Main

November 30, 2008

Les Triplettes de Belleville


This is the official music video for the title song from the French animated feature, Les Triplettes de Belleville, nominated a few years back for an Academy Award.

The guitar playing is strongly reminiscent of Django Reinhart (who has a brief, animated cameo near the end of the music video), the melody impossible to force from my head; it's been rattling around in there for days, my wife forced to listen to me humming snippets all weekend long.

The film itself is a pretty amazing work, using highly stylized animation to tell a tale with almost no dialogue, rendering its Gallic origins almost moot as an obstacle to English speakers' enjoyment and understanding of the story. I found myself thinking that it was a pure form of entertainment, a direct descendant of the early silent films in that the language of the audience -- wherever it might be -- wasn't important, because the images, the visual medium itself, told the story so well.

The Tours de France figures in the plot, along with illegal gambling, organized crime, three old women who used to be famous singers, and ... well, a bunch of other stuff.

But the best part -- aside from the music -- is the dog, Bruno, who has an uncanny ability to always make it to the bedroom window just in time to bark at the passing train.

And in case you're wondering, the lyrics don't really make any sense in English, so just surrender to the toe-tapping lunacy of "Belleville Rendez-vous", sung (and acted in the video) by Matthieu Chedid.

For a better sense of what the film's about -- kinda' sorta -- check out the trailer.


Posted by Mike Lief at 11:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

California's budget mess is how bad?

Just how bad off is California? Well, thanks to the stalwart fiscal responsibility conservative, small-government leadership feckless pandering to the unions and the fashionable social movements de jour of our governor, it's worse than you think.

As Matt Welch at Reason observes:

The Telegraph (UK), and by extension the Drudge Report, are expressing wonder that, judging by the credit default swaps (CDS) market, "California is now priced as a greater bankruptcy risk than Slovakia."

As a former resident of both states, I can testify that this is an unfair slap ... at Slovakia.

That's right, half of a once-communist regime is in better economic shape than the People's Republic of California.

There's a lesson in there for those willing to look, but there are some who are simply too blind to see.

Once again, I find myself longing for the prudent budgetary practices of former California Gov. Grey Davis.

Gadzooks!

I can't believe I just typed those words, but there you have it.

Strange days.

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

Planning for disaster

The Irish-made Kelly Kettle seems like a remarkably simple way to cook and boil water, especially for those of us who are fairly incompetent at building a roaring fire from scratch.

The company -- family owned and operated for four generations -- will ship worldwide for a nominal fee.

Given that I've lived through two major earthquakes, this might be a worthwhile addition to our disaster kit.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 29, 2008

Remembering Monty Python's Graham Chapman


I'd never seen the 1989 memorial service for Monty Python's Graham Chapman until I stumbled across this excerpt on YouTube. It is, like the man to whom it pays tribute, hilariously irreverent and profane.

John Cleese begins his prepared remarks thusly:

Graham Chapman, co-author of the 'Parrot Sketch,' is no more.

He has ceased to be, bereft of life, he rests in peace, he has kicked the bucket, hopped the twig, bit the dust, snuffed it, breathed his last, and gone to meet the Great Head of Light Entertainment in the sky, and I guess that we're all thinking how sad it is that a man of such talent, such capability and kindness, of such intelligence should now be so suddenly spirited away at the age of only forty-eight, before he'd achieved many of the things of which he was capable, and before he'd had enough fun.

Well, I feel that I should say, "Nonsense. Good riddance to him, the freeloading bastard! I hope he fries."

If you're the sort of person who found the Pythons hilarious in their various incarnations -- whether together on the BBC's Flying Circus, movies like Holy Grail or Life of Brian, or in solo (or duo) projects like Fawlty Towers or A Fish Called Wanda -- then you'll watch with a smile.

You can read the full text of Cleese's eulogy below.

Graham Chapman, co-author of the 'Parrot Sketch,' is no more.

He has ceased to be, bereft of life, he rests in peace, he has kicked the bucket, hopped the twig, bit the dust, snuffed it, breathed his last, and gone to meet the Great Head of Light Entertainment in the sky, and I guess that we're all thinking how sad it is that a man of such talent, such capability and kindness, of such intelligence should now be so suddenly spirited away at the age of only forty-eight, before he'd achieved many of the things of which he was capable, and before he'd had enough fun.

Well, I feel that I should say, "Nonsense. Good riddance to him, the freeloading bastard! I hope he fries."

And the reason I think I should say this is, he would never forgive me if I didn't, if I threw away this opportunity to shock you all on his behalf. Anything for him but mindless good taste. I could hear him whispering in my ear last night as I was writing this:

"Alright, Cleese, you're very proud of being the first person to ever say 'shit' on television. If this service is really for me, just for starters, I want you to be the first person ever at a British memorial service to say 'fuck'!"

You see, the trouble is, I can't. If he were here with me now I would probably have the courage, because he always emboldened me. But the truth is, I lack his balls, his splendid defiance. And so I'll have to content myself instead with saying 'Betty Mardsen...'

But bolder and less inhibited spirits than me follow today. Jones and Idle, Gilliam and Palin. Heaven knows what the next hour will bring in Graham's name. Trousers dropping, blasphemers on pogo sticks, spectacular displays of high-speed farting, synchronised incest. One of the four is planning to stuff a dead ocelot and a 1922 Remington typewriter up his own arse to the sound of the second movement of Elgar's cello concerto. And that's in the first half.

Because you see, Gray would have wanted it this way. Really. Anything for him but mindless good taste. And that's what I'll always remember about him---apart, of course, from his Olympian extravagance. He was the prince of bad taste. He loved to shock. In fact, Gray, more than anyone I knew, embodied and symbolised all that was most offensive and juvenile in Monty Python. And his delight in shocking people led him on to greater and greater feats. I like to think of him as the pioneering beacon that beat the path along which fainter spirits could follow.

Some memories. I remember writing the undertaker speech with him, and him suggesting the punch line, 'All right, we'll eat her, but if you feel bad about it afterwards, we'll dig a grave and you can throw up into it.' I remember discovering in 1969, when we wrote every day at the flat where Connie Booth and I lived, that he'd recently discovered the game of printing four-letter words on neat little squares of paper, and then quietly placing them at strategic points around our flat, forcing Connie and me into frantic last minute paper chases whenever we were expecting important guests.

I remember him at BBC parties crawling around on all fours, rubbing himself affectionately against the legs of gray-suited executives, and delicately nibbling the more appetizing female calves. Mrs. Eric Morecambe remembers that too.

I remember his being invited to speak at the Oxford union, and entering the chamber dressed as a carrot---a full length orange tapering costume with a large, bright green sprig as a hat----and then, when his turn came to speak, refusing to do so. He just stood there, literally speechless, for twenty minutes, smiling beatifically. The only time in world history that a totally silent man has succeeded in inciting a riot.

I remember Graham receiving a Sun newspaper TV award from Reggie Maudling. Who else! And taking the trophy falling to the ground and crawling all the way back to his table, screaming loudly, as loudly as he could. And if you remember Gray, that was very loud indeed.

It is magnificent, isn't it? You see, the thing about shock... is not that it upsets some people, I think; I think that it gives others a momentary joy of liberation, as we realised in that instant that the social rules that constrict our lives so terribly are not actually very important.

Well, Gray can't do that for us anymore. He's gone. He is an ex-Chapman. All we have of him now is our memories. But it will be some time before they fade.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Consumer Reports for guns

Consumer Reports "Best Buy" rating is probably the most coveted marketing tool for any firm, although a tough one to use, thanks to the magazine's strict prohibition on the use of its name in manufacturer's ads.

Because Consumers Union refuses to accept advertising -- the group and the magazine are funded via annual memberships -- there is no pressure to soften harshly critical reviews of the products being tested. Consequently, the magazine will warn people away from buying goods the reviewers deem defective or of questionable value.

This stands in stark contrast to most specialty magazines that do accept advertising from the subjects of the reviews, resulting in a near absence of "Don't buy this piece of crap!" advice to readers.

Firearms enthusiasts know what I'm talking about; you have to cull through various sundry on-line discussions and gun forums to find out what's wrong with the rifle, pistol or shotgun you're interested in, 'cause Lord knows there's not a critical word to be found in the gun mags available at your local newstand.

That's what makes Gun Tests such a valuable resource to the shooting enthusiast. Taking a page out of Consumer Reports' playbook, Gun Tests doesn't accept any advertising, relying only on its readers' subscriptions to keep the doors open. The result: Unbiased reviews that rank weapons from best to worst -- and they're not afraid to warn readers away from expensive stinkers.

Gun Tests' year-end issue features their Best-Of recommendations, as well as their Worst-Of list, and this year they're warning readers to stay away from the following guns:

Gun Tests dont buy list.jpg

If you like to shoot, or are considering purchasing a gun, I highly recommend Gun Tests Magazine; a subscription gets you access to the on-line archive, with more than a decade's worth of reviews and tips.

Check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving Pilgrims Indians.jpg


Remember the first Thanksgiving, when the Pilgrims were saved from starvation by friendly Indians, as you break bread with friends and loved ones today, and take a moment to remember the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have kept this nation safe for more than 230 years.

I have much to give thanks for this year, my family most of all, and to this great nation, which has provided freedom and the opportunity to achieve economic success beyond my immigrant ancestors' wildest imaginations.

On this Thanksgiving Day, may God bless the United States of America, and protect those who defend her.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:39 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 25, 2008

Bottomless bailout

US spending 1803-2008 2.jpg


The latest figures on the government bailout are staggering, with more and more businesses and special interest groups clamoring for their share of the government's -- strike that -- clamoring for their share of your money, with some estimates putting the total nearing $8 trillion dollars.

It's hard to truly understand just how big the crap sandwich is that Congress and the saps at the Fed are trying to force feed us, but Barry Ritholtz puts it into perspective. I plugged the numbers from his post into a spreadsheet to illustrate it with a graph.

Whenever I discussed the current bailout situation with people, I find they have a hard time comprehending the actual numbers involved. That became a problem while doing the research for the Bailout Nation book. I needed some way to put this into proper historical perspective.

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.

Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

That is $686 billion less than the cost of the credit crisis thus far.

The $4.6165 trillion dollars committed so far is about a trillion dollars ($979 billion dollars) greater than the entire cost of World War II borne by the United States: $3.6 trillion, adjusted for inflation (original cost was $288 billion).

Go figure: WWII was a relative bargain.

I estimate that by the time we get through 2010, the final bill may scale up to as much as $10 trillion dollars…

Bloomberg calculates the total amount the taxpayer is on the hook for is $7.76 trillion, or $24,000 for every man woman and child in the country.

Stop and consider that for a moment: the bailout has already exceeded what we spent to defeat Japan and the Nazis.

We are in the process of pouring gasoline on a fire, or, perhaps more accurately, putting sugar in the gas tank of our economic engine. Will anyone truly be surprised when the whole thing sputters and dies?

Leave the markets alone; let the painful process of economic Darwinism ensure that the strongest and fittest companies survive.

I'm not the first one to make this point, but when any firm becomes so large that it's "too big to be allowed to fail," then it's just too damn big, period.

The bailout is going to provide us with a cure infinitely worse than the ailment it purports to treat. I fear the patient may not survive the tender ministrations of the spendthrifts in charge of the national pursestrings.

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

P.C. police arrive in time for the holiday season

The war on American culture continues apace, as multi-culti members of the International World Without Borders P.C. Brigade seek to erase all traditions that bind us together and celebrate "America."

Today's edition: Eliminating Thanksgiving from the schools.

For decades, Claremont kindergartners have celebrated Thanksgiving by dressing up as pilgrims and Native Americans and sharing a feast. But on Tuesday, when the youngsters meet for their turkey and songs, they won't be wearing their hand-made bonnets, headdresses and fringed vests.

Parents in this quiet university town are sharply divided over what these construction-paper symbols represent: A simple child's depiction of the traditional (if not wholly accurate) tale of two factions setting aside their differences to give thanks over a shared meal? Or a cartoonish stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups?

"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

Raheja, whose mother is a Seneca, wrote the letter upon hearing of a four-decade district tradition, where kindergartners at Condit and Mountain View elementary schools take annual turns dressing up and visiting the other school for a Thanksgiving feast. This year, the Mountain View children would have dressed as Native Americans and walked to Condit, whose students would have dressed as Pilgrims.

Raheja, an English professor at UC Riverside who specializes in Native American literature, said she met with teachers and administrators in hopes that the district could hold a public forum to discuss alternatives that celebrate thankfulness without "dehumanizing" her daughter's ancestry.

"There is nothing to be served by dressing up as a racist stereotype," she said.

Last week, rumors began to circulate on both campuses that the district was planning to cancel the event, and infuriated parents argued over the matter at a heated school board meeting Thursday. District Supt. David Cash announced at the end of the meeting that the two schools had tentatively decided to hold the event without the costumes, and sent a memo to parents Friday confirming the decision.

Cash and the principals of Condit and Mountain View did not respond to interview requests.

But many parents, who are convinced the decision was made before the board meeting, accused administrators of bowing to political correctness.

Kathleen Lucas, a Condit parent who is of Choctaw heritage, said her son -- now a first-grader -- still wears the vest and feathered headband he made last year to celebrate the holiday.

"My son was so proud," she said. "In his eyes, he thinks that's what it looks like to be Indian."

Among the costume supporters, there is a vein of suspicion that casts Raheja and others opposed to the costumes as agenda-driven elitists. Of the handful of others who spoke with Raheja against the costumes at the board meeting, one teaches at the University of Redlands, one is an instructor at Riverside Community College, and one is a former Pitzer College professor.

Raheja is "using those children as a political platform for herself and her ideas," Constance Garabedian said as her 5-year-old Mountain View kindergartner happily practiced a song about Native Americans in the background. "I'm not a professor and I'm not a historian, but I can put the dots together."

The debate is far from over. Some parents plan to send their children to school in costume Tuesday -- doubting that administrators will force them to take them off. The following day, some plan to keep their children home, costing the district attendance funds to punish them for modifying the event.

Because, you see, America is a repository for all that is awful and evil, and it's never too early to start indoctrinating young children, disabusing them of any simplistic notions of this nation's history that we are anything but the inheritors of a genocidal campaign against the aboriginal, "real" Americans.

I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

Jews and Nazis, Pilgrims and Indians, it's all the same to these people.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 23, 2008

Rock'em Sock'em RINOs


Posted by Mike Lief at 08:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 21, 2008

Monty Python gets the Internet (and may make some scratch off it, too)


Check out the moment when the members of Monty Python realize they'll be no charge for viewing their comedy clips on-line; it's at the 1:30 mark.

The Monty Python Youtube Channel has a number of high-quality scenes from Holy Grail, Life of Brian and The Meaning if Life, as well as their TV show, Monty Python's Flying Circus.



"The Argument Clinic" is a good place to start, "You snotty faced heap of parrot droppings! You vacuous, coffee-nosed malodorous pervert! ... Oh, I'm sorry, this is Abuse; you want 12A next door."



Then there's the stoning business from Life of Brian, the tale of the boy born in the manger next to Jesus.



Or the French taunter from Holy Grail.

It's a treasure trove of British Comedy, although it's not for everyone; my mother never cracked a smile at the Pythons' antics, even as her teenage son howled at the screen in paroxysms of laughter.

Good stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 20, 2008

Lawyer: Racist breathalyzers target blacks

Just when you think you've heard it all, a criminal defense attorney proves there's at least one more unique-yet-idiotic explanation for his client's guilt: Machines that test for alcohol content discriminate against blacks.

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. -- A lawyer representing a man charged with drunken driving has claimed Connecticut's breathalyzers discriminate against blacks.

Attorney James Ruane represents 40-year-old Tyrone Brown, of Norwalk, who was arrested April 9 by Connecticut State Police on Interstate 95 in Fairfield.

In a motion filed Tuesday in Bridgeport Superior Court, Ruane asked a judge to suppress his client's breathalyzer test results.

He contends the device used by state police and most local police departments, the Intoxilyzer 5000, discriminates against blacks.

Ruane said research shows the lung capacity of a black man is 3 percent lower than a white man’s and, therefore, black men's test results vary from the sobriety standard set by the device.

I'm impressed.

No, really, I am. I've heard some pretty stupid things in court -- my favorite being the defense whore expert witness who testified in a DUI trial that some people drive better after they've had an alcoholic beverage or two.

But claiming that physiological differences between blacks and the rest of the population somehow put them at a legal disadvantage opens up a can of worms that would usually have the race pimps out in force calling for conservative blood.

Argue that intelligence has a racial component, as did the authors of The Bell Curve, and you're pilloried as a vile racist.

Argue that blacks are bad swimmers and poor managers because they lack buoyancy and leadership qualities, as did former Dodger General Manager Al Campanis, and you end up fired and pilloried as a racist (although "idiot" seems apropos, too).

But argue that blacks' lungs are smaller than whites' and you're simply pointing out how The Man manages to figure out yet another way to screw over the ever-downtrodden black man, via the White Devils' nefarious machinery.

Wasn't it the Rev. Martin Luther King who said he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged by the volumetric capacity of their lungs content of their character and not the color of their skin?

It's a proud day for the legal profession.

Sometimes I really hate lawyers.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 19, 2008

Which weapon to (ahem) celebrate the dawn of a new era?

Several readers have asked me for gun-buying advice -- part of their BLTL* memberships -- as they prepare to pull the trigger (as it were) on long-delayed purchases made imminent thanks to the results of the election.

One correspondent wanted a recommendation for a lightweight rifle that was legal in the People's Republic of California, including the Kel-Tec SU-16; another wanted to know what I thought about the Glock 21.

Here's how one person put it:

I want a short semi-automatic rifle in a round that will always be easy to get. I don't want a fixed magazine like CA insists on with many rifles. Not a hunting rifle per se. The Garand is too long and too big. A rifle I could take camping, easily sling over a shoulder, and use for personal defense. Nothing fancy or a collector's item. So what is it? The clock is ticking. I can hear Sarah Brady laughing in my sleep. What is the rifle I want? Is it the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, and if so, which one.

Here's my advice (your mileage may vary).

I believe the first thing Obama is going to do is to go after ammo, perhaps with an excise tax, but an easier way to attack gun ownership is to ban the importation of foreign ammo.

This would immediately make the SKS and other popular SHTF** rifles useless, unless you'd already stocked up on ammo.

That leaves the domestically-produced calibers, the most common being the NATO rounds, 5.56mm (.223cal) or 7.62mm (.308). I like the .308/7.62 round, but the rifles are going to be bigger and heavier, which means we default to the .223/5.56. The rifles are smaller and lighter, which seems to be what you're looking for.

Therefore, as between the Mini-14 and the Mini-30, I'd say the Mini-14 is a better choice because it shoots the .223/5.56 round which is very common, as opposed to the Mini-30, which shoots the ballistically superior 7.62x39mm Commie round (cheap, plentiful, and sure to be banned for importation into the U.S.).

I'm not a big fan of the Kel-Tec SU-16; it doesn't look very robust to me, certainly less so than the Rugers or the nigh indestructible SKS.

The criticisms of the Mini-14 revolve around it's fair accuracy; it's not a tack driver. But then again, neither are most shooters, and I think the Mini-14 is capable of putting rounds in an area small enough to satisfy the requirements of the average Joe.

It has the advantage of being based on the 70-year-old Garand and 60-year-old M-14 designs, and has been in production long enough to iron out the kinks.

The Mini-14 can be fitted with a sling and a scope if so desired (although a red-dot Aimpoint or holographic EOTech HWS sight makes more sense); replacement parts are abundant; and accessories can be found on most large websites.

Perhaps the other thing -- or things -- in its favor are that it doesn't *look* like a scawy bwack assault rifle, so it's less likely to frighten non-gunnies, and magazines are plentiful and relatively inexpensive.

It is not a perfect rifle, but it may be the best rifle to meet your needs. Finally, it's available in stainless steel, which is perfect for a SHTF weapon.

The Glock 21SF is a good choice, one I've been considering for myself, although the Glock 30SF might be a better choice for those of us with small hands.

One thing I like about the Glocks is the Tenifer finish on the slide; harder than diamonds, it's the most corrosion-resistant treatment available on any handgun, the chemicals involved in the process so toxic they have to be applied overseas (the EPA won't allow Tenifer to be applied in the U.S. factory).

Turner's Outdoorsman is running a special on the Glock 21SF, if you're so inclined.

In any event, there's no reason to delay; get thee to thy local gun merchant forthwith!

And don't forget, today is National Ammo Day.

*BLTL: Better Living Through Lief.
**SHTF: Shit Hits The Fan.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:49 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 18, 2008

Auto Erotica: Ford GT(40)

Rear view of the drool-worthy Ford GT(40)'s haunch, photographed at the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix, Arizona, November 7, 2008. Shot on Fuji Velvia with the Nikon F100. (Click on image for larger version.)

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Peace, love and understanding

Check out Michelle Malkin's roundup of news on how Prop. 8 opponents are trying to convince voters that intolerance is unacceptable, and that Gay Marriage advocates are not wild-eyed extremists.

I'm certainly convinced.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:52 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Stupidity or insanity? You decide.

Author Jerry Pournelle, in his online journal, offers proof that something's amiss in Sacramento.

The Governor of California has just said that the US is the greatest polluter in the world, which is manifestly untrue on any level.

Meanwhile he is acting as if there is some reason to curb CO2 emissions in the midst of a depression.

This is madness.

He is also acting as if he is the new Minister of the Environment.

What's next? Perhaps dressing like Napolean and wandering the halls calling for Empress Josephine.

How bad does Schwarzenegger have to be to make me pine for his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Grey Davis.

Oy vey.

I can't wait 'til he's exiled to Elba.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Why does the Ventura City Council hate business?

I've decided to begin documenting every instance of the Ventura City Council's apparent hostility to both business and logic.

The first example involves Target seeking a liquor license for its new location in what used to be the old Robinson's-May Department store.

Target Corp. will not be allowed to sell beer or wine at its Pacific View Mall store, the Ventura City Council agreed in a split vote Monday night.

The council majority didn't like the idea of having alcohol in a mall frequented by teenagers and sitting across the street from a middle school.

"You have hundreds of kids hanging out in this enclosed mall. It's just not a compatible use," said Mayor Christy Weir, who was joined by council members Brian Brennan, Carl Morehouse and Neal Andrews in the 4-3 vote Monday night against Target.

The decision upheld an August decision by the Planning Commission, which turned down Target's application to sell packaged beer and wine at its two-story, 220,000-square-foot store that opened in March.

No other store in the mall sells packaged alcohol, although beer and wine are sold in restaurants such as California Pizza Kitchen and Red Robin. The other Target store in Ventura does not sell alcohol, but some in other cities, such as Camarillo and Moorpark, sell beer or wine in their grocery store sections.

The city planning staff had recommended the application be approved, saying the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption is allowed under city zoning rules and police didn't think it would be a problem.

Leaders at nearby Anacapa Middle School raised no concerns when contacted by state alcohol regulators, according to a Target representative, who also pointed out that a gas station across the street from Anacapa sells alcohol.

But the mayor said the commission's decision was sensible, given the mall is a popular teen hangout. "You don't have 100 kids hanging out at the gas station across the street," said Weir, whose children attended Anacapa. "Parents in general trust their kids to go there (the mall) without supervision."

So much stupidity, so little time.

Wine and beer are available at supermarkets scattered throughout Ventura, many of them within walking distance of elementary schools.

Oooh, the horror! Kids can walk down the liquor aisles at Von's, Ralphs and Albertson's ... and touch the bottles!

Oh, wait, did I mention the SavOn Drugstore near the middle school? It shares a parking lot with the Von's, so the kids have two purveyors of demon rum they can visit, after eating at the Burger King or the McDonald's.

From gas station mini-marts to liquor stores, supermarkets to restaurants, kids are exposed to booze for sale in a variety of forms, most of the teens, tweens and tykes avoiding the temptation to crack open a cold one and get loaded during recess or after school.

I just don't get it.

But Mayor Christie Weir takes the cake -- the very, very stupid cake -- for her series of non-sequiturs scattered throughout the article like steaming, fly-encrusted cow pats in a fragrant farmer's field.

"You have hundreds of kids hanging out in this enclosed mall. It's just not a compatible use."

"You don't have 100 kids hanging out at the gas station across the street. Parents in general trust their kids to go there (the mall) without supervision."

What the hell is she talking about?

Is there some sort of in loco parentis argument about kids and retail establishments? Are we to require parents or guardians to escort children through supermarkets, delis, or even the Devil's Den of Iniquity -- otherwise known as Trader Joe's?

Target ought to put an abortion clinic or a medicinal marijuana bar in their store; why do I suspect Weir wouldn't have a problem with either of those uses, notwithstanding her self-proclaimed concern for the kids.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Democrats move to revive assault weapon ban

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "Democrats"? Allow me to introduce the sponsors of H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008:

Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]

That's right, five "Republicans" have revived the assault weapons ban, the same ban that the Clinton-era Justice Department determined had little-to-no-effect on crime.

The election is barely over, the GOP come a cropper thanks to the party's abysmal performance over the last eight years, apparently having lost its philosophical and moral compass as it staggered down K Street like a drunken sailor on liberty, a bottle in each hand, a hooker on each arm.

Casting about desperately for a solution to their electoral woes, Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) like the five cretins behind this new gun ban bill figure the path to power requires the emulation of the most liberal portions of the Democratic agenda.

The GOP should throw these idiots out of the party, notwithstanding any blather from so-called moderates and their enablers in the pundit class about broadening the appeal of the party, enlarging the "big tent" to bring more people in.

"Big Tent Republicanism" has produced intellectual impairment and confusion thanks to politicians who pursue policy goals diametrically opposed to traditional conservative -- and GOP -- philosophy. Like emulating the most extreme of the gun-banning groups, heretofore supported primarily by members of the Democratic Party, although it must be noted -- and noted to the Democrat's credit -- that they've avoided gun control like a syphilis-addled, gin-swilling distant relative (Look! It's Uncle Teddy!).

The Democrats came a cropper in the mid-'90s thanks in part to their anti-gun stance, which resulted in gun-owning voters throwing the Congress back to the GOP. In the intervening years the Dems have campaigned on many issues, but not gun control; it was hardly mentioned during this last election, except for the rather weak declarations from both candidates that they supported the Second Amendment.

But now, as the GOP picks through the rubble of their losses, weak-kneed RINOs sponsor legislation that will alienate not only conservatives, but middle-of-the-road Americans who happen to believe that gun bans are, well, un-American.

It is time for the GOP to pack-up the big tent and send the circus out of town; the entrance to the tent has grown so wide that the party is simply an incoherent mess.

I dropped my GOP affiliation a long time ago, disgusted by its fondness for earmarks, big government programs, uncontrolled spending and cronyism. My feeling was then -- and now -- that it wasn't so much that I was leaving the party; rather, the party had left me.

In the two weeks since the election, several friends have told me that they too are quitting the GOP, fed up. I'd venture a guess that they also believe that the GOP has left them, and bills like this one add to the disgust.

There is no room -- or at least there ought not to be room -- for would-be gun-banning Congressional crapweasels in the GOP. Throw 'em out, let them be de jure Democrats, not just de facto Donks.

If a voter wants to vote for a liberal politician, espousing liberal ideas and liberal (supposed) solutions to whatever ails society, and the choice is a Democrat or a weak-kneed, Save-the-Whales RINO, the Democrat is the better choice.

Always go for the pol who has a coherent world view, a consistent set of values and principles.

When a party stands for everything, it stands for nothing. And that's what voters will give it: Nothing.

And that's what the GOP deserves, so long as it allows politicians like these five to remain in its ranks: Nothing.

Not one dime.

Not one vote.

Until the party comes to its senses and offers the voters a real choice.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:12 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 17, 2008

The end of financial responsibility

As the Democratically-controlled Congress, led by Pelosi and Reid, get ready to dump billions of dollars into the uncompetitive maws of the domestic automakers, more and more industries are queueing up, eager for their slice of the "free money" pie (ingredients: 100 percent taxpayer-funded pork).

This is, of course, your money being used to reward financially risky behavior, removing the corrective hand of the market from the economic tiller.

It leads to questions for those of us who have lived within our means, and The San Francisco Chronicle -- of all places! -- asks one that will have particular interest to most of us: "Are you an idiot to keep paying your mortgage?"

To qualify, you must be at least 90 days delinquent and live in the home as your primary residence. You must owe at least 90 percent of the home's value. It's fine if you owe more than it's worth.

Your mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or held by one of the participating loan companies.

If you meet these requirements and can document your income, your servicer will reduce your monthly mortgage payment - including property taxes, insurance and association dues - to 38 percent of your gross income.

The reduction can be accomplished in one or more ways:

-- Reducing the interest rate, but not below 3 percent. (The new rate, if below market, goes back to a market rate after five years.)

-- Extending the term of the loan up to 40 years.

-- Reducing the principal on which monthly payments are calculated. Unpaid principal is added to the loan balance and due when the homeowner sells or refinances. The reduced interest payments never have to be repaid.

If you owe more than the home is worth, the plan will only reduce principal down to 100 percent of market value, according to an official for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which supervises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If all three of these maneuvers can't reduce your payments to 38 percent of income, you won't get a fast-track modification but could still request a customized deal, says the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The streamlined process looks only at income, not assets. If you refinanced your home to buy a Mercedes or own another home, you won't be expected to sell them to pay your mortgage.

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, predicts that many homeowners who have little or no equity will stop paying their mortgage and then reduce their income to get the biggest payment cut possible. They could stop working overtime or, if two spouses work, one could quit. After the modification, they could try to boost their income again.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Schiff says. "People are going to feel like complete morons if they don't participate. The people getting punished are the ones who never made an irresponsible decision to buy a house they couldn't afford."

The government is offering loan servicers $800 for every homeowner they get into the plan.

Schiff predicts that loan agents "will be cold-calling people trying to get them into it. Just like they encouraged people to overstate their income to get a bigger loan in the first place, now they will encourage them to understate their income to qualify for a smaller loan."

[...]

Risking your credit score for a lower rate "sounds like a game of chicken on the lending highway," says Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac, which markets the FICO credit score.

A 90-day delinquency will hurt your score, but not as badly as a foreclosure. How many points it takes off depends on other things in your credit file, such as the number and severity of late payments on other accounts.

In the latest version of FICO, which is just being rolled out, "one isolated delinquency will do less damage to your score than it has in the past," Watts says.

Consumers who suffer a severe delinquency can rebuild their scores over time by paying all credit accounts on time and keeping their balances low.

"If it was me and I was certain that I could keep my home even after missing a couple payments by working out a deal with the lender, I'd be for keeping the home," Watts says. "Your score will bounce back."

Schiff predicts that many homeowners will reach that conclusion and that the new program will cost Fannie and Freddie far more than expected.

When money is about to be thrown -- hurled! -- at anyone willing to grab it, what justifies not partaking of this fiscal binge and purge ... other than the feeling in my gut that it's -- hmm, what's the word? -- wrong?

Do you get the feeling that folks who play by the rules are viewed as suckers and rubes? I'm beginning to feel like I'm the mark in a national game of Three Card Monte -- and everyone else is in on the scam, but me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 14, 2008

The Jackalopes of American politics

National Review's Jonah Goldberg casts a jaundiced eye on the "moderate's" prescription for what ails the GOP.

He's not impressed.

By now you’ve probably heard: The GOP is becoming too regional, too white, too old to compete at a national level. Democrats look like a merging of the cast of Rent and Up With People, while Republicans look like diehard fans of Matlock and Murder, She Wrote.

Fine, fine. The GOP needs to win over more Hispanics, young people, suburban women. That sounds perfectly plausible. But what does “win over” mean?

To listen to many pundits and analysts, it means Republicans must become Democrats. The GOP has become too socially conservative, and if it wants to win the support of mainstream voters, it will need to become more socially liberal. To be “economically conservative but socially liberal” is the beginning of wisdom for this school of thought.

[...]

Economically conservative social liberals are the “jackalopes of American politics,” in the words of the National Review Institute’s Kate O’Beirne. The press keeps telling us they exist out there in huge numbers, but when you go looking for them, they refuse to emerge from the bushes.

In fairness, many people do describe themselves this way. Most of the time we simply call them “Democrats.” Those who call themselves Republicans should more properly be called “confused.”

This is not to say that one can’t be a moderate on this issue or that and be a Republican. But the idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence. For example, in Congress and in state legislatures, the more pro-life you are, the more likely you are to be a free-market, low-tax conservative. The more pro-choice you are, the more likely it is that you will be remarkably generous with other people’s money.

[...]

One objection is that “economic conservatism” and “fiscal conservatism” are different things. One can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in the sense that you’re only willing to constrain your statist do-goodery to the extent you’re able to pay for it. This is certainly an intellectually defensible position.

But politically, this is hard ground to defend. It turns out that people who buy into the logic of social liberalism, not just on abortion but racial and other issues as well, usually find themselves ill-equipped ideologically to say no to additional spending on causes they care about. They even find it difficult to stay Republicans, as we can see from recent example Colin Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president for largely ethereal reasons.

It should be noted that it’s also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you’ve jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced “activist government” and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.

And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party — e.g., social conservatives — in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes. The GOP would simply cease to exist as a viable party without the support of social and religious conservatives.

I disagree with Goldberg on a couple of major points, amongst them the idea that religious conservatives are a key constituency without which the GOP cannot regain an ascendent role in governance.

Now, I am not the typical modern American Jew -- prone to soiling himself in abject terror at the approach of (presumably) anti-Semitic Evangelical Christians (i.e., anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ and has the gall to not keep said faith secret and locked in the attic like the crazy uncle no one is supposed to know about).

My experience has been that the modern version of devout Christians -- both evangelical and plain-wrap -- are remarkably tolerant of me and my fellow Corned-Beef-On-Rye-With-Mustard types. And, truth be told, support for Israel is much stronger amongst evangelical Christians than in the ranks of American Jews (outside the Orthodox movement).

So, hostile to devout Christianity as a political force I most assuredly am not.

But I do think that the so-called religious right failed spectacularly this election cycle to serve as a key player, and therefore calls into question the idea that their self-identified core issue(s) are do-or-die planks of the GOP platform.

I was chatting recently with a friend who counts himself amongst that devout Christian voting demographic, the two of us mulling over the aftermath of the election. He said that it was probably time to eliminate the issue of abortion from the GOP lexicon -- at least in national elections -- as the public seemingly doesn't give a damn. As evidence of the apathy amongst the voters on the issue, he pointed to the failure of the California ballot initiative requiring parents be notified that their teenage (or younger) daughter was having an abortion a couple of days before actually going on the table.

This was not a requirement that parents give permission first; it was a let-them-know-about-it-first proposal with safety-valve clauses for abusive relationships.

My friend's point was that if the initiative's backers couldn't convince a simple majority that abortion was a significant-enough procedure to require parents get a heads-up -- when the same daughters can't be given an aspirin or have a mole removed without getting permission from their parents -- than clearly the public simply cannot be convinced to vote for a candidate because she's opposed to abortion.

I disagreed with him only to the extent that partial-birth abortion is such a horrifying procedure -- when explained in graphic terms, opposition to it is off the charts, no matter the political affiliation of the voter -- that a politician's refusal to seek the procedure's elimination is and will remain a huge liability (as well as an indelible stain on said pol's moral character). Which begs the question of why McCain didn't talk about Obama's vote against banning the procedure. (Answer: McCain didn't want to win.)

But Goldberg's central point, that rebuilding the GOP around fiscal conservatism and social liberalism -- a political Pushmi-Pullyu -- is a recipe for disaster seems to be a decent place to begin.

The problem for the GOP is, of course, that fiscal conservatism has disappeared from its playbook, leaving the party as little more than Democrat-lite with a distaste for "Yoote Kultur" and recreational pharmaceuticals.

When Goldberg refers to the putative fiscal conservative, socially liberal voters as jackalopes, he's right, and amusing, too.

But support for limited government, free markets and low taxes are the ingredients for long-term success; without them, trying to rebuild a party on a foundation of social conservatism is a recipe for one-party rule -- and it ain't the party of Lincoln that'll be doing the ruling.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

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

November 12, 2008

Call of Duty: World At War

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:09 PM

November 11, 2008

Meet a Schindler's List survivor


This page, from the original "Schindler's List," found in a suitcase in 1999, contains the names of the Polish Jews saved by German industrialist Oskar Schindler during World War II. If you click on the image and take a close look, you'll spot the name of the man scheduled to speak at the Westlake Hyatt next week.


The Conejo Jewish Academy is sponsoring a lecture by one of the Polish Jews saved by German war profiteer Oskar Schindler, the man made world famous by Steven Spielberg's 1993 film, Schindler's List.

Leon Eyson -- born Leib Lejzon in Poland in 1929 -- was ten years old when the Germans invaded Poland in the fall of 1939; soon, the Lejzon family joined thousands of other Polish jews, imprisoned in the Krakow Ghetto.

By 1942, the boy was working alongside his father in Schindler's factory, so short he had to stand on a box to reach the equipment on the assembly line.

He caught the eye of Oskar Schindler, who became fond of the skinny Jewish kid. The factory owner called him “Little Leyson” and showed him many kindnesses such as providing extra rations of food and excusing him from the night shift when his vision began to fail.

His two eldest brothers did not survive the war, but he, his parents and brother and sister were [amongst] those on Schindler’s List who survived the Holocaust.

The centenary of Oskar Schindler’s birth was in April, spurring the youngest of the Schindler Juden to break his half-century of silence about his family's salvation, thanks to the Nazi Party member whose conscience led him to save his workers from the crematoria.

Schindler's List was a stunning movie experience, one that moved me to tears several times; if you've never seen it, please do yourself a favor and do so. But you can rent the film anytime; how often can you meet one of the people who escaped the Holocaust thanks to the efforts of the enigmatic hero at the center of the story?

The program will begin Monday at 8 p.m., in the Hyatt Westlake Plaza Hotel Grand Ballroom, located at
880 South Westlake Blvd., Thousand Oaks, Calif. Admission is $15 ($20 at the door).

Visit the Conejo Jewish Academy's site to make a reservation.

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

Remembering the Defenders of Freedom

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns fell silent, ending the greatest slaughter the world had ever known. For 21 years it was known as "The Great War" and "The War to End All Wars," until new tyrants forced us to begin numbering our global conflicts. Today, the second war might have been called The Great War Ver. 1.2, but our forefathers settled on World War II.

Today is the day we remember the Americans who sacrificed everything for us. It used to be called Armistice Day, to remember the end of the First World War, but somewhere along the way someone decided to go generic.

I like the old name better, because it reminds us of a specific conflict, and of the men who fought and died in one war. It's why I prefer Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's Birthday to the plainwrap Presidents' Day.

There's nothing wrong with having a generic Veterans' Day -- Hell, no! -- but let's not diminish the opportunity to remember each and every war, so that we may remind ourselves of the lessons to be learned from each conflict.

For those inclined to decorate their Volvos with "War Is Never the Answer" bumperstickers, a reminder: it is because of men far more worthy than you, buried in cemeteries from Normandy to Arlington, that you enjoy the right to be pathetic, ignorant cowards. Had your philosophy prevailed, the Confederacy would still exist (as would slavery); and Hitler's Reich would be celebrating it's seventy-third anniversary in a Jew-free empire.

I salute the fallen, and the men who answered the call, including my father,


Dad RTC sentry_1.jpg


Petty Officer Second Class Gerald Lief, who served at sea in the Korean War; his father,



Cpl. Harry Wiener Lief, Troop E, 3rd Cavalry, USA, who went to France and fought in the War to End All Wars; and my uncle,


Uncle Bern Korea.jpg


Sgt. Bernard Solomon, USMC, who fought at the Frozen Chosin and never forgot his pals who didn't come home. Semper Fi, Mac!

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

November 10, 2008

Crooks beware

Crazy Glue

link

Paul Kelly and colleagues at Loughborough University found that a disulfur dinitride (S2N2) polymer turned exposed fingerprints brown, as the polymer reaction was initiated from the near-undetectable remaining residues.

Traces of inkjet printer ink can also initiate the polymer. The detection limit is so low that details of a printed letter previously in an envelope could be read off the inside of the envelope after being exposed to S2N2.

“A one-covers-all versatile system like this has obvious potential,” says Kelly.

“This work has demonstrated that it is possible to obtain fingerprints from surfaces that hitherto have been considered extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain,” says Colin Lewis, scientific advisor at the UK Ministry of Defence. “The method proposed has shown that this system could well provide capabilities which could significantly enhance the tools available to forensic scientists in the future.”

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:20 AM

November 09, 2008

What a week (updated)

We were on the way back from Phoenix when my stepmother called. Dad was in the hospital, but they didn't think it was serious.

Well, serious enough to admit him to the cardiac observation unit.

The stress of this past week, with the funeral of Dad's childhood pal (and my godfather), may have played a part in all this.

Dad's scheduled for an angiogram Monday morning; depending on what they find, the surgical team may insert a stent.

Prayers -- or good thoughts, if you're not the praying sort -- are much appreciated.

Update

Jane called with "good news/bad news."

Dad's got a severe blockage in a location making a stent too dangerous.

UCLA has a procedure to "Roto-Rooter" the blockage, but the sawbones say that's too risky for Dad, too.

Jane said Dad has fairly significant damage to one side of his heart, but the carotoid coronary artery is providing enough blood flow to partially compensate for the two (!) blocked arteries on the left side.

I can't wait for the bad news.

We drove to L.A. and we're sitting with Dad, waiting for the cardiologist to arrive.

Dad and Jane have a trip planned to China; I told him that they should still go. Given the huge number of involuntary organ donors and inexhaustible supply of potential matches, can you think of a better place to be?

Besides, New York Jews -- especially those of us from Brooklyn -- love Chinese take-out, and this would be the ultimate order to-go.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

A man of honor?


John McCain, who would brook no criticism from the audience of Obama during the campaign; who reassured voters that Obama "was a good man," that they had nothing to fear from him; who refused to discuss Jeremiah Wright's "God-DAMN America!" sermons and Obama's two-decades spent in the pews, his dedication of a book to the hate-spewing preacher; had been obsessed with running a clean campaign, a genteel candidacy, a kid-glove run for the White House with nary a harsh word for his political opponent on a myriad of issues ruled off limits because ... well, because they might be too mean or make McCain out to be racist for having the nerve to notice the more unseemly aspects of Obama's background.

This was a trait in scarce measure during the primaries, when McCain was all-too happy to sling mud at Mitt Romney in the fight for the nomination, all-too willing to indulge in "misstatements," or what we in the sticks refer to as "lies."

Anyhow, this man of honor, who built a candidacy on his integrity and willingness to take on his own party and shush his own supporters when they dared to be too partisan, has been strangely silent when it came to the shameful whispering campaign against his running-mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, being conducted by McCain's own team.

It's of a piece with McCain's appalling appearance on Saturday Night Live, when he participated in a skit with Tina Fey (as Palin), the vice-presidential candidate the subject of the punch lines, some delivered by McCain himself.

It's one thing for a candidate to poke fun at herself -- Palin's appearance on SNL a good example of this -- but it's awfully revealing when the top dog goes on TV and joins in the ridicule of his subordinate.

I'm afraid that when it comes to McCain's character, this campaign -- and its aftermath -- have diminished the man.

Let me be clear, I'm speaking of the politician, not the POW. McCain's bravery forty years ago is indisputable.

But today's McCain is a far cry from the man he was then, and his treatment of Palin is contemptible.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

P.J. O'Rourke's post-mortem

P.J. O'Rourke is one of my favorite modern writers, capable of penning a pungent bit of prose to rival the best of the late, lamented Mencken. O'Rourke came to speak at Drew University back in the '80s, and I had the good fortune to dine with him; the conversation was as witty as I had hoped, a veritable Algonquin Roundtable of one.

The Weekly Standard has O'Rourke's take on the election, appropriately titled, "We Blew It." While I disagree with him on several issues -- I think he's completely out to lunch on illegal immigration and foreign policy -- O'Rourke succinctly summarizes much of what I think about how the conservative movement has lost its way.

Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we're tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration  .  .  .  )

Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.

"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.

"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.

"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."

Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.

[...]

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)

Yes. Yes! The arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility of the then-Republican-controlled Congress, the addiction to pork-barrel politics and earmarks left the GOP in no position to claim the political high-ground; the Republicans had become money-grubbing whores, just like the liberal Democrats, differentiated (perhaps) only by how much thigh they'd flash to lobbyists, while pretending to be sober stewards of the electorate's collective wallet.

Speaking of money, O'Rourke is out for blood when it comes to the Wall Street meltdown.

And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.

[...]

The left has no idea what's going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I'm missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.

Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.

Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, "How can we make a buck off this?" The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages--some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions--bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a "collateralized debt obligation" with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn't.

Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the "room full of horse s--" trick. Brokerages were saying, "We're going to sell you a room full of horse s--. And with that much horse s--, you just know there's a pony in there somewhere."

Anyway, it's no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.

That the GOP still won't put Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake on the Appropriations Committee is a discouraging sign that they still don't get it. Flake, who has consistently sponsored bills to target earmarks and force separate, recorded votes on every item of pork, has been punished, exiled by the GOP leadership, for rocking the boat and daring to disturb the you-scratch-my-back atmosphere that pervades the Capitol.

I listened to the so-called "Young Turks" of the GOP this morning on TV, and Rep. Cantor sounded like any other Congressional greybeard, blathering on about reaching out to younger voters by rebranding the party's message.

It's not the message; it's the core philosophy. What does the GOP stand for? If nothing else, the party ought to get back to basics; O'Rourke's statement of the three funding schemes sounds like a good place to start.

I'm not ready to turn the key and suck on the exhaust (yet), but the GOP's leadership could convince me.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Now that's a flashlight

Did you know there's a website for devotees of flashlights? Well, there is, and Flashlight News posted a press release about a pretty amazing light, if the reality lives up to the hype.

Powered by a sophisticated energy management system, 5.11's Light for Life™ UC3.400™ Flashlight fully charges in 90 seconds and delivers up to 23.5 hours of total runtime (98% uptime) in a 24-hour period. This revolutionary performance compares with charge times ranging from four to 12 hours, and runtime rates ranging from 9% to 25% for duty flashlights currently on the market.

The UC3.400 contains no batteries, but rather ... ultracapacitors.

[...]

Unlike costly batteries that need to be replaced, ultracapacitors quickly load and unload energy without a chemical reaction. The UC3.400 is rated for 50,000 charge/discharge cycles with virtually no degradation and no memory - even in severe temperature conditions. That's one charge a day for more than 135 years! Current rechargeable flashlights begin to lose the ability to hold a full charge after the first use, are highly susceptible to temperature fluctuations, and have an expected life of 500 to 1,000 charge/discharge cycles (one to three years expected for a professional user) before the battery must be replaced at a substantial cost.

Now, if you can really get 23.5 hours of light after a mere 90 seconds in the charger, that's truly a technological breakthrough. I'll be interested in seeing if 5.11 Tactical can deliver the goods.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 05, 2008

Every vote counts

Don't let anyone tell you -- don't tell yourself -- that your vote doesn't make a difference.

As of 5:40 this morning, the race to represent District 19 (that's my district) in the California Senate between Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson and Republican Tony Strickland is 51.1-49.9 percent; 153,106 to 152,998.

Jackson is leading by 2/10 of a percent, 108 votes.

And in the race for the U.S. Senate between Minnesota's Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent, and Al Franken, the reprehensible Democratic candidate and once-upon-a-time, supposedly-funny SNL-writer/performer, the results are:

Coleman: 1,210,790

Franken: 1,210,028

That's a 42-42 statistical tie.

Gadzooks.

Every vote counts. Keep it in mind for the next election.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 04, 2008

A vote here, a vote there ...

And the post mortem begins. Over at National Review's Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty notes:

With 66 percent of precincts reporting, Obama currently leads Ohio by 60,000 votes, 50 percent to 48 percent.

With 97 precincts reporting, Obama leads Virginia 52 percent to 48 percent.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Obama leads North Carolina by 14,000 votes, 50 percent to 49 percent.

With 91 percent of precincts reporting, McCain leads Missouri, 50 percent to 49 percent.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Obama leads Florida, 51 percent to 49 percent.

With 99 percent of precints reporting, Obama leads Indiana, 50 percent to 49 percent.

Two or three percent here, two or three percent there, and the map could look very different...

Too bad McCain couldn't close the deal.

But then, the problem was that McCain never could articulate the rationale for his candidacy, other than the fact that he was John McCain, and dammit, it was his turn.

Ace (of Ace of Spades) says the problem begins -- and ends, I'd say -- with McCain's lack of a core set of political principles, beyond his awesome fabulousness and maverickosity.

There is no "McCainism" as there was a "Bushism" or "Reaganism." Those men offered fairly clear visions (well, Reagan particularly so). Not McCain. Everything with him is just his personal gut, principle-free, just an instinct, an impulse, which often takes him in wildly contradictory places (but he's always haughty about the moral superiority of his decisions).

For example, he's pro-drilling... but not in ANWR. Um, why? He's forever undercutting himself with unexplained hedges and caveats.

He's pro-business... Kinda. Except when he's making his distaste for anyone working in the private sector "for profit not patriotism" so glaringly evident.

He wants to lower taxes. Sorta. Sometimes. Maybe. In election years.

We must regard Obama as suspect because of his association with the terrorist Bill Ayers... but it's racist to mention his membership in Jeremiah Wright's Church of Hate.

This leads to a paralysis among his campaign staff. Everyone knew, pretty much, the Idea of Reagan. They could act independently with confidence that they were advancing Reagan's goals.

No one could do that with McCain.

Exactly! If John McCain has been about anything during the last six years, he's been about slapping, slamming, blasting and giving the bum's rush to conservatives and members of his own party. If there was a goal hidden in there, it seemed to be nothing more than earning plaudits from the press, Democrats and liberal celebrities.

Ace uses a German military concept to explain McCain's often dead-in-the-water campaign, becalmed as a result of that missing core purpose.

Steve mentioned the german military term schwerpunkt, or "critical point." Every military mission needed an easily comprehended schwerpunkt; even the most complicated mission must have, at its heart, a simple idea, a non-complex goal.

If the goal was to capture the bridge, it must be clear that capturing the bridge was the schwerpunkt. Not only was everyone clear on the general goal, then, but when asked to give orders independent of senior command, lower officers would know the main goal that each of their orders must advance, the schwerpunkt. Without that, lower officers could not possibly issue orders that would serve the mission's goal.

How can one advance the mission without knowing precisely what is at its heart?

What was McCain's schwerpunkt? What was his case?

Ultimately he sought to run not on a plan or an idea, but upon his character, his personal wisdom and integrity (something I note, not un-coincidentally, could never benefit Republicans generally, as an *idea* could).

He always had a tough battle, but in the end he had no plan for battle, only the unwavering belief that he alone was equipped to lead the war.

There was no idea of McCain beyond McCain himself.

And ultimately, he lost. No man is greater than an idea.

Even the great McCain.

McCain reminds me of a man so in love with his own myth that he fails to comprehend that there has to be more, when the personality at the core of the myth isn't particularly compelling.

There were so many ideas that remained unexplored by McCain, issues that could have illustrated the differences between the two men, but McCain seemed to loathe the idea of fighting to win, preferring to coast to victory, and if that wasn't possible, than to lose gracefully.

The voters ultimately decided that they'd rather take a chance on Obama -- a decision I think the electorate will soon regret. The next four years will give us plenty of time to live out the old saw, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure."

If things prove as bad as I fear, we can get the marriage anulled in November 2012.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:57 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Voting guide

I've been preoccupied the last few days with family business, but wanted to quickly run down the ballot with you.

President: McCain
I'm not a fan of John McCain, but Obama is simply the most unqualified, inexperienced, radical presidential candidate in the history of the Republic. Thanks to the lapdog media, Obama's also the least-investigated and vetted candidate in modern history.

Prop. 1A: No
I like trains. But our state budget is a shambles and this massive project will result in the money disappearing down a rathole without providing any benefit to the public.

Prop. 2: No
I like chickens, fried, baked, sauteed, and those little hot-wings, too. But this is just another feel-good measure -- for activists -- and another feel-bad proposal for business owners. I'm convinced that more chickens will simply be raised and slaughtered in jurisdictions outside the California border.

Prop. 3: No
I like kids. Children's hospitals might be a good idea, but not on the public's dime. The state budget is a shambles and we can't afford this.

Prop. 4: Yes
A child can't get her ears pierced without her parents' permission. A school nurse can't give a child an aspirin without her parents' permission. A child can't have a biopsy performed without her parents' permission. But an abortion is currently okay without getting the parents involved. Despite the claims of opponents to the contrary, this proposition does not require parents' permission before a pregnant child has an abortion; it simply requires the parents be told about it at least 48 hours beforehand.

Prop. 5: Hell No
This boondoggle would give criminals a Get Out Of Jail Free card, as long as they claimed drug addiction played a part in their crimes. A huge waste of time and money, this will also represent a threat to public safety.

Prop. 6: ... Yes
Notwithstanding the fact that I'm a prosecutor, I don't like the idea of mandating spending; the state budget -- in good times and bad -- is increasingly locked down, with huge portions of the funds already fixed and allocated. On the other hand, if we're going to reserve money, making sure that government adequately funds the most basic of its functions -- catching the bad guys -- is worthy. Patterico argues that the gang-related witness intimidation provisions are necessary, too; I'm persuaded.

Prop. 7: No
An energy cluster, guaranteed to do nothing more then spend money we don't have and ultimately stifle the production of affordable power. An all-around bad idea, reviled by darn near everyone.

Prop. 8: Yes
The electorate has said two times that "Marriage" means a man and a woman; this time the California Supreme Court said, "No it's not. Marriage is what we say it is." And, because the Court created this right, same-sex marriage supporters were able to recast the proposal into a referendum on "taking away rights." Nonsense. This is about out-of-control judges telling the People, "In your face!" Back at ya', your honor.

Prop. 9: No
Some good stuff in here, but some bad stuff, too, including more costs to the counties that are budget busters. The limitations on parole are worthwhile, but the so-called improvement for victims' rights strike me as illusory.

Prop. 10: No
Another fiscally irresponsible measure to pay people to do what they ought do if it makes financial sense to them.

Prop. 11: Yes
Could there be a worse way to draw up legislative districts than the current one, where politicians ensure that they're safe from challenge?

Prop. 12: Yes
Veterans will receive the benefits and veterans will pay for this measure. The only way this could get any better is if it authorized the beating of anti-military protestors at recruiting stations.

Measure T: Yes
Term limits for the Board of Supervisors? Too bad we can't include congresscritters, too.

Whatever happens, don't let the media shills convince you your ballot doesn't matter. Vote, dammit!

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 02, 2008

Larry

Larry and Lee 2.jpg

Larry and my Aunt Lee, circa 1945

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:05 AM

Larry Alpert, 1937-2008

Larry Alpert (left), my Dad, and Larry's wife, Sue (right) at my Bar Mitzvah, 1976.


Dad called this morning to tell me that my Godfather had passed away, his year-long battle with cancer at an end.

Larry Alpert was the son of my Great Aunt Cynthia; she was my Grandmother's sister, and Dad and Larry were the best of friends from their first days back in Brooklyn in the 1930s. Dad, Larry and their Cousin Alvin -- Grandma had ten siblings, so there were many cousins -- were known as the Three Musketeers.


The Three Musketeers, circa 1940. Larry (front row, second from left), Dad (front, second from right), and Alvin (front, far right) were joined at the hip throughout most of the '30s, '40s and '50s. Also in the picture are (back row, from the left) Aunt Phyllis, Great Grandfather Sam Weber, my Grandmother Shirley Lief, and Great Grandmother Sarah Weber. Aunt Lee is standing between Larry and Dad, and I have no idea who the kid is on the far left.


My Godfather was a wonderful man, handsome, funny, tall and strong. Many of my happiest childhood memories are of Dad and Larry laughing uproariously together, of the walks they'd take after dinner, me trailing behind in their wake -- a dangerous place to be with these two, if you take my meaning -- just content to listen to the merriment.


Larry Sue 1963 2.jpg

Larry and Sue in Brooklyn, circa 1962.


Larry was a strapping, athletic man, always the picture of health and vigor. I remember him introducing me to Dodger great Steve Garvey at a pro-am tennis tournament; Garvey didn't look any more athletic than my Godfather, and if memory serves, Larry more than held his own against the baseball star.

My father is devastated by this loss; what with Dad's half-century struggle with diabetes, the possibility that his cousin would depart before him was -- is -- unthinkable.


Larry Alpert the night we met for dinner in Montecito so I could tell him about the woman I was going to marry. I thought he looked rather debonaire that evening, under the cool gaze of Lawrence Olivier and Vincent Price. October 2004.


We're driving to Los Angeles in a few minutes to spend time with Dad, but I wanted to quickly post a few pictures of Larry.

My deepest condolences to his lovely wife, my Cousin Sue, and their children, Dana and Bari.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:26 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack