CollegePundit

Moussaoui Gets Life

2006-05-03T18:42:00.000-04:00

I can't say that I'm all that surprised. The reaction across a lot of blogs has been that of outrage - many are vexed that he didn't get the death penalty - I can't help but feel the same way. Like I said in my comment over at Wizbang, I would have loved nothing more than a firing squad to light his ass up like a Fourth of July display using rocket launchers as the matches. But anything like that is not going to happen, short of a little "prison justice".

What I will say is that, in the face of the government almost losing on the basis of a mistrial from stupid mistakes, Moussaoui getting anything is a miracle. Some are already settling for "at least he doesn't get to be a martyr". Yeah, its technically true, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people want him to die - myself included.

He'll likely spend the rest of his miserable life in solitary confinement, with all correspondence being carefully monitored - hopefully a lot of it never making its way to him. Finally, when it gets to be just a little too much for him to handle - what, with no human contact, let alone sympathy - maybe he'll find a way to do take care of it himself?

Dark thinking, to be sure, but one can't help but indulge in just a little of it today when you think of what could - and should - have been.

On Disrespecting the Dead

2006-04-20T22:55:00.000-04:00

I had sworn to myself that I would (in all likelihood) never talk about Cindy Sheehan again. At first I had thought her "star" in foaming-leftist circles would eventually fall. I waited through the marches, the arrests. I bided my time through her cozying up to dictators like Hugo Chavez. I even expected a semi-reasonable answer to why she hadn't purchased a headstone for her son Casey - the very cause of her "peace protest".

So what does she do? She smears anyone within a thirty mile radius:

I will tell the world why Casey has no marker yet. In the first place, does anyone who is attacking me know how Casey was brought home from Iraq? We picked him up in the United loading dock in a cardboard box and he was off-loaded into a hearse without one honor guard. We had to wait for about a half hour on a curb near the United freight area for his one escort, who rode from Dover Air Force Base in a seat, while Casey was treated as an over-sized piece of luggage. Has anybody held her other sobbing children who are sitting on a curb in San Francisco, waiting for the remains of their big brother to be carried over to the dock by a forklift?

Now, I may be a naive little college student, but I suspect that dead bodies are not delivered in cardboard boxes - especially United States military servicemen and women.

As it turns out, infinitely better-qualified sources went ahead and proved that out.

Every, single consideration could and was made for the respectful return of Sgt. Sheehan's remains. I mean, good Lord, the funeral home paid for the costs of the cemetary burial - they were friends of the Sheehan family!

The unmitigated, repulsive gall of Cindy Sheehan just knows no bounds. She has constructed a new sort of private hell atop of the one she made after her son had died - one where she lives in a world forever discredited, and forever scorned for lying about the funeral of her son.

What kind of madness do we live in to let someone do this to themselves?

Snowball.

2006-02-26T22:31:00.000-05:00

God, has it really been so long since I last updated?

Obviously, an explanation is in order - it's called "exams". I had a lot of them. More papers (and pages therein) than I care to think about - I had at least six to write for Theories of International Relations alone, four on government, video games, and the first amendment (believe you me, its a big undertaking), and others that I care not think about.

I'm already well into my next semester (only two more after this one, God willing), so updating will STILL be a bit spotty. This blog may actually be a useful catalyst for some of my other Political Science classes - you (and I) will likely see some of my more off-the-wall ideas and thoughts being spelled out here.

Profuse apologies for the lack of updates, but I'll likely get around to posting on current events this week. Hopefully.

When Politicos Attack!

2005-09-23T09:40:00.000-04:00

Just a quickie update to my post from Wednesday. Michelle Malkin has weighed in on the subject, and links to a Washington Post editorial that essentially shakes its finger at the DSCC for fraudulently possessing Lt. Governor Michael Steele's credit record, but then takes a moment to remind us that Republicans do bad things too - referencing the infamous incident with President Nixon's "Plumbers" and the wiretapping of a Democratic party building in Virginia.

First and foremost - that foolishness happened thirty years ago and, while shameful in its own right, that stuff is long since in the past. Get over it.

Secondly, this lunacy that the theft of someone's personal financial information, strictly on the basis of smearing Michael Steele for having (God forbid!) debt, is somehow just a sign he has arrived in "big-time politics" is just that - lunacy. If I have my credit information stolen and used maliciously, have I arrived in "Big-time" Politics/Stardom/Blogging-Punditry? No, frankly, I haven't. This bizarre idea that it is public acceptance that we let this go as "Capitol Hill politics" drives me insane. When is it "politics" and when is it a flagrant violation of the law that transcends "political need"?

The DSCC had no business going through his finances, and yet we're supposed to just lay back and accept it as politics? God, who would want to be in the public sector if you frequently ran the risk of having your credit report illegally obtained and then used against you?

washington post

Well, well.

2005-09-21T23:22:00.000-04:00

God, I take a break from blogging (longer than usual, I know - stop reminding me, all two of you), and then the Democrats have to go and pull crap like this and just pull me back in.

It doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that the Democratic Senatorial Committee's possession of Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele's credit records is highly illegal. It doesn't take a lawyer to tell you that, in all likelihood, that their possession of a credit report is only the tip of the iceberg - pundits, experts, and lawyers all alike will tell you that identity theft runs a little deeper than just a credit report. The DSCC now gets to have the FBI shove a probe up their nose, and this half-wit "apology" just isn't going to fly. Their spokesman, Phil Singer, goes on to speculate that other requests for information from the Governor, Robert Ehrlich, and Lt. Governor Michael Steele are being stonewalled to "hide something", dating back to June when this story first started to break. So two "errant" employees then look into Michael Steele's credit record. I guess the two employees throwing themselves on the sword is supposed to be some kind of pennance, right? Give me a break.

What this will look like is the Democrats fearing that a Michael Steele candidacy for Senate will actually happen - and that their washed-up, racist, has-been candidate Kweisi Mfume is going to get the bejeesus kicked out of him. True or not, snooping into someone's credit records just reflects on the Democrats in the worst possible way.

Does anyone else just boggle at the implications that, if they wanted to, any major political party with a few bucks, a phone, and an axe to grind could find out the credit history of not just their opponents, but anyone? The mind reels, folks. If you think a politician, who probably has far-superior means of protecting his identity and sensitive information, can be undone by a political committee, how do you think you or I should feel? Campaign fundraisers suddenly get their names thrown into the press because, God forbid, they missed a car payment. Regular supporters, all the way down to the $20-Minimum-Donation level, might suddenly find a magnifying glass shoved up their ass about a television they bought in 2004. The criminality of this is just insane.

What really pisses me off is that this kind of story - the kind of "See? See how Big Brother is a bad idea?" story - is summarily buried in the back of newspapers in the "Digest" section. The obvious violation of someone's privacy - "public figure" or not - is just not important to the press. Instead it's them getting all in a lather about being called on the carpet for being "stuck on stupid" when it comes to accuracy in reporting a hurricane evacuation plan. Or, here in Maryland, deciding that a Republican political operative, not acting on the Governor's orders, who speculates about Democratic mayor Martin O'Malleys infidelity is front page news.

But it suddenly isn't important that a politician's identity is stolen - especially since he's on the "wrong" side.

Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-02T19:13:00.000-04:00

No creative titles, no witty banter - I've been reading all about this truly horrible event and how many bloggers have been doing astounding amounts of reporting and research. I'm not even going to pretend I can match the level of effort these people. Just a brief run-through of places to go, things to read.

Hurricaid blog is the clearinghouse for a lot of Hurricane Katrina-related information and charities to donate through.

Wizbang, period. Paul is riding this entire thing out down in New Orleans, and updates whenever he can with new information (God bless him).

Michelle Malkin has tons and tons of stories out of NO, from looting to stories of heroism and bravery.

Radio host and blogger Hugh Hewitt has been coordinating with NZ Bear (of The Truth Laid Bear blog and ecosystem) and Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit) for Blogger Relief efforts (which has been expanded into the Labor Day weekend - I'll likely be donating a bit of money to some of these wonderful causes). Check out the TTLB Katrina Relief page for the blogs, donors, and charities listed on there. If you are so compelled, donate or participate by blogging - even $20 can go a long way.

Video game gurus and cartoon duo Gabe and Tycho of Penny-Arcade.com are putting up an original piece of artwork on an eBay auction, with all proceeds going straight to the American Red Cross. As of this posting, it is up to eight hundred and ten dollars ($810). Truly wonderful stuff. Their Child's Play charity is something to bookmark for revisiting around the holidays - they do astounding amounts of work for children in hospitals.

I'll make every effort I can to get back and post a lot more on the ongoing efforts to restore life back into the afflicted areas

Wham Wham Wham Wham

2005-08-28T21:08:00.000-04:00

A truly dumb story out of Dallas, Texas (with a hat tip to Say Anything) has a Dallas school board voting 5-4 on a resolution that requires adminstrators in the system to learn Spanish or risk losing their jobs. The reason?

To better communicate with immigrant parents.

First and foremost, I have to admit that this is completely lost on me. Immigrants are getting a message that English is optional in Dallas, because we force our administrators to talk to you in your native language, or we'll can their ass. What happened to the idea that integration meant that the immigrants, not the natives, learned the language of their new country, and not have the natives speak to them in their own language?

This lowers the bar so far down to the ground it's ridiculous - the (legal, legal) immigrants should be learning English, not our school administrators learning Spanish. Otherwise, what is the point of emigrating to this country, where the native language is (still!) ENGLISH. It isn't sensical to require an administrator to bend over that far backwards to accomodate someone who is unwilling to learn the language (or well-practiced in it, for that matter).

The Magical Hysteria Tour

2005-08-26T21:20:00.000-04:00

So now Cindy Sheehan is going to be taking up a bus tour on September 1st, all around the country (h/t Wuzzadem), finally ending in a 24-hour "peace vigil" in Washington, DC. She will be taking along all those lovely supporters of hers along for the ride, I'm sure.

The sound you hear is the sound of me pounding my head against my desk.

Frankly, I've given up. I honestly can't defend Cindy Sheehan after I read about her taking part in this garbage. I can't defend her surrounding herself with the very vultures I criticized in my first post on this subject any more - she seems to be thriving under their very wings. This stuff is just simply vile and indefensible, and I kick myself for even trying to rationalize it. I spent the better part of today thinking about Cindy Sheehan's situation, and I started getting angry. Not just at the rest of the anti-war / pro-terror crowd (that much is a given), but at the way she is treating her son's selfless actions and the causes for which he has fought.

I am, officially, angry at Cindy Sheehan.

Why the turn-around? The turnaround has happened in a way that I honestly never would have thought would happen - I realized that Cindy Sheehan does not appreciate anything her son has done. Nothing, to date, has shown this to be true.

Close your e-mail and bear with me a second, here.

Think of it this way - what has Cindy Sheehan said that has been respectful of her son's choice or, for that matter, her freedom to say whatever she pleases? Mrs. Sheehan has stated, categorically, that the Constitution doesn't exist as a basis of law in this country any more. She has stated that there are no checks and balances, no mechanism for balance in this country.

Were that to be true, she would be quite dead by now. Along with, most likely, the rest of the anti-war activists in this country. Why? 'Cuz there's no law in these here parts.

But the converse of that last statement is true - she is very much alive, and very much protected in what she can say publicly and in private, whether one likes it or not.

So now she has gone and just spat upon the ideals her son enlisted to defend. What a wonderful way to treat your son. The same son she had no qualms in waving his bloody shirt while she bellows from the rooftops about how George W. Bush is a murderer, Israel should get out of Palestine, and how the entire political and social schemata of the United States is a complete and utter fraud. She may have thought, at some point, that you were in a cause for justice - now she finds that she is in the company of fools and hypocrites. Her right to say what she wants does not appear in a vacuum - someone had to die for it, fighting against hostile enemies at home and abroad, in order to preserve it for another day.

What will happen when some force tries to invade our shores? Do you really expect to be able to say what you want about them then, as you face occupation? Or are you going to go groveling back to the very government you hate to plead for your safety, only to stab them in the back again once that safety is assured? Would you really do that to the rest of the men and women who have and had taken up the same cause that you son had done? Would you really be that cruel to your own son's memory and cause? Would you really want to admit that, yes, I want to stifle the cause my son has fought for, even if it puts this country in great peril?

I wouldn't really blame you for being that selfish - no mother ever enjoys seeing her son go off to war - but there is a point where you just have to let go and cut the proverbial apron strings. But "sacrifice" has to come at something that you willingly gave up - something that you have not done. It is completely inaccurate to say that Casey Sheehan was "sacrificed" for this war - Cindy Sheehan would have had to agree with it in the first place to do such a thing (and that's assuming Casey did everything he was told by her). Casey Sheehan, not Cindy, sacrificed his own life for a cause he believed in - Cindy apparently does not share these same views.

That last line usually draws the most ire from the anti-war activists and the Cindyphiles - you don't care, you don't care at all! The question is, do you really care if Cindy gets her "closure" with her meeting with the President? I sincerely doubt you would, since your (and I'm not going to mince words, here) fucked-up-love-in would then have to end. The very questions you have about the justifications for war, you have already answered in your own mind - you just want this parade to go on forever because the "answers" (which have been given time and again for the last five years) that have an actual bearing on reality are ones you don't want to hear. Instead you cup your hands over your ears and shout "LA LA LA I can't hear you! Abu Ghraaaaaaib!" and loudly proclaim that everyone who criticizes the garbage that comes out of your mouth is using "hate speech". That "hate speech" rule goes flying out the window when it comes time for the next chorus of "Bush is Hitler!" and "No Blood for Oil! Israel out of Palestine!" and then carousing with Neo-Nazis and terrorist sympathizers.

You want the war to end? Then let it end - support the troops in their efforts to get the job done and get home. You don't have to agree with the reasons - you obviously don't - but don't piss on their leg and tell them it's raining.

The Cindy Sheehan Story

2005-08-21T00:04:00.000-04:00

By now, everyone and their pet dog has heard of the "plight" of Cindy Sheehan, the aggrieved mother who lost a son in President Bush's war for oil. She had been camping outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas for several weeks now, demanding another meeting with him and calling for a stop to the "war for oil".

Only thing is, her son Casey would argue that it was a war for the freedom of the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam Hussein, not a war to enrich oil cronies of the Bush Administration.

Mrs. Sheehan's supporters would have you believe otherwise - they've been saying so for years.

I must admit that I honestly believed that the press coverage of this matter would go on for, say, three days and essentially dry up. I am frequently reminded of how badly I underestimate the media's ability to flood the zone with wall-to-wall coverage of this story. I had honestly thought "Gee, would the media really go so far as to jam a camera in the face of an aggrieved woman, day after day, even if it were to fit an agenda of their own?" I had seriously thought they wouldn't spotlight it for this long - it would be like a video of a man getting hit by a bus, over and over again - visually and emotionally unpleasant.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

To the contrary, Mrs. Sheehan seemed to thrive on the attention and coddling the press gave her. She's had several thoughts on everything - from the war on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, you name it! Naturally, liberals swarm to her like bees to honey - she's walking the walk and talking the talking points, as far as they're concerned, and they're looking to encourage that by feeding her statements on those subjects. What they're not concerned with is not looking like goddamn vultures, swirling around a juicy bit of meat.

If I seem angry about this, it's because I am. I am disgusted, beyond compare, that this has been turned into a three-ring circus, just because it fits the anti-war agenda. I am appalled because the anti-war left somehow has no qualm with using this woman's (misdirected, in my honest opinion) grief for their own gain. I mean, if my grandmother were to die tomorrow from lung cancer, would I be OK in using my grief over her death to blame cigarette companies and doctors, suing them left and right with the help of the anti-smoking lunatic organizations?

No, I wouldn't, and do you know why? Because people make choices. Cindy Sheehan's son made a choice to serve in the armed forces - nobody stole him from his bed, gave him a lobotomy, and told him to goose-step to George W. Bush's orders. Those people can choke on their God-forsaken Starbucks coffee if they think like that. Casey Sheehan recognized a calling, a calling to serve this country in a purpose higher than something the Congress, Judiciary, or the Presidency could accomplish by themselves. He fought for the ideals this country was founded upon (and similarly fought for), and believed that democracy should not be kept up in domain of the few. He died in the service of this country, and democracy.

Make no mistake, I have enormous sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan's loss. I understand, to a point, he reasons for wanting to blame the President for her son's death - grief can do a lot more talking than rational thought. What infuriates me is the anti-war left using her as their "cause celebre", and then using her as a puppet for the promotion of their agenda.

How sick do you have to be to put aside morals, principles, and general sense to do such a thing to a grieving woman? Moreover, how can anyone with common decency defend what they are doing? This has turned into a 24/7 GriefWatch! You know what happens when the public interest, invariably, moves onto something else? The tent folds up, the stakes are pulled up from the ground, and the circus moves to a new town.

Only, this time, they're going to leave a woman even more broken and disillusioned than before, and that's the real tragedy here.

If Cindy Sheehan really wants to confront the reason her son had died, Laurence Simon has an on-point assessment as to with whom she needs to speak.

I'll give you a hint, it's not George W. Bush.

DUI Determination Method 'Unconstitutional'?

2005-08-14T20:29:00.000-04:00

I just read a fascinating story over at Say Anything today. A district judge in Virginia ruled that components of the state's law regarding DUI cases (more specifically, the methods that police employ to determinte Blood Alcohol Level of a driver) were unconstitutional!

He went on to state that "it presumes an individual with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher is intoxicated and denies a defendant’s right to the presumption of innocence." Meaning, the standards are set so low that anybody - no matter the tolerance they have for alcohol - could qualify as "intoxicated", even if they really were not.

I hate to disagree with Ace about it, but it makes a lot of sense. I could be completely fine at .08 whereas someone else my age could be swerving everywhere and being a general sloppy drunk. Why should I be in fear of or get nailed with the same penalties that someone who actually is under the influence? Wouldn't I actually have to demonstrate that I was drunk first, rather than be pulled over and submit to a test? A test where, in some states, you can still be arrested for declining it on suspicion on driving while intoxicated.

The standard is entirely out of whack. I'd think that there would be a graduated scale for determining "drunkeness" whilst driving - where, say, driving at .095 doesn't have as severe a penalty as driving at .10. You should only be guilty of driving under the influence if and only if it impairs your ability to operate an automobile. BAC shouldn't be the sole determinant of this, as it is extremely subjective and could be punishing people who are otherwise capable and competent drivers.

I mean, come on - have you seen the way some people drive while stone cold sober?!

Reheated Hot Coffee

2005-08-12T22:17:00.000-04:00

Probably the last post on those eeeeeevil video games and the "Hot Coffee" mod fiasco. But, then again, I am a ginormous video game afficionado - which, in some circles, translates into a psycho-killah in the making.

Anyhoo, there was a drive by Michigan Democrats last week (as well as a few Republicans, so this does cut across the aisle) to make sure that the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas recall was "complete". By "complete", I can only take that to mean "blow this completely out of proportion and blame the wrong people". From this entire fiasco, we can establish a few basic things :

1) Grand Theft Auto has mature content,

2) the GTA developer left in a juvenile sex game as unused code that was not intended for activation,

3) Said developer neglected to tell the Entertainment Software Ratings Board that, oops, they left that in there. But its ok because its unfinished code and absolutely nobody has the will or means of decompiling and examining their code. All of our customers are idiots!

4) Rockstar Games finds out the hard way that, surpise-surprise, not all of their customers are idiots and that they managed to gain access to the unused "Hot Coffee" code after all! Not only that, they went public with it, so now we get to get all the PR vultures out there fighting for a microphone to make blanket denunciations about video games as an entire medium. Not surprising, given the fish-like attention spans that some of these parents had to have had when they buy these Mature rated games for their ten-year-old. It's amazing, sometimes, that these people know which end is up on a tax return.

So what do we have going on in Michigan? We have a bunch of politicians hemming and hawing and "urging" retailers to pull a game they have (if they're smart) already pulled from their shelves. Wow, thank God we have a legislature to spring into action to "urge" retailers to do something they've already done. Wouldn't want that redundancy to go to waste.

Meanwhile, the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, sent letters to retailers in the state to urge them not to carry games that have an Adults Only rating. While there have only been three "Adults Only" rated games (and 14 "other" media - namely screensavers or imported software) on the ESRB site, never once have they been sold at the retail level on a mass scale. Meaning, Wal-Mart and Target don't carry Leisure Suit Larry or Singles as part of their regular video game stock - nor, that list now includes, the currently-rated-AO Grand Theft Auto.

So, the Governor lunges into action by making sure that retailers are (redundantly) urged to not carry Adults Only games, like Wal-Mart is suddenly going to become "Whip-n-Chains-Mart" tomorrow. Retailers, not surprisingly, are exceptionally gunshy about selling AO games anyway, so thats why you see a lot more "Mature" rated games that were once AO - the developers took a lot of the content out to meet the "M" rating's requirements. Reminding them of long-standing policy is pretty hollow.

The state legislature's Senate passed a bill, SB249, back in May that made it a crime for a retailer to sell or rent an M or AO rated game to anyone under the age of 18. The Michigan House is currently looking over the bill, seeing if it can survive the immediate challenges that'll be brought on by the ESRB. This would all sound honky-dory, if but for one thing.

It is not the retailer's job to be the parent in this equation.

Nor should they be in fear of being punished because a careless parent buys a kid an M or AO-rated game by proxy. In any case, most retailers have beaten most state legislatures to the punch by "carding" kids who want to buy those kind of games - I know for a fact that Target has, on three different occassions, asked that I show a driver's license when I tried to purchase a copy of Halo (M-rated), Resident Evil 4 (M-rated), and Soldier of Fortune 2 (M-rated). I mean, I don't even look 18 anymore (I would hope, anyway) but I can appreciate the lengths that retailers are already going to try and stem the rush of underage kids buying Mature-rated content.

Rather, I would think that the best way to deal with the problem of kids getting their hands on material ill-suited for the age level is to start fining the parents. This neatly solves two things - ignorance about the ratings sytem (would you really want to buy an M-rated game for a ten year old after it cost you, say, ten times the price of the game when you were fined by the government the first time?), and the source of cash to actually buy them ($500 is a huge negative financial motivator to not buy Mature-rated video games for your child...ever again.)

Will that ever happen? Perhaps, when pigs fly.

But I'll end with one last point, with an excerpt in the AP article on GTA's re-rating:

...[State] Senator Mark Schauer said the rating change did little to change his mind that the industry can no longer effectively regulate the sale of M- and AO-rated games. "It is disgusting that these types of images are available," he reportedly said. "It's pornography."

That is just absurd. Treating the deception perpetrated by Rockstar Games as a means to tear down the ESRB does so much more to hinder than actually help this situation to improve. The ESRB was told by Rockstar Games, in their original submission of content highlights for rating, that this, that, and the other was "all" the objectionable content inside their game. They did not tell the ESRB about "Hot Coffee", they got the M rating they wanted, they sent the game to retail, made their money, and then the lid was blown off on their deception. Does the ESRB need to improve its rating methods? Undoubtably- Rockstar Games has proven that taking a developer at their word is not good enough any more, which is a damn shame (but ultimately not surprising). But for politicians and public crusaders to use this as the "be-all, end-all" cudgel to crush the ESRB is just suicidal - does anybody really think that government regulation will solve the problem of inattentive parents and deceptive developers? Instead, how about we start seeing a little bit more public shaming of Rockstar Games and Take-Two (the publisher) for putting this kind of garbage in the game and then trying to lie about it?

Those two are the real enemy in this situation - not the ESRB, not retailers, and certainly not the video game industry as a whole.

A News Icon has Died

2005-08-08T08:35:00.000-04:00

Just received the news that ABC News anchor Peter Jennings has lost his battle with lung cancer. He will be missed, to be sure.

Today should not be a day to analyze his impact on the Mainstream Media, or what he should/not have done in his life - it is way too soon to judge. My sympathy and condolences go out to Peter's family, and I wish them well.

Michelle Malkin, as always, has a roundup of reactions from across the web. I will, likely, be back later this afternoon or evening with a more thorough response to this very sad event.

Rest in peace, Peter.

*UPDATE*

Apologies, I will not have much of an update forthcoming. Many people have written far better responses than I could have, and the Trackbacks alone in the link to Michelle Malkin's blog easily captures the gravity of the event. It is truly sad to have anyone pass away from cancer, and I can only imagine it was magnified ten times by the public stature that Peter Jennings held. Best wishes with the family.

Update to "Hot Coffee" Scandal

2005-08-06T22:04:00.000-04:00

This post is rated "PG-13" for mildly offensive language and situations.
This post is also rated "M" for Mature, as it contains arguments that should be handled by those possessing a modicum of maturity and common sense.

There is some continuing fallout from the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" story I covered briefly a ways back.

It turns out that Jack Thompson, the staunch critic of the video game industry, may have been (according to GameSpot.com) receiving death threats (scroll to "Rumor #2") over his public criticism of Grand Theft Auto and Rockstar Games. I would say that, in all likelihood, he is receiving such threats - the non-denial by the FBI that an investigation is underway pretty much seals the deal that this is actually occurring.

Let me state this now - I do not agree with Thompson's methodology (or, for that matter, his lava-heated rhetoric) in terms of criticizing the video game industry, but I for damn sure don't disagree enough to ever wish him ill will or to put up with people even jokingly suggest that kind of thing. That's just wrong.

He is, meanwhile, back in the public eye with fresh criticism for a game called "Killer 7", a game developed by Capcom Inc. for the Nintendo GameCube and Sony PlayStation 2. He cites a review from IGN.com, a popular video game and media review site, where he quotes how the review describes that the game contains "full blown sex sequences". The "sequence" is two fully-clothed characters, to put it delicately, vocally enjoying the pleasure of each other's company (but not "The Act" or any nudity). The IGN review in question goes on to state, very bluntly, that the game is rated "M" for Mature for a reason - it contains material COMPLETELY inappropriate for someone under the age of 17 as it contains blood, gore, violence, and sexual situations. I mean, thats pretty clear, right? Parents shouldn't, under any circumstances, be buying this for any of their kids under that age. But it isn't any more lethal and dangerous than an R movie, as those have an age-limit of 17, too.

The ethical, and social, question becomes this - how can games and movies be rated so similarly, and yet treated so differently? An R movie (and, for that matter, even some PG-13 ones) is no better for children than an M rated game, yet I don't see nearly as much ink being spilled and oxygen being spent on movies being the root cause for the "harm to our children". Where the hell is the fair application of these standards to movies, TV, and games? The video game industry has the ESRB for a reason - to impartially rate the content of a video game so a buyer can make an informed decision as to the kind of material they are bringing into their home. Meaning, if you are the parent of a teenage son, who is not 17, you are likely better off buying way less "M" rated games (if any at all) and more "T" (for Teen, appropriately enough) games to better suit his age and maturity level.

Jack Thompson, instead, completely misses the point about the rating system, or Killer 7's rating. The system is (by and large) completely fine in regards to rating the content of games - it is the dumb-assery of parents who can't be bothered to read a label that is the problem. Dismantling the ESRB or instituting government controls will only exacerbate the problem further, and completely overlooks the fact that the ESRB can only go so far in terms of preventing kids from getting material completely inappropriate for them. The ESRB cannot stay a parent's hand from reaching for the credit card when their 12 year old wants the latest copy of Grand Theft Auto - that violates a whole new set of legal tenets about privacy and the ideals of free choice, something with which Mr. Thompson should be well-acquainted.

Thompson further ruins any of his arguments by giving the perception of being completely wild-eyed about every popular game on the market. His (laughably) calling the game The Sims 2 as "worse than Hot Coffee" for its "nudity" demonstrates that he, clearly, isn't examining the game completely. Egad, comically-pixelated, "nude" Sims is suddenly "Adults Only" material! EA Games, demonstrating a God-like ability to not burst out laughing when they said this, stated that, even if you remove the pixelation, the Sims are about as nude as a pantless Ken and Barbie doll - in other words, nothing there to see, folks.

Do I think the ESRB is perfect? Not completely - the fact their review system largely just requires a video, provided by a game's developer, with "content highlights" that may raise concern isn't always going to be enough. The juvenile antics of Rockstar Games just sneaking it past the ESRB into the final game, even if it can't be accessed by normal means in-game, proves this to be inadequate. I would expect the ESRB to adopt a "trust, but verify" position - they'll take a developer's opinion on the face of it, but want to draw their own conclusions just to be sure. That may have to go as far as the rating board having to play the game (horrors!), maybe even pick over the game's source code if they have to. Is it going to be unpopular with developers if it gets to that point? You bet it will. But they'll only have Rockstar Games to thank for screwing up things up for everyone - maybe then the developer community and some buyers can start exerting some peer pressure to make better-suited games, instead of lowest-common-denominator dreck.

Installing a government oversight program is completely wrong for dealing with this situation, as it is going to put bureaucrats who are, to put it nicely, bureaucrats - completely unqualified to make a decision above what tie color they should wear. The government would then seek to put a highly subjective set of standards into place to rate a game's material - instead of the set-in-stone guidelines for ratings in the ESRB's system. Think of it this way - how do you think a parent is going to feel about a game having a rating description "May or may not be too violent or offensive for some, we're not quite sure, we'll need more time and money to study the issue and come to a conclusion maybe in six months"? I mean, do we really need to turn a possible government facet into something that can turn into a game of political one-up-manship? Do we really need another set of shit-fits by politicians because someone appointed to the video game ratings board is "too liberal/radical/conservative/libertarian/green" for the job?

You want to solve the problem of controversial games possibly interfering with your son or daughter's day-to-day lives? Stop buying them! They can't move out until college or later, so they're still under your rules! I know, its shocking! Parents can and should make the decisions about the kind of material allowed into their homes!

It's so common sensical, it just has to be right, right?

...Right?

Tax the bloody idiots!

2005-08-03T00:24:00.000-04:00

So, it turns out that some bloggers out there are getting creative in terms of dealing with problematic commenters. Cathy Seipp (who has several interesting posts on a wide variety of topics - not just political, but stuff anyone of any stripe can enjoy) may be on to something - she banned a troublesome poster named "Soupy" and will only unban him if he or his supports pony up $50 to get him unbanned. That is an insanely clever, I have to admit.

Man, it is stuff like that that keeps me plugging at this blog. Well, that, and sheer determination and good looks.

But mostly the idea that I'll someday, finally, have readers.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Good Lord!

2005-07-22T20:07:00.000-04:00

Did you know that video games that have an "M" (Mature) or "AO" (Adults Only) rating are probably inappropriate for your little son or daughter? I mean, golly gee willickers, you'd think that thar E-S-Arr-Bee would tell us that in big giant freakin' letters, right? Especially over that "horrible" game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"! Goodness, that "Hot Coffee" sex mod has gotten everyone atwitter, yes?

So much so that, because of the scandal surrounding that game, the publisher was forced to re-brand the game from a "Mature" rating to "Adults Only", which meant that all sorts of retailers were falling over themselves to yank that game from the shelves lest the ire of the media or politicians were to fall upon them.

Before I go on, a little background about the whole ordeal.

Grand Theft Auto, as a series, is a video game that lets you take on the life of a criminal. Lets not even pretend its anything else but that - the title alone gives you a pretty big clue what the nature of its content will be. Naturally, you can do all the things a criminal does - kill people, peddle drugs, pick up hookers, steal cars, all sorts of things that criminals do on a regular basis.

This past fall saw the release of "Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas", which was like the other games in the series, only set in a different locale and with minor cosmetic changes. Naturally, it did phenomenally well in sales - surprising no-one, given its previous successes. Things only started to get ugly for the developer, Rockstar Games, and the publisher, Take-Two Interactive, with the release of the PC version of the game and the subsequent discovery of a hidden "mini-game" called "Hot Coffee".

The "game" (if you can even call this that) was unlocked when the player successfully wooed one of the game's interactive females enough on enough dates to be invited into their homes for "coffee". By "coffee", the players find that out to mean "sex" - a tired, cliche Hollywood line. The player could then engage in The Act, and have the characters interact in different ways. Completely immature and insipid - ingredients for a free-for-all player frenzy across all manners of message boards and forums.

Rockstar Games, after being confronted about this by some of the press and remaining silent for a while, finally released a carefully-worded statement saying that the "Hot Coffee" mini-game was actually the work of a bunch of hackers - the content never existed in the game before the coders released a "mod", or modification, for the game. Some people took this as an article of faith, others thought something was up. Turns out, the latter was right.

Reports began to surface that the console versions of the game let the players do the exact same thing the PC version did, and all they needed was a cheat-code device like an Action Replay and a long string of cheat codes, and they could pull off the same antics. This lands Rockstar into a lot of hot water - it is absolutely impossible for a cheat-code device to introduce new content onto an unmodifiable DVD disc (like the ones a Playstation or XBox use), and therefore the "Hackers did it!" explanation didn't hold water.

So now we have this frenzy of media attention, with the likes of Hillary Clinton (alarms should be going off in your head if you hear she gets involved in something) and anti-video game crusader Mega Attorney Man Jack Thompson calling for the government to get involved and regulate the video game industry, with Clinton going so far as to suggest it be done in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes. Yes, because we TOTALLY need to let irresponsible parents abdicate responsibility for their children back to the government - they're just there to provide fodder for the tax collectors in later years, if I may indulge in a bit of snide commentary here. Jack Thompson, meanwhile, is on a real-big-freaking roll with this, going so far as to call the WAY more tame "Sims 2" as something "worse than Hot Coffee". Take Two's stock took a beating on Wall Street, and now they have to re-release an "M" rated version of the game with the "Hot Coffee" coding taken out (like it should have been done in the first place).

I know it has been said before, but I just have to say this too - why the hell are parents letting their kids drop $50 on this garbage? I mean, are they really that blind to think that an "M" rated game is something appropriate for a twelve year old kid? This faux outrage I see from parents and politicians is just another naked (pardon the pun) cover-up of the fact that they are so damned ignorant of what their kids are buying, watching, and playing stuff that is clearly inappropriate for them. Frankly, I wish more retailers started carding these kids and demanding ID to prove that they are of a reasonable age to be in possession of adult-oriented material like Grand Theft Auto. I'd even go as far as to support some severe penalties on parents for not doing their job and making sure their kids don't buy crap and then act on it. It would be just ducky by me - I'm nearly 21 years of age, and I know the consequences of acting on anything I learn from a video game full well.

I'm also disappointed in the likes of Rockstar, as I used to have the impression that they knew what it takes to make (again, adult-oriented) entertainment without stooping to juvenile antics and equally juvenile excuse-making. Frankly, I doubt I'd ever want to buy a product from them again - it smacks of immaturity to have left that "Hot Coffee" code in there in the first place, and then lie about it afterwards when they get caught. They think that all of us are completely stupid, and they're going to find out that some of us aren't going to follow them off that particular cliff any more.

When you don't hold someone responsible (in this case, Rockstar and irresponsible parents) for letting dumb things happen, everyone else has to put up with the stink that erupts thereafter. It shouldn't be that way, and these people know it. I can only hope that they act on it.

Rappin' about Terrorism

2005-07-17T17:43:00.000-04:00

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this story about a TSA baggage screener who was fired for, get this, rapping about terrorism. In a positive manner.

This guy's lyrics include everything from rapping about kidnapping and murder, overthrowing the government, and flying planes into buildings (sassy!). Naturally, he is quick to move to the tired line of how it was all about marketing and how he was fired because he was an Arab and this other tired horse manure that we hear so much about. His lame excuse about how he keeps his music and his job separate might have worked if he wasn't in a job where he was responsible, in part, for the safety and security of airline travelers.

What floors me the most was how unapologetic he was about it - the article ends with a quote from him essentially saying that, while it was unfair of Americans to label "all" Arabs as terrorists (no, just the ones that support it, sparky), he was going to play along with his "character" of a suicidal Arab. Classic, stereotypical "dumb rapper" jive - its almost as if Hollywood wrote it itself.

Non-Stories and the Guys Who Bring 'Em Up

2005-07-09T21:03:00.000-04:00

Oliver Willis has jumped onto this non-story (with more here) about Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich's recent fundraiser at a "racist" golf club. By "racist", Oliver and others are inferring that, because there are not any registered black members at the club, there must be a policy that forbids them from joining.

They completely ignore the fact that there is no such written policy, and club members have testified to the fact that many black golfers have played and dined at the club.

Something that would, you know, not happen if it was as racist as they made it out to be.

Then comes the usual pap from the likes of Kweisi Mfume about how he can "seek candidacy in the Senate...but cannot seek membership in this club." If you read between the lines, it never once occurred to him to actually, you know, try to become a member - it just makes good political fodder to pretend that you're a victim. The matter probably never even came up until liberals started having a shit-fit over it. Not to mention the fact that several Democratic figures, as well as those in high positions in the Baltimore Sun, are members or held fundraisers there - where is the criticism for them?

Oh, wait, that would mean having to apply a fair standard - something that has yet to happen by the Baltimore Sun, Oliver Willis, or the entire Democratic Party in the state of Maryland. How silly of me.

Shoe on the other foot?

2005-06-09T18:19:00.000-04:00

Well, now that I'm back from a (mostly) enjoyable vacation, what say we get into the swing of things? Bill at INDC Journal links to a Democratic Underground thread that rips into one of their own, the Daily Kos blog. Apparently there are some that are up in arms over a BlogAd on his site featuring two women from the TV show "Real Gilligan's Island" wrestling each other covered in whipped cream, and Kos' response to their outrage being rather, well, unsympathetic.

Apparently, nonchalance was the way wrong thing to adopt in his response, because these guys are incensed over there. Apparently the feminists have left the site in droves (or so it is claimed) and some DUers are swearing off the Daily Kos entirely, as if this is something he did on purpose. In a way, I sympathize with Kos - now he knows how some of us feel when we have to put up with people looking for things to get pissed off about, just for the sake of being pissed off. Nobody likes having to walk on eggshells, 24/7, and just live in a constant fear that someone, somewhere, is going to go all batshit crazy on you because you stepped out of their line. Plain ridiculous - Kos runs that blog on his own time and money, and he is free to pursue what ads he thinks will generate revenue to fund his website. As Kos would point out in his post on the whole fracas, if they hadn't made such a huge deal out of it, he'd likely wouldn't have had nearly as many click-throughs for that ad.

Think, guys! THINK!

Speaking of the Senate...

2005-05-29T00:50:00.000-04:00

...apparently the race to replace Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) in 2006 just got a little bit more interesting (h/t goes to Polipundit). Word comes that Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele (R-MD) is on the brink of exploring a bid for Senate. He would be competing directly with (currently) two running Democratic candidates- former (scandal-ridden) NAACP prez Kweisi Mfume and Representative Ben Cardin. Odds are high that EJ Pipkin, after spending his time in 2004 getting his name out as Barbara Mikulski's opponent, will likely try to capitalize on that recognition and run again in 2006 on the Republican ticket.

Michael Steele would, in all likelihood, get the nomination on the basis of his popularity and because he'd be a historic first for Maryland - he'd be the first black Senator in the state. That is a huge deal to a lot of people in this state, much like it would be in many others. The man is a sharp thinker, and watching him speak at the Republican convention last year was very interesting. Moreover, he'd be the much more moderate answer to the Labelmaker that is Kweisi Mfume. Ben Cardin will likely put up a decent fight (and would be a much more moderate candidate to face than Mfume), like he did in his campaign for Representative, but he'll end up being crushed under the Mfume Steamroller.

Mfume, who comes from one of the most reactionary, thinly-veiled partisan groups in this country, is going to be thrown into a fit of rage when he realizes that calling Steele an "Uncle Tom" (either directly or by proxy through supporters) is not going to fly with a lot of people in Maryland. It didn't work when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (ohmigosh, did you know she was a Kennedy?!) and her supporters (*cough* Teacher's unions *cough*) used all sorts of racial scaremongering to try and smear Steele (my personal favorite being some in the teacher union's doing the despicable act of calling Steele an "Oreo" - black on the outside, white on the inside). It was a tactic that backfired big-time on them, especially when Steele and Governor Robert Ehrlich had other prominent black public figures throwing their support behind their bid for the Governor's office.

What makes Steele so appealing is the fact that he is, in general, an appealing person. Meaning, he's someone you can identify with, someone you could somehow place as a sort of friend to you. He's an intelligent, bright thinker who isn't afraid to take someone to task for falsehoods - much like he recently did to Maryland's House Speaker over slot machine legislation. He doesn't fold in half like a piece of cardboard, offering up non-apology apologies for something that either isn't the fault of the Governor's office, or for something that doesn't exist. He's demonstrated an ability to get along well with people - something that pays off in dividends in what some call a "Moderate Democratic" state like Maryland.

Frankly, he'd be the perfect antidote to a candidate like Mfume - it only sucks that more smart men like Steele don't exist in general. Or, even more importantly, that this may mean he can't run for governor in 2010.

A Second Helping?

2005-05-27T00:42:00.000-04:00

Just a little post-E3 post...posting. There's an enormous Carnival of Gamers to be read, with one post completely in tune to how I feel about Nintendo. I know that I just have to have something up for the next go-round - this could be really fun to do regularly.

In fact, it gives me an idea as to what I'll post next...

More (hopefully) later.

Dammit, dammit, dammit.

2005-05-23T22:31:00.000-04:00

I think I'm losing my marbles here - when the hell did I think it was OK to trust John McCain to serve the interests of the Republican party? Bumbling, wishy-washy morons just handed control over to the Democrats in this entire(ly unwatched by America, apparently) situation by essentially rolling over and letting them define the entire debate over judicial nominees.

What did the Republicans get in return?

Cloture on three nominees (Owens, Brown, and Pryor), and up-and-down votes for them. Votes, I'm sure, passed through easily. Votes they would have passed anyway if Senators weren't so damn busy stroking their egos and did the job they were elected to do. Two of the others at the center of this debate, Saad and Myers, don't get that same treatment. That's to say, there's no agreement for cloture for them - something that, as Ace notes, essentially means they won't get it, not now not ever.

The wording of the agreement says that Democrats will not filibuster except under extraordinary circumstances meaning (if you read between the lines) damn well near anything is fair game. Don't like their tie? FILIBUSTER! Brown eyes? GET THE RAT BASTARDS! The "leadership" in the GOP just let the Democrats define who is an extremist and who isn't, so now the business of the Senate and President is hamstrung by these people who couldn't come up with rational reasons to vote down someone except for veiled assertions of some past evil doings. Nothing substantiated, of course, or even put into proper context for that matter - it was all good enough to start filibustering over nothing. What makes this worse, as PowerLine notes, is that this is a free pass for the Democrats through the 2006 mid-terms - they may just get their chance of picking up more seats, effectively giving them more leeway to muck up Senate business. Republicans, meanwhile, validate the Dem's "right" to filibuster and will not change the rules until the 110th Congress, should the matter arise (and it will, rest assured).

Frankly, the only ways that this can turn back to the Republican's favor is if they pick up seats in 2006 (which is possible, but they may just maintain parity) or if they break the terms of the agreement. Meaning, the nanosecond the Democrats do the same (as they are going to do, no two ways about it), the deal is effectively "off". None of this "take the high road" or "respecting the spirit of the deal" horse manure - it obviously doesn't work when you deal with people that are just as willing to take their ball and go home than to make any binding sort of agreement. Republicans have to realize that they're going to have to get their hands dirty if they're going to get work done, this whole idea of "moving on" is just giving the opposition license to act like fools and not respect their role to advise and consent - none of this advise, filibuster, obstruct, and generally loaf about garbage that permeates the current minority in Congress.

This just defies sanity, and is the epitome of idiotic deals done by any two parties on the planet. I can only hope they muddle their way back to a path that lets them get their agenda through, like they're supposed to.

*UPDATE*

Scared Monkeys has an enormous round-up of reactions to this deal, from the left and right. Good stuff. LaShawn Barber and Michelle Malkin have more. WuzzaDem nails how McCain is behaving perfectly.

What is aggravating is that the seven "moderate" Democrats of this group (why Robert Byrd is being called a moderate is beyond me) are now the official litmus test of extremism in judicial nominees. If they think they have to filibuster then, by God, they're gonna have to filibuster - after all, these travesty-of-a-joke "moderates" know best! The seven moronic "Republicans" (who I will never acknowledge as sane, rational human beings ever again) have basically given the Democrats carte blanche for holding up all the affairs of the Senate. They're making judicial mountains when it should be just hills to climb, making what is a simple process into something so mind-bendingly absurd that it defies common sense. These "Republicans" just ran for cover under the crap-flingings of a bunch of winged Senatorial monkeys, when they should have just shot them down and get them to behave themselves.

The Senate has slipped that much more out of Republican control today, and I can't say I feel anything but contempt for their incompetence. This started as a very simple thing - give the nominees an up or down vote and, if you have the votes to do it like you claim you do, vote them down. Obviously, the filibustering proves that they don't, because it should be a slam dunk to vote down the boogeymen extremists we keep hearing so much about. The stalling finally paid off when the Democrats only had to give up three candidates and could otherwise go to town on the other seven, unencumbered. The Republicans could have sliced the Democrats like a hammer for their obstructionism and blatant stalling, but instead just rolled over. Unbelievable.

Nerdblogging - The Electronic Entertainment Expo

2005-05-21T21:45:00.000-04:00

Well, exams are over and I've had a lot of time to generally unwind a bit. To get back into the spring of things, I'm going to share one of the few joys I look forward to every year (including my birthday and, obviously, Christmas) - the Electronic Entertainment Expo. Or, as I call it, Christmas in May.

For the uninitiated, the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3 as everyone else calls it, is an annual convention where console and computer game publishers get together and have a collective love-in about how great they are to the video game press. Crass, to be sure, but I'm calling a spade a spade here. This year was especially important because it was the year where Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft were to all unveil their newest consoles to everybody. I say "was" because there was some definite missed opportunities here.

First and foremost was Microsoft. Here is a company that has gobs of money to throw around, and they can't keep a damn secret worth a hill of beans. Everyone and their pet dog knew about what kind of system the XBox 360 was before their contrived MTV "unveiling", and for damned sure before E3. It was the worst-kept secret in the history of mankind, and it went a long way to deflating a lot of hype and expectations for the console. What is a definitely positive move on Microsoft's part was to slim their console down drastically, which was the biggest complaint (quite literally) about the console. Microsoft, for all their hype and hoopla, didn't seem to have the kind of software support we were hearing so much about going into this event.
Microsoft only seem to save themselves by promising a third Halo game to be released in time to blunt Sony's launch of the Playstation 3. A couple of key highlights was the news that they'd be picking up one of Square-Enix's much vaunted Final Fantasy games, as well as debuting a trailer for Perfect Dark Zero, the first game from Rare that may actually be decent since it was sold to Microsoft. Rare, if you've ever read about them, was sold off as a second party from Nintendo to Microsoft back a few years ago, and had only produced the mediocre Conker's Bad Fur Day for the nearly-five years the XBox has been out. Microsoft had a number of great-looking (looking being the operative word) games on display, and confirmed that their worst-kept-secret's release date was in fact going to be the holiday season of this year. Whether or not they actually do that remains to be seen - this is, after all, Microsoft that we're talking about here.

Turning to Sony, their Playstation 3 debuted to the usual fanfare and expectations of everyone - meaning, wildly positive. Sony, for what you can say about them as a company and their products, knows how to pull off an unveiling. For weeks, even months before E3, Sony has remained completely silent about their console. In a way, that helped them pull off a great start to E3. Things didn't quitecontinue that way afterwards, with a lot of press coverage noting that most of the games on demonstration for the Playstation 3 (and, to be fair, this was leveled at Microsoft too) appeared to be just pre-rendered trailers for games- not many titles were available for play. What has me, and no doubt many others, interested in about the Playstation 3 is the announcement that it will have support for up to seven Bluetooth-enabled controllers (which, for whatever strange reason, look like boomerangs). Considering that most people can play multiplayer (non-online) games comfortably with four player splitscreen, how are they going to pull off seven? That's not to say they can't do it, I just find this hard to comprehend - its almost as if they're just picking that number because it sounds unfathomable for a console, which is not always a good thing. The trailer for Killzone looks groovy, but I'm not sure it can be Sony's "Halo Killer" - Halo has a lot of hype and pretty textures, but it winds up being like almost any other FPS, something Killzone has to overcome to truly "kill" the beast that is Halo. Sony also touted their Playstation Portable (PSP), and demonstrated a bunch of titles still to come for the handheld.

Nintendo succeeded in frustrating the hell out of me this year with the introduction of Revolution console. I had fully expected to have giggle-inducing details just cascading from the sky about this box, but we only got to see what the concept will look like and a few other details. Granted, the console looks damned cool - some of the gaming press say that it's as close to Apple in quality of design as they've ever seen, a huge compliment as one can ever hear. From what we do know from the few details are interesting, to say the least. The biggest feature is instant-on WiFi networking, straight out of the box. The console will be online-capable at launch, and Nintendo is launching a free online service for all of its games, where the only way it'll cost to play online is if a company wants to charge for, say, an online-only style game like Everquest. This is, in all likelihood, a deliberate shot across the bow of Microsoft, whose XBox Live service requires fees in order to play online for any game. What is also interesting is the news that Nintendo's library of NES, SNES, and N64 games will be available for download through their online service - which is just beyond wonderful. Nintendo did not display any designs for the controllers, fueling the speculation that the "revolutionary" part of the system lies with the controllers. Whether or not that is actually true remains to be seen, but Nintendo seems interested in revealing more towards the end of the year.
What is definitely exciting about the new console is the launch lineup of titles. Nintendo has announced that there will be a new Mario, Legend of Zelda, and Super Smash Bros. title availble at launch - a trifecta of classic gaming goodness. Not only that, but the Super Smash Bros. title will be online for the first time, which is like an answer to many fans' prayers (including mine). They also showcased the Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, which is coming out for the current GameCube console this holiday season and it looks phenomenal. Say what you will about Nintendo, but they know how to make a great game better than anyone else does. A few trailers here and there of other upcoming titles like Geist, as well as another game for the Revolution, Metroid Prime 3. I, personally, can't wait for Metroid Prime 3 since the Metroid Prime series were the first Metroid games I played and enjoyed since Super Metroid for the SNES.

What bothers me the most about a console like Microsoft's (and, by extension, Sony's) is that it just seems to be a battle of the chipsets - who's faster at rendering snowflakes or some inane foolishness like that. They leave a distinct impression that they're not really interested in the games any more - they're more interested in who makes the prettier shell for them. For some, that is their bread and butter- if it looks great but plays or sounds like crap, thats OK. But for some people, like yours truly, I can only appreciate the game if everything is of uniformly good quality, not just graphics. I'm not bought off that the latest Madden game has real-time rendering of Ray Lewis' nose hairs, but could otherwise be as overcomplicated or contrived as could be - I have an HD television set to render that if I were so inclined (and, believe me, I'm not). Sony is a little bit better than Microsoft in this aspect, as they have some fantastic story-driven games of their own, but even they're becoming blinded by the idea that it has to be graphics, not gameplay, that is the rule of thumb. You can put the fastest processor on God's green Earth in there, but if it can't manage the game code efficiently, you might as well stop trying to impress me with numbers.

What makes this so infuriating is that these chipsets aren't even "advancements" of video games as a form of entertainment - there is only so much of a limit between the tech they can wedge into a small box and the stretch of the price tag. I am beginning to think that, if this trend continues without a market revolt of some kind, we can see price tags of easily $400-$500 for consoles. Analysts would be beyond surprised if Sony's console, for example, came in under $400 - they just have too much new and proprietary tech in there to go that low. Everyone expects the XBox 360 to be just under $400, with $360 being the most tossed-around number, and nobody knows how much the Nintendo Revolution will cost, but it'll likely be the cheapest of the three. What is scary is that these numbers are talked about casually by all these companies as if its no big deal. Well, it is a big deal because there is only so far we're going to go in spending money for something that is seeing a progressively shorter lifespan. It feels like it was only a year ago that the Playstation 2 debuted, and now we're already all over the Playstation 3. If this trend continues, we're going to see a new console generation in less than four years, and I don't think my wallet can take that kind of punishment. Add in the idea that development of games alone takes longer and longer, costing more and more, and this is starting to look pretty scary. This is starting to look like the big war Sega and Nintendo had going on in the 90s, where Sega would chuck out a new console and Sonic game at a rapid clip, with wildly different technology in each itineration. Nintendo, meanwhile, would ride the living hell out of each of their consoles, and eventually outrode Sega when the Playstation and Playstation 2 rolled around (although, leaving Nintendo competing even more directly with Sony then). Sega had been reduced to a niche player by the time the Dreamcast came out, and the Playstation 2 spelled the end of Sega as a hardware company. Sony and Microsoft are beginning to run the risk of limiting themselves to the audiences they've built with their respective game libraries, and starting in on a cycle where they just "have" to toss out a new console every couple of years without fully exploiting the current generation of hardware. They're creating a throwaway console industry, and $400 is an awful lot to throw away every couple of years- Sony and Microsoft can only milk the "technorati" for so long.

To sum it up, E3 was definitely a low-key, unexciting event overall. When you find it hard to be excited about a new generation of hardware, someone would be very smart to sit up and take notice. Let's just hope its soon - I think my wallet is still whimpering on the dresser.

Howdy!

2005-05-09T09:07:00.000-04:00

I'm breaking radio silence to make a quickie update - I've added one or two blogs to the blogroll that I had been meaning to add, and will probably comb through previous comments for others to add. I'm pretty sure I missed one or two, so I'll make sure to check.

Posting will resume in earnest relatively soon - exams are next week, so I'll probably be away from the ole Post-O-Matic for the majority of this week and next.

Don't ask, don't tell - end of an era?

2005-05-03T23:39:00.000-04:00

An interesting call from the Iron Teakettle over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the military. He brings up the case of Cook v. Rumsfeld (PDF file), whereby several gay and lesbian military personnel where discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and sued over grievances that their rights were being violated as a result of that policy.

The post goes on to argue that the current political climate would be extremely unlikely to be supportive of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, let alone an outright ban. The author argues that an outright ban would survive scrutiny better than the wet-noodle approach with "Don't Ask", especially since there is no real "Don't Ask" provision in the regulation. A commander is free to ask, wherever and whenever they choose, about a soldier's orientation - the only thing they can't do is launch unsubstantiated witch-hunts (and even then that's a stretch). The "Don't Tell" is the gay or lesbian military member lying or wilfully deceiving others about their orientation, and still endure harassment without the recourse of complaint, lest they end their careers. The policy was part of a long history of culture in the military that believed homosexuality erroded cohesion within a military unit and wore away the fabric of combat effectiveness.

Funny thing was, those very concerns went right out the window as soon as a war was on, like in World War II and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that homosexuals could serve with distinction and honor in combat, and still maintain group cohesion. Shocking, I know. I think this case has a lot of merit - the whole policy is unnecessarily discriminatory, and is wilfully allowed to lapse whenever it suited the military's purposes. Rather than waste time on trying to get in investigations under a rubber-banding policy, it ought to removed altogether and save us all the headache of hearing about good men and women being drummed out because of their orientation. Sorry, I don't buy the load of guff we're supposed to believe here, especially when the military wilfully ignores it to suit its own ends. The military either needs to develop a rational, provable basis for the restriction, or stop pretending that it does.

Liberals, take heed- this isn't a knock on Donald Rumsfeld, or anyone else in the Bush administration. This is a criticism of a policy that has been standing almost as long as I've been alive, and predates the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the Clinton era by decades as well. Its a dumb idea, and it ought to be overturned on the basis that the very claims it makes are unprovable, or contradictory to what has actually happened.

I'd be very interested to see how this turns out.

Fanboy Attack!

2005-05-03T15:13:00.000-04:00

We all knew that Condi Rice was, in fact, sooooo hot, but never to the degree like this. You've seen the side of me that few people know about, let alone want to know about.

You can also plug in your favorite blog (wait, this blog isn't your favorite?) or website and have them get the Condi Fevah. Catch it, baby.

Zell Miller Ill

2005-04-29T00:20:00.000-04:00

Zell Miller excused himself from a speech Thursday afternoon when he said he felt ill. According to his wife, he had shown some flu-like symptoms during the week and, in a move that surprises absolutely no-one who has known him for five minutes, would not stay in bed. He's in stable condition, and released a statement to that effect.

Without missing a beat, the Democratic Underground is all over this with (mostly) ill-will wishes and absolutely snarky comments about him. Zell Miller rose to fame (or infamy, depending on who you ask) when he came out as an ardent supporter for President Bush's re-election, breaking with Democrats. Zell Miller gave a decidedly southern-style hellfire speech at the Republican Convention in New York, criticizing the Democratic party for being like wet noodles when it comes to national security. Zell Miller was replaced in January by a Republican after announcing he would not run for re-election, completing the term of Democrat Paul Coverdell after he passed away.

Zell Miller was relentlessly criticized for breaking with party lines in his support of the President, but it wasn't just a token "Oh, I support him instead of Kerry" sort of deal - he campaigned hard for President Bush. The liberal pundits (my personal favorite blind-to-reality budgy being Susan Estrich) were aghast at the idea that someone would dare break the cardinal rule of the Democratic party, with that being you don't ever support a guy with an (R) after their name - its all loyalty to the party, all the time. Don't defy the Groupthink! It's almost funny that the Democratic party still doesn't realize that people like Zell breaking rank isn't a fluke - its indicative of a problem that needs to be looked at seriously. Zell Miller didn't break with the Democrats solely because of John Kerry's rather immature behavior following his return from Vietnam - although, to be sure, that was likely a big factor in Zell's book - but rather that they didn't have a clear vision for defending this country from terrorism, and for taking the fight to the terrorists abroad instead of just swatting flies at home.

The Democrats lost, wholesale, on the prime basis of appearing and acting weak on defense - never something they were good at establishing publicly, but defenitely failing to sell the deal last November. It wasn't Zell Miller's fault for their losing - he was telling them what was wrong publicly, and they did and said the wrong things. They only have themselves to blame when they can't accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong on a few things and changing tacks a little bit would improve their chances at election. Instead its bogeymen and finger pointing, hollering about the Republicans (or, "Repugs", "Repukes", or whatever childish DU term they could toss out) being Nazis and every other doom-and-gloom proclamation they could make. Funny how they so eagerly toss out the Nazi label when they demand rigidity thats borderline insane out of the members of their own party. But hey, what do I know - I'm just a Repug.

Sacre bleu! Explodeeng Frogs!

2005-04-27T10:55:00.000-04:00

Zat bastard Schroeder has been after us gallant French for zo long-uh! He ees tryeeng to keel us!

Ah ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!

I couldn't stop laughing at the absurdity of the idea of exploding amphibians. Its...its just too much. I mean, it is horrible that they're dying that way (who would want to explode?), but Charles Johnson doesn't help me take this seriously by suggesting that this may be an amphibious form of protest against German colonialism.

Easy money says its pop rocks that are doing this to them. Either that, or the Seagull Example, where the frogs consume seltzer tablets, swell up, and...well, you know.

Coming Soon: Schiavo, the Musical

2005-04-25T11:34:00.000-04:00

Pardon the sardonic humor, there.

I know its been covered before, but I wanted to weigh in on the "blockbuster" of a play in Britain that covers the life of Rachel Corrie, a radical from the International Solidarity Movement. She was killed in 2003 by running in front of an Israeli Army bulldozer that was demolishing an area of the Gaza Strip. The ensuing hoopla would have been worthy of a circus - fingers were pointed, press statements were made, and Rachel was made into a martyr for being an idiot and standing in front of a bulldozer (apparently under the expectation that the driver could develop X-ray vision, see her there, and suddenly stop on a dime). Rachel's work for the ISM, a Pro-Palestinian (and waaaay Anti-Israel) "right of return" group, would have largely ended there ignominiously, were it not for a bunch of vultures.

Now they think they can somehow paper over the fact that she was a terror-enabler who was demonstrating against her country, against Israel, and against sanity by doing a play about it?! This is hardly a "fair telling" of her story to begin with - a reasonably sane person would figure out that she wasn't exactly helping mediate things between the two parties, but instead take a few thwacks at the hornet's nest to stir things up further. I mean, are we going to see positive, "we're going to tell the truth in our own way"-style plays for Hitler and Saddam Hussein next? I hear Pol Pot is really marketable, too! Or that Mugabe guy in Africa - he's a real peach, he is.

People like Corrie are indicative of a bigger problem in society - the ignorance of fact in the pursuit of one's own goals. Israel, for all the ink wasted on calling them the terrorists, is the one that is constantly extending a hand in the interest of peace. Forget about what happened in the war for Israel's sovereignty - they fought in the streets just as hard as the rest, and they came out on top, end of story. The fact that they are the ones willing to come to the table time and again to work something out says volumes about their willingness to peacefully coexist with Palestinians. The same cannot be said about the Palestinians, where the concept of a democratic Israel is completely lost on them. They are the ones that refuse to even consider anything, it is always demands that Israel do anything and everything for them. Release murderers, release terrorists, stop defending yourself against our suicide bomber dipshits - we don't want to do any of the work for our own considerations.

It was proven time and again that Israeli concessions to the Palestinians netted them nothing, so they (finally) started taking more proactive measures by pre-emptively striking against terrorist masterminds and building a wall around Palestinian settlements to reduce the number of suicide bombers that get through and murder innocent people. Israel wants to have peace - I don't think they would want the constant killing of their own people - but they have every right to defend themselves and protect their people if they have to. They were the victors in their war, they get to set themselves up however they want to. That isn't negotiable, just as it wouldn't be negotiable here for us to give up our right to defend ourselves.

Making a play about people like Rachel Corrie, who died with the dubious distinction of "helping the Palestinian cause" (how, again?), doesn't demonstrate a completely functioning mental capacity, it demonstrates a completely missed point that she isn't on the right side of things, nor was she looking at "the big picture" (or, for that matter, the same one). She was a radical loon who showed Palestinian children that it was OK to hate things for no other reason than that they are different, and to fight to have such bigoted ideas be the norm in their life and culture.

Were that play to come here, I can at least rest easy that some people would get wicked pissed off about a pro-terrorist-enabler being the subject of a play, and not lap it up like dogs. What a waste of time that thing has to be.

And now...some rappin'

2005-04-18T00:37:00.000-04:00

Hat tip to Wizbang for pointing me to...whatever this is. You, too, can be your own blogging rap star by going to HTTP in Tha House.

CollegePundit in tha House

lyrics by: http://collegepundit.blogspot.com

com rsd g blogid
hat tip to a yi
line a li li a
as another sway
in this
good heavens swiss
px width px color
by span style dollar

redirect next blog
c d h lxi
weeks this would
email post span hood
it really adds
will open span s
hell is
idiotic sabre rattling yes

COLLEGEPUNDIT DOT BLOGSPOT DOT COM IN THA HOUSE
COLLEGEPUNDIT DOT BLOGSPOT DOT COM IN THA HOUSE
COLLEGEPUNDIT DOT BLOGSPOT DOT COM IN THA HOUSE
COLLEGEPUNDIT DOT BLOGSPOT DOT COM

I. Am. A. Blogging. Rapping. Genius.

Stickin' it to the DU

2005-04-17T20:58:00.000-04:00

Breaking radio silence to post about a good cause - a fellow blogger by the name of McGeHee is throwing up the Link Signal in a call to help him pass the DemocraticUnderground in linkage on The Truth Laid Bare's rank system. Naturally, I'm more than happy to oblige someone who wants to pass a bunch of moonbats.

So, obligatory link to the original call here, as well as another link to this ultra-secret Vatican document uncovered by him (which, as Wizbang notes, will likely lead to some Higher Power Punishment later on - but living it up is for now, not later).

So, link him for Pete's sake!

A Dud in the Chamber

2005-04-17T00:01:00.000-04:00

Howard "Scream Machine" Dean is a bottomless source of quotable joy, particularly since he's become the new DNC chairman. I present to you the following, taken from The New Editor, which in turn borrows the story from The LA Times (registration through sacrifice of a virgin and goat required). Hat tip to Ace for the original story.

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Friday that his party would wield the Terri Schiavo case against Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections, but for now needed to stay focused battling President Bush on Social Security.

"'We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on,' Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a swarm of political controversy.

"Dean, who has called congressional intervention in the Schiavo case 'political grandstanding,' singled out House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for his leading role in the matter.

"'This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008,' Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group's breakfast in West Hollywood, 'because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, "Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?"'"
...

"The former presidential candidate said he had purposely avoided emphasizing the Schiavo case in recent weeks because Democrats needed 'message discipline.'"

I find it absolutely hysterical that, for all his puffery about not "political grandstanding", that is exactly what he does when he says they'll make it an issue in 2006 and 2008. In his usual style of absolutely missing the point, Dean ignores the oft-cited reason for fighting to restore Terri's feeding tube is that starving someone to death was, get this, a really wrong thing to do to someone. It isn't a matter of leaving the matter to a "loved one" (the issue remains debateable about whether Michael Schiavo constituted a "loved one" in decision-making), but rather the methodology that was employed to end Terri's life - that was what was at issue, along with questionable legal grounds for ordering that in the first place.

For all of Tom DeLay's idiotic sabre-rattling afterwards about the removal of judges (that is political grandstanding, and even then its rather sad when you're largely the only one doing it), Howard Dean is not going to be entirely successful in pinning this on DeLay, or even the Republican party. This is largely because he will make it enormously easy for a Republican candidate in '06 and '08 to point out how it was ridiculously hypocritical for Dean to do the exact thing he accuses the Republicans of doing - playing politics with a deceased woman's plight and committing political grandstanding on his own. Lord knows, he was hopelessly inept in his presidential campaign - I don't see how he can connect the dots in this case. He will make it enormously easy for a Republican to paint him as someone who uses the plight of a now-deceased woman as a political football, trying to spike her in the endzone with garbage like this.

Dean brings this Schiavo subject up as a sort of shot across the bow, meanwhile reminding people that the Dems are currently focused on battling the President on Social Security by...not having a plan at all. Well done, you guys chose a fantastic coach to lead you to victory. Next, I'm sure we'll hear how we should combat terrorism by taking all the money we have in defense and putting it towards social programs (vis a vis, "education" and "welfare"), and we'll woo Islamofascists with our governmental largesse. Wow, that'll knock their socks off, for sure.

Or, how we need to like, totally plant trees and stuff and not let anyone cut them down, and junk? Or force people to buy hydrogen cars, despite having relatively little in the way of supply, and relying on coal and gas-burning power plants to expend huge amounts of energy just to produce some hydrogen fuel for those damned insect-wannabe cars. Can't use nuclear power, though, cuz they're almost as bad as nuclear arms - and you can't hug with nuclear arms!

I'm just dying to hear about what he has to say next- I couldn't even think of half the stuff he says.

I'm not dead!

2005-04-15T21:14:00.000-04:00

Just an FYI - I am still very much alive - I still have class obligations outside of this blog, and next week is no different. It does say "CollegePundit", after all - insinuating that the guy blogging on this blog is a college-age blogger, as opposed to "GraduatePundit", who is a graduate..who blogs.

Shocking, to be sure, but I think we'll all pull through.

If Only Space Invaders was VR...

2005-04-05T15:20:00.000-04:00

In an effort to "lighten up" around here, I'm going to link to an interesting story I read on Wizbang earlier this week. They link to a USA Today story about an insurance agency in West Virginia that is conducting a study on the effects of exercise, video games, and child obesity. The video game, the insanely-popular Dance Dance Revolution, was used in the study. Video games being a passion of mine, and many other people my age, I couldn't resist blogging about it.

For the uninitiated, Dance Dance Revolution (or, "DDR") is a game that is played by...dancing. A plastic mat is laid on the floor, plugged into a Playstation 2 console with the game, and the player moves their feet onto the arrows to correspond with the ones on the screen. As you move on to different songs, the beat gets more frenetic and you have to move your feet faster to connect with the arrows, or risk losing the round. The arcade version of the game is a sight to behold, almost as much as the people using it. Competitions, naturally, have formed around the most creative methods of dancing and keeping up with the game. For a Nintendo fan like myself, I was overjoyed to hear that a Nintendo GameCube version of the game was being produced.

Coming back to the story, it goes on to detail how kids have taken to this game in a pretty positive way - they're playing a video game (a plus in almost any kid's book), but they're also exercising (which is a way huge plus in any parent's book). One of the kids in the story lost 20 pounds just by changing his diet and playing the game for a few weeks. This would have provoked a massive "DUH!" by anyone who has played DDR for any length of time - its dancing, an exercise, it doesn't require rocket science. Having played it a little bit myself (and found out how God-awful I am at it), I have to say that it definitely requires you to do more than just move your feet in pattern with the arrows on the screen - it requires you to think, and be able to react much more rapidly later on. It really adds up in terms of exercise.

Which is why Konami, creator of DDR, is capitalizing on it in a big way. They've already introduced an Exercise Mode into DDR, and they crank out new versions with new songs and dances fairly regularly. I imagine it must be difficult to keep the arcade machines in stock, since they're so popular. If they can continue to be successful with these kinds of games, it'd only be a matter of time before other companies try to cash in with their own version of a "guerrilla" exercise game. There's already an exercise bike for riding-oriented video games (like Crazy Taxi, or Smugglers Run). Nintendo, never to be ones without their own gadgets for their consoles, has a bongo controller for Donkey Kong Jungle Beat which is really amazing. Sony has a gadget called the EyeToy, which is a digital camera hooked up to a Playstation 2, allowing the user to move around to music, play sports, swat at enemies, exercise, and generally just freak out.

And who says video games solely promote sedentary lifestyles?

Another Great has Moved On - Pope John Paul II, 1920-2005

2005-04-02T17:47:00.000-05:00

*I had this saved as a post meant for yesterday, but trying to get my laptop to function with my office network settings was nigh impossible. The time stamp reflects when I wrote it. *

Pope John Paul II died today, and I am left completely bereft of words. I mean, how can you sum up the life of a man so incredible in a post? Fortunately, someone else has put it much more eloquently than I could in a post on All Along the Blogtower.

Reuters has some key highlights of his life. What a life it was.

God Bless you, Pope John Paul II. You served the world well.

Words and Political Wrestling

2005-04-01T21:49:00.000-05:00

For all the verbal and political wrangling that has gone on for the last few weeks, I have to give majorly-huge amounts of credit to the political Left for being so tolerant and respectful of people who "erred on the side of life" when it came to the entire Terri Schiavo deal, and of discourse in general.

April Fools.

Something that has been percolating at the back of my mind the last few days is a distinct lack of respect the Left has had for those who have a different opinion of them - coming out full bore within the last week. Not once has someone had the stones to come to this blog and give their own opinion and argument for or against Terri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed (despite my leaving this site address in all comments at all blogs I comment in, and I'm not the kind of person to just delete comments because I don't agree with someone), but instead I get sniped by a commenter like this at another blog, who don't bother to argue the case with me here, but instead just sort of wave me and others off as being some sort of "fly off the handle" type of person. He just conveniently ignores the fact that I was angry about someone being starved to death like some sort of second (or third) class citizen, and labels me as someone who is a knee-jerk reactionary flamethrower. Wow, you are remarkably astute. Naturally, he expects to have gotten away with it too, thinking I wouldn't take him to task for that later on in that thread (surprise!). Not surprisingly, he still hasn't commented once on anything here.

What is really vexing is the largely shoddy press coverage, and their own hand-waving label-making, is getting a complete pass by a lot of people. As Michelle Malkin points out, the Media seems to think that people who support the ideals of living and of having a moral society are these rather quaint, pre-packaged little novelties. In their classic Lazy-As-Hell reporting, they sloppily paint a few people with a couple of screws loose as being part and parcel of an entire movement. Yup, they're just so quaint, those Christers, with their whole "right to life" and "respect life" crazy Rovian-esque mantra. The only time I've ever seen a liberal respect life was when a Republican was looking to fight terrorism. "We must respect the sovereignty and the lives of that country!" they hem and haw, "What right do we have to force a dictatorship to play by the rules it agreed to?" Good heavens, stop the presses! A Republican has the temerity to demand that a dictatorship play by the rules it had agreed to play by! Good grief, and then they have the cahones to request that a federal court give a serious look at a "right to die" case and see if the evidence was clear and convincing, and that the standards of law had been applied correctly! What the hell is up with them - fighting terrorism, and for the cause of living? Yet I don't see reality divorcees like PETA members being painted as quaint or as pre-packaged hilarity while they run around in lettuce leaves to protest, I don't know, bug zappers or something. Heaven forbid they adopt a well-reasoned platform for their ideas - lettuce is a hell of a lot more cheaper to acquire and cardboard and Sharpie markers are plentiful.

I somehow don't think you can be considered anything other than a childish inarticulate idiot when you throw salad dressing in the face of someone with whom you disagree strongly. I mean, wow, what are you going to do next? Write some more cookie-cutter political slam poetry? I so live in fear of your stylin' rhymes, whenever you're not ripping them off of someone else. It amazes me that the level of discourse for some has boiled down to soundbites, slam poetry, and sight gags - like some sort of horrible human bee-hive of blithering insanity and gotcha moments. Nobody wants to argue about the merits of a cause or a big case, they just want to lash out at things, then others chortle to themselves like nerds in a basement. These people can't handle being adults, so they throw tantrums like children when things don't go their way. It makes me seriously wish there was a way to administer a maturity test at 16, 18, and 21 to see if everyone is ready to wear their Big Boy/Girl Pants, or if they should maybe stay away from the roads, alcohol, and each other, lest they have a scuffle in the sandbox over those big bad politicians. I outgrew being a smug asshole the day after 9/11 because I was one of the few that realized that I had it unbelievably good in my life (as my parents, correctly, insisted I did) prior to then, and that I and others would need to work hard to preserve that kind of life and eliminate the ones that wanted to violate it. I stopped having time to play gotcha games with people who didn't want to grow up, they wanted to stay a kid and be in this coccoon of No New Ideas Allowed, giving them license to be petulant and smug.

I mean, do you really think you're being clever by being a major-league asshole here?

(hat tip Wuzzadem.com)

That isn't even an argument, that is a leftist being like a snarky twelve year old. Yet, were a right-winger to do something similar, or even less so, it's like they called their target a sad-sack-sonofabitch who kicks puppies and is therefore an effigy of an entire movement. "Burn the Brownshirted Witch!" they'd cry.

But hey, comparing a President to Adolf Hitler is just so fashionably chic, who needs to argue like a high-brow human being, with all those troublesome premises and facts and evidence? Oh, I don't know, people who spend more time fashioning a cogent argument that's longer than two lines on a t-shirt? Someone who really does have an opinion, and wouldn't mind (and would most likely welcome) a reasoned debate with someone who is open to ideas and doesn't operate on the fumes of Groupthink? I have yet to find someone on campus or elsewhere that can go for more than five minutes without saying "idiot", "moron", or "stupid" in a description of someone or their political ideals.

Instead it was a lot of acrimony and, frankly, frighteningly shallow and callous attitudes towards the plight of a woman who had to die of starvation and dehydration. How is it tolerant and progressive when the ones that claim to be tolerant otherwise are holding up signs with another "Oh ho! Gotcha now, Dubya!" type message? How is it "progressive" to let a judicial decision otherwise kill a woman by starving her? What kind of "progress" is letting the judiciary take a step backwards into barbarism? Do they even know what it means to be progressive any more?

More importantly, will they ever learn to be that way again?

Terri Schiavo Has Died.

2005-03-31T09:56:00.001-05:00

It pretty much says it all. The Schindlers last ditch appeal was denied, and news come around 10 today that Terri Schiavo has finally succumbed to dehydration and starvation. What infuriates me was Michael Schiavo denying Terri's family from being with her in her last minutes.

What a monster. I'm beyond disgusted with this man and he'll pay for it when he, one day, becomes old and infirm. Bastard.

This pretty much ends a long, convulted chapter in public history, and it wasn't something anyone would have ever wanted. Talk about bitter endings. God Bless you, Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo.

Wizbang has a small photo tribute, and I will probably update later on today with more tributes and thoughts.

A Ray of Hope?

2005-03-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

OK, call me a damned liar, but I just couldn't ignore this story. News has broken today that the 11th Court of Appeals will open another hearing to the Schindlers - this time with them taking up the argument that previous rulings only acted to re-confirm if the law was applied correctly to Terri's case, as well as arguing that none of the courts looked at whether the "clear and convincing" evidence was, in fact, all that clear or convincing. This news comes after Terri has spent nearly 13 days without food or water, and the Schindlers are hoping that a restraining order will be issued to order the feeding tube re-inserted while the court considers the case. The pessimist in me is saying that this will be yet another fruitless motion, but the optimist is giddy with the idea that the evidence is finally being looked at with a fresh set of eyes instead of rulings re-affirming the application of law to Terri's case. I'm holding out hope that something will be done here.

Meanwhile, CBS manages to burn itself with another fake document's story, by publishing Terri Schiavo's obituary (despite her being, you know, not dead and all). It's wonderful to see how far-reaching their scope of knowledge is at this moment. Dumbasses.

Wizbang has a little round-up of Terri Schiavo news and commentary here.

Enough.

2005-03-28T00:14:00.000-05:00

Easter Sunday marks, roughly, the tenth day that Terri Schiavo has gone without food or water since the court order to remove her feeding tube last Friday. With legal options thoroughly exhausted, even the Schindler's are largely acknowledging that Terri doesn't have much of a chance of judicial relief. They've been urging supporters / protestors to not try and storm the hospice to bring food or water, whereby getting themselves or, in some cases, children arrested. That is absolutely aggravating - sending a child to do something like that that puts them at risk. No political / social movement should ever do that, but that's for another day.

The good news out of this is that Terri has been allowed (I write this with gritted teeth) to receive Communion, as part of a sort of last sacred rite before she dies. That, to me and I'm sure many others, is a relief that he religious beliefs are finally being respected. It only took, what, fifteen years?

CNN and Fox report that Terri supporters are going to Washington to demand that Congress enforce their subpoenas , which were squashed as soon as they were ordered by the courts. Frankly, I don't see the point, and I don't think they're going to go very far with this. The very thing that they swore they were not going to do - play politics in regards to Terri Schiavo - is going to start happening the picosecond they enter any congressional or executive office to state their case. Let's face facts : thirty appeals in the courts didn't net any results for the Schindlers and, despite Congress' effort to give them the avenue of taking their case to the federal courts, they are unlikely to succeed even now.

I don't like saying it as much as anyone else, but Terri Schiavo is going to die of starvation. She will hopefully just quietly slip into a coma, quietly pass from this world, and meet the Lord. That is the best that we can hope and pray for her to happen. Yes, how she died will be absurd, unbearable to think of in a country where that sort of thing is heresy in the public canon. Breaking the law by trying to break into the hospice, placing a bounty on a judge's head, or holding up a gun store to lead an armed invasion does not further the cause. Just stop, please.

Terri Schiavo will, barring a miracle and change of heart in the judiciary, die of starvation. She will pass from a lack of food and water, but she will not have died from a lack of love and concern from her family, her friends, and those who have supported her and her family throughout this entire ordeal. We can only marvel at the level of support those people have shown for her.

This will, in all likelihood, be the last post I will have on this subject - I don't see this going on for much longer, and I don't feel like I can change many opinions by being upset any more. I, personally, want to thank the other bloggers who have put up their own thoughts on this subject, and have followed it for as long as they have. I know that not everyone agrees with what was said here, elsewhere, or wherever - that can be considered water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I can only hope and pray that those who have lost their way, or have taken a controversial tack (political mud-slinging, namely), can find their way back. I know I've done a bit of mud-slinging on my own, and I regret doing that. I let myself get too caught up in the emotion of the story, and not so much as the reality - something I'll have to work harder to avoid later on.

At the end of the day, I still remember that I blogged about this because I cared about what happened to someone - and that was what was most important to me. Happy Easter, everyone.

Denied.

2005-03-24T15:53:00.000-05:00

It just absolutely bends the mind. First, the Supreme Court declines to hear the case (given, that isn't very surprising), and then Governor Jeb Bush's motion to take custody of Terri Schiavo is denied by none other than Judge Greer (who I am such a fan of at this moment). What drives me absolutely wild with rage is the DCF (the Florida Department of Children and Families), according to Wizbang, completely missed the boat (along with the Schindler's original attorneys when this case first came about) in taking custody of Terri when they filed their appeal over the original restraining order by Greer yesterday, as an appeal would have granted an automatic stay of order so that they could get in there and do something. As Michael Schiavo's lawyer points out (in his own smug mind, to be sure), the DCF may not have realized that when they filed the appeal, and thus didn't know they could do something. So, wonderful job in screwing that one up, DCF. I doff my damn hat to you for that one.

As I continued to read the Fox News story, I come across something absolutely snide from the lawyer who successfully argued a woman should be starved to death:

"I sincerely hope the great focus and media attention on this case can peaceably settle as people move into this weekend in a frame of contemplation," Felos said. "I hope the parents do not keep pursuing fruitless legal options to the end — their time would be better served in reflection."

Unbelievable. How about you reflect on your conscience the fact that you have successfully argued Terri should die a death that we don't even consider for anything else? This isn't even the goddamn "euthanasia" movement you're behind - she isn't getting an injection that would let her die peacefully! This is "starve a woman to death because she's inconvenient to Michael's ends, despite numerous offers of people to take over her care". Good job, I hope you feel so damn swell about yourself as you cash your paycheck.

Meanwhile, my ability to tolerate the continued existence of the ACLU - which obviously isn't reading the same Constitution that I am - continues to wane with this:

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said at the heart of the case, which was often overshadowed by a nasty family feud, was the tragedy of one woman's life.

"This is a horrible situation and there are no winners," he said. "This case is really about what Terri would have wanted."

There could have been plenty of "winners", Howard, had sanity and common sense prevailed in this case. Michael could have turned over the care of his (otherwise ex-) wife to her parents and family, who state time and again that they want nothing more than to take care of her, and moved on with his life. Terri's family, subsequently, could provide the love and care for her that Michael stopped giving when she was "dead to him" 15 years ago. Lord knows, there's probably no shortage of donors that would give money to the cause of Terri's therapy and care. It is really that simple. I don't see anything about this being a "nasty family feud" except that it was made to be that way by kicking aside basic humanity and morals to jockey to have a feeding tube removed. I'm sorry, but openly advocating starving someone to death is not the best way to having a civil level of discourse!

If the Schindlers wanted to take care of Terri, and are willing to sign over the funds to Michael anyway (as they have stated publicly numerous times), what the hell is the problem in turning over her care? Are you starving her to prove a point - that she's your property or something? This is an insane example of what happens when guardian custody goes completely amok - you have insanity like this.

It's just disgusting.

*UPDATES*

I'm sure many are aware of this now, but I figure I may as well post it anyway -

The Schindler family is back in court, asking for a temporary restraining order after Governor Bush's efforts to get Terri under state custody fell through. The order would be issued pending a new hearing over their contention that Terri's due rights process and religious beliefs were being infringed by a court order to essentially starve her to death. I think you might want to toss in "cruel and unusual punishment", the fact they haven't been given a de novo trial with the (unwritten intent of the Congress') string attached of a restraining order in the meantime, and the fact that it's court-ordered homicide, among other things. As I and others have said before, taking just the tack of "violation of due process" is a halfway manuever, you need to present more than a few things at trial!

If, I hope to God, they get that restraining order and a de novo trial (which they were supposed to get in the first place!), I hope they call enough witnesses in their favor to sink a cruise liner. This ridiculous reliance by the federal courts on an obviously-biased judge's "fact finding" is beyond bewildering - it enters the realm of the insane. The "experts", meanwhile, have launched an armada from their armchairs about how Terri's ability to track objects and faces, respond to audio cues, and do very simple manuevers, was all the signs of an otherwise-braindead person. I must be too, because I can do all of those things and yet, shit, I still forget what I did in the third grade or, for that matter, almost all of high school. I must be in a PVS, too!

Biting sarcasm aside, I challenge one of those "experts" to get off their ass and prove it - show up in court and prove one way or the other that she really is gone and everything she does on those videos is involuntary. They are relying on barely minimal tests and what the court-appointed doctors are saying (as if their findings couldn't possibly be colored by a judge with a stake in the very hospice Terri is staying in, oh nooooo). I am sick and tired of all these "experts" blathering on in an effort to fulfill their own self-importance when, quite frankly, they don't know a thing about Terri Schiavo's case, seeing as none of them has actually conducted the tests or examined her. Were they to do it now, they'd find a tired, starved husk of a human being, the product of a callous court order, and would probably lunge to the same conclusion they had before. To think they call themselves doctors - they're not interested in finding the truth or helping Terri get better, they're more about getting television face-time. It fills me with anger to think I used to trust the system to do the right thing by everybody, not just the ones that can talk.

Truly disappointing.

*UPDATE 2*

Now I've seen everything - Ralph Nader joins the "Save Terri" camp. As Ace astutely points out, he is neither a sneaky Christian nor a fiendish Republican. Saving the lives of the innocent does cut across the political aisle.

Schindler's to Head to the Supreme Court

2005-03-23T11:35:00.000-05:00

The 11th Circuit Court ruled against the Schindler's motion to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube earlier this morning, with a 2-1 vote. They also declined to strike down the law passed by Congress, citing that it did nothing to require the federal courts anything more than to hear the case - not require them to order the feeding tube reinserted before hearings, nor anything extraordinary - which is decidedly different than some people were squawking about. You can read the Court's findings in a PDF file here.

The Schindler's are making a last-ditch effort to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which has declined to hear the case before (even though without comment). While it has declined to hear the case before, more often than not the SCOTUS declines cases based more on caseload than anything else, and their non-comment decline is usually an indicator of that. I think that with the national attention this case is getting, the Supreme Court is going to be more hard-pressed than it was before to decline hearing arguments. Moreover, if it does decline the case, it still doesn't stop it from ordering it re-evaluated in a lower court. I don't think many people are ready to throw in the towel yet, including the Schindlers. Governor Jeb Bush is riding the Florida legislature extremely hard to pass measures that could save Terri Schiavo's life, and that will be the absolute last chance for any hope of saving her life. Keep your fingers crossed that it works.

Meanwhile, armchair experts (who have yet to spend a minute examining Terri Schiavo) are prattling on about how Terri's death should be "peaceful", because starving to death is just so relaxing. They essentially argue that a lack of food and water lets you slip into a "peaceful" dehydration-induced coma, despite the fact that you're in agonizing pain for a bite to eat and water to drink. Doctors, it should be noted, tend to put a "happy face" on for these sorts of predictions, when they really don't know how it will actually end. They're trying to make people feel better about a situation like this, and the common sense part of me is screaming not to listen to it.

Wizbang, per the usual, has their own thoughts.

Michelle Malkin weighs in as well.

Powerline, too.

I'll be back later on to update with more blogposts and thoughts.

*UPDATE*

Seems as if the Schindler's have changed their mind - they're going to try for an en banc trial back at the 11th Circuit, getting all the judges involved.

*UPDATE 2*

And we're right back to going to the Supreme Court again. The 11th Circuit has refused to do an en banc appeal, which is puzzling considering this is a rather important situation where (to the average person who reads about this story) there are really huge questions of law and the application of standards here.

Judge Will Not Order Feeding Tube Reinserted

2005-03-22T11:41:00.000-05:00

News comes this morning that the federal judge overseeing Terri Schiavo's misnamed "Right to Die" case will not order the feeding tube reinserted, citing that Terri's family in all likelihood cannot successfully prove that Terri's due process rights were being violated by having her feeding tube removed. As Kevin at Wizbang notes, this is more like a strategic error on the Schindler's part than anything else - he and I would agree that they would likely get better results to attack the original cause of having the feeding tube removed in the first place, the "clear and convincing" evidence that remains anything but "clear and convincing" (read the posts and links below to figure out why). Naturally, the case is in appeal, and hopefully they can change tacks to get a better result.

Coming as no big surprise, those champions of justice, the ACLU, are eagerly on the side of Michael Schiavo and his nutball family. Missing the point entirely (or, without ACLUe, as one t-shirt I've seen say), ACLU Florida director Howard Simon said:

"What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians."

[rant] Frankly, that's a load of crap. There is no living will for Terri, so we don't know what she really wants. Michael admits as much on Larry King Live, in front of his own lawyer. Michael Schiavo can only use his own hearsay testimony, along with that of his brother, to say that's how she wanted things to be. Now, you might be saying : "Well, wait a second, isn't Michael's brother corroborating his testimony?" and I would say to that it is enormously easy for testimony from another family member to closely match up with their kin, either because they are in on something or they want to protect them. Most courts would not weigh that with nearly as much consideration than if, say, a third party from neither family was in the room when Terri allegedly says "I wouldn't want to be kept alive that way". Even still, she says this after an emotionally-charged television scene, something that thousands of us have said at one point in our lives to others, but never really mean it. It is absolutely flimsy to ride an entire case on that scenario, and yet Michael Schiavo did. I mean, for God's sake, the man said his wife was dead to him fifteen years ago! Do the deed and divorce her, if you want to move on. You look like a bottom-feeder for denying the one party that wants to do everything, and would go into bankruptcy if they had to, the one thing they want most: to take care of Terri. That settlement money won't keep your conscience warm at night, and it sure as hell won't save your soul in the end, either. Hell, you can probably even get the terms of the settlement changed so that you can divorce her and still receive the money in the end for your contribution (laughable as it is) to her care, and you can do it behind closed doors and with gag orders. None of us would be the wiser - we'd still loathe you anyway for what you've done.

What strikes me as absolutely despicable is that Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, a known euthanasia advocate, has the unmitigated gall to say that Terri's civil rights are being violated by keeping that feeding tube inside of her. How anyone can reconcile "an effort to prevent the starvation of an innocent living, breathing human being" to "violating their civil rights" needs a punch in the head. It violates anyone's civil rights to wilfully starve them to death. That cannot come from "clear and convincing evidence" in a sane world, and yet here it is. It is so absolutely ludicrous, it starts to become unbearable.

I would say that Rachel at Blue-Eyed Infidel doesn't mince (harsh) words about how a lot of people feel about this (including me).

What is being done to Terri is absolutely wrong, and we treat EVERYTHING else with infinitely more respect and care than most people ought to except her. It just enrages me that all this evidence, a veritable mountain the size of Mount Everest, still doesn't convince people and the court that killing a living, breathing human is, you know, WRONG. It would be another thing ENTIRELY if it could be proven that Terri was completely gone, but the evidence that contradicts this is so strong, it's astounding. If Terri was in agonizing pain (outside of neglect at the orders of her husband) and comatose, with no proveable chance at rehabilitation, it would be entirely different to just give her an injection and let her pass quietly and comfortably. This isn't the case - you are STARVING a LIVING PERSON. Grow some goddamn backbone and give her a chance at life at the hands of people who care, not from the one who says she's otherwise dead to him. [/rant]

OK, so I ended up ranting anyway. Call it pent up frustration, if you will, but you can tell this isn't a simple matter of flipping a switch - much as people want to pretend it is. We are a country of laws, to be sure, but we are a country of rights and of morals - and we have always taken the moral high ground in everything, because we can. It may be harder, but we do it anyway. We cannot ignore our morals and principles to let a woman starve to death because the man who wants nothing to do with her wants that albatross off of his neck. We have always wanted to do what is right for humanity - we cannot avoid that now by looking away or professing ignorance.

*UPDATE*

Bill Hennessy posts his own thoughts, essentially arguing that we wouldn't even think of doing this to mentally-disabled people, why are we doing this to Terri Schiavo? It's all about perspective, folks.

The Mob Mentality and Terri Schiavo

2005-03-21T11:24:00.000-05:00

The case of Terri Schiavo continues to spiral round and round some sort of horrible carousel of politics, where Paul at Wizbang notes an effort by radically liberal bloggers (*cough* Oliver Willis *cough*) to snuff out the future of an otherwise-healthy woman. Their reasons, in my opinion? They don't like a (Republican) Congress getting involved to save a woman's life, or the fact that they're trying to change the venue of the Schindler's appeal so that they have a fair chance at making their case in a federal court, because they sure as hell can't get one with that pig-headed Judge Greer in Florida. Boo-goddamn-hoo, you crybabies. Get over yourselves and stop treating this as though Terri Schiavo is a completely lost cause. She clearly is not, and you pretenders would otherwise be SHRIEKING from the rooftops the injustices her husband has done to her if it were politically expedient for you. You only start wailing about threats to democracy when you're not the ones doing something like this in front of a television camera. Grow up and spare me your whining bullshit.

What is being done to Terri was a total injustice - she received no treatments for the illnesses she developed while hospitalized, she received no tests that could aid doctors in treating her and improving her condition, she has received exceptionally little in ways of therapy, treatment, or overall care. It is not right to treat her this way - we treat animals better than how some people are treating Terri Schiavo. Give her the food, give her the water, and give Terri a chance to live. It's the biggest part of the Constitution, folks - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not "the right to die because my spouse has an epiphany after a lucrative settlement and that TOTALLY doesn't play into his sudden change of heart and, like, junk and stuff". She deserves a chance and deserves treatment, just like every other human being. I could have sworn that was a big tenet of liberal progressive thinking - you know, treating everyone's life with respect.

I'm starting to think that some people are out to prove me wrong.

*UPDATE*

Not related to Terri Schiavo, but I feel it is important enough to mention here. I have (finally) updated the blogroll on the right to reflect the great blogs I have linked to on numerous occassions but never got around to adding to the blogroll. With that fixed, I must say that ALL the blogs on that blogroll are great blogs to read, and come highly recommended. Do give them a look.

House Bill Passes

2005-03-21T01:20:00.000-05:00

The House has passed the Schiavo bill, with a 203-58 vote. 53 Democrats, 5 Republicans voted against the bill, with many abstaining. It will be interesting to see if they have jobs after 2006, but good on them for the courage of their convictions. As Paul at Wizbang notes, the 53 nay-vote Democrats, and the 102 Dems that didn't vote, are going to look like fools for making such a huge fuss and then not backing it up with the courage of their supposed convictions. But that still doesn't stop the likes of Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla., from screaming that this Bill "is a clear threat to our democracy". I needn't remind the good Congressman that it is, in fact, a republic, a democratic republic, even, and not just a democracy. The legislators of this republic decided that it was important enough to declare that EVERYONE, including brain-damaged women neglected by their spousal guardian, has a meaningful life and that they are all important enough to be considered. It is clearly time that Terri Schiavo and others start being treated as people again, instead of refuse or something that is simply "there".

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this survives far enough to get some food back into Terri's stomach, and that the road is brighter from here on.

Partisan Politics and Saving Lives

2005-03-20T16:54:00.000-05:00

Well, it officially happened - political squabbling has come to a head in the Terri Schiavo case, and is definitely not pretty. House Democrats are forcing debate on the issue, which starts at 9PM EST, with a possible vote as soon as possible after midnight tonight. Ace points out, quite rightly, that the Democrats are taking a decidedly (in my opinion) wrongheaded tack in dealing with this case, and how they can probably better themselves as a party than appearing as the party that says "No", or over-eager to yank out Terri's feeding tube. Naturally, this debate makes it yet another day that Terri is without food or water, much to many people's chagrin.

Paul at Wizbang is incensed.

The Blogging, Part-Time Airman is incensed.

Megan of Lesbiencestmoi is incensed.

A lot of people are ticked off about this - what can be accomplished by ignoring our humanity to quibble about how we go about and save a life? Or, for that matter, let a runaway judge decide the fate of a woman by ordering that she starve to death?

This is way too simple of a decision to make - let the woman live, or prove with finality that she is otherwise dead. Don't make her die just to fulfill one end of that spectrum. Humanity is way more important than political wrangling, and it is in-hu-mane to starve anyone to death. Show some backbone, guys, and get behind a cause because its right, instead of quibbling over who else is involved.

*UPDATE*

John from WuzzaDem has a post detailing Terri Schiavo's medical records, something I had quite often raised in my comments to this thread over at Ace of Spades, but neglected to post here. Something I intend to fix right now. Take a look at WuzzaDem's main page for his own great posts on the subject as well, not just the one in the link.

Also, there are two posts by Paul over at Wizbang, one live-blogging the floor debate and the other a continuation of his earlier rant. Let's just say that he is on an absolute tear.

Updates on Schiavo Case

2005-03-20T00:03:00.000-05:00

Apologies for the delay in posting more about this - research and work don't always go hand in hand in terms of sharing time, even when you work at a library. Anyhow, here is a few updates on the Schiavo case.

Congress is the center of intense focus in this case of Terri Schiavo, unintentionally drawing attention to the fact that Congress is getting involved in the Schiavo case, and sort of relegating the actual person they started this over to a lesser position in the public spotlight. Over at Jackson Junction there's a video with Tom DeLay ripping into Michael Schiavo, which is remarkably subdued in comparison to what I and others would do with a bullhorn on a rooftop.

The press coverage has been, in a word, exceptionally poor - as Ace points out. I find quotes like this (found in various newspaper repeats of AP reports) to be absolutely appalling:

Schiavo, 41, could linger one to two weeks, provided no one intercedes and gets the tube reinserted - something that has happened twice before.

Linger? What the hell is the author, Mitch Stacy, driving at? This is hardly a case where the smell of a dead mouse lingers in the wall for a week or so. This is a human being, someone who is still alive and doesn't deserve to starve! Show some respect and tact, man.

Then Michael has to play out the part of the grieving husband, despite shacking up with another woman and having two kids by her. But please, don't let anyone tell you he's not a good, God-fearing man. The following is from the same linked AP report:

"It felt like some peace was happening for Terri," Michael Schiavo told NBC's "Today" on Saturday. "And I felt like she was finally going to get what she wants, and be at peace and be with the Lord."

It felt like "peace was happening for Terri"? I'm sorry, but how can you prove that? You were asserting so damn much that the woman is nothing but a fixture in a hospice room, but now you're ascribing feelings to her? I wouldn't feel at all peaceful in the knowledge, even at a base subconscious level, that my spouse is fighting so hard to have me starve to death. This entire facade of Michael's is so nauseating, I can't stand it.

The Captain's Quarters has updates on the Supreme Court rejecting, without comment, a motion to hear the case on appeal. Taking this to the SCOTUS would have been the most direct means to getting Terri back on hydration and food. Unlike the headline says at Ace of Spades or elsewhere, I can see why the Supreme Court would not want to hear the case - they may fear they would be looked upon as interfering with a State matter (much like some are saying what Congress is doing with the subpoenas), and therefore don't want to look like meddlers. The cynic in me already says that, considering the meddling they do anyway in other matters, they may as well do some meddling that could bring about some good. This doesn't mean that the SCOTUS won't hear the case after the lower courts make some rulings on the subpoenas and/or the appeal to reinsert the feeding tube and they're petitioned again, it just means that they won't hear the case now. I, too, share in the frustration that they aren't hearing the case, but some things can't be helped.

Rightwing Nuthouse has a grim prediction for the future in dealing with the infirm and the (supposedly) incurable. The problem with Terri's case is that, should she ultimately die in the end, this becomes a springboard for more "right to die" or "right to euthanasia" cases, and it becomes progressively easier to just, well, let it happen. What makes this all the more difficult to swallow is how quickly the facts will be twisted, and hence history rewritten, when Right-To-Die groups and their ideological ilk try and turn the forced starvation of a woman into the acts of a martyr. In the efforts to be "merciful" to the indigent and the crippled, we start making everything a "special case" for putting someone down, and the line between "mercy" and "convenience" becomes blurred, indistinguishable. Sooner or later, a baby may not meet some sort of standard the parents have, or a relative's care has just become a little too inconvenient because of their family history of disease. It is the horrible, nasty way that the entire Eugenics movement considered acceptable back at the start of the 20th century, and was ultimately rejected then, as it should be now. One can only hope that the results of the Schiavo case turn out to be positive, so that this road cannot be traveled for another day.

*UPDATE*

Wizbang has word of the "Terri Schiavo Bill" that is pretty much set to pass in Congress. President Bush is returning to DC from Crawford to sign it, perhaps getting Terri's feeding tube reinserted as early as Monday. It'll have been almost 72 hours later, but it is definitely something. Although, this bill stands very little chance of surviving judicial review, seeing as it is directed at one person, setting us back to square one once it is overturned. I could very well be wrong - it may be written in such a way as to be bullet-proof, we'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, another post on Wizbang has some more context, with links to a news article on the history of "Right to die" cases and thoughts from the ever-acerbic pundit Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter essentially argues that, while Judge Greer's findings on Terri's wishes are largely immune from review, it does not mean that he's not mistaken:

Judge Greer's finding on Terri's wishes may be immune from legal review, but it's not immune from criticism. He's a finder of fact - he's not God. A few years ago, Judge Greer found that Helene Ball McGee did not have reasonable cause to believe domestic violence was imminent and denied her an order of protection. Two weeks later, Mrs. McGee was stabbed to death by her husband. So judges can make mistakes.

Mr. Aylward argues in his post on Wizbang that this case, at the very least, deserves a full review with a fresh set of judicial eyes, to see if that court's findings are the same as the Florida Circuit Court's. I would be willing to bet that they would not base the same decision on Michael Schiavo's hearsay-based testimony, and how this gradual "revelation" came to him after recalling a conversation he had had with his wife after watching a television program doesn't quite constitute "clear and convincing evidence". Particularly and especially after he has this epiphany after being awarded a settlement in a malpractice suit. I'm sorry, something about that smells, here. Give this case a fresh review, a trial de novo, and lets see how the cards really stack up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I may have to retract an earlier misconception I perpetuated in an earlier post - Judge Greer did not order the feeding tube removed, but instead gave Michael Schiavo permission to do so (which he wasted, naturally, no time in doing). Then again, considering I'm reading this AP story for the information, that too could be highly suspect. In the spirit of intellectual honesty (and because I'm not quite ready to believe everything the AP says now), I am going to leave the original posts up, unedited, until it is decided one way or another. At that point, I'll go back and make a note of that fact in those posts. You can count this paragraph as a sort of IOU one way or the other.

Snuffing Out Justice for Terri

2005-03-16T22:49:00.000-05:00

It is truly sad to see this happen, but it looks like Terri Schiavo's family is out of judicial options.

What really disgusts me out of this whole thing was that, frankly, they were never given a chance in the first place. It was this horrible, disgusting lurch towards the repugnant idea that Michael Schiavo knew what was best for his wife (he clearly doesn't, and has a HUGE conflict of interest), and that Terri had a "right to die". Damn everything else, Terri Schiavo has a right to die! Forgive me for being rude, but what a load of crap. I can't believe that it didn't enter the judge's head, for a second, that Michael Schiavo was clawing a little too hard to remove Terri's feeding tube, considering what he stood to gain from her death. The judge in this case somehow believes that there was "clear and compelling" evidence that Michael's assertation that Terri didn't want to be kept alive by artificial means, when that "clear and compelling" evidence is hearsay! That's all it is - hearsay! Michael Schiavo is the only person contending that Terri doesn't want to be kept alive this way, and he's not exactly the most trustworthy source to go from. I'm just floored that a judge could be that blinkered in their way of thinking.

This decision comes after Michael Schiavo rejects a $1M offer to turn over Terri's care to her parents, effectively sealing the deal on Terri's fate. I can only hope the Florida state legislature can get another billed passed that will prevent Terri from being without that feeding tube for too long. I also really hope it survives judicial review this time, because I want to see Schiavo squirm for this. This is an abortion of justice, and I don't think people are going to stand around and watch this happen.

Wizbang gets another hat tip for the story. You can be sure that the entire country will be watching this one today. I'll probably be back later today to update again, hopefully with some good news.

You can also read more thoughts and links at Cao's Blog, Rightwing Nuthouse, and Cathouse Chat. (*These blogs have updated with further links and context*) I'll be sure to add more later on, as I'm sure many others will be weighing on this subject.

My prayers are with you, Terri.

*UPDATE*

Patriots for Bush has their own thoughts. The Anchoress reveals something I had not known before - Terri has never had an MRI or PET scan since her "fall", Michael has denied access to that particular avenue of research. Very fascinating, and not at all surprising considering the kind of care Michael has been providing. As such, the Crystal Clear blog and I are on the same page in our suspicions. WuzzaDem and the Captain's Quarters are also on the case, taking to this story with some serious verve, obliterating a lot of myths surrounding this entire story. Hugh Hewitt also weighs in (you will have to scroll down a little bit to find the bit, where he links to a National Review article that is, in a word, chilling).

The blogosphere is, as you can see, all over this story. The conventional wisdom is that, if Terri's Law II is not passed by the Florida State Senate (it made it past the House) and signed into law, Michael Schiavo should be forced to sit there and watch his wife die. I feel that isn't going far enough. I want Judge Greer in there too, I want them locked in, and I want them to have nothing but their thoughts about what they've done for company. Oh, and no food or water. If they're not driven completely mad about the abominable things they've done, then they're complete lost causes and should be put away like a rabid animal. I loathe those two with a passion that defies description. I know I'll be rooting for the people who actually know the law (the Florida state legislature) to win this time against this renegade judge and this despicable husband.

Here's hoping.

*UPDATE 2 - The feeding tube has not been removed, by order of Florida Circuit Court Judge David Demers, pending review of the case. I could buy this man lunch!*

Michelle Malkin finally, finally!, weighs in on the subject at her blog, linking to an NRO article and an AP report about Congressional efforts to stop Terri Schiavo's feeding tube from being removed, and to get to the bottom of this whole deal. What a relief.

*UPDATE 3 : The Better-Late-Than-Never Update*

As you are probably well-aware of now, the feeding tube ended up being removed after an appeal reaffirmed the original ruling. I am just updating this post to reflect that fact so that linkers to this post will have everything up to par.

We Gotta Find a Brand New Hero...

2005-03-14T20:31:00.000-05:00

...because we can't count on the courts any more to uphold the law, or at least try not to be so nakedly obvious in their activism. Forgive the Reel Big Fish reference.

* * UPDATE - more thoughts, and a link, below the original post. * *

Judicial activism has run amok again, as the armada of activists seeking to circumvent the will of the people and the legislative branch continue carrying forward the gay marriage banner to its next destination, California.

A judge had ruled that California was unconstitutionally preventing gay couples from marrying each other in the state - a ruling that, if it does survive appeal, placing the most-populous state in this country behind Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed. The judge actually likened the ban to laws requiring segregation in schools, essentially repeating what activists had the unmitigated gall to say after the Massachusetts ruling. He goes on to say that he sees no rational purpose in denying marriage to gay couples.

Apparently, he thought what Hawaii did in 1993 was a good thing, when the court there ruled that gay marriage was legal in that state. The ensuing raft of states passing laws defining marriage as between a man and woman, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, quickly proved that Hawaii's courts had overstepped its authority. Now we get the same go-round with Massachusetts and now California.

I mean, is it only obvious to me and a lot of other people that the court does not possess the power to make these grandstanding decisions from the bench, essentially writing laws that the legislature has no hand in doing? The obvious problem for these activists is that they can't make a cogent argument to a state legislature, so they try and turn a few judges to do the heavy lifting for them. I'm sure that if they devoted the energy and money that they put into these court cases into a campaign for laws to be changed in their state, they'd have much more favorable results. I mean, if someone wants something bad enough, they'd work hard to get it, right? Instead, they're creating their own PR nightmare by appearing to be weasels - people who can't persuade others to their side, so they get judges to do the work for them. It's lazy and sneaky work, and the courts should not tolerate and give their approval for it. Judges know that they're not supposed to be tools of a larger PR campaign, but this judge is essentially behaving that way.

Hat tip to Kevin Aylward of Wizbang for the story (who also notes how he essentially said this would happen a while ago, with a New York court's own recent decision).

* * * * * *
The Moderate Voice (who linked to this post when I first posted it) raises an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before - how is Governor Schwarzenegger going to publicly treat this ruling? He originally came out against gay marriage, but follows up later by saying something to the effect of him "following the will of the people" either way that they decide on the issue. Which raises an interesting conundrum: is he going to actively campaign for/against an amendment to the California constitution, or keep out of it. I suspect that he will stay out of this fracas, at least for the most part, because he's that canny of a politician. Taking a guess, he'd stay out of this because the prospect of his ultra-macho public persona would likely knock those on the fence about the issue into the Pro-Gay Marriage camp, just based on the more liberally-attuned public in the state. Or, frankly, it could knock them the other way - but its a lot less probable.

If the state legislature manages to pass the gay marriage ban amendments to their constitution, this may just put the issue well out of the hands of the pro-gay marriage legislators and the courts. Naturally, the legislature could very well reverse itself at a later date by passing a pro-gay marriage amendment, repealing the ban (assuming this actually does pass). Which brings me to what I said earlier - if the gay and lesbian activists had spent the time and effort into convincing the legislature and the public about the fairness of gay marriage, I don't think they'd have half the problems of public perception that they do now. I absolutely cannot stand the fact that the rights of the majority of citizens is being subverted here by someone who is sympathetic to a cause, but chooses to ignore the law and their duty. I'm still scratching my head over the judge in Massachusetts finding something in the state's constitution that would support gay marriage. Considering, you know, it was written by the most God-fearing people on Earh.

One of the oft-cited arguments for gay marriage is the rather high amount of divorce cases in the country. Can someone tell me how the divorce rates of straight couples has anything to with the marriage rights of gays and lesbians? I mean, what if their own rates turn into the same figures as straight couples? I submit, then, that the whole thing would be pointless. Before anyone even attempts to give me the line "Oh, well, it'll never happen with gay marriages!", thats the same thing people said about heterosexual marriage. Using divorce rates as a reason for supporting gay marriage is flimsy at best, a total non-sequitor at worst, and arrogant the entire way through. It is not the way to win people to your side.

This is an example of a PR campaign gone horribly, horribly awry. These activists are cheating everyone out of their fair say in the matter, and they make the moderate activists look like fools when they're the ones working harder for tolerance and acceptance. Subverting the rights of citizens and having the court shove this down their throats is absolutely unacceptable, and only succeeds in making moderate gays and lesbians look bad, or tacit supporters of cheating.

Saving Lives are Officially "Out" for Judges

2005-03-13T11:02:00.000-05:00

I was reading a story about Terri Schiavo, the woman who is in a partial coma-like state receiving national media attention, and the continued battle to save her life from her husband. A judge recently denied a Florida agency the chance to investigate over thirty (thirty!) allegations of abuse and neglect at the hands of Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo. The Florida Department of Children and Families had hoped to use the investigation as a way to delay Terri's execution by at least sixty days.

Yes, I say execution because this is clearly an example of a pig-headed judge gone amok. The court has no business at all interfering with the state's investigation into what could be very real allegations of abuse. The court doesn't even have the right to order her feeding tube removed like they did - they violate the very core principles on which this country was founded, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The court takes away Terri's liberty by wilfully choosing to ignore the extremely suspicious circumstances that Michael Schiavo is suing under, instead sticking her "care" (or lack thereof, thanks to his interference) with the very man trying to let her starve to death. Can you say "conflict of interest"? The court takes away Terri's life by ordering her starvation death (something you wouldn't do to anyone in a sane, civilized world), and her ability to pursue happiness by letting Michael deny her treatment to improve her condition. It strikes me as remarkably obtuse that Michael Schiavo isn't out there fighting harder for Terri's recovery, when several sources say its very possible with the right treatment, unless he has some other motive. His "Terri wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial means" is a crock in the face of the evidence - she wouldn't have to be if she was allowed the treatment.

Now there's recent news that an entrepeneur is attempting to buy out Michael Schiavo in an effort to get him to turn over Terri's care to her parents. The businessman, Robert Herring Sr., will pay Michael $1M in exchange for him surrendering guardianship rights to Terri's parents.

As much as this strikes me as nauseating (or, like the author in the link, "rancidly sick"), it would at least put Michael Schiavo in the un-enviable position of denying a huge amount of money to continue this sordid affair to its horrendous conclusion. What makes this all the more horrendous is the fact that, if Terri should still die even after transfer of guardianship, Michael still receives the $1.6M settlement he got for his own allegations of malpractice in regards to Terri's treatment. So he could stand to make $2.6M out of the entire deal. I, personally, would tack on a restraining order to make sure he doesn't come within 900 feet of Terri Schiavo, her parents, or the medical staff treating Terri, just to make sure the son of a bitch doesn't try anything.

Michelle Malkin has a raft of links and posts on her own blog.

Driven to Distraction

2005-03-05T21:44:00.000-05:00

Apologies for the lack of posting - the wide array of tests and schoolwork I have had to endure hasn't changed one whit from my last semester. This week will be no better, but I figured it was time to make sure that my Blogger space was put to good use.

A subject that has recently come up around my school and, apparently, others is the usage of campus WiFi networks during classtime by students. Professors, especially those of the "old school" of pencils and notepads, are voicing their displeasure at the idea that students are using the wireless networks to do things other than research or downloading class-related materials. Namely, instant messaging, e-mail, doodling, or playing solitaire. Before I go further, let me state for the record that the majority of professors I've had have been very interesting to learn from, and that I am in no way trying to paint all of them with the "Boring" brush.

All of those can be considered fair game, but there's a deeper problem that professor's need to address - why students are doing that in the first place. I can tell you, in plain language - you're making this mind-numbingly boring, guys. Sure, not all subjects are going to fascinate and excite everyone who takes them but that doesn't mean a professor shouldn't try.

A student shouldn't be made to feel as if they're serving a prison term by taking Ethnic American Literature and having a professor harp on and on about a subject as if they are the only ones that can truly appreciate and enjoy the subject matter and that the student could only hope that some of this highfalutin knowledge rubs off on them. That's not how learning works - a student isn't there to act as a tape recorder, one that is expected to playback everything noted in class on tests. If I wanted that, I'd set my laptop to do speech-to-text, leave for an hour and, assuming my laptop isn't stolen, pick up an entire lecture's worth of notes and have saved an hour of time by reading on a subject that actually interests me.

Learning has always been about involvement, from the start of history. Do you think cavemen intrinsically knew not to burn themselves on the fire they created? Of course not - many torched themselves before they figured out that, hey, maybe poking around in this fire business isn't so smart for our personal well-being! Professor's are treating their job as more of posting where they belt out a bunch of lines, assign work, and dismiss class. This shouldn't happen - what are we learning, outside of a bunch of text to recite later? Not terribly much, I submit.

With a WiFi enabled network in campus buildings, at least the tools exist for a student to actually further their interest in a subject while in class, where they can look up mentioned material and ask further questions so that, not only do they know more details, but that everyone else does. Textbooks only cover so much (of the little that professors commonly cover of those overpriced monstrosities), but Googling or consulting a Wiki entry can add a lot of context for otherwise "flat" material. Taking something away because it "might" be distracting is reaching a little too far, frankly. If we're going to go that way, I submit that everyone where blue jeans and white t-shirts, because anything else just might be too distracting to others if they wear different colors, cuts, or makes. Can't have pens, pencils, or colored notebook paper - they may cause someone to engage in the despicable act of doodling, or provide something more interesting to look at then the wall behind the professor's head. Can't have textbooks, because someone might be transfixed in their shcok that some people still lick their finger before turning a page (horrors!), or they may flip a page too hard, causing a flapping noise. If I wanted parenting, I'm not going to look to a professor to do that for the "good of the classroom" (as if these are fiefdoms to them) - I'll go home on a weekend and get an earful there.

If a student is being flagrantly obvious or obnoxious in their distracting behavior, then the obvious move would be to tell them to take a hike - exert a little peer pressure on them to get them to cut their foolishness out. People need to stop being crippled by this horrendous fear of hurting someone's feelings by telling someone to stop doing something that is being mighty distracting. If it bothers you, and they're not making a move to stop after respectfully asking that they do so, then be the bigger person and move somewhere where it won't bother you or take the next step up. Don't try and make this a blanket-ban-scale problem when it otherwise serves a useful purpose to others.

Professors have a lot more to worry about than WiFi networks in the classroom if students are doing IMs and e-mail - they may have to rethink how they teach a class so that students are more focused on them rather than what web site has the best sales. WiFi is a good thing, and shouldn't be restricted because the few (or, in a worst case scenario, the majority) are driven to distraction in a classroom.

Apologies!

2005-02-21T11:03:00.000-05:00

My apologies to those who have visited here and haven't seen updates in the last few days. I've been horrendously busy with paperwork and outside matters that I haven't had much time to blog. I should be able to resume doing so relatively soon, so stay tuned.

Like a Lemming to a Cliff

2005-02-16T23:04:00.000-05:00

Howard Dean is proving to be a wonderful chairman of the Democratic National Committee. So wonderful, he's managed to piss off a lot of people within the first week of him being chairman. I mean, isn't this quote just an award-winner?

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

What was really astounding about this was that he said it to the Congressional Black Caucus, as if it was the most common and innocent thing to say in front of them. What bothers me the most is that this is largely going unchallenged, save for condemnations from Maryland's Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, and treated for the inappropriate remarks that they are.

I think that Dean is going to prove a lot of people right - the Republicans will handily win in 2006, and the Presidency in 2008.

A Kick in the Pants for the Baltimore Sun

2005-02-16T07:23:00.000-05:00

Over at Sneaking Suspicions, there's a breakdown of the recent decision here in Maryland about the Baltimore Sun v. Governor Robert Ehrlich (PDF file) case. As a bit of background (in case you'd rather not read the PDF file), the Baltimore Sun Company had sued the Governor's office over a recent memo circulated forbidding state employees from speaking with columnist Michael Olesker and reporter David Nitkin, citing poor reporting and factual inaccuracies in their reporting. What made this so different was the fact that Ehrlich didn't do what other Governor's do, and that's privately speak with the newspaper company and try to get someone rotated out of the press pool. Ehrlich made it very public, very obvious about his displeasure with Nitkin's and Olesker's behavior and limited the scope to which they can acquire and report stories (all other Sun reporters have full access - these two do not).

The Baltimore Sun sued the Governor, citing that the ban violated the Sun's 1st and 14th Amendment rights in the Constitution. Anyone with a basic study in constitutional rights will tell you that's absurd - everyone but those two reporters are allowed full access to state employees. David Nitkin and Michael Olesker can still do their Public Information Act petitions, and can still attend open, public press meetings. What they are forbidden from doing is calling anyone within the administration to provide "context" for their reporting - that'll be something else for another reporter to do.

The judge in this case says essentially the same thing:

The enforcement of the Governor’s memorandum has been implemented in a way that is reasonably calculated to ensure the Sun’s access to generally available public information. The Sun seeks a privileged status beyond that of the private citizen; that desire is not a cognizable basis for injunctive relief.

The Baltimore Sun is trying to make itself above everyone else (ie, the public) in demanding exclusivity for acquiring information. They're completely ignoring the reason's behind the Governor's restriction, they're just furious that two of their own can't get everything they want at once. As far as the Sun is concerned, David Nitkin and Michael Olesker could flat out lie about everything and anything, but they shouldn't be punished for it because restricting them would somehow restrict the Sun as a whole. The Sun's "Ivory Tower Complex" isn't all that surprising, but it is indicative of a trend over print and electronic news publishing as a whole. Obviously, there was CBS being called on the carpet for stonewalling and obfuscating the facts over their acquisition of faked memos concerned President Bush's Air National Guard service. Then there was Eason Jordan of CNN being called for his remarks about soldiers targeting journalists deliberately in Iraq, without a shred of evidence to back it up. People like this expect to get away with this foolishness forever, strictly because they're "The Media" and that they claim to know better. Obviously, as the CBS debacle proves, they don't, and some people just aren't going to take it any more.

The days where the media gets to have the mindset that they're entitled to whatever they want to know, whenever they want to know, damn everything else (including even a base level of honesty and ethics), are numbered. The blogs of the world are going to be watching, ready to put the screws to anyone and everyone who think they can get away with things that other people cannot.

Throwing gasoline on the fire...

2005-02-15T15:25:00.000-05:00

Bill from INDC Journal (picture so NSFW) throws gasoline onto the fire that is GannonGate by turning his attention to liberal softball-chucking reporter Helen Thomas. The photo is just a surprise, it's both hilarious and eye-scarring at the same time. Thank God for parody.

If only everybody focused this much attention to all the softball throwers that make up the press pool - we may actually get some honest reporting for a change. Sans the nastier aspect of looking into their private lives, naturally, unless it actually affects their job. I, and others, maintain that Jeff Gannon's private life has nothing at all to do with his abilities as a journalist, as it's only being tossed around because it is juicy to the bottom feeders who thrive on that sort of thing.

Even FRUITS are in on the conspiracy!

2005-02-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

I read this on Wizbang this morning and I just fell over, howling with laughter.

Short version - a woman at one of the marches led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson to commemorate Martin Luther King's birthday took serious offense to the sight of a police officer eating...a banana. Yes, a yellow, tubular piece of fruit.

Apparently, she took the officer's eating of this vile, evil, racist banana propaganda to be something akin to comparing black people with apes. Perhaps it would have been back in the days when Martin Luther King and others led rallies and marches in the South, but lets be serious here. Nowadays, you have to be patently obvious in your racism to actually be, well, racist. Eating a banana after spending hours on end on your feet is hardly something that someone could (or even should) make a quantum leap in logic to infer that action as being racist. It's just not feasible, and yet somehow this woman did.

Hell, I enjoy eating bananas - they're great in smoothies or on ice cream. Lots of people enjoy bananas because they taste good and are good for you. It strikes me as peculiar that this never crossed this woman's mind that way, instead seeing it as a racial slur. It's just hysterical that it happened that way.

Some people need to get a life, and quick.

Circling 'round the Moat

2005-02-14T17:35:00.000-05:00

A few thoughts on the laughably-called "breaking news" about the Jeff Gannon / James Guckert kerfluffle. If you're unaware of this supposedly earth-shattering news, some blogger found a bunch of pictures through a male escort service website that look like the publicizied pictures of Jeff Gannon (only much more provocative). The blogger goes on to string together a bunch of connections to how Jeff Gannon is probably gay and that he deserves the smearing he gets. He relies on MS Word documents (does anyone really need a reminder as to how easily MS Word documents can be modified to reflect what someone wants them to reflect?) and pictures of a Gannon-lookalike on various escort websites to prove his point. To see this website and it's proof, you'll have to look at the mirrored PDF version over at Wizbang (the pictures within the PDF file, while censored, should be treated as NSFW).

Let's make something very clear - what Jeff Gannon does in private is his business. It should've remained that way, but a bunch of smear merchants think that it's relevant only as far as making their "story" about him allegedly receiving daily (as opposed to permanent of the approved press pool) press passes, under his actual name, all the more juicier. It's a prime example of mob mentality at its absolute worst and the "gay angle" contributes absolutely nothing to the accusation that he has done something wrong by his credentials or through his softball questions. It's just vicious, childish behavior that should've been left behind in grade school.

Ace has a pretty good way of expressing how it should have been in the investigation by some bloggers into Jeff Gannon's credentials, where the "gay angle" plays in.

The standard ought not to be whether a tidbit has any arguable relevance to a story or to public policy or whatnot. The standard really should be more of a sliding scale-- the more personal and embarrassing the information, the greater the actual and direct relevance should be if you're going to report it.

Nasty gossip that just hurts people may be "news" in the sense that it is interesting and informative, but it's not "news" in the more restrictive sense that it actually has relevance to an important event or public debate.

As far as the Daily Kos and Atrios blogs, the two prominent liberal blogs on this story, are concerned, all they are doing is being gossipmongers. What they're "reporting" isn't "news", it's playing the role of a tabloid editor to the hilt. They haven't nailed someone to the wall like other, more successful blogs have done with CBS News' shoddy research and journalistic practices in airing memos obviously done in MS Word. Instead, they have to pick on someone that is, not to diminish Jeff Gannon, a small fry in the larger pool of reporters. The only "crime" he's guilty of is asking softball questions, something that reporters and entertainers have done for years. The only difference is that every other reporter and entertainer gets away with it, and this man gets lynched by a bunch of maladjusted brats out for blood.

Pathetic.

UPDATE - The Moderate Voice has this latest development broken down into several sub-stories, with links aplenty to other blogs and stories.

Who Tolerates Whom?

2005-02-13T19:01:00.000-05:00

Day by day, there is always, always someone griping about how the Democratic party didn't thoroughly stomp George W. Bush and the Republicans back in the November elections (or even before that). It almost always follows with excuses about how they had run a "weak" candidate or that it was always someone else's fault (Karl Rove!), but it was never their fault. The leftward blogs like to portray themselves as sources of tolerance, whenever they're not censoring out someone who might actually defend someone right-of-center in their comments section because, Heaven forbid, they may actually have a reasoned point.

Wizbang has thoughts on the subject, dealing with why (at least, from a more right-leaning point of view) the Democratic Party keeps ending up with the short straw in elections. It's not just about "weak" candidates, it's about candidates that can't draw people to their side. The Democrats found out to their horror in the mid-nineties that they don't have a monopoly on the majority vote. Instead of working on a platform that re-emphasizes the things that had made them winners in the first place (the enjoyment of democratic values and liberty for all), they instead try the sole tactic of demonizing the competition. Naturally, they continually find out that that isn't always going to work. Instead, they let the Republicans eat their lunch by (usually) behaving on a higher standard and pushing their ideas to the front, criticizing their opponents for relying more on smear tactics than espousing public policy ideas of their own.

Within Wizbang's post is a link to the lefty blog The Daily Kos (which I adamantly refuse to link to, as it's just too distasteful and juvenile to qualify as linkable), where there is a prime example of why some of the absolutely vitriolic rhetoric will not allow the Left to win elections within the post "I'm a Republican : F-ck You". Instead of arguing in an arena of ideas, the kind of people that make up the public face of the Democratic party instead rely on writing things that are roughly on the level of a thirteen-year-old's idea of "slam poetry". It's just juvenile, and a complete waste of time.

The left need to start accepting the fact that they're not in control of the national debate, and need to work on finding ways to take away the mindshares of the Republicans with more diverse and cogent arguments. They need to stop being the party that says "No" for everything because, as they stand now, they don't even have the political wherewithal to do much about it anyway.

Partisan Journalists Throw Softball Questions?! Horrors!

2005-02-10T22:47:00.000-05:00

In a desperate attempt to get a "Gotcha" moment much like bloggers did over Dan Rather and the fake memos on CBS news, hard-left blogs like Atrios, DailyKos, and others are all over a story about an allegedly-partisan journalist serving up - get this - softball questions at White House press meetings! What's this? A partisan serving up softball questions to someone on their side?! Say it isn't so!

The journalist in question, James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon), had asked a loaded question of President Bush about working with Senate Democrats, qualifying it by describing them as appearing to "be divorced from reality". Mr. Guckert/Gannon worked for The Talon news service before resigning, and was the registrar of several provocatively-named, gay-oriented websites (despite not being involved in any of them, reportedly). The story appears in the Chicago Tribune. Naturally, the resulting kerfluffle over the entire thing was cause for him to resign from The Talon in the interest of protecting his family.

I, and I'm sure many others, find ourselves of the same opinion of Little Green Footballs, Power Line, Wizbang, and others (with Ace of Spades having a few funny posts here and here - the second one not being for the sensitive) - that is, we greet this sort of news with a resounding "Meh." OK, so he used a different name in publishing on the Talon (he used his actual name for his daily press credentials), was decidedly less concerned with "Gotcha" questions and grinding axes for press conferences (i.e., manufacturing news instead of reporting it) and registered several gay-oriented websites as part of his job with a software company. I fail to see how this is at all important or anywhere remotely offensive.

Seriously, if this is something that liberal bloggers are going to seize upon as groundbreaking as they claim it is, we're going to need more teacups for them to have more tempests in.

Creative? I think not.

2005-02-10T10:13:00.000-05:00

It's just so wonderful to log on to the internet and read stories about how yet another kid (this one in Rhode Island) thinks they're making a statement by equating President Bush with Adolf Hitler. It just smacks of originality...only it doesn't. If you click the link at the top of the post, you can read all about how this 17-year-old kid thinks that our policies involving Iraq have similarities to the German Blitzkrieg over sixty years ago. The stretch is so gossamer-thin, it's not even comprehensible. If that's all he was trying to convey, he's doing a miserably poor job of expressing the point. The "exhibit" features comparative quotes from the President and Adolf Hitler, Nazi swastikas and American flags, as well as plastic soldiers facing off against each other.

Naturally, the kid gets awarded for his expressive display, with his teacher giving him an A and also receiving the Silver Key from the Rhode Island Scholastic Arts Awards. Meanwhile, people are (understandably!) concerned that he's receiving all this attention for yet another tacky display, with the basic argument being that he could've gone a lot further in clarifying his point (or could have presented a more cogent, sound argument). Michelle Malkin has more.

It strikes me as disingenuous that this kid claims he supports our troops but doesn't think we should have removed Saddam Hussein the way we did (even after the Iraqi elections), saying the war was unjustified. Meaning, enforcing UN resolutions from the past twelve years before the invasion isn't quite enough to justify removing a madman who also regularly kills and maims his own people, usually for sport or imagined infractions. Last time I checked, the United States was still a pretty big supporter of democracy and human rights, something Saddam Hussein thought he could flout and violate UN resolutions, sanctions, and programs.

What ever happened to kids making art that was actually interesting for a change?

Circling the Drain in Baltimore

2005-02-09T21:58:00.000-05:00

As a Maryland native, I frequently get to hear the Democratic Mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley, blast everybody (except for, noticeably, himself) for preventing him from doing his job and serving the people of Baltimore. Anybody with enough synapses firing would eventually figure out that he's so busy blaming everyone else, he can't do his job.

So, naturally, it shouldn't come as a surprise he tries to blame his long-time political rival, Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich for recent troubles arising from rumors over him having an extramarital affair. O'Malley, it should be noted, would blame Ehrlich if he were to stub his toe. As it turns out, it was a long-time state employee that had been spreading those tasteless, harsh rumors, without the Governor's knowledge. The Governor found out, and promptly demanded a resignation and public apology (read: totally fired the guy - this is just a pleasant way of putting it for the press). Martin O'Malley is putting such a brave face on this whole ordeal, he just wants to "get back to serving the People of Baltimore".

So how is it "serving the People of Baltimore" when you go out and recklessly shooting your mouth off, and compare President Bush's budget proposal to the 9/11 attacks? Over at Power Line, they are of the opinion that O'Malley is reflective of the Democratic Party's inability to see the threat of terrorism for what it is. I'm not entirely sure I agree. To be sure, calling a budget proposal something akin to a terrorist attack is an idiotic, reckless thing to say - something Martin O'Malley is exceptionally well-qualified for. But O'Malley is representative of the kind of person who doesn't turn their brain on before they open their mouth. His myopic view of the world is indeed disturbing, and he's in fairly good company within factions of his own party, but I don't think you'd see as many Democratic mayors being so mind-bendingly obtuse and saying such things. At least, not if you had any plans for running for Governor, like O'Malley is expected to be announcing relatively soon. Michelle Malkin (which you can also access through the Power Line link) has a great roundup of quotes of other bloggers on the subject.

It is indeed bothersome that public officials are allowing cameras to capture them saying these things, especially when they're in a political minority. The trick isn't to dig a deeper hole to keep yourself in - you have to start finding a way to climb back out.

Blogging a go-go, baby.

2005-02-09T11:07:00.000-05:00

Greetings, and welcome to the CollegePundit blog! This blog is dedicated to the cause of deconstructing politics through the lens of a college student. The primary focus is on national politics, as well as in the academic field and what consequences could arise from them. This blog is currently assembling a team of posters to update whenever they cross something of interest for this blog, so posting will in all probability be rather slow and sporadic.

If the idea of yet another blog being dedicated to politics doesn't quite jive with you, fear not. Us college students love our gadgets, so there will be a healthy amount of gadget talk on here as well.

Thanks again for stopping by!