Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

Hey, civil libertarians and First Amendment defenders -- I'm talkin' to you, ACLU! -- if the idea of politicians seeking criminal prosecutions of the opposition doesn't send a chill down your spine, then you must be a fan of one-party rule, of strong leaders demanding obedience, of the individual submitting to the will of the many.

Does that sound like America?

Why does Obama hate freedom of speech?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Robert Duvall's got McCain's back

From The Weekly Standard's article on Hollywood's low-key conservatives comes this wonderful bit about one of my favorite actors.

[Robert] Duvall, who just finished doing the voiceovers for the McCain videos that will be show next week at the Republican National Convention, points to McCain's national security experience. "He's an American hero. He's got character. He's been around." Duvall pauses. "The other guy? I just don't know."

Duvall ... is incensed by comments Gore Vidal made about McCain back in June. Vidal had questioned McCain's heroism. "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"

Duvall doesn't think much of Vidal, whom he called "an American icon-slash-dilettante." It's not only John McCain who could kick Vidal's ass.

"His 96 year-old mother could beat the crap out of Gore Vidal with her shoe," Duvall says. "And you can quote me on that."

Oscar Wilde once said the only thing worse than being talked about was ... not being talked about.

Gore who?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Nautical implants

What do you do when your cruise ship is too small? You cut it in half and stick in an extra 73 feet.

According to The Daily Mail, Royal Caribbean's Enchantment of the Seas will gain 150 staterooms and another restaurant, thanks to the 12-deck, 6 million-pound addition, at a cost of £30million -- substantially less than the £500million needed to build a new ship.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 25, 2008

Life -- and death -- in Israel

Robert Avrech provides this evocative portrait of life in Israel, an old friend, and the armed civilians who are the first line of defense against the terrorists.

Shabbos in the Judean town of Efrat, Israel is a deeply moving experience. As the sun falls it gently folds itself into the surrounding hills and valleys. The same Judean hills where Jews have lived, worked and fought since Biblical times.

The unearthly light makes a final golden splash.

[...]

With my brother-in-law, I walk to shul. We are just two, and then a few men approach from another street, several more from another. Suddenly we are dozens converging into one road and approaching shul.

[...]

In every window I see Shabbos candles, hundreds, no thousands, glittering white, yellow, blue and red. It's an awe inspiring sight for the flames gutter in various rhythms creating a mystical dance of light welcoming Shabbos.

I count seven Glocks and two M16's. There is, undoubtedly, more firepower in shul, but these men are not vain, wild west gunslingers. Most sidearms are concealed under shirt tails, or, as in the case of my brother-in-law David—who dresses for Shabbos like he's still back in Monsey—his Glock 17 is hiding under his nicely tailored suit jacket.

It is comforting to daven in a room with armed and well-trained citizen soldiers. We know from experience that in Israel, it is armed citizens who are the first line of defense against the Arab-Muslim terrorists who have been killing Jews since time immemorial.

One of the most irrational and shameful political positions taken by Liberal American Jews is the demand for the abolition of the right to bear arms.

If Jews in Europe owned guns there would be several million dead Nazis and their collaborators—and far fewer dead Jews.

Out of the corner of my eye I spot Larry.

We're both from Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, a tough neighborhood even by Brooklyn standards. We attended Brooklyn Talmudic Academy together, a tough Yeshiva even by San Quentin standards.

We have been friends forever.

Larry's parents are Holocaust survivors and as Larry often tells me, his father obsessed over the fact that so many Jews were unprepared, mentally and physically, to fight the Nazis.

“He's written thousands of pages about this,” Larry confides.

Thus, it is only fitting and somewhat ironic that several years ago, here in an Efrat supermarket, Larry bravely confronted an Arab Muslim homicide bomber and deleted this piece of human garbage.

After shul, Larry and I embrace. We study each others' faces. Yes, we are older, middle-aged, we have children and grandchildren, but we are still our impish and dopey childhood selves.

“Nobody lives in the old neighborhood anymore,” Larry says.

“Yup, they're all gone.”

[...]

Again, Larry and I go over the killing of the terrorist. Details are all important in counter-terrorism.

“The Glock is a good weapon when every millisecond counts,” says Larry. There's no safety, which can take precious time away from shooting. You can keep a round in the chamber, then just draw and fire.”

Larry totes his Glock in a Fobus speed holster.

“What kind of rounds did you use?”

“I keep hollow points in the Glock, but my spare magazine has full metal jackets. The day I killed the terrorist, I put him down with the hollow points. Don't want to use full metal jackets in a crowded supermarket, they'll go right through and kill an innocent bystander.”

“The Efrat supermarket was crowded?”

“Very. Look, the terrorist was here,” Larry demonstrates using his body and mine, “and behind him were several women and children.”

“How close were you to the the terrorist?”

“About fourteen feet.”

I shiver.

Most gunfights, contrary to popular mythology, take place within seven feet. Fourteen feet can seem like a yawning chasm when the adrenalin is pumping, innocent bystanders are all around, and a determined terrorist has his finger on the detonator.

“The full metal slugs would have gone right through him and there's no telling...”

Larry's voice trails off.

My childhood buddy is a sweet man, a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. There is no bravado in Larry. He's fine with killing the terrorist, but it does not define who he is.

Me, I'd write and produce a self-glorifying movie, play hero on talk shows, try and cash in.

It's time to go home. It's time for leave taking.

There is an entire culture and religion bent on eradicating Israel and Jews.

We are so few; we are so vulnerable.

But there are, Baruch HaShem, many Larry's.

Larry and I hug.

I say: “You're my hero.”

Larry chuckles.

He's my hero, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:37 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 24, 2008

Live-action Simpsons

I tumbled to this rather late, but it's cool, nonetheless: The opening sequence of The Simpsons as acted out by real, 3-D actors.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Biden's Greatest Hits, Part II

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

During his first appearance with Obama, Biden had this to say:

Ladies and Gentleman, my wife Jill who you will meet soon and who is drop dead gorgeous. (Laughter) My wife Jill, who you will meet soon. She also has her doctorate degree which is a problem. (Laughter) But all kidding aside, my Jill, my Jill, my wife Jill and I are honored to join Barack and Michelle on this journey. Because that is what it is. It's a journey.

Feminists are not amused.

And this is only Day 1 of the Obama-Biden campaign.

Awesome.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 23, 2008

Biden's Greatest Hits, Part I

Thanks to the internet, a politician's past prevarications, exaggerations and foot-in-mouth moments are a few mouse-clicks away.

Take, for instance, the humdinger above, from Biden's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in the Fall of 1987.

The New York Times wrote of the incident -- and Biden's admission that he'd lied about his academic background, class-standing, grades and scholarships, all while bullying a prospective voter at a meet and greet.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued a formal statement today acknowledging that he had misstated several facts about his past last April in a campaign appearance in New Hampshire.

But the Delaware Democrat insisted today, as he had Sunday night in an interview with The New York Times, that some of the disputed statements were true and that his misstatements were the product of a faulty memory and the fact that he lost his temper.

Mr. Biden, whose Presidential campaign has been shaken by news reports about his unattributed use of speeches from other politicians and a plagiarism incident while he was in law school, said in The Times interview that he was ''frustrated'' and ''angry as hell'' over the reports.

[...]

On Sunday night, Mr. Biden said emphatically that he intended to remain a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. ''I think if I can get by the next week, I can pull out of this if I can just get my story across,'' he said.

Most of Mr. Biden's statement was in response to a report in this week's issue of Newsweek magazine on a tape recording made by the C-SPAN network of an appearance by Mr. Biden at a home in Claremont, N.H., on April 3. It was a typical coffee-klatch style appearance before a small group. The network regularly records and broadcasts such events as part of its coverage of the Presidential campaign.

The tape, which was made available by C-SPAN in response to a reporter's request, showed a testy exchange in response to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as ''Frank.'' Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: ''I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.''

He then went on to say that he ''went to law school on a full academic scholarship - the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,'' Mr. Biden said. He also said that he ''ended up in the top half'' of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was ''the outstanding student in the political science department'' and ''graduated with three degrees from college.''

In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ''I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.''

As for receiving three degrees, Mr. Biden said: ''I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors - I said 'three' and should have said 'two.' '' Mr. Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science.

''With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,'' the statement went on. ''My name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.''

In the Sunday interview, Mr. Biden said of his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ''My recollection is - and I'd have to confirm this - but I don't recall paying any money to go to law school.'' Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ''on half scholarship based on financial need.''

In his statement today, Mr. Biden did not directly dispute this, but said he received a scholarship from the Syracuse University College of Law ''based in part on academics'' as well as a grant from the Higher Education Scholarship Fund of the state of Delaware. He said the law school ''arranged for my first year's room and board by placing me as an assistant resident adviser in the undergraduate school.''

As for the moot court competition, Mr. Biden said he had won such a competition, with a partner, in Kingston, Ontario, on Dec. 12, 1967.

Mr. Biden acknowledged that in the testy exchange in New Hampshire, he had lost his temper. ''I exaggerate when I'm angry,'' Mr. Biden said, ''but I've never gone around telling people things that aren't true about me.'' Mr. Biden's questioner had made the query in a mild tone, but provoked an explosive response from Mr. Biden.

What's fantastic is that Biden thought he could spout such nonsense, and that no one would fact check his braggadocio, even in the midst of a presidential campaign.

I expect we'll see many more examples of Biden's ... gravitas in the coming months.

It should be interesting.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The Democratic vice-presidential nominee on the candidates

The McCain campaign wasted no time capitalizing on Joe Biden's previous thoughts on who was qualified -- or not -- to be president.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 21, 2008

Irony, thy name is Crimestopper Security Products

The local fishwrap -- otherwise known as The Ventura County Star -- noted the rather ironic victim of a commercial burglary in today's paper, headlined: "Alarm parts stolen from Simi security store."

Someone broke into a security equipment store in Simi Valley this morning and made off with tens of thousands of dollars worth of alarm parts, police said.

Police responded at 4:56 a.m. to a burglary alarm at Crimestopper Security Products Inc., 1770 S. Tapo Street, and discovered someone had entered the business through a hole cut in the wall of the building, said Lt. David Livingstone of the Simi Valley Police Department.

An estimated $70,000 in alarm components were reported stolen, Livingstone said.

Officers did not find any suspects at the scene.

So, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of this story would be: Crimestopper didn't.

Marketing mavens are fond of saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Wanna bet?

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Horrid children and their horrible parents

I'm sitting outside Wood Ranch (a BBQ joint) with the wife, waiting to be seated. Luckily, I have something interesting to watch while I wait: a horrid little boy and his spectacularly ineffective parents.

This kid is running up to the woman in his family and trying to punch them in the face, then running over to the men and giving them hugs.

As I sit and watch, the kid begins kicking the women in their legs, snatches a leaf out of the hands of another kid and crumples it up, shrieks at the top of his lungs, nearly collides with an elderly woman using a walker to make her way past Attila Junior on the way to the parking lot, then grabs a younger boy by his head and lifts him into the air.

He grabbed his little brother. By the head. And lifted 'til the tyke's feet were swinging.

The women tut-tut and tsk-tsk, telling him in mild tones, "No. Don't," to which the kid responds by throwing a punch at his grandmother's chin. The men ignore the brat -- at least until one of them notices me staring in slack-jawed amazement at this remarkable sight, whereupon he makes an ostentatious display of admonishing junior.

This brat is going to end up in our court. Probably domestic violence, with stops along the way in juvenile court. Trust me.

Anyhow, as was foreordained, we were seated and about 15 minutes later the World's Worst Parents and their brood were seated next to us, little Damien almost within reach -- and most definitely within earshot.

Of course, Los Angeles County was in earshot of this kid.

I asked that we be moved to the patio, where the muted roar of the northbound traffic on the US-101 highway was a blessed relief from the caterwauling within the restaurant.

Still, the babyback ribs were good enough to make up for Hell Boy.

Almost.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:22 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

August 20, 2008

The ageless appeal of socialism and Marxism ...

Lest you think that it's only modern-day moonbats who are drawn like particularly stupid moths to the sickly flame that is Marxism and socialism, you need only refer back to the 1930s-era writings of George Orwell.

The author -- a dedicated socialist himself from the age of 30 until his death at 46 -- cast a jaundiced eye on the foibles of his fellow travelers. This passage is from 1937's The Road to Wigan Pier.

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words “Socialism” and “Communism” draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist and feminist in England.

But for the "England" mentioned at the end, Orwell could be describing the crowd at nearly any anti-war rally or Code Pink-sponsored protest in the U.S.

Neo-Neocon has more from Orwell on the blindness of the last-century's Left; check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Midweek Bogie (with Sheriff Bob, too)

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Repeal prohibition!

The movement to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 has gained a rather unusual group of supporters.

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

[...]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

[...]

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

This may well be the one and only time I find myself nodding in agreement at anything supported by university presidents, but then again the 21 age limit on alcohol consumption is perhaps the single-most egregious example of nanny-state control and muddled thinking around.

What are the arguments we hear from the prohibitionists?

Americans under the age of 18:

Can't be trusted to use alcohol responsibly.

Can't be trusted to have the keys to a car when drinking.

Can't be trusted to behave responsibly around members of the opposite sex when consuming alcohol.

Just can't be trusted.

Of course, all that magically changes -- Presto! Change-o! -- when those teens turn 21, which certainly comports with my own experience with everyone over the age of 21 who drinks "responsibly."

On the other hand, we passed a Constitutional Amendment giving the vote to 18-year-old Americans, at a time when the drinking age was almost uniformly -- wait for it -- 18.

Hmmm.

And we also say that teenage girls -- who may have gotten in the family way, thanks to demon rum -- have the maturity to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion without requiring them to consult with older, wiser parents, who are presumably over the age of 21.

Which of course means that we believe that those who don't have the maturity to use booze have the maturity to decide how to use their bodies to create or end life.

As Mr. Spock often said, "... Interesting."

Then we have the death penalty, presumed appropriate for murderers who committed their crimes when 18.

Or the right to marry without the permission of a parent at 18.

Or the right to enlist in the military, carry a gun in defense of you and your neighbors, drive a tank, pilot a multi-billion dollar submarine, all at the age of 18.

Or fight and die for this country -- but not have a beer.

Folks, I don't care where you're from, that's not funny. But it is profoundly condescending. And stupid.

At the age of 18, Americans are either adults with the full panoply of rights that adults enjoy, or they're not.

The federal government ought to allow states to decide for themselves what the legal age is for alcohol, and end the fiscal bullying that induced governments from sea to shining sea to treat millions of young men and women like children.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 19, 2008

Obama, McCain and the pastor

Didn't watch it? Me either. But the full, uncorrected transcripts are here.

I've been making my way through them, as well as reading the commentary online, and I'm pleasantly surprised.

The format -- non-confrontational, each man appearing alone while his opponent waited off stage in the "cone of silence," unable to hear the questions and answers before his turn -- was actually better than the usual debates. Oh, sure, Rick Warren didn't ask tough follow up questions, but he did a decent enough job, and the voter got a chance to compare and contrast the responses on a number of questions that were generally better than anything asked by the so-called pros in the mainstream media.

McCain has never been my top choice for the candidacy, but I agree with the analysis I've been reading: If he can perform like this for the next three months, he's going to crush Obama. The difference between the two was that stark.

Take a look at what these folks had to say about the event: Ace of Spades, Allahpundit, Ann Althouse, Victor Davis Hanson, Roger Kimball, Mark Levin, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, and Glenn Reynolds.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has a detailed analysis of Obama's greatest hits worst half-truths, misstatements and prevarications from the forum.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 18, 2008

How to make Macs and Smartphones play nice

I've been using Verizon's XV6800 Smartphone for the last few months, a replacement for my venerable Motorola E815. While the Motorola was better at being a phone, the XV6800 -- Verizon's version of the HTC-made Mogul -- is a much more versatile device, equipped with a full sliding keyboard, touchscreen, and a suite of software running under Windows Mobile 6, including Office, PowerPoint and Excel, as well as a fully-functional internet browser.

The only thing I miss about the Motorola phone was it's ability to synch with my Mac laptop, enabling me to swap files between the two devices and keep my contacts and calendar updated on the phone.

Unfortunately, the XV6800 doesn't play nicely with the Mac; plug it in via a mini-USB connection and the computer sees ... nothing.

I wasn't particularly interested in loading Windows onto my Mac, solely for the purpose of being able to get the PowerBook to recognized the mobile, so I looked for another way around this high-tech roadblock.

Yesterday, I found the software-based solution to my woes: Missing Synch, a company that has software designed to bridge the gap between Apple's computers and their uncommunicative cellular cousins.

I purchased the appropriate version of the program for my phone, downloaded and installed it, and within a matter of minutes my Mac was happily exchanging data with the XV6800, cramming my 500-plus contacts into the device, without me having to enter anything manually.

A nice fix, well worth the $40 price.

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

Check out this site!

Average Joe's Handgun Reviews has many well-written and very thorough reviews of -- wait for it -- handguns.

Start reading from the top and work your way through the archives, which can be accessed via the links on the right side of the page.

Good stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 16, 2008

Great idea for the GOP convention

As the media prepares to gives us wall-to-wall coverage of the Democratic Convention, conservatives are waiting with equal measures of anticipation and dread to see who GOP candidate John McCain is going name to be his running mate.

The conventional wisdom has been that Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty are likely picks, but there have also been reports that McCain is looking to shake things up and solidify his credentials as a political maverick by picking a Democrat or a pro-choice RINO. This is, of course, a spectacularly bad idea, one that will give conservatives -- many of whom would put the bumpersticker below on their cars (if they did that kind of thing) -- an excuse to stay at home and sit this one out.

Hugh Hewitt is one of the Romney backers, but he has a suggestion that I think is terrific.

I think Senator McCain should build on his excellent three weeks with a Romney or Pawlenty selection, but if Team McCain feels the need to energize the troops, they could take a page out of the Democrats' 1956 convention, where Adlai Stevenson threw the choice to the delegates. (Estes Kefauver won on the third ballot over Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy.)

Such an announcement on the eve of the Denver gathering would drain coverage from the Dems as our modern media loves a horserace, especially one in which the rules would be so wide open. And if would-be veeps did the smart thing, they'd declare and campaign openly, using the opportunity to pump for seriousness abroad, sustaining the victory in Iraq, expanding our push for energy exploration and, of course, bashing Obama. We'd have surround-sound of quality GOP oratory for the next two-plus weeks leading to the vote, and genuine drama in St. Paul.

Hewitt's right; the knock on the conventions is they're pre-packaged snooze-fests, with nothing actually being decided, making the attention they receive risible.

Allowing the delegates to have a floor fight over who will be the vice-presidential candidate is a stroke of genius -- and might save us from McCain's reflexive urge to poke the conservative base in the eye at every opportunity, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 15, 2008

The truth about Mister Rodgers

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:52 PM

Last night

The view from our kitchen into the backyard last night, sometime after 2 a.m.

It had been oddly muggy yesterday; Ventura is halfway between Los Angeles to the south and Santa Barbara to the north, on the California coast. The weather is so moderate that many homes are built without air conditioning, ceiling fans enough to deal with the few days a year when the Santa Anas overwhelm the cooling ocean breezes.

We had run through the rehearsal for my sister-in-law's wedding at a country club in Camarillo, and the humidity reminded me of New Jersey (hot and sticky, with a chance of late-afternoon goombahs). Strange-looking clouds occasionally drifted in front of the sun, providing temporary relief from its blazing heat.

After the paces had been run through and everyone knew where we were supposed to stand, the wedding party adjourned to a local Mexican restaurant for dinner. On the drive home, a glorious sunset filled the skies above Ventura, gigantic thunderheads catching the fading sun's rays and spinning them into pink and orange cotton candy.

The air was still hot and heavy, filled with latent, pent-up energy, and I wondered if we were going to experience an old fashioned, east coast-style summer thunderstorm.

The answer came a few hours later.

The view out the back door, just moments after the previous photo (above) was taken.

Bogie heard -- or felt -- it first, getting up and walking over to the bed, anxious, trying to get my attention.

I opened my eyes, just in time to see the world light up with a blazing, white-hot flash. Silence followed for a few moments, then BOOM!, as the storm began.

The show continues, lightning arcing across the sky, punctuated with brief downpours.

As I lay in bed, listening to the CRACK! and ROAR! of the celestial cannonades, what came to mind was Washington Irving's colonial-era description of New York's Hudson Valley storms in Rip Van Winkle, when he likens them to a sort of titanic game of nine-pins, the crash of the balls and pins echoing off the hills and clouds.

The lightning reached a climax, flashes illuminating the sky in what seemed like a non-stop series of flashes and booms, then tapered off, the night reclaiming the sky.

I moved to the West Coast 16 years ago this month; last night's thunderstorm was the biggest I've seen since waving good-bye to exit 7A off the New Jersey Turnpike. Bogie may not agree, but I wouldn't mind a repeat performance in the near future.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 14, 2008

L.A. follies

The Los Angeles City Council has been on a tear lately, indulging its two favorite pasttimes: Nanny State control of stupid residents, and the two-fer of hostility towards businesses and coddling illegal aliens.

Because the residents of South L.A. are poor (and presumably morons, too), the Council passed an ordinance last month banning any new fast food joints from opening their doors in poor neighborhoods. Now, maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem a bit condescending to decide that the only way to deal with the epidemic of health woes arising from eating too much junk food is to deny the blacks and latinos who live in these neighborhoods the right to spend their money as they see fit, at the restaurants of their own choosing?

In the latest bit of Big Brother run amok, the Council voted to require big-box home improvement retailers to provide for the comfort and needs of people who aren't even customers.

They are, however, illegal aliens.

Major new home improvement stores opening in the city of Los Angeles may have to build shelters for day laborers under a City Council ordinance approved Wednesday.

Under the ordinance, proposed by Councilmembers Bernard Parks and Ed Reyes and passed unanimously, all proposed home improvement stores of more than 100,000 square feet would have to obtain a conditional use permit from the city. Most Home Depot, Lowe’s and other big box home improvement stores would meet this threshold.

In order to obtain the permit, the developers of the stores would have to present plans to address the issue of day laborers congregating on the property and waiting to be picked up for jobs. These plans could include building shelters for day laborers that include bathroom facilities, though the ordinance does not specifically mandate that such shelters be built.

Several councilmembers said they also wanted to see an ordinance addressing day laborer issues at existing home improvement stores.

It seems that the evil corporations -- who meet the needs of their customers, as well as providing jobs and sales tax revenue -- are responsible for ensuring that "day laborers" have a place to hang out that's protected from the elements, with restrooms and drinking water, too, all under the guise of solving the problems created by these folks congregating outside the stores.

I guess the theory is Home Depot and Lowes are creating an "attractive nuisance" and are therefore responsible for solving the problem.

Of course, a cheaper solution would be to drop a dime on the local ICE office. After all, sanctuary city or no, the feds are still tasked with enforcing immigration law.

Given the way California's politicians (local and state) treat business owners, I'm surprised they haven't all pulled up stakes and moved to friendlier locales.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The secret of eternal youth

Link: sevenload.com

Ernest Borgnine, the 91-year-old Oscar-winning actor who starred in From Here to Eternity, The Dirty Dozen, Marty, The Wild Bunch and the sitcom McHale's Navy, let's slip the secret to staying young.

Stay tuned for the host's reaction at the end.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 13, 2008

Sunflower and guest

Click for larger image

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Convoluted sunflower

Click for larger image

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

Deep thinking from the Obama campaign

National Review's Seth Liebsohn noticed something interesting -- and quite revealing -- about Obama's recent criticism of his opponent and how it relates to the Russian attack on Georgia.

[T]he Obama campaign [is] saying McCain's statements about Georgia are "aggressive" and "belligerent" and "very aggressive" and "very belligerent."

I think it should be noted that nothing McCain has said is as aggressive as the actions of Russia. It strikes me odd right now to complain of aggressive words in the defense of democracy rather than condemning aggressive actions against a democracy.

It's only odd when you ignore the fact that Obama and his supporters instinctively think the worst of anything -- or anyone -- favoring U.S. interests, and find it nigh impossible to take a definitive stance against anything or anyone acting against the U.S. or our allies.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 12, 2008

Some things never change: Russian edition

I think George Will does a pretty good job of quickly explaining the story behind the story, as Russia invades and subjugates a Western democracy.

Now, into America's trivializing presidential campaign, a pesky event has intruded -- a European war. Russian tanks, heavy artillery, strategic bombers, ballistic missiles and a naval blockade batter a European nation. We are not past such things after all. The end of history will be postponed, again.

Russia supports two provinces determined to secede from Georgia. Russia, with aspiring nations within its borders, generally opposes secessionists, as it did when America, which sometimes opposes secession (e.g., 1861-65), improvidently supported Kosovo's secession from Russia's ally Serbia. But Russia's aggression is really about the subordination of Georgia, a democratic, market-oriented U.S. ally. This is the recrudescence of Russia's dominance in what it calls the "near abroad." Ukraine, another nation guilty of being provocatively democratic near Russia, should tremble because there is not much America can do. It is a bystander at the bullying of an ally that might be about to undergo regime change.

Vladimir Putin, into whose soul President George W. Bush once peered and liked what he saw, has conspicuously conferred with Russia's military, thereby making his poodle, "President" Dmitry Medvedev, yet more risible. But big events reveal smallness, such as that of New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson.

On ABC's "This Week," Richardson, auditioning to be Barack Obama's running mate, disqualified himself. Clinging to the Obama campaign's talking points like a drunk to a lamppost, Richardson said this crisis proves the wisdom of Obama's zest for diplomacy, and that America should get the U.N. Security Council "to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint." Apparently Richardson was ambassador to the U.N. for 19 months without noticing that Russia has a Security Council veto.

This crisis illustrates, redundantly, the paralysis of the U.N. regarding major powers, hence regarding major events, and the fictitiousness of the European Union regarding foreign policy. Does this disturb Obama's serenity about the efficacy of diplomacy? Obama's second statement about the crisis, in which he tardily acknowledged Russia's invasion, underscored the folly of his first, which echoed the Bush administration's initial evenhandedness. "Now," said Obama, "is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint."

John McCain, the "life is real, life is earnest" candidate, says he has looked into Putin's eyes and seen "a K, a G and a B." But McCain owes the thug thanks, as does America's electorate. Putin has abruptly pulled the presidential campaign up from preoccupation with plumbing the shallows of John Edwards and wondering what "catharsis" is "owed" to disappointed Clintonites.

McCain, who has called upon Russia "to immediately and unconditionally ... withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," favors expelling Russia from the G-8, and organizing a league of democracies to act where the U.N. is impotent, which is whenever the subject is important. But Georgia, whose desire for NATO membership had U.S. support, is not in NATO because some prospective members of McCain's league of democracies, e.g. Germany, thought that starting membership talks with Georgia would complicate the project of propitiating Russia. NATO is scheduled to review the question of Georgia's membership in December. Where now do Obama and McCain stand?

If Georgia were in NATO, would NATO now be at war with Russia? More likely, Russia would not be in Georgia. Only once in NATO's 59 years has the territory of a member been invaded -- the British Falklands, by Argentina, in 1982.

It's rather late in the day for Georgia; the bear's tasted blood for the first time since '79, and unlike those tough, scrawny Afghans, Georgians make for good eating.

If the thought of a resurgent, aggressive Russia, with its million-man army and nuclear weapons, doesn't give you a moment's pause, how about considering who's got the stones to confront him?

Obama was a "community organizer" -- whatever the hell that is, before he was a member of the Illinois legislature, where he accomplished nothing. Then he gained experience bloviating in the Senate and running for president.

Putin rose through the ranks of the KGB, eventually gaining control of Russia -- and remaining firmly in control today, notwithstanding his hand-picked puppet occupying the president's chair.

Putin will eat Obama's soul.

Dangerous times.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:22 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 11, 2008

Proof that modern "art" is crap

Willem Claeszoon Heda. "Breakfast with a Lobster" (17th century). Location: State Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg, Russia. Not crap.

My disdain for the junk that passes for "art" nowadays is rivaled only by my loathing for those morons who claim to understand and appreciate said "art."

And the only group more worthy of public ridicule than modern "art" aficionados are idjits with money -- also know as art collectors, willing to buy crap.

Johannes Vermeer. "Milkmaid" (1658-1660). Not crap.

You see, in The World According To Mike, anything that can be done by people of no particular talent (that's you and me, Bub!) is most definitely not art. Anyone can play an instrument badly, but it takes an artist to play a violin with enough skill to transport the listener. Any lesser primate can fling paint at a canvas and ride a tricycle around on the mess, but it takes a Rembrandt to make the viewer feel like he's been given a window into the past, a glimpse of life in 17th Century Holland, thanks to the marvelous interaction between the eye, mind and hand of the artist.

And then we have Paul McCarthy.

A giant inflatable dog turd by American artist Paul McCarthy blew away from an exhibition in the garden of a Swiss museum, bringing down a power line and breaking a greenhouse window before landing again, the museum said Monday.

The art work, titled "Complex Shit", is the size of a house. The wind carried it 200 metres from the Paul Klee Centre in Berne before it fell back to Earth in the grounds of a children's home, said museum director Juri Steiner.

The inflatable turd broke the window at the children's home when it blew away on the night of July 31, Steiner said. The art work has a safety system which normally makes it deflate when there is a storm, but this did not work when it blew away.

Ah, I see. When you buy fake dog crap at a novelty store, it's just a gag gift. But when it's HUGE, then it's "Art."

Ladies and gentlemen, that's high culture, if you listen to our overeducated elites.

I'll take Rembrandt, Vermeer and Leonardo DaVinci, thank you very much.

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

Russia makes war while the West tut-tuts and tsk-tsks

James Lileks notices the deafening silence from the left about Russia's attack on Georgia -- except for the obligatory whine that the United States is to blame.

The Georgian situation is complicated, granted, but you’d think someone would be planning a protest. After all, it’s war. War is bad. Something must be done. Well, the World Socialists have thought long and deep and hard, and concluded the enemy is the United States:

Underlying the military confrontation is US imperialism’s drive to isolate Russia and establish American hegemony over the energy resources of Central Asia and their transit routes through the Caucasus, utilizing the Saakashvili regime as its cat’s paw. The Russian ruling elite, for its part, is seeking to reassert its control over a region that was ruled by Moscow for two centuries before the break-up of the USSR.

Because, you see, no matter what's happening anywhere in the world, the U.S. is the source of all misery.

Pestilence?

U.S.A.!

Poverty?

U.S.A.!

Shortages of hemp clothing, patchouli oil and clove cigarettes?

U.S.A.!

Russia attacking a small, pro-Western nation?

U.S.A.!

TigerHawk notes that Russia aims to not just intervene on behalf of Ossetian rebels, but is actually trying to overthrow the democratically elected head of a sovereign nation -- not that you'd notice from the lack of interest in the anti-war community.

The evidence is growing that the Russian's are trying to conquer Georgia and oust its government:

In a heated exchange with his Russian counterpart at the United Nations, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States accused the Kremlin of seeking to oust Mr. Saakashvili.

He charged that Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, had said as much Sunday morning in a telephone conversation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, telling her "that the democratically elected president of Georgia 'must go,' " Mr. Khalilzad said. Mr. Khalilzad said the comment was "completely unacceptable."

In Washington, American officials said that Georgian troops had tried to disengage but that the Russians had not allowed them to.

"The Georgians told them, 'We're done. Let us withdraw,' " one American military official said. "But the Russians are not letting them withdraw. They are pursuing them, and people are seeing this."

Of course, the Russians have no meaningful justification under international law, far less than the imperfect case the United States and its coalition built to justify regime change in Iraq.

That caused me to wonder, where are the anti-war groups?

Well, as of this morning, you can find no mention of the war on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s home page. The group is addressing many other pressing matters, but apparently not the unremitting attack on Georgia. Code Pink? Nyet. Democracy Now!, which is a left-wing media group, has lots of news about American wars on its web page but nothing about Russia or Georgia. Nothing from the comrades at Peace Action. Stop the War Coalition? What war? You can search the home pages of left-wing groups until the cows come home and not find anything on the Russo-Georgia war.

C'mon guys, Human Rights Watch -- to its credit -- was all over this on Saturday with a boilerplate press release (although you would not know it from the scant press coverage it received, neither Israel nor the United States being involved). The least you can do is copy that one.

So far, at least, it is safe to conclude that these organizations are not so much anti-war as they are anti-American and anti-Israeli. It is useful to clear that up. And, by the way, if they decide to organize massive anti-war rallies against Russia and belatedly reveal themselves as intellectually honest, I will be the first to say so.

The Left's silence reminds me of the months after Hitler and Stalin signed their non-aggression pact; suddenly, American Socialists and Communists -- who had spent the previous months shouting about the Fascist threat -- fell silent, their former enemies instantly rendered into allies by their Soviet masters.

Isn't it clear that the only wars to be opposed are those that in some small way might be to the benefit of the American national interest?

In the meantime, Russia attacks, and the so-called human rights community slumbers.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 10, 2008

John Edwards' narcissism finally does him in

By now I'm sure you've heard what the media was so desperate not to tell you, because the National Enquirer's story on John Edwards late-night visit to his mistress and the mystery infant was based on ... well, reporting that made a Democrat look bad.

This is the same media that ran a rumor about McCain allegedly having an affair with a lobbyist on page 1 (yeah, I'm talking 'bout you, New York Times!), a rumor that has since disappeared, as there seems to be nothing behind it, other than a visceral need to slime Republicans.

As to the late, unlamented end to Edwards' presidential aspirations, I think I'll let liberal diva Maureen Dowd make the case about the man's repellent personality, rather than go with another conservative piling on.

The stunning admission Edwards made to ABC’s Bob Woodruff, and in a written statement from Chapel Hill on Friday afternoon, was that he’s a narcissist.

[...]

Even in confessing to preening, Edwards was preening. His diagnosis of narcissism was weirdly narcissistic, or was it self-narcissistic? Given his diagnosis, I’m sure his H.M.O. would pay.

The creepiest part of his creepy confession was when he stressed to Woodruff that he cheated on Elizabeth in 2006 when her cancer was in remission. His infidelity was oncologically correct.

[...]

But the Breck Girl wants a gold star for the fact that he sent his marriage into remission when his wife was in remission. That’s special.

In his statement, he bleats: “You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare.” Isn’t stripping bare how he got into this mess?

It isn’t like we didn’t know that the son of a millworker was a little enraptured by himself, radiating self-love from his smile and his man-in-a-hurry airs and the notorious $800 bill for a pair of haircuts and his two-minute YouTube hair primping to the tune of “I Feel Pretty.”

[...]

Back in 2002, Edwards sent me a Ken doll dressed in bathing trunks, Rio de Janeiro Ken, with a teasing note, because he didn’t like my reference to him as a Ken doll in a column.

In retrospect, the comparison was not fair — to Ken.

But there's more to come, given Edwards' wide-eyed declaration that he was prepared to take a paternity test, with the caveat that he's only one of the people needed to do that. Just yesterday, the mother of the love child said she wouldn't be participating in that test.

Well, whattaya know? It's almost as if they had worked that one out beforehand ....

What a mess. To call Edwards a typical, sleazy politician is an insult to sleazy pols everywhere.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:19 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

August 09, 2008

What the hell is Acura thinking?

Acura has unveiled the new version of their bestselling car, the TL sedan, set to debut for the 2009 model year.

The Japanese automaker had long been derided by automotive enthusiasts for its extremely boring exteriors -- the exotic NSX mid-engined affordable supercar aside -- and nothing-to-write-home-about interiors.

Oh, sure, the engineering under the skin was good (after all, the company is an outlet for Honda's upscale ambitions), but the company just couldn't lure buyers away from BMW and Audi, in large measure because Acuras were so boring to look at.

All that changed when the last iteration of the TL hit the streets in 2004. For the first time, Honda's engineers and stylists got together and decided to produce an entry-level luxury sports sedan that actually looked like something that market segment might want to be seen in.

The TL featured a much more aggressive shape, with laid-back A-pillars, short front and rear overhangs, and a sharp crease that began as a side-light marker on the front quarter panels, rising as it made its way along the doors, extending onto the rear quarter panels, passing through the fuel filler door and ending with another side-marker light near the back end.

The 2008 Acura TL has been the automaker's bestselling car since it's introduction in 2004.

That crease gave the illusion of a hunkered down front end with a muscular rear; the car looked ready to pounce. From some angles -- mainly the view from the rear-quarter looking forward -- if you tilted your head just-so and squinted a little bit, the TL looked vaguely like a BMW, before Chris Bangle bollixed up the Beemers' looks.

So, when word came that Acura was going to give the TL an update, I expected many things: hi-tech, good performance-to-value ratio, and even better luxury on the cheap.

What I didn't expect was the automaker to take its bestselling model and beat it bumper to bumper with a bushel of ugly sticks.

Behold, the 2009 Acura TL in all its glory. What a mess.

Are they kidding?

I haven't seen a nose like that since Karl Malden stopped doing commercials for AmEx. Good gravy! It's like The Joker modeled for the grill. And what's with the mish-mash of extra creases? It's as if the Japanese company is trying to emulate Bangle's "flame" design work, notwithstanding the fact that the BMWs that were subjected to Banglization aren't half as attractive as their predecessors.

Notice the soft, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man lines of the car's C-pillar, where it sort of slumps from the roof into the trunk. And those swollen, Rosie O'Donnell-esque flanks, from front to bloated rear, with the exaggerated fender flares.

The horror.

We like our TL so much that I'd been looking forward to the day when we might get a new and improved version -- if such a thing was possible. That won't be happening.

Because Acura has managed to produce a car that looks like a bag of monkey ass.

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

August 08, 2008

The Seinfeld Reunion: 2027

Comic Frank Caliendo nails everyone in the cast -- except for Elaine. Although a short, fat Kramer is kind of odd.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 07, 2008

California seeks way around Second Amendment

One of the arguments about the limited effect the Supreme Court's decision in Heller is that the Second Amendment was never incorporated, meaning that it doesn't apply to the 50 states, but only limits the actions of the federal government.

Of course, the courts have found a way over the years to find a way to rule that, yes, the other various amendments contained in the Bill of Rights do indeed apply to the states, too.

The only way to resolve this question is through litigation or legislation -- the latter unlikely thanks to the bunch of feckless crapweasels known as "Congress."

Coming to the rescue, though, are unlikely heroes, states like California, where left-wing, anti-gun legislators are continuing to craft laws designed as an end run around the Second Amendment and Heller.

Three bills are coming up for a possible vote today in the California Senate Appropriations Committee, and two are great examples of how to make the gun itself useless without explicitly banning it.

Assembly Bill 2062 would require an individual to possess a license to purchase ammunition, require vendors to keep a detailed record of the transaction, and simply ban mail or internet ammunition orders.

Assembly Bill 2235 would ban the sale of handguns other than "owner-authorized (or "smart") handguns" -- that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by an authorized user.

The first bill might sound innocuous enough, but if you read the actual text, it makes it a crime to transfer, as in "give" 50 rounds of ammo to a friend or family member unless you're a licensed ammunition vendor.

As in, it's a crime to slide a box of ammo over to your buddy at the range when he runs out.

It also seeks to make the sale of ammo as onerous as the sale of firearms, as well as banning the ability of Californians to buy ammo other than at retail outlets.

The second bill doesn't actually ban weapons completely; it just seeks to create a technical specification that can't yet be met, and one that limits the usefulness of a weapon when and if it can, creating a de facto ban.

Which could lead to the kind of litigation before the Supremes resolving the incorporation issue.

Of course, there are three justices who are looking a little ... old.

And the next president will get to pick their replacements.

And Heller did just squeak by in a 5-4 vote.

I really am going to have to vote for McCain, aren't I?

Contact information for your committee member is here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

McCain: Maybe alcohol will help

I was chatting with a friend yesterday, the two of us pondering the becalmed waters the SS Obama finds itself in, notwithstanding that the Democratic nominee ought to have a strong breeze at his back -- and that the polling in the months leading up to Obama clinching the nomination showed that a generic Democratic candidate would indeed trounce a generic Republican.

But then the Dems actually went and nominated the Rookie senator with the most left-wing voting record in the Senate (more liberal even than that of the lone self-proclaimed Socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders), and the reality began to sink in: The Dems had rejected Hillary Clinton in favor of the one candidate who just might blow a sure-thing election.

All this, despite John McCain's inability to inspire much (read: any) enthusiasm amongst conservatives, heretofore the base upon which the GOP depended on election day.

I told my friend that I wouldn't be voting for McCain; rather, I'd be voting against a candidate that strikes me as almost unimaginably unqualified to occupy the White House. Nothing summed up my feelings about the choice I was faced with better than this bumper sticker:

Rather than think of McCain as a RINO, it makes more sense to view him as an old school Democrat, in the mold of Harry Truman, perhaps, or Henry "Scoop" Jackson. That would well and truly make him the least repulsive Democrat in the race.

And if we factor in Obama's more-left-than-a-Socialist's voting record, the paradigm becomes, Conservative Democrat versus Moonbat race-card playing lawyer.

Yikes!

Makes the McCain vote much easier to take, eh?

Still, I think a good stiff drink before voting would help.

F^*K IT! McCain ‘08, indeed.

You can order the bumper stick here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:26 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 06, 2008

Obama: Blame McCain for Cheney (but ignore my vote)

Obama provides for material for those of us who think he's a featherweight candidate, hoping to get by on charm and good looks, all criticism stilled under threat of being branded a racist, as he accuses McCain of ... well, of supporting the evil Cheney's oil policies.

The thing is, McCain voted against the Cheney-backed plan.

And Obama voted for it.

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (AP) — Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity.

"President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, 'Cheney, go take care of this,'" Obama said. "Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook."

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

Talk about an inconvenient truth.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 04, 2008

Obama: "He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

That's what Obama said, when he played the race card this past week.

OBAMA: So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, "Oh, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name."

(LAUGHTER)

You know, "He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Realizing that playing the race card hadn't worked, Obama sent his surrogates out to the Sunday morning news shows, to peddle the line that the candidate never said or implied that McCain is a racist; that Obama never said or implied that race is an issue in the campaign; and that when he said, "He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills," he meant that he wasn't old.

Or dead.

Or an ex-president.

Or a secretary of the Treasury.

Or something.

Which is, of course, hogwash, because the only defining characteristic the man mentioned was how he looked different from the men on the dollar bills (missing the point that there's only one man on the dollar bill, and neither guy in the race looks much like him, what with the wooden teeth and wig, doncha' know).

And now, in the aftermath of Obama's International Magical Mystery Tour and Racial Pity Party, what do we have?

John McCain ahead in the polls.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows the race for the White House is tied with Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 44% of the vote. However, when "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%.

This is the first time McCain has enjoyed even a statistically insignificant advantage of any sort since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3

A week ago today, Obama had a three-percentage point lead and the candidates were even among unaffiliated voters. Today, McCain leads 52% to 37% among unaffiliateds.

McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination. Obama is viewed favorably by 83% of Democrats, 22% of Republicans, and 47% of unaffiliated voters. For McCain, the numbers are 87% favorable among Republicans, 26% among Democrats, and 61% among unaffiliated voters.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters have seen or heard news coverage of McCain’s ad including Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Just 22% believe the ad was racist. But, most say Obama’s comment about not looking like other Presidents on the dollar bill was racist.

I suspect the more the electorate gets to know Obama, the more we'll see McCain's numbers climb, notwithstanding his lackluster campaign and failure to excite conservatives; when it comes right down to it, voters aren't willing to gamble on a candidate more interested in currying favor with international elites ("I am a citizen of the world!" -- B. Obama, Berlin, July 2008) than putting the interests and security of Americans ahead of all others.

Don't get me wrong; McCain still confounds and infuriates. I won't be voting for anyone this year. But I'll certainly be voting against.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Genetic defect causes aging?

What if the aging process itself is unnatural, evolution gone haywire, a mistake?

Rather than being an inevitable part of life itself, could it be that the Fountain of Youth is contained in our own DNA, hidden only because we've assumed the secret lay elsewhere, when all along it was hiding in plain sight, waiting for the technology necessary to reveal its answers?

Scientists point to animals that seemingly put the lie to our assumptions about aging -- and think they may have figured out how to slow the inexorable creeping decrepitude to which we all thought we were doomed.

“Everyone has assumed we age by rust,” [Stanford scientist Stuart] Kim said. “But then how do you explain animals that don’t age?”

Some tortoises lay eggs at the age of 100, he points out. There are whales that live to be 200, and clams that make it past 400. Those species use the same building blocks for their DNA, proteins and fats as humans, mice and nematode worms. The chemistry of the wear-and-tear process, including damage from oxygen free-radicals, should be the same in all cells, which makes it hard to explain why species have dramatically different life spans.

“A free radical doesn’t care if it’s in a human cell or a worm cell,” Kim said.

If aging is not a cost of unavoidable chemistry but is instead driven by changes in regulatory genes, the aging process may not be inevitable. It is at least theoretically possible to slow down or stop developmental drift.

“The take-home message is that aging can be slowed and managed by manipulating signaling circuits within cells,” said Marc Tatar, PhD, a professor of biology and medicine at Brown University who was not involved in the research. “This is a new and potentially powerful circuit that has just been discovered for doing that.”

Kim added, “It’s a new way to think about how to slow the aging process.”

From parrots to tortoises, whales to elephants, it's clear that different species operate on vastly different timelines than homo sapiens. The genetic codebreakers may very well pinpoint where the bug in the code is hiding; the implications -- and costs -- for society are staggering.

In an ever-increasing nanny-state, what happens when retirees live for another hundred years? What about two hundred?

The absence of genetically-caused illnesses, coupled with the ability to essentially slow the aging process by a factor of just two or three will alter the very nature of every society with access to the technology.

I wonder if my HMO covers immortality/genetic therapy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2008

The Goebbels diaries

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/sfeature/reich.html

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:28 PM

Hitler's real voice

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/Mannerheim/recording_040642_dt.html

Hitler's Private World

Hitler: ...a very serious danger, perhaps the most serious one - it's whole extent we can only now judge. We did not ourselves understand - just how strong this state [the USSR] was armed.

Mannerheim: No, we hadn't thought of this.

Hitler: No, I too, no.

Mannerheim: During the Winter War - during the Winter War we had not even thought of this. Of course...

Hitler: (Interrupting) Yes.

Mannerheim: But so, how they - in reality - and now there is no doubt all they had - what they had in their stocks!

Hitler: Absolutely, This is - they had the most immense armaments that, uh, people could imagine. Well - if somebody had told me that a country - with...(Hitler is interrupted by the sound of a door opening and closing.) If somebody had told me a nation could start with 35,000 tanks, then I'd have said: "You are crazy!"

Mannerheim: Thirty-five?

Hitler: Thirty-five thousand tanks.

Another Voice In Background: Thirty-five thousand! Yes!

Hitler: We have destroyed - right now - more than 34,000 tanks. If someone had told me this, I'd have said: "You!" If you are one of my generals had stated that any nation has 35,000 tanks I'd have said: "You, my good sir, you see everything twice or ten times. You are crazy; you see ghosts." This I would have deemed possible. I told you earlier we found factories, one of them at Kramatorskaja, for example, Two years ago there were just a couple hundred [tanks]. We didn't know anything. Today, there is a tank plant, where - during the first shift a little more than 30,000, and 'round the clock a little more than 60,000, workers would have labored - a single tank plant! A gigantic factory! Masses of workers who certainly, lived like animals and...

Another Voice In Background: (Interrupting) In the Donets area?

Hitler: In the Donets area. (Background noises from the rattling of cups and plates over the exchange.)

Mannerheim: Well, if you keep in mind they had almost 20 years, almost 25 years of - freedom to arm themselves...

Hitler: (Interrupting quietly) It was unbelievable.

Mannerheim: And everything - everything spent on armament.

Hitler: Only on armament.

Mannerheim: Only on armament!

Hitler: (Sighs) Only - well, it is - as I told your president [Ryte] before - I had no idea of it. If I had an idea - then I would have been even more difficult for me, but I would have taken the decision [to invade] anyhow, because - there was no other possibility. It was - certain, already in the winter of '39/ '40, that the war had to begin. I had only this nightmare - but there is even more! Because a war on two fronts - would have been impossible - that would have broken us. Today, we see more clearly - than we saw at that time - it would have broken us. And my whole - I originally wanted to - already in the fall of '39 I wanted to conduct the campaign in the west - on the continuously bad weather we experienced hindered us.

Our whole armament - you know, was - is a pure good weather armament. It is very capable, very good, but it is unfortunately just a good-weather armament. We have seen this in the war. Our weapons naturally were made for the west, and we all thought, and this was true 'till that time, uh, it was the opinion from the earliest times: you cannot wage war in winter. And we too, have, the German tanks, they weren't tested, for example, to prepare them for winter war. Instead we conducted trials to prove it was impossible to wage war in winter. That is a different starting point [than the Soviet's]. In the fall of 1939 we always faced the question. I desperately wanted to attack, and I firmly believed we could finish France in six weeks.

However, we faced the question of whether we could move at all - it was raining continuously. And I know the French area myself very well and I too could not ignore the opinions, of many of my generals that, we - probably - would not have had the élan, that our tank arm would not have been, effective, that our air force could not been effective from our airfields because of the rain.

I know northern France myself. You know, I served in the Great War for four years. And - so the delay happened. If I had in '39 eliminated France, then world history would have changed. But I had to wait 'till 1940, and unfortunately it wasn't possible before May. Only on the 10th of May was the first nice day - and on the 10th of May I immediately attacked. I gave the order to attack on the 10th on the 8th. And - then we had to, conduct this huge transfer of our divisions from the west to the east.

First the occupation of - then we had the task in Norway - at the same time we faced - I can frankly say it today - a grave misfortune, namely the - weakness of, Italy. Because of - first, the situation in North Africa, then, second, because of the situation in Albania and Greece - a very big misfortune. We had to help. This meant for us, with one small stoke, first - the splitting of our air force, splitting our tank force, while at the same time we were preparing, the, tank arm in the east. We had to hand over - with one stroke, two divisions, two whole divisions and a third was then added - and we had to replace continuous, very severe, losses there. It was - bloody fighting in the desert.

This all naturally was inevitable, you see. I had a conversation with Molotov [Soviet Minister] at that time, and it was absolutely certain that Molotov departed with the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed the decision to begin a war, and I dismissed him with the decision to - impossible, to forestall him. There was - this was the only - because the demands that man brought up were clearly aimed to rule, Europe in the end. (Practically whispering here.) Then I have him - not publicly...(fades out).

Already in the fall of 1940 we continuously faced the question, uh: shall we, consider a break up [in relations with the USSR]? At that time, I advised the Finnish government, to - negotiate and, to gain time and, to act dilatory in this matter - because I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.

In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.

Another Voice In Background: Without petroleum...

Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry. Therefore I aspired to, bridge the period of negotiations 'till we would be strong enough to, counter those extortive demands [from Moscow] because - those demands were simply naked extortion's. They were extortion's. The Russians knew we were tied up in the west. They could really extort everything from us. Only when Molotov visited - then - I told him frankly that the demands, their numerous demands, weren't acceptable to us. With that the negotiations came to an abrupt end that same morning.

There were four topics. The one topic that, involved Finland was, the, freedom to protect themselves from the Finnish threat, he said. [I said] You do not want to tell me Finland threatens you! But he said: "In Finland it is - they who take action against the, friends, of the Soviet Union. They would [take action] against [our] society, against us - they would continuously, persecute us and, a great power cannot be threatened by a minor country."

I said: "Your, existence isn't threatened by Finland! That is, you don't mean to tell me..."

Mannerheim: (Interrupting) Laughable!

Hitler: "...that your existence is threatened by Finland?" Well [he said] there was a moral - threat being made against a great power, and what Finland was doing, that was a moral - a threat to their moral existence. Then I told him we would not accept a further war in the Baltic area as passive spectators. In reply he asked me how we viewed our position in, Romania. You know, we had given them a guarantee. [He wanted to know] if that guarantee was directed against Russia as well? And that time I told him: "I don't think it is directed at you, because I don't think you have the intention of attacking Romania. You have always stated that Bessarabia is yours, but that you have - never stated that you want to attack Romania!"

"Yes," he told me, but he wanted to know more precisely if this guarantee...(A door opens and the recording ends.)

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:47 PM