Serving Their Country

Thursday, April 28, 2005

And we thought Demi Moore had it bad in "G.I. Jane":

An Army officer was acquitted by a military judge Wednesday of raping a soldier in her barracks room, a claim the defense said she concocted to keep from being sent to Iraq.

First Lt. Mike Hall, 35, had testified in his court-martial that a night of dancing, flirting and kissing with 1st Lt. Jennifer Dyer, 26, last August led to consensual sex, not rape as she alleged.

He said Dyer invited him into her room at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and that, during two short episodes of intercourse, he stopped both times when she said "No."
Hall was also acquitted on an adultery charge but convicted of having sex without informing his partner that he had genital herpes.

The sex transmission charge is part of the military justice code that refers to acts "unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman."
It's pretty hard to be a gentleman when after you've spent six straight months in close confinement with male soldiers a female is introduced to the company. Having talked to a few Army buddies about this in the past, it's easy to understand how desirable any woman can be for a soldier in that situation - with or without herpes.

The Majority-Vote-Wins Option

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

It's Wednesday and that means a new Ann Coulter column. Coincidentally her main point is exactly the same as the one I've been expressing all day, which is that Republicans need to drop the whole "nuclear/constitutional" nonsense and say what the option really is. From the column:

In one sentence Republicans should state that the so-called "nuclear option" means: "Majority vote wins." (This is as opposed to the Democrats' mantra, which is "Our side always wins.")

The question Republicans need to ask is: Why do the Democrats want to keep judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen off the federal bench?

As I understand it, the reason Democrats are in a blind rage about Priscilla Owen is that, as a state court judge in Texas, Owen interpreted a law passed by the Texas Legislature requiring parental consent for 14-year-old girls to have abortions to mean that parental consent was required for 14-year-old girls to have abortions.

There's a whole array of groups opposed to Brown: People for the American Way, the National Women's Law Center, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Feminist Majority, the Aryan Nation and so on.

Democrats want to terrify people by claiming Bush's judicial nominees are nutcase extremists hell-bent on shredding the Constitution – as opposed to liberals' preferred method of simply rewriting it on a daily basis – but they're terrified that someone might ask them what they mean by "extremist."

...if liberals could win in the court of public opinion, they wouldn't need the federal courts to hand them their victories in the first place. The reason liberals refuse to elaborate on "extremist right-wing ideologue" is that they need liberal courts to give them gay marriage, a godless Pledge of Allegiance, abortion on demand, nude dancing, rights for pederasts, and everything else they could never win in America if it were put to a vote.

Republicans are letting them get away with it by allowing the debate on judges to consist of mind-numbing arguments about the history of the filibuster. Note to Republicans: Of your six minutes on television, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are "extreme."

This isn't the first time this year Coulter has had to coach her beloved GOP, as not too long ago she mulled the possibility that President Bush might really be an "idiot" for not being aggressive on certain issues.

Now she wonders why Republicans even bother debating the history of the filibuster when they know it's not going to get anything done. Just do it already.

The OK Corral That is Florida

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed a new anti-crime law on Tuesday that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee.

Critics of the new law, called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, have few objections to allowing people to protect themselves in their homes but say the bill will create a "Wild West" mentality in public, where residents may shoot first and ask questions later.

"There are going to be a lot of repercussions," said Rep. Eleanor Sobel, a Democrat. "You could have someone reaching into their pocket and if the person felt threatened he could shoot."

"All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral," Rep. Irv Slosberg, a Democrat, said during recent debate on the bill.
Sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric that was being spewed years ago when Florida began the shall-issue program for residents applying for carry concealed permits. A professor of mine and renowned criminology researcher Gary Kleck collecting editorials that warned "blood will run in the streets." But we never saw that blood and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports showed that after Florida adopted its concealed weapons law, granting roughly 300,000 permits by 1995, the handgun murder rate dropped by 27 percent.

Meanwhile, states with A- grades from Brady Campaign are showing an increase in homicides while states like Florida continue to decline.

Gore Sing Same Tune on Filibusters

What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power.
Note to the former Vice President: It's a freaking rule change! You know, these things sort of happen from time to time. We ended slavery, invented a right to abortion and restructured the Senate to allow for direct election by the People, among other things.

It's all hot air and partisan rhetoric. It may not be ideal that Bush is picking judges "too conservative" for your tastes, but it's certainly legal and does nothing to "damage democracy" because a majority of senators can still defeat any nomination. There's no procedure more fair than majority-rule.

House of Wax Review

I caught a screening of the upcoming horror film, "House of Wax" on Monday and published my review yesterday over at the movie reviews site. I'll be writing up a detailed spoiler review soon with details on the body count and other information people are just dying to know about.

Constitutional Procedures That Aren't Constitutional

While minority rights are a significant Senate tradition, the Constitution itself, through the "advice and consent" clause, clearly mandates confirmation of judges by simple majority once every voice has been heard. The filibuster is not enshrined among the Constitution's system of checks and balances. Judicial filibusters of majority-supported nominees have never been part of the Senate's tradition.
Until recently, anyway, when Democrats filibustered 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees. C-SPAN 2 aired the battle between Senators Biden (D) and Hatch (R) this afternoon, two politicians for whom I have great respect.

While I can see where Democrats are coming from, changing the Senate rules to end filibusters on judicial nominees is no different or more "radical" than changing the Constitution to end segregation or give minorities the right to vote.

Fixing Roe v. Wade

Thursday, April 21, 2005

David Brooks, the only decent op/ed writer at the NY Times, mirrors my argument in today's column:

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

When Blackmun wrote the Roe decision, it took the abortion issue out of the legislatures and put it into the courts. If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that's always existed on this issue. These legislative compromises wouldn't have pleased everyone, but would have been regarded as legitimate.

Instead, Blackmun and his concurring colleagues invented a right to abortion, and imposed a solution more extreme than the policies of just about any other comparable nation.

Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views. The parties polarized as they each became dominated by absolutist activists.

Unable to lobby for their pro-life or pro-choice views in normal ways, abortion activists focused their attention on judicial nominations.

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.
What, a national debate? The states should decide their own laws? Public opinion and accountable lawmakers should control the direction of our country rather than nine high robed priests? That's just too…um, rational!

Dennis Miller Owned The Daily Show

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Dennis Miller was on The Daily Show tonight and killed. Just killed. Stewart didn't get a single question in before the first commercial break because he was laughing so hard. Miller talked about his "right-wing" label and emphasized he's a Libertarian (like yours truly) who happened to support the war in Iraq. His zingers on the new pope were fresh and original...and I can't believe I'm complimenting Dennis Miller. Maybe he performed so well to improve his ratings over at CNBC, but regardless, I never knew the man was so funny. Look for the rerun tomorrow.

I Thought 1984 was 21 Years Ago

The New Hampshire Legislature has visions of Orwell:

When a [New Hampshire] bill came up in early April to consider allowing robotic traffic cameras at the busiest crossroads, mocking laughter from the gallery preceded the measure's demise. "The idea that we were going to be photographed [by the government] was anathema to most of us," says Neal Kurk, a Republican from Weare.
No thanks, big brother, but I prefer the old fashioned way: if the state wants to collect revenue from speeding tickets then the cops are going to have to work for it.

What bothers me most – aside from the government spying on us – is that tickets will be nearly impossible to contest because cameras have been found constitutional by the wise old courts, and as we all know - cameras don't lie.

Imagine this scenario: You and a buddy are driving somewhere and while your friend is at the wheel of your car, a camera catches the vehicle doing 15+ and records your license plate number. Several weeks later a hefty fine arrives in the mail and you are expected to pay for it.

The driver should be responsible, not the car owner. Perio.d. What if your ride was stolen by a car thief and a camera caught him running over three kids before ditching it somewhere; only capturing the license plate but not the driver inside. Who's responsible now?

There's a reason why due process starts with police officers having the power of discretion. If we're going to replace highway patrol officers with cameras then we might as well replace the entire force with robots.

Guess We'll Just Break into Your Dad's Liquor Cabinet

In response to recent "disorderly and disruptive" incidents, mall security two weeks ago started distributing fliers outlining the mall's "general code of conduct," according to mall Manager Ginny Szymanski. From 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, mall security guards now stand outside two entrances to make sure anyone under 16 has a parent or someone over 21 with them.
I can't recall anything worth anticipating more than the weekend to spend at the mall with a girlfriend and without parents. If we wanted to go to that store...done. If we wanted to eat at that place...done. If we wanted to spend whatever little money we had on that useless light exhibit at the hologram store...done. If she dared me to run up the down-escalator that was completely occupied with shoppers and a security guard...done.

Being at the mall without parents as a kid was an exhilarating rush of responsibility and freedom that today's children are losing, because "disorderly and disruptive" incidents are ruining it for the good kids. The last place you want them alone at is in a friend's house with nothing to do except find things that shouldn't be found.

Scott's Tuesday Observations

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

1. The new pope's photo on the Yahoo! homepage resembles a villain from a Star Wars movie. I wish him the best of luck and hope he helps to bring people of faith together around the world.

2. Today is the ten year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. I remember that day all too well being taken home from school and hearing about it on the radio. I remember the award winning photograph of the firefighter carrying out the dead baby and the subsequent trials of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

3. A firefighter in Wisconsin pushed for a resolution that would legalize cat hunting. As expected, cat lovers are furious and the firefighter has been receiving death threats. Unless all those animal lovers start claiming the homeless cats roaming the streets serving no good purpose, then this is a plan that should go unchallenged. They're just cats, people. Plenty of 'em to go around.

4. The Center for Disease Control has apparently overreacted with their claims that being overweight is a serious health risk over the years. Now they've released like a zillion or so new food guide pyramids apparently contradicting everything we've been told in the past from the old one. The new thing now is whole wheat: the good carbs. White is bad. I've actually been on top of that for awhile and am still ahead of the general public that is pretty much clueless to the dangers of TRANS fat. Stay away from those French fries and Double-Stuff Oreos.

5. A new book is out called South Park Conservatives : The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias. It's author, Brian C. Anderson, claims South Park has a conservative twist. I don't think it's all that conservative, in fact it's pretty balanced, but they do make fun of liberal issues much more and is perhaps why the creators were so brutal to Michael Moore in the their film "Team America." I'm requesting a review copy for this site and will come up with my own conclusions.

Ann Coulter; Sexually Harassed or Just Protocol?

Monday, April 18, 2005

Cum the unflattering TIME photo, this hasn't been a good week:

KRISTA SNOOK seems to enjoy her job doing airport security at the Harrisburg, PA Airport a little too much. When my rubber-soled Keds failed to set off the magnatometer and give her an excuse to feel me up, she still insisted on a full-body search on the grounds that I had not taken off my rubber-soled Keds the first time through (on what I thought were the sensible grounds that rubber-soled Keds could not possibly set off the magnatometer or conceal a pea). So I went through the magnatometer in barefeet, risking athletes foot and gangrene, which also failed to set off the magnatometer. But I got a full-body search anyway. It was like a date with Ted Turner: whether you liked it or not, your clothes were coming off at some point. Ms. Snook took special care in waving the wand over my barefeet — barefeet! — but then quickly turned to the main issue at hand: the risk of an exploding bra. The last time I was mauled like that, I at least got a couple of cosmopolitans and a steak first.
Looks like Ann Coulter has learned two lessions this week:

1. Require approval before TIME publishes your photo, always. (Malkin's got more on TIME and their photo restoring).

2. Remove your shoes before going through the airport metal detector, always.

The Fans Can't Really Support This

Saturday, April 16, 2005

The new stadium will be built just north of the existing facility in the Bronx, and is designed to seat 50,800. That's smaller than the current capacity of 57,478, but the new ballpark will have more luxury suites.
No other stadium hosted more superstars than Yankee Stadium in Bronx, New York, but that won't stop city officials from wiping away 82 years of history to make way for "luxury suites." As if baseball couldn't get any more lame.

At least the $800 million stadium will be paid for by the team, a fact dwarfed by the reality that whatever magic takes place there will be seen by 7,000 less people.

Mailbag: Aggressive on Gays

Friday, April 15, 2005

Red Sand questions my agenda:

I'm wondering why you take such a hostile position against gays (this wasn't your first post on gay marriage) when you claim to be a Libertarian who favors a small government that doesn't interfere with private matters.
That my support of sound judicial review has led some to believe I have "hostility" toward gays proves how diluted the purpose of government has become in the minds of today's society.

Correct. I support small government...the smallest government possible that is still able to protect its people and insure our government functions as it was designed to do so.

The case in Oregon is about the complete rejection of a constitutional amendment and the will of the people to refuse gay marriage. Such is life; we can't all have the laws reflect our individual preferences.

In an earlier post Stryker wrote, "I still haven't heard a single good reason to prohibit gays from marrying." Perhaps he is correct, but is that justification to ignore a constitutional amendment because he doesn't like it?

Should we encourage government officials to ignore a law that prohibits when "there isn't a single good reason" that law is in place? No democratic society can survive when laws – even unpopular ones – are ignored.

More Gay Marriage Defiance

Thursday, April 14, 2005

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay couples a year ago by Portland's Multnomah County, saying a county cannot go against state matrimonial law.

"Oregon law currently places the regulation of marriage exclusively within the province of the state's legislative power," the high court said in its unanimous ruling.

The court said state law bans gay marriage. It also noted Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment last November that even more explicitly prohibits the practice.
Welcome to a state that requires Supreme Court intervention to acknowledge the will of the people. Not only was gay marriage prohibited by state law but voters approved a constitutional amendment against it.

I'm not going to get into my personal opinion on gay marriage because regardless of what it is I respect our system of government and how it was designed to work. When the People pass a constitutional amendment I expect city officials not to break it.

Scalia Ambushed by Sodomy

Speaking of idiots on college campuses uninterested in opposing views, this is just unsurprising:

WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, "One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer."
Nice. Here you have the opportunity to question one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country and you instead disgrace yourself in what is a continuing trend of attacks against conservatives on campus.

Down on DeLay

I admit I was pretty steamed after the whole Terri Schiavo debauchery, so it's probably a good thing my bully pulpit doesn't extend as far as Tom DeLay's does. The House Majority Leader, who said that the judges who refused to reinsert Terri's feeding tube would one day "answer for their behavior," has apologized for his "inartful" remarks criticized by both Republicans and Democrats.

Next he'll have to answer to the ethics allegations against him stemming from privately financed trips that may have been paid for by lobbyists. It's not a good day to be Tom DeLay.

How College Liberals React to Opposition

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Ann Coulter recalls how liberals treat opposition:

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona – during question and answer, no less – by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls.

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona – I mean "fact-driven debate" – all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

On March 29, liberals' intellectual retort to a speech by William Kristol at Earlham College was to throw a pie. On March 31, liberals enjoyed the hurly-burly of political debate with Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University by throwing salad dressing. On April 6, liberals engaged David Horowitz on his ideas at Butler University by throwing a pie at him.
Without a doubt shenanigans is found on both ends of the political spectrum, but on the college campus the hostility is overwhelmingly perpetrated by the Left.

When Ann Coulter spoke at the Florida State campus a few years back, liberals arrived in droves to protest and display signs with unspeakable messages. Funny, for a group of people with so much distain for her politics, not one of them challenged her intellectually. When I disagreed with her I stood up (the first one to do so) and called her out and challenged her ideas. It was legitimate debate. We exchanged thoughts in a civilized manner.

I don't see liberals welcoming opposition on campus. Rather they prefer to stay within the comfort of their liberal talking points they were raised on without challenge. The front page headline of the current issue of the Florida State newspaper, The FSView, reads "Professor Speaks Out on Patriot Act." That's apparently the biggest story at one of the largest college campuses in the United States. A professor disagrees with the Patriot Act. Amazing.

The lecture circuit is almost exclusively liberal. Speakers constantly harangue Israel for their oppression of Palestinians, denounce the war in Iraq, speak against male dominance over women, and so on. They get their time to speak and face no trouble for it.

But when ministers come to recite passages from the Bible, liberals don't respond with debate but with acid. They taunt and berate anyone who challenges anti-Christian practices such as pre-marital sex. When anti-abortion speakers come, as rare an occurrence that may be, liberals raise the "women hater" signs.

Again, both conservatives and liberals are guilty when it comes to reacting to different ideas, but it's one-sided on college campuses. That liberals resort to pie throwing is disgraceful and it says something about their willingness (or lack thereof) to hear opposing views.

Okay, Some Men Profit From Female Sexuality

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

While on the subject of feminism I wasn't considering this story:

Thirteen years after most silicone-gel breast implants were banned, federal health advisers on Tuesday narrowly rejected a manufacturer's request to bring them back to the U.S. market, citing lingering questions about safety and durability.
Elective surgery is huge in the United States and plastic surgeons are making big bucks making big boobs. But enhancement surgery such as breast augmentation is risky, and considering the horror stories I've heard about faulty breast implants and bodies rejecting the artificial substance, you'd have to really desire a different physique to go through with it.

Feminists who blame men for encouraging a society that equates status with bra size have their sights set on the wrong target. It's the willingness of women that keeps the industry alive and doctors' wallets fat.

Not that I'm speaking against the procedure; I personally know a few girls who've come home with new "assets," and there are legitimate reasons for changing the way you look. One girl wanted to look different. Another wanted to be more attractive to a man who was into that type.

I probably don't have to tell you that the latter friend is the least content with her life. Far too many women like her flock to undeserving men and tailor their lives to suit his needs. They only have themselves to blame.

Feminists Lose Bitter Icon

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist who crusaded against the evils of pornography and violence against women died Saturday at the age of 58.

Dworkin wasn't exactly the most attractive woman; as one writer wrote on her passing: "She was the stereotype of the Millie Tant feminist made flesh - overweight, hairy, un-made-up, wearing old denim dungarees and DMs or bad trainers - and thus a target for ridicule."

But she isn't reviled because of the way she looks, even though she purposely avoided the hygiene rituals such as shaving and conditioning women these days take part in to appeal to others…you know, things that men do to. Like most feminists, it was her attitude -- especially towards men -- that was so appalling.

"Pornography is a celebration of rape and injury to women; it's a kind of union for rapists, a way of legitimizing rape and formalizing male supremacy in our society." She said that pornography is both a cause of male violence and an expression of male dominance, that women who enjoy porn are harming women, and that lesbian porn is self-hating. Women who worked in porn wounded themselves as well as every other woman as a result of men watching it.

Never mind that criminologists have universally dismissed the theory that pornography is the catalyst in male aggression against women, it was a belief Dworkin wasn't going to give up and one she took to the grave.

Unless you actually believe pornography fills us men up with sadistic ambition to torture women, it's hard to rationally understand why feminists would have a problem with it. That a woman could become rich just for taking part in an act that is otherwise acceptable in society but for money, is empowering, even if not respectable.

Feminists argue that pornography is degrading to women, yet it's members of the other sex you will find sneaking into filthy adult video stores and spending untold amounts of money for sexual release. It's men who remove themselves from society to the confines of their FAVORITES folder where you could only imagine what sites are bookmarked between photos of the the kids.

And it's not like you have to be attractive to make bread using your body; an industry that is open only to porn stars and strippers. Prostitutes do it all the time. Only women (usually the most undesirable) can walk the busy streets of the inner city and make money for spending just a few minutes with a desperate man. Now let's talk about degrading.

Dworkin even took her fight to the institution of marriage: "Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women."

If that's supposed to influence women against getting married, where they could be subjected to the sexual desires of the impure husband, it wasn't a very good one as Mrs. Dworkin died a married woman.

Defining Checks and Balances

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said Saturday that the fight over President Bush's judicial nominees is really a battle between Democrats who believe in checks and balances and Republicans who want everything their way.

"When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," he said in his party's weekly radio address.

Someone should really tell Mr. Reid that checks and balances has nothing to do with party control, rather it's about each of the three branches of government retaining exclusive power over the others while at the same time being checked by those branches.

While it is true that Republicans "want everything their way," as every party inevitably does, such progress isn't being made. Democrats have already blocked 10 of President Bush's nominees to the federal courts and the Republicans are getting frustrated.

By enacting the so-called nuclear option, Republicans can bypass debate and filibusters which they feel have been used in a partisan manner to prevent qualified judges from serving due to ideological differences Democrats don't agree with.

By canning filibusters nominees will simply be sent to the floor for an up or down vote and the first side to collect 51 out of 100 votes wins. With 55 Republicans in the Senate, it's no wonder Democrats fear the nuclear option and the makeup of the federal judiciary.

Their argument that banning filibusters is against limited government is loud, but such a rule change is clearly not unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to "advise and consent" presidential nominees and the task would be satisfied with a simple majority-wins vote. Even if the confirmed judges all turn out to be hardcore right-wing Republicans, the check of the Senate over the President will be satisfied.

Right-Wing Judicial Activism?

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Cynthia Tucker clarifies the meaning of "Judicial Activism" for us:

Ultraconservatives want you to believe the term "activist judge" applies to a group of determined liberals whose rulings have overturned historic precedent, undermined morality and defied common sense. But the controversy that erupted around Schiavo, who died on Thursday, ought to remind us once and for all what "activist judge" really means: a jurist whose rulings dissatisfy a right-wing political constituency.
Actually the former definition is correct. Only a liberal court could find something called a "penumbra" in the U.S. Constitution. Had it not been found, liberals wouldn't have been able to create the right to abortion, a nonexistent right that stems from the nonexistent right to privacy. It didn't matter no such rights existed because the Supreme Court wanted them and with the wave of a pen the problem was solved.

It was the worst case of judicial activism this country has ever seen. In the ugly Terri Schiavo case, conservatives did not want Judge George Greer -- who hails from my hometown -- to rule against law or become an activist. They wanted him to accept evidence of abuse on the part of Mrs. Schiavo's husband. Whether or not Michael was a bastard is something we'll never know, but perhaps the allegations against him could have been investigated.

Of course conservatives were upset with Greer's ruling against Terri's family, but most importantly they were upset with how he came to his conclusions. The so-called "ultraconservatives" were pissed by the way the case was handled and believed it warranted federal judicial review. That's not judicial activism; that's due process.

Update: I just published an editorial over at the main site that goes into more detail.

Nudity's Not Art

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

It's a story I've been following for awhile now, and I was unsure how it would play out after "the plan" was enacted. Looks like not so well.

Boise, Idaho is probably not the most ideal city for strip club owners looking to make the big bucks, considering its ban on full nudity.

But Erotic City owner Chris Teague came up with an ingenious idea: declare Monday night "art night" and allow patrons to observe fully nude women in the name of art. Teague further attempted to legitimize his gimmick by handing out pencils and sketch pads to patrons so they could sketch the girls hoping to satisfy a Boise exception that allows full nudity for "serious artistic" expression only.

City officials were unimpressed, however, and cited Erotic City for violating Boise's nudity rules. A police spokeswoman justified the action by saying the patrons were not focused on the art.

So how can you tell if someone's focused on the art or not? Perhaps I don't really want to know, but it was a good attempt by Mr. Teague nonetheless.

Forgive Me Father For I Have Seen Sin

Monday, April 04, 2005

The Drudge Report informs the hoi polloi:


...As news of Pope John Paul II's death dominated the weekend, moviegoers appear to have vindicated recent accusations that America is plagued by what religious radicals call a death culture in the wake of the Terry Schiavo case—by flocking to the ultra-violent Sin City.
Please. I am the greatest advocate of life you'll ever meet. I stand proudly on the side of good over evil and speak for the defenseless; the unborn. I fought for Terri Schiavo. I fought for her parents and family that wanted to keep her alive. I see the church as an institution of higher authority and a beacon for the weary. I believe faith drives the life of every good man.

But I also like to have a good time once and awhile. Tonight I cursed the Boston Red Sox and cheered the New York Yankees while downing a few brews and enjoying a sandwich. Then I saw "Sin City" for the second time this weekend because I liked it, as you can tell from my review.

And to add to Drudge's caption, not only does Bruce Willis rip a man's balls off…he shoots them off too in a different scene.

You see, I live a good life. God knows it and I don't have to prove it to him by avoiding what makes life fun. The movies can be a great release. The bloodier the better. You should try it sometime.

Sin City and the First Movie Review of Fever Pitch Published

Saturday, April 02, 2005

My movie review of Fever Pitch is the first available on the Internet, so go ahead and be one of the first to find out how bad it if you expected anything good from Jimmy Fallon in the first place.

On the other hand, I absolutely loved Frank Miller's comic-to-film adaptation that was released in theaters this week. Read my Sin City movie review for all the goods.

Currently Sin City is the best movie of the year.