Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

Neither candidate said anything about increasing the oil supply to alleviate the high prices resulting from growing demand. There's oil aplenty in the United States, but we need to extract it. Then we need to build refineries to turn it into fuel.

But Obama and Clinton prefer to practice retardonomics, completely ignoring the possibility that big, bad oil companies could help, if only Congress would get out of the way and let them tap the billions of black gold locked beneath ANWR, under the waters of the Pacific coast and the Florida Keys.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Democratic Debate: Taxes

Obama wants to raise taxes on people making more than $100K, citing the importance of paying for Social Security.

Question: Why do we have to pay more taxes? Why not cut spending?

Answer: Because Democrats always -- ALWAYS! -- believe that "fiscal responsibility" means raising revenue (taxes), but never cutting spending.

Moderator Charlie Gibson throws out a good question, prefacing it with the factual statement that cuts in the capital gains tax have always -- ALWAYS! -- resulted in an increase in cash landing in the government's trough. Given that fact, he asks if either candidate is willing to swear off an increase the capital gains tax.

Clinton says she won't raise it above what it was during her husband's administration, which is a limited promise to screw us only a little bit.

Obama disputes the premise of the question, saying it's debatable that increased tax revenue has anything to do with cuts in the tax rates, then engages in a bit of flim-flam, saying that millionaires with lots of stocks are paying less taxes, at a lower rate, than their secretaries.

And, after all, he's for fairness; who can be against fairness?

What Obama doesn't say, of course, is that those millionaires have already paid taxes on their income when they earned it, to the IRS and their states; he wants to tax them again, taking another bite after they try to realize some of the profits on their investments, investments that contributed to the growth of the entire economy.

Obama says we need to raise more money to "finance" health care for those Americans without health insurance.

"Finance" means you and I are forced to pay for health care for people who, through ignorance, sloth, stupidity, poor job choices or just plain bad luck aren't listed on our policies. So, we should be forced to hand over more of our hard-earned cash, to buy for these people the health care they haven't planned or budgeted for.

As I listen to this debate, I have a hard time hearing what they're saying over the shrieks of agony coming from my wallet and my 401K.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 15, 2008

The Pope comes to America

Click cartoon for larger version.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Homicidal teens are just misunderstood

There have been a spate of editorials and articles in the local fish wrap lately, urging Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten to prosecute Brandon McInerney as a juvenile, not an adult, for the murder of Larry King.

Sunday's paper featured an opinion piece from Neil Quinn, a former high-ranking public defender who represented another juvenile killer, Tony Throop, who sits in prison, sentenced as an adult to life behind bars.

Quinn's essay was a high-falutin' attack on the very concept of prosecuting juveniles in the adult system, with allegations that the D.A. put justice on the backburner in favor of some barbaric, unduly punitive legal maneuvers.

When justice is sought, it is immoral to knowingly allow the result to rest on a lie. Like a bitter root added to a stew, a falsehood that underlies a criminal judgment taints the result and renders it unacceptable, no matter the other ingredients.

When prosecutors argue that we can tell by a child's crime that he is beyond hope and he should bear responsibility for his crime in the exact same fashion as if he were an adult, such arguments are "misguided" for the simple reason that they rest on falsehood.

We know, and have always known, that children are subject to poor choices, bad influences and bad judgment, but they usually grow up. Law and society have recognized this in innumerable ways in age-related restrictions on driving, marrying, contracting, having sex, owning a gun, drinking, voting, fighting in a war and virtually any other activity with serious consequences.

We even have laws that increase the punishment when a defendant involves a minor in a crime. Why? Because we know the truth that minors are subject to undue influence and don't have an adult capacity to appreciate the consequences of their conduct. We recognize the truth that children are different from adults in every other context, so why must prosecutors ignore this truth? Would you give your child a gun, alcohol and keys to a car and think that it would be safe because you told him to "act responsibly"?

Ventura County prosecutors recently decided to treat a child three weeks into his 14th year as an adult, to be judged as if he were an adult, as if he were not a child. Envision your child (or any child) on his 14th birthday, in junior high school. One need not be an expert to know that this child has a lot of growing up to do. Do we really want a legal system where prosecutors are free to ignore this fundamental truth?

There is a tendency for people to defer to the "experts." Prosecutors sometimes clothe themselves in this "expert" guise and ask citizens, unfamiliar with the law and the facts, to assume they are doing the "right thing." After all, prosecutors are supposed to represent the "people."

I suppose that I could clothe myself with a similar claim of expertise. I have worked in the criminal justice system for about 25 years. I have defended many young offenders and know firsthand the thoughtlessness that is connected with youthful crime. I even wrote some motions long ago in the Throop case, arguing — prior to the recent Supreme Court opinion — that sentencing a minor to die in prison without any hope of parole is cruel and unusual punishment.

[...]

But to cast this question as one to be debated and resolved by experts is fundamentally wrong. We do not defer to experts for our moral reasoning. Any parent is sufficiently expert to know that children are not adults.

Sometimes it is just that simple. We have two parallel criminal justice systems — one for adults, the other for children. To say that a 14-year-old deserves to be in the adult system is to put the bitter root of a falsehood into the mix at the very beginning. No palatable justice can come of it.

While Quinn tells us that "Prosecutors ignore a fundamental truth," he glosses over several truths himself.

Throop was 17 when he murdered his victims, old enough to know the difference between right and wrong; mature enough to consider the implications of his actions before he took a rifle out of the trunk and returned to the party; intelligent enough to recognize that the people at whom he was taking aim had a right to live.

And yet he pulled the trigger anyhow, more than once, in a series of cold, calculating, premeditated acts, and murdered two men.

It gladdens my heart that Mr. Quinn is so impressed by Throop's literary skills; it appears that the man had used the intervening 17 years since his crimes to improve himself, arguably changing for the better.

Rolando Martinez and Javier Ramirez haven't done so well.

They're still dead.

So forgive me if the ashes-and-sackcloth routine leaves me dry-eyed and hard-hearted when it comes to Throop's fate. He got his break when the jury decided not to sentence him to death, a decision one juror said was directly influenced by the killer's age.

As to the lament that "Prosecutors ignore fundamental truths," it strikes me that there are certain truths that undercut Quinn's plea for mercy, amongst them the existence of evil, acts of undeniable cruelty, and the irrevocable -- and irredeemable -- nature of certain crimes and those who commit them.

While Quinn reminds us over and over and over again that Brandon McInerney is 14, McInerney -- like Throop -- will see 17 and beyond.

Larry King, however, won't celebrate another birthday, won't have an opportunity to receive plaudits for his intellectual growth, his writing, his wit and good humor. Like Rolando Martinez and Javier Ramirez, he'll remain unmentioned in countless letters written on behalf of a killer.

Because Brandon McInerney fired a bullet into Larry's brain. Because Larry King was gay. And then as Larry lay bleeding on the classroom floor, he fired again, because one bullet just wasn't enough.

That McInerney could kill a classmate in cold blood, in front of a room of his fellow teens, doesn't strike me as immature; rather, it seems to be cruel, cold, calculating, the very personification of evil.

Why did the California legislature, as liberal a bunch of poltroons as has governed anywhere in the U.S., given prosecutors the ability to prosecute McInerney as an adult?

Because even as craven a bunch as the politicians in Sacramento are repulsed by the increasing violence, the ruthlessness we see coming from our juvenile defendants.

And so, in order to protect society and perhaps deter others, prosecutors are given the discretion to seek the longer sentences, the harsher penalties that come with adult prosecutions.

Unlike Quinn, I'm not confident that killers like Throop and McInerney would be reformed by the time the juvenile system forced their release back into society while still in their mid-twenties, back into our neighborhoods while still young and strong.

Because, you see, that's the truth of the matter: the term of confinement for juveniles is often laughably brief, serving neither to adequately punish nor deter the most savage of crimes -- and criminals.

It's telling that, along with Quinn's failure to mention the victims, he also neglects to tell readers that Throop would have served only eight years for killing two men, shaving decades off his sentence, just because he was a few months away from turning 18.

And McInerney would do just eleven years in the Youth Authority for killing Lary King.

Is that fair? Is that just?

For all the talk of wasted youth, I prefer a more evenhanded approach.

McInerney and Throop -- and all other murderers who have found their blood-soaked calling while still in their tender youth -- can escape the confines of their prison cells the same day their victims can escape the confines of the grave -- but not a day sooner.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:48 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Innocents abroad

Every so often you hear about a member of the moonbat brigade slamming head-first into that most foreign and unfamiliar of concepts: reality.

An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey.

The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday.

She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.

[...]

Ms di Marineo was hitch-hiking from Milan to Israel and the Palestinian Territories with a fellow artist on their "Brides on Tour" project.

[...]

"Her travels were for an artistic performance and to give a message of peace and of trust, but not everyone deserves trust," [Ms di Marineo's] sister, Maria, told the Italian news agency, Ansa.

Yeah, hitchhiking to the Middle East is "an artistic performance." Too bad the critics you find in Third World backwaters are prone to rather brutal reviews of the most personal kind.

I wonder if her murder constitutes a more primitive brand of performance art.

Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic, but this woman was a pretentious muttonhead, with a rather ... unrealistic understanding of human nature.

File this under "Thinning the herd."

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:24 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 14, 2008

Polar bears:

You might think that WWF stands for World Wildlife Fund, but after listening to actress Sharon Lawrence whinge on and on and on about the poor widdle polar bears dying as a result of "Climate Change," I'm convinced WWF stands for

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:41 PM

April 13, 2008

Profiles in workplace heroism: Courage comes to court

Last year I had a case that I dubbed "Dude, where's my ear?" or, in the alternative, "Al Bundy meets Dirty Harry."

It featured a gangbanger who tried to steal a pair of shoes from the wrong shoe store. As the thug tried to leave with his hot hightops, he and his fellow gangmember were confronted by the store manager and another employee. The manager asked if the thug intended to pay for the new shoes he was wearing.

The thug responded by lifting his shirt and showing the store manager that he had a gun tucked into his waistband.

The manager lunged for the gun and the fight was on; at one point, the gangbanger and the macho manager were grappling on the floor as the other gang member kicked the store's defender in the head.

When the cops arrived on the scene, they noted that there was an individual with blood all over his face and head, a large pool of blood on the floor, and what appeared to be a large portion of human ear in the center of the sticky mess.

The manager not only bit off a chunk of the bad guy's ear, he also succeeded in getting the gun from the thug, then used it to pistol whip the thief and knock out his front teeth.

Which officially makes the defendant the world's worst armed robber and gangbanger: he got his ass kicked by Al Bundy!

Joining the roster of unlike heroes is court reporter Ron Tolkin, who was transcribing the proceedings in a federal drug-related hearing when the defendant went after the U.S. attorney with a razor.

The ordinarily mild-mannered stenographer reverted to his Vietnam-era combat experience and leaped to her defense, the assault captured on the digital recorder Tolkin keeps in his pocket.

Then he transcribed the event, later apologizing to the judge for his intemperate language during the fracas.

The transcript makes for some great, profanity-laced reading.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:18 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Still sucking the foreign-oil teat

Click cartoon for larger, easier-to-read version.

It seems that little has changed in the nearly two years since I wrote this, other than gas prices climbing higher as demand outstrips supply -- and Congress refuses to do anything.

Anything useful, that is.

As war in the Middle East helps drive petroleum prices to record highs, it's good to remember that those politicians who pay lip service to the U.S. achieving "energy independence" are resisting efforts to wean us off the foreign-oil teat.

France relies on nuclear power to generate the vast majority of its power; we haven't broken ground on a reactor for decades. What about the "cleaner" technologies? You mean like wind-generated power? Well, there was a proposal to build a wind farm off the New England Coast, but the founding member of the Chappaquiddick Swim Club joined forces with Walter Mitty Flipper John Kerry to kill the unsightly energy alternative.

And let's not forget that, although the U.S. is sitting on oil reserves big enough to completely replace our foreign oil-producing kleptocrats, mullahs and strongmen, Congress won't allow us to tap it.

ANWR, the strip of Alaska that, well, that Alaskans want to open to exploration remains off limits, thanks to the feckless nincompoops in the Senate. The House has voted several times to allow drilling, but their counterparts in the "World's Greatest Debating Society" (Ack!) can't bear the thought of actually doing something that will help Americans -- at least, not when the hated GOP and Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton could take credit for it.

There are also huge energy reserves off our coasts, but again they remain verboten to us, because oil platforms offend our aesthetic sensibilities.

But others aren't so sensitive.

That bastion of free education, universal health care, and economic justice, i.e., Cuba, isn't sitting back on its well-worn heels; they're doing what we ought to do, if we had cojones: drilling for oil off their coast -- and ours.

While American politicians try to extend the ban on drilling to more than 200 miles from the Florida coastline, Supreme Maximum Socialist Commandante Castro has been pumping sweet crude and natural gas from a mere 60 miles from the shores of the Spring-Break mecca.

According to the Washington Times:

Republicans in Congress have tried repeatedly in the past decade to open up the outer continental shelf to exploration, and Florida's waters hold some of the most promising prospects for major energy finds. Their efforts have been frustrated by opposition from Florida, California and environmental-minded legislators from both parties.

Florida's powerful tourism and booming real estate industries fear that oil spills could cost them business. Lawmakers from the state are so adamantly opposed to drilling that they have bid to extend the national ban on drilling activity from 100 miles to as far as 250 miles offshore, encompassing the island of Cuba.

Cuba is exploring in its half of the 90-mile-wide Straits of Florida within the internationally recognized boundary as well as in deep-water areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The impoverished communist nation is eager to receive any economic boost that would come from a major oil find.

"They think there's a lot of oil out there. We'll see," said Fadi Kabboul, a Venezuelan energy minister. He noted that the oil fields Cuba is plumbing do not respect national borders. Any oil Cuba finds and extracts could siphon off fuel that otherwise would be available to drillers off the Florida coast and oil-thirsty Americans.

Canadian companies Sherritt International Co. and Pebercan Inc. already are pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude each day from the Santa Cruz, Puerto Escondido, Canasi and other offshore fields in the straits about 90 miles from Key West, and Spain's Repsol oil company has announced the discovery of "quality oil" in deep-water areas of the same region, the National Ocean Industries Association said.

Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, also has inked a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil, and it is using Chinese-made drilling equipment to conduct the exploration.

That compounds the frustration for U.S. oil companies and other businesses that have lobbied to open up the estimated 45 billion barrels in oil reserves and 232 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in banned drilling areas of the Gulf -- enough to fuel millions of cars and heat millions of homes for decades.

U.S. companies, which have the best deep-water equipment, cannot participate in the Cuban drilling because of the 45-year economic embargo against Fidel Castro's communist regime.

If oil is found in commercially viable quantities, Cuba could be transformed from an oil importer into an exporter, ending chronic energy shortages on the island and generating government revenue.

That prospect and the involvement of China and Venezuela in exploration activities have attracted the attention of the CIA and other national security agencies, even if congressional opposition to offshore drilling has not budged.

Sterling Burnett, a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, said Cuba's activities show that the quarter-century ban on offshore drilling is putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage at a time of increasingly scarce energy resources and record high oil and gas prices that are hampering economic growth and stoking inflation.

"Canada and even economically backward Cuba are moving forward with plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters," he said. "Since pools of oil do not respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba will be accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and for the benefit of Americans."

More than half of the nation's untapped offshore oil and gas reserves lie within the Gulf, much of it within Florida's protected waters. In the latest attempt to exploit the reserves, the House last month passed a bill that would allow coastal states to decide whether to open the first 100 miles of their waters for exploration.

The bill allows states such as Florida and California to vote for a permanent moratorium on drilling but also includes a powerful enticement to allow exploration: half of the hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties and fees from drilling that otherwise would go to the federal government.

Until Congress actually votes to build nuclear power plants, ignore the bleating of namby-pamby NIMBYs, put windmills off Hyannisport, and drill for the energy reserves that we already own, the pissing and moaning about the high cost of gas is nothing more than craven political posturing -- and deserving of nothing more than a shrug and a sigh as we pay for the next tank of gas.

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

April 10, 2008

Occupational hazards, extreme edition

And you thought you had a bad day at the office.

A city worker died after falling into a wood chipper while trimming trees in Inglewood, Calif., MyFOXLA.com reported.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the incident as an industrial accident, the station reported.

They are looking for people who may have seen the accident.

The victim was not identified, the station reported.

You should have seen the first draft of that last line:

Authorities are seeking assistance identifying the worker. He's described as a fine puree of meat, bone and gristle, standing about 1/16" tall and approximately 5 yards wide.

Blecch.

What a way to go.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:39 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The worst Constitutional Amendment?

How about the 17th?

Yeah, I know, it's not the first one that comes to mind, but trust me, read Tam's explanation and I think you'll agree: Much that ails us as a nation can be tracked back to the progressive reforms of the early 20th Century (don't get me started on the '60s).

On April 8th in 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect. To anybody concerned with checks and balances and separation of powers who had actually read the Constitution, it's hard to see how this could be considered a good idea. As a matter of fact, it's hard to see how it could not be seen as undermining the very concept of a federal republic.

I know some of you are clicking for Wikipedia right now, muttering to yourselves "Seventeenth? Is that income tax, or when they let y'all chicks vote? No, it's Prohibition, right?" No, the Seventeenth Amendment is the one that calls for direct election of Senators. What's so bad about that, you ask? (Go on, ask.) Well, let me tell you...

And she does, explaining in a clear, concise manner how changing the delicate interplay between the Executive and Legislative branches and the Judiciary, along with balance between the States and the Federal Government, carefully, brilliantly designed by the Founding Fathers, has resulted in this horrorshow, the modern U.S. Senate, starring such bilious bobos as Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and Byrd.

We repealed the 18th Amendment, the one that inflicted Prohibition on us, when we realized what a terrible mistake it had been; it's not too late to consider doing the same to the 17th Amendment.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 08, 2008

Tractor

Looking more like a sports car than farm equipment, this restored John Deere 3020 Orchard has smooth bodywork to keep wheels, gears and protruding parts from damaging delicate fruit trees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120769876086199765.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:31 PM

Obama + YouTube = Priceless candidate gasbaggery

Want a graphic example of how the internet, bloggers, and viral video are changing elections?

Check out the video above, which neatly slices, dices and makes mincemeat of a classic Barack Obama lie.

There's simply no place for candidates to hide anymore; the nature of the web has eliminated the ability of the media -- traditionally in the tank for liberal politicians -- to cover for these crapweasels when they willfully lie to us.

This is one of those stories that would have disappeared down the memory hole in past elections, ignored by the press.

Now, it's the subject of a short, brutally in-your-face video, one that makes the point, over and over and over, that Obama's full of crap. And it's available for viewing 24/7, just an e-mailed cut-and-paste link or web search away from anyone who wants to see it.

Politicians and their shills must hate that, but it seems like an unalloyed good thing to me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 06, 2008

McCain: Straight talk my eye

John McCain is on Fox News Sunday being interviewed by Chris Wallace. The host sets up a question by quoting McCain's statement from last month, when the GOP candidate said this about one of his rival's qualifications:

"In all due respect, [Obama] does not understand the elemental, fundamental elements of national security and warfare ... [American voters will] understand, if they don't now, that he has no experience or background on these issues."

Wallace then asks, if, in light of that opinion, Obama is qualified to be the Commander in Chief.

McCain responds that it's not for him to say whether a candidate is qualified; the voters will decide that. If they elect someone, then he's been deemed qualified for the position.

Wallace tries again, because McCain had dodged the question. The host reminds his guest (for the second time in as many minutes) that he has previously said that Obama has no experience in foreign policy, in military affairs, and the natural inference is that Obama is, in fact, not qualified to be president.

So, Wallace asks, in your opinion is Obama unqualified to be the command in chief?

McCain shucks and jives, punting again to the electorate, saying it's not his place to say whether his potential opponent is qualified or not; that's up to the electorate. McCain will only say that in his opinion, he's more qualified than his opponents.

He then adds a line about people being able to say that Jack Kennedy wasn't qualified to be president -- an interesting comment for him to make, notwithstanding the fact that JFK was a decorated war veteran who was also a student of international affairs.

And domestic affairs.

Ahem.

Anyhow, McCain won't cowboy up and reiterate his end-of-March criticism of Obama, but neither will he repudiate it.

The best he'll do is weasel, wiggle, obfuscate and filibuster, just like any other Washington windbag or Congressional crapweasel.

So much for the vaunted McCain straight talk.

For crying out loud, the man's ostensibly fighting for the most important elective office in the Western world, and he can't bring himself to knock the qualifications of a man who's manifestly unqualified to be president.

John McCain has seemed happiest beating up on Republicans and conservatives for much of the last decade; rare is the day when I can recall him laying into a Democrat with the savage glee he reserves for his perceived enemies on his own side, in his own party.

This is just more of the same, being given an opportunity to deliver an uppercut to a liberal Democrat with a huge vulnerability, and choosing instead to not just pull the punch, but taking a pass on swinging at all.

The man is infuriating.

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 05, 2008

Quote of the day

From David Sneath, the 60-year-old Ford parts warehouse worker who won a $136 million lottery jackpot this week:

"I yelled to the boss, 'I'm out of here,"' the Livonia man said Thursday after coming to state Lottery Bureau headquarters in downtown Lansing to pick up his first $1 million check.

Despite his longtime association with Ford, he said he won't be using any of the money to buy one of his former employer's vehicles.

"I worked for Ford Motor Company," he said. "I won't be buying a Ford product."

Ouch.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:32 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 04, 2008

Infuriating commercial of the day

HMO Kaiser Permanente -- ostensibly concerned with our health -- tries to give me a heart attack with this ad, delivering at least half its pitch in upbeat, chirpy spanish.

Is it asking too much for advertisers to save the espanol for Telemundo?

Honestly, I've never had an opinion one way or another about Kaiser, but after this ad, I'd rather go to my vet -- or Dr. Kevorkian -- than let these illegal-immigrant-pandering sawbones get their mitts on me.

Arrrgggghhh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 03, 2008

From the Barney Fife school of police work

I was reading a police report recently, seeing what charges (if any) should be filed, when I came across something that left me aghast.

The cop had arrested the suspect, handcuffed him, patted him down for weapons, and put him in the back of the squad car to take him to jail. Before he closed the door, the cop warned the crook against saying anything until he had been read his Miranda rights and had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer.

That warning was stupendously ill advised, uncalled for, and just plain dumb.

Why?

Before I answer it, allow me a moment to explain what the Miranda warning is supposed to do: provide suspects under arrest notice that they don't have to answer cops' questions; that they cannot be subjected to coerced confessions; and that if they do decide to talk, what they tell the cops will be used to convict them of the crime.

When does Miranda apply? When do cops have to give crooks the Miranda warning? The test established by the courts is this: When the suspect is in custody, i.e., not free to leave, then he cannot be questioned without first being advised of his right to remain silent.

The two key components are custody and questioning.

Notably absent from this calculus are what we in legal and law enforcement circles call "spontaneous statements." These are the things crooks say on their own, elicited not by questions from the boys in blue, but perhaps prompted by guilt, fear, or stupidity.

Thus, if a crook in the back of a paddy wagon blurts out, "Ya got me, flatfoot, I murdered Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick!" the statement is admissible, even though he hadn't been Mirandized, because the confession was not in response to a question from the cop.

Believe it or not, most crooks actually aren't very smart; they often

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:56 PM

It's not the gummint's money

Kim Du Toit, who relocated to Texas from the gun-forsaken Chicago environs, offers this take on why Texans love, love, LOVE their governor.

If you google “Governor Rick Perry” you’ll find page after page of whining and carping about the man, mostly written, it should be said, by the peculiar species of Lefties, populists and libertarians who infest the Austin area and other parts of the Blue Archipelago in Texas.

Yet in election after election, Perry gets elected and re-elected by thumping margins. How could this be, you ask?

Here’s one reason (my emphasis added):

Gov. Rick Perry announced Monday that an estimated 370,000 Texas businesses will be getting a tax cut of $90 million, thanks to the state’s strong economy and low unemployment.

“I believe in truth-in-budgeting: when government levies a tax and collects more money than is needed, we must either stop collecting the tax, return the money or both,” said Gov. Perry. “Thanks to our healthy economy and low unemployment rate last year, the state collected more money for the unemployment trust fund than we need, which is why I’m directing the state to bring that tax to a screeching halt for this year.”

Man, does California suffer by comparison. Du Toit mentions that companies are fleeing high-tax states. He's right, too. Kinkos moved their corporate headquarters from my hometown to the more business-friendly Lonestar State a few years back.

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

Design dead end for autos?

Joe Sherlock thinks innovative car design has hit a dead end, with safety regulations and wind tunnels making jaw-dropping new models a thing of the past.

And he's got 75 years of photos to prove the point.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Why guns are a social good

Oleg Volk is a talented graphic artist who has produced some thought-provoking posters targeting gun control. They provoked this strong reaction in a comment at the bottom of the page.

These are bizarre and terrifying ... They totally freak me out.

Other readers then provide a series of well-reasoned responses, most of which go unrebutted by the would-be gun prohibitionists.

You can read Oleg's thoughts next to his artwork here.

Be sure to check out the rest of his site, too.

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

Is there nothing red wine can't do?

Apparently not.

Rochester researchers showed for the first time that a natural antioxidant found in grape skins and red wine can help destroy pancreatic cancer cells by reaching to the cell's core energy source, or mitochondria, and crippling its function.

The study also showed that when the pancreatic cancer cells were doubly assaulted -- pre-treated with the antioxidant, resveratrol, and irradiated -- the combination induced a type of cell death called apoptosis, an important goal of cancer therapy.

The research has many implications for patients, said lead author Paul Okunieff, M.D., chief of Radiation Oncology at the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Although red wine consumption during chemotherapy or radiation treatment has not been well studied, it is not "contraindicated," Okunieff said. In other words, if a patient already drinks red wine moderately, most physicians would not tell the patient to give it up during treatment. Perhaps a better choice, Okunieff said, would be to drink as much red or purple grape juice as desired.

Yet despite widespread interest in antioxidants, some physicians are concerned antioxidants might end up protecting tumors. Okunieff's study showed there is little evidence to support that fear. In fact, the research suggests resveratrol not only reaches its intended target, injuring the nexus of malignant cells, but at the same time protects normal tissue from the harmful effects of radiation.

"Antioxidant research is very active and very seductive right now," Okunieff said. "The challenge lies in finding the right concentration and how it works inside the cell. In this case, we've discovered an important part of that equation. Resveratrol seems to have a therapeutic gain by making tumor cells more sensitive to radiation and making normal tissue less sensitive."

Drink purple or red grape juice? The hell with that! Pour me a glass of that cancer-killing Chianti, Luigi.

Once again, more proof of Woody Allen's genius.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 02, 2008

Thursday must-see

Amazing SIX-Year-Old Singer - video powered by Metacafe

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:11 PM