10.08.2003

Arnie!



Californians!

As a proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I can report that the coup d'etat went off perfectly last night. As Alternet warned, a coup was in the works and, voila, here we are. Over the next 30-40 days there will be a sudden and decisive change in the state government. The Constitutionally-allowed vote was of course completely illegal, despite all those legally approved signatures, that the entire procedure is outlined in the State Constitution, etc. And by the sheer force of the vote, this coup has succeeded.

Ha! Must suck being them.

60+% voter turn out, largest since 1982. 60+% of the vote going to the Republicans. Arnie doesn't win by a squeak; current count gives him 48% of the vote. His plurality is larger than what Davis got for his election or re-election. That percentage is liable to go up as the absentee ballots get counted, since those ballots tend to be convervative.

A huge percentage of Democrats abandoned the party ticket and voted for Arnie. Ditto Hispanics. Ditto unions. Ditto damn near everyone. Art Torres and the state Democrat machine must have just shit at these results, along with a muttered, "Whuhappened?"

To throw back their oft-heard refrain: Hey, stupid, it's the economy!

The next few years should prove to be interesting. For now, we get to see if Davis's staff is as gracious in defeat as he was last night with his concession speech. Mind you, I still dislike and distrust the man, but considering that he has spent a life-time in politics, that his political career very probably ended last night, he gave an excellent speech. I hope he and his backers live up to his tone and concessions.

10.07.2003

Vote!



And speaking of direct democracy in action, if you live in California I have a single question:

HAVE YOU VOTED YET?!?

Rantings of a Loon?



One has to wonder....

AlterNet: Defeating the California Republic(an) Coup:

This isn't funny. This is a power play that could wrest control of California away from the man we elected, and hand our state to an egomaniac with no political experience. And it is happening during a time of real crisis. This isn't a circus: It's a coup d'etat.
Well, by this time the decision is pretty must made, but still, this is just a funny, funny "article". Great humor.

"It's a coup d'etat."

Oh, my aching sides, because I see that the definition of coup d'etat is "a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force."

Today's recall isn't illegal; it's specifically authorized by the California State Constitution. Millions of California citizens signed the petition to put the question to a vote. Many more millions are now voting. Where's the illegality?

Oh, I laugh. It is an endless source of amusement when I see alleged liberals screaming in terror at something they otherwise cry for, i.e., direct democracy. California has this process in order to avoid...

"...or by force." I don't see any firefights being reported, so that pretty much means no one is forcibly overthrowing the state government. I suppose they could all be using suppressors, but you think someone would complain about the flying lead.

So, the question becomes: What world is the author living on? Certainly not the one I inhabit. And if he does, he needs to learn to use the language better. When you overstate your case, as he does throughout, you diminish your case. Calling a recall vote a coup d'etat is about as overstatement as you can get.

Vote!



Californians!

This is the day. This is the day you decide to stop an out of control state government.

Californians!

This is the day. This is the day to send a decisive message to the thieves who have esconced themselves in state government.

Californians!

This is the day. This is the day to end the Time of Gray. Our state once stood proudly at the forefront of damn near everything. You name it, California led it. The one statistic that is always most staggering is the size of our economy: 5th or 6th (depending on who is doing the counting) largest in the world. Most nations envy us our prosperity.

But we are dying. This state is shriveling. Florida, in 2000, tried desperately to take our title of Looniest Looney Bin in the US of A, but we are staunchly hanging onto that title. If after all this effort we allow The Big D to remain in the Statehouse, we will have nailed that looney crown permanently to our collective head.

Californians!

When you journey outside our fair state you see a different world. Shocking as it may seem, not everyone thinks the same as the LA Times or SF Chronicle proclaim. It is amazing.

Believe it or not, other states have interstate highway systems that are -- brace yourself -- clean! The roads are in good repair. Lord help us, even the buses run on time! There was a time, honest, I remember it, when the same could be said here.

I am a native of California. I was born and raised in San Francisco. My parents were straight-ticket Democrats. That party has betrayed the trust my parents placed with it and sullied its own history, as well as destroyed this state.

Stop them.

This is not a right-wing coup. This is the same anger that led to the passage of Prop 13. And that was a blow that the state legislature will never forgive us for. So, it is time to strike again, to hit them hard, to rock the very foundations of the California State Legislature and the entire sick, twisted crowd.

Californians!

This is the day! This is history. Rise. VOTE! Vote to continue the insanity, or cast a vote in an attempt to stop it. The slide has begun but does not have to continue.

One guess how I intend to vote. How you vote is between you and your conscience or your god or your goddess or your animal spirit...whatever, we have them all here and that is our glory. Bear in mind a simple statistical fact: If you total up the support for Arnie with the support for McClintock you get something like 60%.

And they say we're a Democrat looney bin! Ha!

Californians!

Rise, to your polling place. You're not as stupid as the ACLU and NAACP made you out to be. You can actually find it and you can damnwell use the same stupid voting machines you used not 11 months ago! (And thank god for them, because I know all too well how persistent computer hackers are.)

Rise, vote! Vote your conscience and let the strongest voice take the day. Personally, if Gray wins the day, I'm out of here in two years or so (wanna finish law school). Because then that strong voice will be crying, "No, we like government telling us what brand and how sheets of toilet paper to use. Oh, and how often we should go so we don't overload Mother Earth."

And that's not the state (or nation) I grew up in.

VOTE! This is the day.

10.06.2003

Kill Bill



I sooooo want to see this film....

'Kill Bill' hatched from 'little egg' / Tarantino's two-part saga pays homage to Hong Kong actioners

"As usual, Quentin was trying in vain to educate me about cinema and going on about the great roles that existed in genre filmmaking for women," [Uma] Thurman says. "I told him I had this idea about a character -- she's an assassin -- and we went back and forth, and Quentin goes, 'Yes! and the guy at the head of it all, his name is Bill! He's a pimp for assassins! He is the ultimate agent, the Mike Ovitz of assassins! He's the bad guy and the movie's called 'Kill Bill!'

"And right between us, in that conversation, this little egg was formed."
I don't think I've seen a single film this year that I had on my "must see" list. And I had some dogs on that list, too. I even managed to miss The Matrix Reloaded, which is strangely appropriate because the first time I saw The Matrix was on DVD.

I any event, I need to see Kill Bill on the big screen, the whole gory enchilada!

Obviously, to get in the mood I must review some masters of screen violence. Or, more correctly, The Master, starting with The Wild Bunch.

Old News



This is becoming old news, but since they're smearing Arnie up one wall and down the other....

Now that Democrat Cruz Bustamante is California's gubernatorial recall front-runner, we can look forward to in-depth media investigations of the Latino candidate's long-held ties to the racial separatist group MEChA, right?

Ha.
Ha is right. This has never made the LA Times, has it? Thank goodness they're an unbiased representative of the ("Oh, we're not liberal") news media.

But wait, this article seems to say that, hmm, perhaps the LA Times is a little, er, slanted.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election 'Dirty Tricks Thursday.' That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so.
Stewart goes on to report on stories she attempted to get written about Gov. Gray's not so gray temperment. But, no, let's talk about 20 year old Arnie gropes. So much more in keeping with the editorial desires of the paper.

Fooles.

Laugh of the Day



I work for the state of California. I am emphatically not a member of the California State Employees Association (CSEA). Why should I join such a ludicrously biased organization? Besides, they're affiliated with the AFL/CIO, which is more ridiculously biased. Ugh.

They are also the cause of a good laugh, however.

Gov. Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis gave state employees a 5% raise and now wants to take it back. The deal is we give up that 5% and, in exchange, PERS (the retirement system) waives collecting our retirement contribution, which is roughly 5%. So it's a wash. More, we also get a PLD, Personal Leave Day. One a month. We can take it off, or let it sit in an account and acrue. That's another 5%. So there's a potential net gain despite the pay cut.

Neat, huh? He stole that trick from Pete Wilson, who used it in 1992. Wilson saved a billion or so dollars in the state budget. The state is still paying that back. Figures have it that the $1 billion saved is right now costing around $8 billion.

Neat, huh?

But that's not the joke.

No, the joke is that I received a voting ballot to say yes or no on this contract. Only I can't really vote, because I'm not a CSEA member. Conveniently, they include the form to join with the ballot, so then I can vote, but please, no thank you. The joke is the ballot.

Remember (or learn), that leaders of the CSEA and AFL/CIO were and are some of the louder complainers about the punch-card ballot system. It's terrible. It disenfranchises people. Not all votes get counted. Blah blah blah.

Their ballot is a punch-card.

I have it pegged to my cubicle wall. Whenever they whine I will get a great laugh. Works fine for union votes, but somehow everyone else is too stupid.

Hypocritical fools.

10.01.2003

I voted for Clinton...


...in 1992.

But now I think this guy has it right as to why I loathe Clinton:

Maybe this is true, although the Lewinsky business never bothered me; there's something endearing about Bill's taste for zaftig women. But perjury is no less a crime than burglary, and there's no question Mr. Clinton perjured himself in his deposition to Paula Jones's lawyers. If you think Nixon deserved to go down, then so too did Mr. Clinton.

But that's hardly why Clinton-haters hate Mr. Clinton. The Clinton-lovers are right; l'affaire Lewinsky was just something we could nail him with. With a different president, a different man, we might have been tempted to join the camp of apologists in saying: It's just sex, and everyone lies about sex.

But Mr. Clinton was not a different man. To his supporters, he was the shaper of the new American center, the brightest Democratic light since John F. Kennedy, the toast of European elites. To people like me, he was a hollow and posturing and feckless man who embodied that side of America that was also hollow and posturing and feckless.
Says it all.

9.11.2003

Thank goodness he's not playing around



sacbee.com -- Politics -- No staff cuts till after the election?:

Gov. Gray Davis' administration says it is unlikely to approve plans for substantial reductions to the state payroll until the middle of next month.

That makes it likely that the impact of the cuts -- in thousands of layoffs and in reduced state services -- won't become public until after the Oct. 7 recall election.
Isn't that lovely. This is exactly what he did during his re-election, holding back bad news he knew was coming (knew because he was the cause, that is). Better is this bit:

One goal, [Davis' finance director Steve] Peace said, is to minimize layoffs. He said he also wants to avoid giving workers layoff notices and disrupting their lives, only to reverse course later.

"It's not efficient. It's not good business. ... It's a morale-breaker of huge proportions," he said.

The state has already given about 12,000 workers 120-day notices that they are "surplus" and subject to layoff.
I guess I'm confused. He doesn't want to disturb workers by sending out notices but he's already sent out 12,000 notices. And he'll have to do it again because that list has been rescinded. (Remember, I was on of the 12,000, and now I'm not.)

Why do people wonder why we want to recall this, er, person?

Where were you...



I was just waking up. My girlfriend was in the washroom, drying her hair, and she said, "The World Trade Center is on fire."

I believe my exact response was, "Get the f*ck out of here."

I was thinking about the fire, not the cause. I sat up in bed. The local (Sacramento, California) news station had nothing, so I clicked over to FoxNews. Voila, burning tower. The fire was waaaaay up there. That was going to be a bitch to handle, if it could be handled at all. Firefighters loathe and fear high-rise fires for the simple reason that their equipment can't get to it. A firefighter must strap on all their gear and walk up to a point where they can assault the fire, and not very effectively because they are relying on the building's fire-fighting capabilities (water stand pipes and the like). In effect, the building has to be able to handle the fire.

And you could see that Tower One wasn't handling it at all.

I can't remember who the news anchor was. I remember fragments of the conversation they were having with another off-camera voice, an "expert" of one stripe or another. They were already reporting that witnesses saw a large aircraft hit the building. The babbling "expert" was saying that we can't assume this was some sort of deliberate act. It was early morning, bright sun, tall buildings, lots of air traffic, blah blah blah.

I'm shaking my head. If this was an aircraft strike, how do you explain on a bright, clear, beautiful day that the pilot didn't see this nice, huge building in front of him?

That internal debate became moot as a huge fireball rose into the screen. You almost heard the news anchors gasp.

Fox was holding too tight an image. I cut over to CNN. Their angle was wider and they replayed what had just occurred. A second airliner coming in fast from the right side of the screen. Disappearing behind the one burning tower, a huge explosion and fireball erupting out behind. Tower Two was now hit and on fire.

And now there was no doubt. This was deliberate, this was not an accident. This was an attack. I told my girlfriend and said, "This is brilliant."

Really, I had to admire the sheer audacity of the attack, the coordination and effort that had gone into it. This was brilliant work. The results were horrific, beyond the pale, because I knew that 50,000+ people worked in and around those buildings. My assumption was that the death toll would be staggering.

That it turned out to be "only" 2700 (3000 total for the day, including Pentagon and Flight 93) was a miracle and a credit to the Port Authority's planning following the 1993 WTC bombing. Really, those people have not gotten a fraction of the credit they deserve. They literally saved tens of thousands of lives on 9/11.

The first tower fell while I was driving to work. I heard the word as I parked at Starbucks. I told the barista inside, Tracy, and I thought she was going to faint. The second tower fell shortly after I got to work, and I watched that live on television. On that day I learned that the state considered me "essential personnel" because most California state offices were closed, staff sent home. Mine shifted into high gear. I work for the California Highway Patrol (don't ask me about tickets, I'm not an officer).

I didn't expect much of a response from the government. Really, I didn't. For how long was that the case? The last time we, the US, actively responded to an act of terror was when Reagan tried to blow up The Libyan Madman, Mummar Ghadafi. It certainly seemed to shut him up. I guess realizing that a 2000 pound bomb has your name on it will do that.

That it worked should have been a lesson for his successors to follow, but for the most part they didn't. Clinton launched a few hundred million dollars worth of cruise missiles at a Sudan aspirin factory and some hits of rock in Afghanistan, but that was all. Nice light show, not much substance. Stamped his feet and pouted. Ooh, the terrorists must have thought, I am soooooo scared.

And now we see that Dubya is of a different character. Oh my, he says we're going to hunt the bastards down and wump 'em. And voila, that's what we're doing.

In the two years since 9/11/01, we have liberated two oppressed countries. We have made it loud and clear that we shall respond to acts of aggression with a level of aggression that begs the imagination. (Who would have dreamed that you could tell a bomb, "That building, on that floor, through this window, so you blow up in this direction," and the bomb would do precisely that? It almost begs the question, who needs nukes?)

In the two years since 9/11/01, this country has demonstrated a resolve it hasn't shown in decades (if not generations). The naysayers are the usual gang of idiots, driven by their hatred of (in rough order): Bush, conservatives, Republicans, capitalism, the free market, and the United States. Their hatred blinds their reasoning. You doubt that? Read some of the drivel at AlterNet. No facts, no substance, just hate and loathing.

In the two years since 9/11/01, two old allies have demonstrated their inability to adapt to a modern world. This is sad. I find it striking that a nation that helped foster the very notion of a democratic society (and yes, I'm speaking about France) is being shoved to the back burner of relevance by a group of nations that until very recently lived under a totalitarian dictatorship. It would seem that those free nations of Eastern Europe understand how you must respond to oppression. I find their response to 9/11, and their willingness to aid the US, inspirational.

In the two years since 9/11/01, we have learned just how large the threat is, and hopefully people understand just how long the campaign to eradicate it must be. The United States has been called a "hyperpower," the last and only superpower on Earth. Some have complained that we're throwing our weight around, acting like the bully on the block.

The neighborhood bully was not interested in freedom. He was interested in oppression.

Anyone who says the same of the United States hasn't been studying history, or insists on focusing on narrow little bits of it, ignoring the rest. Reminds me of an observation I read (can't remember who, sorry). It had to do with how certain Arab states compared themselves to the Western world (i.e., the United States). When describing themselves, the Arab states, they would invariably described them in terms of their ideals ("Islam is a religion of peace."). When describing the US, they invariably pointed to abnormalities that they said defined the US. But the ideals they would describe don't exist, and the abnormalities they identified don't define.

And I think that's that for now. This is written off the cuff and on the fly.

9.10.2003

So Tiring



FOXNews.com - Politics - ACLU: Accuracy of California Recall in Danger:

The ACLU has argued that delaying the election until March will ensure the state avoids the 'hanging,' 'dimpled' and 'pregnant' chads that dominated the Florida recount and left the presidency up in the air for 35 days.
No, what left the presidency up in the air for 35 days was Gore denying reality (i.e., he lost the first count, the second count, the recount, and then the recount of the recount; in fact, he lost every count) and continually taking the matter to court. That is, he kept trying to steal the election.

Oh, things get better:

"This is not merely about a recall election," Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU-SC, said in a statement. "This is about having every vote counted. Voting machines are the infrastructure of our democracy. Right now, the integrity of our state’s democracy is riding on the performance of these outdated, obsolete and decertified voting machines."
So how come these "outdated, obsolete and decertified voting machines" were okay last November, when they (apparently mistakenly) vote Gray into office for a second term? Oh, wait, I think I see....

Some observers have speculated that the ACLU is bringing this suit in part for political reasons. Asked why the ACLU did not bring a similar case preceding the 2002 gubernatorial race, Barankin replied: "I don’t want to speculate."
(Nathan Barankin is the California attorney general's "office spokesman.")

Ah, I see. Is there a hint of a stink to the ACLU's "unbiased" actions?

Just before in this article, Barankin said brilliantly, "But they [punch card voting machines] are a system that has been in this state for decades without Florida-like problems, and we don't see why that can't continue on October 7."

And just so you understand where the Attorney General -- and his staff -- might be standing, after last November's election, all state constitutional offices were held by Democrats.

Best Joke I Heard All Day



And the Sacramento Bee reports....

sacbee.com -- Recall -- Clinton to start campaign swing for Davis Sunday:

"Democratic leaders all over this country oppose this recall because they know it is not a solution to California's problems," he [Peter Ragone, director of communications for the Davis campaign] said. "(Clinton's) voice is one of the most respected in the country when it comes to civic life and public affairs and the people of California recognize that."
Oh, my aching sides!

"Most respected...."

Bwahahahahahaha!

9.02.2003

Bored With the Rings



All right, I am a heretic. I am about to commit blasphemy. I shall engage in an act which will have many questioning my sanity, or at least my taste. So be it.

"LOTR: The Two Towers" sucks.

All right, I understand that middle films in any trilogy have a hard road to hew. Fine. If that's the nature of the product, then the producers of that product know that going in and should act accordingly. In other words, they should make a product that is superior to the first, and maybe even the third. In contrast to that lofty ideal, "The Two Towers" is lacking. It is just more of the same from "The Fellowship of the Ring," no less and absolutely no more. No more plot, no more development, no more interesting. Ugh. It is a big, huge, string of "zzzzzzzz."

This has really bugged me because people whose opinions I respect have raved about this film. They love it. I hate it. Where does this disconnect come from? When I saw it on The Big Screen, I walked away going, for the first time ever, "Can I have those three hours of my life back?" I have seen some absolutely shitty films and I have never felt like watching them was such a complete waste of time.

Does anything happen in "The Two Towers"? If anything does, I missed it. I've watched it again on DVD. I'm still missing it. It's beautifully photographed, gorgeously rendered, lovingly assembled...and a whole string of other "ly" words apply to its technical construction.

BUT!

The plot moved forward not one smidgen. Precisely two things sorta happened. You got to see that Gollum has A Good Side. Gosh, how sweet. Only by film's end he's precisely back where he started at film's start. He's an annoying little prick who wants his precious, and is plotting the ugly demise of Frodo in order to get it.

The other item were those walking tree critters who aren't trees. They were cool. I have heard they're not in the book. That would explain why they are cool. And if they are in the book, well at least this is a great rendition.

The tree dudes point out one of the biggest issues I have with the film, though. Namely, they are all, storming the evil tower, stomping (literally) orc ass. Then someone utters, "Release the river!" Where in the hell did that dam come from? I don't remember that in the first film, and I looked for it in the scenes leading up to this climax in the second film. It just sort of, "poof," appears and drowns all sorts of bad guy mischief. Deus ex machina? "And suddenly I dreamed I had a phaser...."

But really, where's the plot? Years and years ago I tried to read these books and I just for tired of reading about people walking around, smoking pipes, eating food, walking around, sulking, walking around, eating food, pining for the fjords, walking around, drinking and eating, talking, thinking, feeling gloomy, and....

Oh hell, you get the idea.

There are those among you who adore such things. I am not of you. I prefer a book, a story, driven by plot. I'm not picky about the plot. I'm not even a stickler for the speed at which the plot unfolds, unravels, or otherwise meanders. I just want a plot. Well, usually. I'm not consistent. This weekend, after sleeping through "The Two Towers," I watched the newly released Fosse wonderwork "All That Jazz." Does it have a plot? Well, sorta, but it's driven by characters. Would that this had been true of "The Two Towers."

Personally I've already decided that after "The Return of the King," when all three are wrapped up into a DVD set, you could pull "The Two Towers" out of the boxed set and never miss it. Unless you were some sort of Tolkien freak. But then again, you're already screaming about Peter Jackson's alterations, the bastard.

UPDATE:

I forgot to mention that decent mid-trilogy films do exist. "The Empire Strikes Back", in addition to being the best of the original three films, demonstrates what a mid-trilogy film can do. Characters evolved, they changed. Situations changed. The Plot Unfolded. Etc.

From what I have been told, "The Matrix: Reloaded" does the same. (I missed it at the theatres, and thus must wait until October 14 for the DVD to know for sure.) All complaints about the film aside, it moved the plot along. Things were different at the end than they were at the beginning.

In other words, both of these mid-trilogy films did what "The Two Towers" didn't.

8.20.2003

Nauseating



California Governor Gray "Not My Real Name" Davis spoke to the faithful yesterday, taking the offensive against his recall.

sacbee.com -- Politics -- Davis stands by his record

Gov. Gray Davis, opening a new phase in his campaign to hold on to his job, took his case directly to the voters Tuesday -- accepting criticism for acting too slowly on the energy crisis but not offering any apologies.
He accepts criticism but doesn't take responsibility, or even admit he might have just goofed, even if just a little. Oh, wait, that's not how The Faithful see it:

Dan Terry, president of the California Professional Firefighters Association, disagreed, saying Davis had taken responsibility for the energy crisis and "laid responsibility where it belonged."

"I am proud of my governor," he said. "He did a good job."
Yes, yes, a great job of doing a $50 billion shift in California's fortune, from plus $12 billion to minus $38 billion all because of a one year spike in state income.

Also, I'm confused. If he took responsibility, then how can he lay responsibility "where it belonged"? If he accepts responsibility, it's his. But, no, he didn't accept a damn thing. He just shifted it to someone else. He's a victim, damnit, wahhhhh. Such a lovely picture of a governor.

Of course, the nature of this audience tells you who the intended audience really was:

Arriving onstage with his wife, Sharon, at his side, he was welcomed with a standing ovation from an invited crowd of about 300 union activists and supporters. They frequently interrupted his address at UCLA's Ackerman Hall with cheers, chants, boos and standing ovations.
Or, as Dan Waters (also in the Sac Bee) puts it:

Davis' 20-minute speech to a carefully selected audience of enthusiastic supporters at UCLA was clearly aimed at arresting his popularity plunge -- one that threatens to make him irrelevant as the recall becomes an assumption, and the contest among Bustamante, Schwarzenegger and others takes center stage. And Davis' chief target was Democratic voters, many of whom are ready to jettison him, especially because they have another Democrat in Bustamante waiting in the wings.
Waters also zeroes in on the, er, alterations Davis loves to make to history:

The governor described the 2001 energy crisis, which saw Californians experience power blackouts and soaring utility bills, as something foisted on the state by Enron and other greedy energy suppliers. However, Davis glossed over and distorted his refusal early in the crisis to allow utilities to sign long-term supply contracts that would have protected them and their customers from soaring spot market power prices. That refusal has been singled out by even the most objective critics as Davis' chief failure -- one magnified a half-year later when he sought long-term contracts at much-higher prices.

Davis cryptic version: "I refused to give in to pressure to raise rates astronomically." Reality: Rates would have risen only slightly had Davis acted earlier, and they did rise astronomically to pay for the much more expensive contracts his administration signed later.
And as for that small problem of the deficit, I again defer to Mr. Waters for the clearest and truest explanation:

The record differs markedly from Davis' self-serving version. When the state experienced a $12 billion windfall in 2000, Davis publicly declared that he would stoutly resist pressure from either party to spend it because it likely would be a one-time phenomenon, stemming from a flurry of stock market activity in the volatile high-tech industry. If the money were to be committed to ongoing spending or permanent tax cuts, Davis said then, the state could face massive deficits as future revenues returned to normal levels.

In fact, however, Davis and lawmakers quickly agreed to spend about $8 billion of the windfall on ongoing programs -- tax cuts, education and health care primarily -- and when revenues did return to normal, the state had an $8 billion "structural deficit" that was papered over with bookkeeping gimmicks and loans in the ensuing three years. It leaves the state with an immense ongoing deficit and equally massive debts.
So, Davis said one thing then ran as quickly as possible to do the opposite.

8.12.2003

A Constitutional Lesson



Reuters "reports"" that Fox News is suing Al Franken. At issue is Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" on the book's cover. Fox News uses that as a tag phrase for their news broadcasts. Says Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Franken's publisher:

In trying to suppress Al Franken's book the News Corp is undermining First Amendment principles that protect all media by guaranteeing a free, open and vigorous debate of public issues.
First Amendment...?

The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." Doesn't say a thing about a private business suing another for copyright infringement. Thus, Ms Johnson's statement is the usual rhetoric, an effort to wrap oneself in the safety and protection of the Constitution when it doesn't even apply.

Unless they want it to, in which case it would seem to me it could undermine the very notion of copyright protection. Is Fox's claim legit? I don't know. Seems like a debateable question, which means it goes to court. But no way is this a First Amendment issue. None at all.

Enterprise



In case no one has mentioned it, twenty-six years ago the Enterprise flew for the first time. While it would never fly in space, this space shuttle would prove that the bricks could indeed "glide" to a safe landing. It also verified that the shuttle could be, er, shuttled to and fro on the back of a modified 747. I believe the Enterprise, OV-101, now is on display at the Smithsonian.

8.11.2003

Democrat Love



Gads, love these people:

"Schwarzenegger is going to find out, that unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets and he is going to have to respond to them," warned Mulholland in an interview with a camera crew from ABC NEWS.
No further comment needed.

Hot, so hot!



They are melting in Europe, with temperatures like....

A weather station in southern Paris reported Monday it had recorded 25.5 degrees Celsius (77.9 Fahrenheit) overnight, the highest nighttime low since France started keeping records in 1873. The previous record was 24C (75.2F), recorded on the night of July 4, 1976.
Less than 80 degrees (American) overnight, and they're complaining? Sheesh. Poor people.

Actually, I should be more sympathetic. As a San Franciscan born and raised, I'm used to a temperature that could be called moderate. I mean, you got up in the morning and the temperature was between 50-55. By evening, it was 50-55. Sometime during the night it dropped to 50-55. That's winter. Summer rises to 55-60. Oh, yes, there are variations; this weekend it was more in the 70's. Nonetheless, over the course of a year the temperature sits in a ten degree range.

Now I live in the Sacramento valley, and temperature can swing 30+ degrees over the course of a day. It'll be in the mid-90's today. July had a record number of 100+ days. Ugh. Hate it. Been here some 17 years and have yet to adapt. I hate summer.

So, sorry, Europe.

An Insult



The Guv says....

Davis said he has "gotten the message. I understand a lot of people signed a recall." But he also called it "an insult to the 8 million people who went to the polls last November and decided I should be governor."
No, what's insulting was his concealing the true and coming size of the state deficit in the days leading up to that election. What's insulting is how he claims he isn't giving state employees a raise, while at the same time negotiating raises. How do you do that? Last year, rather than give state employees a 5% raise, he agree that the state would pay 100% of the contribution to an individual's retirement account, essentially 5% raise. This year, that was going to end; employees would resume paying into their retirement account. As compensation, they would get a 5% raise.

Naturally, he doesn't want to do that now, given the deficit he managed to run up. So here's the deal: Employees waive that 5% raise. In exchange, they get an extra one "personal day" off each month. Surprise! That's effectively a 5% raise! What happens is that the employee can take the day off or they can allow it to accrue. Forever, or until they retire, whichever comes first. This has been done before. The reviled governor Pete Wilson (well, reviled by the wildly liberal state unions, that is) did the same, circa his first year in office. Surprise, that saved the state a prompt billion or so. Bigger surprise, it's current cost to the state is several billion dollars...and growing! Lo and behold, Gray wants to do the same because it looks great on paper and in the headlines. Please, though, no one look behind the curtain.

Damn, this guy sucks.

8.08.2003

Happy Birthday, Katie!



No, no, not Couric. This Katie is my daughter. Today is her 18th birthday. I can't wish her happy birthday in person because she's in US Air Force basic training. She's more than a few miles away, very much out of communication with me. With luck, I'll get a letter.

So there's my daughter in military service. And there's my old chief's oldest son in the Navy, currently somewhere in California. And there's his younger son, somewhere near the DMZ in Korea. And on and on. I seem to know an amazing number of people who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for their country.

Amen.

Love and kisses, Katie!

Somebody save us...



...from Gray Davis!

The recall is a go. The California Supreme Court has rejected all challenges, including silly ones from The Guv himself, and October 7 remains D-Day for the Davis administration. One of Davis's objections was that he wasn't allowed to be on the list of candidates. As you may know, the recall ballot will have two questions. #1) Should Davis be recalled? #2) If so, who do you want to replace him? The list for #2 is unoffically huge (300+?). I say unofficially because that's the number of applications that have been requested and/or distributed. The final tally of those who have actually filed won't be known until after 5pm Saturday.

And while many see this as evidence of California insanity, Daniel Henninger says it well:

So how is it that Californians are ridiculed as zany for trying to recall a politician-governor who has wasted not only the public trust conferred by election but $38.2 billion of their money, the state's current deficit?
Amen.

Now Arnie is in the race, and the smear begins. First was the perky Katie Couric, quoted via Rush Limbaugh (no link to his specific musings, because I don't know how "permanent" his links are), wherein she immediately implies Arnie is a Nazi. Now today comes this idiot...

Here's a question Jay Leno forgot to ask Arnold Schwarzenegger when he announced his candidacy for governor of California on last night's "Tonight Show": "Will you renounce your support for Kurt Waldheim?"
Puh-leez! Spare me!

Guilt by association: Isn't this the exact same tactic that liberals complain about and label "McCarthyism"? Against McCarthy they railed that membership in the Communist Party didn't mean they were a spy. (Well, many were, but that little fact is, er, ignored.) Now Arnie likes a guy who was a Nazi, and (gasp!) his father was a member of the Nazi Party (during WW2, in Germany/Austria, at a time when pretty much everyone was, or they were in a concentration camp). No, let us never discuss the idea(s) a person might have. So much easier to slander him instead.

From the same opinion/slam piece:

Rather than confront his Waldheim problem head-on, Schwarzenegger has proclaimed his disgust for Nazism, raised money for education about the Holocaust, traveled to Israel (where he met with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and given generously to the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which in 1997 bestowed on him its National Leadership Award. "He wants no truck with … Waldheim," the Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier told the Jerusalem Post. "He probably did not have any clue as to the seriousness of the allegations against Waldheim at that time [i.e., 1986]. To suggest that Arnold's an anti-Semite is preposterous. He's done more to further the cause of Holocaust awareness than almost any other Hollywood star."
(Emphasis mine.)

And despite all that, the piece wraps up in the very next paragraph with....

Clearly, though, that won’t be enough. If Schwarzenegger doesn't renounce Waldheim in a highly public way, he can forget about ever becoming governor of California.
By God, just because a rabbi states the matter correctly, absolving Arnie of any implied guilt, doesn't mean the liberals will. They can't! Damnit, he's a Republican!

The only thing clear is that hacks like Noah (who?) and Couric (highest paid talking head on TV?) will do whatever is necessary to stop any Republican from gaining any public office. In this, they are the perfect reps for Gray Davis, who can never campaign on his record (which sucks, remember the $50+ billion swing in California state economics, from a $12 billion surplus to a $38+ billion deficit), so constantly goes on the smear offensive.

And they wonder why we want him (and them) to go. Don't go away upset, don't go away mad, just go away.

7.18.2003

The Morality of Liberty



Part of what PM Tony Blair told Congress yesterday:

This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. Yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere--anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
I can really begin to like this guy, liberal as he is.

7.17.2003

California and the woe of budget



My state is in a world of hurt, and it is everyone's fault except the Governor's. Just ask him, he'll tell you. He isn't responsible for a damn thing. Which sounds like a good reason to recall him, if you ask me.

You see, I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity. If I screwed up, then I screwed up; no need to try and blame someone else. Which is why the phrase "society is to blame" has always made my skin crawl. No, you stupid bastard, you are the one who robbed the damn bank, not society; now stand there and take it like a man. (Oh, sorry, you already did! That's why you're here....)

Anyway, here's the governor of the largest state in the Union. We have fiscal wealth that rivals that of other countries (what, seventh largest economy in the world, or something like that). And we are in a world of fiscal hurt and it is not the fault of the state's chief executive. That doesn't make sense. If a corporate CEO makes decisions that cost the company money, it's his fault. Nevermind the outside influences and such, the job of the CEO is to anticipate those occurences and plan accordingly. Failure to do so results in job failure, which in The Real World is known as, "You're fired!"

In the Artificial World (i.e., the "public sector"), that's never the case. You're not allowed to blame anyone for anything, which is why they have the reputation that they have, the rep of being selfish, lazy, uncaring, slow, etc. I've worked in the public sector for some fourteen years now, and I know that that for most the reputation is a lie. For others, it is earned and deserved. Gray Davis is one of the latter.

Let's face it, people, he panicked. When 9/11/01 happened, it was immediately foreseeable that nothing was going to be the same. We depend on our elected officials to respond accordingly. Instead, we saw many of them pretend that the only thing that was going to change was their ability to spend even more money. Enter, Gov Gray.

He has delayed, stalled, or ignored the state budget issues ever since he was first elected, nevermind his recent re-election. The former state controller, a fellow Democrat, even points this out. She warned him (and us) time and again that there was a reckoning a-comin', and the sooner we start to take care of it, the better.

But, no. Gray continued to spend. He didn't just spend on existing programs, he created new ones. He had a multi-billion dollar fund, financed from gasoline and other transporation taxes, from which he could dispense highway projects, presumably to those he owed, er, a favor to. More generously, this projects were special ones (to him) that he reserved the right to pick and choose. When the money started getting tight, this shifting of revenue continued.

Fiscal 2001-2002 was going to be tight, but nothing was done. Fiscal 2002-2003 was patched with lies, half-truths, borrowed money, and the complete ignoring of the budget crash already in progress. If you want to say that state Republicans are equally to blame for that lack of reaction (or responsibility), go ahead; lots of blame to go around. But Gray is The Boss, or so he continually trumpets. And his budget projections were spectacularly rosy, because, well, he wanted to get re-elected.

Know how he says he's not cutting funding for public safety? Liar! The budget for the California Highway Patrol has been chopped 10%, their academy has been shutdown, and some 500 or so officers have received letters that they are "surplus" and may be subject to layoff starting this coming September (the state's Department of Personnel Administration [DPA] has to give that much warning prior to layoffs occuring). In addition, some 300 non-officers of the CHP received a similar notice. It's an interesting letter; I'm holding one, the one addressed to me.

No cuts in public safety funding? Liar!

There is some illusion out there that the Governor didn't give any state workers a raise last year, that he held the fiscal line, and that a lot of state workers are pissed off because he's opposing a 5% raise. Wrong. Last year, state workers' unions agreed to waive a 5% raise. In return, the state would pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This was effectively a 5% raise, but on paper it didn't look like one; no one's gross pay increased, just their net take home. The deal was this would only last one year, that this year the retirement deduction would go back into effect and there would be a 5% raise to offset that, thus resulting in a tiny (1%?) increase in net, take home pay. That deal was signed, passed by the state legislature, and put into effect.

What Gray is trying to do now is renig on the deal. He wants the employee's to forego the 5% raise and pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This means an effective 5% pay cut from what people have been receiving for the last year. This is what the state employee unions are screaming about.

When the local shop steward explained the deal last year I laughed. I knew Gray would try and pull something like this, that he was paying for union support of his re-election. This is why I won't join the stupid state's union; it's so blatantly partisan, and so utterly shocked when it gets slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. Poor, silly bastards.

This is exactly what Gray did with the "energy crisis". He panicked, signed huge deals with the power companies, and was "shocked" when he saw how rotten the deal he had negotiated was. He's still trying to re-negotiate those contracts, poor silly bastard.

And people wonder why I want him recalled? For god's sake, he's worse that incompetant, he's dangerous. He took a massive surplus and turned it into a history-making state deficit. That was bad enough, but he knew it was coming. He hid the true size and knew it was going to get bigger. And bigger.

And bigger.

There are some 30+ states running deficits this year; California's is larger than all the others combined. California's deficit is larger than most state's entire budgets. It is so huge and out of control, the mind boggles.

My motorcycle will cost $400+ to register next year. That's one of Gray's "cures" for the deficit. To pay for the (coming) increase in other taxes, and because of the possibility that I'll be laid off, I can no longer afford the monthly payments for the motorcycle. I'm selling the motorcycle, dropping my 45mpg vehicle and converting to a 25mpg vehicle. The car is paid for, and after the registration increase will cost under $200 to register next year. Thus we see how tax increases will stimulate the economy.

And pigs can fly....

Please don't tell me that we can't afford a recall. It's a deficit of $38+ billion (rumors put it close to $50 billion, but those are rumors). The cost of a recall election is approximately $26 million. Do the math. The cost of this election will add 0.07% to the existing deficit. Whoopee. And well worth it to get rid of the Gray.

Please don't tell me this is a Republican plot to steal a legitimate election (egads, just like 2000....). In my mind, Gray stole the election. Face it, the Republicans nominated an idiot--and he came within a whisker of winning! If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have won. Plus, look at all the budget manipulation that Gray engaged in leading up to the election. There was already a deficit, but it ballooned (again and again) starting the day after his re-election. Hmm, odd, that.

Certainly, it can get worse. Frankly, I expect California to go bankrupt. That will make for an interesting situation. Exactly, how does a state go bankrupt? Fiscally, I mean, because at a governmental level, we're already morally bankrupt.

UPDATE:

I forgot a few details. In the CHP, lieutenants and above have been given a 10% pay cut; sergeants got a 5% pay cut. Remember what Gray loves to say and repeat, no cuts in public safety. 'Tis the big fib, I think.

Do not tell me that this "twarts the will of the people". The People signed the recall petitions. If those signatures pass muster and the recall makes it to the ballot, The Will of the People will speak again. If Gray is tossed out on his ass it will be due to the "will of the people."

That entire "will of the people" argument, coming from politicians like Gray, makes me nauseous. Prop 13, the one that cut property taxes almost 25 years ago, was the will of the people, yet public officials like Gray continue to lament about it, fight against it, and seek ways around it. His concern for the people extends precisely one step short of his concern for his own political career. That is, he is concerned about The People only when, and in the context of, it furthers his own political goals.

7.03.2003

Anti-American Pollsters



Opinion Journal has this editorial from Fouad Ajami, which reads in part:

In the days that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, a young Palestinian gave expression to the image America holds out in places where its shadow falls: the boy passing out sweets in celebration of America's grief wondered aloud as to the impact of the bombings on his ability to get a U.S. visa. He felt no great contradiction. He had no feeling of affection or loyalty for the land he yearned to migrate to. He grew up to the familiar drums of anti-Americanism. He had implicated America in his life's circumstances. You can't reason with his worldview. You can only wish for him deliverance from his incoherence--or go there, questionnaire in hand, and return with dispatches of people at odds with American policies. You can make foreigners say the sort of things about America you wanted to say yourself.
Very good point. Something to think about when the next Pew survey comes out.

6.10.2003

Let's have a laugh



Oh, she's upset:

Is the ghost of Sen. Joe McCarthy alive and well in Hollywood? That is certainly on the minds of many outspoken liberals in Tinsel-town these days. The latest conspiracy theory focuses on the just-announced axing by ABC of very vocal anti-Iraq war activist Janeane Garofalo's new sitcom, ''Slice o' Life.''

Though the alphabet network had given Garo-falo and Universal Tele-vision a thumbs up on the show for next season, network execs changed their minds, telling Daily Variety and other industry outlets it was ''the direction of the series story line'' that led to the dumping of ''Slice''--just days before the show's pilot was scheduled to be taped in Vancouver, British Columbia.

A source close to Garofalo tells this column the actress and comedian was furious by the last-minute change and believes it's yet another example ''of a network bowing to the perceived power of the Bush administration. ... Janeane is convinced her politics and all the hate mail the right-wing lobby stirred up during the war is what is behind all this.''
What makes this funny is that it wasn't all that long ago that she was crowing that her anti-war (anti-freedom?) stance was the reason the series was picked up in the first place. Now that's the reason she lost the job. Puh-leez, can we make up our minds here? Sorta like Mike "I cannot tell the truth even if it kills you" Moore bragging about his great change of fortune when Icon Productions opted to finance his next pack of crap, only to also latter change their minds.

6.04.2003

Midway



Sixty-one years ago, World War II was raging and the pivotal battle in the Pacific began, namely the Battle of Midway. I like to remember this battle because it is arguably the point around which the entire war, in the Pacific and in Europe, turned. US defeat here would have meant a dramatically different war against the Japanese. Oh, we probably still would have won, but when? How much longer would it have taken? If the Japanese plan had succeeded, and their forces had come out more or less intact, how would that have effected battles that were yet to come? And if we had to devote more resources to the Pacific, how would that have effected our European campaign? I submit the obvious, that things would have been very, very different, up to and including a less-than happy outcome to the entire war.

Midway also illustrates the entire notion of the "fog of war." The US won by a combination of skill, courage, determination, pluck, and sheer luck. In turn, the Japanese lost for almost the exact same reasons, only in their case the luck was almost all bad. Before Midway, the Japanese roamed and ruled the Pacific. After Midway, they were on the losing end of things. Yamamoto had tried to guarantee his country twelve months of victory following Pearl Harbor; he could only deliver six.

After Midway, the US could starve Japan because bit by bit, we controlled the Pacific. Cut off from external supplies, Japan's war machine began to starve. After Midway, the outcome of WW2 was a foregone conclusion. Oh, there were still times here and there where it could have been different, but the key, the focal point, was Midway. I've yet to identify a similar event in Europe; the closest -- and perhaps the one, only I don't know it yet -- was when Russia stopped the German advance. Right there, at that moment, the outcome for the War of Europe was a foregone conclusion, because from then on Germany was on the retreat. Some silly mistakes by the Allies here and there almost allowed a surrender that would have left Germany intact, but that was not meant to be.

And if you are really into this stuff, consider: I have read the the Battle of Hampton Roads (USS Monitor vs. CSS Virginia [the Merrimac]) was actually the key battle of of the US Civil War. Most historians focus on Gettysburg, but the argument is that at Hampton Roads, the Confederates almost succeeded in breaking the Union blockade. If they had done so, they would have had a guaranteed supply route to their European benefactors, namely the British. It would not have lasted, as the North could outproduce the South, would have built more warships, and eventually sealed the Confederates back up. In the meanwhile, though, there would have been a growing chance that the British would enter the war on the Confederate side. It goes without saying that if that had happened, the United States would be a very different place today.

Gettysburg was where General Lee's winning streak ended, but that end became inevitable at Hampton Roads. Think about it.

5.30.2003

Depressing



Does anyone else find this depressing?

Air France's Concorde made its next-to-the-last commercial flight Friday, an emotional trans-Atlantic journey completed in 3 1/2 hours as the supersonic jetliner nears the end of a pioneering chapter in aviation.
Much like our retreating from space since landing on the Moon, we are now retreating from the sky. Early airliners were noisy, dangerous, etc., but we kept going until we finally created the DC-3. They complained about the Boeing 747, but it created the present age of inexpensive air travel. The Concorde was never meant to be the be-all end-all of supersonic flight, but no one ever followed up on the idea. Instead, we regulated it out of existence in the US...for suspect (at best) reasons.

5.29.2003

Cover up



So there's this woman in Florida who insists that Florida DMV is violating her right to religious freedom because they insist she remove her veil for her driver's license picture. How this is so, I do not know, especially given that driving is not a right. If you can't comply with the applicable laws for obtaining a driver's license, and Florida requires a full-face photo, then you don't get a DL. Seems simple.

But no, assorted and sundry lobby and "civil rights" groups feel otherwise. What makes this all the more interesting is the sidebar attached to this CNN article. See, the woman is asserting that revealing her face would violate Islamic religious law, a higher authority as it were. But, the sidebar has this to say about photo ID's in established, Muslim countries:

Driver's identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Now, don't mean to hold up any of these Arab states are paragons of human rights, but these are countries where Islamic law is often The Law. And they require the veil to come off for photo ID. So who is the higher authority, the "experts" her attorneys will trundle into court, or the existing laws and standards of Islamic states?

Oh, and besides, turns out she's a recent convert, so who is telling her that it is an absolute, no exception, that her face remain covered for "modesty."

5.22.2003

Linux on a Laptop



I've dabbled with Linux before, but this time I think it may be serious. Why? Because I have this little old Gateway 600 laptop and it occured ot me that it is the near-equal of my main desktop computer. So why shouldn't it be able to run Linux?

I downloaded Red Hat v9, burned the CD's, put the first one in the laptop's CD drive and...voila, it runs. Not a single install or operational issue so far. The only feature I haven't tried yet is the wireless NIC. The onboard wire NIC is eth0, and the wireless shows as eth1, so the system recognizes it, even correctly ID's the hardware, so sometime this week I'll give it a shot.

I had a brief issue creating a FAT16 partition that would allow me to move files from the Windows XP side to the RH Linux side. Seems that users under Linux couldn't mount the partition, while the root (superuser) account could. Only root didn't have permission to modify the permissions. Weird. A one minute search via Google provided the answer, the correct syntax to add to the fstab file, and voila, problem solved.

(fstab is the file the system parses on boot to tell it how to mount what filesystems -- drives and drive partitions. The line I had to add was "/dev/hda6 /mnt/fat vfat users,noauto,umask=000 0 0". Don't ask me -- yet. It just works.)

Well, no duh!



Why is 'Idol' beats Oscars in viewers surprising? That show had a veneer pretense of not being manipulated toward a conclusion, whereas the Oscars had a lying bastard win an award for best documentary when the tripe he produced clearly was not.

But, hey, as he says, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy? You know." (Scroll down a bit to read the relevant transcript). So we shan't take any of his sputters too seriously; in fact, not seriously at all.

Day of Defeat



I play this game waaaaay too much. After most of a week of reading torts, contracts, and crim law (oh my!), few things were more relaxing than charging into Thunder, trusty Thompson in hand, blasting away. If you like first person shooters, own a copy of Half-Life, and are willing to play on-line, then you owe it to yourself to go here and download the Day of Defeat mod. Do it for the liberation of humanity...well, if you play on the Allies side, at least. Remember: Back the attack!

Man in Space



See, I agree with this guy when he says:

The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old. ... It would be very difficult to make sure it is in good shape. We ought to just stop going into space until we get a good vehicle. If we aren’t willing to spend the money to do that, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.
How do you honestly dispute the opinion of the guy who designed the shuttle (and darn near everything that came before it)? This stuff looks far more interesting than just cranking out another Columbia-like shuttle.

Don't shoot me, I only type here



All right, I've shamelessly neglected this site, these pages, and the scant attention I ever attracted. Sorry. Is that sufficient? Apologies always seem to make up for things...don't they? C'mon, it's intentions that are important, not results! Haven't you been listening?

Sorry. Again. First year of law school...done! Study mates are taking a full course load during the summer. They want to graduate a year early, bless their little advocate hearts. I just want to survive, thank you very much. Besides, this is the last summer with my daughter; she wings to the USAF come August, just about the time I start Law School Year Two. So, I think I'll leave myself more or less Free this summer, thank you very much. Again.

Quoting Tommy Lee Jones in "The Fugitive": My my my my my my my. So much has happened in recent weeks. We clobbered Iraq. Oh, sure, that was expected, but this fast? With no significant resistance? We paused and The Media lept upon it like we were staggering from a body blow, but really it was 1) the weather, and 2) some more weather. Then, Saddam did pass from the field. Where is Saddam? Reduced to molecules and floating about, or skulking in a cave of one sort or another. I don't care which. He be gone and that's all right by me.

Ah well. Enough for the moment. Time to peruse the news I've been missing....

4.24.2003

lancelot
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!


What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

3.20.2003

Fools abound



Is it me, but do the people in this story exceptionally dim:

Despite a recent "shoot-to-kill" warning from the military, anti-war protesters are planning to infiltrate the coastal property of Vandenberg Air Force Base near Santa Barbara soon.

[...]

"The only time a law-enforcement official should shoot is when his life is in danger," [Elden "Bud"] Boothe said. "We are in the peace movement. We are not going to endanger anyone. . . . I suppose they could shoot you, but they would be doing it illegally. But that doesn't help you if you're dead."

Vandenberg security officials recently warned protesters about its policy of using "deadly force" to take out trespassers who may endanger equipment or personnel. The base, which does not have a fence around it, covers 99,000 acres along the California coast near Santa Barbara.

Lt. Kelly Gabel, a spokeswoman for the base, said the deadly force policy is standard for all U.S. military bases, but the warning for Vandenberg protesters was made after officials heard about possible "backcountry incursions."

Previous Vandenberg trespassers have been corralled and arrested in an almost scripted manner. But in the post-Sept. 11 world, Gabel said, someone walking cross country toward a military base with a backpack "takes on new meaning."

"A backpack could be a bomb or a chemical agent," Gabel said. "We simply do not know what the intentions are when someone breaks into our property. Our security forces will take the minimum force necessary, including up to deadly force, to protect the property and personnel here."

Gabel said the security forces are "not trigger happy" but warned that "there is a potential for danger here."
It's a military base, "Bud"! (And given that he's a WW2 vet, he should know what that means.) It's not "law enforcement," it's "base security," and you're violating it.

How special!



Now this is colorful:

In a unique form of opposition, some protesters at the Federal Building staged a "vomit in,'' by heaving on the sidewalks and plaza areas in the back and front of the building to show that the war in Iraq made them sick, according to a spokesman.
Obviously some children attempting to be creative. Fun.

3.17.2003

"We are not dealing with peaceful men."



And so it comes to this. Well really, what did you expect? Oh, you in the corner, the carping little ninnie who occasionally does an infomercial, STFU. For the rest....

Once upon a time, I was a cop. Among other things, I was a crisis (hostage) negotiator. Not that I really had to sit and perform The Real Deal, but lots of training, lots of practise, lots of scenarios. One of the training sessions was with the FBI, an agency that has learned a thing or two from failed negotiations (see Waco and/or Ruby Ridge). One of the things they learned was to resist the action imperative. That is, don't do something just because you feel that you must do something.

For many, that would appear to be the case with Iraq. We don't have to do anything, the reasoning goes, so why are we?

Well, the FBI was also careful to point out that sometimes matters require more than mere talk. You can't always talk that bank robber into giving up peacefully. You can't always talk that insane parent out of killing their own child. And you certainly can't always negotiate a peaceful settlement with terrorists, especially those whose primary aim in life is to see you in a grave. Which they can then use as an open air toilet just to remember the sweet sensation of watching you die.

No, these people are, ahem, difficult to negotiate with.

Negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. No, correction. A successful negotiation pre-supposes good faith on both sides. In Iraq, Hussein negotiates with his fingers crossed. At best. At worse, his hands are under the table loading a pistol, getting ready to hand it to some useful idiot, who will then put the the business end of that bullet into your brain.

Everyone acknowledges that Hussein is that not-rare-enough creature, a true human monster. Do a Google search. Review the outrages of Saddam Hussein.

So why isn't everyone all for kicking the bastard out? I think the reasons are simple. Those who oppose action in Iraq are 1) anti-Bush, 2) anti-capitalism, 3) anti-American, and 4) have too much personal stock invested in Hussein's dictatorship. Amazingly, whenever you start a conversation with someone opposed to US action against Iraq, when you've pegged them into a corner with lots of reality slaps, their "argument" disintegrates into variations of a theme. Theme = "Well, Bush isn't really President anyway!"

So that's Number 1 with a bullet.

Number 2 is an objection to our nation's success. Jealous? More like anger. "Damnit," they seem to mutter, "in theory our Marxist-Socialist state should be the utopia of the world, rather than a degenerate sink hole of corruption and murder. It must be the fault of those damn capitalists. Death to the capitalists!"

Puh-leez! Did any of those notice that the "new Europe" being discussed are all former members of the Soviet bloc? That they lived under real and horrid dictators? That almost every single one of them is saying, "Yeah, kick that little bastard out!"

Number 3 is an extension of Number 2, but more focused. Some capitalist societies are all right, like France, because they suck so much money off their private industries that they can't survive without government subsidies (review any European industry that attempts to compete outside its own national borders; see as an example, Airbus International). In America, though, capitalism is a blood sport, so those bastards must be stopped! So obviously, again, those pesky Yankee dogs must die.

And Number 4 is the one that hurts them the most. Yes, Mary Jane, Gulf War II is about oil. It's about French interest in Iraqi oil. It's about Russian interest in Iraqi oil. The last thing it's about is Dubya's interest in any Iraqi oil, except to make sure that money made off that oil actually helps build the country, rather than a bunch of extravagent palaces that are grand excuses for hidden arsenals (at worse) or huge examples of a driving need for ego-boost (at best).

Gads, there are more reasons to plow that man under, and there are stupider stated "reasons" against doing so. But what I find fascinating, what I think expresses the issue so very clearly, is that a 12+ year cease fire has been violated since roughly, oh, day one of that cease fire. Hussein never surrendered. We agreed to stop shooting at him and his men if he agreed to live up to certain promises.

He never has.

Ergo, no more cease fire, and Gulf War II is actually the conclusion of Gulf War I, in much the same way that WW2 was actually the end of WW1 (and WW2 didn't end until the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that's history for another day). This whole sad affair with the United Nations reminds me of the League of Nations, which was supposed to prevent WW2 from ever happening. Hitler calmly rebuilt a huge military force, in flagrant violation of surrender terms from WW1, and all anyone sought was appeasement. A certain wine country built a Maginot Line, stood behind it, and ignored all treaty violations happening to the east. They became interested only when a German tank rumbled along the champs de'lyse. Damnit, ze are annoying ze flies!

So, no, I'd rather we not just sit around and wait until Hussein got a fly up his nether, and decided to scratch the itch by popping a Scud loaded with something unpleasant onto Israel. You know, that country he refers to -- to this day -- as "the Zionist entity." See how peaceful he is?

Or hands off to his buddy, Osama bin Hidin' (or one of his comrades), something equally nasty. Which in turn, because we are one big open country (thank God, and I don't really want to change it...much -- doh!) that Nasty Thing ends up in one US city or another.

So, let's all STFU, lock and load, and get to work.

3.13.2003

Oriana Fallaci



This is great. A brief clip:

[C]ontrary to the pacifists who never yell against Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and only yell against George W. Bush and Tony Blair...I know war very well. I know what it means to live in terror, to run under air strikes and cannonades, to see people killed and houses destroyed, to starve and dream of a piece of bread, to miss even a glass of drinking water. And (which is worse) to be or to feel responsible for someone else's death. I know it because I belong to the Second World War generation and because, as a member of the Resistance, I was myself a soldier. .... As a consequence, I hate [war] as the pacifists in bad or good faith never will. I loathe it. Every book I have written overflows with that loathing, and I cannot bear the sight of guns. At the same time, however, I don't accept the principle, or should I say the slogan, that "All wars are unjust, illegitimate." The war against Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito was just, was legitimate. The Risorgimento wars that my ancestors fought against the invaders of Italy were just, were legitimate. And so was the war of independence that Americans fought against Britain. So are the wars (or revolutions) which happen to regain dignity, freedom. I do not believe in vile acquittals, phony appeasements, easy forgiveness. Even less, in the exploitation or the blackmail of the word Peace. When peace stands for surrender, fear, loss of dignity and freedom, it is no longer peace. It's suicide.
It's all brilliant. Quick, go read!

2.18.2003

A great opportunity to "shut up"?



Ah, from the seat of democracy....

Branding joint letters signed by Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic with EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal, and by the so-called Vilnius 10 group of EU and NATO candidates "infantile" and "dangerous," [French President Jacques] Chirac said: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."
Why is it that the most liberal, most left-leaning, most proudly "open-minded" strive the hardest to tell their opposition to just shut up and go away? I mean, these are the very people who promote diversity and call for us all to embrace other ideas, yet they get truly testy when they meet opposition. Witness, er, Chirac.

Yes, yes, a weasel. A beeeeeg one.

2.12.2003

ROFL!



Instapundit reports, I get a great laugh. Quoting a piece from Opinion.Telegraph:

For the first time in the build-up to action against Iraq, the newspapers of the Anglosphere are united in a blizzard of abuse against the French. In Paris, Le Monde has finally been obliged to translate Bart Simpson's phrase that is now on everyone's lips.

The French, say the mass-circulation papers in Britain and America, are nothing but "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" (les primates capitulards toujours en quete de fromage), and, you know what, I couldn't agree more.
Les primates capitulards toujours en quete de fromage....

Damn, I like that!

Simply Amazing



Let me see if I understand this correctly....

Last month the Belgian senate amended the 1993 "universal jurisdiction" law to let prosecutors to investigate suspected war criminals even if they do not live in Belgium, removing the restriction which has so far prevented them investigating cases abroad.
So, Belgium has just decided that They have exclusive authority, jurisdiction, etc., over the entire world? Their senate passes a law and, poof voila, they can -- literally -- hold court over the rest of the planet.

Interesting.

Sounds awful damn unilateral (or, as Instapundit put it, imperialistic) to me, little self-righteous ninnies. Oh, I forgot. They belong to the Axis of Weasels, even if it is only in Mini-Me minion mode.

Hey, I don't think I understand the implications of this! We can just get the House and Senate to pass a bill, one that Bush is sure to sign. We'll give the US exclusive right to prosecute anyone anywhere for anything. Then we trot right into Belgium because an imperialist power they are responsible for five and eight million deaths. Oh, sure, King Leopold is long dead, but so what? Reality doesn't interfere with them, why should it both us?

Oh, and by strange coincidence in that link about Belgium being an imperialist nation, it lists the top six. They are:

1 - ENGLAND
2 - FRANCE
3 - GERMANY
4 - BELGIUM
5 - PORTUGAL
6 - NETHERLANDS

Lookee there, the Axis of Weasels all in a row! I feel so...nauseous.

1.31.2003

Can you say it better?


And Judge William Young said to Richard Reid:

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and a just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists.

We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and you said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing.

And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's seek that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We care about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here, in this courtroom, and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom. You know it always will. Custody, Mr. Officer. Stand him down.
A bit more is right here but that's the best.

Now that is a judge who gets my vote.

1.05.2003

I live



Shocking, I say. Proof that strange things happen to anyone, because I have survived the holidays. Yippee!

Actually, this entry is more of a test. Seems I have successfully downloaded ISO images, burned the requisite CD's, and installed from said CD's Red Hat Linux 8.0. Easiest Linux install I've ever run. Recognized everything in my system without a hiccup. Easily trumped past attemps with Mandrake (8.1), Corel Linux (1.0), and one other the name of which flees my sagging brain even as I type. Ah well.

And will wonders never cease, Blogger doesn't seem to mind the rendition of Mozilla that RH installed. Mozilla under Win2k Pro doesn't get along with Blogger. Here, no problem. Go figure.

Am I converting full time? Dunno. Doubt it. Need Win2k on the laptop for school. For home, though, as I kick one or more of The Brood off the computer, I'll be rebooting into RH for more of a look-see. I'll probably even run Partition Magic on the second box and install it there, too. That should give it a run for its money....

(Money? Ha! It was free!)