins Iowa

"Hopes, dreams and aspirations of our children."

That's Mike Huckabee talking about what his victory means, that it's not about raising money, but about making dreams come true.

Which leaves me unmoved.

I don't want a president who -- like the tooth fairy -- leaves presents for us, gives me what I want.

I want a president who'll cut taxes, let the economy grow, leave me alone, protect my family from our enemies by pursuing and killing with great vigor those who threaten our nation.

I'll give him this: Huckabee's a dynamic public speaker, as smooth as you'd expect a preacher to be.

But his speech is full of rainbows, moonbeams, unicorns and pixie dust. And a bunch of populist rhetoric, too.

I don't like the guy, I don't trust him. Rush Limbaugh went after him hammer and tong yesterday with the bottom-line critique for voters like me:

Huckabee's not a conservative.

Huckabee's a tax-raising, nanny-state loving, big-spending liberal, with a thin veneer of Southern Revival RINO.

You can take this to the bank: the GOP base will never give him the nomination.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Hillary Clinton speaks

And I'm transfixed by how miserable Bill looks, relegated to standing behind his wife, saying nothing, clapping his meaty paws together when appropriate.

Poor guy.

I know how he feels; just watching from the couch makes me want to jab knitting needles in my ears to provide some relief from her grating, graceless voice.

She's going on about how she's prepared "from Day-One!" to lead this country, part of her 35-year-journey to become the first female president, during which she prepared herself by being the wife of a governor, the wife of a president, and carpetbagging senator of little distinction or accomplishment.

It's early; Iowa doesn't often pick the candidates who end up in the White House, so her third-place finish isn't fatal.

But it is sweet seeing her lose to the feckless amateur and the shyster lawyer.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Edwards takes second in Iowa

I'm listening to John Edwards deliver his "victory" speech after coming in behind Obama and ahead of Clinton in the Iowa caucus, and man, this guy gives me a headache.

In harsh, strident tones, the millionaire lawyer rants about class warfare, of wealthy elites taking advantage of workers, of corporate greed having a stranglehold on America.

Putting aside for the moment that he did not win, this guy is incredibly polarizing -- and a fake, too, from blow-dried head to expensively-shod toe.

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

Celebutards on parade

Hollywood types are like space aliens when it comes to the military and patriotism, as unfamiliar with the customs and practices of soldiers as an extraterrestrial at the Iowa Caucuses.

Even when they're doing a good thing, celebs are still offensive jerks.

I'm watching Letterman and his guest, the insufferable Robin Williams, discussing the comedian's recent USO tour in Iraq.

Williams is describing how, in the midst of his stand-up routine, he hears something -- "Retreat," he says someone told him, with a wry grin -- and was stunned to see all the GIs in the audience stand and turn their backs to the stage.

"It's as if you were in a small town and suddenly everyone turns and faced the sun," he says, then acts it out, turning, zombie-like, away from the audience, then looking back over his shoulder and saying in a creepy monotone, "You're not one of us."

He and Letterman yuck it up, going on about how weird it was, Williams climbing up on his chair, sticking his ass out at the audience as he peers at the backdrop.

Letterman cues up tape of the performance, and we see Williams telling a joke, as the troops laugh.

He begins another joke when we hear a trumpet, and Williams pauses, then starts to riff on the interruption ... then he falls silent as every last GI jumps to his feet, back to the stage, and faces the flag, standing at attention.

Someone tosses a soldier a helmet; he quickly sets it on his head and snaps a salute, holding still.

The bugle sounds retreat as the flag is lowered, the last mournful notes fading away; it's sunset, and the same scene is playing out on U.S. military bases around the world, as it has for more than a hundred years.

Every man who has served in the military knows this moment, when cars on post come to a halt, drivers sitting at attention, when casual conversation stops and all eyes turn to the flag, the same flag that fighting men have died for in every war since the American Revolution.

It's a thrilling moment, one that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, even sitting in my living room, watching TV.

And Letterman and Williams continue to goof at the weird ways of the rubes, those brainwashed folks who are like something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

This is what we get when our candy-assed celebrity elites have no contact with the heartland, with the values of flyover America -- we're just a never-ending geek show to them.

Giving Williams his due, it's great that he went to Iraq.

Notwithstanding that trip, he and Letterman are a couple of repugnant celebutards.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 02, 2008

Everybody wanted to be Cary Grant

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/schwarz-cary-grant

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:11 AM

Is Hillary about to get clobbered?


Let me start by saying that I'd love for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party's nomination, almost as much as the Moonbat Libs would love to see the GOP pick Huckabee, for probably the same reason: both candidates are deeply unattractive to huge swaths of the electorate.

With that out of the way, on to business.

As Iowans file into rooms across the state to begin caucusing, David Freddoso explains why Hillary Clinton may suffer a tremendous setback this week, thanks to the quirk in the process that allows supporters of losing candidates to vote again.

Hillary Clinton leads in most late polls of Iowa, if only narrowly. Yet she will not place first. She may not even place second.

The reason lies buried in the Democratic caucus process, and it stems from the fact that Hillary Clinton is hardly anyone’s second choice for the Democratic nomination.

[...]

The most relevant feature of the Democratic caucus, as opposed to the Republican one, is that it allows supporters of losing candidates to make a second choice. This is where Hillary is on course to fall short.

To get some idea of how this works, let us examine the Johnson County Auditor’s website, which offers an easy example (it was written for 2004, but the rules remain essentially the same).

Imagine that 100 Democrats show up to caucus in an imaginary Iowa precinct. They watch speeches given by candidates’ local surrogates and, each then tries to persuade his undecided neighbors. Caucus-goers choose a corner of the room in which to stand — the Clintonites will stand together in one place, as will the Obama-backers, the Dodd-lovers and all the rest. Once each has chosen his place, a timeout is called. A tally is made of each candidate’s supporters. In the example, the count comes out thus:

John F. Kennedy: 44 supporters
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 30 supporters
Harry Truman: 14 supporters
Woodrow Wilson: 12 supporters

It doesn’t end here, though. In the Democratic caucus, candidates must receive 15 percent of the precinct’s vote in order to receive any delegates. And so once this initial tally is taken, everyone is given a chance to form up again. Kennedy and Roosevelt backers have no incentive to change sides — their candidates are all set to get delegates in this precinct. But backers of Truman and Wilson get to take a second crack at it (or else they can just leave). They could band together to give Truman a few delegates, or they could join one of the frontrunners to boost his numbers. Once the realignment takes place, precinct delegates are awarded proportionally (each precinct is entitled to a different number of them). The party then reports the number of delegates — not the number of votes — to the media.

What does this mean for Hillary? According to the Insider Advantage poll, she is the second choice of just 21 percent of likely caucus-goers who are backing Sen. Joe Biden (Del.), Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), and all other also-rans, who in most precincts will fail to reach the 15 percent threshold. John Edwards, by contrast, is the second choice of 62 percent (Obama is at 17 percent). This is significant because a full 20 percent of those surveyed said they were either undecided or backing a minor candidate in the first round.

In a close race between Clinton and Edwards, Edwards bests her after the realignment is done, thanks to those likely caucus goers who consider him their second choice. If the latest Des Moines Register poll is to be trusted, and Hillary is locked in a second-place tie with Edwards, then her worst-case scenario could be realized. This may explain why Clinton campaign officials are forbidden to say she will win Iowa.

Fascinating.

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

Who's the biggest self-hating Jew of 2007?

Yid with Lid is running an on-line poll: 2007's Most Self-Hating Jews.

There are a dismayingly-large number of finalists, people who I refer to as the Sonderkommando of the 21st Century.

Yid with Lid lays out the parameters:

Below are the Nominees in all four categories:

Self Hating Jews of 2007 - 24 Nominees

Not Self Hating -- JUST STUPID - 8 Nominees

Self Hating Ex-Jews - 2 Nominees

Self Hating Media - 3 Nominees

Each Nominee has at least one hyper-linked article supporting their case -- why they should win in their category ... so read them all and then make your vote.

If you're a Jew who's disgusted by these folks -- or a Goy who's curious what all the mishegas is about -- head on over and check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Keep hope alive

Kim Du Toit explains why there's still hope for conservatives, responding to something said by a despairing fan of limited, very, very, small government.

The argument is that the ever-expanding powers of the state have proven impossible to trim, government agencies and quasi- (or not so quasi-) socialist programs doing their best to entice otherwise stalwart, self-supporting Americans onto the Gummint teat, where they can suckle on the "free" money transferred from the greedy, capitalist pigs at the top of our unjust economic pyramid to the ever-expanding ranks of "Victims," thanks to the efforts of selfless Democrats, social do-gooders and their Republican-in-name-only enablers.

Du Toit takes a measured look at the problem and concedes that, yes, in many respects it's true that trying to trim the fat from government is like playing whack-a-mole, but that the incrementalist approach has produced real results.

Take, for instance, gun control.

Now ask yourselves this question: during the current political campaign, has any major political candidate among the socialists Democrats breathed as much as a single word favoring gun control? And one more: has any Republican candidate with a history of favoring gun control ever spoken to the NRA, back-pedaling, pandering like hell and begging pardon from a suspicious and hostile audience, like No-Guns Giuliani and that worm Romney had to do?

Gun control is no longer a political issue in this country, except as political suicide when a politician attempts to enact it. And that situation came about not just because of the NRA or whoever: it came about because We The People finally woke up and realized that gun control is a blow to our freedom. And that awakening came because of the many thousands of people like me, who refused to knuckle under and meekly resign ourselves to a fate like that of the modern-day Britons.

Thirty years ago, you couldn’t carry a concealed gun in this country. Now, it’s legal in nearly 80% of the states.

Let me remind you all: had we gunnies tried at the outset for all-or-nothing Vermont-style carry (ie. with no license required), we would have failed outright. Instead, we got a half-victory; and yes, the thought of having to ask the state for permission, and pay for the “privilege” grates me as much, or more, than anyone else. But I can carry a gun without being arrested—and as the righteous Shootings show, that ain’t nothing.

And when the GFW fears of “mayhem in the streets” has proven to be so much crap, then we can work on getting permits changed to (say) 10-year permits instead of five, or “lifetime” permits (as has already happened in Indiana), then we can move towards “no permits” (as Alaska has already done).

That, my friends, is how gradualism works.

He's right; there has been a sea change on the gun control issue, turning it from a sure-bet for liberals in the '80s to a poison pill which no national candidate has wanted to swallow, at least since Bill Clinton admitted that the issue cost Dems control of the Congress back in '94.

But I'm not as optimistic as Du Toit.

Notwithstanding some small victories, things like GOP presidents signing the ADA, No Child Left Behind and other expensive programs designed to turn local problems into federal ones, all while ignoring truly national issues like -- erm, what do they call it? -- illegal immigration leave me feeling forlorn.

Sigh.

At least there's an election to distract me.

Oy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 01, 2008

Pickuptruck shootout

We're considering buying a new truck -- one capable of towing a trailer over the Rockies without breaking a sweat -- and the top candidates are the Chevy Silverado 2500/GMC Sierra 2500 HD, or the Toyota Tundra.

I'm leaning toward the GM trucks, primarily because of the Duramax diesel engine and Allison 6-speed automatic transmission, a powertrain with tons of torque and decent mileage when not pulling a rig.

The folks at PickupTruck.com did an incredibly detailed comparison test on the latest crop of heavy duty trucks, and the results are encouraging.

The methodology seems sound, and given the better warranty available on the American truck, I may be ready to give Detroit iron a try again, after a 22-year hiatus from the Lief garage -- my 1945 Jeep notwithstanding.

You can read the three-part report here, here and here.


Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

One Hand Clapping moves

Donald Sensing has a new site for his blog. Update your bookmarks and check back often.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Planning for the worst

More than 1,000 homes were destroyed this past year as a result of the wildfires in Southern California, with many families left with only what they managed to grab while running to their cars.

Everyone ought to have a fire-resistant safe for his valuable papers and goods. Important documents, photos, wedding albums and momentos can survive a blaze if stored in a good safe.

This is one of the most thorough discussions I've seen on the subject. It focuses on gunsafes, but the information is worthwhile even if you don't own any weapons.

Read and heed, my friends. An ounce -- or a ton-and-a-half -- of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack