Orson Scott Card and the Decline of the West

Great essay from Orson Scott Card on the damage that Western "intellectuals" are doing to America, freedom, and as a direct result, the rest of the world. via Michael Ledeen in the Corner

Ender's Game has been one of my favorite books since I first read it about six years ago, and I was very happy to find out that the author is, if not a true conservative, at the very least a blue dog Democrat, and certainly willing to speak out against the cowardice that seems to have infected the left.

I'm torn between wanting to see a movie made of Ender's Game as soon as possible, and wanting to make sure it's done right. In my mind, it would be one of the single most difficult novels to film well, and care would have to be taken that the themes and intensity are not sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Its ideas of self-sacrifice and the regrettable but occasional need for overwhelming force and brutality in order to prevent further battle are extremely relevant today, but done by the wrong director, it could be a debacle, a mockery of itself. (See: Starship Troopers)

Pizza by the Park Replacement?

When I first moved into Park Slope almost three years ago, I quickly became a big fan of Pizza by the Park, on 3rd St. It was convenient, relatively cheap, made good meatball hoagies, tasty chicken fingers, great salads, and had some decent toppings. It was perfect for grabbing a quick couple slices on the way home. Unfortunately, it was closed down by the health department a number of months ago, and the store front has stood vacant since then. I'm guessing that pretty much every restaurant in the city would fail a random health inspection for one reason or another, and as long as there's nothing wrong with my food and I don't actually witness any blatant violations, I'm happy. So the roomies and I have definitely missed Pizza by the Park.

Now, finally, it appears there will be a new restaurant in its place, next to the Stone Park Cafe. The new tenant is called Villa Rustica, and appears to be a slightly more upscale Italian eatery, advertising Brick Oven Pizza, which can't be a bad thing. Still, doesn't look like it's going to be a "grab a slice and go" kinda place, which is disappointing, but hey, it's better than nothing. I'm sure I'll check it out soon after it opens, and there'll be a full report at that time...

The Old Stone House

One of my favorite historical sites in Park Slope, the Old Stone House is a rebuilt Dutch farm house, located on 3rd St., between 4th and 5th Aves, and commemorates the Battle of Brooklyn, in which a colonial regiment from Maryland fought the good fight against British regulars, losing over 200 men, and serving as inspiration for the Colonials to continue fighting. Or something like that. All I know is that some colonial soldiers from Maryland gave a great accounting of themselves, and as a Maryland alum, it makes me proud.

Cher to Play Catwoman in Next Batman Flick?

Oh no no no nonononononono...

Cher 'to play Catwoman' in next Batman film from the London Telegraph via Dirty Harry

Are they serious? Is there any part of this article that is legit? No one is buying it in the comments at Dirty Harry's Place, and I can't imagine how they could make this work, at all. Also mentioned in the article is Johnny Depp as the Riddler. Now, I enjoy Johnny Depp as much as the next person (maybe a little less), he never fails to make things interesting (well, except for The Ninth Gate and The Secret Window), but he doesn't seem to fit what Nolan and Co. have got going on at all. He tends to be a little too over the top, a little too campy (which would fit quite nicely with Cher...) but would seem to be all wrong for this franchise. Now, at Wikipedia, there's apparently a rumor that David Tennant is interested in playing the Riddler. That, I could get behind...

More on Lowering the Drinking Age

Definitely one of the few issues these days that the left and the right should be able to agree upon without too much trouble:

Silliest column of the week award, in vino veritas division by Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink by Michele Catalano, also at Pajamas Media

Want to lower the drinking age? Hope you like spam by Andy Guess at Inside Higher Ed

all links via Instapundit

Weisberg, cont.

Just as a quick addendum to the post below, James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal also posted a take down of Jacob Weisberg's ridiculous article at Slate, and naturally, his is a lot better (and shorter) than mine. I can only take pleasure in knowing that I wrote mine first, and I blame it on having a job to worry about while I'm writing my posts :)

Today's Best of the Web Today (w/the Weisberg piece)

Apparently I'm a Racist

If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. from Slate

At Slate, Jacob Weisberg comes up with a truly idiotic article, one of those that sets the blood boiling beginning as early as the title and not letting up throughout its thankfully brief length. Perhaps taking a leisurely stroll through the piece, with frequent breaks for sanity, will help break up the rage a bit...

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Immediately, Weisberg makes a ton of assumptions and generalizations that immediately stack the deck in favor of his argument (that Obama can only lose because voters are racists), offering zero evidence to back them up.

Obama has "every natural and structural advantage"? The man has virtually no experience, while his opponent is a decorated war hero with decades of experience and years of making friends, building contacts, and establishing trust. Obama is a flash in the pan, elevated to his present position largely because of a swooning media, a nice convention speech, and a timely sex scandal featuring a Tom Clancy character and a Sex Trek sexpot. Sure, Obama is charismatic, if you enjoy hearing a man talk about himself and how great he is for hours on end, but I'm guessing many people don't actually find that to be a positive trait. A runaway ego, a pronounced lack of experience, a complete and utter lack of a defined platform, and a history of relationships with bigots, bombers, and criminal real estate developers doesn't really strike me as the definition of "every natural and structural advantage." But hey, I'm a racist.

Weisberg continues:

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

So Weisberg admits that are actually very good reasons for Obama's current failure to run away with the election, at least in the polls - his alienation of supporters of Hillary Clinton and the fact that many of the attacks on him still haven't really been adequately responded to (except by tossing various "friends" and associates under the bus), as well as his presumably sarcastically exaggerated third reason (although somehow I doubt he intended it sarcastically).

Too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected? Has Weisberg never seen Napoleon Dynamite? Or the 2000 election coverage? America doesn't like handsome, brilliant, and cool in its candidates, especially when it comes packaged with a massive ego, an overwhelming sense of entitlement, and a simultaneous effort to play the victim. America much prefers rational, humble, and dependable. But Weisberg ignores his own arguments and plunges right in, busting out the racism charge, blaming "older, white voters" for Obama's failures.

Much evidence points to racial prejudice as a factor that could be large enough to cost Obama the election. That warning is written all over last month's CBS/New York Times poll, which is worth examining in detail if you want a quick grasp of white America's curious sense of racial grievance. In the poll, 26 percent of whites say they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent say too much has been made of the problems facing black people. Twenty-four percent say the country isn't ready to elect a black president. Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Weisberg initially cites three stats from the poll in question in an attempt to illustrate "white America's curious sense of racial grievance." The first instance cites 26% of whites claiming a specific instance in which they felt that had been racially discriminated against (vs. 68% of black respondents). Presumably, Weisberg's point is that this is impossible. Never mind that the poll offers zero context beyond that contained in the question, and zero information from the respondents for Weisberg to form his judgement. It's simply impossible for a quarter of white people to have been discriminated against.

The second question cited states that a nearly identical percentage (27%) of whites thinks that "too much" has been made of "the problems facing black people" "in recent years." The question is so vague as to be relatively useless, but even so, this doesn't stop Weisberg from taking some undefined issue with the white respondents. I guess we're supposed to assume that thinking Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel and Jesse Jackson are detrimental to black people makes one a racist.

The third citation is possibly the strangest, in which again, about a quarter of the white respondents stated that they thought that America was not ready to elect a black president. Again, the question is so vague as to mean next to nothing. Perhaps 25% of whites think the rest of the country is racist, even if they themselves have no problem with a black president. To infer, as Weisberg seems to be doing, that the answers to these questions make the respondents in question racists who aren't going to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin is ludicrous.

Finally, Weisberg compounds his work here by taking a roundabout way of addressing the poll question which actually most vividly illustrates the point at hand. Question #78 in the poll asks whether the person in question "would personally vote for a presidential candidate who is black." 91% of white respondents answered "Yes," while 88% of blacks answered "No"!

Granted, with a question of this sort, it's only natural to assume that some people, despite the anonymous nature of the poll, will give what they think is the "right" answer. However, when Weisberg is basing his entire column on the information found in the poll, and presumably putting faith in the accuracy of the answers contained therein, you would think he wouldn't fail to overlook the one question that actually speaks quite specifically to the validity of his argument. One would hope, anyway. And yet, Weisberg instead chooses to pounce on the 5% of white respondents who say they wouldn't vote for a black candidate (again, ignoring the 6% of blacks who answer the same way). So far, Weisberg's evidence is not very compelling.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American. And that's what Democrats in a Northeastern(ish) state admit openly. The responses in Ohio and even New Jersey were dispiritingly similar.

Weisberg then goes on to attempt to back up his central tenant with stats taken from exit polls in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, in which 1 in 6 voters claimed "race was a factor" in their decision. Weisberg assumes this to mean that 12% of white Democrats in Pennsylvania didn't vote for Obama because he's black. Never mind that the question doesn't seem to indicate what factor race played in the voter's decision. Maybe some of those voters cast their ballot for Obama because he is black. Race would certainly be a factor in that decision. (By his reliance on the combination of the NY Times poll and the Pennsylvania exit data, Weisberg also seems to be claiming that there are far more racists voting in the Democratic party than there are in the nation on average...)

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Weisberg continues with a paragraph, that as before, basically lays out a perfectly appropriate counterargument to his racism one, and yet Weisberg dismisses it out of hand, with no reason given. Maybe "some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel" because Obama's actions, from calling for talks with the Israel-hating Iranian regime to breaking bread with Edward Said to long attending a church that has given an award to Louis Farrakhan have done nothing to convince them otherwise. Maybe people view Obama as an elitist because Obama acts like one, making statements like the famous arugula gaffe, and the equally elitist "clinging to their guns and religion" remark. Maybe Obama is charged with playing the race card because he repeatedly does so, as whenever he falsely accuses the McCain campaign of doing exactly that.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

Wow, and now he's resorting to referencing Pat Buchanan to bolster his claims of bigotry. You know you're reaching when the most shocking example of a public figure supporting racial solidarity is Pat Buchanan. I'm not sure what point Weisberg is trying to make with the Obama Nation reference, except that perhaps he thinks that it's supposed to be John McCain's job to go around researching and denouncing attacks on his opponent by someone unaffiliated with McCain's campaign?

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Building upon his already flawed, non-sensical, and inconsistent arguments and "evidence," Weisberg begins to wrap it up by stating that Obama's (or, presumably, any black person's election - Condaleeza Rice in 2012, anyone?) would election would somehow heal all the racial divisiveness that has done so much damage to this country over its history. Prejudice would immediately disappear, and most importantly, in my opinion, "the rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America." Oh joy! The absolute last thing I would want would be for Iran, or North Korea, or China, or Russia, or Venezuela, or Syria, or any number of other countries to be fearful of America. God forbid those who have expressly threatened or acted against our safety and freedom actually fear us.

And, if in our infinite racism, we pass up this magical opportunity to instantly end all forms of prejudice, it will signal to our children that equal opportunity is a myth? Huh? Because a white man with extensive experience and relatively popular policies is elected president over a black man with relatively radical, divisive, socialist policies, equal opportunity is a myth? I fear for Mr. Weisberg's children, if that's all it takes to dash their hopes and dreams.

And this just cracks me up: "In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race." Ha! Good stuff. "The world's judgment"? Hee! God forbid people vote out of self-interest.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

All I can say in response to this paragraph is: Good!

Mastery of a personal computer, whether McCain can or not, is not a prerequisite for a president, in my book. Does Weisberg expect McCain to start a blog or something? And I much prefer a Bush (or Kennedy, or Roosevelt)-like belligerence to security challenges from Iran. But Weisberg gets a bit off-message here. Not sure how this supports his whole racism thing...

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

First off, I'm not really sure I (or anyone else) knows what Obama's policy "prescriptions" are these days, beyond withdrawing our troops immediately from Iraq, raising taxes, and magical perfect universal healthcare, but in my book none of these constitute a "serious attempt" to deal with anything.

Weisberg really gets off point at the end here, sort of ditching the "Anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist" theme that served as the basis for his column in favor of a vague attempt to argue policy superiority, although doing so sort of tends to ruin his argument, if it wasn't already strained. If the only possible reason for Obama not being elected president is racism, what's the point of debating policy at all?

For my money, it's absurd, fawning, blatantly insulting articles like this from that are driving voters away from Obama, not the color of his skin. I can't believe I took the time to even write this...

Great Timing...

Things We Thought We'd Never See: Democrats Rally Against the Teacher's Union! from Mickey Kaus at Slate

Wow - who woulda thunk - although naturally, this burgeoning movement (and yes, it's definitely a good thing for education in this country and "for the children," shudder) has to come when I'm about a year from becoming a teacher. The only people who really benefit from the immense power of the teacher's union are the teachers (and the Dems).

The party would "have to admit as Democrats we have been wrong on education." Loud applause! Mayor Adrian Fenty of D.C. joined in, describing the AFT's attempt to block the proposed pathbreaking D.C. teacher contract. Booker denounced "insane work rules," and Groff talked about doing the bidding of "those folks who are giving money [for campaigns], and you know who I'm talking about."

There's no denying that teachers in general are pretty well taken care of as a result of their union's work. However, I can only hope that if the union was to lose some influence and power, it would result in more of a merit-based system, in which those teachers who actually cared about their work and did their jobs well would get kept on and paid more, while those teachers who know less than their students and can barely read aren't protected by tenure. Which I guess would be good for me, as a member of that former group. So yay.

The Biden Choice

This is certainly one of the less frightening options, as a McCain supporter. I would have been much much more worried if Obama had opted for Hillary, or Kaine, of Bayh, or if somehow Gore had come out of the wings. All of them have their flaws, but Biden seems to bring nothing to the table besides his longevity and experience, which is obviously one of Obama's biggest problem areas, but by bringing someone like Biden onto the ticket, it would seem that Obama has sorta contradicted the whole "Change" thing on which he's built his entire campaign.

Nothing says "Change!" like an old white guy with over 25 years as a Washington insider!

*&%$*!

UGLY ENDING FOR GIANTS' OSI - OUT FOR SEASON AFTER MRI FINDS TORN KNEE CARTILAGE via NYPOST

That can't be good...

Weekend Activities

One of the primary causes of the below-mentioned lack of posting over the weekend was an all-day trip to the glorious Bohemian Hall & Beer Garden in Astoria, Queens. The hour+ subway ride to this wonderful establishment has been a summer ritual at least once a year since I've lived in Park Slope, and every time it seems to get better.

We usually go with a fairly large group (best to get there early enough to ensure a large enough seating area for your friends, if you're responsible for the trek, one of the roomies and I were there at 2 pm), and this year was no exception. Probably around 15-20 trickled in at various points between our arrival and when I finally departed for the return trip to Brooklyn around 10 that night. One of the major drawbacks of not being well off in the city is the necessity of taking the subway, even when you're fairly drunk, at night, and you're facing over an hour ride. Good times.

Regardless, the visit featured seemingly endless pitchers of tasty (mostly) European beer. I we tended to opt for the sweeter Hoegarden or the heartier Spaten over the more pedestrian, prevalent and bitter Stella, although when the drinking games began, the Stella came in handy due to its lighter feel and easier chugability. And the drinking games did begin. One of the great aspects of the beer garden, aside from the enormous shaded patio and amazing food (more on that later), is the picnic bench communal-style seating, which allows not only for easy fraternization with the group that settles next to you, but also provides for an easy space on which to play cards, dice, etc.

In the past, the beer garden even allowed for more active drinking games such as flip cup and beer pong (aka beirut, I'm not going to get into the widely-argued difference - I know, beer pong is technically the game played with paddles, but that game is dumb and no one ever plays it, for most people, myself included, "beer pong" = beirut, so that's how it's going to be), but, I assume in the face of threatened litigation for over serving, they now crack down on such games.

In addition to the friendly atmosphere and the great beer, the beer garden also serves some great Czech food, including Klobasa and pierogies, as well as some more standard American grill fare. However, my favorite, which I enjoyed (twice) on Saturday, is the bratwurst. For $10, one receives about a foot long bratwurst, grilled to perfection, and a serving a fries. However, what sets the beer garden apart is the condiment table. Along with the usual ketchup and mustard, diners can also help themselves to as much rye bread, dill pickle chips and sauerkraut as they want. These really serve to fill out the meal, particularly when one has been drinking for a couple hours, and it's not unusual to see visitors going back up to restock on kraut.

As far as I know, the patio portion of the establishment remains open as long as the weather stays nice, so make time to pay a visit before it gets too cold.

Sorry for the Light Posting

Weekends tend to be a busy time, often with limited access to a computer, so posting will probably continue to be light from Fridays through Sundays, but hopefully as I become more comfortable and attuned to my personal blogging rhythm, whatever that means, I'll be better able to contribute over the weekend.

Obama: Tax the Heck Out of People and Just Redistribute It

From the recent NY Times Obama piece, cited by Jim Geraghty at NRO, and noted by Mark Hemingway in the Corner

“If you talk to Warren (Buffet), he’ll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all — let the market work, however way it’s going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it,” Obama said. “That way you’re not impeding efficiency, and you’re achieving equity on the back end.” He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett’s argument.

Good lord. I'm not sure what's more disturbing about this, the thought that we are within a couple months of quite possibly electing a President who will do his best to implement an economic policy that involves taxing the heck out of people and then redistributing wealth, or that Obama's grasp of economics is equivalent, or less than that of someone who took a single Intro to Econ class during his five years of college (aka me).

Does Obama really believe that the tax-the-heck-out-of-people-at-the-end policy doesn't meddle in the economy at all? Is he serious? "You're not impeding efficiency"?! So he believes that industry and the economy will continue to function at peak efficiency because it's only being taxed "at the end"? What does that even mean, "at the end"? When else are people ever taxed? Before they get paid? There are so many problems with this that it's scary.

Right now, where I am in my life, and where this country and the world is right now, social issues are on the far back burner for me. Gay marraige, abortion, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, these things don't concern me at this point in my life. Perhaps, at some point down the road, I'll care enough to fight for or against them (although for my money, the government shouldn't even be touching them anyway...), but as things are, the issues I'm going to vote on are, in no particular order: Taxes (lower the better), spending (lower the better) and smaller government (and related, I think, fixing or getting rid of Social Security, and preventing socialized healthcare), the War on Terror, illegal immigration, and energy policy (drill, more nuke plants, etc).

If McCain wants to bring someone along for his Veep who is pro-abortion, I really don't care, as long as he wins as a result, and keeps Obama and his economic socialism out of the White House.

The Appeal of Ralph Nader

Another nice post this morning from Maimon Schwarzschild at The Right Coast, rapidly becoming one of my essential morning visits, on the straight-talking appeal of Ralph Nader, even to those on the right.

My thoughts:

I know exactly what Schwarzschild means. If only the GOP had some leaders who were as direct and no B.S. as Nader, but without the leftist policies, the Dems would have a hard time getting away with a lot of what they presently do. I think the general public would be quite willing to get beyond the meaningless political blather that so often makes up campaigning and discourse today.

Particularly in the wake of Obama (but he's certainly not the only one to blame, on the left or the right), the American people are anxious for a politician who actually does what he says, a straight-talker who actually talks straight (yeah, McCain doesn't count) who is willing to call out his opponents, or his allies, for misleading, or outright lying, to the people.

So much of politics these days is spin, and is controlled by the media and the PR flacks, that there is no time for any actual policy or substance to get through. Too many of our leaders behave as if they are in politics for the money, or the respect, or the perks, instead of doing it because they believe in their ideals and want to make the country better. Whether or not you agree with Nader, at least he acts like he genuinely agrees with what he's saying. Our government could use more people like Nader.

Eat It, Rosie

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest from Popular Mechanics via Instapundit

Apparently fire can melt steel. Who knew? What I find particularly amusing (aside from allowing additional light to be shed on general the idiocy that is Rosie O'Donnell, and enabling the use of the subject line above...) is the idea that's been included in pretty much every article I've read on this findings in this report, as in this headline, that the findings will put 9/11 conspiracy theories to rest.

Are they joking? Have you met some of these people hawking these theories, or read some of the theories in question? These people, and I include the above-mentioned Rosie in this group, have very little concept of reality, or need of "facts" to actually back up their theories. Therefore, I have no idea why a report is supposed to put these theories to rest. The majority of the Truthers out there blame 9/11 on our own government. Is a government-conducted investigation expected to mollify these idiots? Not that I really care whether they're mollified or not, I'm happy to let them waste their time and money perpetuating this craziness, just found it amusing that the media seems to believe that the report will have any affect whatsoever on these people. And I like writing "mollify." Good word.

The Perils of Keeping a Mistress and Owning a Yacht for Russian Oligarchs

Not a problem I'm ever going to have, but still makes for a hilarious post from Tom Smith at The Right Coast -

I read somewhere about the controversial yacht some Russian oligarch has recently launched. It sounds like your total Bond villain yacht. Instead of lots of decks for your mistress to sun herself on (and normally they do that a lot), the thing is totally enclosed, and its hull is designed like that of a war ship. Various people in the yacht world are offended by it. But the interesting thing I think is how the ship's interior is decorated. Apparently the whole thing inside, furnishings, walls, everything, is in pale leather, all the same shade. Why? Because that is how the mistress wanted it. She is some former super model or something. So here you are, a Russian billionaire, who kills people if they get in your way, and you can't even decorate your yacht the way you want to.

More Digital Macro Fun!

I'm exhausted this morning, and it seems to be a relatively slow news day (knock on wood), so posting will be light. All zero of my readers are crushed.

McCain's Veep

As I mentioned briefly earlier this morning, I would have very little problem with John McCain selecting someone like Rudy Guiliani or even Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate. If the election was a lock, if McCain was up by fifteen points in every poll and somehow had California, New York, and Texas assured, than by all means, pick a Bobby Jindal or Fred Thompson, get them out there, pave the way for the next election.

But the way November is shaping up, McCain is going to have to do everything he can in order to keep the White House in Republican hands, and if that means bringing someone on board who can shore up support among independents, centrists, and even some on the left, then he's gotta do what he's gotta do.

Lieberman has been bandied about recently as a possible Veep pick, and despite his liberal stances on many issues, he is certainly someone that many on the left, and in the middle, respect. In the eight years since he lost as Al Gore's VP, Lieberman, perhaps more so than any other Democrat out there (maybe Zell Miller beats him), Lieberman has shown that he is willing to stand up for his beliefs and to say what he thinks, rather than what the opinion polls tell him to do. For the most part, despite the left's constant claims of a Cheney-run White House, the VP still has little actual power or influence, and if bringing a centrist on board is what it is going to take to keep Obama out of the White House, than I can live with that. I'm already going to holding my nose when I pull the lever for McCain, and I can't really pinch it any tighter.

Atta Boy Jon

Following Rosanne Barr's asinine comments about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, which I won't link to, since they're idiotic and probably just an attempt to get her name out there enough so that Bravo will offer her some kind of humiliating reality show, Jolie's father, Jon Voight, fired back at the chronically annoying and offensive (not in the "she curses too much" way, but in the "by your existence and identification as an American and a human being, you demean my own" way) one time sitcom star.

"Her defaming of our National Anthem in 1990 gave us insight into who she is and what she is capable of saying and doing."

Voight told (a dumb celebrity waste of paper), "My allegiance to Senator McCain becomes stronger with any assault that tries to deter my loyalty to him."

He added: "I can only pray that good people see her for what she is (sick of mind)."

To hearken back to my earlier post this morning, re Republicans being the uncool kids in high school, if it's a choice between these two women, I know for damn sure who I'm gonna pick:

Vive La France!

Not Your Typical Surrender Monkey-- Sarkozy Travels to Afghanistan To Support His French Troops After Attack from Gateway Pundit

Sarkozy certainly isn't perfect (but what politician is?) but this is what a leader does. Regardless of public opinion polls, or of what would help him win the next election, a leader supports his nation's troops that are in harm's way, when they are hurt of killed, he doesn't talk about withdrawing, he goes the very next day to the battleground to prohibit morale from dropping, to rally those who remain. It's been a long long while since I've admired anything French, but I'll make an exception for Monsieur Sarkozy. He's a cool dude.

McCain Up by 5 in Zogby Poll

Reuters/Zogby Poll: McCain Makes a Move, Takes 5-Point Lead Over Obama

Granted, this should be taken with a large grain of salt, since it's a Zogby poll (or just because it's a poll in general), but regardless, it's nice to see. To this point, Obama has been much closer than he "should" have been, but McCain has always seemed unable to actually surge ahead, or open up any kind of lead of his own, possibly indicating that Obama's smaller than expected lead was due largely to his base's dissatisfaction, instead of any kind of support for McCain, and that when it came down to brass tacks in November, the left wing would hold their noses (like so many Republicans will be doing with McCain) and vote Obama. McCain needs to start converting some undecideds, and that's one reason I have no problem with him possibly choosing a centrist as a VP. But that's a separate issue.

But this item also brings to mind another item that's been on my mind for a while now.

Republicans, and I certainly include myself in this group, often seem very akin to the "uncool" kid in high school, outwardly dismissive of the affection of his better-looking, more popular, more athletic peers, seemingly content to exist as an outsider, waiting for the day when the real world will take over and success and popularity will instead be determined by wealth and intelligence and hard work.

Republicans generally are content to be dismissive of the mainstream media, of European opinion, of polls, and particularly of Hollywood, content to believe that our policies are best, that we'll be ultimately be proven right when the real world sets in, and this is often the case. However, there also seems to exist an inclination on the right to fall all over ourselves when finally someone from the popular crowd shows us any sort of affection.

As much as we tend to look down upon the Hollywood crowd and (rightfully) ridicule them when they spout off on things about which they apparently know nothing, whenever one of them comes out and says something that could remotely label them as a fellow right-thinker, we seem to go out of our way to embrace them, to hold them up as some sort of proof of acceptance, like the AV kid that somehow ends up at the same prom table as the star athlete. If it doesn't matter (and it really shouldn't) what David Mamet or Robert Downey Jr. thinks about politics or foreign policy when they're towing the liberal party line, then it should hold equally little water when they "convert."

But hey, it's nice to feel liked :)

Gas Prices Might Be Up, But Lobster Prices are Down!

The Great Lobster Mystery from Slate

Money quotes:

In a seafood store in downtown Portland, a pound of lobster ($5.49) went for pretty close to what I had paid for a gallon of gas in Connecticut the day before ($4.30). A few years ago, the pound-of-lobster-to-gallon-of-gas ratio would have more like 4-to-1.

Finally, lobsters remain cheap in Maine because of their simplicity. Raising them isn't a particularly energy-intensive business. Lobstermen have to gas up their boats, but they don't have to pay for fertilizer or feed. On the coast of Maine, lobsters are simply removed from their traps and put into tanks at dockside restaurants or sold directly to home cooks, so there are precious few distribution, processing, or packaging costs to pass on. The only ancillary costs associated with getting lobsters from the dock to the table are 1) butter and 2) the statins that subsisting on a diet of rich lobster meat dipped in butter will require many consumers to take.

Warp Speed Ahead!

Star Trek warp drive is a possibility, say scientists from the Telegraph, via Instapundit

Granted, it'll probably never actually happen, or at least not in the lifetime of anyone currently living, but it's great to know people are out there working on stuff like this. Who knows, a century from now, perhaps our current perceptions of the laws of physics will seem as outdated as the idea of the Sun revolving around the Earth. And even if nothing comes of it, it's surely a lot more worthwhile than so many many many of the other "scientific" projects that are currently funded.

I particularly love this (I assume tongue-in-cheek) statement regarding the daunting hurdles yet to be overcome:

All this extraordinary feat requires, says the new study, is for scientists to harness a mysterious and poorly understood cosmic antigravity force, called dark energy.

Yeah, no big deal, get on it.

To geek out for a moment, this whole thing reminds me of one of the aspects that I love about the latest incarnation of the Doctor on Doctor Who, his endless appreciation of the pioneering spirit of the human race. The subject comes up numerous times, and each time the marvelous David Tennant reacts with utter glee, even when said spirit of adventure has gotten the humans in question into a situation that requires the Doctor's usual near-fatal efforts to extricate them from. Damn the torpedoes, and all that!

Superman Returns Returns

News from Variety, via Dirty Harry, re a sequel to Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, a film which, while entertaining, could have been so much more.

(Related, see my earlier review of the wonderful Superman Returns trailer)

However, I'm not sure, as Harry seems to think, that more studio control with regards to the sequel is a good thing. Granted, he expresses his reservations, which are well-founded, that the studio will misinterpret what has made The Dark Knight that runaway smash that it is, and just try to make Superman Returns 2 (Superman 6?) darker, instead of focusing on all the solid allegorical good vs. evil stuff that is just waiting to be explored.

Obviously I can't say for sure what happened with the first film, but there definitely was a problem with deciding whether the film would be a straight homage to the original movies, or a true franchise reboot, and it suffered greatly for this. Again, I have no idea who was to blame for this, but having seen what Singer is capable of when given the reins (The Usual Suspects, X-Men 2, one of my all-time favorite comic book movies, and a great movie in its own right), I'd have a lot more faith in his judgement than in those of studio heads.

Either way, at least we probably won't end up with the same muddled, but entertaining mess that was Superman Returns, unsure of what it wanted to be.

College Presidents Want Drinking Age Lowered to 18

via Ramesh Ponnuru in The Corner

College Presidents Want Lower Drinking Age

Good grief - where were these presidents when I was in school? Having said that, I think this is a long overdue change (back), largely because as it is, getting alcohol and binge drinking when I was under 21 was never a problem. There were always house parties, frat parties, friends, and casual aquaintances and even bars that were more than willing to provide me with all the booze I could drink, well before I ever approached 21.

Interesting segments:

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death between 1999 and 2005.

Not sure why this stat is thrown in there, it doesn't really seem to prove anything either way. 157 deaths due to over drinking in six years among a population of millions is incredibly insignificant, and without knowing what other factors contributed to the deaths, to blame them on the drinking age is silly.

Then there's always this argument in favor of the age 18 limit, which I feel is hard to refute:

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer."

I certainly would have no problem with changing the eligible voting age to 21, or even higher (I think the enlistment age is fine), but if the government things that people are adults at age 18, which they surely must be if they are allowed to vote and to join the military, then there is absolutely no reason why they are not adult enough to legally have a drink. To continue to insist on this policy is just another example of the nanny-state mentality.

I would rarely offer support for a college president, (particularly from Duke) but in this instance they are getting behind a worthy cause. This is one of those rare issues on which the right and the left, particularly the younger, as well as the more "extreme," factions of each, should be able to agree. I'd be surprised if this didn't come to pass within the next presidential term, no matter who wins.

Putting McCain's "Cross in the Dirt Story" in Perspective

Great, impassioned rant at Riehl World View on the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama, and the depths to which the left is willing to sink in order to trash an American hero, one of the few we've got left.

I Honestly Can't Believe I'm Reading This

What is quite well known beyond ANY shadow of a doubt is that Senator John McCain spent five years in captivity for serving his country during which time he was brutalized to such a severe extent that he still carries the scars and handicap from that captivity.

What is also well known beyond any shadow of a doubt is that Senator Barack Obama had some form of long-standing tie to an unrepentant domestic terrorist - but we can't know the extent of those ties because the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago is blocking access to the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

And all Andrew Sullivan and a significant number of new media members on the Left care about is whether or not a North Vietnamese prison guard drew a cross in the sand with a stick some 40 years ago?

Sorry, but are you people f~&/ing insane? Do you not have any sense of what country you actually live in today? Do you really not understand why America has rejected your presidential candidates at the ballot box in so many elections over these last forty or so years?

Read the whole thing (there's not much beyond what I've quoted) except for the opening, which quotes Andrew Sullivan and provides the spark for what follows. On a side note, I remember back when I first became interested in politics, back when W was running against Gore, I was in college, interning in the House of Representatives, and I began reading and following a number of blogs, trying to learn everything I could about politics and our country and the men who were leading it.

One of the bloggers that I read religiously was Andrew Sullivan. His writing was incisive, well-reasoned, and largely free from hyperbole and generalization, all the traits that seem to seperate writers (particularly bloggers) on the right from those on the left. His change of heart and mind since that time has been depressing to witness, to say the least. I completely understand that people's world views change, particularly when a major aspect of one's life (his sexuality) is seen as abnormal or wrong by a fair number of those you're working with.

It must have been extremely difficult to maintain his relatively conservative stance in the face of those in the gay community and on the left who called him traitor, and much worse, and his courage at the time was one of the things that drew me to his writing, but the drastic shift in the quality of his thinking and writing since his "conversion" to the left has been remarkable, and tough to watch.

The Worst Place on Earth

Fascinating article from Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard involving African island nations, cannabalism, coups, mercenaries and Fredrick Forsyth...

Destination Malabo
A group of mercenaries' failed attempt to take over the worst place on earth.

Obama-Ayers Cover Up?

Very interesting piece by Stanley Kurtz at NRO, detailing his ongoing attempts to get access to records pertaining to domestic terrorist William Ayers, and his connections to Obama.

Chris Kaman

Kaman the German: He'll never wear a Team USA jersey via ESPN

One of the more depressing stories to come out of these Olympics that doesn't involve the apparently random stabbing death of the father of the American volleyball coach or the blatant persecution of Chinese Christians without a peep from America or the IOC.

Chris Kaman is a third-generation American, just about as American as you can get. There is absolutely no reason why he should be allowed to shop himself out to the German team. I can certainly understand the desire to compete in the Olympics, particularly since the odds of him getting to do so as a representative of America were slim to none. Having said that, how would he have felt, if somehow Germany had won the gold, as he stood on the podium bowing his head to receive the medal, the culmination of the dreams of virtually any athlete in the world, and then having to listen as the German national anthem played, and the German flag was raised to the rafters?

I would kill to have the natural athletic ability to be able to represent America in the Olympics, and if somehow I had ever ended up on the highest level of the Olympic podium, watching the Star and Stripes rising as the Star-Spangled Banner played, I would be a tearful mess. It would be the proudest moment of my life, even if it was for rhythmic gymnastics. I would be representing my country, and it would be an experience beyond description. But to voluntarily take dual-citizenship, to sell my services to a foreign country in pursuit of this goal is tantamount to treason, in my mind. What if it was not Germany to whom Kaman sold his skills? What if it was Cuba, or Venezuela, or China, or North Korea, or Iran, or any of the other nations that would be considered our enemy by many? Athletes who pursue this course in the future should be told that they are certainly willing to do so, but if they choose this path, they should be prepared to give up their American citizenship, permanently.

Digital Macro fun

All the personal pictures on this site were taken with my Canon SD1000 - I couldn't recommend it more, it's relatively inexpensive, it's got some really fun features (color swap, digital macro, etc), and it's easy to learn and use. A great camera for amateur photographers.

They Needed a Study to Figure This Out?

'Beer goggles' are real - it's official via Jonah Goldberg in the Corner

And more importantly, how does one become part of future studies in this vein?

Ted Nugent on Energy Policy

Nice work in Human Events from Nugent, on the Gang of 10 and the ongoing and ultimately disastrous (for the GOP) love affair with "bipartisanship."

Gang of Sellouts hat tip to my Mom, who emails me Human Events every Friday morning :)

The Gang of Ten is a bipartisan group of senators who recently offered an energy policy -- intentionally or stupidly otherwise -- that can only benefit Senator Obama, whose energy policy up until this point was to tell us to keep our tires just as liberals prefer Fedzilla: properly inflated.

Additionally, the Gang of Ten would provide over $80 billion in tax credits for alternative fuels by eliminating $30 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, which of course ultimately comes out of American consumer's pockets. That’s right: raise taxes on the very companies that would invest in finding more real energy to help make America energy independent, while propping up more Fedzilla hoaxes like ethanol. The Emperor not only has no clothes, he's fat, wart-riddled and ugly.

Georgia v. Russia

Great column (as always) by Charles Krauthammer at NRO, with suggestions on how to deal with Putin and Russia.

Making Putin Pay

Boils down to the following:

1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.

2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.

3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin’s dictatorial presence long made it a farce but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.

4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusian and Jamaican bobsled teams. (Hee)

My Favorite Story of the Month

Newly released files show Julia Child was a spy

Awesome stuff. I recently read a tremendous biography of Mrs. Child, Appetite for Life, by Noel Riley Fitch, and she was truly a fascinating, remarkable woman.

When you hear the expression "They don't make them like that anymore," it couldn't be more applicable than it is to Julia Child. Passionate about life, obviously a brilliant chef, an amazingly vibrant personality, a very competent businesswoman and and a loving wife, strong, tough, loyal, and caring, she was everything a woman should be, and unfortunately, so rarely is these days.

And now, to add to all of that, she was apparently also a spy for the U.S. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this story is that from her biography, it's made pretty apparent that Child was fairly liberal. However, she obviously didn't let this stop her from going above and beyond the call of duty to serve her country in its time of need. What a lady.

Russia v. Georgia

Still pretty bothered about our response, or lack thereof, to Russia's blatant disregard for any sort of external pressure or disapproval. The longer we wait to respond, the longer we allow the situation to escalate without taking any meaningful action, the tougher it's going to be to affect any meaningful change without resorting to military action.

Having said that, Bush's dispatch of "humanitarian aid" for Georgia, conveniently delivered via U.S. Navy and Air Force transport, is a decent start. Russia can't possibly attempt to seize or interfere with these deliveries, and it sends a signal that we are definitely on Georgia's side in this, not to mention flexing just a wee bit of military muscle.

I also liked Condaleeza Rice's statement, "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed." Very nicely put, answering charges that have been floated that we are treating this situation as if it's a continuation of the Cold War era, when outright battle between the Russian and American armies was unthinkable. Russia needs to know that if it comes to it, we are not afraid to put boots on the ground to protect our ally.

Albeit probably completely unintentionally, Rice's reference to Czechoslovakia also brings to mind Nazi Germany's pre-WWII invasion, with which Russia's current aggression shares some startling parallels. A once-proud nation and people, humiliated by economic collapse, rallied by a charismatic, iron-willed leader offering a return to a prouder time, using the excuse of protecting his people from aggression to invade and annex a breakaway region. Hitler was allowed to get away with it then, Putin and Russia cannot be allowed to do the same today.

Defining "Torture" Down

Suspected Terrorist Tortured?

Slightly strange goings-on in this morning's AMNY.

An article by Anthony DeStefano appeared in the print version with the above headline, referring to Pakistani "scientist" Aafia Siddiqui, arrested for shooting at American soldiers while being held in an Afghan police facility. The version of the article on newstands is shorter than that featured on the website, and linked to above. However, the print version, oddly enough, despite its truncated length, features a rather significant paragraph that appears nowhere in the online article.

The missing paragraph reads, in whole:

Siddiqui has undergone strip searches while in U.S. custody, something Fink believed was "torture" for a Muslim woman.

Not only is this particular sentence absent from the online article, but the rather vital information contained therein is completely missing from the version linked to above. The online version contains absolutely nothing related to the alleged torture, beyond Siddiqui's attorney's (Fink) unsubstantiated claims.

I would think it would be quite relavant to know that the entire basis of the "torture" claim is the terrorist's attorney's belief that a strip search constitutes torture. And why on earth does AMNY and Mr. DeStefano feel that it's worth blaring a headline alleging torture, when

A) said torture constituted nothing beyond a standard security procedure performed at airports everyday on completely innocent passengers, not to mention on pretty much every single person arrested and suspected to be dangerous?

and

B) the actual story here, that the woman apparently had in her possession of list of NYC landmarks, charecterized by reports as "targets," is a hell of a lot more interesting, particularly to New Yorkers, than any notion of some made up torture.

Also quite interesting is AMNY's decision to go with this picture to accompany this fabricated "torture" story:

I'm not really sure whose behavior disgusts me more in this case: the terrorist Siddiqui, AMNY and Anthony DeStefano, or the lawyer, Elizabeth Fink.

Eh, I'm just gonna go with D) all of the above

Ebert's 300 Review

Roger Ebert has finally gotten around to reviewing 300. Thank god.

To be honest, I'm not sure why I still even bother reading his reviews. He can't seem to help but inject his political viewpoints into pretty much everything he writes, and combined with his questionable take on "humor," reading his work becomes old, quickly. I guess really the only reason I go to his page anymore is for his occasionally interesting "Answer Man" section, but even that has become tedious and juvenile. It's a shame, he used to be one of the reviewers that I would read religiously, someone whose opinion I would actively seek out when deciding whether or not to see a film, someone whose writing I enjoyed enough that I would go back and reread his review after seeing a movie, just to better appreciate his commentary.

However, with this work on 300, I believe the time has come to swear off Ebert.

In the interest of full disclosure, I love 300. I think it's an incredibly unique film, with a great message about the superiority of Western Civilization. Hopefully I'll get around to writing about it in detail some day soon. But Ebert's review is very strange, particularly given his previous affinities.


Ebert's primary complaint about 300 seems to be that it's unrealistic and over the top. He devotes four of the ten paragraphs of the review to detailing the various aspects of the film that he finds unbelievable, including the muscles of the Spartan warriors, the failure to detail the logistics of a Persian supply convoy, and the extreme scale of Xerxes and his throne (and his makeup). Ebert also takes issue multiple times with the overblown nature of the Spartan dialogue, twice likening it to pro wrestlers taunting their opponents.

These observations are all completely accurate. The majority of the film is overblown and exaggerated. But, as shown multiple times throughout the movie, the story, as shown, is basically one giant pep talk! It is being related by the lone survivor of Thermopylae to an army of 10,000 Spartans, about to go into battle against the Persians at the Battle of Plataea. The events depicted are not intended to be taken literally, they are purposefully exaggerated in order to amp up the Spartan warriors, to inspire them with the sacrifices of their king and their countrymen. For Ebert to spend nearly half his review complaining about the lack of realism is to completely ignore a rather obvious aspect of the film. It's not supposed to be taken literally.

Furthermore, Ebert takes issue with the overly excessive spectacle, the unrealistic proportions, the presumed overuse of CGI and special effects. This is a man who gave three and a half stars to the CGI-laden crapfest that was The Phantom Menace, largely based upon the excessive spectacle. I could actually forgive him for giving 300 only two stars, it's certainly not for everyone. But to do so, for the reasons stated in the review, after giving The Phantom Menace just under his highest rating, is dishonest.

This ignorance is only emphasized by Ebert's final two paragraphs:

But my deepest objection to the movie is that it is so blood-soaked. When dialogue arrives to interrupt the carnage, it's like the seventh-inning stretch. In slow motion, blood and body parts spraying through the air, the movie shows dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands, of horrible deaths. This can get depressing.

"Thousands"? The movie is a depiction of a group of ancient warriors fighting for their lives against an innumerable hoard with spears, arrows, and swords. It's gonna get bloody. For the majority of the review Ebert is complaining about the unrealistic nature of the movie, and then he wraps it up by complaining the that the film is too realistic. Make up your mind.

In old movies, ancient Greeks were usually sort of noble. Now they have become lager louts. They celebrate a fascist ideal. They assume a bloodthirsty audience, or one suffering from attention deficit (how many disembowelings do you have to see to get the idea?). They have no grace and wisdom in their speech. Nor dignity in their bearing: They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.

I'm sorry, "a fascist ideal"? The only aspect of Spartan society, as depicted in the film, that I could see as fascist would be the brutal eugenics of killing malformed or feeble infants at birth. Yes, this is a terrible terrible thing, as difficult to rationlize then as it is today, when it's done regularly in America and around the world, and called abortion. At least in ancient Greece is was done in order to produce warriors better able to defend their country and families from the constant threat of war and enslavement, as opposed to now, when it's done for convenience. And surely Roger Ebert doesn't think abortion is fascist.

Other than that, where does Ebert see fascism? In the voluntary and completely aware self-sacrifice of a group of volunteers on behalf of the greater good? That, and the beauty of freedom, are the only ideals I see being celebrated by the Greeks in 300.

At least, at the very last, Ebert is correct about one thing:

They strut with arrogant pride. They are a nasty bunch.

Damn right.

What, Like a Yacht Club or Something?

US, allies weigh punishment for Russia

Scrambling to find ways to punish Russia for its invasion of pro-Western Georgia, the United States and its allies are considering expelling Moscow from an exclusive club of wealthy nations and have scrapped plans for an upcoming joint NATO-Russia military exercise, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

Yeah, that'll show 'em. Somehow I think the Russians aren't really in need of a "military exercise" anytime soon, they seem to have gotten all the exercise they need over the last five days. But make sure they don't hear about the kegger this weekend!

Here's a thought. Tell the Russians that the Georgians are our allies, and that any further hostilities, or a lack of an immediate withdrawl of all Russian forces will result in immediate deployment of American forces to the area.

Brings to mind a piece from The Onion's brilliant Our Dumb Century entitled "Sinatra Warns Ruskies: Knock Off This Commie Bunk or it’s Ring-a-Ding-Ding for you Bozos." The title pretty much says it all. Somebody needs to grow some balls.

Oh Dear

New rules shorten Meadowlands tailgating time

Tailgate parties can only start five hours before games instead of seven. Season ticketholders who are ejected from the stadium or arena will have their tickets revoked.

Another new effort will have banners hung on the stadium's spiral ramps to prevent fans from harassing women. Security at Gate D had to be increased last season during Jets games when hundreds of men would gather at halftime and demand that women expose their breasts.

"Demand"?

Reasons I Will Never Vote for Mike Bloomberg

Can NY Infrastructure Handle Floods, Intense Heat?

The latest in a long line of alarmist reports threatening a flooded coastline and roiling heat waves, this one seems to be the result of a few too many late-night viewings of The Day After Tomorrow.

"We have to adapt to the environmental changes that have already taken place, or that we can reasonably expect will occur because of climate change," Bloomberg said. (Emphasis mine)

The panel will begin its work by studying the city's infrastructure to better understand the city's preparedness for possibilities such as more catastrophic storms, hotter temperatures and a rising sea level.

Politicians and scientists have demonstrated time and time again over the past five years that they obviously have absolutely no idea what to "reasonably expect will occur because of climate change." First it was all about global warming. Now the key phrase is "climate change," which is so nicely applicable to basically any sort of fluctuation in the weather. Less snow in the winter? Climate change. Unseasonably cool in mid-August? Climate change. Hurricane? Climate change. Less hurricanes than usual? Climate change.

If they can't even agree on whether it's getting hotter or colder, why should anyone put any credence in anything else that these people predict?

And now, Mayor Bloomberg, in the midst of what the Governor recently described as officially a recession, wants to find money in the budget to replace the city's entire taxi fleet with hybrids, and to enact new "green" construction regulations that will only serve to stifle building and economic growth. Way to go Mike. I cannot wait until this guy is gone. He needs to take a mistress or something, or perhaps some kind of crime wave needs to start, anything to keep Bloomberg busy. The man is so concerned with his "legacy," in getting his name out there in preperation for his failed presidential run, that he's going to leave the city bankrupt and stagnant.

Hey, maybe that'll bring back Guiliani!

WaPo Editorial on Drilling

'Snake Oil'
Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling

Surprisingly centrist editorial that takes on some of the misleading, or outright false claims that the anti-drilling environmentalists often make. While I give the editors at the WaPo credit for doing that (although not too much, when you reach the point where even Obama and Nancy Pelosi are trying to achieve some "nuance" in their positions on drilling, I guess it's not too surprising to see the media following suit), in the course of "debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling," the editors contribute a few of their own, namely:

Contrary to the baldly political suggestions regarding lower gasoline prices by President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), drilling would make no impact on today's pain at the pump because it would be years before any oil flowed from the Outer Continental Shelf.

Seriously? Have these people been paying zero attention to oil prices recently, or do they simply have no understanding of how market speculation works? President Bush had but to casually mention that he was perhaps pondering the idea of rethinking the ban on drilling, and oil prices have been dropping ever since! And even if, for some strange reason, the greedy, evil oil speculators for some reason decide to go against every law of economics and continue buying oil in the face of the potential for a vastly increasing supply down the road, why is this an argument against drilling? This is the same argument that liberals and enviromentalists have been making for decades now, that drilling won't produce results for years. At what point is someone (besides Jay Leno) going to stand up and state the obvious, that if drilling truly won't produce results for years, maybe we should get started now!?

We agree that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with its varied and sensitive ecosystems, should be preserved. In the quest for new sources of energy, there
are trade-offs. That pristine area must remain off-limits.

This endlessly repeated meme needs to die, and quick. This is another case where the editors either have absolutely zero grasp of the facts involved, or else they simply don't care about the facts and are going to just continue parroting the party line entire the Post goes the way of so many other venerable newspapers. ANWR is not some pristine land of glistening lakes, surrounded by endless herds of caribou and other wildlife, bordered by snowcapped mountains and verdent forests. There are certainly some strikingly beautiful parts, but particularly in the relatively tiny percentage that would be drilled on, it's a veritable wasteland, indistinguishable from acres and acres of tundra elsewhere. To mortgage our countries future by allowing us to be held hostage by our enemies for the sake of a few acres of wilderness is asinine.

Government Action I Can Support

NY governor calls for $1B more in budget cuts from BusinessWeek

Cry Me a River

US orders medical care for jailed Pakistani scientist from Yahoo!

First off - "Scientist"? Even if I don't support it, I can understand the use of a term other than terrorist to describe our enemies, such as insurgent, but to identify this woman as a scientist is a little ridiculous. The day she picked up a weapon and attacked American soldiers, she gave up the right to be referred to as a scientist, particularly when the headline refers to her being jailed, as if the reason for her arrest was her work in science.

Secondly, and more bothersome, is the idea that now the American taxpayer will now apparently be billed for the probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care that this terrorist will now receive. As nice as it is to have someone like this in custody, at this point, take her back to Pakistan and let her fend for herself.

Obama Funnels Earmarks to Big Campaign Donors

Change you can earmark TheNextRight by way of Instapundit

As stated elsewhere, this isn't really a big revelation, it goes on all the time in Washington and elsewhere, candidates and politicians ensuring that millions and millions of taxpayer dollars get funneled to people who have supported their campaigns. The big deal in this instance is that it's being blatantly done by Barack Obama, who has based his presidential campaign on the idea that he represents a break from the business-as-usual Washington insiders. This is not the way to make your case.

Both parties are guilty many times over, and for my money, any candidate who demonstrates that they're willing and able to put and end to this practice would have my support. The operative word being "demonstrates." Actions speak a lot louder than words, and in this case, Obama has failed to demonstrate anything except that his presidency would just be more of the same.

Hee

Liver Problems? Paging Dr. Cuervo! from Wired, via Instapundit

Interesting, encouraging article detailing medical research that seems capable of basically cleansing and reinvigorating liver cells in the elderly.

All done by a "Dr. Cuervo."

The marketing opportunities are endless...

USA! USA!

Finally got around to watching the US victory in the 4x100m Freestyle Relay from last night.

What amazing stuff.

One of those situations, similar to the Giant's Super Bowl win, where everything is in place for unbelievable drama, between Phelps' quest for 8 golds, the French as the villain, accentuated by their talking of smack, everything was in place, and the actual race couldn't have been better. An unbelievable finish, combined with a tremendous call from Dan Hicks and Rowdy Gaines.

Here's the entire race from NBC, and Lezak's leg on YouTube (probably won't be up for long)

I've watched it about twenty times so far, I tear up a little each time as Lezak powers into the wall and Hicks's voice cracks, and the celebration from the Americans is the icing on the cake. What a performance.

Oddly Worded Piece

Officials nab Chinese activist on way to church

In one of the stranger pieces of pro-Chinese Communist propoganda that has emerged so far during the Olympics, the AP does an amazing job making what appears to be the blatant persecution of a Christian into a normal, everyday, "nothing to see here" moment (and maybe that's exactly what it is in China).

The way the article is presented here is how it appeared in this morning's AMNY, the longer version is linked to above:

BEIJING — Security agents detained a Christian activist who was bicycling to a service at a state-sanctioned church attended by President Bush on Sunday, confiscating his Bible and cell phone, the man's brother said.

Hua Huiqi, a member of Beijing's underground Christian church who had been planning to attend the service for days, was being held at an undisclosed location, said his brother, Hua Huilin. It was not immediately clear what Hua Huiqi was going to do at the service.

While it wasn't clear if Bush knew of Hua's situation, the president said after the service that China had nothing to fear from expressions of faith.

"It just goes to show that God is universal," Bush said.

"It was not immediately clear what Hua Huiqi was going to do at the service."

Huh? I dunno, worship? Sing some hymns, perhaps? The man was riding a bicycle, and carrying a cell phone and a Bible. What on earth did they think he was going to do at the service?

Good Grief

Nationwide ‘Thunder’ Boycott in the Works from the NYT, via Dirty Harry
(Like Harry, I have yet to see the film in question, but I'm not going to let that hold my tongue. He's a better man than I am)

There are so many things about this article to ridicule that I'm not sure where to start, but the beginning is always a good place:

A coalition of disabilities groups is expected as early as Monday to call for a national boycott of the film “Tropic Thunder” because of what the groups consider the movie’s open ridicule of the intellectually disabled. (All emphasis mine)

"Intellectually disabled"? I don't think I've heard that euphemism before, but I can't imagine a more offensive way to describe a person's mental capacities. Whomever came up with that apparently went so far out of their way to avoid being specifically rude that they've come full circle. It basically conveys a sense of absolute lack of potential or hope, as if the portions of a person's mind that control thought or intelligence are basically broken beyond repair, shut down.

“Not only might it happen, it will happen,” Timothy P. Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics, said of the expected push for a boycott.

Mr. Shriver said that he had also begun to ask members of Congress for a resolution condemning what he called the movie’s “hate speech” and calling for stronger federal support of the intellectually disabled.

“The most disappointing thing, the most incredible thing, is that nobody caught it,” said Mr. Shriver, who, as a co-producer of the DreamWorks film Amistad, is no stranger to the studio. He spoke of what he described as the studio’s and the filmmakers’ blatant disregard for the disabled even as they stepped carefully around other potentially offensive references, notably in a story line that has Robert Downey, Jr. playing a white actor who changes his skin color to play a black soldier.

A particular sore point has been the film’s repeated use of the term “retard” in referring to a character, Simple Jack, who is played by Mr. Stiller in a subplot about an actor who chases an Oscar by portraying a mindless dolt.

In my mind, the money quote is the one accented above, in which Tim Shriver seems to assume that somehow he is gifted with this spectacular insight, that everyone else is apparently so daft that they failed to notice this supposedly ridiculously offensive material. Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't that everyone else isn't sensitive enough to potentially offensive material, maybe the problem is actually that Mr. Shriver is way, way over the top sensitive.

Maybe the the problem is that Mr. Shriver is completely ignorant of the concept of satire, and fails to realize that by lampooning the tried-and-true Hollywood ploy of casting a respected actor as a so-called "intellectually disabled" person in order to secure at least an Oscar nomination.

In earlier interviews with The New York Times, Mr. Stiller and Stacey Snider, chief executive of the DreamWorks unit, said the movie’s humor was aimed not at the disabled but at the foolishness of actors who will go to any length in advancing their careers.

At least on the surface, this seems like a pretty clear case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," in that even if the film isn't necessarily treating mentally handicapped (is that still an acceptable term?) people with the utmost respect, it is definitely also mocking those in Hollywood who exploit the mentally handicapped population for their own personal gain.

“I came out feeling like I had been assaulted,” said David C. Tolleson, executive director of the Down syndrome group who saw the movie.

It's a comedic satire. If I had a dollar (what's a nickel worth these days) for every film that blatantly attacked white, conservative Christians and that offended me and my beliefs and who I am as a person that wasn't a comedy or wasn't satirical, I'd be a rich man.