Rudy's new ad
Now airing:
« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »
November 29, 2007
Log Cabin blasts 'Massachusetts Mitt' as flip-flopper
Today, Log Cabin Republicans launched this radio ad in New Hampshire, home to the Nation’s first presidential primary:
Quotable
Is this what running for president of the greatest democracy in the world has become? Standing in front of CNN’s corporate logo in a hall full of yowling Ron Paul loons and enduring clumsy webcam questions from Unabomber look-a-likes in murky basements? *
November 28, 2007
Judicial panel to judge: get out
First he lost his mind. Then he lost his job:
The next time you pass through the city court system in Niagara Falls, N.Y., remember to turn your cellphone off.
Yesterday, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the removal of a judge in Niagara Falls City Court who had what the commission’s chairman called “two hours of inexplicable madness” when a cellphone rang in his courtroom.
I understand the judge’s frustration with bad manners. But his solution was over the top.
Found: buried Roman fleet
Mac OS X Leopard: better than perfect
 |
The look of perfection. |
Having used Leopard since the day of its release, I concur:
People buy Macs because the platform as a whole is perfect, full stop. Leopard is a rung above perfection. It’s taken as rote that the Mac blows away PC users’ expectations. Leopard blows away Mac users’ expectations, and that’s saying a great deal.
If you’ve thought about buying a Mac, now is the time to do it. Macs are cheaper, faster, more powerful and more beautiful than ever before.
This is an uncompensated endorsement by the enraptured owner of two Leopard-powered Macs. Perfection deserves to succeed.
November 27, 2007
Israel can't make peace with the Palestinians; luckily, she doesn't have to
“Once we recognize that there are no solutions, but only trade-offs, we can no longer pursue cosmic justice, but must make our choices among alternatives actually available …” — Thomas Sowell, economist
Blah, blah, blah:
The Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed themselves today to negotiate a peace treaty by the end of 2008, setting themselves a deadline for ending a conflict that has endured for six decades.
 |
Reruns. |
You know when we’ll see peace in the Middle East? Never:
Consider what peace with Israel — real peace — would mean in the West Bank and Gaza, in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley: Tens of thousands of gunmen (and terrorists) out of work, with no marketable skills — and radicalized by decades of fanatic rhetoric.
Think a punk who’s grown accustomed to swaggering around town in a face mask with a Kalashnikov is going to scrub squat toilets for a living?
Generations have grown addicted to the struggle — and its perks. It’s the only bearable justification for their individual and collective failures in life. Real peace with Israel would probably spark a convulsion throughout the Arab world — as tens of millions realized that their sacrifices were a travesty that merely empowered thieves.
For Israel, peace with the Palestinians is not an option. Fortunately, it’s also not necessary:
“The security fence was put up to stop terror, and that’s what it’s doing,” said Capt. Noa Meir, a spokeswoman for the Israel Defense Forces.
Israel began building the barrier in 2002 when Palestinian suicide bombings were at their peak. It’s pressed ahead with construction despite an international court opinion criticizing the route as cutting across wide swaths of Palestinian land. About 10 percent of the land that Palestinians want for a state now lies on the Israeli side of the wall, and several large Palestinian settlements have been divided by 25-foot-tall concrete slabs.
Opponents of the wall grudgingly acknowledge that it’s been effective in stopping bombers … [Emphasis added.]
In an ideal world, you’d hope for peace. In this world, you’ll take grudging acknowledgment.
November 26, 2007
Supreme Court won't review welfare searches
Question: As a condition of providing them with public assistance, may the Government constitutionally search the homes of welfare recipients?
The Ninth Circuit said that it may; today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case.
November 23, 2007
Faced with crazy ass loon, cop remains calm as a cucumber
See if you can stop laughing:
(HT: Hot Air)
"It's been total hell:" Man cleared of drug charges
Now, where does he go to get back his business and reputation?
Loveland resident Jeremy Chad Myers walked from a district courtroom Thursday with tears in his eyes and said he feels “as innocent as ever.”
Myers considers himself vindicated because 8th Judicial District prosecutors dropped all drug charges against him for what three reports show is a false accusation he was cooking and using methamphetamine in his home at the old sugar factory in Loveland.
Colorado Bureau of Investigation tests on substances seized by the Larimer County Drug Task Force seized after a no-knock raid in September all came back “no controlled substances;” no amphetamine, no ephedrine, for which initial on-site screens tested positive.
Myers also voluntarily submitted to a hair follicle test, which will reveal if a person has used or been around drugs for 90 days. He passed.
[…]
Jeremy has nearly lost his business as a self-employed back-hoe operator and has had to sell his equipment.
Jim [Myers, Jeremy’s father] had to pay to have the property tested and posted $75,000 in bonds for his son.
And they have faced the rumors and talk in Loveland, the community they call home.
The “war on drugs” is not victimless.
Poll: Rudy leads Hillary by four
A general election poll means almost nothing this far out, but there it is.
I get results! New York Times corrects error
On Wednesday, I noted a factual error in this editorial by the New York Times. I wrote the Times’ public editor and complained. Today, the paper corrects its mistake:
An editorial on Wednesday about a Supreme Court gun control case incorrectly described a lower court’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court and ruled Washington’s law on gun ownership unconstitutional. The District Court did not overturn the law.
In its editorial, the Times said the U.S. Court of Appeals had upheld “a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law …” But it was the appeals court that made the “radical decision” to invalidate the District’s gun ban. The maligned trial judge had sustained it.
I don’t have hundreds on staff, and my posts aren’t subject to layers of editing. But I can read a pdf.
As for the rest of the Times’ editorial, which calls for redacting the Second Amendment, the quality of the reasoning matched the quality of the fact-checking:
The hope, which we share, is that the [Supreme] [C]ourt will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text …
Oh, sure. The Roberts Court can follow the example set in Roe. In that decision, applauded by the Times, the Burger Court rose above the hard-left ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text.
The editors of the New York Times cannot always check facts. But they can make you piss yourself!
November 22, 2007
Video: It does as it's told, or it gets the taser
When a police officer issues a command, your cooperation is not optional.
In many jurisdictions, including Texas, the law allows the police to effect an arrest for violations of the traffic code. This is true even when the violation carries no jail time upon conviction. (See Atwater v. Lago Vista, 000 U.S. 99-1408 (2001).)
Usually, the police issue a citation in lieu of an arrest. But if you refuse to sign the citation, you’ll win a ride downtown. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt. It’s an acknowledgment that you received the ticket.
Here, the officer takes care to capture the speed limit sign on video before making the stop. Once the stop is made, the officer informs the driver straightaway of the reason for it: “How you doing? You were goin’ kinda fast.” That’s a friendly invitation to be polite, and maybe get off with a warning.
But from the start, this driver is argumentative. He won’t sign the ticket, and he refuses to follow command, opting instead to turn his back and walk away. You can guess what happens next.
Rule: Go easy, or go hard. But go you must.
By the way, contrary to the claim made here, the police do not have to read your Miranda rights upon arresting you. They’re not required to read your rights until they interrogate you, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). And they don’t usually interrogate you until you’re at the station house.
November 21, 2007
He's got a going problem
I would say “bless his heart.” But really, shouldn’t he have taken care of this before going on the air?
You’ll hear the discomfort in his voice before the tugging starts.
(HT: Hot Air)
NYT's fact checker gone for the holiday; blogger fills in
“The Court and the Second Amendment”
Editorial
New York Times
November 21, 2007
At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court. [Emphasis added.]
Uh, no. The trial judge upheld the District’s gun control law, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
I wrote the NYT’s public editor and informed him of the error. (I also took a screen shot of the factually-challenged editorial, in case it goes down the memory hole.) But isn’t it embarrassing that a multi-million dollar enterprise has to be corrected by an amateur blogger?
November 20, 2007
High court agrees to hear gun rights case
“The US Supreme Court has agreed to examine one of the most disputed provisions of the Constitution — the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the Christian Science Monitor reports:
On Tuesday, the justices announced they will take up an appeal involving the constitutionality of a Washington, D.C., law that bans the use or possession of all handguns.
 |
A .45 Glock Model 30: There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, and the Court limited its grant of certiorari to this question:
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code ยงยง 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
According to Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog, “The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.”
As in other high-octane cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote may prove pivotal. If so, law professor Orin Kerr predicts a win, sort of, for gun owners:
… I looked into my SCOTUS 330CLe Model Crystal Ball (patent pending, with optional GPS system), and it’s predicting that Justice Kennedy will conclude that the Second Amendment does in fact create an individual right. It also tells me that Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation.
Liberal law professor Jack Balkin concurs:
… let me offer a prediction on the result: I predict that the Court will hold (1) that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, (2) that this right applies against laws in federal territories like the District of Columbia, (3) that a relatively deferential standard of reasonableness applies, and (4) that, even under this relatively deferential statute at least one part of the D.C. gun control law is unconstitutional. That is to say, I predict a decision that tries to split the difference and is aimed roughly at the middle of public opinion, even if not the exact center.
Arizona lawyer and Second Amendment scholar David Hardy is cheered by the Court’s diction:
The reference to “Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia…” is good. Implicit in that is that the old collective right theory (that Second Amendment rights are rights of states only) is off the table. We’re down to sophisticated collective rights vs. individual rights. And I might even venture a guess that the Court is showing favor for individual rights here. The sentence presupposes that there are “Second Amendment rights of individuals.” There’s no “if any” language in there. Read literally, it presupposes that individuals not in such a militia do have second amendment rights… the only question is whether the laws violate those rights. But that may be reading too much into the wording… then again, it was probably the result of some careful thinking, and negotiation.
The decision of the court below, where the case was styled Parker v. District of Columbia, is available in pdf.
Fingers crossed.
ADDED —
According to the New York Times, the Court will hear argument in March and render a decision by June.
November 18, 2007
Huckabee says abortion not an issue for the states
For libertarian Republicans, Mike Huckabee is the worst of the GOP presidential candidates. He’s a nanny state, big government “conservative.” Now he says that reversing Roe isn’t enough. He wants to ban abortion nationally.
At least his analogy to the Civil War is apt; it would take a civil war to do what he proposes.
[Edited for style and clarity. — Ed.]
Conservative bloggers: you don't decide who enters your home, we do
If you want examples of right-wing judicial activism, look no further.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. It has never been understood to prohibit consensual searches.
My fellow wingnuts, you get to decide who enters your house, where you pay the mortgage. You don’t get to decide who enters my house, where I pay the mortgage. So step the fuck off.
Backfill:
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.
[…]
In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager’s parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.
If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.
Myself, I’d never let the police enter my home without a warrant. But if I did, that would be my decision and no one else’s. And nothing in the Federal Constitution says otherwise.
November 17, 2007
Texas proceeds with execution of rapist, murderer
Pending judgment in a case from Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court has imposed an informal moratorium on the death penalty. Texas managed to bag this one on a technicality:
 |
Michael Richard on the phone: Gotta go. |
The legal chaos that played out in the hours before [Michael] Richard’s execution emerges in interviews with defense lawyers and state officials, along with court and prison documents.
As defense attorneys raced to finish last-minute appeals, they were derailed by maddening breakdowns of their computer system. Then, with the execution scheduled for 6 p.m., the state’s highest criminal court decided not to extend its office hours past 5 p.m. — blocking Richard’s attorneys from asking the state court to delay the execution until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kentucky case.
Just before Richard’s scheduled execution time, defense attorney Greg Wiercioch says, the Texas attorney general’s office gave him an ultimatum: The state would give Richard’s lawyers six minutes to file a final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or it would move forward with the lethal injection. [Emphasis added.]
Oh, by the way, in 1986 Michael Richard broke into the home of a Houston nurse, whom he raped and shot to death.
"A bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse"
Our courts are often a forum for idiots. Happily, some judges don’t want to hear from idiots.
"Panicked, Nathan and Justin hide the body"
The Coroner’s Report:
 |
A tale of homocidal mania. |
Skull & Bones is a worthy introduction for writer and director T.S. Slaughter. It features intelligence, originality and creativity rarely seen in the overflowing amount of horror films being released today. It also defies political correctness in a time in which that can be a liability. Expect nightmares for months to come!
Watch the trailer.
November 16, 2007
Court sides with Bush in wiretap suit
The Ninth Circuit — sometimes called the “Ninth Circus” — is the most liberal appeals court in the country, and the three judges who sat here are all Carter or Clinton appointees:
A federal appeals court in San Francisco today handed a major victory to the Bush administration, ruling that a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program could not go forward because of the “state secrets” privilege.
In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, which had argued that allowing an Islamic charity’s claims that it was illegally spied upon to go forward would threaten national security.
Horribly wounded Marine battles VA
November 15, 2007
When searching for drugs, may police look up your ass?
 |
Crime scene. |
According to Maryland, a search of the space between your cheeks is “prompt, reasonable, and effective crime fighting.” We may know soon whether the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.
[Opps! Link was bad. Fixed. Ed.]
Never mind a border fence
November 14, 2007
People names sexiest man alive
Rudy's first ad hits the air
He's suing for denial of snatch
 |
You will be penetrated. |
Refusal is not an option:
Aging German playboy Rolf Eden has rarely taken no for an answer. And he’s not about to start. He has filed charges against a 19-year-old for refusing to sleep with him.
[…]
According to Bild Zeitung on Thursday, the 77-year-old Eden has filed suit against a 19-year-old Berlin woman for the following reason: Despite a night on the town with Eden, which ended back at his place, she refused to have sex with him, saying the he was too old for her.
“That was shattering. No woman has ever said that to me before,” Eden told the tabloid. “I was crushed.” He has filed charges with the prosecutors’ office, he said. “After all, there are laws against discrimination.”
November 12, 2007
GOP smacks five states
If it’s true that rules are meant to be broken, it’s also true that punishments are meant to be applied:
The Republican Party said Thursday that it would deprive New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming of half their delegates to the national convention because they planned to hold their presidential nominating contests on dates earlier than the party’s rules allow.
They beheaded a man for the "thrill" of it
No, not in Iraq. In Detroit.
Get ready for a jumbo-size tax hike
Refund?! Forgetaboutit! You’ll be writing a check:
What is certain is that if Congress and the White House do not reach a compromise by the end of the year, anywhere from 21 million to 25 million middle-income taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing them as much as $2,000 in extra taxes.
November 11, 2007
Utterly adorable U.S. Marines dance for you
You’ve been served:
(HT: Hot Air)
November 10, 2007
"The parents said the medics had wrongly failed to ask their permission before saving the child's life"
A litigious, morally disgusting couple in Washington didn’t claim a right to post-birth abortion, i.e., they didn’t ask to have their child killed. But they did want it to die.
Lottery tickets are a tax on the irredeemably stupid
Texas attorney general confirms.
November 9, 2007
Mukasey confirmed
We have a new attorney general, approved 53-40.
Ms. Clinton was conveniently unavailable for the vote. She couldn’t support a nominee who declined to renounce waterboarding, because that would have the left banging like a screen door in a hurricane. But she couldn’t oppose him either, because she isn’t crazy.
November 8, 2007
HIV vaccine researchers reportedly worried
This isn’t politics, but it merits your attention:
This is what they know: Out of 1,500 people vaccinated, 82 became infected with the AIDS virus. Of these, 49 got the vaccine and 33 got a placebo shot.
Yeah, you read right: the ones who got the vaccine were more likely to acquire HIV infection than the ones who got the fake shot.
See what happens when you don't have a uterus?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit says no to Roe v. Wade for men.
House passes ban on gay discrimination
If the answer is to infringe on property rights and associational freedom, we need a new question.
Thanks to the 184 who voted no. Happily, Bush promises a veto.
November 4, 2007
True but misleading statements about health care
Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw examines three true but misleading claims about U.S. health care, including the claim that “some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance:”
This number from the Census Bureau is often cited as evidence that the health system is failing for many American families. Yet by masking tremendous heterogeneity in personal circumstances, the figure exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.
To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens. Many are illegal immigrants. Even if we had national health insurance, they would probably not be covered.
The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.
The 47 million also includes many who could buy insurance but haven’t. The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000, which puts them in the top half of the income distribution. About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage.
Of course, millions of Americans have trouble getting health insurance. But they number far less than 47 million, and they make up only a few percent of the population of 300 million.
November 3, 2007
Maybe God hates fags, but the jury hates Phelps
It won’t stand up on appeal, and the Phelps can’t pay anyway. But it’s still a satisfying moral victory:
The father of a fallen Marine was awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday in damages by a jury that found leaders of a fundamentalist church had invaded the family’s privacy and inflicted emotional distress when they picketed the Marine’s funeral.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress to the Marine’s father, Albert Snyder of York, Pa.
Snyder sued the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified monetary damages after members staged a demonstration at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
[…]
Church members routinely picket funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags.”
In Pakistan, Musharraf imposes martial law
A nuclear-armed government is roiled.
November 1, 2007
Audio: Sen. Chuck Schumer on torture
This is the man’s way of telling you that he’s going to join with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee and vote out Michael Mukasey’s nomination as attorney general.
Of course there are times when our Government might have to rely on torture to extract information from a terrorist. Anyone who says categorically that they would never use torture is a moral knave.
ADDED 11/02/07 —
Can I read the tea leaves or what?
Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein say they will vote for Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, which likely gives him enough support to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The alternative is to go without an attorney general, because no nominee that Bush sends up is going to say that waterboarding is illegal torture.
(P.S. No nominee that Hillary sends up is going to say it either.)
Once again, teachers unions shafting kids
Next to the old fuckers at the AARP, does America have a group of leeches larger than the NEA?
Congress, not the attorney general, writes the law
“In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said Wednesday,” the New Times reports.
Uh, no.
Twice — once in the Detainee Treatment Act and again in the Military Commissions Act — Congress granted immunity to interrogators who relied on opinions from the Justice Department. Even the Times acknowledges this:
Mr. Chesney and other specialists emphasized that prosecution in the United States, even under a future administration, would face huge hurdles because Congress since 2005 has adopted laws offering legal protections to interrogators for actions taken with government authorization. Justice Department legal opinions are believed to have approved waterboarding, among other harsh methods. [Emphasis added.]
Congress could make waterboarding illegal. But so far, Congress has chosen instead to grant legal immunity to interrogators who’ve used waterboarding.