April 30, 2009
Man of Constant Sorrow
After last night's migraine-inducing presidential news conference, I feel as if I too am a man of constant sorrow. So, what better way to mark the day and the mood than the song from one of my favorite movies, O Brother, Where Art Thou, with a tremendous vocal by Dan Tyminski.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 29, 2009
John Stewart: Idiot
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Cliff May went on The Daily Show to discuss the current uproar over how much force should be used when interrogating terrorists. May, a former journalist who now heads a think tank dedicated to studying and combatting terrorism, made quick work of Stewart, whose favored technique is to issue an impassioned denunciation of conservatives, then claim, "Hey, I'm just a clown!" when confronted by an opponent with a good grasp of the facts.
Critics have likened it to the host taking off his clown nose when he gets serious, then putting the clown nose back on when forced to defend his statements in a sober-minded fashion.
Stewart reveals both his ignorance of history, as well as his moral blindness, when he tells May at about the 5:50 mark that Pres. Harry S. Truman was a war criminal for having ordered the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To recap for those who aren't familiar with their history, the invasion of the Japanese mainland was expected to produce as many as 1 million American casualties. So many Purple Heart medals were struck in anticipation of the huge numbers of wounded GIs, that the World War II-era medals were still being presented to Iraq War veterans, more than 60 years later.
The Japanese were arming women and children with spears, preparing civilians for suicide attacks. Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, the Japanese remained uninterested in surrender. It took the dropping of the second atomic bomb to convince them that further resistance was futile, especially after the Soviet Union decided to declare war on Japan.
This is the context in which Stewart's knee-jerk anti-torture dogma leads him: to condemn the president who acted to end World War II; limit American casualties; and bring an end to the slaughter of our enemies, too.
It's the same logic that rejects waterboarding the terrorist who masterminded the 9-11 attacks in order to prevent an attack on Los Angeles. Whether it would save one life or the lives of a million GIs, torture -- or the A-Bomb -- is never justified, at least in the view of the Stewarts of the world.
In Stewart's -- and the Left's -- eagerness to condemn Americans as war criminals, they've lost sight of the reality of war: It's ugly, brutal, and won by the application of overwhelming force, i.e., breaking things and killing people.
And this allergy to the Hobbesian nature of humanity and war imposes an unrealistic series of expectations on the American Left when it comes to defending our nation.
If we accept Stewart's definition of what is a war crime and who is a war criminal, beginning with Pres. Bush, then F.D.R. was also a war criminal for authorizing the firebombing of Tokyo (which killed many more people than did the A-Bomb attacks); J.F.K. and L.B.J. were war criminals for Viet Nam; and so too was Bill Clinton for giving the Okey-Doke to bombing the Balkans in 1999.
Stewart repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't understand the Geneva Conventions; doesn't understand the difference between Prisoners of War and terrorists who are not signatories to the Conventions; and doesn't understand what constitutes torture.
The comic contradicts himself repeatedly, and ultimately says that terrorists shouldn't be required to provide more than name, rank or serial number. Stewart's back and forth, to-ing and fro-ing on what can and cannot be done to terrorists is ... torture to behold
It's also breathtakingly stupid.
The whole interview is worth watching; Stewart fans who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid should gain a new perspective on their funny little man.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Michael Ramirez
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:26 AM
April 27, 2009
Jimmy Carter: Still the worst ex-president ever
Jimmy Carter, arguable the worst president -- and unquestionably the worst ex-president -- has managed to pen the most idiotic opinion piece on gun control to ever appear in the New York Times, no small accomplishment given both the man and the paper involved.
I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.
That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
Allow me to repeat that, will you? "[N]one of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."
So, only copkillers and mass-murderers own semi-automatic rifles. That'll come as a surprise to the MILLIONS of Americans who own and shoot their weapons without murdering anyone -- or committing suicide.
Unbelievable.
Carter goes on:
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
How is that not the case? Carter is arguing in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles, which would, in fact, result in our weapons being taken away from us. If that doesn't constitute a "real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms," what does?
By the way, another nice slam on gun owners, this time for being stupid -- "gullible" in Jimmah's words.
Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.
What? I'm confused.
Carter began his essay by telling us what a dedicated sportsman he is, reciting the weapons he owns: "four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places."
When Carter repeats the lie that "the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty," does he realize that the hunting rifles he owns are capable of penetrating bulletproof vests? Does he even understand that so-called assault rifles are commonly chambered in small calibers unsuited to hunting big game like deer? Does Carter know that traditional hunting calibers are vastly more powerful than the 5.56 mm round that the AR-15 -- the most common scawy black rifle -- fires?
Using Carter's definitions, why does he feel compelled to own scoped sniper rifles, presumably powerful enough to penetrate the protective gear worn by police officers at great distances?
The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time.
We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
Wow. See what I mean?
If you've ever read a more idiotic attack on gun owners and the Second Amendment, please, let me know.
Gun blogger Alphecca comments:
Oh! And he supports such “modest restraints” as mandatory registration. Hitler did that. The British did that. The Aussies did that. Then, law abiding citizens in those countries had their firearms confiscated. We know what happened in Germany, next.
Now that Jimmy “the failure” Carter has offered his advice to us, allow me to offer some to him: Hey, Jimmy? Go f*ck yourself.
I might not have put it quite that way, but I certainly second the sentiment.
Posted by Mike Lief at 01:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Hope 'N Change: Obama's batting .090
Pres. Obama's batting .090, which would be awful if he were a professional baseball player. As a president, well, it's pretty awful, too.
That translates to 1 in 11, which is how many times he kept a specific campaign promise relating to clean government.
President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it's the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.
As I've said before, every Obama promise comes with an expiration date. Transparency in governance? That had a January 29 sell-by date.
I'm not feeling very hopeful about the change we've seen so far.
New boss, same as the old boss.
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2009
Michael Ramirez
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Obama: Betraying America's defenders
National Review's The Tank, a blog dealing with military matters, features a white-hot post by Steve Schippert, who is well and truly furious over Pres. Obama's betrayal of the American military man.
That's a hell of an accusation, but I think you'll be angry, too, by the time you finish reading it; my distaste for Obama ripened into contempt by the time I was done.
And betrayal is exactly what's happening here, as the commander in chief proves himself unworthy of the position, a mere 100 days into his presidency.
The assault is relentless. It is enraging. And today, the Obama administration's assault on those who dare to defend America from terrorist thugs who rejoice in publicizing beheadings, mass murder, and pure evil are on notice: "You will be punished. We're coming after you."
The target audience now includes the American Warrior. The Obama administration has abdicated the Warrior's defense, refusing to appeal the 2nd Circuit's decision that more photos should be released from investigations of the detention of enemy fighters from the battlefield. The Obama administration has sided with the ACLU and abandoned our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. This cannot stand.
Brace yourselves for the Obama administration's full on assault on the American psyche, while we in the Warrior Class gear up, strap up, and engage in our defense and our nation's defense by taking the fight right back to its source.
Earlier this week, it was the Bush administration's legal advisers, who had the audacity to write opinions on the legal limits of "enhanced interrogation techniques." They dared to include as legal for use against terrorists procedures that are part of our own Special Forces' training. Then yesterday the Obama administration could not resist its instinctive temptation to renege on its original pledge that it would not go after CIA and military interrogators who, as the administration put it, were simply following orders and guidelines determined from above.
Today, the very legacy of the American Warrior is directly under assault as part of that same process.
The Obama administration agreed late Thursday to release dozens of photographs depicting alleged abuse by U.S. personnel during the Bush administration of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least 44 pictures will be released by May 28, making public for the first time images of what the military investigated at facilities other than the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Defense Department officials would not say exactly what is contained in the photos but said they are concerned the release could incite a Mideast backlash.
A Mideast backlash? The Obama administration — and those at the Pentagon not standing up in vociferous defense of its warriors — had better buckle up for an American backlash.
[...]
The photos are not egregious. Not even rising to the level of panties on heads. But no matter. The assault is on. And your president — your Commander in Chief — supports it.
The release of these images serves no practical purpose, except perhaps for "enhanced prosecution techniques" against our own. Understand clearly that the purpose of the release — and the Obama administration’s decision to do so willingly if not energetically — is to denigrate the American Warrior and to further the assault on the American psyche.
Those we were detaining (rather than summarily executing in the field, mind you) were being locked away at a time when beheadings were commonplace, men were being killed by slowly lowering them into 55-gallon drums of acid, and teens refusing to join al-Qaeda in Iraq were being crucified — literally crucified — in the public square and given just enough water to keep them alive and their public suffering great enough to serve as AQ's example to the rest. The children of resistant families were baked in ovens, folks.
And our boys are the evil ones? Not on your bleeping life. Not on my watch. Not on our watch.
From the indispensable Jake Tapper of ABC News, consider this context.
The photographs are part of a 2003 Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU for all information relating to the treatment of detainees — the same battle that led, last week, to President Obama's decision to release memos from the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing legal justifications for harsh interrogation methods that human rights groups call torture.
Courts had ruled against the Bush administration's attempts to keep the photographs from public view. ACLU attorney Amrit Singh tells ABC News that "the fact that the Obama administration opted not to seek further review is a sign that it is committed to more transparency."
No. It is a sign that the Obama administration holds no perceived loyalty to the American Warrior and is, in fact, putting them under assault in a display of loyalty instead to the ACLU. Is your mind calculating this?
Where is our Secretary of Defense?
[...]
Mr. Gates, if you cannot muster the principle and courage to stand against this, then our support for you as the remaining adult on the newly formed children's playground may well have been misplaced. You have instantly become indistinguishable from the rest.
This has me so angry I'm practically spitting out my own teeth. I've had enough. Apologizing to Europe and the Muslim world for America, the warm reception of Chavez, blaming America for Mexican drug cartels' murderous rampages, and the threat of prosecuting Bush administration officials because of their legal opinions on what does and does not constitute torture.
And now, the American warrior class is openly and clearly in the crosshairs in a media campaign to denigrate them and cast dishonor upon them and, once again, America.
The aim of the release is to assault America in the court of public opinion, using the wholly owned media PR subsidiary as the armored assault vehicle. And the administration, through its acquiescence, is at minimum enabling this, choosing consciously to end the public defense of the American warrior class and its very legacy. Perhaps the administration is acting with willful disregard for them by taking direction from the ACLU/Soros/Moveon.org hard Left in a form of electoral quid pro quo. At worst, the administration is directly aligned with them and acting in concert rather than taking direction from them.
Either way, the principled defense of the warrior is over, by choice of the Obama administration in directing the Pentagon to end the defense short of SCOTUS. It is an outright abdication.
I say no. Not now, not ever. The Left got away with an all-out assault on the American veteran and military service during Vietnam. It will not happen again. And most certainly not from the military's own Commander in Chief. Not without a bold, determined, and passionate challenge the likes of which have never been seen.
[...]
The next logical step for this anti-military administration is to submit the American Warrior to the jurisdiction of a kangaroo International Criminal Court. Don't think the American Warrior isn't watching and thinking. International law, rather than American sovereignty, is all the rage these days in the White House after all.
The Warrior will begin to question precisely what it is that he risks all to defend. And when faced with the fact that he may remain undefended in doing so, his risk expands and the once-booming clarion call to service reduces to distant whispers.
And that will be . . . the end.
I don't disagree with a word of this. Pres. Obama's actions over the last few days is nothing short of shameful, deserving of nothing less than contempt and constant condemnation. Who would willingly serve under this man? Who would risk all for his country, knowing that craven politicians -- up to and including the commander in chief himself -- are ready to abandon the very GIs who defend our freedom, for partisan political gain ... and to curry favor with anti-American politicians overseas.
Appalling. But, sadly, not surprising, for nothing done by this administration can truly surprise me anymore, a pretty amazing accomplishment in such a short time.
My admiration and respect for America's soldiers, who comprise the finest professional military in the world, is limitless. Also limitless is my contempt for their commander in chief. I hope Obama pulls back from this series of disgraceful decisions; the stakes are too high, the peril too great, for the military to be so ill served by the president.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:53 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 23, 2009
CIA's spies running scared
The Obama Administration's Hamlet-like indecision about the fate of anyone involved in the interrogation of terrorists held by the U.S. (To prosecute or not to prosecute, that is the question ...), coupled with the apalling decision to release the classified memos dealing with the interrogation policy, has the CIA running scared.
As a general rule, when fighting a ruthless enemy dedicated to your nation's destruction, it's not a good idea to have your cloak and dagger types looking over their shoulders, more worried about the threat from American politicians and Federal prosecutors than the terrorists themselves.
The Washington Post's David Ignatius reports that the threat of criminal prosecutions is having an entirely predictable result.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway."
President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA workforce during a visit to Langley on Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors.
By yesterday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means.
Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians.
[...]
Put yourself in the shoes of the people who were asked to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners in 2002. One former officer told me he declined the job, not because he thought the program was wrong but because he knew it would blow up. "We all knew the political wind would change eventually," he recalled. Other officers who didn't make that cynical but correct calculation are now "broken and bewildered," says the former operative.
[...]
One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called "risk of capture" interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and "pocket litter" were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
The fallout from our feckless president's handling of the issue isn't limited to just our own intelligence services; Ignatius says that foreign governments -- our allies in this war -- are hesitant to share their intel with us, act on our behalf, because they have no confidence that what they do or say won't end up on the front page of the New York Times ... or on a teleprompter as Pres. Obama delivers yet another mea culpa for America's alleged misdeeds.
Former Vice Pres. Cheney stirred up the Obamabots when he said that the release of the interrogation memos had damaged national security, that Pres. Obama's actions had made us less safe.
News like this -- that our spies are running scared, that our allies' spymasters are loathe to help us -- seem to confirm the validity of Cheney's charge.
Say what you will about the failures of the previous administration, no terrorist succeeded in carrying out an attack on U.S. soil after September 11, 2001. And, as was revealed by Pres. Obama's director of intelligence in a memo this week, the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration foiled a mass terror attack on Los Angeles.
Who will be willing to prevent another such attack?
Thanks to Pres. Obama, it's uncertain that there'll be any volunteers at Langley.
Hope 'n change.
Are you feeling safer?
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:17 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 20, 2009
Obama: Lying about American guns and Mexican violence
A friend said to me the other day, "Why are you so worried about Obama banning guns? He said he wasn't going to, and besides, the Supreme Court said gun ownership is an individual right."
I reminded him that everything Obama says, every promise he makes, comes with an expiration date. And, notwithstanding the pro-Second Amendment Heller decision from the Supreme Court, and today's good news out of the Ninth Circuit, the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms is at risk with Obama in the White House and Pelosi running the House.
Obama has been quick to blame the narcotics-related violence in Mexico on American guns, and has indicated a willingness to sign an international treaty banning the sale of small arms, something that would inevitably result in limiting the gun rights of Americans.
The problem is, however, that the numbers spouted by the president are pure, unadulterated bunk.
The Washington Times took the president to task in today's editorial for his snake-oil gun control salesmanship.
[W]hen it comes to guns, President Obama is lying through his teeth.
On Thursday, while on a visit to Mexico, the president continued his Blame America First tour. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States," he said, referring to the drug wars that are tearing apart our neighbor to the south. "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border."
It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.
Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
Democrats aren't alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns - and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.
It is ridiculous for Mr. Obama to blame Mexico's lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement officers has nothing to do with it.
One of the root causes of corruption is low pay. Mexican police earn $460 a month, sometimes less, which makes bribes hard to resist. There are about 350,000 policemen in Mexico. The $400 million Mr. Obama has promised for his anti-gun program could raise the annual salary of every Mexican cop by $1,143, a 21 percent increase. But the president wouldn't be interested in that because his real agenda is to pursue gun control here at home.
And that, my friends, is why I'm not reassured by Obama's insistence that he's uninterested in going after guns "right now," because every indication is that he'll be quite interested soon enough. And when that time comes, it'll be couched in dulcet, teleprompter-fed lines about shared sacrifice on behalf of our Mexican neighbors, and how we must "think of the children."
What about that pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court? With a number of retirements a sure thing during this presidential term, the nominees certain to get the nod from Obama will not, I promise you, be interested in expanding upon Heller. We'll be lucky if the Obama Court -- God help us! -- doesn't quickly move to erase Heller from the books, ridding us of the inconvenient and embarrassing Second Amendment.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
A picture is worth a thousand words
Given the ease with which Obama bloviates -- at least when in the presence of two or more teleprompters -- a well-drawn graphic can help separate the wheat from his chaff.
In this case, take a gander at just how significant -- "ludicrous" is my preference -- the president's proposed spending cuts are, when put in context.
The Heritage Foundation quotes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who says:
To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year–approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.
Talk about misdirection: Watch how I put a penny back in your pocket with one hand, while I take a trillion pennies from your piggie bank with my other hand.
Obama is playing us for suckers, and implicit in that is a deep and abiding contempt for the voters, who are apparently too stupid (in the president's opinion) to understand just how insignificant this cut is.
Ed Morrisey notes that cutting $100 million from the $3.5 trillion budget for FY2010 represents a decrease of 0.0029%.
Obama apparently wants to answer the Tea Parties by showing that he’s capable of limiting the growth of government, but $100 million barely registers in Washington these days — and certainly does nothing to slow down the Obama spending juggernaut.
[...]
The cuts that Obama proposes don’t even amount to 1% of the pork Obama signed into law last month in the omnibus spending bill.
This is fiscal irresponsibility on a scale so massive as to almost be beyond human comprehension. And before you begin with the "Well, where were you when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor?", two responses.
First, I hold Pres. Bush and the corrupt Republicans in Congress responsible for their spending; do so now and did so then, which is why I am not a member of the GOP, aka the Stupid Party.
Second, notwithstanding the above, Obama and his cohorts -- including the Democratic Party hacks who have controlled the Congress for more than two years -- have managed in less than 100 days to make Pres. Bush and the GOP look like paragons of fiscal virtue and restraint.
You really can't look at this graphic too much.
This is the overall federal debt B.O. (before Obama) and P.O. (post Obama). Note well that Pres. Bush on his worst day couldn't preside over deficits like these, even with the help of all the feckless crapweasels in Congress.
Someone once observed, when musing on the numbing affect of large numbers, "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
The same principle is at work here, albeit with dead presidents, as opposed to dead enemies of the State. The numbers are so vast that the government is counting on us becoming numb to how awful they are.
But measures like this -- stupidly small cuts -- serve only to remind people how bad things are, when $100 million represents chump change.
And that quote? Political wisdom from the greatest mass-murdering tyrant of the 20th Century, Josef Stalin, who made Hitler look like an amateur, killing more of his own people than the Austrian paperhanger managed in four years of total war.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2009
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Posted by Mike Lief at 08:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 17, 2009
Creepy Strokes
I never did care for the sitcom Diff'rent Strokes, mainly because the central conceit (rich white guy adopts lovable inner-city black kids) just didn't seem very funny.
But I apparently missed another problem with the concept, summarized by Stacy Nosek at Pajiba:
Diff’rent Strokes” was one of my favorite shows as a kid, but you never quite realize how creepy an old, single, white dude adopting a couple cute inner-city kids is until you see it like this.
She's absolutely right. With a different musical score and some tweaks to the color by YouTuber Monty Propps, this is a very diff'rent take, indeed.
Posted by Mike Lief at 04:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Tom Clancy's film adaptations
Sean Connery, right, and Sam Neill, second from right, are the Skipper and Second-in-Command of the Soviet Union's biggest and baddest ballistic missile sub, The Red October.
Novelist Tom Clancy first appeared on my reading radar back in 1984, when I was serving aboard the USS Blueback (SS-581), one of the United States Navy's last diesel-electric submarines. Clancy, an insurance salesman with a keen interest in military affairs, took the real-life Storzhevoi mutiny (Soviet officer seizes control of his destroyer and plans to broadcast a denunciation of the Brezhnev regime; the ship is attacked and disabled by Soviet aircraft strafing runs ... and the mutiny leader is later executed) and transferred the plot to the gigantic ballistic missile submarine, the Red October.
The novel, The Hunt For Red October, which received a huge celebrity endorsement when then-Pres. Reagan was spotted holding a copy and said that it was a great read, was very popular in the fleet. I had many conversations with fellow submariners about the accuracy of the novel; Clancy got it right, all of it. We thought that he must have been getting a lot of inside scoop from contacts in the Silent Service, because there was no way a civilian could have captured the way we did business with such an eye for detail.
Yeah, that's former GOP Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson as a U.S. Navy Admiral in The Hunt For Red October. Alec Baldwin is in the background
The Hunt For Red October became an exciting film in 1990, starring Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan, Sean Connery as Capt. Ramius, the commanding officer of the Soviet Boomer, and Sam Neill, James Earl Jones, Scott Glenn, Tim Curry and Fred Thompson in supporting roles. Directed by John McTiernan, it was a taut thriller, nearly as good as the novel, suffering little in the way of Hollywood glamorization or script lobotomization.
About the only thing that bothered me was the dramatic lighting effects aboard the subs, especially the far-too-bright instrument panel lights. Those buttons and gauges were blinding!
Baldwin was very good as Ryan, and I was disappointed to hear that he'd bowed out of the sequel, in favor of starring in Streetcar Named Desire on Broadway.
Harrison Ford takes out an IRA terrorist in his first film portrayal of Jack Ryan in Patriot Games.
His replacement, Harrison Ford, was good in the second film, Patriot Games (1992), but was looking a little long in the tooth by the time he appeared in the third film, Clear and Present Danger (1994).
That's Jack Ryan? The hero of Red October and Patriot Games? The doofus on the right, sitting behind Morgan Freeman? Okaaaaaaay. I don't think so.
The producers did a reboot for the fourth screen adaptation of a Jack Ryan novel, casting Ben Affleck in 2002's The Sum of All Fears. Affleck was as far from Harrison Ford's gravitas-laden, grim take on the protagonist as you can imagine, short of casting Clay Aiken in the lead, but that was the least of the film's problems.
The novel dealt with a plot by Muslim terrorists to acquire a nuclear weapon -- lost by the Israelis in the '73 War -- and smuggle it into the United States, conceal it at the Superbowl, and vaporize thousands of Americans.
Paramount Studios decided that it was impolitic to pick on Muslims; the whole crazed jihadi thing was overdone, doncha' know? And who'd believe a bunch of Muslims would actually try and kill thousands of Americans? It'd be suicide! Suicide, I tell you!.
In a bit of politically correct stupidity, the bad guys became neo-Nazis, white supremacists intent on avenging Uncle Adolf's defeat, lead by the oily, evil Alan Bates, doing his best, "Vee haff vays awf makink you tok" German accent.
Gack.
Between Affleck's smooth-browed earnestness and Bates' moustache-twirling line delivery, it was hard to decide which bomb was bigger: the film or the nuke in the stadium. Even the presence of Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell and Liev Schreiber couldn't save this mess.
DVD Verdict reviewed the recently released Blu-Ray version of the flick; the critic wasn't as down on the film as I am, but he did recount what sounds like a must-listen commentary track.
[A] second commentary is nothing short of a knockout. [Director Phil Alden] Robinson is joined by author Tom Clancy, who proves to be a particularly tough critic.
He begins the commentary by saying, "I'm Tom Clancy, the guy who wrote the book they ignored." It just gets harsher from there. Clancy is eager to point out every single instance in which Robinson made a technical mistake, which is often painfully funny. "Ha…those people would never say anything that pointless." "This scene is childish." "That thing you did there…that's total bulls—t."
One of my favorite exchanges:
Clancy: Is that supposed to be a bomb or a torpedo?
Robinson: It's a bomb.
Clancy: Huh. You've got all the dimensions completely wrong.
Robinson: Wait…actually, no, it's a torpedo.
Clancy: The dimensions are still way off.
Clancy begrudgingly acknowledges a few small moments that he thought were nice, but mostly is content to sit back and take huge swipes at Robinson's work. After a while, Robinson starts becoming so fearful of Clancy's criticisms that he becomes quick to try and point out any possible technical flaws in each scene before Clancy can beat him to it. However, you can also sense him getting genuinely pissed off as things proceed, which can be particularly heard in one moment:
Clancy: You know, the President in the book was based on Michael Dukakis. Left-wingers are actually more likely to turn to nuclear weapons as a last resort, because they tend to get themselves backed up against a wall and then have nothing left to do. Right-wingers tend to catch that sort of thing earlier. I'm not saying that for political reasons, I'm just saying that tends to be the case more often than not.
Robinson (in a cold and extremely harsh manner): Oh, I will be glad to debate that point with you at some other time…sir.
I don't know what Paramount was thinking when they decided to include this track, but I'm so grateful they did. It's been a long time since I've heard a commentary this savagely entertaining.
Sounds like I may have to pick up a copy in the used bin at the local video store, just to listen to Clancy beat up on the hapless director.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 15, 2009
Et tu, WSJ?
The Wall Street Journal ran an article today on the surge in gun and ammo sales during the first few months of the Obama administration, with the problematic title, Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up, and the sub-hed, Buyers Foresee Anti-Weapon Legislation; Collectors Hope to Get Bang for Their Bucks.
The way Jay Chambers sees it, the semiautomatic weapons in his firearm collection might be the most promising investment in his financial portfolio.
Like many gun enthusiasts, Mr. Chambers, a manager for a door wholesaler here, believes President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress soon will reimpose a version of an expired federal ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons. If such a law passes, he figures his collection -- enough guns, ammo magazines and weapon parts to assemble about 30 AK-47s, AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles -- could triple in value.
"A guy could easily make a lot of money," says Mr. Chambers, 47 years old, while at Autrey's Armory, a gun store about 20 miles south of Atlanta.
Purchases of guns and ammunition are surging across the country. Nearly four million background checks -- a key measure of sales because they are required at the purchase of a gun from a federally licensed seller -- were performed in the first three months of 2009. That is a 27% increase over the same period a year earlier, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
No one knows exactly what is behind the gun-buying craze. Some buyers say they are stocking up for themselves in anticipation of new gun-control laws, while others say they're worried about deteriorating public safety as the economy worsens.
But it's also clear that part of the gun-buying rally is driven by people like Mr. Chambers who are buying weapons the way others invest in a hot stock. The buying is pumping up prices. Many popular models of guns are back-ordered for a year or more. Some manufacturers are operating plants 24 hours a day. According to the 2009 edition of the Blue Book of Gun Values, the average price of European-made AK-47s -- the famous Soviet-era military weapon now made in several countries -- doubled from $350 last September to more than $700 by the end of 2008.
I find the title problematic because it betrays an anti-gun -- or should I say anti-gun owner? -- bias. One would have thought that a publication like the Journal, dedicated as it is to the inherent worth of capitalism and the investors who power the dynamo that is our economy (sputtering though it may be) would be a little less snarky when it comes to ordinary Joes wanting to get a good return on their hard-earned dollars. The Journal doesn't usually consider wanting to turn a profit to be a bad thing, and I think most fair-minded observers agree that "greed" is a loaded word, one the Journal and its editors don't often use (read: never) to describe investors.
Anyhow, buried in the article is a line that caught my attention. The author says that rapacious gunsellers are taking advantage of American's fears of new restriction on the sale of weapons, "despite signs that major changes in federal weapons regulations are unlikely. " This credulous assertion is supported by this:
The White House says there are no imminent plans to reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban. "The president supports the Second Amendment and respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country," a White House spokesman said.
Really? No imminent plans? That makes me feel so much better. Although, now that I think about it, not having an "imminent" plan isn't quite the same thing as not having a plan, period.
Given that every promise -- and I do mean every promise -- made by candidate Obama comes with an expiration date, I can't say that I find the Journal's parroting of the White House line particularly comforting.
I suspect that when the Obama administration decides it has the votes, the not-so-imminent plan will suddenly become a lot more immediate.
And, given the tone of the article, I also suspect the Journal won't have much of a problem with said ban.
Here's a newsflash for the author, who seems to have missed the forest for the trees: The surge in gun and ammo sales aren't motivated by greed. They are, instead, a perfectly rational reaction to statements about "no imminent" gun bans, statements that make anyone who might even consider someday buying a gun decide that that someday is today.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Movie alert:
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:17 PM
April 14, 2009
CPT William "Bill" Moran, CSMR, 1953-2009
CPT William "Bill" Moran explains legal documents he prepared for a California National Guardsman getting ready to head to Iraq, during a pre-deployment mission at Camp Roberts, California. (Click on image for larger version)
When Bill Moran passed away last month, a hard drive crash prevented me from posting pictures of him doing what he loved best: Helping the troops before they headed into harm's way. Thankfully, a backup drive has yielded the photos I was looking for.
The GI seems overwhelmed by Bill's explanation, but Bill always managed to make the most arcane subjects easy to understand, if not exactly scintillating. Trust me, nobody can make this stuff exciting, especially for a soldier operating on little (read: no) sleep. (Click on image for larger version)
These shots, taken at Camp Roberts, Calif., during the Spring of 2007, are how I remember Bill, intensely focused on the GI as he explained the will he'd drafted, going over why giving power of attorney to the new girlfriend was a terrible idea, and using his many years of experience as a lawyer to clearly and concisely lay out the advantages (many) and disadvantages (few) of having an Advanced Medical Directive ready, just in case. As one trooper explained to me, "Plan for the worst and hope for the best, right, Sir?"
Right.
Bill and his fellow CSMR JAG officers stand in front of one of the tanks on display at the Camp Roberts Museum. Pictured, left to right: CPT Michael Lief, CPT William "Bill" Moran, CPT Andrew Pharies, CPT Thomas Belden, and CPT Andrew Brooks. (Click on image for larger version)
You can see pictures of Bill's final journey here.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 13, 2009
Sailing Around the Cape
Powerline's John Hinderaker posted this video of Irving Johnson's 1929 passage around Cape Horn in a clipper ship, noting that it gives a filmic glimpse of a long-gone era, where, apart from the motion picture camera, everything else about the voyage was straight out of centuries past.
Hinderaker points to the enormous seas that batter the Peking as it rounds the Cape, but I'm just as impressed by the devil-may-care training regime Johnson demonstrates at the film's beginning, especially the measures to ensure he'll not be paralyzed with fear when atop the towering masts.
Well worth a watch for sailors and other scurvy types.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 12, 2009
Why does the Justice Department want an informant killed?
Have you heard about the informant who helped bust the notorious House of Death down in Mexico? That's the place where corrupt cops murdered anyone the drug lords deemed a threat, burying the bodies in the suburban backyard, covered with lime to dissolve the corpses.
If Bill Conroy's account is accurate, this informant, while working undercover for ICE, participated in the murders of at least 11 people.
All that aside, when the assignment was done and he could emerge from the shadows, this informant, essentially a walking corpse south of the border thanks to his having turned on the narco bosses, could at least look forward to refuge in the U.S. for his service, right?
Not so much.
According to Conroy's report, the U.S. government is trying to deport him back to Mexico, all the while acknowledging that this is a death sentence. But that's the point, for Ramirez Peyro is an embarrassment to DEA, ICE and the Justice Department, the last "loose end" (as Conroy calls him) in a cover up drenched in blood and corruption.
The House of Death murders, which occurred between August 2003 and mid-January 2004, took place in Juarez under the watch of the Bush administration, as did the cover-up of the U.S. government’s complicity in those murders — orchestrated at the highest levels of the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The informant, Ramirez Peyro, a former Mexican police officer, while working as an informant for ICE, assisted a cell of the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes drug organization in carrying out those murders. That cell was headed by an individual named Heriberto Santillan-Tabares, who was eventually arrested in the U.S. on murder and drug-trafficking charges, but later negotiated a plea deal with the U.S. Attorney overseeing the case, Johnny Sutton. The plea bargain resulted in the murder charges against Santillan being dropped, and he was handed a 25-year prison sentence.
After participating in the first murder and informing his ICE handlers of that fact, the informant Ramirez Peyro was authorized by ICE and the Department of Justice, including Sutton’s office, to continue on his mission — resulting in at least 11 more murders and the near assassination of a DEA agent and his family.
This all played out despite the fact that U.S. Attorney Sutton (a “dear friend” of former President Bush who remains in office as of now under the Obama administration) had enough evidence to close out the investigation against Santillan several months prior to the first House of Death murder. Instead, Sutton chose to allow the informant to continue his bloody work — for which the U.S. government paid Ramirez Peyro some $220,000.
And when Gonzalez, at the time the chief of DEA’s office in El Paso, Texas, sought to expose the U.S. government’s complicity in the needless carnage, via a memo drafted and delivered to Sutton in February 2004, rather than investigate the charges, U.S. Attorney Sutton chose instead to use his connections within the Department of Justice to retaliate against the whistleblower and assure his message was silenced. And to this day, the cover-up continues — with the silencing of the informant Ramirez Peyro one of the few remaining loose strings.
It's a fascinating read.
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Those who cannot remember the past ...
George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But sometimes even knowing the past doesn't matter, for neither willful ignorance nor full awareness of our planet's history will effect terrestrial outcomes impervious to our infinitesimally insignificant influence.
The Earth doesn't give a damn whether humans remember the past; climate cycles continue across a timeline spanning billions of years, reacting to forces powerful beyond all human understanding and interactions incomprehensible to even those would-be intellectual titans who claim omniscience. Even Pacific Island Cargo Cults might infer that the blazing Sun in the heavens above might play a larger part in the planet's temperature than whether or not I've got the wrong kind of flat panel TV on my wall or the wrong kind of auto in my driveway.
Matt Patterson thinks it's the height of hubris to blame global warming on humans. Or the euphemism d'jour, "Climate Change."
(As an aside, I particularly like AGW, short for "Anthropogenic Global Warming." It makes me feel like a fabulously wealthy and overweight Nobel Prize-winning former vice president whenever I say it. But I digress.)
As a matter of fact, all things being equal, global warming is a good thing, no matter who -- or what -- is responsible. Actually, if we bothered to look to the planet's history, and the short portion that includes humans, we'd realize that which goes up, invariably comes down, and humanity's fortunes seem to track with the planet's temperature.
Hard to believe some silly people are deathly afraid of warming weather — worried sick because the earth has warmed a degree or two over the last 150 years.
Make no mistake — the earth has warmed. Unfortunately for the climate-change catastrophists, warming periods have occurred throughout recorded history, long before the Industrial Revolution and SUVs began spitting man-made carbon into the atmosphere. And as might be expected, these warm periods have invariably proven a blessing for humanity. Consider:
Around the 3rd century B.C., the planet emerged from a long cold spell. The warm period which followed lasted about 700 years, and since it coincided with the rise of Pax Romana, it is known as the Roman Warming.
In the 5th century A.D., the earth’s climate became cooler. Cold and drought pushed the tribes of northern Europe south against the Roman frontier. Rome was sacked, and the Dark Ages commenced. And it was a dark age, both metaphorically and literally — the sun’s light dimmed and gave little warmth; harvest seasons grew shorter and yielded less. Life expectancy and literacy plummeted. The plague appeared and decimated whole populations.
Then, inexplicably, about 900 A.D. things began to warm. This warming trend would last almost 400 years, a well documented era known as the Medieval Warm Period. Once again, as temperatures rose harvests and populations grew. Vineyards made their way into Northern Europe, including Britain. Art and science flourished in what we now know as the Renaissance.
Then around 1300 A.D. things cooled drastically. This cold spell would last almost 500 years, a severe climate event known as the Little Ice Age. Millions died in famine as glaciers advanced all over the world. The plague returned. In Greenland, the Norse colony that had been established during the Medieval Warming froze and starved. Arctic pack ice descended south, pushing Inuit peoples to the shores of Scotland. People ice skated on the Thames; they walked from Staten Island to Manhattan over a frozen New York Harbor. The year 1816 was remembered as the year without a summer, with some portions of the Northern Hemisphere seeing snowfall in June.
But around 1850 the planet began to warm up yet again. Glaciers retreated. Temperatures rose. This is the warming period which we are still enjoying today. And once again, the warmth brought bounty: The last 150 years have seen an explosion in life expectancy, population, and scientific progress like never before.
Of course, even before the appearance of humans, the earth alternated throughout its history between extremes of heat and cold: 700 million years ago the planet was covered entirely in ice; 55 million years ago, a swampy greenhouse.
Why? What drives these ancient cycles? There are a lot of theories. The waxing and waning of solar output; cosmic rays and their role in cloud formation; the earth moving through plumes of galactic dust as it travels up and down through the arm of the Milky Way; plate tectonics redirecting the ocean currents; vulcanism. Perhaps it is a combination of all of these things. Perhaps it is something as yet undiscovered.
One thing for sure that it’s not: SUVs.
Why, then, do otherwise sensible people believe that we are both causing the current warming and that the warmth is a bad thing? To me it seems some grotesque combination of narcissism and self-loathing, a mentality that says at once “I am so important that my behavior is causing this” and “I am so inherently tainted that it must be bad.”
For these self-hating humans who want us to cut our carbs (carbons, not carbohydrates), I say relax and enjoy the warmth while it lasts.
Because it won’t. No matter what we do, the ice and the cold and the dark will come again. That should be our worry.
I think the historical record trumps the hysterical broken record that is the Al Gore-helmed environmental extremist movement, but that presupposes there's a genuine interest in science, and a concern for the planet. Call me cynical, but I think the Global Baloney thing is more about achieving greater governmental control of our lives, and the concomitant reduction in our freedoms to choose how we live.
Freedom is, after all, the allergen that triggers anaphylactic shock in the smothering bosom of the nanny state, and, like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in an peanut allergy-sensitive elementary school, something to be avoided at all costs.
I can't help but think that someday we'll be huddling in our woefully under-insulated homes, bemoaning the crops lost to encroaching glaciers and pitifully short growing seasons, remembering with fondness the warm days and seemingly endless summers of the early 21st century, and wondering what ever happened to that Chicken Little Gore fellow and his pathetic band of fellow hysterics, as we toss another copy of An Inconvenient Truth on the fire.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 11, 2009
Tattoo stupidity
Of all the idiocy that people choose to ink on their bodies, the one that I find most mystifying is the urge by Westerners to get tattoos of Chinese or Japanese symbols, relying upon the linguistic skills of the fellow wielding the needlegun at some hole-in-the-wall ink parlor.
What's the point of getting a tattoo that neither you nor 99 percent of the people you meet can read? So you can feel superior as you explain to the curious what your oh-so deep tat means?
Apparently I'm not alone; there's a website dedicated to posting examples of rather permanent typos: Hanzi Smatter, labelled by the blogger as "dedicated to the misuse of chinese characters in western culture."
For instance, someone e-mailed Hanzi about a co-worker's tatoo.
I was talking about your website with a co-worker of mine, in reference to one of your articles. She wanted me to find out if the tattoo she got really means what she wanted it to mean (obviously!). Here is a pic of her tattoo. She thinks it means "Bitch." What does it look like to you?
Hanzis Matter replied:
Why would anyone wanted to label themselves in such negative way?
Typically bitch as noun is translated as 母狗 and 婊子 as slang.
What this woman tattooed 贱女 really means "cheap whore".
Heh.
Celebrities are just as prone to his madness, or should I say, even more so.
Here's NBA player Marcus Camby's tattoo. Tian explains:
Usually the character 族 is used in Chinese referring to a certain ethnic group. In this case, without any detailed explanation, Camby's tattoo means he is a member of the 勉 ethnic group, which is nonexistent.
Nothing like letting the world know that you're proud of your imaginary heritage.
That reminds me of a short-lived sitcom I saw a few years ago on NBC; it dealt with this very subject, and thanks to the wonders of YouTube, I've tracked it down for your viewing pleasure.
If you don't feel like watching, here's the Cliff Notes version:
Jan. 11, 2005 episode of NBC's new sitcom "Committed", there is a story about Bowie's (Darius McCrary) Chinese character tattoo.
The next day at the record store Nate and Bowie talk about how Nate needs to throw all his crap out. The Chinese delivery guy shows up and tells Bowie that his tattoo doesn't mean "Fiery Strength," it actually means "Lil' B*tch." Bowie doesn't take that well.
Another Chinese delivery guy shows up and Bowie has him translate his tattoo. He says it means, "Of two men who love each other, you are the one who plays the woman."
Bowie is picking out a new tattoo, and the tattoo guy suggests picking another Chinese character. Bowie doesn't trust the poster of them on the wall, but starts to look at a Chinese food menu.
Bowie is on the subway and a guy compliments his tattoo. He asks if Bowie knows what it means and he says "Lemon Chicken." When the guy says that Bowie must really like lemon chicken, Bowie says, "I do now."
If you must mark yourself for all eternity with a pithy catchphrase or slogan, do yourself a favor and stick to your mother tongue.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Darwin Awards: German edition
In what must have come as a terrible shock, a whackjob at a German zoo leaned that cute, fluffy polar bears aren't particularly interested in being our friends. As a matter of fact, it seems that the bears -- basically land sharks -- think humans are particularly tasty.
According to the Telegraph (U.K.):
Zoo keepers saved the life of a German woman who jumped into a polar bear enclosure at Berlin Zoo by pushing away of one of the animals when it attacked her.
The keepers' bravery was praised after they dragged the 32-year-old out of a moat for the animals. They had to shove the animal out of the way after one of four polar bears dived into the water and attacked her, inflicting serious bites to her legs and arms.
[...]
Police did not say why the woman jumped into the enclosure. She had to climb over a fence, a line of prickly hedges and a wall to get in.
She suffered serious injuries after being bitten on her arms and legs.
[...]
"The woman has proved herself to be careless by jumping into the enclosure," a police spokesman said afterwards. "Logic tells us that polar bears will do this type of thing in this situation."
"Careless"? I love that understated, droll Deutsche sense of humor.
And they say Germans aren't funny.
Here's the video of the zookeepers short-circuiting Darwinian selection. The gene pool is worse off for her good fortune.
Posted by Mike Lief at 06:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Why didn't I think of that?
This seems like a good way to free up space for more rifles and shotguns in a gunsafe. Good for me, bad for my wallet.
Posted by Mike Lief at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
What a jerk: Billy Bob Thornton (Update)
A number of people seem to think that Thornton's on-air meltdown during an interview with his band was nothing more than a publicity stunt. If true, it seems to be working really well.
The Associated Press reports:
Billy Bob Thornton's band has canceled the rest of its Canadian tour after the actor compared the country's fans to mashed potatoes with no gravy in a testy interview that caused a sensation online.
The Boxmasters opened for Willie Nelson on Thursday in Toronto, where they reportedly were booed and met with catcalls of "Here comes the gravy."
A note posted on Nelson's Web site Friday said the Boxmasters were canceling the rest of their Canadian dates "due to one band member and several of the crew having the flu."
The cancellation came two days after Thornton made world headlines with a belligerent appearance on CBC radio's "Q."
The actor apparently didn't like that host Jian Ghomeshi started the interview with references to Thornton's Hollywood career.
Thornton refused to answer many of Ghomeshi's questions directly, mumbling: "I don't know what you're talking about." He later said Ghomeshi's producers had been told ahead of time not to talk about his film career.
Thornton also had some unkind words for Canadian crowds.
"Canadian audiences seem to be very reserved," he told Ghomeshi. "We tend to play places where people throw things at each other. Here, they just sort of sit there. And it doesn't matter what you say to 'em. ... It's mashed potatoes but no gravy."
Before his Thursday night gig, Thornton tried to clarify those remarks, saying he loved Canada and his "mashed potatoes" comment had been aimed at Ghomeshi.
What a tool.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 08, 2009
What a jerk: Billy Bob Thornton
Actors and other entertainers are best served by remaining elusive offstage, preserving some degree of mystery for audiences, so we may suspend disbelief and accept that they are someone else while on screen, or lose ourselves in a song for a few moments without thinking about the lunatic behind the microphone.
This interview with actor Billy Bob Thornton and the members of the band The Boxmasters is a case in point. CBC host Jian Ghomeshi does a fine job of dealing with Thornton, who is revealed as perhaps the world's biggest celebrity a-hole -- much to the consternation of his bandmates. Check out the expression on one of the band members at 09:08 as Billy Bob does his best to ruin their interview.
If I ever see another Thornton film (unlikely now), memories of this interview will certain taint the experience.
What a jerk.
Let me leave you with his best performance, wherein Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp demonstrates how to deal with a bully.
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:58 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
New threat to passenger jets
EMP -- Electromagnetic Pulse -- is a surge of energy generated by the detonation of a nuclear bomb, capable of frying the circuits of any electrical device lacking sufficient shielding. The military has gone to great lengths to protect its planes, ships and tanks, but consumer products are particularly vulnerable.
The electronic ignitions in modern automobiles would be instantly fried after an EMP, rendering the vehicles useless. There's a frightening novel out -- One Second After -- that postulates a post-EMP America: Let's just say overpopulation isn't a problem.
Consider this: Most farm equipment, like the combines that harvest the crops, contain multiple systems vulnerable to EMP. How do the crops get harvested if the equipment won't run? And even if it did, how would you get it to market, if the trucks and trains have had their electronic brains lobotomized? And even if you could get it to market, there's be no way to refrigerate it, thanks to the A/C plants and refrigeration units being zapped.
Of course, you'd need electricity to power all the stuff used to keep food from spoiling.
Did I mention that another side effect of a massive EMP is the overloading and destruction of the electrical grid?
Well, at least we know this nightmare scenario won't -- can't -- happen, because the bad guys don't have nukes.
Right?
Have you heard of the North Koreans and the Iranians lately?
Anyhow, the even worse news is that you don't actually need a nuke to generate an EMP. As a matter of fact, you can do a fair amount of damage with a portable device, one that could, say, fit in your luggage -- and destroy an airliner's electronic components. All of them. Turning your flight into a gigantic lawn dart.
New Scientist reports:
ELECTROMAGNETIC pulse weapons capable of frying the electronics in civil airliners can be built using information and components available on the net, warn counterterrorism analysts.
All it would take to bring a plane down would be a single but highly energetic microwave radio pulse blasted from a device inside a plane, or on the ground and trained at an aircraft coming in to land.
Yael Shahar, director of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, and her colleagues have analysed electromagnetic weapons in development or used by military forces worldwide, and have discovered that there is low-cost equipment available online that can act in similar ways. "These will become more of a threat as the electromagnetic weapons technology matures," she says.
For instance, the US and Russian military have developed electromagnetic pulse (EMP) warheads that create a radio-frequency shockwave. The radio pulse creates an electric field of many hundreds of thousands of volts per metre, which induces currents that burn out nearby electrical systems, such as microchips and car electronics.
Speculation persists that such "e-bombs" have been used in the Persian Gulf, and in Kosovo and Afghanistan - but this remains unconfirmed. But much of what the military is doing can be duplicated by others, Shahar says. "Once it is known that aircraft are vulnerable to particular types of disruption, it isn't too much of a leap to build a device that can produce that sort of disruption. And much of this could be built from off-the-shelf components or dual-use technologies."
For example, government labs use high-energy EMP devices to test what would happen to critical electronic systems if a nuclear weapon detonated, generating a vast electromagnetic pulse, says Robert Iannini, founder of Information Unlimited in Amherst, New Hampshire, which sells EMP test systems.
EMPs can be created in a number of ways. A machine called a Marx generator can quickly dump an extremely high charge stored in a bank of capacitors into an antenna, which then releases a highly energetic radio pulse. Devices like this are often used to test power lines for their resistance to lightning strikes. An alternative, known as a flux compression device, uses a small explosive to push an armature through a current-carrying coil that is generating a magnetic field. This compresses the magnetic field, again producing a devastating EMP.
[...]
But Shahar told delegates at the annual Directed Energy Weapons conference in London last month that security at some labs can be lax, while basic EMP generators can be built from descriptions available online, using components found in devices such as digital cameras. "These are technologically unchallenging to build and most of the information necessary is available," she says.
The increasing use of carbon-fibre reinforced composite in aircraft fuselages is also making them more vulnerable, she says, because composites provide poor shielding against electromagnetic radiation compared with metal. "What is needed is extensive shielding of electronic components and the vast amount of cables running down the length of the aircraft," she says.
When a defector delivered one of the Soviet Union's MiG Foxbat jets to the West back in the 1976, aviation analysts couldn't wait to get a closer look at what was then the world's hottest interceptor. Their initial response, once they had an opportunity to get up close and personal with the jet, was derisive laughter.
The Foxbat, although big, fast and sleek, was built like a tank, with last-generation technology, including vacuum tubes and cable-and-pulley control systems.
The laughter faded away when someone well versed in the effects of EMP pointed out that those vacuum tubes were quite happy to keep working after an EMP, while higher-tech U.S. jets would likely fall out of the sky like mallards on the opening day of duck season, thanks to their EMP-vulnerable control systems.
An EMP device capable of destroying vast swathes of the American infrastructure would have to be detonated at high altitude over the North American continent.
Thankfully, no nations hostile to the U.S. seem to be capable of -- or interested in -- fielding a rocket able to put a nuke-powered EMP device over the American heartland.
Nor do any hostile powers seem to be close to acquiring the nukes necessary to easily fry our silicon-controlled economy.
Except for North Korea and Iran.
But they're not interested in getting nukes, or harming us. I know that because Pres. Obama tells me so.
Which is why I'll sleep so soundly tonight.
Or, to paraphrase the president, "What, me worry?"
Posted by Mike Lief at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 04, 2009
Michael Ramirez
Posted by Mike Lief at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Your president is a sheik's obedient servant
The silence in the media about Pres. Obama bowing to the Saudi King is deafening; it reveals the complete and utter failure of journalists to fulfill the most basic function of their trade: Report the news, especially when the president does something noteworthy.
Lord knows, Pres. Bush couldn't screw up without the media gleefully repeating the gaffe non-stop at all hours. Remember when he tried to leave the stage at an event through locked doors, paused, and then walked to the other side of the stage?
It made for hours of hilarity on the cable news networks and the morning shows.
A president abasing himself before a foreign leader used to be news. The Anchoress notes:
Once upon a time, the American Press - in the form of the New York Times would take a president to task for making even a quasi-bow to another foreign head. This wasn’t that long ago. The president was Clinton.
If you don't feel like clicking through to the Times, this is what they had to say back in '94:
It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.
Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about? …
Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as “Your Majesty,” not “Your Highness” or, worse, “King.” And in what one Administration aide called “some emperor thing,” an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.
But the “thou need not bow” commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.
As Ed Morrisey points out, The New York Times body-slammed Bill Clinton for almost bowing to Japan's king, the figurehead ruler of a modern nation with a decent postwar human rights record; Obama's disgusting display of fealty to a medieval sheik?
Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Because, of course, it is the mission of the press, as Chris Matthews so famously said, to ensure that Pres. Obama succeeds -- even if his success costs the nation dearly.
The Anchoress speaks for those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, haven't been seduced by the cult of The One:
We know next-to nothing about this man, Barack Obama, because the lapdog press would ask him nothing beyond, “what makes you so great?” We’ve never seen so much as a college transcript or a college essay. We only know who his friends were, and they…well, they were not great friends to America. And he bowed to the Saudi king. Deeply. And he is moving fast to control about 30% of the economy.
That, umm…almost doesn’t matter anymore. In his first 100 days, Obama will have dismantled our economy and our capitalist structure for the other model. I told you the coup would be nearly painless, and here we are.
Oh, and while Obama was in Europe, it was the 60th Anniversary of Truman signing The Marshall Plan. But no one mentioned that at the G20. The greatness and generosity of America went unremarked upon. “Submission Accomplished”. But boy, he sure does have a great smile.
Someone recently referred to this as Jimmy Carter's second term. I disagree. Obama has managed in less than 100 days to do far more damage to our nation than Carter accomplished in four years, more, I think, than Carter could have accomplished had he won a second term.
The mind boggles at what these next four years will bring.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 03, 2009
Showing who's boss
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this photo and accompanying video: The American president bowing and scraping before the Saudi king, the unelected leader of a regime that is, by Western standards, a repressive, anti-feminist, monarchical tyranny.
Don't forget that the Obamas had just -- quite properly -- refused to bow and curtsy for Great Britain's Queen Elizabeth. We had a revolution to escape fealty to those who inherit the crown, remember?
Commentray's Abe Greenwald comments:
Barack Obama has literally bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Here’s the question: Was this unprecedented embarrassment the result of the Obama team’s inexperience, incompetence, or inclination toward American humility on the world stage?
Here’s the answer: Who cares? Whatever the cause, the fallout will be the same.
Among Muslim democrats and human rights advocates, utter dejection that the “leader of the Free World” has offered himself as a “subject” of the Saudi monarch; among Islamists, bliss over America’s seeming prostration before Salafist Islam; among international bad actors, assurance that America poses no threat; and among our allies, depression about the new systemic instability of the most dependable superpower in history.
The Anchoress thinks, after watching the video, that Pres. Obama simply did what came naturally to him when meeting the Guardian of Mecca, but then thought better of it, although a bit too late.
Let me say right off the bat, I have never thought, as apparently many still do, that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Obama said he was a Christian, and - although it is difficult to believe he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and never heard him utter racist or anti-American sentiments - I tend to take people at their word, until their behavior informs me otherwise.
Such is the case, here. President Obama’s own behavior has me wondering.
I don’t like this video. Spin it any way you like, Obama’s knee is bending, and the head is going very low, almost low enough to kiss a ring, but then Obama’s smooth movements become awkward and stilted, reflecting interrupted momentum - like a batter checking his swing. This looks very much like a man catching himself in mid-bow and suddenly remembering that he should not.
I recall the press making a big stink when President Bush held hands with a Saudi Prince; we were told by all the pundits that it was a “very revealing” gesture, one that “demonstrated” Bush’s fealty to the oil-producers.
I’m quite certain, however, that we’re going to hear Obama’s action - which certainly looks like a checked bow, to me - explained away, with a sniff of disdain. “Actually the president looking for something on the rug,” or “anticipating a step” (which would make no sense, given Abudullah’s height).
Perhaps we’ll be told that Obama “has a head cold” and “was stifling a sneeze” or “was suppressing a cough,” or “is very, very tired, and momentarily betrayed his exhaustion; saving the world is very tiring.”
I think it was a checked bow.
The bow comes at the 00:50 mark. I'm willing to bet that the left will downplay this as meaningless, but Greenwald is right: Such seemingly small gestures will resonate in the Muslim world, to the detriment of American interests.
Not good.
Or, in the favored language of our new administration, double-plus ungood.
Posted by Mike Lief at 07:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 01, 2009
That's one mean rabbit
I haven't seen anything like this since Bugs Bunny retired. Folks, this is a seriously bad ass bunny. The last time a rabbit gave someone this bad a time, it was during an argument over whether it was wabbit or duck season.
Hat tip Donald Sensing.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pres. Obama: How to make friends and influence people
So, having already demonstrated the skill and care he brings to choosing gifts for leaders of foreign nations -- when he gave a set of DVDs to Prime Minister Gordon Brown that can't be played on European DVD players -- Pres. Obama showed that his movie gift was an uncharacteristically ham-handed gaffe, redeeming himself with the thoughtful gift he presented to Queen Elizabeth.
President Barack Obama's gift of an iPod to Queen Elizabeth II came loaded with 40 songs from popular Broadway productions, including "The King and I," "West Side Story" and "Dreamgirls." The iPod was given to accompany a rare coffee table book of songs by composers Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, which Obama also gave the queen.
He gave her a what? An iPod loaded with $40 worth of iTunes downloads and a book he grabbed off the remainder table at Barnes & Noble?
That's just great.
But it gets better, according to ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper:
Uploaded onto the iPod:
Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit
Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit
Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit
Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit
Photos from President Obama's Inauguration
Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration AddressBritain's Press Association reports that the Royal couple gave the Obamas "a silver-framed, signed photograph of themselves."
Nothing charms like a politician presenting recordings of his own speeches as a gift.
Because, of course, who wouldn't want copies of the Great Leader's words, spoken in his own divine voice.
It's fitting that Obama gave this to the queen, for the man's self-regard, his arrogance is astonishing, akin to that of Castro, another leader whose marathon speeches bored millions, while tickling the fancy El Jefe himself and his lickspittle lackeys.
Honestly, what a maroon.
Posted by Mike Lief at 09:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack