Mike's Minority Opinions

"What is the Internet, Anyway?"

2011-02-02T08:56:00.001-05:00

Here is an interesting video from less than 20 years ago. What is the internet anyway? The Today show from 1994.

Where Did 2010 Go?

2011-02-01T13:33:00.002-05:00

To say I haven't posted here in a while is an understatement, I seem to have lost 2010. But I am going to try and take this blog up again and see where it leads.

If you enjoy reading this blog, feel free to comment so I know if anyone is actually reading it. :)

Does the Amtrak Error Invalidate the Whole Spending Bill?

2009-12-18T22:13:00.002-05:00

I know I know, long time no write. But I just had a thought that I had to share.

As you may have heard, as a result of a typo, President Obama recently signed a law that requires that passengers transporting a firearm on an Amtrak train be locked in boxes for the trip, not the firearms, the passengers. I thought the story was pretty funny when I first read it. According to Fox News:

It's a mistake in the law's wording. But for now, the clerical error is the law of the land.

Earlier this week, Congress sent the president a massive spending bill that funded dozens of federal departments. Tucked into the transportation section of the legislation are safety requirements for Amtrak customers who carry firearms on board the government-backed train system. The bill Congress passed mandates that passengers with firearms declare they have weapons with them in advance and stow them in locked boxes while on the train.

The bill text was correct when the House approved the legislation last week. The Senate followed suit Sunday, but somewhere along the line, the language that referred to putting the guns in locked boxes morphed into stuffing "passengers" into locked boxes.

Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became aware of the problem Wednesday night as the House voted on its final slate of bills for the year. Pelosi's staff tried to negotiate with Republican aides to see if they would agree to change the text of the bill without revoting the entire piece of legislation. But it was all for naught as Obama had already signed the measure into law.

But if the bill President Obama signed was not the same bill passed by Congress, it can't be the law of the land. As I recall from Schoolhouse Rock, for a bill to become a law, the same bill has to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president. The bill the president signed was not actually passed by Congress. Since Congress chose to combine all these disparate items into a single bill, the problem is with the entire bill, not just the Amtrak section. Does that mean those federal agencies are currently operating (i.e. spending money) illegally?

It seems to me that Congress might need to pass a corrected bill ASAP. Of course it would be a shame if something like that screwed up Harry Reid's timetable to pass a health care bill by Christmas Eve....

The Eclectic Tarentino

2009-05-05T16:56:00.001-04:00

I am a big fan of Quentin Tarentino's films. I thought this was really interesting. Be warned full of graphic violence and adult language.

Eclectic Method - The Tarantino Mixtape from Eclectic Method on Vimeo.

Yet Another Bailout Request

2009-03-11T19:30:00.001-04:00

"Lex Luthor Bailout" with Jon Hamm - watch more funny videos

Is that the worst ever bald wig or what?

NOT a trailer for the new Star Trek Film...

2009-01-30T20:39:00.001-05:00

Roland Burris

2009-01-07T15:34:00.002-05:00

"I love this part. He was turned away because they said he didn't meet the high standards of the Senate. Gee. I wonder which senator turned him down. Do you think it was the one who embezzled the money? Maybe it was the one that got caught with the hooker? I know, I'll bet it was the one caught fornicating near the urinal in the airport bathroom." --Jay Leno

Aside from the issue of whether or not the Senate SHOULD refuse to seat Roland Burris, is the perhaps more interesting issue of whether the Senate CAN refuse to seat him. Article I; Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.”

From that, it would seem pretty straightforward that the Senate does have the power. But Supreme Court precedent would seem to disagree. In the case of Powell v. McCormack (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives could not refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (who had been embroiled in scandal). The Court ruled that the House could not add additional qualifications to those in the Constitution (age, residency, and citizenship).

I doubt that the Burris case will make it to the Supreme Court, but it would be interesting to see if the Roberts Court would agree with the Warren Court decision.

As to whether Burris should be seated, it is highly unlikely I would be enthusiastic about anyone appointed by a Democratic governor. But I recently read something that makes me particularly concerned about Burris. Politico is reporting that “Burris sought death for innocent man.”

While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.

But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris' own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Burris refused. He was running for governor.

Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney ended up resigning in protest. Personally, I have no respect for any prosecutor more concerned with getting convictions than ensuring justice. Those willing to let an innocent man rot in prison for political advantage deserve to change places with that innocent man. Burris was willing to let Cruz stay on DEATH ROW. He certainly should not be elected (or selected) to the Senate.

Hopefully, Illinois will impeach Blagojevich with all deliberate speed.

For Sale in Illinois

2009-01-07T15:19:00.002-05:00

"President-elect Barack Obama said he got a little choked up as he left his house in Chicago and headed for Washington, D.C. It was especially painful because as soon as he left, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich sold Obama's house." --Conan O'Brien

"President-elect Barack Obama and his family made the move from Chicago to Washington, D.C., over the weekend, so their daughters, Malia and Sasha, could start school with the other kids coming back from break. They're enrolled in the Sidwell Friends School, which is a very exclusive private school. Chelsea Clinton went there, and to give you an idea of how exclusive it is, someone got ahold of the school lunch menu. Now this for real. One day menu's, local pumpkin and sage soup, salad du jour, Caesar salad, chopped salad, spaghetti and meatballs, roasted butternut squash [on screen: a copy of the menu]. Disgusting, really disgusting stuff. No one would feed to that kind of garbage to their children. And while that might seem like a bit much for a bunch of 6-, 7- and 8-year old kids, I was actually looking through their wine list this morning and it's very reasonably priced. What would you recommend with Funyons, a Chablis?" --Jimmy Kimmel

"And for the next two weeks, President-elect Barack Obama will be living full-time at a hotel right across the street from the White House. This is historic because this is the first time a Democrat has checked into a Washington hotel room under his own name." --Jay Leno

"Hey, congratulations to Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol, who had her baby. They named the baby Tripp, which is better than the name Sarah Palin suggested. She wanted to call the kid Joe the baby." --Jay Leno

The Downside of the Detroit Bailout

2009-01-04T20:28:00.001-05:00

An A Capella Star Wars Tribute To John Williams

2008-11-10T08:11:00.001-05:00

Obama, Japan

2008-11-09T22:07:00.001-05:00

"This is weird. In Japan, officials in a small town called Obama -- there's a town in Japan called Obama -- say they're going to invite Barack Obama to visit. Yeah. And actually, a similar trip happened after Bill Clinton was elected, and he was invited to Horndog, Thailand." --Conan O'Brien

"Barack Obama spent his first day as president-elect putting together his transition team. And if you believe MSNBC, by tomorrow he will have chosen all 12 of his disciples." --Jay Leno

What A Difference One Percent Makes

2008-11-09T22:04:00.000-05:00

Obama Headquarters

2008-11-07T08:52:00.001-05:00

"And, of course, it was a huge celebration over at Barack Obama headquarters, otherwise known as MSNBC." --Jay Leno

"All the major networks declared Barack Obama the winner at 11 last night, except for MSNBC, which declared Obama the winner six months ago." --Conan O'Brien

"Hey, did I call it or what? Six months ago I predicted Ralph Nader would come in third. Did I call it?" --Jay Leno

"A huge turnout in Hollywood. In fact, for the first time ever, there were more celebrities in voting booths than in rehab." --Jay Leno

"Anybody get a robo-call from Bill Clinton? They had those out there, too. See, I knew it was from Clinton right away, because if a man answers, it automatically hangs up." --Jay Leno

"And in what has to be one of the most ridiculous moments yesterday, it looks like convicted Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has won re-election. How does that make the guy who lost feel, huh? What's that concession speech like? 'We gave it our best, but the voters preferred a convicted, 84-year-old felon.'" --Jay Leno

Racism On The Hard Left

2008-11-07T08:35:00.001-05:00

As I said in my last post, racism isn't dead. But it can be found in surprising places. It turns out that Barack Obama and I have something in common. We have both been called a name by Ralph Nader. As I explained in my very first post to this blog, Nader once referred to me as a fascist child of the ruling class. Now Nader has referred to Obama as an Uncle Tom. In this video, Shepherd Smith of Fox News tries to give Nader a chance to backtrack. But he throws it back in Smiths face.

To my mind, Nader had one redeeming feature. His third-party runs took votes away from the Democratic candidate. Alas, it seems that Nader has no redeeming features left.

A Reason To Celebrate

2008-11-05T21:10:00.002-05:00

Let me first say congratulations to Barak Obama.

I didn’t vote for Obama and I strongly believe he was the wrong choice. Not because of a character flaw, but because I believe the policies he will attempt to enact will be the wrong ones for this country.

But there is still good reason to celebrate Obama’s victory, even if you are a Republican. Oh how far we have come. A little more than 3 months after I was born, Martin Luther King was assassinated. 40 years later an African-American has been elected president.

Some will say that this election proves racism is a thing of the past. I wish it were so. Racism is still with us, though much weaker then it was. The power of racism, in my opinion, has been both magnified and exaggerated for some time. I saw it as an employment attorney interviewing prospective clients who believed they were fired because of their race, and I saw it again with my students in the South Bronx. Racial discrimination is often blamed for adversity, even where it doesn’t exist. What is truly awful is when racism is used as an excuse not to try. Why should I work hard if people are just going to discriminate against me?

Obama’s election has conclusively demonstrated that racism and racists are not nearly as powerful as some have thought them to be. I fervently hope that this election will bring the United States closer to the dream of a color blind society.

I wish Barak Obama and our country success over the next four years. I will do my best to help by being a vocal critic of our President elect as I become a member of the loyal opposition.

RIP Don LaFontaine

2008-09-04T23:25:00.003-04:00

Don LaFontaine, the voice of what seems like the majority of movie trailers over the past 25 years, passed away on Monday. I had known the voice but not the face until the Geico commercial and a New York Lottery commercial. The good folks at Funny or Die put together a nice tribute video.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

That's Liberal Hypocrisy

2008-09-03T08:32:00.001-04:00

There has been a great deal of criticism over Sara Palin’s agreeing to run for vice-president even though she has young children at home. At first I dismissed it, but then I thought a little deeper about it. They may have a point. The children are our future and a parent’s first priority must be raising their children. It is far more important than personal ambition. The pressures of running the country really aren’t compatible with the responsibilities of raising young children. That is why I believe Barack Obama should drop out of the race.

Barack Obama? But he’s not a mother? But he is a father with 2 young daughters.

To be serious for a second, I find the criticism of Palin’s decision to accept the nomination deeply offensive. Remember that criticism is coming from liberals and Democrats with the media scrambling to find conservatives or Republicans that will join in with only limited success. It is the liberals that are being sexist here, that are reinforcing the glass ceiling that Hillary Clinton was trying to tear down.

I consider myself a feminist in that I believe a woman should have the opportunity to pursue any career a man might pursue, though they should also be free without social stigma to choose raising a family over a career. Women should also be free of sexual harassment in the workplace. But obviously I must be missing something because it seems to many liberal feminists are silent or are joining in the piling on of Palin. The National Organization of Women reflexively supports Bill Clinton, accused not only of sexual harassment but of rape, but attacks Sara Palin because she is “not the right woman” Ok, fine they disagree with her on the issues, But they should still be speaking out her right to raise a family and pursue the second highest office in the land.

That’s hypocrisy for you.

The Best Show On Television; The Final Season

2008-09-02T11:27:00.002-04:00

Tonight is the season premier of The Shield, in my opinion the best show on television today. This is the last season. It is the beginning of the end for Vic Mackey, the crooked cop with a heart of gold. Mackey has planted evidence, beaten suspects, protected drug dealers for cash, committed arm robbery and murdered several including a cop. Yet, you can’t help but love him and hope he gets away with it, because what really motivates Mackey is a desire to make a difference. He risks his life and his freedom to protect his family, his team, and the innocent people of Farmington. If you have never seen it, start tonight at 10 on FX. Then add seasons 1-6 to your Netflix queue. Trust me; once you pop in that first disc you will be hooked. As it happens until just a couple of years ago I had no access to the FX network and started watching the show on DVD. I am glad I don’t have to wait until Season 7 is out on DVD. But as each episode ends, it will be hard to wait a week for the next. 13 episode left, and all I can do is hope it ends well for Vic. I doubt it will though. Karma is a bitch sometimes.

Here’s a Season 7 teaser.

Sara Palin

2008-09-02T10:01:00.004-04:00

I don’t always agree with John McCain but I do agree with his choice for Vice-President. In fact I wouldn’t mind if they switched places on the ticket. Surprisingly, the biggest issue in this campaign is not the war but the economy. One of the largest (if not the largest) problems with the economy is oil is prices. Sara Palin, as governor of Alaska is an expert on oil and drilling. Unlike Dick Cheney, who also was an expert on oil (as CEO of an oil services firm), Palin has been a critic of big oil companies.

McCain should rethink his opposition to drilling in ANWR. T. Boon Pickens is running television ads supporting his alternative energy plans. At the beginning of the commercial he urges the U.S. to “drill drill drill” but also invest in alternative energy. That should be McCain’s message, though he need not necessarily endorse Pickens specific approach. Palin is the woman to make that argument.

That’s one reason I think she is a great choice. Other reasons include her being a pro-life fiscal conservative. She seems to me to be a person of strong conviction and great conviction. She is a great conservative and feminist role model. She has both a large loving family and a high powered career. Best of all she drives the lunatic left positively off the deep end.

Sorry For Months Without Updates

2008-09-02T09:45:00.000-04:00

I haven’t updated my blogs in months, and for that I apologize. But as the Democratic Convention is over and the Republican Convention is getting started (after a one day hurricane induced delay) I have some things to say. So here goes…

The Switch Hitter vs. the Ambidextrous Pitcher

2008-06-20T16:13:00.005-04:00

Pat Venditte is a minor league pitcher with the Staten Island Yankees. He was selected in the 20th round of the 2008 draft with the 620th overall pick. But that is not his claim to fame. Venditte’s claim to fame is that he is a “switch pitcher” in that he throws both right and left handed. He has a special glove with two thumbs so he can quickly shift the glove from hand to hand.

Only one pitcher of the modern era has ever thrown both right and left handed in a major league game and he only did it once. Greg A. Harris, in the next to last game of his career, alternated between throwing right and left handed (depending on whether the hitter was right or left handed). But he apparently did not face a switch hitter. For those of you who do not really follow baseball (shame on you) right handed pitchers are generally more effective against right handed batters and left handed pitchers more effective against left handed batters. This is why many hitters learn to switch hit (hit from both sides of the plate).

But what happens when a switch hitter faces a switch pitcher? If the pitcher throws right handed can the batter switch to bat left handed? What if the pitcher then switches too? That was the situation at the end of last nights Coney Island Cyclones-Staten Island Yankees game.

There may or may not be an MLB rule that deals with this. But if Pat Venditte makes the majors there will be.

The Effect of Gay Marriage

2008-06-19T22:07:00.000-04:00

"It's already having a ripple effect, this gay marriage thing. In fact, since it was instituted yesterday, marriage proposals to Liza Minnelli have dropped 65 percent." --Jay Leno

Top 10 Ways The Mets Can Turn It Around

2008-06-19T22:03:00.000-04:00

A Disgaceful Firing

2008-06-19T21:43:00.000-04:00

While I primarily write about politics here, I am also a New York Mets Fan. The story of the week for the Mets has obviously been the firing of manager Willie Randolph.

I do not believe Randolph should have been fired. I understand why he was. The Mets, with the second highest payroll in baseball, have been playing in a mediocre fashion for over a year now. They had one of the biggest collapses in the history to end last season and with expectations of a world series this season, they have a losing record this season.

But I don’t believe that the mediocre play has been a result of Randolph’s managing. I think the problem this season has been aging injury prone players and a bullpen performing far below expectations. But sometimes a change can make a difference. You can’t fire the players so you fire the manager.

But I am not sure the Mets or GM Omar Minaya could have handled the firing in a worse way. The details of the firing were leaked almost a week in advance. But Randolph was allowed/required to fly all the way to California and manage the first game of a series against the Angels (which he won) before being fired at 3:15 am (Eastern Time). In fact, Randolph had one 3 of his last 4 games. The way Randolph was fired was disgraceful.

Here is The Daily Show’s Take on the firing.

Should Barack Choose Hillary?

2008-06-10T21:46:00.002-04:00

"There's a lot of pressure on Barack Obama to put Hillary on the ticket. Even his advisers are telling him that Hillary can deliver the woman vote. And, of course, Bill can deliver the other woman vote. So between the two of them, that's, you know, that's a lot of women." --Jay Leno

"Now, political experts are saying that Barack Obama is hesitant to name Hillary Clinton as his running mate, because he's not sure what role Bill Clinton would want to play. Yeah. Bill says he's comfortable playing many roles, like boss interviewing secretary, or pizza guy surprising housewife. He doesn't care." --Conan O'Brien

"Meanwhile, after Hillary's meeting with Barack, Bill Clinton is now saying it's only fair he have a private meeting with Michelle Obama and Salma Hayek." --Jimmy Kimmel

"Barack Obama is set to enjoy his first weekend as the Democratic nominee for president. He and Hillary Clinton had what they called a secret meeting last night in Washington, DC. ... One of the topics they are rumored to have discussed is Hillary's $20 million campaign debt. Obama may help her cover some of that, but she's still going to be on the hook for most of it. Today, she outlined a broad-based plan for recouping that money. Her plan is to marry, and then divorce, Paul McCartney." --Jimmy Kimmel

"Barack Obama took time off this weekend from campaigning to spend time with his family. In fact, he said on Saturday night, he was going on a date with his wife. A date with his wife, Michelle. When Bill Clinton heard that, he said to Hillary, 'We need to stay away from these people. They're freaks!'" --Jay Leno

Classic Photos Recreated With Legos

2008-06-10T21:22:00.006-04:00

An artist who goes by the name Balakov on Flickr has used Legos to recreate classic photographs. Here are three examples. See more here.

Raising the flag on Iwo Jima

V.J. Day Times Square
Tiananmen Square

Hillary Drops Out

2008-06-07T18:56:00.001-04:00

"Hillary Clinton is ending her campaign, but really in the bigger sense it's sad because, think about it, there goes right down the drain the Clinton dream of a being a two-impeachment family." --David Letterman

"Hillary is taking it pretty well, I think. She actually said she's looking forward to spending more time with Chelsea, Bill, and Gina Gershon." --David Letterman

"There's a new Vanity Fair article coming out that insinuates, among other things, that he has been canoodling with actress Gina Gershon. Clinton lashed out at the reporter who wrote the story. I guess he's furious about this accusation, in particular, with Gina Gershon, because now he's gonna have to explain it to Megan Fox." --Jimmy Kimmel

"But, you know, people are now talking about the ticket, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Would that be a good ticket? Would you folks like that ticket? And I think this would be the first, if you think about it, first combination of an African American man and a white woman since, well, Michael Jackson." --David Letterman

"There's been a lot of speculation about John McCain's possible running mate. Experts say he wants someone who's not afraid to attack Barack Obama. That's who he's looking for, yeah. Which explains why McCain has decided to pick Hillary Clinton" --Conan O'Brien

"The good news: the whole voting process ended. The bad news: the 2012 Democratic primary starts on Thursday." --Jay Leno

The Importance of Voting

2008-06-06T19:49:00.004-04:00

Voting was important to my father. In November of 2000 he was very ill and living in a nursing home in Manhattan. A worker at the home had helped him fill out an application for an absentee ballot. As of Election Day, he hadn’t received it, but he wanted to vote. I called my state senator asking what I could do. I ended up driving to the Bronx County Board of Elections, obtaining an absentee ballot and application, and driving to the nursing home, before helping my dad fill out the application and ballot. Then I drove back to the Bronx County Board of Elections to drop off them off.

By the way, my dad voted for George Bush, though I would have helped him just the same if he wanted to vote for Gore. It might seem like an awful lot of trouble to go to. After all, we lived in NEW YORK and it wasn’t like Bush had much of a prayer of winning the Empire State. But my dad felt, and I agree that it is both a civic responsibility and a privilege to vote. So my dad voted. Gore won New York, but Bush won Florida (after some controversy) and the presidency. I watched Bush being inaugurated as I dressed for my father’s wake.

The following November, I was once again exercising my right to vote. I bent over to sign the voter roll and saw my dad’s name above mine. Then I saw someone had signed his name. That’s my dad for you, not even being dead would keep him from voting. He didn’t even live in Chicago.

I think about someone using my Dad’s name to vote whenever I hear a Democrat complain about the idea of requiring a photo ID to prove your identity before you vote. The Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring photo ID in April. I previously wrote about it here.

Democrats complain there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. I say why does there need to be evidence fraud is widespread to make it difficult. We require a government issued photo ID to fly, to enter many government buildings, or to simply buy alcohol or tobacco. I really have no idea how many registered voters do not have a photo ID, but I imagine it is a small number, probably a smaller number than the number of dead people voting.

As Fox News has reported: Dead Voters Still Showing Up on Election Records, Puzzling Officials. The story talks about a woman that discovered here deceased mother was recorded as having voted in Connecticut The story continues:

Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on Connecticut’s voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.

“We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died,” Dufresne said. Dufresne said there is no evidence of any election fraud, but the number of dead voters “shows the system is vulnerable and it shows that people who are clever and have a little cooperation in the town level, you could use this and get people to vote for people who died.”

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is adamant that “actually no dead people voted.”

“I want to be very clear about that,” she said, explaining that while votes were cast and counted in the names of the dead, “there was no voter fraud at all in the state of Connecticut.”

How could she possibly be sure? Well I agree the dead people didn’t actually vote themselves, at least not without help. The story continues:

In Washington State, Republican Dino Rossi ran for governor in 2004, and lost by only 133 votes. Officials confirmed that the names of 19 dead people somehow cast ballots. Rossi is running this year for governor and reflected on his experience in 2004.

“It was the closest governor’s race in U.S. history. After the fact we found a number of dead people voted. I don’t know how they voted — you have to talk to Shirley MacLaine about that,” Rossi said.

Much as my dad might have liked to continue voting from beyond the grave, I am not sure he would have approved of who he was voting for. Perhaps it would it would be best if we restricted voting to the living and required poll workers to check ID. Voting is too important not to do that.

If the NBA Eastern Division Playoffs Were Like The Race for the Democratic Party Nomination

2008-06-06T18:50:00.002-04:00

From the New Republic.

A Sports Parable

A statement from Detroit Pistons general manager Joe Dumars:

I wanted to say a few words about the Michigan Solution. No, not that travesty of justice. I'm talking about a fair, common-sense resolution of the Eastern Conference Finals.

Some in the media are declaring the series over because the Boston Celtics have won four of the six games played so far. But I don’t understand why, with a series this close and hotly contested, anyone would want to shut it down before we play a seventh game and have all the results in. As anybody who follows the NBA knows, a seven-game series would be good for the league, and the added competition would make the eventual victor, whomever it might be, a stronger opponent against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals.

Read the rest here.

Mr. Met Needs Your Help

2008-06-05T12:56:00.007-04:00

In honor of the Draft Day and the Mets vastly improved play of late, here is more baseball related blogging. Home Run Derby is currently running a bracketed competition for the best baseball mascot. Number I seed Mr. Met is competing against Number 8 seed Homer the Brave. Mr. Met was introduced at Shea Stadium in 1964 and is believed to be the first baseball mascot to be portrayed by a live human. Homer was introduced in 1988 after the Braves were forced to drop their former mascot Chief Noc-A-Homa because of political correctness. But Homer is clearly a knock off of Mr. Met and cannot be allowed to win. So please vote here early and often.

Here is a video of Mr. Met in action.

By the way I voted and saw that Mr. Met was winning 99% to 1%. But don't let that stop you from voting. Crush Homer the Brave!!!

MLB Amateur Draft Starts Today At 2:00 pm Eastern

2008-06-05T11:32:00.002-04:00

The Mets have the 18th, 22nd, and 33rd picks in today's draft. As the Mets pretty much depleted the upper echelons of their farm system acquiring Johan Santanna, we Mets fans are hoping that Omar Minaya will choose wisely.

Here is a draft preview from ESPN's Baseball Tonight. The first round of the Draft airs on ESPN 2.

George Will On the Colbert Report

2008-06-05T11:05:00.001-04:00

Impact of Inflation

2008-06-05T10:36:00.006-04:00

With perhaps the exception of those that regularly fly First or Business Class, the first reaction of a person reading an article titled “Airlines May Start Treating Passengers `Like Freight” might be “Start?”

I think most people who have flown have had the experience of being treated more like cargo than people. But what this article is talking about is an idea being floated by airlines to cut cost and raise revenue. Airlines have already cut meal services, and American Airlines is charging $15 for each checked bag, but this new idea is worse.

Imagine two scales at the airline ticket counter, one for your bags and one for you. The price of a ticket depends upon the weight of both.

That may not be so far-fetched.

``You listen to the airline CEOs, and nothing is beyond their imagination,'' said David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group. ``They have already begun to think exotically. Nothing is not under the microscope.'' He declined to discuss what any individual airline might be contemplating, including charging passengers based on weight.

As a horizontally challenged American, I can tell you I really don’t like that idea. It’s not even the money so much as the idea of having to get on a scale at the airport. That, I think, is why it would never actually happen. It would risk offending far more people than just raising fares.

Also speaking as a horizontally challenged American, I must object to what I perceive to be a horrible conspiracy in the Ice Cream Industry. When I was a kid I remember Ice Cream being sold in half-gallon containers. At some point those containers shrunk, becoming 1.75 quarts. First I noticed that Edy’s containers had shrunk to 1.5 quarts. Now I see Breyers has done the same thing.

If this keeps up I might not even get charged extra to fly….

Searching For Life In The Solar System

2008-06-03T08:03:00.001-04:00

Bi-Wingal Conspiracy Versus The Clintons

2008-05-29T23:54:00.000-04:00

McCain Invites Obama to Visit Iraq

2008-05-29T09:09:00.002-04:00

Last Sunday, I wrote about a group of veterans that were criticizing Barack Obama because he had failed to meet one on one with David Petraeus and because Obama had not visited Iraq in two and a half years. John McCain has now taken up this issue as well, at least the latter part. Here is the LA Times headline.

McCain challenges Obama to visit Iraq

Now you can’t always trust an LA Times headline, but this was actually seems to fit the story. McCain has invited Obama to accompany him on a trip to Iraq. Obama reportedly is planning a trip this summer, though not with McCain. Obama’s campaign called such a joint trip a “political stunt.”

Well it would be a political stunt, as well as a security nightmare, but it might have value beyond that. Having the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees touring Iraq together would send a message to world in general and Iraq in particular that the United States is united in support of out troops and committed to ensuring a stable Iraq. Unfortunately, while I am sure Obama supports our troops in a general way, I don’t think he is nearly as committed to a stable Iraq.

Jim Carrey Is The Walrus

2008-05-29T08:23:00.002-04:00

YouTube Terrorism?

2008-05-28T20:00:00.001-04:00

Senator Joe Lieberman is trying to get Google, the parent company of YouTube, to take down videos he believes were posted by Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda sympathizers. As I understand it, Google has taken down approximately 80 videos identified by Lieberman which the company found violated their community guidelines, but have left up others, including one video which purportedly shows an American soldier being killed by sniper fire. This video shows Senator Lieberman being interviewed by Fox News about the videos.

I agree that the proper adjective to describe the videos is disgusting. I think Senator Lieberman should be applauded bringing the videos to the attention of both Google and the American people. But near the end of the video, Senator Lieberman brings up the possibility of legislation if Google fails to take down the video. Disgusting as those videos may be, and regardless of whether such videos might attract those sympathetic to Islamic terror organizations, I do not believe government censorship is the answer. Ultimately it won’t work, and it doesn’t seem right that the United States should try to join China in censoring the Internet.

Young Hillary Clinton

2008-05-28T19:44:00.001-04:00

This is hillarious.

Vice-Presidential Humor

2008-05-28T08:12:00.000-04:00

"Of course, a lot of people now are starting to talk about who Barack Obama will choose as his running mate. That's now what everyone's discussing. This is the latest, folks, true story. Time magazine says that former President Bill Clinton is pushing very hard for Barack Obama to choose Hillary as his vice president. Yeah. Yeah, Bill says Hillary would be a great vice president, or a great ambassador to any country that's far, far away." --Conan O'Brien

"I guess McCain is scheduled to meet with three possible vice presidential nominees this weekend at his home. The candidates are very excited to go. They say the only downside -- they hate it when he keeps pushing that bowl of ribbon candy on them." --Jay Leno

"The only other uncomfortable thing about McCain's household is plastic on the furniture." --Jay Leno

"Earlier this week, Vice President Dick Cheney gave the commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. He was given a 19-gun salute. And two Coast Guard members were slightly injured when Cheney returned fire." --Jay Leno

No Such Thing As Media Bias. Riiiiiight.

2008-05-26T09:15:00.003-04:00

As I have written before, I support the legalization of same sex marriage. I just don’t understand how allowing two men or two women to marry would in any way undermine a heterosexual couple’s marriage. My favorite anti-gay marriage argument is that gay men are too promiscuous to be allowed to marry. So the best way to reduce promiscuity is to prevent gay men from entering a legally recognized monogamous relationship?

While I would happily vote for a law to legalize same-sex marriage, I object to judges that feel free to substitute their personal beliefs (even when I share those beliefs) for the law. That is something a majority of the California Supreme Court did recently in overturning California’s recent voter enacted ban on same sex marriage.

Not surprisingly, this decision has led to a backlash as opponents seek to amend the California Constitution to overturn this decision. Here is where that unbiased reporting comes in. The La Times and KTLA polled registered voters in California about support for this Constitutional Amendment. The Times online addition has this headline:

Times Poll: Californians narrowly reject gay marriage

The picture at right is from the print edition. Reading the article, it is not until the sixth paragraph that the Times gives the actual poll numbers. It seems California registered voters support the Constitutional Amendment by a mere 19% (54-35%). That’s a “narrow” and “slim” 19%. In most elections 19% is a landslide, but that must only be when the 19% is “wide” and “chubby.”

If the LA Times wants to argue on its editorial page that voters should reject the amendment they have every right, in fact I encourage them to do so. But misrepresenting polling results in the way they did is not journalism. It makes me wonder how the Times framed the polling questions in the first place. It might well be support for the amendment is actually higher.

But at least there is no liberal bias in the media.

Try And Watch This Without Getting Misty Eyed

2008-05-25T16:10:00.000-04:00

Obama Will Meet With Foreign Dictators But Not Vets Or Their Commander

2008-05-25T15:53:00.007-04:00

Barack Obama has said that he will meet, without preconditions, with leaders like Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and North Korea’s Kim Jong Il. Charles Krauthammer most recent column is one of the most compelling and well reasoned criticisms of this policy I have read. Like the Michelle Malkin column I discussed the other day, Krauthammer talks about Obama’s gaffes, arguing that one gaffe was so bad he was stuck with it and actually turned into a policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

But what is the problem with talking?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Chalk it up to inexperience, naiveté, or political calculation, but Obama’s policy is a mistake. But how do you explain Obama’s failure thus far to meet one on one with General David Petraeus? Also, Obama hasn’t been to Iraq to see things for himself in more than two years. On April 8, a group of more than a dozen Illinois veterans went to Obama’s office and requested a meeting. Though Obama was in the office he refused to meet with these veterans who had not only served their country in Iraq, but who were his constituents.

Vets For Freedom produced this ad.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-25T13:31:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I thoroughly enjoyed it and would recommend it though I think it wasn’t quite as good as the earlier films.

This film was certainly much much better than the Star Wars sequels (well technically prequels). I think the credit for that goes largely to Steven Spielberg. I read that Spielberg insisted on using stuntmen instead of CGI, and CGI effects were used only when absolutely necessary. I think the film is much better off for it.

For the most part I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels. I think each of them improved on the previous one, not coincidently because each successive film had less Jar Jar Binks. But none approached the quality of the original trilogy. I think they suffered in part because of George Lucas’s fascination with digital effects and the emphasis of those effects over the story. While I originally thought the idea of revisiting the original trilogy and improving the special effects was a good one, watching those films now many of those new effects seem superfluous and distracting.

But the Indiana Jones film does not suffer from these problems at all. It is a very good film in it’s own right. Also, Indiana Jones is now clearly a Republican. When asked for his last words by the villain, he replies “I like Ike.”

That’s something else I liked about the movie. While filmed in brilliant color, it was one of the more black and white films of recent memory. Aside from a nod to McCarthyism, the Americans were clearly the good guys and the Soviets were clearly the bad guys. Not that every film has to be like that, but it would be nice to see Hollywood produce a few more patriotic action films. I think they would do well at the box office.

In the meantime here are two interesting articles I found about Indiana Jones I would recommend.

10 Awesome Indiana Jones Facts

Indiana Jones 10 Finest Moments

Who Is Battlestar Galactica's Final Cylon?

2008-05-24T13:24:00.004-04:00

As I have discussed before, I am a big fan of the SciFi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica. The show details the trials and tribulations of the last of humanity fleeing genocide perpetrated by a race of self aware machines, 12 of which look human. 11 of the human models are known (at least to viewers), the 12th has yet to be revealed. Now a Costa Rica-based betting site BetCRIS.com recently placed odds and is accepting bets as to the identity of the final Cylon. Read more about it here.

Here are the posted odds
· Aaron Kelly: 5-4
· Diana "Hardball" Seelix: 33-20
· Tom Zarek: 23-20
· Anastasia Dualla: 4-5
· Felix Gaeta: 3-2
· Brendan "Hot Dog" Costanza: 2-1
· Margaret "Racetrack" Edmondson: 9-4
· The field (any other character): 2-7

When Bodybuilding and Steroids Go Too Far

2008-05-24T12:57:00.004-04:00

The blog Life in the Fast Lane has an interesting (and somewhat grotesque) article entitled When Bodybuilding and Steroids Go Too Far. The article discusses the dangers of steroids and includes photographs of bodybuilders (both male and female) that have simply gone too far. The picture at the left is just one example.

How Could Anyone Think Of Voting For Hillary?

2008-05-23T20:57:00.003-04:00

I know as a loyal Republican I should want Hillary Clinton to stay in this race as long as possible, but I honestly don’t know how anyone could still be supporting her.

In case you haven’t heard, earlier today while speaking to the editorial board of Argus Leader Hillary Clinton in part justified staying in the race because “[w]e all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” Read all about it here.

Everyone makes mistakes, saying something that we later realized came out the wrong way. But Hillary Clinton must have walked into that editorial board meeting prepped with all kinds of talking points. Are we supposed to believe her campaign didn’t expect to be asked, with Obama’s victory all but certain, why she was still in the race? So her statement was almost certainly a planned response. How stupid are her advisors?

For better or worse, Hillary Clinton’s message has been that she is more electable than Barack Obama. More subtly her message is that a lot of working class white democrats will not vote for a black man. To argue that she should stay in the race just in case Obama is assassinated is at best colossally stupid and at worse a suggestion.

I really don’t envy my former colleagues at the Huffington Post. Last week, when it was suggested Obama should choose Hillary as his running mate, I had to delete hundreds of comments along the lines of “if he does that, he better hire a food taster.” Maybe they were right.

Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of herself. Watch the video below.

Best One Liner Ever

2008-05-22T21:01:00.000-04:00

Anyone Want To Buy A Jet Bike?

2008-05-22T11:52:00.005-04:00

Anybody want a jet powered bicycle? You can put in a bid on eBay if you like (current bid $900.). Wired has a profile of creator Bob Maddox. Maddox, a sky diver, first decided to strap a pulse jet engine to his back to become a human missile, and then thought it might be safe to put the jet engine on a bicycle. You can watch video of Maddox riding his jet bike here. (Sorry it wouldn’t let me embed). With the price of gas as it is, I wonder about the mileage, though according to the article "It'll run on propane, gas, kerosene, absolutely anything except cryogenic fuel," he says. "They'd run on peanut oil if you want." What I bet you can’t do however, is register it with the DMV.

My Next TV (I Wish)

2008-05-22T11:06:00.003-04:00

My brother is in the market for an HDTV and I am going to reccommend he get this one. Then I am moving in with him. Unfortunately. Samsung's new Quad HDTV which features 4X the resolution of a standard HDTV (3820x2160 pixels) is not yet for sale. If it was on sale it would most likely cost well over $40,000. So if I win the lottery maybe I will buy my brother one for his birthday. The good news is that Sang Soo Kim, executive vice president of the LCD Technology Center at Samsung Electronics, called it the “optimal display for future TVs.” Read more about it here.

Hillary's New Plan

2008-05-22T10:38:00.002-04:00

"But don't discount this Hillary, because she's nothing if not shrewd. Now she has another back-up plan to get to the White House. She's going to marry John McCain." --David Letterman

"And I tell you, Hillary knows how to appeal to those voters. Like, she promised the people of Kentucky, if elected president, she would lower the price of pay-per-view wrestling fifty percent." --Jay Leno

"On Sunday, Hillary Clinton attended a church service at a church, a Methodist church in Bowling Green. She just went to the church there. It just so happens the minister gave a 60-minute sermon on adultery. Yeah, she had to sit through a 60-minute sermon. And here's the really embarrassing part. Right after the minister finished, Bill stood up and gave a 20-minute rebuttal" --Jay Leno

"Hillary Clinton is expected to win in Kentucky. Barack Obama is expected to win in Oregon. And John McCain is expected to win at bingo. So everybody wins." --Conan O'Brien

Obama: Perpetual Gaffe Machine?

2008-05-21T20:46:00.001-04:00

Michelle Malkin’s column today is called Barack Gaffes; The Obama machine. Michelle premise is that while one gaffe will taint a Republican for life (as examples she gives Dan Quayle’s potato and the elder George Bush’s encounter with a supermarket scanner), Barack Obama (who she calls a “perpetual gaffe machine”) gets a free ride from the media.3

Here are some of the gaffes she notes.

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

There are more in her column.

I don’t think there is a media conspiracy to cover up Obama’s gaffes and promote those of Republicans. But I do think stories that support the conventional wisdom about a politician or party get more coverage. Even before Quayle thought potato should be spelled with an “e” at the end, he was seen as someone chosen to be VP because of his good looks not his intelligence. It was easy to look at Bush, who had a definite patrician bearing and who after serving as vice-president for 8 years before becoming president, as being out of touch with the common man. It was pretty likely that he hadn’t done his own grocery shopping since some time in the 1970’s. So Bush being unfamiliar with supermarket scanners re-enforced this pre-existing view.

Barack Obama on the other hand is without question a brilliant man. After all, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law School and was President of the law Review. The conventional wisdom about Obama is that he is an elitist. Gaffes for which George W. Bush would be excoriated are not given the same attention when made by Obama.

Obama's Rally

2008-05-21T19:46:00.001-04:00

"It was quite a weekend, politically. Yesterday, an estimated 75,000 people attended a Barack Obama rally on the banks of the the Willamette River. ... And if you believe the media, listen to this. After the rally, Barack Obama fed them all with just five loaves of bread and two fish. Amazing!" --Jay Leno

"Earlier today, Barack Obama gave a speech in South Dakota. At the end of the speech, the crowd gave him a standing ovation. Yeah, very cool. Obama got the standing ovation not for his speech, but for being the first black person in South Dakota." --Conan O'Brien.

"Well, New York Daily News says that Barack Obama's biggest problem now is how to get rid of Hillary Clinton gently. To which Bill Clinton said, 'Hey, good luck with that! Tell me how that's going.'"

"The oldest serving member of Congress, former Klan member, Senator Robert Byrd, has endorsed Barack Obama for president. That's got to make Hillary feel good, huh? Even the Klan guy is going, 'I'm gonna go with the black guy.'" --Jay Leno

Obama: Iran Is Not A Threat

2008-05-20T10:10:00.003-04:00

In the following video, Barack Obama says “[s]trong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries.” Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that countries like Iran, because they are small and spend less on their militaries than we do, are not a threat.

As Jennifer Rubin writes for Commentary:

Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.” Iran, specifically, he tells us spends so little on defense relative to us that if Iran “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

So, taken literally, he seems not much concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, its commitment to eradicate Israel, its current actions in supplying weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and its role in eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty through its client Hezbollah.

And then there is is unbridled faith in diplomacy, unaffected by the lessons of history. Was it presidential visits with the Soviet Union that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or was it the 40 year history of bipartisan military deterrence, the willingness of Ronald Reagan to walk away from Reykjavik summit, the resulting bankruptcy of the Soviet Empire, the support of dissidents and freedom fighters in the war against tyranny, and the willingness to identify Communism as a center of evil in the late 20th century?

You can understand why every attempt by John McCain to discuss global threats is labeled “fear-mongering” by Obama. In his world this is all a fantasy and we are not at risk. All perfectly logical . . . if you divorce yourself from reality.

Here is the video.

Of course Obama's speech may cause other problems as well.

Obama’s “Size Matters” Foreign Policy Creates Jitters In Antarctica

Ok, that's a parody. Too bad Obama's speech wasn't.

The Problem With Boston Legal

2008-05-20T09:51:00.002-04:00

I kind of have this love hate thing with David Kelly legal dramas such as Boston Legal. I find them very entertaining, but annoying and frustrating at the same time. As a lawyer, I suppose it’s hard to have that willing suspension of disbelief when so many things that happen are unrealistic or just flat out wrong. Of course I am sure that’s true for police officer’s with cop shows, theoretical physicists with science fiction and mathematicians with Numb3rs.

Some of the issues I have are true of almost all legal dramas. For instance, cases do not walk into law offices in the morning and go to trial in the afternoon. In real life, criminal cases take months and civil cases take years to go to trial. The only show that got this mostly right was a show called Murder One which took an entire season to deal with a single high profile criminal case. Still, I understand cases must be time condensed for dramatic purposes. But David Kelly, who is himself a lawyer, will do things in his show that clearly violate legal rules. For instance, on The Practice, they decided to make the receptionist a partner in the firm. When told she was being made a partner, Lisa Gay Hamilton’s character noted that legally only attorneys can be partners in a law firm. Then the issue was ignored.

Boston Legal is one of the worst examples. On last week’s show, a woman that wanted to become a Catholic priest sued the Church for sexual discrimination. While the First Amendment came up in conversation, the fact that Supreme Court precedent is clear that neither the government nor a court may enquire into the reasonableness of a religious belief was not addressed. The plaintiff, in a state court, sought to strip the Church’s tax exempt status, though a state court would have no jurisdiction over federal tax law. In an earlier episode, they got a state court injunction to stop a nuclear power plant from being built, though again a state court would have no jurisdiction. The other case last week involved an argument that the law against prostitution is unconstitutional. The argument boiled down to its still going to happen, why not regulate and tax it, after all we need money for the war. Support our troops, legalize prostitution!!!

I understand that it’s only a TV show. But I think shows like this have a negative effect on the audience. In many of these cases, the lawyers do not make legal arguments at all. Rather they make impassioned arguments that we should have a different public policy. I often agree with the arguments. I think prostitution should be legal. While the Catholic Church is free to have whatever rules it wants, I think that it would be well served by opening the priesthood to women. My problem isn’t with the arguments they make. The problem is that by making these types of arguments to a judge week after week. It reinforces the idea in the public consciousness that it is appropriate for a judge to substitute their judgment for that of the people as a whole. It is the proper role of a judge to interpret and follow the law, not to make up the law to suit their personal preferences.

There are plenty of laws I disagree with, but my disagreement does not make those laws unconstitutional. So I get frustrated watching. But I watch because Denny Crane and Alan Shore are funny.

John McCain on SNL Weekend Update

2008-05-19T17:45:00.002-04:00

Obama In The Spotlight

2008-05-19T17:45:00.001-04:00

"Barack Obama is in the spotlight, and he is dealing with a little, well, a small controversy. Not a big controversy, but a small controversy. This is the latest. Last night, Barack Obama had to apologize for calling a reporter 'sweetie.' Yeah, meanwhile, Bill Clinton apologized for calling a reporter when her husband was home." --Conan O'Brien

"Hillary Clinton, I mean, God bless her, and it looks like now there is no possible way she can win the nomination, so she's not dropping out. ... Her campaign is 21 million dollars in debt. $21 million in debt. So her campaign is the world's most expensive fantasy camp. ... She is counting on her stimulus check to keep her going." --David Letterman

Trailer for Dollhouse

2008-05-18T06:03:00.002-04:00

This is a trailer for a new series by Joss Whedon the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, starring Elisza Dushku. Fox has picked it up to be a midseason replacement.

Hey Jude

2008-05-18T05:51:00.000-04:00

Beatles The Next Generation

Lazy Sunday

2008-05-17T21:45:00.002-04:00

I just saw Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and I thought it was very good. So here courtesy of SNL is lazy Sunday.

Sympathy For The Devil

2008-05-17T16:03:00.000-04:00

Or as the liberals call him, Karl Rove.

California and Same Sex Marriage

2008-05-16T21:32:00.003-04:00

Ellen DeGeneres and her partner Portia de Rossi have announced that they are going to be married. They have this opportunity thanks to the California Supreme Court’s In Re Marriage Cases decision which found that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Let me first congratulate Ellen and Portia on their upcoming wedding and wish them a long and happy marriage. That said, I strongly disagree with the California Supreme Court, even though as a political matter I am in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

One of the greatest responsibilities of our courts is to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority. But those rights must first be protected by the constitution (or other higher law). The 4-judge majority in this case found a basic civil right to same-sex marriage simply because they wanted to find it, not because that right was present in the text or envisioned by those that wrote and/or ratified it.

In this case, the court ruled that California’s Equal Protection Clause requires “Strict Scrutiny” when dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first classification other than race or national origin to warrant strict scrutiny (though it is also used when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed). Gender discrimination only warrants “intermediate scrutiny.” Most everything else is subject to a rational basis test.

Other courts have construed equal protection clauses to require a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriages. That means that in order for the law to be found constitutional, the government has to offer up a legal (as in not illegal) reason for the discrimination that a reasonable person might feel justified the law. Personally, I don’t find any of the reasons offered as justifications for the law to be persuasive. I really don’t see how allowing same-sex unions is going to undermine the marriages of heterosexuals. But that is not the standard. The question is whether no reasonable person could believe it.

In footnote 52 of the majority opinion is this quote. “[O]ur nation’s culture has considered [those types of relationships] inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” In this quote, the court is explaining why the new right does not extend to polygamy or adult incest. But that quote would be equally true if it was talking about same-sex marriage. Leave incest out of it because I think there are other reasons besides tradition to bar incest, adult or otherwise. But here’s the thing. I can’t think of a single justification for banning polygamy that couldn’t also be applied to justify a ban on same-sex marriage. If these 4 judges were intellectually honest they would admit as much.

I don’t mean to pick on polygamy. So long as everyone involved is an adult I have no problem with it. Big Love is one of my favorite shows. I am simply trying to point out how this decision is rooted in the values of those judges and not in the constitution itself.

Again I approve of the result, if not the method. I think that the gay rights movement should focus on getting the same rights as married couples through civil union laws (which they already had in California) and worry about calling it marriage down the road when it won’t freak out quite so many people. Doing it through the courts instead of the ballot or the legislature has led to a backlash with many states passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

But that backlash has a silver lining (at least for Republicans). This will help John McCain, especially if there is a constitutional amendment to overturn this decision on the November ballot. If this measure brings out social conservatives who might not otherwise be inclined to vote it is possible (but still not likely) that California could be in play in November. Obama could not win if he lost California. Obama by the way is officially opposed to same-sex marriage, favoring instead civil unions. But I bet he comes out against a constitutional amendment enshrining his position.

Damn, who ever would have thought I would be to the left of Barack Obama?

The Democrat Rules

2008-05-16T10:51:00.000-04:00

"Howard Dean is on the show tonight. Anybody here from Florida or Michigan? All right. You can't be seated. You'll have to leave." --Jay Leno

"Although, Hillary Clinton was quick to point out Dennis Kucinich still has not endorsed anyone yet. Still on the fence there. I don't want to say Hillary is doing badly in the delegate count, but her numbers are so low, her Secret Service code name is now NBC." --Jay Leno

"Senator John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama for president of the United States. Wow! Wow. With that endorsement, I believe the Obama camp has won the support of its first white male." --Stephen Colbert

"Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary with nearly 70% of the vote. That's a lot. Hillary would've gotten even more votes from the West Virginians, but on the way to the polls, some of their houses got a flat tire." --Conan O'Brien

"You can tell Hillary was kind of pandering to voters in West Virginia. Like today, she promised if elected, she would impose a heavy tax on anybody with teeth." --Jay Leno

The Campaigns the Candidates Wish They Could Run

2008-05-15T22:17:00.006-04:00

Cracked.com has a piece called The Campaigns the Candidates Wish They Could Run. It was basically a contest to create/Photoshop the funniest fake campaign ad. Here are three of my favorites.

A Remake of Chico & the Man?

2008-05-15T10:44:00.002-04:00

"Have you heard about this? This is kind of an interesting idea. In a move they say could revolutionize politics, John McCain and Barack Obama said they might campaign together, go out together. Yeah, they're going to bill themselves as 'Ebony and History.' No, but they would go out and they would debate each other on the road. You got the older, grumpy white guy, and you got the young, smooth-talking black guy. Doesn't that sound like the premise for the worst sitcom of all time? Coming to NBC, it's 'Grandpa and the Brother!'" --Jay Leno

"How about this economy, ladies and gentlemen? Doesn't it stink? And we're really starting to notice it, because in the beginning it was sort of like, okay, a little bit here. But we are really starting to notice the effects of a sour economy in this country. Over at St. Patrick's Cathedral, they're watering down the holy water. Honest to God. That's right. It's only 60% holy now." --David Letterman

"Here's the thing that troubles me. I mean, win, lose or draw, at the end of the day, the bottom line, cut to the chase, it's a lot of money. It's a lot of money to elect a president, don't you think? Really it's an awful lot of money. Hillary Clinton's campaign right now, this very minute, is $20 million in debt. Now, when she gets that 3 a.m. call, it's from a collection agency." --David Letterman

"I don't know if Barack Obama's getting tired or what, but in a recent speech, Barack Obama made a mistake. He said he had visited all 57 states. Yeah, that's what he said. Yeah, after hearing this, President Bush said, 'Haha, he forgot Alaska and Hawaii!'" --Conan O'Brien

"Hillary Clinton, big blowout in West Virginia's primary tonight. Yeah, she's the big winner in West Virginia. Which means that one day, she could be president of West Virginia." -Jay Leno

Stay Cool On Global Warming

2008-05-15T09:43:00.004-04:00

Bjørn Lomborg is a Danish statistician and author of the book Cool It!: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. He believes that global warming is real but that the rhetoric of climate change is overwrought and the policies advanced to combat it are ineffective and counterproductive. Lomborg’s book takes a cold, hard look at the empirical facts, and weighs the costs and benefits of global warming and the policy solutions advanced to restrain it. He recently gave an interview to NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez. The article is entitled Don’t Freak Out: Bjørn Lomborg speaks climate sense to nonsense.

Lomborg was asked about John McCain’s recent speech on climate change.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did you think of John McCain’s speech on climate change Monday?

Bjørn Lomborg: McCain strikes some of the right notes — he says he recognizes the need for clean, affordable alternatives to fossil fuels; he acknowledges that climate change is real (although there are very few leaders these days who don’t) and he says that we need to deal with the central facts.

But then he doesn’t stay focused on the central facts himself, and ends up reaching some conclusions that are not so sound: he pushes for a cap-and-trade scheme which will do very little good while imposing very high costs. In his speech notes, McCain planned to call for punitive tariffs on China and India, but he omitted that from his delivered speech: hopefully because he realized that protectionism for green reasons can be just as harmful as protectionism for plain old economic reasons.
Lopez: What’s the most disappointing part of his approach?
Lomborg: Instead of looking at the best answers to this problem, McCain is embracing those that are talked about the most.

Lopez than asks about the central idea of a cap-and-trade system.

Lopez: His “free-market” talk is good stuff though, isn’t it? I know I like free markets.

Lomborg: To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous. It’s misleading not to recognize that the costs of cap-and-trade — financially and in terms of jobs, household consumption, and growth — will be significant. Some big businesses in privileged positions could make a fortune from exploiting this rather rigged market — but their gain is no reason to support the system.

For more criticism of a cap-and-trade system read Just Say No to Climate-Tax Hikes by Phil Kerpen. But in the meantime back to Lomborg.

Lopez: Is there anything worthwhile about Kyoto?

Lomborg: Kyoto burned a lot of political capital to create a response to climate change that costs a fortune but achieves very little.

The climate models show that the Kyoto protocol would have postponed the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the century. Even if the U.S. and Australia had signed on and everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone the effects of global warming by only five years — at a cost of $180 billion each year.

Lopez: What could the planet do instead of Kyoto?

Lomborg: We need to make carbon-emissions cuts much easier. The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2 is about $20 right now — but we know that the damage from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 to somewhere nearer $2.

We can achieve this by spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies — be they wind, wave, or solar power — or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer ones would pay the larger share.

Today, solar panels are ten times more inefficient than the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many “green” approaches, right now, do little more than make rich people feel like they are helping the planet.

We can’t solve climate change by just forcing more inefficient solar panels onto people’s rooftops. The solution is to dramatically increase R&D so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050 — we would have solved global warming then, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn’t be the preserve of rich Westerners.

Here is the problem with Lomborg’s approach. The message of climate change alarmists such as Al Gore has been so ingrained in the public consciousness that to argue against the alarm is to be seen as unintelligent, eccentric, or lying for some nefarious purpose (such as being in thrall to “Big Oil”). I disagree with John McCain on a great many issues, climate change included. I am not sure if his position is what he truly believes or is simply one taken because he can’t afford NOT to have a plan to combat climate change.

Too often public fear leads politicians to do something about a problem in the short-term that makes it worse in the long-term. Expensive measures might make us feel better about ourselves, but they will do little to help. They will, however, hurt our economy, make us less wealthy in the future and thus less able to afford things that WILL help.

Ronald Reagan on "I've Got a Secret" (1955)

2008-05-14T19:44:00.002-04:00

This video is from a special on gameshows hosted by Wiliam Shatner. Gary Moore is on to remember I've Got A Secret. Starting at the 4:56 mark, they show clips of Ronald Reagan. Reagan's secret was that whenever a panelist said "umm" he would get up, walk off, and then they would start over. The idea was to show the difference between working in the movies with retakes and live television.

Historic ‘Blockbuster’ Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past

2008-05-13T08:27:00.001-04:00

Historic 2018Blockbuster2019 Store Offers Glimpse Of How Movies Were Rented In The Past

Spiderman, Iron Man, & The Hulk

2008-05-13T08:14:00.000-04:00

Again, Bush Didn't Lie

2008-05-12T21:26:00.001-04:00

Undoubtedly one of the reasons for President Bush’s low approval rating is the often repeated charge that “Bush lied and people died.” As I have written before, while mistakes were certainly made, I do not believe Bush lied.

On NRO this morning, Michael Barone looks at a new book by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. It is entitled War and Decision. Barone writes:

The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we’ve become familiar.

One such narrative is, “Bush lied; people died.” The claim is that “neocons,” including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam’s hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.

The bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission while finding he Intelligence Community was "dead wrong" in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction did not find even a single case of improper pressure on intelligence analysts to change or "cook" intelligence in order to support political positions.

Barone relates the following criticism of Bush.

Unfortunately — and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush — the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren’t found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.

Not even I will believe that Bush’s only mistake on Iraq was issue framing. But I do agree that even if Saddam had no WMD stockpiles, we are safer with him gone.

Bush Reaches Out To Gay Community

2008-05-12T18:52:00.000-04:00

"To help improve his approval ratings, today, President Bush reached out to the gay community. He shook hands with his daughter's wedding planner." --Jay Leno

"John McCain is marking Mother's Day by releasing a video of him talking to his 96-year-old mother. It's, very nice, yeah. There's an awkward moment during the video when Larry King walks by and says, 'Whoa, who's the MILF?'" --Conan O'Brien

Meet Cindy McCain

2008-05-12T10:53:00.002-04:00

Katherine Jean Lopez on NRO has an interview with potential First Lady Cindy McCain. In the interview she talks about what its like to be the mother of two sons in the military, her daughter’s Meghan campaign blog, and the unexpected adoption of her daughter Bridget from Mother Theresa’s Calcutta orphanage.

You know, she chose me, I’m convinced. She was only ten weeks old but she captured my heart. As you know, she had a very severe cleft palate and she had a number of other little problems along with another little baby. hen I realized, when the nuns prevailed upon me and said: You know these babies need help you could help them, all of a sudden a light bulb kind of went off in my head and it
was like: “Yeah you know I can help them.” I’m in a situation where I can get some help for these kids. It was just a matter of really responding to the call and then of course realizing on the flight home that I just couldn’t give her up. I didn’t go there with any intention of adopting or adding to our family in any way, and as luck and God would have it she is our lovely daughter to this day. And even though it was a surprise to my husband, he loves her just the way I do, and she adds such a special dimension to our family.

Read the entire interview here.

James Mullaney on The New Destroyer: Dead Reckoning

2008-05-12T09:27:00.004-04:00

I have been reading the Destroyer Series since I was a kid. The series which was created by Warren Murphy and Dick Sapir in the 1960's follows the adventures of Remo Williams an assassin working for a super secret government agency known as C.U.R.E . I can understand how that synopsis might not seem attractive to a lot of people, but what I truly love about them is how satirical the books are. The best of them are truly funny. Sometimes the books are truly inspired as when a retiring president and first lady steal white house furniture on the way out of the White House (a story written, incidentally, months before Bill and Hillary actually did that).

The books have had various ghost writers over the years and at times certain writers have written some pretty bad books. One of the best ghost writers was Jim Mullaney. He stopped writing the books because the then publisher refused to pay him what he was worth, but Warren Murphy has changed publishers and teamed up with Mullaney to write the New Destroyer series in a return to the old style. Here then is a Jim Mullaney audio interview with NR’s John J. Miller.

James Mullaney on The New Destroyer: Dead Reckoning

Congratulations Jenna Bush and Henry Hager

2008-05-11T19:19:00.004-04:00

From all reports the wedding was a beautiful affair. It’s a shame that some people decided to use the wedding as an occasion to bash President Bush. I on the other hand think Bush deserves credit for how the wedding was handled. Jenna’s wedding, while not exactly a secret, was an intensely private affair. Tricia Nixon’s Rose Garden wedding, was in contrast televised live.

Had they wanted it, Jenna’s wedding would have received tremendous positive publicity, not just this weekend, but over the past few weeks and months as the wedding was planned. President Bush currently has one of the lowest approval ratings in history. There is no question that positive wedding publicity would have rubbed off on Bush’s approval rating. But it was more important to President Bush to respect Jenna’s privacy. I think that says things about his character, no matter what some on the left might think and say.

Apes That Write, Start Fires And Play Pacman

2008-05-11T18:59:00.003-04:00

This is a fascinating video about the Bonobo, sometimes called Pygmy Chimpanzees. They may be the species closest to humans in terms of their intelligence, use of tools and sexuality.

Hillary Is A Sore Loser

2008-05-11T12:20:00.001-04:00

135 Films of the 1970's in About 10 Minutes

2008-05-10T11:01:00.001-04:00

I think at least one of these movies was from 1969. Can anyone name it? Here's a hint: think Borat.

Some Serious Analysis of Hillary's Chances

2008-05-09T09:08:00.003-04:00

This morning, Charles Krauthammer has an insightful analysis of where Hillary’s campaign strategy went wrong and how she finally got it right, unfortunately for her too late.

By the time Hillary Clinton figured out how to beat Barack Obama, it was too late. When she began the race in 2007 thinking she was in for a coronation, she claimed the center in order to position herself for the real fight, the general election. She simply assumed the party activists and loony Left would fall in behind her.However, as Obama began to rise, powered by the party’s Net-roots activists, she scurried left, particularly with her progressively more explicit renunciation of the Iraq War. It was a fool’s errand. She would never be able to erase the stain of her original war vote and she remained unwilling to do an abject John Edwards self-flagellating recantation. It took her weeks even to approximate the apology the Left was looking for, and by then it was far too late. The party’s activist wing was by then unbreakably betrothed to Obama.

But going left proved disastrous for Clinton. It abolished all significant policy differences between her and Obama, the National Journal’s 2007 most liberal senator. On health care, for example, her attempts to turn a minor difference in the definition of universality into a major assault on Obama fell flat. With no important policy differences separating them, the contest became one of character and personality. Matched against this elegant, intellectually nimble, hugely talented newcomer, she had no chance of winning that contest.

Where Hillary got it right:

It wasn’t until late in the fourth quarter that she figured out the seam in Obama’s defense. In fact, Obama handed her the playbook with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Michelle Obama’s comments about never having been proud of America, and Obama’s own guns-and-God condescension toward small-town whites.

The line of attack is clear: not that Obama is himself radical or unpatriotic, just that, as a man of the academic Left, he is so out of touch with everyday America that he could move so easily and untroubled in such extreme company and among such alien and elitist sentiments.

Clinton finally understood the way to run against Obama: back to the center — not ideologically but culturally, not on policy but on attitude. She changed none of her positions on Iraq or Iran or health care or taxes. Instead, she transformed herself into working-class Sally-get-her-gun, off duck hunting with dad.

According to Krauthammer the only thing left is for Hillary to negotiate the terms of her surrender. But Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics disagrees. He says Not Quite Yet.

Elite opinion on the Democratic race has congealed around the idea that it is over. Clinton has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination now. There is a minority of analysts out there - maybe 5%, maybe even less - who see her path to the nomination as much narrower than it was four days ago, but who still see a path.

I'm with the minority on this one. I think she is nearly finished, but not quite yet.

According to Cost her path runs through Appalachia.

[I]t is possible that she could counter Tuesday's blowout with two big blowouts of her own in the next two weeks. This could undo most of the damage done by her big loss in North Carolina, and put her back on track.

West Virginia is 95% white, and one of the poorest states in the nation. Demographically, Pennsylvania's twelfth congressional district is a decent proxy of it. Clinton won Pennsylvania's twelfth by 46 points. A recent Rasmussen survey put her up 29 points in the Mountaineer State, with 17% undecided. Another poll had her up 40 points, with Obama under 25%.

Kentucky is not as poor or as white as West Virginia, but it is nearly so. Demographically, Kentucky falls somewhere between Ohio's sixth congressional district, which went for Clinton by 45 points, and the seventeenth, which went for her by 28 points. A recent Survey USA poll of the Bluegrass State had her up 34 points - with a staggering 72 point lead in the east, where Obama was winning less than 20% of the vote. Rasmussen recently had her up 25 points with 13% undecided.

Cost believes blow out victories in WV and KY could put her within striking distance of the popular vote lead (allowing her to argue to the super delegates that they should vote for her). In this analysis, Puerto Rico becomes the primary that could put Hillary over the top in the popular vote.

Is Hillary Finished?

2008-05-09T08:29:00.001-04:00

Very tough night for Hillary Clinton, as you're aware. Hillary Clinton says she isn't dropping out, 'cause there are still six states that haven't had their Democratic primary. That's right. Barack Obama's favored in the states of Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, and Hillary is favored in the state of denial." --Conan O'Brien

"Yeah, not looking good for Hillary. Today, even Yogi Berra said, 'It's over.'" --Jay Leno

"Well, you know what's interesting. The experts say, if you do the math, there's no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. And today, Hillary responded by saying, 'People who do math are elitist.'" --Jay Leno

"And you can tell Barack Obama is feeling confident. Did you see what he did this afternoon? He went bowling with Reverend Wright." --Jay Leno

"This thing just grinds on and on. Barack Obama won in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton barely won in my home state in Indiana, and again, we're hearing that the Clinton campaign is in financial trouble. They need money, desperately need money. And as a matter of fact, to raise money, earlier today. Hillary Clinton entered a wet pantsuit contest." --David Letterman

Oh What A Secret

2008-05-08T18:01:00.003-04:00

It was fitting that Philo Farnsworth should be a contestant on the television show I’ve Got A Secret. He had perhaps the most important secret in the history of the show. Without his secret there would not have been a television show, any television show. Because you see, Philo Farnsworth invented television. Not only that, he invented it when he was a 14-year old high school freshman. Years later in a patent fight with RCA, his high science teacher would testify to drawings Farnsworth made on a blackboard in class. Farnsworth won.

After his secret was revealed he was asked what he was working on. It almost sounds like he is describing HDTV and TIVO. But this interview was in 1957!

Compared to inventing television as a 14-year old it is perhaps not the most remarkable thing about him. But his appearance on I’ve Got A Secret was Farnsworth's one and only appearance on television. And here it is:

Gaming the Game Show

2008-05-08T14:27:00.005-04:00

Michael Larson was an unemployed man from Lebanon Ohio who worked summers driving an ice cream truck. He watched a lot of TV, including the game show Press Your Luck. By using a VCR and going through the show frame by frame he was able to memorize the patterns used on their game board. Contents would “spin” the board hoping to win cash and prizes and avoid “whammys” that would erase all your winnings. Larson borrowed the money to get to the show and bought a dress shirt to wear on the show at a thrift store for 65 cents. Larson ended up winning over $110,000 in one day (a then record). CBS argued he had cheated but eventually paid him the money.

Here in 5 parts is Michael Larson’s Appearance on Press Your Luck.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Unfortunately, Larson lost some of his winnings in a ponzi scheme and had between $40,000 and $50,000 (all he had left) in cash stolen from his home. He died in 1999 of throat cancer on the run from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Karl Rove Analyzes The Race

2008-05-08T10:50:00.000-04:00

Karl Rove, Bush’s foremost political advisor, has taken on an almost mythical persona on the left as an evil sorcerer responsible for every bad thing that has happened to Democrats in the last 8 years. Hillary runs a negative commercial about Obama, Rove was behind it. In reality, Rove is a highly intelligent political strategist. Now a contributor to Fox News, Rove’s analysis is available to all of us. In today’s Wall Street Journal, Rove has an Op-Ed entitled It's Obama, Warts and All.

His analysis of the race as it stands today is fascinating. I am not sure what to excerpt, so I suggest you read it all.

Some Advice For Bush

2008-05-08T10:09:00.004-04:00

Last week I noted that Bush’s extreme unpopularity was due in large part to the fact that for the first time since 1952, with no incumbent president or vice-president running (and therefore having an interest in defending Bush’s record), the public gets a very one sided anti-Bush message. Victor Davis Hanson talks about this in his column Give ‘em Hell, Dubya. Hanson explains that Bush’s record really is defensible.

Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.
He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: “Recession! Worst since the Depression!”

Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year’s first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems — high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements, and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Hanson goes on to explain why Bush should follow the example of Harry Truman, the last President to be in this position and defend his record.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing “Bush did it” into the public conscious won’t resolve our energy, economic, or foreign-policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants — if the Congress would only approve — could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.” A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end — and was ultimately rewarded for it.

I understand Hanson’s point. I wonder though if Bush is avoiding a vigorous defense in order to make it easier for McCain to distance himself from Bush. Though if Bush is able to raise his approval rating, that in and of itself should help McCain. Kind of like swimming with one cement shoe instead of two.

The Power Of Blogging

2008-05-06T08:28:00.003-04:00

I started this blog because I had thoughts and ideas I wanted to share. I try to make what I write (and or link to) here interesting, funny and/or informative. But I don’t break any stories here and I doubt that will change soon. But bloggers can and do break stories and these stories can have profound effects. Take Michael Brodkorb’s "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" for instance. Brodkorb’s blog is having a profoundly negative effect on Al Franken’s Minnesota Senate Campaign. Franken is the former SNL writer/performer who became Air America’s liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh. That didn’t work out so well as Air America has teetered on the edge of bankruptcy virtually since its founding. Franken decided to return to the state where he was raised to run for the Senate. That’s where Brodkorb and his blog come in. As AP reported:

From the kitchen table in his tranquil suburban neighborhood, Brodkorb for the last year has used his blog "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" to launch a furious political assault on Franken. He's labeled the former comedian and liberal commentator a "mean-spirited and un-Minnesotan" candidate who's running a "desperate and ridiculous" campaign.

That's routine stuff in the world of political blogging, but in the last two months Brodkorb has scored two direct hits that have the Franken campaign reeling. Brodkorb scooped the traditional media by detailing extensive bookkeeping problems in New York and California that ultimately prompted Franken, this week, to pay about $70,000 in back taxes to 17 states.
The stories have knocked Franken off balance as he prepares to take on Sen. Norm Coleman, in what's expected to be one of the most expensive and toughest-fought U.S. Senate races this year.

What effect has this story had on the Franken campaign? As Minnesota Democrats Exposed reports:

“A new SurveyUSA poll shows voters are turned off by Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken’s recent tax problems.

The 500-person survey showed 59 percent of people say Franken’s tax issues make them less likely to vote for him. Franken failed to pay for workers’ compensation insurance for his personal corporation and to pay income tax in 17 states since 2003. Just 31 percent said the problems made no difference.

More than half, 51 percent, said Franken should withdraw from the race, while 38 percent said he should stay in.

Another SurveyUSA poll of 700 adults showed Sen. Norm Coleman (R) reopening his lead over Franken, 52-42. Franken had narrowed the gap in recent months to near-even. Franken had the support of 67 percent of Democrats, while Coleman received 99 percent of Republicans. Franken maintained a sizable edge among independents, though, 57-33.” Source: The Hill, May 5, 2008

I always found Franken entertaining on SNL. Here’s hoping he loses so he can go back to telling political jokes instead of being one himself. Maybe someday I will get to break a story that will break a Democrats heart.

Moving Windmills

2008-05-06T07:16:00.001-04:00

This is a really inspiring video.

McCain Declines Secret Service, Dares Assassins To Try Something

2008-05-05T23:10:00.001-04:00

McCain Declines Secret Service, Dares Assassins To Try Something

Preachers In Space

2008-05-05T09:52:00.000-04:00

"Barack Obama spoke today about the need to send a man into space. The man he wants to send? The Reverend Jeremiah Wright." --Jay Leno

"David Blaine today broke the world record for holding his breath, on 'Oprah' - 17 minutes, four seconds. Blaine has now frozen himself, he's starved himself, he's gone without sleep for weeks, and deprived himself of oxygen. Today, Dick Cheney said, 'See, it's not torture. It's magic.'" --Jimmy Kimmel

"President Bush has just been accused of trying to avoid questions about the economy. Because during yesterday's press conference, he told a reporter that she looked good in yellow and then asked about her baby. Even more embarrassing for Bush, the reporter was Wolf Blitzer." --Conan O'Brien

Careless Crimes Of The Fifties

2008-05-05T08:57:00.000-04:00

Iron Man Kicks Ass

2008-05-05T07:51:00.002-04:00

I have to say I was never a huge fan of Iron Man. I don’t think I ever read an Iron Man comic. But I saw the new film over the weekend and it was awesome. It had equal parts humor and action, and the best thing in the movie by far was Robert Downey Jr.’s performance. I want to see sequels. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to be an issue as it made over $100 million dollars this weekend. But let’s not take any chances, go out and see it as many times as possible.

I Agree With Hillary, It Must Be Chilly In Hell

2008-05-05T07:38:00.002-04:00

It doesn’t happen often, but this morning there is something about which Hillary Clinton and I agree. Over the weekend, Hillary stated that if she were president, and Iran used nuclear weapons to attack Israel, she would “obliterate’ Iran. Barack Obama said those words were too much like the foreign policy of George Bush. Read about it here.

"It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Well maybe that’s why I agree with her.

This is a great example of why Barack Obama should not be president. I personally am of the opinion that the United States should do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including, as a last resort, military action. I understand there are those that disagree. They argue that we survived a nuclear armed Soviet Union through deterrence; we can survive a nuclear armed Iran the same way. I am not sure that will work with Iran. President Ahmadinejad, who has called for wiping Israel off the map, is a religious zealot. As I have argued before he may very well believe Iran could survive all out war with Israel or even the United States. After all, how could he lose if God wants him to win? But if deterrence is going to be your policy, make sure your message is unambiguous. The Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote about this idea last month.

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people.”This policy — the Holocaust Declaration — would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president — and every serious presidential candidate — would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.

Well Senator Obama, do you support the Holocaust Declaration or is that too much like George Bush?

Bush. Unpopular, But In Good Company

2008-05-02T10:40:00.001-04:00

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released yesterday indicates that Bush has the highest disapproval rating of any president ever (or at least since they started polling such things). According to the poll, 71 percent of the American public disapproves of how Bush is handling his job as president

"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

His approval rating is 28%. I am among that 28% (this blog isn’t called “Minority Opinions” for nothing). But that doesn’t mean history will judge Bush as harshly. After all the lowest approval rating (22%) and now second highest disapproval rating of 67% belonged to Harry Truman. Today Truman is considered to be one of our greater presidents.

The high disapproval rating is really a function of circumstances. For the first time since 1952 we have a presidential election where neither a sitting president nor vice-president is running. No one therefore has a strong incentive to fight back to defend the administrations record. McCain certainly isn’t making it a priority. The record low approval rating is then an effect of the one sided message being put out their by the candidates and the media. Don’t believe me? Who was president in 1952? Harry Truman.

Some Thoughts On Global Warming

2008-05-01T15:29:00.003-04:00

Contrary to the accepted wisdom, not all scientists agree that global warming is due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. An alternative theory that the major determinant in climate change is sunspot activity is gaining traction as evidence mounts in its favor. As Chris Horner writes on NRO’s Planet Gore:

Sunspots are magnetic storms on the sun's surface that are used as a proxy-measure for the Sun’s interplanetary magnetic field. As Henrik Svensmark and Fred Singer argue, the Sun’s magnetic field effects cloud formation in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. The more magnetically active the sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach our upper atmosphere. When cosmic rays do reach the Earth, they react with atmospheric gasses to free nuclei that help seed cloud formation, cooling the Earth’s surface. No sun spots = more clouds = lower temperatures.

It should be noted that as sunspots have decreased on the sun over the past year, the average temperature of the Earth actually cooled by .6 degrees Celsius.

So perhaps CO2 isn’t responsible for global warming. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may even be a good thing. Or at least that’s what Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama says in his article More Carbon Dioxide, Please

Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?

He continues later in the article:

Still, the main worry has been that the extra CO2 could hurt the growth of plankton, which represents the start of the oceanic food chain. But recent research (published on April 18 in Science Express) has now shown, contrary to expectations, that one of the most common forms of plankton actually grows faster and bigger when more CO2 is pumped into the water. Like vegetation on land, it loves the extra CO2, too!

It is quite possible that the biosphere (vegetation, sea life, etc.) has been starved for atmospheric CO2. Before humans started burning fossil fuels, vegetation and ocean plankton had been gobbling up as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they could, but it was like a vacuum cleaner trying to suck through a stopped-up hose.

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount.

Where my HumVee? I want to do my part to help the environment.

Strict new border policies are turning Canada into a foreign country

2008-05-01T15:05:00.002-04:00

Really? That's what Salon is saying anyway. Here I thought it had been a foreign country ever since we broke away from England...

ID = Intimidation?

2008-04-29T18:55:00.000-04:00

Last week as part of my trip to Disney World, I had to go through Airport Security three times. Each time, TSA officers attempted to intimidate me from flying. From my observations it appeared that this attempted intimidation was not limited only to me, but appeared to be directed at everyone planning to fly. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems uninterested in this widespread conspiracy to restrict our constitutional right to travel. What form did this intimidation take? Before I was allowed to fly, I HAD TO SHOW A PICTURE ID!!! Someone call the ACLU. Call Hillary Clinton. Call Al Sharpton. No Justice! No Peace!

Am I being silly? Of course. But no sillier than the critics of yesterdays Supreme Court ruling in the combined cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that Indiana may require a photo ID to vote. Hillary Clinton said the following about the decision:

Most of the fraud that we have seen in the last several years had nothing to do with voters showing up and not having the right identification. It had a lot to do with a concerted effort to deny people the right to vote, to not count votes, to intimidate people from showing up to vote.

How is requiring ID intimidating? It reminds me of the outrage in NYC when the Giuliani administration began requiring welfare recipients to be fingerprinted. The critics claim this was an attempt to “stigmatize” welfare recipients since criminals are fingerprinted. Of course aspiring lawyers taking the bar exam are fingerprinted. As are all licensed teachers. Requiring photo ID or fingerprints have nothing to do with intimidation or stigma. They are simply ways to be sure people are who they say are. Just for the record, when the fingerprinting requirement went into effect in NYC, half of the people receiving welfare never showed up and dropped off the rolls. Intimi8dation or fraud?

Batman Trailers. Deja Vu?

2008-04-29T09:21:00.002-04:00

Someone took the trailer for Tim Burton's Batman movie and edited it so it matches up with the trailer for Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight. They did an amazing job. Here they are side by side.

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

A Just Verdict

2008-04-28T14:27:00.000-04:00

There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of Judge Arthur Cooperman’s verdict in the trial of acquitting the police officers charged with homicide and reckless endangerment in the shooting of Sean Bell. While I did not follow the trial religiously, I do think it was fair and just verdict. Don’t get me wrong, the death of Sean Bell was neither fair nor just. It was a mistake and a tragedy and the police were most likely negligent, but negligence does not equal murder.

Legally, it didn’t matter whether Sean Bell had a gun or not, the question was whether it was reasonable for the police to believe he had one. The prosecution’s burden was to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers did not have a good faith belief they were in danger. Police officers accused of crimes are entitled to the same constitutional and procedural rights as other defendants.

The acquittal may not be the end of it however. As Newsday reports:

Also yesterday, a group of black leaders gathered at the Harlem headquarters of the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network and said they are hoping to meet with the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. They are urging the federal agency to investigate and prosecute the officers involved in the shooting. After the acquittal was announced Friday, the Justice Department said it would review the case to see whether any federal civil rights statutes were violated.

Prosecuting the officers under Federal Civil Rights laws would be wrong, a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitutions prohibition against Double Jeopardy. It is one thing to allow a second federal prosecution in cases where the first prosecution was a sham, such as a occurred in the South in the 1960’s when whites who assaulted or murdered African-Americans were acquitted by all white juries or only half-heartedly prosecuted by white district attorneys. But there was nothing “unfair” about how this trial was conducted. The problem is that the verdict is unpopular.

Travel Lessons Learned

2008-04-28T10:02:00.003-04:00

I spent last week in Orlando on vacation with my family. I got to spend time with my niece and goddaughter Katie. She is 17-months old and while she tends to be cranky and has a habit of hitting people in the face, she is absolutely adorable.

I had a wonderful time while I was there visiting Disney World and the Universal Parks, but getting there wasn’t nearly as much fun. I booked my flights through Orbitz and chose the cheapest fair. That was my mistake and it ended up costing me more in the long run.

My flight to Orlando had a layover in Washington (which I didn’t mind so much). My mistake was that each leg was on a different carrier. I flew to DC on Delta. My flight to Orlando was on United. Unfortunately, because Dick Cheney flew into JFK, to meet the Pope and the Pope then left for Rome, the airport was shut down. My flight was delayed for 2 hours and I missed my connection, the last flight of the night to Orlando. Since my connection was on another airline that was my problem not theirs. I did get a coupon for a hotel discount. Woo Hoo. They told me it would take 3 hours to get my checked bag, so I had no clean clothes for the next day. I was able to take a shower and get a toothbrush from the hotel, but then I had to put the same dirty clothes on the next morning.

So lessons learned: 1. Never book connecting flights on different airlines. 2. Pack a change of underwear and socks in your carry on. 3. Never fly out of the same airport as the Pope.

What We Learned From The Debate

2008-04-18T09:24:00.001-04:00

Yesterday afternoon, Peter Wehner, posted an analysis of the most recent Democratic debate to National Review Online. In Fisking Barack Obama, Wehner first notes the anger directed at ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson by Obama supporters. I can say that this anger is wide spread on the Huffington Post, with many posters calling for a boycott of ABC and its parent company Disney. (Naturally of course I am going to go to Disney World next week.) Wehner argues that the debate questions were fair, relevant and informative.

On Iraq, Obama reaffirmed a rock-hard pledge that he will withdraw our combat troops and leave no permanent bases. He is wholly uninterested in what General Petraeus or anyone else has to say on the matter of our mission; our troops are coming home, come what may. And if as a result of a precipitous withdrawal we see mass death and genocide, a revitalized al-Qaeda, a strengthened Iran, and massive instability in the region, the withdrawal would presumably continue. There is, it seems, no scenario that would cause Obama to change his mind. David Brooks of the New York Times put it well: “To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would’ve been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.”

Charley Gibson noted that past decreases in the capital gains tax have led to increases in capital gains tax revenue, while tax increases have led to decreases in revenue. This is an example of the Laffer Curve at work. You can read my discussion of it here. But basically the idea is that people take tax rates into account when making decisions to work save or invest with lower tax rates leading to more (taxable) economic activity. This is especially true with capital gains taxes, because capital gains taxes are only paid when an asset is sold. The decision to sell or hold an asset is significantly affected by how high the capital gains tax is.

Sen. Obama’s response was, “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Obama assures us that he wants “businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success.” But he also wants to “make sure … that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.” But back to the empirical evidence: when capital-gains taxes are cut, the private economy expands. So if lowering the capital gains tax led to a stronger economy and higher revenues, Obama presumably would still oppose it on grounds of “fairness” (a concept that doesn’t help you determine what the precise tax rate ought to be). This demonstrates the depth of Obama’s animus toward the corporate world, which is the engine of prosperity for America.

The problem with Obama’s idea of fairness is that values reducing income inequality over economic prosperity. We have all heard it said that the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. That is only half right. The rich are getting richer but so are the poor, just not as fast as the rich. The gap between the richest and the poorest is widening, but the poor today generally enjoy a much higher standard of living than they did 20 or 40 years ago. The question is this: Is it more important to raise up the poor or to reduce the gap between rich and poor? Because here is the problem, the policies that will do the most to create economic opportunities for the poor and the middle class will also allow the rich to get richer. Is it fair to reduce opportunities for the poor and middle class just to keep the rich from getting farther out in front?

Obama wasn’t much better in his treatment of other issues. Last night he said that a central focus of his campaign was to deliver on “middle-class tax relief.” When asked if he had just taken a pledge on not raising taxes on people making less than $200,000, Obama agreed. But later in the debate Obama admitted he would raise the cap on the payroll tax, meaning that those making more than $97,000 a year would pay higher payroll taxes. When Charles Gibson pointed out this fact to Obama and said there are “a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000” and that if you raise the payroll taxes, that will raise taxes on them, Obama said, “I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.” But of course if he exempts all of those in between, then he’s not going to raise the payroll tax to help save Social Security. And if he doesn’t exempt all of those in between, then he’s raising taxes on those making less than $200,000.

I remember when Bill Clinton ran for president, he promised to raise taxes on millionaires. When he took office, the tax increases were on people making $125,000 a year. How did that make you a millionaire? Well if you were married to a person also making $125,000 a year in four years you would have a million dollars. It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is, or what millionaire is. Something like that. But anyway, congratulations, the Democratic presidential candidate will make almost everyone rich.

If you read Wehner’s article you can read about Obama’s position on guns and affirmative action.

Mitt Romney TOP TEN REASONS I DROPPED OUT

2008-04-17T16:50:00.001-04:00

Dick Cheney Speaking Last Night At The Radio-TV Correspondents Dinner

2008-04-17T16:37:00.001-04:00

Part I

Part II