Walk on....

Today's installment of "The Hypocricy of the Left" is brought to you by the letter 'D' and Joe Kelly, who writes about his experience at the Tenth Annual Talk Radio Seminar. His write-up is interesting and I recommend you check it out if you listen to talk radio at all. However, the part I want to focus on has to do with a couple of people who were at the conference. First of all, the set-up:

The keynote speaker for breakfast was not Dr. Laura, but liberal radio newcomer Al Franken.

(snip)

But, I must admit that Franken’s address was probably the most entertaining. He was witty, funny, self-deprecating, and seemingly sincere. He ribbed both Hannity and Rush, with an amusing impersonation of the latter. He told the story of his USO tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. He choked up as he told of meeting amputee soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He is an actor, yes, but aren’t we all?

And now the payoff:

Every single time I walked back and forth between hotels, I adhered strictly to the controls and never crossed until given the signal to do so. As I made my final walk back to the hotel to check out and prepare to take my taxi ride back to LAX, I stood waiting at the final cross walk for the signal to turn. While I stood waiting with a handful of tourists, I saw from the corner of my eye two people who briskly walked out into traffic against the signal. I chuckled as I realized it was none other than Al Franken and liberal talker Stephanie Miller.

Laws are good for thee, but not for me, it seems is the mantra of the liberal talkers. I don’t know if anyone else would have noticed the irony that these two activists are absolutely the kind of people who will campaign for greater government involvement in our lives, yet don’t adhere to the same regulations that they sought.

Any morsel of respect I had gained for Franken from his address moments earlier had completely gone out the window at viewing his callous and arrogant disregard for simple government regulations that were implemented for greater public safety.

You can't make this stuff up because nobody will believe you unless you can back it up with eyewitness testimony. It's so blatant and obvious that people will assume you're lying and trying to smear the character of those you're talking about.

Too little too late

I didn't comment on this (see here as well) when it originally came out in the news. Since then, there has been a new development:

The UAW has apologized to U.S. Marine Corps reservists and reversed its stand on which Marines can use the UAW parking lot. But it's too late -- the Marines have moved on.

And rightly so. You don't dis the finest fighting force in all of history and expect them simply to forget about the slight.

After several days of bad publicity, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger -- a former Marine reservist -- retracted the decision Monday. "I made the wrong call on the parking issue," Gettelfinger's statement said.

Ya think?!? And since he's a former Marine reservist, I guess it's possible to be an ex-Marine after all despite the old adage to the contrary. This guy put political considerations above supporting the men and women who are fighting and dying for this country and for his freedom to make these kind of boneheaded mistakes.

"I'm glad he decided to change his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, commanding officer of the Marine Corps Reserve Center.

But the apology came too late. "The decision's already been made that we're not going to park there," Rutledge said. "We've already made other arrangements to park elsewhere."

There's more from Lt. Col. Rudledge in this more in-depth article at The Detroit News:

Wounded by what they consider an unpatriotic ambush, the Marines rejected the union's olive branch and secured an alternative parking lot.

"I talked to Ron; I let him know that I understand he has rescinded his decision," said Lt. Col. Joe Rutledge, a top-ranking officer at the reserve infantry rifle battalion. "However, I've made my decision -- either you support the Marines or you don't."

I'm willing to bet the Lieutenant Colonel had some choice words he really wanted to say, but refrained from doing so in the interests of public relations. More from the second article:

Gettelfinger and other top UAW International officials say Bush is blatantly anti-labor and has opposed measures that could have benefited working men and women.

UAW leaders backed Democratic challenger John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards in last year's election.

Just because a measure benefits working men and women doesn't mean it's a good one. Every time there's a "benefit" there's also a "cost." Unions served a vital purpose in ending the exploitation of labor by large corporations. Now that's not really an issue anymore but the unions are still around and still trying to have their cake and eat it, too. And that support for Kerry by the UAW was paid for with union dues which auto workers were forced to pay and had no say in how they were spent. You ask me, unions should be barred from supporting political campaigns with compulsory dues. Why wasn't *that* in McCain-Feingold?

Tip of the hat for the first article to Mike who had this to say on the subject:

It’s enough to make me consider a Toyota next time around—and boy, let me tell you, I NEVER thought I’d say those words. Congrats, Smiley – you guys are getting so good at shooting yourselves in the foot somebody oughta be giving out marksmanship badges for it.

And another to Kim du Toit for the second article who commented on the situation in his own inimitable style:

And you know what? Now that the UAW has exposed themselves for the fucking bastard socialist Democrat supporters that they really are (not that we didn’t know it already, but it’s always nice to get confirmation), let me add this:

When I get round to replacing the F-150, I’m still not going to buy a car that has been built by UAW labor.

Suck on that, asswipes.

Quotes of the day

From today's Federalist Patriot email:

"It is a singular advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end purposed -- that is, an extension of the revenue." --Alexander Hamilton

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --James Madison

"Congress never votes on the things we used to talk about when I got there -- like reining in entitlements or the balanced budget amendment or closing down Cabinet agencies such as the Department of Education. And under Republican control, for goodness sake! Whatever happened to getting rid of the National Endowment for the Arts? Medicare should have never been passed in the first place. And now Republicans compound the problem by enacting this prescription drug bill when the White House has no idea what it will ultimately cost. Choosing between Democrat and Republican bills on prescription drugs is like saying how do you want to shoot yourself -- with a silver bullet or a lead bullet?" --Former Rep. Mel Hancock

"The other day I found myself, for the umpteenth time, driving in Vermont behind a Kerry/Edwards supporter whose vehicle also bore the slogan 'FREE TIBET.' It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the 'FREE TIBET' stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by these stickers, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the slogan he'd been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: 'But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?' she demanded. 'You're not doing anything, are you?' 'Give the guy a break,' I said back home. 'He's advertising his moral virtue, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division [will] go in on Thursday,' the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast." --Mark Steyn

I'll see your 500,000 and raise you another 500,000

From the AP article (which I'm linking to at Fox News because, well, you know):

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence," and waved a sea of Lebanese flags in Beirut on Monday, the biggest anti-Syrian protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Nothing to see here, move along. It's nothing special. Later in the article:

Monday's protest easily surpassed a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.

While there were no official estimates of the size of the crowd, police officers privately estimated it at about 1 million people. The officers refused to speak publicly because it was an opposition rally.

An Associated Press estimate by reporters on the scene put the number at much higher than the approximately 500,000 who attended the March 8 pro-Syrian rally.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like "regain(ing) the momentum" to me. I could write something really snarky about what this means for the Left, but Mike beat me to it:

Moreover, given not only the incontestable desirability of maintaining “stability” in the ME, no matter how brutal and inhuman that “stability” might be, but also the proven effectiveness of decades spent carefully nurturing the status quo as advocated by various forward-thinking liberals worldwide, it would be downright criminal and completely disgusting to suggest that the widely derided efforts of the Bush admin had anything whatever to do with any of this.

Of course not, Mike. It would have happened anyway if the US had done nothing in response to 9/11 and then engaged in the broader war against terror and its enablers. In fact, it would have happened faster. Trust us, we have the technology to explore alternate timelines so we know this to be true....

You know, it's funny that we're seeing these massive demonstrations by the people of Lebanon telling an occupying power to get out. We're *not* seeing anything remotely close to that magnitude from Iraqis telling the US to get out. Syria doesn't really have much of an economy itself; it relies on the economy in Lebanon. The US, on the other hand, is not sponging off of Iraq but is instead sinking large sums of money into the reconstrustion of Iraq's infrastructure and the revival of its economy. Yet, between Syria and the US, which one would the Left rather see leave the Middle Eastern nation it has its troops in?

And, also via Mike, this image is not to be missed. Be sure you're not drinking anything if you don't want it all over your keyboard and monitor.

Yet another import

From USA Today:

Americans drive imported cars, wear imported clothes and chug imported beers. Now scientists are discovering another, less welcome import into the USA: air pollution.

Mercury from China, dust from Africa, smog from Mexico — all of it drifts freely across U.S. borders and contaminates the air millions of Americans breathe, according to recent research from Harvard University, the University of Washington and many other institutions where scientists are studying air pollution. There are no boundaries in the sky to stop such pollution, no Border Patrol agents to capture it.

Well, isn't that special. Of course, since the US won't sign the Kyoto Protocol, it's all our fault, even though China and other developing countries are specifically exempted from meeting its requirements. What good would signing it do? It's not like magical "pollution pixies" will appear and clean up the planet. All that will happen is that the economy of the US will be significantly hampered at the expense of the economies of other nations.

It doesn't take much research to find that, the wealthier a country is, the cleaner its environment tends to be. This is in large part because cleaner technology, involving both the creation and consumption of energy, is more sophisticated and therefore more expensive to develop, purchase, and maintain. Goods and services provided with that technology are likewise more expensive. You really want to clean up the planet, let the wealthy countries like the US grow their economies, which will help other less developed nations grow theirs, and eventually you'll get to a point where everyone can afford to have clean environments.

Now I'm not saying that the US doesn't have any work to do. But it's being done. For example, here in the Seattle area, I'll bet you won't be able to find a Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid for MSRP. There are a lot of environmentally-conscious people living here and a lot of them have ample money to spend on hybrid vehicles that are somewhat more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts.

Oh, and what about allowing greater use of the energy source that doesn't pollute the air at all? That would, of course, be nuclear power. Yes, there's the problem of what to do with the spent fuel but we know how to store that stuff safely. Take a look sometime at how that stuff is going to be stored at Yucca mountain, if it ever happens. It's seismically stable and the fuel will be encased in containers that are, if anything, massively overengineered for the task.

Whether the Kyoto Protocol is an attempt to reduce the economic power of the United States or is motivated entirely by good intentions, it has serious issues and that's why the US isn't signing on. Instead, we're just going to go about our business inventing cleaner sources of energy not because we have to, but because we want to.

Muslims react to '24'

According this article at Fox News:

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, N.J. — A plate of spicy stuffed cabbage leaves and a cup of mint tea before him, Yosry Bekhiet sat down and turned on the television for a late dinner one recent Monday night. On the screen, he saw Muslim terrorists gain control of a nuclear plant, causing it to melt down.

One of the leaders of the plot shot his own wife and tried to shoot his son, fearing they would thwart his plans. (And this was after kidnapping the U.S. defense secretary and trying to behead him live on the Internet.)

Bekhiet was watching "24", the popular Fox action series starring Kiefer Sutherland as a government agent who battles bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists. The show has garnered high ratings, but also has angered Muslims across the nation over the way their community is portrayed.

"It's disgusting," Bekhiet said after watching an episode with an Associated Press reporter. "My own kids, if they see this show, they might hate me."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations also had something to say about this:

Rabiah Ahmed, a CAIR official who attended the meeting with the network executives, said Muslims are concerned with how others view them, particularly in the mass media.

"For us it's a sensitive and urgent situation because we are facing a backlash after Sept. 11 and we need to defend our interests and our image. We understand that it's entertainment and fiction. Our concern is that others may not."

One of the goals of good drama is to present believable situations. Right now, the majority of terrorism occurring in the world is being perpetrated by Muslim extremists. To be sure, there have been terrorists who were not Muslims; the IRA is a prime example. But, at this time, it's pretty much all Muslims, all the time, at least when it comes to terrorism that targets the United States and its allies.

The producers of the 2002 movie "The Sum of All Fears" had to deal with this issue. From the trivia page at IMDB:

The movie changed the villains from Islamic extremists (in the novel) to Neo-Nazis. This was done to increase realism because before the terrorist attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, Islamic extremists were considered unable to carry out intensive terrorist act on US soil. After 9/11 the production staff had to review how to present the movie to the public.

I think that the decision was at least partly motivated by a desire not to upset Muslims.

The thing is that it's realistic to portray Islamic terrorists in television shows and movies that are being made at this time. Getting mad because someone is portraying realistic events is just trying to shift the blame elsewhere. It's not Fox's fault that Muslims are committing terrorism; it's the fault of those Muslims who are actually doing it. Instead of getting mad at Fox, American Muslims and CAIR should be getting mad at the terrorists themselves for giving all Muslims a bad name. Start denouncing terror unequivocally and distance yourself from those organizations who are in any way involved with it. Unless you start by doing that, your protests ring hollow.

And just to note, I know that most Muslims living in America are peaceful and do not want to kill anyone. For that matter, several of the people that work at my company are Muslims and they're perfectly friendly and peace-loving. I'm sure that they don't support terrorism any more than I do. The problem, as I see it, is with prominent Muslims and Muslim organizations who are not making it very clear that they abhor terrorism. They may feel that way, but for whatever reason they are not speaking out, at least not unequivocally. Some are, but not enough.

Drawing a line in the sand

So, it looks like the Federal Election Commission is looking to start "crack(ing) down on blogging."

The GeekWithA.45 has some words to say on the subject:

I am an American, and this is my soapbox, and I will write whatever the hell I want, link to whatever the hell I want, and copy snippets and excerpts of whatever the hell I want.

The ever-irascible Kim du Toit and The Everlasting Phelps put it much more succinctly:

Fuck you.

The Geek has called for a "McCain-Feingold insurrection." I hereby add my voice to the growing chorus. Let it be known throughout the land:

This is my personal weblog and what I post here are my own personal opinions, in accordance with my sacred rights as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This weblog is supported and maintained entirely by me, utilizing the services of private corporations. I will write what I want, link to what I want, and excerpt whatever I want subject to the fair use provisions of copyright law. You will not tell me what I can and cannot say here. If you don't like it, don't read it. It is no different than me sitting in a coffee shop and talking with other people. If you think that you can regulate that speech, if you think that you can come in and try to shut me up, then you will bring us one step closer to the necessity of refreshing the tree of liberty with that which it occasionally needs. And should it prove the final step, then may God help you, even though I know he won't.

Supreme treachery

Anybody who has been paying a modicum of attention knows that the US Supreme Court has ruled that execution of minors is unconstitutional. This has the effect of overturning the death sentences of some 70 criminals who committed their crimes as minors, and prevents states from sentencing any further minor offenders to death. The complete majority opinion of the court is here.

When I first heard about this, I didn't necessarily disagree with it. Although I do think there are juvenile offenders whose crimes are heinous enough to merit the ultimate sanction (I tend to think of it not so much as punishment as excising an unacceptable risk from society), it is better to err on the side of caution given the finality of the sentence once carried out.

However, at that time I had not read any information about the actual ruling itself and the majority Justices' reasonings for that ruling. Although I may not disagree with the outcome, the reasoning used is something that we all should be very concerned about.

Others have done a much better job than I of expressing this. I point you to Kim du Toit's post on the subject. Lileks chimes in as part of a longer post. The relevant portion I include here:

For a modern analogue, albeit a broad and inexact one, you could be worried about the SCOTUS decision on the death penalty. It upended laws concerning the execution of juvies because five judges didn’t much like the law, and were alarmed to find it was out of step with the direction of the drift of the emanations of the penumbra of several judicial decisions in Europe. I’m not all that keen on the death penalty; I think it lets them off the hook. I want killers to die in jail, alone, forgotten, with their last meal consisting of steak-flavored mush and Sanka. But the reasonings don’t seem based in that pesky Constitution itself, and the very idea of using foreign law as some sort of guide for American law unnerves me as much as it angers me. I know: let’s use Iranian law to settle the constitutionality of divorce, right now. Someone bring a case.

There are others. Just click browse the blogs on my blogroll and I'm sure you'll find plenty.

In short, there is an increasing and disturbing trend for the Supreme Court to use foreign opinion to shape their decisions. Section IV of the majority opinion is devoted entirely to doing this. That section includes this text:

It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10—11. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.

Yes, they say it is not controlling their outcome, but I disagree that it is proper that they acknowledge such foreign opinion. It should have no bearing whatsoever on the court's decision, as Scalia notes:

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards--and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

The Federalist had this to say as part of a larger essay regarding Senate Democrats' obstructionism regarding the President's judicial nominees:

The U.S. Constitution suffered some serious setbacks this week. The future of liberty and the rule of law suffered likewise.

It's bad enough that Democrat obstructionists are once again denying President George Bush's federal-bench nominees their constitutionally prescribed up-or-down vote by the full Senate. In a fine example of why we need those nominees on the bench, Leftists on the Supreme Court are, again, "interpreting" the so-called "living Constitution" as a method of altering that venerable document by judicial diktat.

Worse yet, these Left-judiciary Supremacists -- Justice Anthony Kennedy and Court Jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- cited "national consensus" as a factor in Tuesday's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In other words, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy. Which is to say, while riding roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as they overturned the laws of 19 states, the Supremes blithely pushed the nation one step closer toward what everyone since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.
Writing for the majority, Kennedy claimed that Americans had reached a "national consensus" against capital punishment for "children," citing as evidence that only 20 states allow a 17-year-old to be sentenced to death. Of course, Kennedy's logic is utterly at odds with decisions such as Roe v. Wade. In that 1973 decision, the Supremes serendipitously discovered a right to privacy that allowed for the aborting of children, despite the fact that all 50 states had laws at the time either prohibiting or tightly regulating abortion. So we must ask you, Justice Kennedy -- what's all this rubbish about a "national consensus?"

You recall, of course, that in a recent case, the Supremacists discovered a clause in the Constitution specifically stating that a 14-year-old is mature enough to abort the life of her child without parental consent. Now, in Roper v. Simmons, they've found a contradictory clause, which avers that a 17-year-old is not mature enough to be held accountable for capital murder.

Adding grievous insult to this "national consensus" injury, Kennedy cited "international consensus" noting "the overwhelming weight of international opinion" as a factor in the Court's decision. Kennedy cited the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when writing, "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty." Here, his message was all too clear: The High Court is building a tradition of referring "to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution.

Sadly, such citing of international standards and conventions seems to be the latest fashion among the Supremacists.

In 2003, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer upheld an affirmative-action policy at the University of Michigan, noting an international treaty endorsing race-based advancement for minorities. Stevens, for his part, cited international law in overturning another capital case: "Within the world community, the...death penalty...is overwhelmingly disapproved." Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy wrote that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said recently, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly...on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues." Justice Breyer added, "We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really -- it's trite but it's true -- is growing together. The challenge [will be] whether our Constitution...fits into the governing documents of other nations."

"How our Constitution fits?"

Justice Antonin Scalia, a dependable constitutional constructionist, protested on behalf of the dissenters that capital punishment should, rightly in accordance with constitutional federalism, be determined by individual states. "Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent. ... To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decision-making, but sophistry." Just so.

Perhaps Justice Scalia recalls this admonition from Founder George Washington: "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence...the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."

Clearly, international consensus has no standing whatsoever in the constitutional rule of law in the United States. For that matter, the only relevant "national consensus" is that prescribed by our Constitution for its amendment -- a consensus of the people as represented by two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states. But such facts are lost on Left-judicial activists who are content to legislate from the bench. Just consider this recent comment from Justice Breyer: "The extent to which the Constitution is flexible is a function of what provisions you're talking about." In other words, if he likes it the way it was written, it stands as is. If not, he interprets it, in the words of the august Sen. Sam Ervin, "to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."

Garage jumping

So it looks like there's a new "sport" in Orlando, FL, called "garage jumping." This is where teens jump from one parking garage to another adjacent garage. The thing is, they're making these jumps six stories above the ground. As you might expect, not everyone makes it:

Tim Bargfrede told Local 6 News that he was following friends when he attempted to garage jump and did not make it to the other side. Bargfrede fell six stories and was knocked unconscious on impact.

"I just didn't make it," Bargfrede said.

Bargfrede survived the 80-foot fall but was injured.

The truth is he's lucky to be alive after a fall like that. I expect his injuries are more than just a bump to the head.

Of course, we all know who's responsible for this, right? When a young person wilfully and deliberately engages in behavior that anyone with more sense than a peanut knows is patently dangerous, whose fault is it? Why, it's the city and the garages' fault, of course!

There are no safety fences in place on the parking garage.

D'Assaro [attorney for the Bargfrede family -RR] is filing a lawsuit against the city of Orlando and the private garage owner for making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk.

"There was a very, very short length of fence that was completely ineffective in preventing this from happening," D'Assaro said.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Yanking. My. Chain. What, did the garage owner take young Mr. Bargfrede up to the sixth floor and force him to make that jump? Did they have a sign up there that said, "Jumping across to the other garage is a fun and perfectly safe activity?"

Unbelievable. Although I hope the judge throws the case out with an admonishment to stop waisting the court's time, it wouldn't surprise me if the city and the garage end up settling out of court for some ridiculous sum. In this case, "ridiculous" means anything more than zero dollars.

The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the kids who are doing this dangerous activity, and those of their parents who are failing abjectly to raise their children with even the remotest shred of common sense.

One for Acidman

Rob links to a post at another blog which links to this little video which shows just how dangerous a cat can be. Click the play button below the picture to start it.

Of course, this isn't the first post in which Rob mentions his dislike of cats and how people delight in sending him pictures of their feline companions. What's interesting is that the very first post on my blog was about my cat. I posted it shortly after we brought him home from his previous house where he had to compete with three other cats. Let's just say he wasn't top cat on the totem pole and this lead to a not inconsiderable amount of stress in his life.

So, Rob, if you happen to follow the trackback here, click the link, look at my cat, and leave a comment letting me know you were here. I won't mind if you say you want to drop-kick him into the next county. Sometimes I feel that way myself....

Review: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (PC)

Last year, as you may know, the sequal to the film "Pitch Black" was released. Titled "The Chronicles of Riddick" it, well, chronicled the continuing adventures of one Richard B. Riddick, portrayed by Vin Diesel, as he becomes involved in civilization's fight against the evil Necromonger horde. A coworker of mine characterized the movie as "ass." My take was that it was enjoyable but it had a lot of gaping plot holes and really wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be. It's worth a cheap rental but I certainly wouldn't buy the DVD.

At about the same time, a small company named Starbreeze Studios released the now-obligatory companion computer game, which was published by Vivendi Universal. In this case it was for the Xbox console. The game garnered surprisingly good reviews given that most games based on movies tend to suck royally. Since the Xbox is essentially a special-purpose PC, it didn't take long for Starbreeze to port the game over to the PC world. I just finished the game and here are my thoughts.

Modern 3D engine

I would say that the 3D rendering engine used for "Riddick" looks almost as good as the Doom 3 engine. The look of the graphics is very similar and the engine uses many of the same cutting-edge rendering techniques. Of special note are the shadows, all of which are dynamic as in Doom 3. The shadows are sharp-edged like in Doom 3, as opposed to the soft shadows used in Half-Life 2. However, HL2 had to cut some corners on shadows to keep performance high so not all of them are dynamic, and those that are have only one light source and, in the one big flaw in the Source engine, can be cast through objects (so, for example, a person walking along an elevated walkway casts a shadow that appears beneath the walkway). In "Riddick" multiple light sources can exist and the shadows do not (as far as I could see anyway) cast through opaque objects.

It's obvious, however, that the programmers either aren't quite as experienced as those at iD, or didn't have as much time to polish the engine. There are minor rendering glitches, such as visible seams on character models and texture z-order issues, but they are minor and don't detract much from the experience. Everything else good about the game more than makes up for them.

The engine does require a reasonably powerful machine to run well although it will scale down if necessary. In my system I run it at 1024x768 with all the visual goodies turned on. Running at 1280x1024 results in an unacceptably low framerate. Even so, it's still considerably higher resolution than Xbox players get on their televisions.

Immersive gameplay

The gameplay in "Riddick" is first-person most of the time. It switches to third-person for cutscenes, which are rendered real-time by the engine, and when you are doing certain things like climbing. In first-person mode you really get a sense that you are the title character. This game does something that most other games don't do: The player's character model is completely rendered. This means that you cast shadows and you can see your own body if you look down. In HL2, the character is basically a disembodied camera floating above the ground. The arms and weapons are rendered but the rest of the model doesn't exist. When you pick something up, it just floats in front of you instead of showing your hands holding it. In "Riddick" the camera moves with the character's head. The way the camera moves is a little different because of this. Instead of the player moving the camera, the player moves the model which is fully animated, and the movement of the model's head determines where the camera is and which direction it's facing. It provides for a more realistic movement of the point of view. It takes a little getting used to but really adds to the feeling of immersion.

The style of gameplay varies throughout the game. Sometimes you have weapons, others just your fists. Sometimes you charge in guns blazing, other times you sneak around in the shadows and snap your enemies necks from behind. A couple of places involve stepping into an armored mech and stomping to your destination, chainguns blazing. The list of personal weapons is relatively standard and is kept simple; there are no BFG 9000's or laser swords in this game. Instead you get things like shivs and clubs for melee combat and, for longer range, your basic pistol, automatic rifle, and shotgun. There are a couple of specialty weapons you'll get to use at various points but nothing too exotic.

Speaking of melee combat, this makes up a significant part of the fighting you will be doing. Riddick can fight with his fists or with a melee weapon and you'll use both in the course of the game. The control system is relatively straightfoward. You can even go up against opponents with firearms with just your fists, and you'll need to do so at least a few times. It's best if you can sneak up behind them but even toe-to-toe it's relatively easy to put a finishing move on the guy. You'll know it when you see it.

There are several side missions you can accomplish if you wish, although they are not necessary to proceed through the game. Also, there are many packs of cigarettes secreted throughout the game. Collecting them unlocks various additional features, such as game art and videos. You can also collect money, either by finding it lying around or by completing side missions for which you get paid, which you can use to buy various items. Again, it's not strictly necessary but certain items will help considerably if you get them. This adds an element of role-playing to the game although it doesn't overshadow the first-person action aspect at all.

The level design is well done and really gives the impression that you are in a bleak and dirty correctional and industrial facility. Of course there are the obligatory crates and exploding barrels but they do fit in with this setting and only exist where it would make sense.

Voice talent

Vin Diesel lends his voice to the character of Riddick and, based on the credits, appears to have had a pretty large role in designing and scripting the game. It definitely shows. In addition to Deisel, Cole Hauser provides the voice of Johns the bounty hunter, the character he portrayed in "Pitch Black." Additional voices are provided by Dwight Schultz (Murdock from "The A-Team" and Reginald Barkley in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Voyager."), rap artist Xzibit, and Ron Perlman. The performances from these actors, as well as the other voice actors who voiced myriad other characters, are very well done. One reviewer noted that Diesel and Hauser actually underplayed their roles which, in my opinion, really reinforced these characters as hard, pragmatic men who do what is necessary to achieve their goals.

Miscellaneous

Some have noted that the game is relatively short. For me personally it was about the right length. Trying to pad it out longer would have made it repetitive.

Every single character you encounter in the game is an individual with his own unique model and voice. Some actors voice multiple characters but they change inflection, tone, and accent to personalize their voice to each one. The character voiced by Xzibit even looks more or less like him and, of course, the models for Riddick and Johns look like their respective actors.

The PC version of the game has a section not present in the Xbox version. This is the first time you get into a mech and go stomping around shooting everything that moves.

There is one really nasty glaring bug in the game. When I died, the game would crash when reloading the level. I did some searching around on the forums and discovered that the solution was to unplug my joystick. Since I wasn't using it anyway, this was no big deal but it does represent a rather glaring example of something that was missed by their testers. I'm guessing that, since the game was ported from the Xbox, the code that deals with interacting with controllers wasn't completely ported over properly and, when it tries to figure out what's all plugged into the machine, it chokes on the joystick. Maybe the game thinks it's an Xbox controller or something. Other than that, I don't recall the game ever crashing.

As noted above, there are some minor rendering issues. I did, however, encounter a whopping huge one late in the game. I opened this large door and, on the other side, it was this tan blankness. Once I stepped through, the area on the other side rendered and the area I just came from was now blank. It didn't keep me from playing the game, but it was a bit disconcerting.

Conclusion

If you like first-person games and you have the machine to run it reasonably well I definitely recommend this game. It's a fine example of how to make a movie-related game the right way.

Improved sanity in Florida

Via the ever-irascible Kim du Toit comes the link to this article at floridatoday.com which heralds a welcome change in the law regarding home defense:

A gun barrel to the head was enough to convince Sen. Jim King to favor broadening the state's deadly force laws. Another senator on the Criminal Justice Committee also is a believer after twice facing intruders in her bedroom.

The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption that a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car.

In short, if someone breaks into your home or your car, the assumption under the law is that he or she intends to inflict bodily harm upon you. Therefore you are completely justified in defending yourself using deadly force regardless of whether or not the intruder is armed or what his or her intentions really are.

It provides for erring on the side of caution. It also recognizes that, when someone breaks the law and intrudes on your property, thereby violating your rights, they automatically forfeit their right not to be harmed. They have initiated the illegal action, they are responsible for what happens, and they must bear the consequences.

As I understand the law in Washington State, it is much like current Florida law (I need to review my copy of Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities). You have the legal right to shoot an intruder but there will be an investigation into whether or not it was reasonable for you to believe you were in danger. Shooting the guy as he's climbing back out the window, for example, is not a good idea. I wouldn't advocate doing that in any circumstance, even if it were allowed, but the trick is determining whether or not you really are in danger. In a situation like that, your perception tends to narrow (tunnel vision) and you don't have time to think things through. You don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate fully whether or not the intruder presents a threat. By putting the onus on the intruder where it belongs, this new law will protect homeowners who are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can, and can't afford to take any chances.

Florida is an interesting state. On the one hand, it is the state that has its own category on Fark for all the wacky stuff that goes on there. Many of its residents are those that have retired there from the large metropolitan areas of the east such as New York, and probably take the liberal values they grew up among with them. On the other hand, I can apply for a Florida concealed weapon permit which would allow me as a non-resident to carry a concealed pistol if I were to visit the state. And now comes this law which takes the support of law-abiding gun owners to a higher level. Interesting indeed.

Birth of a nation

Via Harvey at Bad Example (Hi Harv!) comes the link to this amazing photo montage of Iraqis voting in a free election. The link is directly to the video in WMV format.

He links as well to the post at The Zoo where he found the video link. The author, krakatoa, said some important words, some few of which I reproduce here:

More importantly than what we did, the Iraqi people, slowly, cautiously, began to hope again, and began to act on that hope.

One can not be surprised that their words and actions have been guarded in light of so many factors: The loss of trust after the '91 debacle. Our own recent elections, where the opposition party would give no assurances of seeing Iraq through to liberty against the region's tyrants. Indeed, many of our opposition vowing we would leave Iraq to its fate alone if Kerry won. Europe, led by France and Germany, constantly preaching the refrain that removing Saddam was a mistake. The Arab community, full of intrigue and violent resolve, financing, arming and even manning the terrorist militias. And tying it all together, the world Press, ignoring 10 positive stories to sieze on 1 setback, painting the prospect of free elections in Iraq as merely the neo-con pipe dream of a simple-minded Cowboy.

When I went to bed the night before the elections I had no small measure of trepidation. What if it doesn't go well? What if the efforts to protect the polling places fail miserably and the terrorists succeed in creating the bloodbath they so desperately wanted?

Then came the morning and, when I turned on the news, I could not help but exult in the knowledge that the worst had not happened and, indeed, it had turned out even better than I had hoped. I don't believe it is hyperbole to use such words as exultation and rejoicing. It was clear in the video of Iraqis dancing for joy in the streets that they were feeling those very emotions.

<mode="captain metaphor">
That night, while I slept, the old Iraq was finally and inalterably destroyed. The new Iraq, like a phoenix from the ashes, arose and took its first unsteady steps, gaining confidence as does a foal as it learns to walk and then, ultimately, to run with the wind.
</mode>

Justice is served

It seems an Ohio State Supreme Court Justice had a wee bit to drink before driving one day last week and got caught. Of course, this story wouldn't be complete without the justice in question trying to get the state trooper to let her off because, you know, she's a judge and all.

In the video, shot by a camera on the dashboard of the patrol car, a police sergeant questioning Justice Resnick tells her that he can smell alcohol on her breath.

Justice Resnick assures the officer she can drive safely, but he asks her to take a portable breath-analysis test. She then lowers her voice and says, "I did have something to drink."

The justice also repeatedly asks to be let go, saying, "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me."

Joe Kelley, from whose blog I got the link, rightly commends the state patrol officer for not acceeding to Justice Resnick's request and going ahead and arresting her. One hopes that the judge in her case also does not allow her status to overshadow his duty to mete out justice, even if it's to a Justice.

There's an old saying: "In wine is truth." This means, of course, that when you're drunk you're more likely to say what's really on your mind. Her BAC was 0.22%, almost three times the legal limit, and she was certainly drunk by just about anyone's definition. It certainly appears that the old adage is true in this case.

Sugar subsidies

Via Boortz comes a link to this article which discusses the sugar industry's reaction to artificial sweeteners, notably Splenda, and also addresses government subsidies of the sugar industry and how it results in artificially high prices, additional costs to taxpayers, and other related deleterious effects.

On a recent trip to Victoria, British Columbia, the Geekette and I went into a shop selling various souvenir items and assorted snacks. I purchased a Coke because I had heard that in Canada (as well as in Mexico and other countries) it is made with real cane sugar. Here in the United States, high fructose corn sweetener is used instead. What I had heard was correct and, indeed, the taste was noticeably different than the Coke we have down here. (I also learned that in Canada Mountain Dew has no caffeine due to some sort of law or regulation dictating that only brown-colored drinks such as colas can contain caffeine.)

So why is this? The artificially high price of sugar from the aforementioned subsidies is the cause. Soft drink manufacturers can't afford to pay the price for sugar and sell their products at a competitive price. Therefore they turn to a less expensive alternative that may not taste as good, but is good enough. This brings me to a point that the linked article did not address.

Enter Archer Daniels Midland. As the leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, it is in the best interest of their bottom line for sugar prices to remain higher than the price of an equivalent quantity, in terms of sweetening ability, of their product. Therefore they lobby heavily, backed by large political contributions, to keep the sugar subsidies going. It's a double-whammy. The sugar industry makes inordinate profit on what they sell and ADM makes an inordinate profit on what they sell. It's a clear example of why this kind of corporate welfare is so damaging to the economy and so unfair to taxpayers and consumers.

And then there was one

The only other candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee besides Howard Dean has bowed out of the race.

That's the best news I've heard all day!

Relative lack of posting

It's not like I post very regularly anyway but the last several days have seen less than usual due to an injury I sustained Thursday morning. Without going into too much detail, I threw out my lower back and am now recovering. I see a chiropractor regularly and it wouldn't surprise me if that helped keep it from being even worse than it was. I'm getting better every day, though. I missed a couple of days of work but I've been back since yesterday.

All I can say is maintain a healthy back if you can. You really really don't want to feel this kind of discomfort. It's amazing how much my mobility has been limited since this happened. On the other hand, I also have a greater appreciation and understanding of how people adapt to disabilities.

Cease fire in Israel (until it's broken)

So, Sharon and Abbas have declared an end to violence between Israel and the Palenstinians.

"We have agreed on halting all violent actions against Palestinians and Israelis wherever they are," Abbas declared in a statement made after the meetings, as he, Sharon, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II sat at a round table.


Sharon made a similar pledge.


"Today, in my meeting with chairman Abbas, we agreed that all Palestinians will stop all acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere, and, at the same time, Israel will cease all its military activity against all Palestinians everywhere," he said.

Of course, not all is happiness and light...

But the Palestinian militant group Hamas immediately called the deal into question. The group's representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told The Associated Press it would not be bound by the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire declarations.

So, when the next Hamas bomb goes off somewhere in Israel, and Israel responds with military action against Hamas terrorists, guess who is going to be the target of all the international recrimination, resolutions in the UN condemning their actions, and all the usual censure that they have endured for so long? Hint: their flag has a six-pointed star on it.

I know that many, if not most Palestinians really want peace. Perhaps Abbas is among them. But those that don't won't care about this cease fire. They want only the destruction of Israel and the murder of all of its citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the Palestinian leadership can exercise control over these people. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Only when all Palestinians realize that continued struggle is not in their best interest, when they understand it at a fundamental level, will the violence stop. Either that or when they're all dead. I hope the former happens. I fear the second will.

Britain regains (some) sanity

According to this article in The Independent:

Homeowners who confront burglars were told by the Government yesterday that they were entitled to kill in self-defence - and use guns and knives - to protect their family and property.

They were reassured that they will not be prosecuted if they acted "honestly and instinctively" against intruders in the heat of the moment.

Well that's good to hear. It's not as good as if Britain was allowing its citizens to own handguns once more but, hopefully, it will put an end to homeowners being arrested, charged, and put in jail for defending themselves in their own homes. Now, how about clearing the records of those who already went through that travesty?

It's not without its issues, however:

The result was yesterday's leaflet, which will be distributed to libraries and police stations. It was produced by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

It told householders: "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence."

It said that the more extreme the circumstances and the more frightened householders were, the more force they could lawfully use. But it warned they could still face the courts for using "excessive and gratuitous force".

What someone believes is necessary and how frightened someone is are entirely subjective. How are the authorities going to determine whether or not someone was frightened enough to use the level of force that was employed against the intruder?

Later in the article:

Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor. This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don't think we need to be too squeamish about the situation." (emphasis mine -RR)

It's about time you folks figured that out. The way I see it, when a person breaks into my house he or she forfeits any right not to be shot or otherwise harmed by me. The burglar initiates the action which leads to getting hurt so that's who bears the entire responsibility for it.

In short, it's a good sign but there is still a long way to go before Britain returns to full sanity on the subject of personal defense.

Bulldozing property rights

This is a topic I've yet to address in any detail here. I've been reading Boortz for a while now and this is one of the issues that is most important to him. In today's edition of Neal's Nuze, he links to yet another story of a local government spuriously invoking eminent domain so that it can turn over land to a private developer.

So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.

Their property, they said, is not for sale.

In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.

According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.

Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.

I agree with Neal on this issue. This kind of stunt is totally against the original concept of eminent domain and is intended mostly, if not solely, to increase tax revenue. Originally the idea was that a government could take land if it was needed for a project like a military base or a road; something that is actually part of that government's job to build and maintain. Projects like condos, shopping malls, hotels, etc. do not fit that definition since they are private developments. And even though, in this case, it's being done by a "non-profit organization appointed by the city," it doesn't make any difference. It's still a private organization regardless of its profit status.

Here's the way it's supposed to work. A private firm wants to develop a shopping mall. They try to buy the land from the current owners. If the owners don't want to sell, the firm ups the price. If one or more owners still won't sell regardless of price, that's just tough luck; go somewhere else.

Hopefully, when the Supreme Court rules on the case mentioned in the article, the justices will come down on the side of property rights. If the government can just come in and take your land, your home, your possessions, for any reason whatsoever and especially to give to private developers, then there is no longer any true freedom or liberty. Instead, you're on the way to tyranny.

A time to celebrate

The most recent victory in the War on Terror was won earlier today when Iraqis went to the polls for the first time in decades to choose who will be their leaders in the time to come. The turnout so far has been even better than anticipated. Yes, there were some attacks, and some Iraqis and Americans were killed. But the feared bloodbath, with bombs going off in polling places all over the country killing hundreds or even thousands did not materialize. Iraqis faced their fear and walked to the polling places, some from many miles away, to exercise their franchise.

I'm not going to quote other bloggers, for I am sure there are far too many to do them all justice. Just hit the links in the blogroll and start looking and I'm sure you will find more than enough commentary from all of us who have looked forward to this day with hope and not a little trepidation.

To be certain, this is just another step, not the end of the journey by any means. The ballots must be counted, the government formed, and a constitution drafted. Ultimately, Iraq must become able to take responsibility for its own security. Our troops will stay; for how long is not known. Even then there will still be a US military presence in Iraq so that we can quickly bring the ultimate projection of political will to bear on any other nation in the region that it becomes necessary to confront in this war. Hopefully, Iraq will be the only one. Hopefully, Iran's mullahcracy will be toppled by internal forces. Hopefully, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will continue their efforts to root out terrorists and deny them a haven in which to hide and train, and funding for their operations. Hopefully, Syria will get the message and do the same.

It's not over yet, not by a long shot, but a very large hurdle has just been overcome. Congratulations to the people of Iraq for having the courage to stand up and be counted. And thanks to all the coalition troops from all the various nations who have joined with us in the cause of liberty. Thanks to all of you we can now look to the future with renewed hope and sense of purpose. And to all those naysayers who said this election would never happen, that it was doomed to fail even before it began, I only have this to say:

In your face!!!!!

Oh, puh-leeze

The Daily Texan, the newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin, published an opinion piece wherein they basically compare what happened at Abu Ghraib prison to the horrors of Auschwitz.

Never again.

That is the lesson that we Americans should be learning from the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Never again ... will Germans kill Jews in Poland.

The author then goes on to name several cases where murder on a massive scale has happened since the end of World War II.

Actually, what "Never again" means to the Jews is that they will not allow another Holocaust to be perpetrated upon them. In the larger sense, it means that the nations of the world should not allow another tyrannical government to engage in the systematic mass murder of a large portion of the population. Certainly the world has not succeeded; the depredations of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are examples of such horror. Yes, this type of activity has happened in Iraq as well. My question, however, is who was in power when it happened? Answer: Saddam Hussein. If anything that happened at Abu Ghraib is comparable to what happened at Auschwitz, it's what Saddam ordered to be done there before the United States removed him from power. In contrast, what happened after pales into near insignificance.

To my extreme gratification, the comments in The Daily Texan's forum regarding this editorial are, so far, unanimous in their rejection of the author's views. Perhaps there's hope after all.

Death of an actress

Early yesterday morning, an aspiring actress from the Seattle area was shot and killed when she, her fiancee, and another couple were accosted by armed muggers.

Interesting that all the laws which make it illegal for average people in New York City to carry concealed handguns didn't prevent this thug from doing so.

Would the victim still be alive if she and/or those she was with had been armed? It's impossible to say. If, at the first sign of trouble, they had drawn their weapons I say it's likely the perps would have turned and run. Once the fatal shot was fired, however, all the guns in the world wouldn't have saved her, although they might have allowed one or more of the thugs to be brought to justice, either in court or in a grave. A more important question is whether or not they would have attempted the robbery at all if they knew there was a good chance their targets were armed.

<rant>
How many times do we in the pro-defense community have to bring up the statistics that show an armed citizenry is a deterrent to violent crime before these pinhead leaders get the message? Of course, that's assuming that said pinheads really want what's best for their constituency rather than what's best for their statist aspirations. I'm sure a lot of people who support strong gun control are well-meaning, albeit mislead and misinformed. However, I believe that some, such as Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, are not interested in reducing gun violence so much as they are trying systematically to disarm the citizenry because they know that it's the best defense against a tyrannical government. Their socialist plans, if allowed to be implemented, would correctly be perceived as such a tyranny. And, though they may have deluded themselves into believing it's what's best for America, they still understand that it can't happen unless and until average citizens are no longer able to defend themselves effectively. They believe that average Americans are so ignorant or stupid that we won't be able to see the wisdom of the all-encompassing State they want to put in place and that we'll fight against it. Which we will, of course, not because we're stupid but because we will remain free even unto the gravest extreme. But we can only do that if we're armed. They know this, and they fear it.
</rant>

Making with the funny

A good friend of my father's sent me the following in an email a while back.

A Brief History of Our Ancestors

Division of the human family into two distinct
political groups began some 12,000 years ago.
Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic
hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the
mountains in the summer and would go to the beach
and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history
were the invention of beer and the invention of the
wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
beer. These were the foundation of modern
civilization and together were the catalyst for the
splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and
that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the
glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so
while our early human ancestors were sitting around
waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed
close to the brewery. That is how villages were
formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing
animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking
beer. This was the beginning of what is known as
"The Conservative Movement".

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at
hunting learned to live off the conservatives by
showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the
sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the
beginning of the "Liberal Movement". Some of these
liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest
became known as 'girliemen'.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the
domestication of cats, the trade union, the
invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the
concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide
the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years, conservatives came to be
symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal
on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized
by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime
added), but most prefer white wine or imported
bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are
standard liberal fare. Another interesting
revolutionary side note: most of the women have
higher testosterone levels than men which led to
most Liberal men shaving their legs.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys,
journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group
therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the
designated hitter rule because it wasn't "fair" to
make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red
meat and still provide for their women.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys,
lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors,
police officers, corporate executives, soldiers,
athletes, and generally anyone who works
productively outside government. Conservatives who
own companies hire other conservatives who want to
work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to
"govern" the producers and decide what to do with
the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more
enlightened than Americans are. That is why most of
the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives
were coming to America. They crept in after the
Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying
to get MORE for nothing.

Here ends the lesson in world history.

Satire that speaks truth about the Rice hearing

Via Acidman:

Steve over at Hog on Ice nails it with respect to the Rice confirmation hearings:

The hearings were historic, mainly because it’s not that often that you get to see seven or eight Democrats slander and abuse a successful black woman. Not since they stopped wearing sheets. But then Condi isn’t black or female. She’s conservative, so NOW and the NAACP revoked her credentials. From now on, whenever she fills out a government form, she has to list herself as a white male, and in certain states she could also be forced to buy golf clubs.

The rest is just as good.

Cox and Forkum give their take on Senators Boxer and Kerry voting against Rice's confirmation.

If you ask me, I say they voted against her not because they didn't think she could do the job but because it was a symbolic jab at the President. They knew she was going to be confirmed; they even said so themselves during the hearing. But they had to get in this dig so that they could continue at least the illusion of relevancy.

If only the people of California would finally realize what a rank hypocrite Barbara Boxer is. After all, as Steve says:

Boxer put on a fine show going after Condoleezza Rice the other day at the confirmation hearings. She said, "I personally believe—this is my personal view—that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth." We all know how loyalty to a cause can make us forget our integrity. For example, a whiny feminist crone might support a Democrat President disbarred for lying and credibly accused of rape. Or she might vote for every hysteria-based, estrogen-reeking anti-gun law put in front of her, while holding one of California’s few carry permits.

Targeting the Cos

In this installment of "Putting on my conspiracy hat" we have the latest news involving comedian Bill Cosby:

LOS ANGELES — A female acquaintance of comedian Bill Cosby has leveled an allegation against him that has prompted a police investigation in Philadelphia, the entertainer's attorney said Thursday.

Attorney Walter Phillips wouldn't discuss the specifics of the allegation but said it amounts to, at the most, "inappropriate touching."

When I first heard this, I couldn't help but speculate that this is an attempt to set up Cosby in response to his recent exhortations to the black community to start taking responsibility for themselves. This is in direct contradiction of civil rights "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who seem to want black people to wallow in their victimhood and put all the blame for everything bad that happens to them on the white oppressor, thus maintaining their own power and ensuring that their "job" is never actually finished.

Nah, that can't be right. I mean nothing like that has ever happened before, right?

Selling used police firearms

Via the GeekWithA.45 comes a short article which tells how the Sweetwater, Florida police department is going to trade in their used pistols for new ones at a local gun store. The reaction from the GFW's is as you would expect:

"When you buy a used gun, it's like buying a used car — you're not going to pay top dollar for it," said John Shanks, director of law enforcement relations at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "These guns are going to go back into the civilian market. They're going to be very inexpensive to buy."

When you examine this paragraph, it's pretty amazing to see how efficiently it expresses the agenda of the "Brady Campaign" (formerly Gun Control, Inc.). To wit:

• Used guns are less expensive, therefore bad. One technique that proponents of victim disarmament use is to work toward making guns as expensive as possible. That way fewer people can afford them, especially those living in poor neighborhoods that will likely have greater need of effective self-defense.


• More guns in the civilian market means more gun crime. This ignores the fact that these guns will only be sold at gun shops which are legally bound to confirm that the purchasers are allowed to own guns under the law. It's not like the gun shop is going to say, "Well, we got all these guns so we can go ahead and sell them to anyone who wants one. Hell, we'll just give 'em away on the street." It doesn't matter if the guns are new or used, expensive or cheap, gun shops that sell to criminals are breaking the law and will get busted for it.


• The flip side of the previous is that fewer guns in the civilian market is good. By logical extension, then, no guns is the ideal situation.

I was also interested to see this statement from the Sweetwater police chief:

"I have a moral obligation to my men, to their families and to the community," said Fulgueira. "Number one, I'm not going to send my men out there with weapons that are going to malfunction."

One commenter at the Geek's site commented on this and wondered if it was then okay to sell malfunctioning pistols to the gun shop for sale to the public. The thing is that these are Glock pistols. They are about the most robust pistols ever made; after all they were designed for use in the military. It's likely that the most any of them will need is a good cleaning, and probably not even that. Any problems will likely be minor such as needing to replace some part in the trigger assembly. Worst case is probably a barrel replacement. It's why I have a Glock as my carry piece.

Lying. Through. Her. Teeth.

So I'm listening to the Hugh Hewitt show via streaming audio and he's playing clips from the Senate confirmation hearings for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. He mentioned that Little Green Footballs had posted the text of the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” As Charles notes:

LGF reader Model4 points out that Barbara Boxer was simply lying through her teeth today at Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation hearing, when she said the bill passed by Congress authorizing the war in Iraq was, “WMD, period.” But of course, you won’t see this lie exposed in any mainstream media reports.

His characterization of Boxer's comments is entirely correct. They were included in the clips that Hugh played.

In addition to those comments, Boxer (D-PRK) basically accused Rice of lying and putting her loyalty to President Bush above the truth. Once again, Charles has the goods. Rice showed incredible restraint when she told the Senator, “I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity.”

Here's this Senator, sitting up there and insulting the intelligence of Condoleezza Rice, and everyone else who hears her words. But it's just another example of many Democrats' favorite technique: The Big Lie. Say something that's false often enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. Fortunately, as shown by the election results, it appears that most Americans see through the fabrications and obfuscations and recognize them for what they are. Now if only we could say the same thing about Californians....

True patriotism

I'm poking my head up from dealing with Real Life™ for a moment to point out this segment of todays Neal's Nuze. In it, Neal Boortz notes:

There are 240,000 Iraqis in the United States that are eligible to vote in the upcoming Iraqi elections. To ensure their participation, polling places have been set up throughout the country in Maryland, Los Angeles, Nashville, Chicago and Detroit. Yesterday, the first batch of folks started to trickle in. Now, keep in mind that the mainstream media in this country wants you to be convinced that democracy in Iraq is doomed, the election will be a failure and the war in Iraq was a mistake. With that in mind, let's take a look at what some of the Iraqis in the United States are doing to be sure they are registered to vote:

He follows with a few examples of Iraqi citizens living in the US who are going through a not-inconsiderable effort to be able to vote in the first free election Iraq will have seen in 50 years. Here's one:

67-year-old Abdul Al-Haddad drove six hours from Raleigh, Carolina to New Carrollton, Maryland to register to vote. Speaking through a translator, he said ''I feel I am responsible for my country, to build a free Iraq."

This, my friends, is the face of the New Iraq that the US is trying to foster and which we hope will bloom in the Middle East. The effort that these people are going through should serve as an inspiration to all citizens of the United States and motivate us to vote in each and every election, regardless of how we cast those votes.

Fallout from Rathergate

The panel investigating the story on Bush's Texas Air National Guard service that CBS aired shortly before the election, and which relied on forged documents, has released its report. As a result of this investigation, four high-ranking staffers were ousted. The producer of the piece, Marty Mapes, was fired outright. Three others, Senior Vice President Betsy West, 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard, and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, were asked to resign. In reponse, Marty Mapes released a statement. In it, she says:

I am shocked by the vitriolic scape-goating in Les Moonves’s statement. I am very concerned that his actions are motivated by corporate and political considerations -- ratings rather than journalism. Mr. Moonves’s response to the review panel’s report and the panel’s assessment of the evidence it developed in its investigation combine not only to condemn me, but to put all investigative reporting in the CBS tradition at risk.

Corporate considerations I can believe. After all, CBS is in business to make a profit and having a producer who is so clearly tainted would be bad for the bottom line. Political considerations, on the other hand, I think are unlikely. You're both probably liberal Democrats. It's about the bottom line and not having a producer who screws up on staff, regardless of whether or not her political bias had anything to do with it.

Much has been made about the fact that these documents are photocopies and therefore cannot be trusted, but decades of investigative reporting have relied on just such copies of memos, documents and notes. In vetting these documents, we did not have ink to analyze, original signatures to compare, or paper to date. We did have context and corroboration and believed, as many journalists have before and after our story, that authenticity is not limited to original documents. Photocopies are often a basis for verified stories.

Saying that these particular photocopies are a valid basis for this story is like saying that a photograph of the Chicago skyline that contains the Sears Tower is a valid representation of Chicago in the 1960's, which was before the tower was built. These documents cannot be trusted not because they are photocopies, but because they show something that simply did not exist at the time the originals were purported to be created. I don't care how many people swear up and down that our hypothetical photograph represents the reality of the time. It simply cannot do so.

I cooperated fully with the review panel, provided them with more than 1,000 pages of reporting and background materials and answered each and every one of their questions completely and truthfully. To the extent that my answers differed from others’ statements, I can only emphasize my own honesty and integrity in attempting to reconstruct the details of the days leading up to the story’s airing.

Cooperating fully with the investigation and providing them with complete information doesn't absolve you of responsibility. If a criminal tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the stand, he is still guilty.

It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false. Indeed, in the end, all that the panel did conclude was that there were many red flags that counseled against going to air quickly.

Indeed it is noteworthy, but not in the way that Ms. Mapes thinks it is. By not concluding that the documents are false, despite the overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence that they are, shows that the panel is either biased itself, or is afraid to speak the truth. I fail to see how anyone could have any doubt, given all the evidence, that these documents were fabricated. Tortured theories about expensive typesetting machines are the best that supporters could come up with and there is just no way that an ANG Colonel would have one of those machines, let alone use it for routine memos.

I am heartened to see that the panel found no political bias on my part, as indeed I have none. For 25 years, I have built a reputation as a fair, honest and thorough journalist.

Maybe so, but she sure blew it big time. She should have copped to it right away once the evidence that these documents were fabricated was presented. But she stuck to your story, and continues to do so. I can't prove that she was motivated by political bias, but her actions are certainly consistent with such motivation. That level of proof is apparently good enough for her to conclude those documents were accurate so it's good enough for me to conclude that she was pursuing the political agenda of doing whatever she could to ensure the election of John Kerry.

Goodbye. And good riddance. I only wish Dan Rather had been shown the door as well, but that's a whole other post.

"Us" vs. "Them" and the Governor of Washington

Blogging will be light even for me for a while as I will be busy working on what will be the largest financial transaction of my life so far. However, I did want to draw your attention to this post by the ever-irascible Kim du Toit regarding the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives."

Also check out Cox and Forkum's editorial comic regarding the gubernatorial election here in Washington State. There are definitely some irregularities, such as King County counting about 3500 more votes than there were voters, and the fact that "found" votes were counted in some counties but not in others. There is currently an effort to hold a new gubernatorial election. The organization is Revote Washington and they have taken out ads on the radio and in the newspapers. The Democrats were willing to push it as far as they could to get the result they wanted. I think the Republicans have every right to do the same. We slam the Democrats for going to court over stuff like this but, in this case, they started it by pushing and paying for the manual recount which just made the situation worse. I agree that we need a new election. I expect the Democrats will resist it to the utmost of their ability. We'll just have to wait and see if a court case is filed and, if so, what the result is.

Medical malpractice reform

Neal Boortz talks about President Bush's proposal to solve the problem of increasing medical malpractice insurance costs. There are two parts:

• All class-action suits will be tried in Federal courts.


• A $250,000 cap on awards for pain and suffering, i.e. "non-economic" damages.

Boortz is all for the first but he has an issue with the second as he illustrates with the following example:

Consider this case. About 15 or so years ago two newborn males were horribly disfigured at an Atlanta hospital. A doctor made a horrible mistake during the circumcision process and literally burned the penises off of these two males. The parents of at least one of these babies took the doctor's advice and agreed to a sex-change operation. Since there was no longer a penis, the doctors just surgically changed this poor child to a female. (I lost tract of what happened to the other baby.) Now ... let's consider a medical practice action here. The question of negligence was not an issue. The doctor was clearly negligent .. open-and-shut case. The question was how much to award. Let's consider that award in light of Bush's reform proposals. This child would be entitled to have the cost of the sex-change surgery and the cost of any future hormone replacement therapies covered. The parents would presumably be compensated for the cost of all those male-oriented baby clothes they had bought.

What else would the child get? $250,000, that's what. Here we have a child, born male, who will never be able to father a child. A child who will have a confused sexual identity for the rest of its life. What is it worth to you to be able to have a child? What is your sexual identity worth? Hell ... let's cut to the chase. What is your penis worth?

At the time these babies were born their life expectancy was about 75 years. If you take that $250,000 and stretch it out over that time you would come up with a grand total of about $275 a month. That's it. That's what you get for having your penis burned off by a doctor and for never being able to have satisfactory sex let alone father a child. Do you think $275 a month is enough?

I agree that he has a point. There are cases where significant sums for such damages are warranted.

Like Boortz, I support the implementation of "loser pays." If you sue a medical professional and you lose the case, you are responsible for some or all of his or her legal expenses. Currently, many cases never come to trial because the professionals and the insurance companies know it's often less expensive to settle out of court than risk a really huge judgement against them in trial and pay the legal costs that come with defending the case to the end even if they win. With a loser pays system, I can see two immediate benefits:

• Medical professionals and their insurance companies won't be as reluctant to defend the case through trial if there's a good chance their defense will succeed. Some of those cases will be won by the defendants.


• Plaintiffs and their lawyers will be less eager to sue over just anything since they will now be liable for the defendant's legal expenses if they lose.

There is one potential problem with this system but I think there are also a couple of solutions, one or both of which will come into being naturally. The problem is this: If someone has a valid claim, they may be reluctant to sue since they could be out a lot of money if they lose, both for their own legal expenses and those of the defendant.

The solutions which I believe could naturally evolve out of this are:

• Legal firms will agree to pay the defendant's legal expenses if they lose. They will do this so that at least some suits will be filed since they'll be out of that business if none are. This will also further encourage legal firms to take only cases that they have a reasonable chance of winning, i.e. that are not frivolous.


• Some form of insurance will be made available, either to the plaintiff, his lawyers, or both, that will cover the costs if they lose. This insurance could be on a case-by-case basis, purchased by the plaintiff, his lawyers, or both. In this case it could be up to the legal experts at the insurance companies that are offering this insurance to determine whether or not the case is worth pursuing. Or it could be a blanket policy that the legal firm has purchased and pays regular premiums on. This would probably be best as it would then be up to the legal firm itself to determine whether the case was worth taking on. If they lose cases and the insurance pays out, their premiums would naturally increase.

Essentially this would be a case of the market providing its own solution to a problem, which is the ideal situation. Right now, since defendants are on the hook for a lot of money even if they successfully defend in court, the system is skewed the way it is in order to minimize overall expense. The problem is that it's still very expensive and the costs are ultimately passed on to you and me in the form of higher medical costs, higher medical insurance premiums, and reduced insurance benefits. I think that going to a loser-pays system, along with one or both of the solutions I presented above (and/or others which I haven't thought of) would go at least the better part of the way toward solving this problem.

Lodge Logic cast iron cookware

In today's installment of Stuff We Like, I present Lodge Logic cast iron cookware. When it comes to cooking, nothing equals cast iron for even heating and heat retention. Iron is among the best conductors of heat (and electricity, for that matter). That means that the cooking surface is more evenly heated regardless of the heat source (we have a gas range, for example, and we love it). The heat retention part of the equation means that the cookware doesn't cool very much when you add stuff to it. Say you want to cook some sausage. You heat the pan and then add the sausage. Some of the heat in the pan is transferred to the sausage but, because the pan has a high heat density, the temperature of the pan does not drop much. With other cookware, the temperature of the pan drops more and you then have to wait for the pan to heat up again.

At this time we only have one skillet and we just bought a two-burner griddle which we haven't used yet. I'm looking forward to cooking pancakes on it. The skillet has quickly become our favorite, although there are some foods (like scrambled eggs) that we still cook on our non-stick skillet.

The nice thing about the Logic line is that it comes pre-seasoned. With cast iron cookware, you have to season it first which, as I understand it, results in a coating of oxidation which is dark and hard rather than the red, dusty rust you'd get if you just left raw iron out in the rain. It's kind of non-stick though not nearly so much as real non-stick cookware. You clean the stuff using only hot water and a scrub brush, using a scraper of some kind to get the stubborn stuff off. It's actually pretty easy to clean. Once you've cleaned it, you wipe it dry and then spray a light coating of cooking spray on it. You don't want to use soap since that wrecks the seasoning and you then have to re-season it. I'm told you actually want to do this anyway about once a year. It's not that hard; you basically just put some oil it in, wipe it around the entire interior surface, and then heat it on the stove for about ten minutes. Continued cooking also contributes to the seasoning. We also have a wok made of carbon steel which is seasoned and cleaned the same way.

One downside of cast iron cookware is that, being entirely made of iron which conducts heat well, the handles get nearly as hot as the cooking surface. Therefore you absolutely must use an oven mitt or heat resistant pad when handling it. There are handle covers available which are made of various materials such as silicon and neoprene rubber and I plan on buying one the next time I see it.

9/11/2001 vs. 12/26/2004

The first date we all know. The second date is the day the tsunami struck many places in Southest Asia causing incalculable damage and, at current count, almost 140,000 deaths. The magnitude of the destruction wrought by the tsunami dwarfs that of the World Trade Center attack. Therefore, some may ask, why are we so concerned about terrorism that we have embarked on the global war against terror and those states who support it when natural disasters of this scale can happen?

Here are what, in my opinion, are the differences between these two events and how we should respond to them.

September 11 was perpetrated by human beings (at least at the genetic level). If given the opportunity, these people would carry out an attack that would equal or exceed the devastation from the tsunami. This is something we can address directly and we are doing so. I won't go over the goal in detail as I've done so already as have many other bloggers. Suffice to say that we're attempting to induce fundamental change in the culture and attitudes of those who wish to attack us.

The tsunami was a natural disaster which was not caused by humans (much as some might think Bush was somehow behind it). Natural disasters like this cannot be prevented. The only thing that can be done is to mitigate their effects. In order to do this, a civil infrastructure must be put in place that provides warning of the impending event and provides evacuation, shelter, rescue, and medical services. In order to do this, the nations and societies involved must have a modicum of wealth. Many of the countries affected by the tsunami do not have this infrastructure in place which greatly contributed to the enormous loss of life. If they want to be able better to handle such events, they need to increase their own prosperity through progress. Simply giving them a bunch of money isn't the answer, although we can certainly provide assistance in the form of technology and support. As for how that increase in prosperity is to be facilitated, it shouldn't be hard to guess my opinion. Here's a hint: theocracy is not the answer, nor is communism/socialism.

In short, both types of events deserve our attention. How we should go about it, however, differs greatly between the two.