Old Men Now Invading the Internet

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Our nine High Priests on the Supreme Court have decided to take their ever-expanding powers into the last vestige of non-regulated freedom; the Internet.

If the Court sides with the entertainment industry, such companies could use litigation to drive file-sharing software companies out of business. It would also reverse a rule that has been in place for the last two decades that protects manufacturers from lawsuits concerning copyright violations committed by customers using their products illegally.

You know, makers of VCRs, CD/DVD burners, IPODs etc., would be open to frivolous lawsuits by greedy entertainment corporations.

As always, we can turn to Justice Antonin Scalia for perspective: "(If) I'm a new inventor, I'm going to get sued right away."

Exactly. There won’t be any stopping the snowballing of lawsuits. Just as it is insane to hold reputable gun manufacturers responsible every time a gun goes into the wrong hands, we shouldn't target makers of products that are aimed to do good when someone uses it for bad. As if a file-sharing company has any control over what its users use it for.

So Metallica, Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, the Dixie Chicks and others who say their "livelihoods are threatened" can go drop off the face of the earth for all I care.

Your whining is pathetic and, frankly, embarrassing to your fan base.

As if Moms Matter

Friday, March 25, 2005

From The Illinois Leader:

GRANITE CITY - A Sothern Illinois woman was arrested last week after trying to intervene on behalf of her 14-year old daughter's effort to have an abortion. The girl was allegedly taken to an abortion clinic by the mother of the man allegedly to have impregnated the 14-year old.

It was later determined that the woman who had posed as the "grandmother" to the school authorities was the mother of the male who had fathered the unborn child the 14-year old girl was carrying.

When the parents were notified their pregnant daughter was not at school, they suspected she had been taken to the Hope Abortion Clinic in Granite City.

"My husband and I rushed to the abortion clinic where we saw our daughter's name on the roster and the time she had checked in," the mother said. She then went into the clinic and searched a room filled with young women awaiting abortions but did not see her daughter.

She took a seat near the main desk and said, "I was told I could not prove my daughter was there so I began calling her name. A medical tech at the clinic told me , 'It's your daughter's rights, it's her body. You have no rights.'"

After continuing to call out her daughter’s name and telling her "don't do it," authorities were called and the mother was arrested.

As the police were putting the mother in the squad car, she was crying out, "Please, please, help me...my daughter is in there."

The police in the community in which the family lives allegedly told the girl's mom that they couldn't intervene despite her making a charge that her daughter had been raped (by statute) because the charge was stale--7 weeks after the incident.

Sorry little girl, but to get that piercing or tattoo you need permission from your parents. What, you want an abortion? Why didn't you say so earlier? No problem. Just spread your legs for me and we'll have that little bugger taken out in no time.

Most Valuable Readers

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Quick note to my faithful readers, most recently Nancy and Jeff Gannon, I truly appreciate your in-depth comments and rebuttals to my posts. I don't always have the time to respond to every one, including the e-mails I get and comments from other readers, but I do read every comment and consider every argument seriously and will try to catch up with responses. It means a lot to me that a good handful of people stick around when there are millions of other, probably better blogs out there that cover more exciting topics such as Jennifer Lopez and Matt Damon.

Even though Jeff and I would probably get into a nasty fist fight if we ever met at a bar, I'd buy him a drink afterwards. Thanks again guys. Darth Dan, Sarah, Rachel, Stryker (you don't count so much because you have to read this...just because), Cyber somebody (?), Middle America and everyone else I haven't mentioned but communicate with regularly by e-mail. You guys are much appreciated.

Til next time.

Enter at Your Own Risk

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

From the Tallahassee Democrat:

Floridians could shoot violent home intruders and carjackers under a bill that cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday.

"Since the time of the Romans, a man's home has been his castle," said Sen. Durrell Peaden, R-Crestview. "There is a presumption that anyone who enters your home illegally is there to harm or kill you. ... You don't have to retreat if you're in fear for your life or fear great bodily harm."

With 83 sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate, the bill (SB 436) is virtually guaranteed passage.

Uh-oh, someone looking to joyride could face a bullet in the teeth if they unluckily chose to carjack an armed civilian. A rapist looking for a little uninvited play could be put on his ass by a gun-toting mother before he even steps into the bedroom.

Not that I anticipate or look forward to ever having to use my 9mm or GLOCK .45 ACP for purposes other than target shooting, but it's comforting to know that if such an occasion arises I won't face criminal or civil charges for defending my friends and family.

Just Accept It

It's been five days since Terri Schiavo received any food or water from a Florida Hospice bedroom where she's currently wasting away.

Air America Radio is pleased the court won't demand that caregivers "force-feed" the "brain dead woman," as if Mrs. Schiavo is really brain dead, a term that is medically defined as someone who is truly deceased...you know, not living - should be in a casket by now.

Liberals have told me to just accept it, just leave it alone. The courts have ruled. Get over it.

"Yes, um, Mrs. Brown, I know your daughter was slain by a knife-wielding maniac and her killer walks free and plays golf in Miami every Sunday morning, but the court found him not guilty – and because our legal system is perfect – you'll just have to 'accept it.’"

Sorry, but I won't accept a judge's ruling that is based on sole testimony of a husband who claims in private he was told by Mrs. Schiavo that she wouldn't want to be kept alive by "extreme measures."

Fair enough, but who are we (or Mr. Schiavo) to say that "extreme measures" includes a mere feeding tube that supplies food and water?

Mr. Schiavo could have confirmed, "Sure honey, but should I still grant your wish if you can breathe on your own, recognize stimuli and respond to affection by your family?" But he didn't, therefore I cannot just accept it.

I can't accept it because doctors, including Nobel Prize candidates, believe they can rehabilitate her. I can't accept it because nurses have testified via sword affidavit that she has tried to communicate with them, and one nurse, Carla Sauer Iyer, overheard Mr. Schiavo exclaiming, 'When is that b---h gonna die?'"

But most importantly, I cannot accept the method by which we're letting Mrs. Schiavo die. Why can't we give her a sedative and administer lethal injection? It would take minutes, not weeks. It would be painless, not torture.

No state could get away with administering such justice to a convicted murderer, because depriving a human of food and water – no matter how depraved -- is cruel and unusual. That's no way to treat a killer. That's no way to treat an innocent woman.

War Zones in our Schools

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

It was the worst school shooting since Columbine, and instead of focusing on how to realistically stop the carnage in our public schools, pundits and interest groups have already resorted to rhetoric.

In a new press release, the Brady Campaign blames Congress for not having renewed the Assault Weapons Ban, and for not requiring that records be kept of gun sales.

"When will our leaders have enough?" asked Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign. "When will the government do something to help stop the bloodshed? Red Lake sends all of America's mothers and fathers a message about how vulnerable all of our children are."

Yes, Congress should do something, but the Brady Campaign won't accept anything that isn't more gun control. Gun control. Gun control. Gun control.

We could renew the Assault Weapons Ban, sure, but the attacker used an ordinary shotgun and two handguns, not "scary looking" machine guns, weapons "more dangerous than our Founding Fathers could have imagined" or guns routinely targeted by pro-control fanatics.

We already restrict the sale of weapons to minors under the age of 18 (21 for handguns in most states) so I guess we could raise the age, but the gunman, like the Columbine shooters before him, was 17 and couldn't have purchased the guns at "reckless" gun shops or "loop-holed" gun shows even if he wanted to.

So how, with all of these wonderful gun control restrictions put in place, could this tragedy have happened? What can do we do to stop it?

I have an idea, and it will surely upset the pro-control crowd, but it's more practical than the next useless gun ban or sale restriction: State laws should allow teachers to be armed at all times while on school grounds. That's right, Mrs. Appleseed teaching 10th grade Algebra should pack heat.

As of now teachers and students can only hope from under their desks that the next door to open isn't to the room they're in. They can only pray that the next vitim is in the classroom next door. Unless teachers are armed, gunmen can kill as many people in a single classroom as they want until they run out of ammo.

Schools are war zones and nobody is safe except for the gunmen who chose to exploit such easy opportunities. If you honestly believe the one SRO officer is keeping your children safe then you are living in a faily tale.

May God bless the victims and families of the nine people slain by yesterday's attacker. May He do the same for tomorrow's victims.

What Could Have Been

As now it looks like we'll never know...

Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine, said that he "and others I know have treated many patients worse than Terri, and have seen them regain independence and dignity."

Dr. Hammesfahr said he has examined Terri Schiavo three separate times for a total of over ten hours.

"There are many approaches that would help Terri Schiavo. I know, because I had the opportunity to personally examine her, her medical records, and her X-rays."

The doctor has helped patients with chronic brain injuries - including hypoxic encephalopathy, Schiavo's injury - recover. Judge Susan Kirkland of the Florida Department of Health said that he was "the first physician to restore deficits caused by stroke."

Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1999. In 2000, his work resulted in approval for the first patent in history granted for the treatment of neurological diseases with medications that restore blood flow to the brain.

"It's time to help Terri, instead of just warehousing her," Dr. Hammesfahr said. "She would have benefited from treatment years ago, but it is not too late to start now."

Smells Like...Old People

Monday, March 21, 2005

Looking frail, his voice clear but slightly hoarse, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist returned to the bench Monday for the first time since being diagnosed with thyroid cancer last October.

Rehnquist, 80, joined his eight fellow justices in emerging from behind a curtain, as is the customary practice, to open the court's latest two-week series of arguments.

He took one break, leaving his chair for a few minutes during the first argument, as has been Rehnquist's custom in previous arguments, to stretch his back. At the conclusion he struggled momentarily to get out of his chair. Justice John Paul Stevens, who at 84 is the court's oldest member, assisted Rehnquist to a nearby railing.

A man vested with the greatest legal power in the world needs help getting out of his chair from...a fellow justice four years his senior!

You know, the Constitution says nothing about justices being allowed to serve for life. Rather, federal judges may sit on the bench for as long as they display "good behavior."

Can you say your father or grandfather in his mid-eighties has the ability to show up for work everyday, let alone have the capacity to decide legal matters affecting the entire nation?

I want to know what these guys are putting in their coffee.

Not a Marriage Debate

As expected, the Terri Schiavo case has become a polarized debate between Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans' argument is that it's absolutely inhumane to allow someone to starve and dehydrate to death, as is the current condition of Mrs. Schiavo; sitting in a Florida hospice bed without access to food or water.

The Democrats believe that her condition is "no way to live" and that she should be allowed to die peacefully with the dignity that's being stripped by Congressional Republicans trying to pass emergency legislation that would keep her alive.

"It is particularly hypocritical when you have people who say they advocate on behalf of the defense of marriage who now insert themselves between a husband and his wife," Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla railed.

But this isn't about marriage, or the merits of it, or the defense of it. Her entire kin minus a sleazy husband wants to preserve her life, and allow doctors who claim they can rehabilitate her to have a chance.

Shame on Democrats for writing this off as a political gain.

No Sex Offender Should Walk Free

Friday, March 18, 2005

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of reading about young girls getting kidnapped and murdered by slimy thugs with past records of rape and sexual misconduct.

It looks like 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford is indeed dead, as a registered sex offender has admitted kidnapping and killing the young girl.

The Associated Press reports that Couey has an extensive criminal record that includes arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. In 1991, he was arrested in Kissimmee on a charge of fondling a child under age 16.

During a house burglary in 1978, Couey was accused of grabbing a girl in her bedroom, placing his hand over her mouth and kissing her. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison but was paroled in 1980.

Two years for sneaking into a girl's bedroom and kissing her? Nice.

Gotta' love the justice system. It's because of cases like this that I don't so mind the death penalty. After all, we here in Florida had no problem killing Terri Schiavo today.

Luckily for John Evander Couey, he'll die a much more humane death.

Samara Returns from the Well

As promised, my "The Ring 2" review is available. Sadly, it doesn't hold water to the original film that shook the American horror genre when it needed it most.

It's time for Samara to stay down in that well for good.

South Dakota's Four New Anti-Abortion Laws

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Today Governor Mike Rounds signed four new anti-abortion bills in a state considered to be the toughest on abortion, despite giving way to 800 slayings each year and allowing for the procedure through the 24th week of pregnancy.

Let's go over the four new laws.

The first requires doctors to inform pregnant women, in writing and in person, no later than two hours before an abortion that the procedure ends the lives of humans and terminates the constitutional relationship women have with their fetuses. Women also must be told that some women die during abortions and the procedure can lead to later depression and other problems.

I don't quite see the purpose of this law other than to force guilt upon women looking to abort their children. To be sure, I am waiting for day Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion made illegal, but until then I'm uncomfortable with laws requiring doctors to go down a checklist before going about any of their work.

The second bill is one I like, one that will automatically ban most abortions in South Dakota if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its 1973 Roe decision and gives states authority to prohibit abortion. Of course exceptions would be made for cases where a woman's life is in danger.

As I've said many times before, it makes sense to allow states to write their own laws, because if the people are unhappy they can hold the lawmakers accountable. Governor Rounds owes his job to the voters, unlike the Supreme Court justices who have been known to recklessly use their power to rule based on ideology, not on the Constitution.

The third bill signed by Rounds tightens the state's parental notification law to require parents to be told within 24 hours if their minor daughter receives an emergency abortion to protect her life or health. The minor could seek an exception through a court order.

This law is crucial as is all laws involving children. Last year in my home state of Florida an item on the ballot asked voters to decide if parents should be notified when their daughter seeks an abortion for any purpose. Fortunately the people here have common sense and overwhelmingly approved the measure, putting rights back where they belong; with the parents.

A fourth new law establishes a state task force to study the history of abortion since 1973 and to see if other laws need changing as a result of improved science, medicine and technology.

Again, another good law considering the emerging evidence suggesting that unborn children can feel pain and show emotions. One only has to see the image of 21-week-old Samuel Armas (abortable by law) grabbing the surgeon's glove to understand how alive unborn children are at stages when abortion is permitted.

So there you have it. I gladly endorse three of the four new laws that will go into effect this July in South Dakota. Of course, I won't shed any tears over the one that will force doctors to tell their patients the consequences of the said procedure. This is the best we can do until we once again outlaw the barbaric procedure.

Exclusive The Ring 2 Trailer

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Yep, we've got an exclusive trailer/preview for The Ring 2 you won't find anywhere else. Head on over to Movie-Vault and have yourself a good watch.

Can't say I expect much from the film, though. I'll have a review before Friday.

Even Ginsburg Questions Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion rights supporter and one of the most liberal justices on the court, said the historic Roe v. Wade decision "seemed to me not the way courts generally work."

Ginsburg, who turns 72 on Tuesday, was participating in a question-and-answer session with law students at the University of Kansas.

"Women were lobbying around that issue," she said. "The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law — even the most liberal — as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way courts generally work."

Bingo.

Ginsburg believes public opinion at the time was becoming more liberal and that abortion laws would have changed regardless of Supreme Court intervention. Her solution would have been to let the legislatures work it out, you know...the way our government was designed to function.

Let's continue with that spirit by repealing Roe v. Wade. If abortion supporters really believe the majority is on their side, they can prove it by allowing the states to write their own laws.

Our Solution for the Inferior

Monday, March 14, 2005

Save for the conservatives, right-wingers, libertarians and Mel Gibson, the defense for Teri Schiavo has been uncomfortably nonexistent.

On Friday, March 18th in my home state of Florida, a brain-damaged woman will have her feeding tube removed, thus gradually starving and dehydrating her to death.

Let me repeat myself, the state of Florida is going to kill a woman because she isn't mentally superior like the rest of us.

And I thought Nazi Germany was dead.

What's most sickening is that her parents have tried everything they could to prevent the slow murder of their child, but the courts and legal system are allowing her to die. Could you imagine yourself in the parents' shoes? Imagine your daughter waiting to be executed, not for murder or rape, but for mental incapacitation!

The mighty Barbara Simpson puts it best:

Screaming feminists are always at the ready with their mouths and their marching when it comes to "women's rights." Terri Schiavo is a woman with a two-timing husband who has treated her negligently for 15 years and wants her dead. Where are the feminists?

Bleeding hearts hold candlelight vigils to prevent the execution of condemned murderers, regardless the heinousness of the crimes. Terri Schiavo committed no crime; she fell victim to some unknown malady or unexplained injury and is now an impaired human being who, on court order, will be killed by neglect – removal of food and water. Where are the bleeding hearts?

Yes, where are the feminists? The same group that has endlessly fought to put women on the front lines in combat and in charge of rapists/murderers awaiting trial has no problem with a husband who plans to marry his new finance after his current wife is killed by starvation!

Where are the liberals? The same group of people that will protest the eventual execution of Brian Nichols, the guy who just spent the weekend murdering four people including a judge, will idly sit by as a feeding tube is removed from a woman who has committed no crime.

Are we ready to say we live in a society that values the lives of murderers and rapists more than mentally incapacitated citizens? Apparently so.

As Expected

U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Holy all things obvious, Batman, the media is liberally biased!

Regulating Child Porn

Friday, March 11, 2005

From Crosswalk

A Florida Republican congressman introduced a bill Wednesday to prohibit so-called online "child modeling" websites that he says are "nothing more than a fix for pedophiles."

"They don't sell products, they don't sell services - all they serve are young children on a platter for America's most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they should be banned," said Rep. Mark Foley, co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, in a statement.

The websites feature children as young as four- to six-years-old, Foley said, and cause "immense psychological damage to the children" as well as placing them in "physical danger when contact is made with the people who visit their sites."

The measure would ban all websites that charge fees to view models 16 years of age and under that do not promote specific products or services beyond the child.

"If a child is modeling for Gap or Gucci, it's legal. If the site is selling nothing else than the child via photos or video clips, it should be illegal," said Foley.

While conservatives have good intentions by trying to protect children from the depraved, it can be said that one of the best qualities of the Internet is that it is an unregulated medium by which people can communicate with one another across the globe.

Because Cyberspace isn't a tangible realm, it would be difficult, in a legal sense, to define the boundaries and jurisdictions.

The Internet is an ether, a no-man's land ruled by no one; a Libertarian's fantasy.

Unfortunately, the availability of tax-free purchases, global networking and boundless freedoms such as Vegas-style gambling from Idaho, among other opportunities, comes with it a nasty by-product; predators, child porn and scammers. Play at your own risk.

Rather than try to make specific laws regarding the Internet, use the current ones to effectively prosecute offenders. For example, most states prohibit the creation, possession and distribution of child-porn (actual intercourse involving minors). Federal agents can access websites and through IPs locate offenders working the market.

Imposing restrictions would set a dangerous precedent that could lead the way for complete censorship of something that can’t be claimed by a government of any nation.

Gotta Have Faith

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Some of you still don't get it. Stryker completely misses the green:

You don't think there's a problem when the government endorses religion?

I think there's a problem when people like you can't see how certain organizations are providing invaluable services to the community that otherwise couldn't happen without federal money. Does it really burn you so bad that religious organizations are helping the needy? Money going to those groups is not endorsing religion, it's endorsing charity.

Russell is out of bounds and takes a two stroke penalty:

If Publix only hired people that were Methodists, would that be allowed?

Publix isn't a non-profit religious organization helping the needy, it's a corporation established to make money. Publix does not require a sponsored religion to effectively distribute groceries whereas a Muslim mosque might require Muslims on staff to effectively teach its religion.

Jeff Gannon hits the nail on the head:

A Jewish person wouldn't want to work in a Catholic Church, dumbass.

Which is why we shouldn't be making a big deal about this!

I don't know where Stryker hit his second ball:

Now, people can hire people based on race and discriminate based on race.

No. This is just about religious organizations being able to freely hire people most suitable for the job. But now that you mention it, there is a problem with not having any whites in the NAACP or the Black Leadership Conference because we whites know what's best for that race.

Readers, make sure to write your congressman condemning the government for giving federal money to black organizations that only hire blacks for its leadership positions.

South Park Does Abortion

Tonight was the new season premiere of South Park and as expected it was absolutely disgusting; on par with its most egregious and offensive episodes of all time…and that's why I love it.

In tonight's episode, a plastic surgeon turns Kyle into a tall black man, his father into a dolphin and Mr. Garrison into a woman because "people should look on the outside what they feel on the inside." And also because Kyle wants to play basketball but the coach won't let him because "Jews can't play basketball."

With his new sex organs Mr. Garrison goes around parading himself as a whore in the name of Girl Power. When he thinks he's pregnant from sleeping with a bunch of truckers, he proclaims that he finally knows the joy of having a human inside him and the ability to "vacuum it out or scramble its brains" because "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body."

Interesting how that argument is used as a joke to be funny when it's actually what pro-choicers use to debate abortion.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are geniuses. Sick geniuses.

She me the Meaning of Being Locked Up

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys was arrested last weekend for alleged drunken driving, police said.

Carter, 25, was behind the wheel of a vehicle observed committing a traffic violation when police stopped him Saturday night in downtown Huntington Beach, police Lt. Dave Bunetta said.

"Nick Carter deeply regrets the current situation. He is on doctor-prescribed medication and was unaware of its interaction possibilities," Carter publicist Juliette Harris said in a statement Monday.

Why must celebrities always have excuses for their idiotic behavior? Can't they for once just confess to their stupidity and regret making a bad example for their fans?

Didn't know the interaction possibilities...right, because consuming alcohol by itself before driving makes sense, then when you add drugs to the mix it's just a matter of reading the label properly.

Not a smart PR move for a group trying to make a comeback this year.

Because we Have to Fuss

Earlier this week the House on a 224-200 vote approved a job-training bill that allows faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions. Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.

In other words, House Republicans and President Bush believe that religious groups that help communities should be allowed to hire the most appropriate people for the job and still receive federal money.

I dunno, I guess it kind of makes sense to think that a Catholic church should be allowed to hire only Catholics if they so wish, and the same goes for all churches.

Of course the separatists are screaming because the thought of their tax dollar going to a church of a different faith or a faith at all is contemptible. If it means that the church would no longer be able to provide social services for single parents, feed the hungry or help drug addicts, then so be it. As long as that dollar goes to something with less God in it, like say a bigger football stadium.

An independent editorial puts it best:

The Business Press recently reported on a local faith-based group, the GNC Family Life Center, which uses federal funds for training programs to get some of the hardest cases from welfare to work. It is hard to imagine, however, that any outside group or government agency would be better able to meet the community's need.

But just think of those stadiums...

Easy on the Salt

Monday, March 07, 2005

Forgive me for the lack of updates. I've relocated myself to New York for the week and it is absolutely beautiful up here. With temperatures in the 60s and a thick blanket of snow still covering much of the landscape, there's little looking forward to coming home on Saturday.

Tonight I was at a Mexican restaurant and went over to the bar for a few margaritas. When the bartender didn't card me I knew I'd be leaving a nicer tip than usual. It doesn't take much to mix drinks but it takes a little skill to know when someone's older than 21 without having to check the license.

The girl is absolutely gorgeous and we talked a good while as I downed my frozen drinks and chips. When I mentioned that I was visiting from out of town, she asked me to come back sometime before I left and told me she'd show me what New York has to offer outside the city.

Needless to say, I will be taking her up on that offer.

Aggressive-Voice at the Movies

Saturday, March 05, 2005

What a wonderful surprise it was for me to learn that "The Jacket" is currently the best movie of 2005. While it's only March, of course, I had little hopes for this mind-bending drama.

Both Adrien Brody and Keira Knightley excel in a story about a Gulf War veteran who is institutionalized for killing a cop, and can see into the future when placed inside a morgue drawer (it's how Hollywood doctors do "therapy"). After learning of his death just days away, Jack Starks (Brody) elicits the help of a young woman (Knightley) to the find the cause of his impending demise.

This is the film "The Butterfly Effect" wished it could be.

My review here.

It's Not About Killing Kids

Thursday, March 03, 2005

The recent controversy over the Supreme Court's reckless decision to call the execution of minors cruel and unusual has become a heated debate as expected but on the wrong point.

The issue here isn't whether or not it's right to kill kids -- liberals think it's ok having aborted 35,000,000 since Roe v. Wade -- but whether or not law is legitimized through elected officials or by nine really, really old unaccountable men and women.

But perhaps I shouldn't be complaining. Good does come from justices stepping over the boundaries, right liberals? After all, they made sure George Bush became president in 2000. You guys are right. We must celebrate decisions like this.

We Need More Scalias

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

I don't care what your position on the death penalty is, or at what age you believe is appropriate for execution, but the 5-4 ruling led by liberal activist Supreme Court justices demonstrates how they cheat our federalist system by playing legislators.

From the Associated Press:

A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

So based on the infinite wisdom of the liberal justices, plus Anthony Kennedy, it is cruel and unusual to execute someone aged 17.5 but perfectly appropriately to execute them at 18. Even if a fine line has to be drawn, shouldn't it be up to elected officials to make that call? Aren't those held accountable to the populace supposed to write the books?

Dissenter Justice Scalia said it best when he reminded us how our country was founded and supposed to be run; you know, by lawmen elected by the people:

The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty. The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards.