"Infernal Affairs" Becomes "The Departed"

I watched Infernal Affairs last night. I understand there are at least two sequels; I'm not sure I want to watch them because I'm afraid they'll undo the afterglow. I'm also afraid that Martin Scorsese, one of the cinematic greats, might do the same with his Americanized version this fall, The Departed.

I dislike the name change to start with. Infernal has that name because of the quote used right from the get go: "The worst of the Eight Hells is Continuous Hell. It has the meaning of Continuous Suffering. Thus the name." (Nirvana Sutra) Verse 19.

And that is precisely what the movie is about, thus the reference to hell in the title is completely appropriate. The setup is relatively simple: Two young men join the Hong Kong police force. One "washes out" because he's actually been recruited to go undercover with the HK gangs (triads). The other is in reality a gang plant in the police force, assigned to work his way up through the hierarchy for the benefit gang sponsor. The plot of the film is driven by both the police force and the gang discovering that they each have a mole. Thus, the police mole is now searching for the gang mole, and vice versa.

But the humanity of the film is driven by the price each mole is paying. Can the gang mole become a "good" man, actually become a cop and fight for the right? And what is the cost on the police mole, because for ten years he has lived without his real identity? These moments make Infernal Affairs an exceptional film, and are no doubt what drew Scorsese to the subject.

What I love about watching most foreign films is that they aren't made to American expectations. Now, some countries become predictable in their own right. Take French films. The good guy always dies, there's never a happy ending (Luc Besson's work being, for the most part, notable exceptions). The French relish in "tragic" ending, even if they have to contrive one.

But Asian cinema is another matter altogether. Am I giving anything away if I reveal the end of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? If so, your bad because the film's been out for years. Damn near everyone dies at the end, but what really dies are relationships that never quite happened. The film is choked with unrequited love, and just when you think that love is about to be returned...gak, someone dies.

Maybe that's the Asian film tick. Person A loves person B, but B doesn't not love A in return. And just about the time that B realizes he/she loves A, A or B or both die. Damn, sounds like my life (except for the dying part). Fun?

Well, yeah, because they do it with such flair. And somehow it always catches me off guard, though it happens in Crouching Tiger, Hero, and House of Flying Daggers.

It will be interesting to see if Scorsese holds the course.

Jimmuh Cahtuh, flaming tard at large

In case you hadn't noticed, I have no (as in zero, none, nada) respect for Jimmy Carter. This has long been the case, beginning in 1977 when he took the Oath of Office for the presidency. I think he made my skin actually crawl during his campaign, even more so when he begged for re-election in 1980. It was in 1980 that I lost all hope for the man, when he conceded the race to Reagan, several hours before the polls in California closed. I remember that moment vividly because my father and I were getting off work (5ish) and on our way to vote when Carter's concession was announced on the radio. To say that my dad, a lifelong Democrat, was pissed is a vivid understatement.

Since then, Cahtuh has done nothing to redeem himself in my eyes. Oh, there's that whole "habitat for humanity" thing, but I believe he does that in some quest to salvage his soul, personal aggrandizement, rather than the altruistic urge he advertises. Where he completely drives me up a fig tree is when he pontificates on the Middle East. And I know exactly what I mean by "pontificate" and it is precisely applicable to his gaping pie hole.

(See, I really don't like Massuh Cahtuh, no not at all.)

His recent interview with Spiegel is a case in point. Aside from being his usual pious yet pompous nonsense, he gets almost everything precisely wrong. (In fact, he's so good at that you can generally take anything he says, turn it 180 degrees about, and find the truth.)

Despite the obsequious nature of most of the interviewer's questions, Cahtuh couldn't bring himself to answer the questions given. Instead, he launched in self-praise about the treaty he brokered, etc. He slimes that he got a treaty between Egypt and Israel despite the election of Begin. Thus, in a single phrase he implicates that Israel has always been the problem, the force against peace, in the Middle East, and negates the fact that, hey, 'tard, Begin won that Peace Prize right alongside Sadat!

God forgive me, but I really dislike this man. Can't he just learn to stfu?

James Newton Howard, under-appreciated?

Really, I'm beginning to think so. I've been ripping my CD collection into VBR MP3's. I've finished soundtracks, so I can easily see how many of his I have, and when I drift through the tracks I get sorta weepy.

James Newton Howard is a composer that when he is on, he's evocative. Even when he's composing for third-rate movies, like Jackson's King Kong. You listen to the finale bits, Beauty Killed the Beast IV and V, and the Enya crap aside...wow. The submarine piece in his score for Atlantis...wow.

This has been a back-burner question for me because I keep wondering who will come along to take the place of John Williams, John Barry, and Jerry Goldsmith. Sure, they're not all dead, but sometimes I wonder. Have you listened to Williams' bits for Munich and War of the Worlds? The occasional moment, yes, but that makes him less than Howard because Howard's moments are getting longer.

Maybe I miss Goldsmith. That there was a composing god if ever there was one. Remember this and this and this? Wow!

Has Barry written anything worth a hoot since Prances with Puppies? I think not.

And I've already cried over Williams.

So that leaves...who? Howard is doing well. There's also Howard Shore, who can compose some really great creepy shit, though I think hit LOTR crap is over-rated (well, then again, LOTR was over-rated, so it fits). I'm excited by Michael Giacchino. His score for The Incredibles was...incredible! A crime was committed the day it didn't at least get an Oscar nomination. There's also Marco Beltrami. Even when he's scoring for crap he's fun (because, well, it's fun crap), and his Hellboy score wasn't crap at all (because Hellboy wasn't crap, it was great).

One day, one of these fellows -- or someone else -- will do something amazing. And they'll we'll all go, "Hey, remember when Williams was this good? Was he ever this good?"

The Collapse of Judgment: by Hugh Hewitt

It starts with a simple question:

If you could save the victims of one of the following four events, which group would you save?

1. The victims of Fidel Castro's 'revolution?'

2. The victims of Hezbollah's ambushes, rockets and missiles over the past three weeks?

3. The victims of the Seattle attack on the Jewish federation?

4. The victims of Mel Gibson's repulsive outburst of anti-Semitic venom?

...and goes from there. It's from August 3rd, but excellence knows no time limit.

The height of rudeness

I read this article at MSNBC about a culture of rudeness, and all I can say is: Amen, brother!

I am so sick unto death by the general rudeness in the world today, and I think he's pegged at least most of the reason. It's not for snobby reasons that I don't watch TV (my TV is a display for movies that I buy or rent), it's because I'm tired of the celebrity-go-round, the "reality" TV, the sheer weight of mind-numbing crap. I'd rather watch endless reruns of "She's the Sheriff" than most anything on the air today.

I think I was forced to this conclusion, about celebrity rudeness and "news" coverage, by Paris Hilton. She is obviously Satan. I don't mean "daughter of Satan", I mean she is the anti-Christ herself. She became a "celebrity" simply by inheriting a shitload of money. Period. That's it. She's never done a worthwhile thing in her life, other than be a participant in an Internet-distributed porn film. She slinks, she purrs, she insists on being #1, and she's...what? An heiress. And the public ate (!!!) her up.

Sad.

Like the author, I remember a time when you aspired to be rich and famous because that meant you would be cultured and refined, someone that others would naturally look up to. Did those celebrities and millionaires have hidden flaws? Absolutely. Were they less than perfect? Well, duh, they were human! But it is precisely the point that their flaws were kept to themselves, hidden, rather than being paraded about as though the flaw was the thing, as though it was more important that they farted than what they said.

There's a saying that goes something like: A man who is rude to the waitress is not a nice man. I try to follow that rule. I'm polite to the help, I over-tip the waitress, etc. I ride like a maniac, in firm belief that 80mph is where life begins, but other than that I'm a rather calm guy. All 6' 4" of me. Admittedly, that means I can afford to be calm.

Still, my point remains. Let's all slow down and relax, sip the (decaf) coffee, smell the (fake) flowers, enjoy the (scorching) sun, and wave at the (bastard) who cut us off. And use all of your fingers!

Okay, so I enter post title here

All right, so this is Live Writer (Beta), the latest from Microsoft. So theoretically, I type this over here on my desktop, then...what? Ah, click publish....

Update: Wow, it works.

Remembering the Battle of Thermopylae

According to the history text, today marks the anniversary of the Battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C. The battle has been the subject of movies, some books, and even a new film that's in production. Most focus on the 300 Spartans of King Leonidas.

Bob's History in a Nutshell: King Xerxes of Persia decided he wanted to own the world. He assembled a vast army, numbering in the millions, and got to work. Here a conquest, there a conquest, soon he was a royal (ahem) pain in the ass headed for Greece. At that time, Greece was a collection of squabbling city-states. Individually they were going to be easy pickings. But some Greeks thought this would be a bad idea. In order to let the squabblers stop squabbling, a few select opted to face Xerxes at the pass of Thermopylae, a narrow strip of land that would nullify the Persians' superior numbers. This force was led by Leonidas and his 300 Spartans.

They -- and those that fought with them -- died to a man.

But buy time they did, and Xerxes got his royal ass handed to him at the Battle of Salamis and the rest of the Persians met a similar fate at the Battle of Plataea. Thus Greece remained free...to continue their squabbles. Eventually, though, the Greek state was born and many consider this the birthplace of democracy, so imagine our world today if Xerxes had been successful.

What the better histories point out is that key to the victory wasn't just Leonidas and his 300, but the contribution of the Thespaians (numbering some 700). While other Greek allies left the final fight to the Spartans, these Thespaians stayed. This can't be stressed enough, and must be understood to grasp how important this was. Not in terms of numbers, but in terms of courage. Maybe Steven Pressfield writes it best in Gates of Fire, as Polynikes, one of the Spartans, steps out to address those who are about to die:

"It is no hard thing for a man raised under the laws of Lykurgus to offer up his life for his country. For me and for these Spartans, all of whom have living sons, and who have known since boyhood that this was the end they were called to do, it is an act of completion before the gods."

He turned solemnly toward the Thespaians and the freed squires and helots.

"But for you, brothers and friends...for you who will this day see all extinguished forever..."

The runner's voice cracked and broke. He choked and blew snot into his hand in lieu of the tears to whose issue his will refused to permit. For long moments he could not summon speech. He motioned for his shield; it was passed to him. He displayed it aloft.

"This aspis was my father's and his father's before him. I have sworn before God to die before another man took this from my hand."

He crossed to the ranks of the Thespaians, to a man, an obscure warrior among them. Into the fellow's grasp he placed the shield.

I eat this stuff up. That simple display of honor and respect. You see, as Polynikes says, the Spartans were trained to die for their country; the Thespaians were not. Yet their they were willing to stand, to fight for what they believed was right, to die with the Spartans rather than retreat with the others.

The Thespaians were, in other words, the planet's first true citizen-soldiers.

And so I remember Thermopyle, and when I do so I remember the many members of the US reserve forces fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all around the world. Fuck the draft, let the real warriors step up. God bless 'em all.

Proportionate response my left cheek

From a video clip sent to me by my USAF daughter:

MidEast guy: You better remember, we blew up two of your buildings.

Carlos Mencia: Oooo, and we blew up two of your "countries". You wanna play this game, bitch?!?

I keep thinking of that clip whenever I read the news coming out of the Middle East, specifically Israel's response to Hezbollah (Hizbollah? Herbollah? Whatever!). Let's see if I can make my interpretation of what's going very, very clear.

Say you live in an apartment complex. Not a great one, but clean, with a roof, most of the comforts of home. Next door is a stellar set of condos. Very nice, very state of the art. Some of the basement tenants in your apartment building don't like the people living in the condos, so they start shooting bottle rockets at them. Every now and again, a kid gets hurt, and once in a while, someone in the condos is actually killed. (These are very serious bottle rockets.)

Naturally, this pisses off the condo dwellers. They get even more frustrated because all of the other neighboring apartment buildings actually root for the basement-based rocket launchers. The condo people turn to the police, who say that the condo people must have greater tolerance of those in that neighboring basement.

The people who live above the basement, or even in apartments next to the guys shooting the rockets, try and tell the guys to stop, but are ignored. They do nothing more than say, "Hey, stop", while watching the fireworks. Afterall, they don't like the condo dudes either.

So one day the condo lobs a few mortar rounds into the apartment to get at those bottle rocket guys. Now your nice apartment building is being turned into a mess, but instead and leaping down the throat of the provocatuers, (i.e., bottle rocket boys), you scream at the condo people, "Hey! Disproporationate response, bastard!"

Of course, I live across town, in my own house, and I say, "Go, condo dudes, go!"

Hez (Hiz? Her? Eh!) was launching rockets into Israel on a near-continuous basis. Then they snatch a couple of soldiers just -- apparently -- for decoration. And the world is shocked -- shocked, I say -- because Israel didn't sit there like a Frenchman and fume. Israel invaded Lebanon before, then unilaterally withdrew. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. Result? Rocket and mortar fire from both areas into Israel, with "governments" in both areas throwing up their hands and going, "Oy, what can we do?"

Well, apparently Israel feels they can do better. "Disproportionate"? No, it's about time. The MidEast will be peaceful when one side of the other is defeated on the battlefield and opts for surrender rather than annihilation. A "peace process" or "road map to peace" will always bring us back to this simple fact. A "peace process" or "road map" is precisely what Hez/Hiz/Her, and their ilk, want, because it gives them a free hand.

So I'm pulling for those guys with the Star of David. And if this brings about a war to finally settle the matter, then so be it. Israel is a democracy surrounded by autocratic thugs. Why is there even a question as to which side we should support?

Oh, wait, I remember. Because they -- and we -- are capitalist oppressors of freedom loving socialist people around the world. Riiiiight. Must keep that in mind.

Is a perfect film about to appear?

All right, "perfect" may be an overstatement, but still....

Written & Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, the man who made a perfect Harry Potter movie and the gorgeous A Little Princess and more.

Starring Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and (special drum roll) Chiwetel Ejiofor (perfect as The Operative, perfect as Okwe, perfect here?).

I'm actually excited about a film that's coming soon, namely The Children of Men.

(Oh, and The Science of Sleep doesn't look too shabby, either.)

I'm in the midst of an anime binge

I started with my all-time-favorite, Akira, progressed through #2, Ghost in the Shell, and finished with Steamboy. I'll probably watch Ghost in the Shell: Innocence tonight, and maybe even Perfect Blue. I've seen them all before (and in the case of Akira and GITS, over and over), and they're all great touchstones.

If you have any love of animation at all you cannot help but be left slack-jawed after watching Akira. For the most part it is completely done in classic, painted cell animation style. There are moments you can tell where something computer generated helped create a given movement or prepare a framework, but by and large it is a massive labor of love with ink and pen. It is a singular film that puts all other animation to shame. Period. End of debate.

It is also an exploration of the human psyche, what we are often willing to do in the pursuit of knowledge and power. As a Time Magazine review once said, there are no "good guys" in Akira, just differing levels of bad. It takes a couple of viewings to really understand who is "bad" and who is "good". And at the story's end, it all comes down to fellowship, friendship, even love. Brings a tear to me one good eye every time.

GITS, on the other hand, isn't as well animated but is much more grounded in where the world may be headed. While Akira is essentially metaphysical, GITS explores how technology is and will force an evolution of not just mankind, but human intelligence. In the end you have a merger between a human mind and soul ("ghost") and an aritificial intelligence that created its own "ghost". Heady stuff.

Steamboy is both a triumph and a disappointment. A triumph because it is so goddamn gorgeous to look at. While Akira is, to me, the zenith of traditional animation, Steamboy is a fantastic blend of the traditional and the new. "Eye candy" is such an understatement that it's an insult.

Disappointment because the story can, at times, be shallow and murky. In essence it is the conflict in science, between the pure quest for knowledge and the application of science. It flops into a pedantic and lecturing tone from time to time, but there is enough rousing adventure to save the day.

There is also Ray Steam, our hero. He is a young lad of science, caught up in the pure thrill of discovery. He isn't concerned with purity and he's not too worried about application. He just wants to play and discover. As one adult character says of him, he's a young boy who can look at a complicated machine, understand its function in a glance, and then improve upon it. He also has the hero's spirit of never giving up, never giving into panic. Throughout the film you watch him see a problem and work his way through it, even at the risk of life and limb. He's great.

Any of these films would make a superb live-action film and would probably, in that form, garner a larger US audience. It's a shame that most American filmgoers put animation in the "kid's only" pigeonhole, because these three films, and the others I mentioned, are most definitely not kid's films. (Well, Steamboy is okay for kids, but the higher details would be lost of them.)

Rumors persist of an American live-action production of Akira, but I'd be afraid that such a production would feel compelled to wrap it up with a near, explain-it-all ending. That would just ruin things.

Ah well, enough for now. Back to the screen, time for Innocence.

Gar, Dead Man’s Chest!

This is a little late. Sorry. Fire me if you must.

I was one of those who contributed to the largest opening weekend in movie history, the $136 million that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest looted from the wallets of mankind. Think of the starving children that would have fed. Think of the problems of humanity that could have cured.

Naw!

I’m in a fairly dark period of my life (Who am I? Where am I going? Yadda yadda yadda?) and I got dragged into the daylight to give the film a peek. The end result?

I sort of liked it but I’m mostly disappointed.

Over at Ain't It Cool News, Moriarty said that Dead Man’s Chest is to Curse of the Black Pearl as Empire Strikes Back is to Star Wars: A New Hope. And that’s fairly accurate, except that Empire Strikes Back is the best of the six Star Wars films and one of the truly great geek sci-fi masterpieces of all time, surpassing – in my mind at least – the film that gave it birth. In that sense, Dead Man’s Chest isn’t even in the running.

But if you look at function and not results, it’s an apt comparison. Dead springs right out of the events at the end of Curse. Right from the get-go we learn that Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightly) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) were to be wed, only to have their wedding interrupted by some evil representative of the East India Company (damn them a-cursed capitalists!). Seems he has warrants for their arrest, and if convicted (an issue never in doubt) they will be hanged. Their offense? Springing Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from custody, what they did at the end of Curse.

So, voila, the story continues. Our two star-crossed lovers are now facing the consequences of their actions. Commander Norrington (Jack Davenport), who gave Jack one day’s head start, has never caught him and has resigned in disgrace. The only person relatively untouched at the beginning of Dead is Elizabeth’s father (Jonathan Pryce, a personal favorite of mine since his marvelous work in Brazil), but that won’t last.

From this promising start, with a nice, clean tie-in to the first, things go haplessly awry. Seems that Jack Sparrow sold his soul to Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) in order to be made captain of the Black Pearl (you know, his pirate ship). Well, his time is up and Davy is coming to collect.

There’s also Will’s father, Bootstrap (Stellan Skarsgard) and this I thought was a great move because it always struck me as awful what happened to Bootstrap in the first film. I mean, he essentially mutinies against the mutineers, is tied up in chains, and thrown over the side. But that’s after they’ve taken the cursed gold, which means that Bootstrap is cursed along with all of them, sitting on the bottom of the sea, in the dark, the weight of the ocean crushing on him, but unable to die! When I watched Curse and realized this was Bootstrap’s fate, I was horrified. And I was delighted to see it become a plot point in Dead.

So, let’s review. We have a promising beginning, we have a central plot, we have the opportunity for poignancy, even horror. The result? A solid shrug of the shoulders.

The movie just seems to keep jumping all over the place. Director Gore Verbinski (lovely name) can’t hold it all together. The result is a film with a noticeably darker tone (a la Empire, mind you), less humor, more (more, more!) action, way loads of confusion, and decidedly less fun. It also continues a decidedly awful trend: It’s long. Not quite Dear-God-In-Heaven-When-Will-the-Damn-Dirty-Ape-Just-Fall Peter Jackson King Kong long, but pretty close. There isn’t a reason in God’s Heaven for this film to be two and a half hours long. None.

Someone asked me if this was as “kid’s friendly” as the first, which I thought was a strange notion. There was something kid friendly in the first one, what with those skeletons gutting all those sailors? But, I supposed, that was just gratuitous violence and done in cartoon style. Here, it’s more of the same, only the humor isn’t as well done. Oh, and then there’s that human heart. You don’t see the actual extraction, but you do get to see it beating while it sits in a box. Interesting.

Now, that said, I did like the Kraken. I know other critics who complain that it just keeps popping up, but they’re full of it. The Kraken keeps popping up as part of a running battle. Saying he turns up too often is like complaining that in Sink the Bismark the British kept “popping up” too often.

Further, I really enjoyed Nighy’s turn as Davy Jones, tentacles and all. I like that members of his crew become more and more creatures of the sea. I loved the sheer horror of their fate, much more horrific than what happened to the crew of the Pearl under Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush). You see, Davy Jones makes then volunteer for their fate. And I really loved Bootstrap; Skarsgard is perfect. The scenes between father and son are, for me, excellent.

There are moments of sacrifice that just feel right and proper. There is also an underlying current betrayal, a constant question of who is on whose side. By the time we meander (and I do mean meander) into the last half hour things are beginning to click. When it comes down to the cliffhanger – yes, it is a cliffhanger and you won’t see the end until next summer – I liked the turn of the last card. The final moment before the credits just made me grin from ear to ear.

And damnit, I meant to stay through the credits because there’s supposed to be a bit there that I’m sure will pop up in the next film. There was just such a bit at the end of Curse and it does pop up in this film. (Remember the monkey's fate?)

So, cursed ye pirates, I be going back for more. Gaarrr!

Hamdan: Court tells Congress to go pound sand!

I tried to read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (pdf here). Needless to say, I got a terrible headache.

The more complicated the judicial reasoning -- the more twists and turns a Court makes to support its ruling -- the more likely it is that the Court is going astray. In Plessy the Court went on and on about equal protection, rights, policies, etc., and then declared that separate was, indeed, equal. That decision stood for over 50 years, until Brown v. Board of Education said, "Er, no, no it isn't." By comparison (not just to Plessy but to ther lousy Court rulings), Brown is inspirational in its brevity.

I thought of that as I read the majority's reasoning that a Federal statute lawfully enacted by Congress didn't mean what it said, it actually meant something else, which conveniently allowed the Court to proceed.

US Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to regulation by the Congress (see US Constitution, Article III). Ex Parte McCardle is the classic case, and the first, illustrating the matter. Like Hamdan, McCardle involved a habeas corpus action. Like Hamdan, Congress acted while the McCardle case was working its way through the courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court had already heard oral arguments on the case when Congress explicitly revoked its jurisdiction over the matter. Result? The Court said, "We no longer have jurisdiction." And then they shut up and poor Mr. McCardle was left to seek other remedies.

Would that this Court were as respectful of the Constitution.

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which said in part that only the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC has jurisdiction over any appellate action involving detained enemy combatants (e.g., the Gitmo detainees). By the plain language of the statute, the US Supreme Court should never have heard this case because Congress had explicitly removed it from the Court's jurisdiction, which the Constitution says Congress can do.

This Court thought otherwise. They used "ordinary principles of statutory construction" to say that the DTA didn't really say what it plainly said. The leaps and bounds the majority goes through to come to that conclusion are breath-taking (and, as said, headache inducing). In contrast, Scalia's dissent is straight-forward and clear. The contrast is stark and telling. The majority seized jurisdiction in a matter where the Congress -- not the President, mind you -- said they had none. So much for obeying the rule of law.And that doesn't even get to the heart of the case. Much of the ruling was by a plurality of the Court, meaning it will only be persuasive and not binding on other courts, which means it's a mess.

How a war is conducted is, by the US Constitution, the purview of the President, not the courts, and certainly not the Supreme Court. While the Congress has a say, it often must defer to the President at a time of war in how the President chooses to conduct that war. Period.

Pointedly, the Court is not in that loop at all, yet in this decision they stick their nose in and declare that they do. Most breath-taking is their invocation of Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, which by its own terms cannot apply! Common Article 3 applies in cases of civil war, strictly internal conflicts within a given, signatory nation. It does not apply to international conflicts. Seems like plain language to me, but again, not to this Court. This Court says that the current war on terror, and specifically against al Qaeda, is not an international conflict (despite being fought in nations all around the world) because al Qaeda isn't a nation.

At that point in the decision my head throbbed so hard I had to stop reading.

If anyone asks what is meant by judicial activism, this is what is meant by judicial activism. Contrary to the MSM "news" reports, Hamdan is a relatively mild rebuke of the President. Rather than a win for the rule of law, it is a defeat. It is a major slap at the Congress for having the audacity to attempt to revoke Court jurisdiction. At the end of the day, this is what we have:

• The Court can find jurisdiction whenever and wherever it wants, the explicit will of the Congress notwithstanding. (And if you're terrified of a growing tyranny, that should make your blood run cold.)
• The President is not allowed to conduct military tribunals against detained enemy combatants.
• The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't really apply to this same detainees, so they can't be tried under the UCMJ.
• The President can't try them in regular criminal court, either.
• But, and here's where it just gets to be too much fun, the President can detain them for "the duration of hostilities" because they are, after all, dangerous enemy combatants and the Court not only won't rule otherwise, it actually affirms that authority.

So if you want the detained enemy combatants released, then this ruling is horrific to your cause. As a result of this ruling, the Court has in essence said that indefinite detention is the President's only course of action. It affirms the President's power to declare someone as an enemy combatant (subject to their right to challenge that designation), it affirms that we are in a state of war, and it affirms that an enemy combatant may lawfully be detained for the duration of hostilities.

President Bush was seeking to try the worst of the detainees to move them out of the Gitmo facility and into a more regular prison facility, with a definite time for their release. Those having been handled, he could then release the remaining detainees to their countries of origin and, voila, shut down the detention facilities at Gitmo. This ruling completely stymies that effort, and leaves the 400+ detainees in their current (Court-ruled legal) state of limbo.

Oh, and as a marvelous bit of serendipity, since the Court says it does indeed have appellate jurisdiction over these matters, it may have just opened the floodgates to 600+ habeas corpus appeals. Hope they're not too busy!

Nice going, asshats of the bench!

Why is abortion still a hot button issue?

I mean, haven't you ever wondered? If Roe is "settled" law, if a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is clear and given in the US Constitution, why does it remain the #1 hot button political issue?

Because Roe is not settled law. Because such a right doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Oh, and because abortion supporters are chickenshits. Oh, and anti-abortion members of Congress are also chickenshits. Am I being blunt?

Roe is not settled law because no judicial decision ever is. During recent Senate hearings, we kept hearing about "super precedents". There is no such thing. Stare decisis, the rule of precedents in our judicial system, is a guideline and nothing more. Any past decision is subject to challenge if either the underlying facts or law have changed. For example, in Roe, one of the underlying facts had to do with viability, when a fetus could survive outside the mother's womb. Anyone keeping an eye on the medical science knows that viability improves all the time. Just ask anyone who has given birth to a premature baby. Thus one of the unlying facts of Roe has changed, and continues to change.

Roe is also not settled law because -- surprise -- it's not even the law any more. Roe was partially affirmed and partially overturned by Casey. Casey, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out during his confirmation hearing, is the law, not Roe. Most people still believe that the Roe trimester approach to abortion regulation is still in effect. Nope. The rule is Casey, and Casey says that the states are free to regulate abortion in anyway they see fit as long as it does not create an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion. A two-edged sword, Casey opened the door for states to pass laws mandating parental and spousal notification, which drives abortionists up a wall or two. However, Casey states that the right to abortion is an absolute (bye bye viability!) and opened the door to late-term abortions, such as the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. Under Casey, a woman could be on her way to the delivery room and opt to have an abortion instead.

Do you begin to see why Roe is not "settled" law? It's not even the law, yet everyone still refers to Roe when they discuss abortion rights. It's not settled because a Court could come along and, under the right legal circumstances, toss Roe/Casey out the door. To see an example of a "super precedent" that was treated just that way, consider Plessy, which stated that separate is equal. That law was in place almost 60 years (1896 to 1954) before Brown v. Board of Education declared that separate is not equal. Poof, Plessy vanished. So much for super precedents. As measured against Plessy, Roe and Casey are infants. (No pun intended, though I like the tinge of irony.)

So now we have to wonder why Senators want Roe/Casey treated as some sort of super precedent. First, they understand perfectly that a future Court could see that Roe was one of the most horribly reasoned decisions the Court has ever made, and decide that maybe it's time to eradicate that stupidity. Erasing Roe would mandate reviewing Casey (since Casey is based on Roe), and Casey would similarly be eradicated. So pro-abortion Senators -- or, more accurately, those pandering to the pro-abortion factions -- want to avoid that at all costs.

(Please note right here and now that this is not a pro- or anti-abortion issue. This is a matter of law. And as a matter of law, Roe is one of the Court's least reasoned rulings. When we hit the issue in law school, it was amazing. Even abortion supporters couldn't figure out how the Court came to its conclusions in Roe. As one [pro-abortion] woman put it, it was as though the Court simply ruled the way it did because it wanted to, and legal reasoning be damned.)

So why are allegedly pro-abortion Senators chickenshits? Because, second, if they really gave a rat's ass about protecting a woman's "right to choose" then they would introduce legislation codifying Roe and/or Casey. That's the "check" the Legislature holds over the Judiciary. If they dislike the law that has resulted from a judicial ruling, the Legislature can pass a law reversing that ruling. (It doesn't help the poor slob impacted by the ruling; it just prevents what the Legislature perceives as future injustice.) If the Legislature really wants to keep the Court out of it, they go even further and amend the Constitution.

So if pro-abortion Senators really believed in what they were spouting, they would propose a Constitutional amendment codifying Roe, Casey, or some combination thereof. If such an amendment were successfully added to the US Constitution, there would be an actual right to an abortion, and a woman's precious "right to choose" would be protected from any present or future US Supreme Court.

Of course, the pandering bastards don't do this because they know it would never succeed. They know that the statement "most Americans support a woman's right to choose" is a half-lie because polls show that support really means support for abortion "in cases of rape or incest or if the mother's life is at risk, and then only during the first trimester." They know that the majority does not support abortion on demand, or procedures such as partial-birth abortion, or -- generally -- any abortion after the first trimester.

And I'm talking about women here, because in a number of surveys it turns out that men are far more in favor of abortion than women (contradicting claims by NOW and others). Even allowing for that, the above poll results still hold.

So those pompous bastards who bark that they support a woman's right to choose, i.e., abortion, don't. They are chickenshits.

And to that precise degree, Senators who claim to be anti-abortion are also chickenshits because they could propose legislation and/or a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe/Casey. But they don't.

So abortion remains a hot button issue when, in reality, it doesn't have to be. If one side or the other proposed legislation either supporting or tossing Roe/Casey, we -- as a nation -- could have the massive national debate over the matter that the Court in Roe denied us. We could get the issue settled. You know, do that democracy thing. That, of course, would require the US Senate to do its job rather than posture and pontificate. And they are much better at that, strutting peacocks that they are.

Kung Fu, F You!

Now this is funny.

What Kind of American English Do I Speak?

Your Linguistic Profile:

75% General American English

10% Dixie

5% Upper Midwestern

5% Yankee

0% Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

Autorantic Virtual Moonbat

I may be late to the party, but still...

Ubuntu bye bye

I give up, I surrender. Once upon a time I might have had the energy or inclination to put up with all of this, but not now and not today. Maybe if I strike it rich and can spend a week or so tinkering with an operating system (ah, the days of old...sans riches, that is) I'll give it another go. But for now...

Bye bye, Ubuntu. Bye bye, Linux.

Obviously I'm more in love with the concept of Linux (in all its assorted flavors) than with the reality of living with Linux (in any of its assorted flavors). I frankly loved working with the WindowMaker interface (window manager, in technical terms), but that's all.

What brings me to this conclusion was Ubuntu Linux Dapper Drake, v6. I had previously tried Breezy Badger (v5) and was impressed but not won over. But with Dapper, Beta 2, I really got excited. Somewhere along the line I tried a live CD and everything just worked. Cool. I used Partition Magic to open up some room on my laptop and installed the beta. Everything just worked. Perfectly.

But then I hit the release candidates. I believe it was around Beta 5 or so. The Internet just went away. Mind you, I hadn't changed a thing on this machine. After that update (downloaded via the Internet, o' irony), poof, no Internet connection. Boot over to XP, seek help, try a flurry of suggestions, nothing works.

I relaxed, figured I'd just want for the actual release before trying again. I did and when v6.06LTS was released, I bit-torrented it onto a local drive, created an install CD, and started that sucker up. Installed perfectly. Everything worked again. Oh joy and happy day!

Day.

It installed v2.6.15-23-386 of the Linux kernel. A short while later there was an update to -25- of the kernel. Bye bye, Internet. Boot back to the -23- kernel. Works for a few minutes, then nada.

Boot back to XP, searched for answers, find a slight flurry of suggestions (enough to tell me I'm not the only one with the problem), and none of them work. For that matter, none appear to work for others who are having the same issue.

So Ubuntu, as of v6.06LTS, is a Linux dead end. It was far and away the best distro I had tried. Mandrake to Mandriva, Red Hat to Fedora Core, Knoppix, SUSE, Damn Small, and even the now-defunct Evil Entity (and oh, I really wanted that one to work; the name alone made it worth the effort).

So, sigh, in a few minutes I'll press the "back up now, damnit" button on my extenal HDD. When that's done, I'll run Partition Magic and recover the space I had created for Linux. Then I'll run the XP recovery console and zap the MBR. When I'm done (in less than an hour) I'll have a pure XP laptop again. And note that all of those steps will work and I can do them with my eyes closed.

So, adios, Linux. Next time I wander through the operating system jungle, it will be to visit Mac OS X, which I understand is the best Linux/Unix distro in the known universe. Sounds good to me!

Wow, my sleep pose...

Find your own pose!

The Chicks don't get patriotism

Truly, I'll finish this and be done with The Dixie Chicks. This, however, was all just too juicy to pass up.

For the London Telegraph, The Chicks gave an interview. If they have expressed similar things in the US media, I haven't seen it. Again, we see the massive expression of their, er, bravery....

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

So, what The Chicks did had nothing to do with promoting their career. So all those appearances for Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, et al, had nothing to do with promoting their career. I get it. They speak with courage, others exploit. Sure.

Maybe they are familiar with the phrase: Good for the goose, good for the gander. Their accusation flies both ways. If we are to take their critique of Bush and Iraq as honest, then why can't we take the critique of them as honest? Oh, that's right, if you support Bush and the war you are, by definition, a lying bastard. I keep forgetting that....

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

First, let's understand what "pandering" means, aside from the traditional definition (to pander is to perform the job of a pimp, setting up customers for whores). In its current usage "to pander" or "pandering" means you are playing false to a crowd. That is, you are promoting ideas that you don't believe in but that your crowd does. You pretend support in order to gain favor from the crowd.

Remember, Maines made her original statement before a London audience, not a Texas audience. Almost seems like...pandering....

But not really because it's clear that Maines truly believes in what she said, so she wasn't pandering. When she makes the accusation here, though, she's saying that the artists using the flag and soldiers in their videos don't believe in the mission, the troops, or the country, and thus are pandering. Again, it's an easy accusation but is she saying that, oh, Tobey Keith is lying when he sings in support of the troops or the country, that he doesn't really believe in what he's singing? Again, they want it both way. Anyone who opposes Bush, the war, etc., is speaking the truth, while anyone who supports Bush, the war, etc., is pandering.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

We start with a few definitions of patriotism that you can find on the Web:

• love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and patriotic sentiments ran high"
  [wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
• Patriotism is a feeling of love and devotion to one's own homeland (patria, the land of one's fathers). This article surveys the concept of patriotism from the viewpoints of history, politics, ethics, and biology.
  [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism]
• To show love, support, and sacrifice for one's country.
  [www.nps.gov/mana/education/vocab.htm]

To be generous, I'd say that Maines is young and ignorant. Why do people care about patriotism? That depends a great deal on how much you feel you have benefitted by being a citizen of your country. I would imagine that if you had been born in Russia during the Stalin era you might not feel very patriotic, given his penchant for purges.

On the other hand, if you lived in a country that afforded you the opportunity to pursue your musical dreams, to rise to the top in your field, to have your music played throughout the country and around the world.... In other words, if you were The Dixie Chicks, wouldn't you have some love for the country that gave you birth and afforded you the opportunity to become what you are?

Well, apparently not, and she doesn't "understand the necessity" for patriotism. Given that, I can assume that if ever in the future I hear the phrases "I support the troops" or "I love my country" or anything similar coming from the mouth of Natalie Maines, she is pandering, i.e., lying through her teeth.

Oh, and a clarification re The Chicks new producer....

The recruitment of Rick Rubin as producer, the man who rejuvenated Johnny Cash, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Neil Diamond and others, is guaranteed to extend the Chicks' appeal, though it would be disappointing if the album's thoughtful range of subject matter (from IVF to Alzheimer's) was overshadowed by the Bush episode.

I don't see hip hop on the list, but Rubin may handle that, too. And I love that word, "rejuvenated". Did any of those performers need rejuvenation? Do The Chicks need rejuvenating? Interesting.

Is Howard Dean insane?

Quote:

If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America....

DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY', 13 June 2006.

It is instructive to note:

1) The bit about being indicted for perjury comes from an unsupported story that TruthOut published a month ago. Their “report” was that the special prosecutor was about to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators (essentially the same charges already filed against Scooter Libby). This bit, “[i]f Karl Rove had been indicted” is beyond sheer speculation and is utterly meaningless. Rove wasn't indicted so speculating about what a non-existent indictment might have contained is inane. Dean might as easily have said, “If Rove had been indicted it would have been for bitch slapping me in public, though I did deserve it.” There was not, is not, and probably will never be an indictment against Rove for anything regarding Valerie Plame.

2) No one has been accused of “leaking the name of an intelligence operative”. No one. The possibility of such a leak, in violation of Federal law, was the reason for the entire investigation. Years into this mess, no one has been accused because in all likelihood the “crime” never occurred. A criminal law defines the elements needed to violate that law. The elements of the offense don’t exist here, so no violation of the relevant statute(s) occurred, so this “sin” is a figment of Dean’s fevered mind. This inconvenient truth (!) is constantly ignored by Joe “I Squandered My 'Credibility' for Kerry” Wilson, [No]TruthOut, [We Can't] MoveOn, and et al of the fever swamp left. It is also clearly ignored by Dr. Dean.

3) The phrase “during the time of war.” Wow, that is an amazing admission. We now have Howard Dean on record as recognizing that the United States is engaged in a war, and that this state of war existed before we invaded Iraq. A real live war. Dr. Dean should be prepared for all the consequences that flow from that state of affairs, because if you actually read the US Constitution you see that, yes, when it comes to waging war the President is allowed all sorts of latitude that he isn’t otherwise allowed. Thanks for the admission, Howard, I didn't think you comprehended reality so well!