Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysInfinite Monkeys is undergoing a transformation today. After four years and five months of laboring with an anachronistic version of Movable Type, we've decided to freshen up the place. Mostly, we were tired of purging comment spam all the time.
So we're abandoning Movable Type and embracing the cult of Drupal. What does this mean for you, one of the dozen or so regular readers of Infinite Monkeys? Well, a few things.
First, we've added several user-based features. You can set up a profile and share as much (or as little) information about yourself as you like.
In order to combat spammers, we're going the registration route. All we need is your e-mail address, and you'll be automatically sent a password. Of course, you can still comment without registration. But be advised that your comment will go into an approval queue, with untold quantities of spam, and may never be seen again. Oh, it's possible that one of the monkeys might check the approval queue from time to time. Possible -- but not likely. So registration is a good thing. We promise not to use your information for any nefarious purposes.
The new site is a bit more flexible, so we're going to add new features over time. Joel Mathis and I plan to resume some version of the old RedBlueAmerica podcast. The Summer of Gin continues apace. With any luck, some of the old monkeys will blog more regularly on the new and improved site. We look forward to reading comments from our dozen or so readers on the site's usability. Message: We care. And cheers!
I've been reluctant to characterize Congressional Democrats as "pro-terrorist." But when one embraces Bush Derangement Syndrome as a daily mantra, the line is blurred. Rep. William Delahunt has gone beyond blurred.
Though he has tried to crawl back from his blatantly pro-terrorist statement in a House of Representatives hearing Thursday, his statement is on the record. In video, and indelible.
That is simply reprehensible. Delahunt is hoping al-Qaida terrorists get a good look at Vice President Cheney's chief of staff David Addington so they know who to target for throat slitting for imaginary abuses at Gitmo. Delahunt has a smirk on his face as he says it.
It is simply true that some Democrats in this country hate Bush more than they hate our vicious enemies.
Our token liberal Monkey friend Joel Mathis is at this very moment enjoying a blissful vacation road trip (I hope he saved up early for the gas). But even though he's largely out-of-pocket and having fun, I can't help but correct his misconceptions about the conservative view of the Constitution. Joel titled his "see ya soon" post "Blogging Hiatus." But I'm not on a hiatus, so here goes my relatively quick rebuttal.
Joel gave his quick take on the latest significant Supreme Court rulings. And he's a bit off the mark in places. We start here:
I thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that the death penalty is a disproportionate -- read: "cruel and unusual" -- penalty for child rape. But I can understand how people might disagree. And even I have some problems with Justice Kennedy's reasoning that if the penalty were proportionate, there'd be more states that allowed it. It seems to me that idea strikes against the heart of federalism.
Here is where Joel is the least wrong. But it's a matter of degree. I'm glad to see that Joel has trouble with Justice Kennedy's wavering reasoning. And it's heartening to read a liberal embrace federalism. But, it should be said, Joel is an intellectually honest liberal. The trouble is that capital punishment has been linked to the idea of "cruel and unusual" measures only in modern times. We hung people for stealing cattle a century ago. We may think that is excessive now. But it wasn't in 1905. An adherent to federalism would let states determine for themselves what are especially heinous crimes warranting especially strict punishment.
Joel continues. ...
I also thought the Supreme Court was correct to rule that there is an individual right to bear arms.
Hurray! Joel is not among the liberal mainstream, if E.J. Dionne is any measure. But enough about those Beltway stuffed shirts. On to more Joel stuff!
But I've got to say: I don't really believe my conservative friends when they beat their chests over "judicial tyranny" and cases (like the death penalty ruling) where the court overturns the judgement of the elected branches ... because their love of judicial deference ends when it comes to the gun case (which overturned a D.C. law) ... .Apparently, such deference is owed only when the conservative ox is being gored.
Here's where Joel -- and a lot of liberals -- badly misunderstand the conservative view of the Constitution. Conservatives don't howl when their "ox is being gored." They howl when Supreme Court justices don't know the difference between upholding a constitutional right and inventing one.
Justice Kennedy invented a right to habeas corpus for unlawful combatants -- tossing away all Supreme Court precedent and the court's own instructions to the president and Congress. That took an extreme act of "judicial tyranny" that dismissed the will of the people's elected representatives with no legitimate constitutional justification.
Interpreting and upholding the plain language of the Second Amendment as written in the Constitution is a different and much more clear-cut matter. And it is definitely an ox being gored.
The Irish recently voted "No" on the EU constitution — something many of the people of Europe have tended to do when they actually get a say on the question. And France's European minister knows who to blame: Neo-cons in Washington:
France's Europe minister, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, has said that Europe has enemies in Washington, suggesting that neo-conservatives played a significant role in the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty earlier this month. French daily Le Monde reports Mr Jouyet as saying that "Europe has powerful enemies on the other side of the Atlantic, gifted with considerable financial means. The role of American neo-conservatives was very important in the victory of the No."
We Irish are known to be hard to rule. And usually don't need outside help to be ornery. A question, though, for M. Jouyet: Are "the stinkin' Jews!" to blame for his own countrymen rejecting the freedom-sucking EU constitution, too?
(HT: Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner)
That's the question Joel and I tackle in this week's Scripps-Howard column.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that " The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v. Heller. Check in with The Volokh Conspiracy for more learned commentary than a barrel of monkeys could provide. As Conspirator Orin Kerr observes, "In a case like this, the details of the opinion are critical; it will take a bit of time to read the decision to get a sense of what it means."
Activists warned on Olympic protests, reports the New York Times. You don't say. "In the latest sign of efforts to prevent dissent during the Beijing Olympics, political activists in Shanghai say they have been warned against expressing their opinions, speaking with foreigners or visiting Beijing until after the Games," according to our friends at the Times. This would be somewhat less of a problem for the United States is we simply boycotted the thing, but I appear to be in the minority of that view. The Chinese government understandably wants to look good in the eyes of the world. Let us have no talk of censoring news from the outside world, oppressing Tibetans, abetting genocide in Sudan, or supporting the backward regime in Burma. No, no, let us talk instead of embracing globalization and its attendant virtues. Hail Olympia!
I just watched a mountain of a man named Kevin Taylor destroy dozens of flaming bricks on America's Got Talent. Sharon Osbourne opted to vote against sending Taylor through to Vegas because, in her words, she "didn't want to see (him) get hurt."
Jeez, is she serious?
Apart from that, Sharon obviously hasn't seen Kevin Taylor's world-record breaking video. Hurt's got nothing to do with it.
My friend Regis alerted me to this post by the lovely and talented Aaron Barnhart. "Saw this and thought of you... in a good way," Regis wrote. Thanks, Regis. The headline of Barnhart's post is "Conservatives who defend O'Reilly -- talk about an elite few!"
I'm not one of those conservatives, but I am part of an elite few. I've been extremely lucky in my career. I've done a bit of good journalism in my day and I've been a low man on the vast-right-wing-conspiratorial totem pole, too. Let's put it this way: I've eaten plenty of chicken-n-sauce at lots of luncheons and dinners where famous people have spoken. Also, William F. Buckley, Jr. answered my e-mails a couple of times. Okay? Okay.
Anyway, Barnhart wrote a column the other day in which he took a shot at O'Reilly's viewers and made some point about armed soldiers on the U.S.-Mexico border. He thinks that's a bad idea, not that anyone has proposed it seriously. OK, fine. Anyway, Barnhart's piece elicited an indignant response from a "conservative" reader who felt the need to submit her cultured bona fides. "I frequently attend art house movies. I just finished reading a book by Annie Proulx, enjoy several plays a year at the Unicorn Theater and watch PBS."
I have no patience for conservative victims. Zero. So Rebecca from Lee's Summit, Mo., gets no particular sympathy from me, especially as she goes on to piss an moan about Barnhart's "liberal elitism."
I agree with Barnhart's reply, at least in part. I don't think he needed to rehearse his resume, but that's his prerogative. Will most Bill O'Reilly viewers care that he helped dole out Olin Foundation money? Will most O'Reilly viewers know who John Olin was or the great work his foundation did? I doubt it. Barnhart lost me with his choice of supposed "conservative" authors. Andrew Sullivan and Simon Schama aren't conservatives. Not even close. I can say, with absolute confidence, that I am much better read than Barnhart is. But the main thing is, Barnhart is entirely right when he says "many disillusioned conservatives... are praying for the sweet release of electoral defeat in November so they can have their movement back."
I'm not sure about the electoral defeat part, but George W. Bush's exit in January 2009 will be a great thing for conservatives, no matter who takes over the Oval Office. Bush has been to American conservatives what Pete Wilson was to California conservatives about a decade ago: Disastrous. Wilson, a disciple of Richard Nixon, sucked the oxygen out of the conservative movement in California. Bush has done the same for conservatism in the United States. Honest men -- no, not Scott McClellan -- have kept their mouths shut or pulled their punches for eight years. The war played a part. If not for the war, it's arguable that George W. Bush would have been a one-termer like his dad.
Look, conservatives need to come to grips with the hard fact that, whatever one may say about George W. Bush's administration of the war, he has not been especially friendly to conservative issues. Even excluding the military, government grew exponentially during the Bush years. Conservatives have a lot more work to do now than they did eight years ago.
I fear for our Phoenix-area friends at the Exurban League. According to KFYI radio, either "current or former" members of the Mexican Army invaded the home of an Arizonan. They were in full body armor, helmets, and wielded assault rifles, killing the homeowner.
Police reports show that three men arrested in a Phoenix home invasion and homicide Monday may have been active members of the Mexican Army.While on the J.D. Hayworth show, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association President Mark Spencer said that the men involved were hired by drug cartels to perform home invasions and assassinations.
The Monday morning incident at 8329 W. Cypress St. resulted in the death of the homeowner. Between 50 and 100 rounds were fired at the house.
Spencer said a police officer told him that one of the men captured said they were completely prepared to ambush Phoenix police, but ran out of ammunition.
He added that all were all dressed in military tactical gear and were armed with AR-15 assault rifles. Three other men involved in the invasion escaped.
(Click here, here and here for the police documents on the incident.)
Now the home in question was suspected to be that of either a drug dealer or drug holder who ran afoul of a pretty serious-minded Mexican kingpin. But still. They were prepared to turn their guns on the Phoenix police, but ran out of ammo and fled instead. Lucky day for the Phoenix Police Department.
The Phoenix PD has "not confirmed" that the culprits were active Mexican Army, but admitted that one suspect revealed that he had "prior military training."
Of course, if we were guarding our border properly — with, I dunno, a fence?— perhaps these Mexicans couldn't have just strolled into a Phoenix suburb to wreak military-type havoc.
(HT: Moonbattery)
Child rapists might be sleeping easier tonight, knowing that perhaps the worst they face for their vile crimes is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and not -- as the people of Louisiana would have had it -- death by lethal injection. I wonder, though, if today's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana is a net gain or a net loss for the country? It's not as though death for rapists is a novel idea in America. And is putting child rapists to death really so barbaric?
I don't know -- I am but a humble (unemployed) writer -- but I can't wait to read what the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post have to say on the subject. In lieu, I suggest reading Investor's Business Daily's take, which notes that "Reasonable people can disagree as to whether the sexual assault of children, along with other despicable non-homicidal crimes — torture, say, or treason — warrant the death penalty." But, as IBD's editors argue, "What is unreasonable is to dictate that the people, through their elected representatives, may not decide for themselves which of those horrific crimes deserve payment of the ultimate price." I'm not sure I could agree more. (Please do read the whole thing.)
And I do wonder how well child rapists -- or any criminal who would trespass with intent to do violence -- will sleep tomorrow night, after we learn the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller.
There are court watchers who try to divine what the justices will do on certain cases based on their opinions in other cases during the term. I do not pretend to understand the reasoning, and I'm not certain it's anything more than wild speculation dressed up as educated guessing. But Eugene Volokh suggests that an Antonin Scalia opinion may be in the offing. Here's hoping.
I won't presume to guess how the court will come down on the District of Columbia's gun ban. (Joel and I wrote about the case here.) Whatever the court says, I don't think there can be any argument that the state trumps the individual right to self-defense. Ever. Fact is, Washington D.C.'s gun ban turned law-abiding citizens into subjects cowering in their own homes. The question now is whether the Supreme Court will abide by the Bill of Rights or further amend the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that a Louisiana law imposing capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, asserts that “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint." Is that so? More brutal than the rape of a defenseless child?
Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos rightly describes Kennedy's 36-page opinion as "insufferable blather." Matthew Franck picks up Whelan's meme and runs with it. "These are the accents of the moralist and the legislator. They are not those of a judge adjudicating a case under the law of the Constitution," Franck writes. "But Anthony Kennedy has never known the difference."
Matter of fact, Kennedy doesn't know his history, either. "Evolving standards of decency" -- God, I hate that phrase -- "that mark the progress of a maturing society counsel us to be most hesitant before interpreting the Eighth Amendment to allow the extension of the death penalty, a hesitation that has special force where no life was taken in the commission of the crime," Kennedy writes.
Franck notes the phrase extension of the death penalty. "In truth," Franck writes, "what the Court has been doing for several decades now is arrogating to itself the right, under some alleged authorization flowing from the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to progressively restrict the imposition of the death penalty, from its historic application in many kinds of cases at the time of the founding, to just one class of cases today, the narrowest category of aggravated murders."
But when "evolving standards of decency" are involved, who needs intellectual honesty? Me, I could use a bucket.
If you want to raise an annoying lefty, you gotta start 'em early. Of course, you can dress them in onesies that yell "Stop Bush's War!" or sport the latest in Che chic. There are websites devoted to baby clothes for politically angry parents. Naturally, the tots are too young to even read when they're crapping their pants 10 times a day. But it's a good start.
Yet you've gotta be pretty dedicated to top Michelle and Randy Doyle of Salt Lake City, Utah. They've got their two daughters in the AP program for liberal annoyance.
The pre-teen girls took to the streets of one of the most conservative cities in America to fight for their rights! You see, it's just not right that they can't watch "Hannah Montana" anymore.
No, Disney did not cancel the show (the network is not that stupid). Hard as it is to believe, "Big Oil" is to blame. Their mommy canceled the family's cable subscription because her daily commute to work has just become too expensive. Something had to go. Sorry Miley Cyrus.
Sadie, 9, and her sister Pyper, 7, marched around downtown Salt Lake City chanting, "Lower the gas prices," while carrying homemade signs. ..."Gas prices are too high," Sadie said. "I just decided to come and protest so they'd go down."
Yeah. That ought to do it. While you're at it, why not protest other stuff you don't like. The signs are easy enough to make:
Don't like broccoli? "Down with Brockolie!"Don't like being grounded — "Free Sadie and Pyper!"
Don't like going to school — "Boooo! Skool!"
Let me know how that turns out for you, girls. What's that? Oh. Yeah. Didn't work for me, either.
OK. Here it comes. I'm being a too hard on the kids. But my scorn and sarcasm is really for the parents. The kids fell into being a public spectacle and fighting for their version of social justice — NO HANNAH! NO PEACE! — "after marching with their parents in several protests."
Should you really be dragging your kids into your political activism? I say, no. Politics is for grown-ups. And it's exploitative to use your kids as political props. They are not tiny adults. They are children, and should enjoy the unique innocence that exists outside political thought and activism. Mr. Doyle, obviously, feels differently.
''This is the way to get involved,'' Doyle said. ''If you see something that you don't like, stand up and say something.''
Yeah. Who's going to tell the kids that marching up and down the street yelling about the price of oil isn't going to change anything? I guess it's me.
(HT: Michelle Malkin)
My friend Tom Krannawitter of Hillsdale College and one of his recent poli sci graduates, Kaitlyn Buss, have a sharp op-ed on Obama's health care proposals in today's Investor's Business Daily. Krannawitter and Buss compare Obama's ambitious plans to FDR's expansive scheming and put the lie to this notion that the senator from Illinois is a "left-libertarian." Oh, he's left, alright.
Krannawitter and Buss want a health care debate rooted in the Constitution: "(T)he socialized medicine that Obama dreams of is unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution grant to Congress the power to cut a check for every American's medical bills. If Americans care anything about constitutional government, let us insist that every discussion of health care proposals begins with a review of what the Constitution authorizes government to do."
Sometimes, a trailer tells you too much about a movie. I think the latest "Hancock" trailer gives away entirely too much. Other times, that two-minute preview tells you everything what you need to know. When the biggest selling point of "The Happening" is that it's M. Night Shyamalan's first R-rated film, that should be reason enough to stay far from the multiplex. And indeed, despite a promising opening weekend, audiences have stayed away in droves.
Critics, however, have done us the favor of giving "The Happening" the thrashing it so obviously deserves. Joseph Rago in The Wall Street Journal calls it a "moral obscenity." The Mighty Kyle Smith simply dubbed it "The Crappening." And Christopher Orr of the New Republic doesn't review "The Happening", but offers rather -- in Orr's words -- "a spoiler-laden list of its most laughably terrible parts." (Hat tip: Lisa for the Orr link, and Dirty Harry for the Journal and Smith posts.)
What's Shyamalan's problem, anyway? I've actually liked every Shyamalan picture, with the exception of "Lady in the Water," which I haven't seen. Could be the Shyamalan "twist" has become a cliché of the thriller. Could be that Shyamalan has an overly inflated sense of his talents -- although he's clearly a clever enough screenwriter with a keen photographic eye. Maybe Shyamalan's problem is that he's too clever for his own audience? Of "The Happening," the writer-director has said he wanted to make "the best B movie you will ever see." So "The Happening" is about how trees rebel against mankind by spreading a mass-suicide-inducing toxin and nothing more.
Yeah. And I see dead people.
Much stink has been made about Obama's arrogant "seal" that presumes he's already president ... of something.
Well, the Great Seal of ObamaLand joins the seemingly endless list of embarrassments that Obama tosses aside (I have imposed an "under the bus" moratorium on myself. Enough!) Via my friend and former Washington Times colleague, Bill Sammon:
WASHINGTON — After days of media mockery, Barack Obama has decided to stop using a presidential-looking seal that his campaign designed and affixed to his podium on Friday.Journalists said the seal, which features an eagle clutching arrows and an olive branch, smacks of arrogance. John McCain's camp had a field day, calling the seal “laughable, ridiculous, preposterous and revealing - all at the same time.”
The seal was conspicuously missing from Obama's lectern when he spoke to a group of women in Albuquerque on Monday. Not surprising, given how much grief Obama took from a normally laudatory press corps after unveiling the seal at an appearance in Chicago on Friday.
“What a bizarre and dumb idea,” railed NBC political director Chuck Todd. “It really feeds the arrogance narrative.”
Well, there's a reason why Obama has an arrogance narrative to feed. His campaign has been defined by an audacious arrogance from the beginning. It's good to see the MSM hip to it ... finally.
K-Lo at The Corner alerts us to a troubling story from The Hill Newspaper.
A future terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol is highly probable, and Congress’s specialized bomb squad is unlikely to be able to deal with it, according to internal U.S. Capitol Police documents obtained by The Hill.The unclassified internal letters and memos, written by Capitol Police captains, lieutenants, and sergeants between 2005 and 2007, detail more than three years of complaints to their superiors about the Hazardous Devices Unit’s lack of vehicles, its desire for more frequent training and the inadequate level of experience of bomb technicians within the specialty unit.
I find this completely unsurprising. I started covering Capitol Hill a year after the 9/11 attacks. There were little emergency kits with masks in the event of a chemical or biological attack in the press galleries above the Senate and House chambers. Trouble was, there were only a handful of them — and there are easily a couple of hundred reporters and staffers in the Capitol building at any one time. It was a running joke that only the fast — and lucky — would survive.
And, frankly, I don't get too worked up over stories like this. Not to underplay the role of first-responders in the event of a terrorist attack. But, for the most part, if you're waiting for first responders to save your bacon when a bomb goes off, you decrease your chances of survival. Living and dying has more to do with prevention. And when the inevitable happens: luck and your wits.
Here's a public service announcement in the making: Crack cocaine can turn vivacious and talented (if absurdly tattooed) young chanteuse into an oxygen-sucking invalid in just a few years. Just ask Amy Winehouse. The 24-year-old soul singer has early-stage emphysema. Her dad tells the Sunday Mirror, "With smoking the crack cocaine and the cigarettes, her lungs are all gunked up. There are nodules around the chest and dark marks. She's got 70 percent lung capacity."
The good news is, if Winehouse stays off the pipe, she can lead a "magnificent life." Perhaps. Hey, positive attitude! Some people have compared Winehouse to Billie Holiday. Given the trajectory of Winehouse's personal life, she may have Holiday beat by a decade. At least.
...but I smiled a little at Michael Ian Black's barbs at David Sedaris. A teaser: "At a cocktail party, a bottle of lousy champagne is uncorked. You take a swig, grimace, and say, 'Send this swill back to France where David Sedaris is undoubtedly enjoying a baguette.' (I admit this probably doesn't seem like much of a put down on paper, but if you say the word 'baguette' with a sneer, trust me, this will be devastating.)"
I'm not sure you can say "baguette" with a sneer -- wouldn't it be more of a grimace? -- but then I'm not a powerhouse of contemporary humor like Messrs. Black or Sedaris.
(Black carries on his one-man brawl here. It gets a little tedious. Perhaps Black has more in common with Sedaris than he realizes? I link, you decide...)
(Hat tip: Gawker via Digg.)
Disclaimer: Though I'm essentially an agnostic these days, it's not my wish to challenge or undermine anybody's faith -- I'm no Richard Dawkins.
That said: Very interesting poll from Pew today, suggesting that most Christians don't believe you have to be a Christian:
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life." Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that "no one comes to the Father except through me."Now I happen to think this is a good thing. If you think that God-as-you-understand-him is in fact the-only-God-there-is with the only-rules-about-how-to-live there are, well, that seems to me to increase the odds that you'll resort to damaging zealotry in order to defend or spread that understanding.
A little humility, though -- a realization that none of us (me included) actually knows what goes on beyond the observable universe -- tends to blunt such radicalism. It didn't work out this way for me, but I think it's possible to possess a serious faith and that kind of humility. I would've thought Americans mostly immune to living with that kind of nuance (I, uh, haven't always had good personal counterexamples to work from) but, gladly, I admit I was wrong.
George Carlin, comedian and pillar of the Counterculture, died on Sunday. You didn't have to share his politics or his atheism to enjoy his peculiar brand of humor -- although it probably helped. He was 71.
(Check out the mainstream media coverage: WaPo obit here, NYT obit here, LAT obit here.)
Carlin's latter-day act was certainly more misanthropic than the work he did in his heyday of the 1970s, which is saying something. His last HBO special, "It's Bad for Ya," was a long riff on aging, and its attendant effects and hypocrisies. I winced more than laughed, although it wasn't always so.
Americans will remember Carlin as a footnote in the ongoing battle over free speech and indecency. The great thing about the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation is the appendix, which is a transcript of Carlin's act. Listening to the "Seven Dirty Words" bit today, however, one would necessarily conclude that indecency won. As for free speech, the jury's still out.
When I was at UC San Diego, Comedy Central held a contest in which the grand prize was to spend the day with Carlin. There was a cash prize involved, too. My apartment-mates and I entered and we were devastated when another student on campus won. Since we were all staffers on the student newspaper, we got to follow Carlin around anyway.
I can't remember the winner's name -- he was a terribly earnest fellow devoted to Democratic politics -- but I vividly recall Carlin's parting advice on what to do with his prize money: "Spend it with somebody interesting." That was such a nice line, I don't think the guy ever realized Carlin had just sliced his guts out. May he roast in peace.
From the AP:
Carlin, who had a history of heart trouble, went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday afternoon complaining of chest pain and died later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. He had performed as recently as last weekend at the Orleans Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas. He was 71.
R.I.P. George. You millions of people some of the biggest laughs they've ever had. When I heard his "stuff" routine as a teenager, I almost passed out from laughing instead of breathing.
The Associated Press does its best to cheer up Americans this Sunday by headlining a story: "Everything seemingly is spinning out of control."
WASHINGTON - Is everything spinning out of control?Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.
Horatio Alger, twist in your grave.
The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault.
Yeah. Under constant assault by a cynical, defeatist, unfailingly negative mainstream media — especially the Associated Press. Wars "without end"? Ever? How the hell does the AP know that?
Prediction: If Obama wins the election, suddenly the sun will shine again. Homelessness will disappear from the headlines. Levees will fail to burst. Polar bears will enjoy comfortable lives again. And a national happiness will spread like a virus from sea to shining sea.
If McCain wins ... we're even more doomed.
There are few more pleasurable reads, at least for me, than a scathing movie review. And the reviews of Mike Myers' "The Love Guru" doesn't disappoint. This movie looked terrible to me from the get-go. And my opposition to it was only heightened by passing an enormous billboard for the movie with Myers' hamming mug every day on the way to work.
Rotten Tomatoes is always the place to go for all the good (or bad) stuff. Jessica Alba comes in for some really tough reviews, but it's Myers who bears the brunt. Here are some excerpts:
"Myers is anti-comedy. . . . that is, if one presumes comedy ought to be smart, new, surprising or, yes, funny. This isn't an accusation. It has been Myers's shtick for a long time. ... In short, Myers's oeuvre is about sympathy laughs, although it's not his onscreen persona we feel sorry for in "The Love Guru." It is, at long last, Myers himself." — John Anderson, The Washington Post"Adam Sandler can breathe a sigh of relief: Thanks to fellow SNL alumus Mike Myers' crude, bafflingly unfunny comedy, Sandler's YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN won't be remembered as the worst movie of 2008. ... A bomb like this is a career killer, and Myers' is set to blow.> — Ken Fox, TV Guide's Movie Guide
"An oh-my-God-level disaster that’ll make you wonder if Hollywood actually hates us. ... Irredeemable." — Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York
"... the movie goes, swiftly and mercilessly, to dimwitted gags about food that resembles genitalia, urine-soaked-mop fights, chastity belts and what elephants drop onto the people standing behind them at the end of a long day — which is, come to think of it, as good a metaphor as any for the experience of watching this movie." — Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times (Headline: How can we put this? "Guru" is doo-doo)
And, in the damning with faint praise department, we have:
"a disappointment ... but not a disaster, and at least that's something."You may find yourself "secretly snickering."
"If ... you want to see gags about boogers, elephant poop, and mano-a-mano duels with mops drenched in urine, then this is for you."
And, my favorite:
"It's not very good but it won't want to make you tear your eyes out either."
Well, then. By all means plop down your $10.
Do not click on this link. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
Watching the horror of C-level theme park performers putting on a Star Wars Dance-Off in full regalia is simply something you can't un-see.
You've been warned. Oh, and as Joel says: Damn you, George Lucas!
Via Scrubbles along our blog roll comes a fun quiz from Mental Floss: Troy McLure's Resume.
You may remember him from such hits as Christmas Ape and Christmas Ape Goes to Summer Camp, but how well do you remember Troy McClure’s other projects? Can you tell which of the following titles come from the filmography of Springfield’s favorite screen icon and which are the real-life dregs of IMDb?
Mrs. Zaius and I guessed correctly 10 out of 15 times.
Joel and I square off in this week's Scripps-Howard column.
A quick note regarding Joel's point about Nazi POWs, the Geneva Conventions, and the Bush administration's efforts to "evade" international norms. The Geneva accords clearly distinguish lawful from unlawful combatants. In fact, Geneva rules specifically exclude terrorists, despite the efforts of some countries to amend the accords. The Supreme Court's Hamdan decision made a hash of the distinction and, contrary to Joel's assertion, the Bush Administration in 2006 agreed (foolishly, in my view) to apply Geneva rules to all terrorism suspects in American custody.
It turns out that Nixon wasn't wrong, just premature. If the president does it -- or asks you to do it -- it's not illegal. Or it won't be after Congress gives you a free pass.
Still, I can't get too worked up about the new FISA "compromise" bill, which essentially gives immunity to the telecom companies for complying with and assisting the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. For one thing, civil libertarians are going after the telecom companies because they can't go after the real culprits, who are all in the Bush Administration -- it's like executing the guy who mailed in Al Capone's taxes for him. Maybe it's satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to actually solve the problem of abused executive power.
Plus, part of me feels sympathetic. If you're the head of a telecom company and the president asks you -- after 9/11 -- for help, wouldn't you be a little inclined to give it? Don't get me wrong: Dahlia Lithwick is entirely correct (in a different but very related context) that we'll have no law if people can merely violate the law because of "good intentions." But again, I think the Bush Administration is the real culprit here; the telecoms are a sideshow at best.
Still, I think Nancy Pelosi is being a bit naive about all this:
Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.Well, great. But isn't that what we thought about the 1978 FISA law before the president decided to break it? And doesn't the new FISA bill more or less ensure that nobody will suffer consequences for breaking the old FISA law? At this point, why would any president take it seriously as a restraint on his actions?
I'm really looking forward to President Bush's "signing statement" on this bill. I'm almost certain there will be one, and that civil libertarians won't like it very much at all.
Nixon would be jealous.
Susan Atkins is dying, according to press reports. Atkins -- who stabbed the 8-1/2 months pregnant actress Sharon Tate multiple times and scrawled the word "pig" in blood on the door of the home Tate shared with director Roman Polanski -- is asking the state to let her die a free woman. Evidently, officials at the California Institution for Women in Corona approved the request, but state prison authorities said no. The case now goes to the state Board of Parole Hearings, which will conduct an investigation and make a recommendation next month.
Clearly, letting Atkins go would be a rotten idea. Not that she's inclined to finish the work she started at Charles Manson's behest almost 40 years ago, but Atkins needs to pay her debt in full. She needs to breathe her last breath behind prison walls.
Atkins and her pals denied Sharon Tate and three others a "compassionate release" in 1969. They similarly refused to show any compassion for Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. If not for a California Supreme Court decision invalidating death sentences imposed before 1972, Atkins would likely have been dead years ago.
Susan Atkins reportedly found God a few years after her conviction and sentencing. And she has reportedly helped many troubled women in prison. Good for her. But her noble works behind bars do not obviate her crimes -- or the righteousness of her punishment. Atkins should die in prison. Her death will certainly be far more peaceful than that of Sharon Tate or Atkins's other victims.
The guys who bring us the weekly brilliance of South Park had it right. "Blame Canada!"
The Quebec Superior Court not only thought it was a good idea to hear a case of a 12-year-old girl angry about being grounded by Daddy. They ruled in her favor.
A 12-year-old Quebec girl who felt so strongly about her end-of-year school trip that she took her father to court after he forbade her from going is at the centre of a case that challenges the authority of parental discipline.The extreme measure of taking the case to court, which the girl's lawyer defended as a necessary move to ensure the child was not denied a significant rite of passage, was upheld by the judge in a surprise ruling last week.
A little background: The child's parents are apparently going through a divorce. Dad has primary custody (for now). The girl needed permission from both parents to go on the trip. Mommy said, "yes." Daddy said, "no" — because she was grounded for violating the boundaries he put down for use of the Internet.
So the girl found a lawyer (employee of the state) to take her case.
"This was something that would never happen again in the child's life," said Lucie Fortin, the lawyer for the girl, who cannot be named.
She's 12. She's in elementary school. What "something" that happened in your elementary school experience that would "never happen again" would you be emotionally scarred for life if you missed it? Take your time ...
I hope you answer is "nothing." If not, go to law school. Join the ACLU and proceed to ruin our country.
The pre-teen's lawyer (and it pains me to even type those words) said she normally wouldn't have intervened such a seemingly insignificant episode of normally sacred parental rights, but this situation called for the intervention of the state.
"This was not a question of going to the movies or not, or going online or not — because obviously, I wouldn't have intervened in that," she said.
Obviously. This is serious business, worthy of the state playing the good parent.
A subject not raised in this incredible story is how "adults" in Canada — which includes lawyers and a judge — did not think about the long-term damage they were inflicting on a 12-year-old by even getting involved in this trivial issue. The girl does not have the capacity to realize what she is doing. Adults should know better (and yes, that includes the girl's mother, who shoulders a great deal of blame for supporting this lawsuit). But how does this girl now mend the damage this whole spectacle has inflicted on the relationship with herself and her one and only father?
The answer is: She doesn't. The gir's father, with justification (if not compassion), said he refuses to take his daughter back into his home "because he has no authority over her." How is that statement wrong in light of this?
Again, where are the adults? A mindless, hyper-litigious Canadian "system" needed to protect this girl from making an irreversible mistake, not encourage her to destroy the relationship with her father. Nothing good comes from this situation. Nothing.
I hope South Park's view of Canada doesn't come true in lawyer-crazy America. Before this, the worst things to come out of Canada were Anne Murray and Bryan Adams. I'd like it if the list stopped there.
Don't ask why I was looking at Perez Hilton's Hollywood gossip site. If I revealed such a state secret, I'd have to kill both you and my crack Black-Ops team. But the semi-literate superstar blogger seems to have stumbled upon a story that I blogged about a while back. Namely, that Al Gore — the High Priest of the Green Church — used as much energy last year as 232 average American families.
And Perez got in quite a snit. He posted on the subject not once, not twice, but three times. And Perez went through three stages of snit as he was exposed to the politics of global warming. First came shock and anger:
Talk about hypocrisy!Hardcore environmentalist and the man behind An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, is apparently not following what he preaches.
... his new and energy efficient looking house is now waisting even more power.
How is that possible????
Ummm. Gore's a fraud!!!!???? We continue.
It seems Gore's made quite a lot of money promoting for a greener environment.He made an estimated extra $100 million last year.
What do U think Al Gore should do about his extreme energy use?
Good point, Perez. Points 2 U for using Google for something other than searching for pictures of Britney Spears exposing her hoo-ha while exiting a limo.
Perez's shock, anger and confusion led to a little research: Stage Two. His search engine brought him to the name of John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel who is aghast at the global warming bunk being peddled by Gore and his disciples. And here, Perez starts getting as skeptical as if he heard Lindsay Lohan was entering a convent.
Maybe he made loads of money from the sale of the channel and just really likes weather reporting?... The 9,000 scientists he says signed a petition refuting the global warming claims — are they totally free from any influence from the oil industry?
Are there objective 'non-partisan' voices out there on the issue?
Hey, Perez. I doubt that being a weatherman for a TV station in San Diego pays as much as the $100 million Gore made from his own perpetual global warming money machine. Do U even pay attention to your previous posts? Where's your wonder about Gore's sugar daddies? And the answer to your last question is: Sadly, no. Not after the left has politicized the issue to the point that any objection to Gore's Gospel is likened to denying the Holocaust. Pretty hard to raise a "non-partisan" voice in such a poisoned environment.
The last stage of Perez' evolution was acceptance ... of Gore's lame excuse for his energy use. In short, the Gores announced that they are renovating the house to produce their own energy from solar panels and buy the rest of the energy they need through biofuels that include — no joke — methane gas.
In the end, many of Perez's commenters chimed in: Stick to worthless gossip; leave politics alone. Good advice — unless he wants to be educated on this issue and others. Then he can bookmark the Monkeys.
Leave it to Barbra Streisand to be the last celebrity to get off the Hillary bus. Maybe she wanted to make sure the caviar and champagne in the back didn't go to waste.
Regardless, she has her reasons.
Barbra Streisand, the famous singer who was being discovered by radio stations back when someone named Barack Obama was being born, confirms to The Ticket this afternoon that she's supporting Obama and has offered to help in his presidential campaign. Singer Barbra Streisand who originally endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination now is singing a different tune and supports Barack ObamaStreisand's personal spokeswoman, Marge Tabankin, says talks are underway with the campaign in Chicago to decide what exact role Streisand will play in the presumptive Democratic nominee's efforts to win the White House.
Obama’s Hollywood supporters are hopeful that she will sing for the senator, as she did for Bill Clinton during his presidential runs, at one of the many fundraisers in the works for this summer.
And we know there's nothing that says "hope," and "change" and "new politics" and "youth" than having Yentl belt out some old standards. No word, oddly enough, of this momentous news on Babs' own website. Stay tuned!
From the same people who brought you the contemptible "General Betray Us" ad comes another despicable attack. The big-pocketed political group
goes after John McCain, taking Obama's distortion of McCain's "100 years" in Iraq comment to an absurdly exploitative level.
And lest you think this is just some fringe group that should be ignored, note that American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — one of the nation's largest unions and the backbone of mainstream Democratic politics — is also funding this ad.
Let's go over that script again (and isn't it nice that government workers that we pay have their wages garnished to put out this garbage?):
Hi John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him.
Well, dearie. That won't exactly be your choice. You see, we have a volunteer armed forces in this country. And when Alex is 18, he can choose to join the military without your say-so. I doubt he'd choose such a noble path of public service judging from the upbringing he's in for. But who knows? Maybe when he's 18, he'll rebel against the hard-lefty indoctrination of his childhood and become a Marine. If he's looking for a flash-point of resentment, maybe he'll not take kindly to being used as a political prop by his moonbat mom as a toddler.
Besides, unless we amend the Constitution, McCain won't be having Alex trampsing around the world in a pointless struggle against imaginary enemies. McCain would be in the middle of his fifth term and be about to turn 90. McCain's a vigorous man, but probably not that vigorous. And the war might very well be over by the time President Chelsea Clinton takes the oath of office as the nation's second female president (following a Republican).
Allahpundit at Hot Air notes that Time's Chuck Todd is of the opinion that the ad will backfire. That would be nice — and a first. Blogmeister USA has one of my favorite takes:
Unless a future president decides to institute the draft by then, you won't have to worry that little Alex will be torn away from his Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at college. He'll also have plenty of time to go snowboarding, mountain biking, and do all of the other fun stuff that young men in his position in life get to enjoy during vacation while mommy and daddy foot the bills. ... John McCain "can't have" her baby. Frankly, if he turns out to be anything like she is, let's thank our lucky stars.
Heh.
This ad is the perfect distillation of what the left thinks of the men and women who serve in the military. They always portray them as "children" duped into fighting Bush's stupid war, or suckered by the G.I. Bill, or left with no other career options because of the dead-end lives they live away from the enlightened metropolis. And now they have, quite literally, infantalized the troops.
Yeah. I think it might backfire.
If your yinz y'all all y'all youz guys you are interested in the latest foreign policy foolishness when it comes to Barack Obama, here are some good links where you can catch up.
At least real saints lived what they preached and suffered for their faith. Al Gore, the secular saint of the religious greenies, sins. Big Time, as Dick Cheney might say. Let's just get right to it.
NASHVILLE — In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.... In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
I'm not real good at math, but even I thought that maybe this outfit was being a little too hard on Gore. So I ran the numbers a couple of times.
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research gets its dander up on Gore's home energy usage equaling 232 average homes for a month. They're comparing a month's worth of electricity use when a fair comparison would be yearly usage. Well, here's where the math gets simple. Divide 232 homes a month by 12 months in a year and you get: Gore uses as much energy at his home in a year as 19.3 average Americans.
In other words, Mr. Green's annual personal home usage of energy is as much as everyone on my block. Combined. And that's not including the amount of energy belched by Gore on his endless global tour to scold us on where we set our thermostat or how much we drive. Private jets, afterall, emit as much "planet killing" missions in one hour as the car you commute to work does in one year.
Of course, when a main (non speaking engagement) source of income comes from trading "carbon credits" through your own company, what's the harm. For Gore, it's even better than a financial wash. And it's comes with the benefit with the world ratifying your unearned and unworthy moral superiority.
As Van Helsing says, Al Gore's carbon footprint keeps getting bigger. I'd say fatter.
This classic image by Norman Rockwell is, apparently, oppressive — At least in the eyes of a Portland, Ore., elementary school principal.
(CBS) — Most children growing up in the US memorize the Pledge of Allegiance. But, in one Oregon elementary school, the kids won't be allowed to recite it at an end of the year assembly.The principal banned it that day so as not to offend Muslims. One resident of Portland, Oregon was a little surprised when she received an e-mail from her stepson's school principal.
The e-mail said that the children would not be reciting the pledge because of its reference to God.
Maybe if the Pledge had a reference to "Allah," it would be OK. The principal assures us that he "was trying to be sensitive" and and not "hurt feelings, and may foster bitterness and division within the community." For the record, the Muslim population of the Portland Metro Area at the last census was 12,912 — a number was good enough for ranking 33rd in the nation, barely edging out parochial Pittsburgh and well behind Cleveland. That's about two percent of the population of the Portland.
The irony is that one of the people quoted as being rightly offended by this sop to the politically correct destruction of America's religious tolerant culture is ... a Muslim.
At least one Muslim community leader says he feels the same way. Muhammad Najieb says that 'God' is central to the Muslim faith, and there are several references to him in every prayer.
The United States is not Great Britain yet, but a few more incidents like this ...
(HT: Moonbattery)
Speaking of e-mail exchanges, an old friend recently asked me about my self-identification as a "Paleolibertarian." From his note:
"Quick question - what is paleolibertarian?
I cannot stomach the repub/dem party and have been searching for a party I can connect with - I realize it is probably a fruitless endeavor. However, I like the Libertarian party (almost) - there are some things I'm not on board with.
I've always appreciated your thinking -so thought I'd ask."
My response included:
[snip]
Here's what I'd characterize as the chief difference between the two major schools of libertarianism. We're not talking about the party yet, but rather the set of principles. Kind of like "conservative" and "progressive" rather than Republican or Democrat. Libertarianism in general is about freedom, but just like "equality" there are different kinds of freedom. "Positive" freedom is the "freedom to..." while "Negative" freedom is the "freedom from..." - some (including controversial) examples:
Positive freedom:
Freedom to do whatever you want with your own person/body and/or another consenting person.
Freedom to enjoy the fruit of your labor.
Negative freedom:
Freedom from state intrusion into your family.
Freedom from the threat of violence.
There are obviously overlaps, and many issues you can view from both a negative and positive perspective. For example, "Freedom to enjoy the fruit of your labor" can mean that you are able to live in circumstances (economic, political, cultural) that you enjoy the benefits of your work (positive) or it can mean that you are free from someone using force to confiscate all or part of your wages (negative) but hopefully the examples convey the gist of the distinction.
So, based on that description, there are (at least) two major "schools" of libertarianism. Paleolibertarians tend to focus on negative freedom, and specifically concern themselves with freedom from force wielded by the state. They see the state as the single largest threat to our freedoms - economic, political, educational, spiritual. The big paleolibertarian "think tank" is the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Several of the Mises guys blog regularly at Mises president Lew Rockwell's weblog. Paleolibertarians can range from those who are highly skeptical of the state to full-blown Anarcho-Capitalists. Paleolibertarianism also tends to have a strong strain of cultural conservatism, with an expectation that the state is not the proper mechanism for influencing culture, but that other institutions (the church, for example) should be the primary catalysts for cultural change.
Probably the most public paleolibertarian figure over the last year has been Ron Paul. Living in Texas you probably hear more about "Dr. No" on a regular basis than I do. His issues are, for the most part, highly influenced by paleolib thought. Particularly his economics. The emphasis on "sound" currency and eliminating centralized federal manipulation of currency is straight out of the Mises playbook.
Paleolibertarians consider themselves heirs to the "classical liberal" intellectual legacy of Thomas Jefferson, etc. Skeptical of the state, focused on the principles of (particularly economic) freedom, and culturally conservative.
The "other" (and by far more dominant) school is often called "Beltway Libertarian" or "Cosmo-tarian" (usually derisively) by the Paleo school. The chief public/populist faces of this group are the Cato Institute and Reason magazine. While certainly concerned with the issue of state, generally (in my opinion) the mainstream libertarians are much more concerned with the practical issues of positive freedom. If the state is actually "benevolent" and encouraging personal freedom, they are not such a threat. For example, if the state "legalizes" drugs and "recognizes" gay marriage, and "protects" the "rights" of women, then it is an agent for "positive freedom" in the eyes of many libertarians. Likewise, if the state uses economic policy to "make the pie bigger" then it's not such a big deal that it confiscates a good chunk of our income to pay for its policies.
That may have come off as overly critical of this school, and I didn't really intend it to be. Compared with the Republican party, Cato and Reason are pillars of principle, and I do think that Cato in particular has done a lot to try to "work for the cause of freedom" within the existing political system. As an instinctive idealist, though, and as a Christian, I really find myself more at home with the paleolibertarians. The cosmos tend to be very hostile to religion and focused on being able to have sex with whoever they want, while the paleos want the government to leave them alone, stop taking their wages, stop building empires, etc.
[snip]
Monkey Ben and I had an offline e-mail exchange, where he cleverly fished for post content from me:
"P.S. What did you think of Paul's 'farewell address'?"
What with (not) blogging like a (luddite), (pretending to) work, (failing to spend) time with my (young) daughter(s) and occasionally bathing, I haven't actually taken the time to watch the video. I've gotten the e-mails and other stuff, though, and I honestly am thoroughly pleased with both the results the campaign had and the direction they are going now. I don't believe Paul ever expected (or really desired) to be President, but he certainly knew that the best way to get a guaranteed forum to espouse his views, criticize the Republican establishment, and build a formal "movement" was to run for President as a Republican. In that, he was hugely successful in my opinion. And this is the perfect time, too, because the existing party is on the ropes.
One of the things the Paul campaign and supporters started doing about three months ago was aggressively recruiting movement members to run as Republican Precinct Committeemen. I just got signed up on Thursday, as did Deuce and his mom (!) and the movement organizers are highly confident that we'll get enough committeemen to significantly influence and/or "take over" policy for our area. For an "idealist" movement, it was really clever and practical for them to start focusing on both delegate and precinct influence early - two areas that the "machine" kind of takes for granted because they're not sexy and high-profile. I'm excited to see how things turn out.
Anthony Gregory worries about Scalia's totalitarian tendencies.
Scalia as well as Roberts accuses the Court of butting into foreign policy, yet his own reasoning is informed by definite opinions on foreign affairs, including a careless deference to executive power. Bush appreciated such deference, saying the dissent “was based upon . . . serious concerns about U.S. national security. ”Scalia refers to the president as “the Nation’s Commander in Chief.” This is wrong. Under the Constitution the president is only the “Commander in Chief of the Army and . . . and of the Militia . . . when called into the actual Service” of the U.S. The president does not command the whole country, and it is frightening that a Justice would say he does.
Why such blind trust for the governmental branch that insisted after 9/11 that all the Guantanamo prisoners were the “worst of the worst” and has in six years since released hundreds and convicted only one of terrorism—a man who served nine months and is now free in Australia?
And which is it? Is the decision perilously revolutionary, as Scalia insists, or vulgarly frivolous, as Roberts maintains? If frivolous, why is Bush now considering “additional legislation,” seemingly to get around the new ruling?
Cyd Charisse, RIP.
Like most people, I suppose, I remember her mainly from "Singin' in the Rain," where she made an appearance in the dream-sequency segment of the movie that had nothing to do with the rest of the movie except to show the world that Gene Kelly was more than a hoofer -- he was an artist, dammit!*
Still, she's memorable in that scene, isn't she?
*I love Gene Kelly. And I love "Singin' in the Rain." But that doesn't make that sequence -- or the similar one in "American in Paris" -- any less bizarrely self-indulgent.
This won't do. This won't do at all.
Bananas have joined the ranks of dairy, meat and wheat products among foodstuffs whose prices are set to surge because of the sharp rise in fuel costs. Chiquita, one of the world’s biggest banana groups, said yesterday that the price of Britain’s most popular fruit had risen 36 per cent last month against the same period a year ago.
This news is certain to spark the long-awaited monkey revolution ... or will result in lots of poo being thrown. One or the other.
That's John Yoo in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal on Boumediene v. Bush. Yes, yes, I know we're all supposed to despise Yoo for his work at the Justice Department after Sept. 11, but his argument in the Journal deserves a fair hearing.
"The Boumediene majority has two hopes for getting away with its brazen power grab," Yoo writes.
It assumes that we have accepted judicial control over virtually every important policy in our society, from abortion and affirmative action to religion. Boumediene simply adds war to the list. The justices act like we are no longer really at war. Our homeland has not suffered another 9/11 attack for seven years, and our military and intelligence agencies have killed or captured much of al Qaeda's original leadership. What's left is on the run, due to the very terrorism policies under judicial attack.Justice Kennedy and his majority assume that terrorism is some long-term social problem, like crime, so the standard methods of law enforcement can be used to deal with al Qaeda. Boumediene reflects a judicial desire to return to the comfortable, business-as-usual attitude that characterized U.S. antiterrorism policy up to Sept. 10, 2001.
The only real hope of returning the Supreme Court to its normal wartime role rests in the November elections.
All of which makes sense if you believe the country is really at war. If not, then Yoo is just another neo-con looking for the quickest and easiest route to usurp the Constitution.
John McCain has said he opposes oil exploration in Alaska's National Wildlife Reserve because he wouldn't want oil companies to drill in the "pristine widerness" of Alaska "any more than I would want them to drill in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades." It's a feeble analogy, divorced from facts, as Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg show. McCain's position is especially tough to accept in the era of $4.50-a-gallon gas.
But it looks like McCain is coming to his senses: "Sen. John McCain said Monday the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling should be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts."
McCain is scheduled to deliver a speech Tuesday on energy policy. He would do well to abandon the tired environmental pieties of the '90s and embrace exploration. If McCain is really a maverick, he'll endorse drilling, and lots of it.
Good news: The Saudis agree to pump more oil. According to The Independent, "Next month, the Saudis will be pumping an extra half-a-million barrels of oil a day compared to last month, bringing total Saudi production to 9.7 million barrels a day, their highest ever level."
Half-a-million barrels a day? What does that mean exactly? How will it affect the global market? Hard to say. "Saudi Arabia...says the energy crisis has not been caused purely by market pressures but by a speculative bubble. Saudi Arabia and Opec believe there are no shortages to justify the sudden surge in prices."
So maybe additional drilling here in the United States wouldn't matter much, given the declining value of the dollar. Or maybe it would matter a lot, given the psychology of market speculation. Victor Davis Hanson raised a pertinent question on the Corner early Monday:
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
Here's another question: Didn't we fight a war for oil recently? I thought I read that someplace. Oh, I guess only the big oil companies benefited. Silly me.
Jee-sus.
Hillary is gone yet sadly not forgotten. The former first lady and her husband will afflict American politics for years to come -- but perhaps never again from the Oval Office. That's a good thing. The chattering classes will debate what brought on Madam Clinton's demise for years to come, too. Was her defeat evidence of America's incorrigible sexism? Seems doubtful. Fact is, Americans don't mind electing women. We do it all the time. We've got women serving at every level of government and in every branch. We'll elect a woman president someday. God willing, her name won't be Clinton, though.
Read Christopher Hitchens' autopsy of the Clinton campaign. He doesn't buy the hooey about sexism:
People who favor Sen. Clinton are allowed to stress her gender and sex at all times and to make a gigantic point of it for its own sake. They are even allowed to proclaim that she should be the president of the United States in time of war only because she would be the first vagina-possessing person to hold the job. But — and here's the catch — people who do not favor her are not even allowed to allude to the fact that she is female and has feminine characteristics. ...How pathetic can you get?
My friend Lisa doesn't quite buy the sexism line either, although her reasons differ somewhat:
Blaming other women for refusing to vote for the chick, blaming younger women for being insufficiently grateful to their elders, blaming the patriarchy for what was, by many accounts, a stupidly-run campaign, blaming organizations for being insufficiently polite to a candidate, blaming the other candidate for being more compelling to voters ... ech.
Lisa is too kind. I reiterate: Few Americans would have reservations about voting for a woman. But many Americans had reservations about this woman. As Hitchens concludes: "Her whole self-pitying campaign... has retarded and infantilized the political process and has used the increasingly empty term sexism to mask the defeat of one of the nastiest and most bigoted candidacies in modern history."
Note how Hitchens doesn't qualify "bigoted candidacies" with "Democratic." Perhaps he's too kind.
I spent most of today watching the U.S. Open — often called the toughest test in golf (yeah, tougher than The Masters.) I like Tiger. Nay. I have a man crush on Tiger. And in any other year I'd be pulling for him to win.
But in the hunt all week has been a man named Rocco Mediate: a balding, injury-plagued, journeyman golfer from Western Pennsylvania. Born and raised in Greensburg (about an hour east of my adopted hometown of Pittsburgh) he is about the most regular, affable guy to play on tour. NBC analyst Johnny Miller quipped after one of Rocco's improbable birdie putts that "he looks like the guy who cleans Tiger's pool." Johnny is right — and Rocco, no doubt, would have laughed.
After every good shot he made, Rocco smiled, shrugged his shoulders and looked for someone to tell: "Can you believe that?" The 45-year-old is the everyman of professional golf. And he went toe-to-toe with the greatest golfer in the world today. Rocco would have his place in golf history right now if not for yet another heroic putt at the last by Tiger to force a playoff.
Monday, Rocco faces off against Tiger Woods in the round of a lifetime — a playoff for the 2008 U.S. Open championship. Whether he wins or he loses, Rocco is a winner in my book. And he has a place in golf history. The guy who chuckled and shrugged his way to ... well, let's hope it's a U.S. Open title. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Rocco (Jimmy) vs. Tiger (Superman). I hope Rocco's got a "Pocket Full of Kryptonite". Tonight, the Spin Doctors sing his song.
UPDATE: 1:30 p.m. Rocco gave it his best, falling behind Tiger, then rallying back to take the lead, then watching Tiger hit yet another birdie putt at the last to send this tournament to sudden death after 90 holes. Unbelievable. Tiger pars the first extra hole; Rocco's 20-footer barely misses and it's all over. Tiger wins his third U.S. Open and 14th major overall.
But Rocco can keep his head up. He is a legend now, even in defeat.
I've called my dad today, to wish him a Happy Father's Day — as I'm sure all of you did. Fathers are important. They imbue character upon their children. They are rocks in the storm.
So before the day is out, there is another father we should also give tribute to today: The Father of Our Country. His singular and stellar personal character made America and its freedoms possible.
Happy Father's Day, George Washington.
There is a reason why the great William F. Buckley lost his cool publicly only once, during a 1968 debate with the detestable Gore Vidal. The man is a preening, phony "intellectual" idiot with the moral bearings of a slug.
And it's fitting that the subject matter of the debate that set Buckley's off was the Vietnam War. The man born Eugene Luther Vidal Jr. — at West Point to a famous alumus, no less — still won't let it go. (For the record, it seems that Vidal rejected his father's name because he loathes the military).
The aging dope goes after John McCain's Vietnam record in today's New York Times Magazine. Among the myths of the Vietnam War, in Gore's eyes, is the fact that McCain suffered at the hands of the kindly North Vietnamese.
Q: And what about Mr. McCain?A: Disaster. Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?
Q: Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
A: That’s what he tells us.
Vidal then covers himself with the honor of his military birth — an honor he rejects — to say that since McCain is a Naval Academy grad, he's not to be trusted. You know. That's where all the shifty rich people send their kids.
I suppose McCain staged his own torture to use as a political prop if he happened to be in position to win the presidency 40 years later. Not being able to raise his arms above his shoulder? That's what McCain "tells us." He's probably faking that, too.
What a jerk. Why do people keep giving this scumbag prominent public forums?
I know you'll object, Joel. And you are on my "nice list" of lefties. But you can't argue with science.
George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the m