I'm only posting this story because I like the quote.

Really.

Not because I enjoy gloating at Peyton Manning's misfortune, or laughing at the misguided fans who thought that when they bought tickets to a Colts game they were going to get full value for their dollar. And not because I want to add insult to injury to the poor taxpayers who had to fund Indy's "home field = 2 and one half quarters advantage" stadium.

I mean, I could do it for all those reasons, I suppose.

But, really, its all about the quote. It's football analysis put in terms that every moron can relate to easily.

“The perfect season has never been one of our goals,” Caldwell claimed after the game. “It’s never been anything we focused on or anything we talked about.”

Knocking boots with Beyonce has never been one of my goals, but if presented the opportunity, you best believe I wonÂ’t labor through 20 minutes of foreplay and signal for Curtis Painter to finish the job.

There are stated goals and there are once-in-a-lifetime opportunities only fools pass up. You put Beyonce on your resume and it opens unforeseen doors. Tom Brady is married to Gisele because he dated Bridget Moynahan first.

Yeah, yeah, I know the author is a flake. And I know that some of you ladies will probably resent being thought of as "resume enhancers". But has any other story about the Indy-Jets game been so spot-on about the royal screwing that occurred yesterday? I think not. I mean, this pretty much is the most AoSHQ lifestyle compliant sports article you will ever read that doesn't involve dwarf tossing or hobo hunting. Or the hunting of previously tossed hobo dwarves.

Oh, and ladies?

I think it's about time I went after a promotion. Who wants to help me "update" my resume?

Thanks. Knew I could count on you.

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:33 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

Turns out there were quite a few noteworthy villains over the past ten years. Whittling them down to a manageable number was a pain until I realized the best thing to do would be to heavily weight my selections to make the villains white men. To get on the list and not be a white man, you had to be pretty damn villainous. Okay, not really. After I had the list I noticed: no chicks. no brothas. Meh. Sometimes a white dude is the only man for the job.

Another feature of this list is that it also has most of what I would have selected for my Top Films of the 2000s, if I’d bothered to compile such a banal list. It’s certainly not determinative (in fact, one on this list is also on my “Most Disliked Films of All Times” list), but it seems one of my major draws to a movie is a good villain. So, here we go:

11. Commodus—Gladiator (2000)
Joaquin Phoenix started off the decade setting a high bar for the villains to come. When he wasnÂ’t suffocating his father, groping his sister, and perving on his nephew, he was bragging about crucifying children and raping women. His excuse? He wished his father had hugged him more.

10. Gollum—Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Gollum was a pitiable creature in the first and second films, so it was a relief in the third when he turns out not to be as helpless as he looks. We get a fancy flashback to his first kill (on his birthday!) and then he cleverly talks Sméagol into killing the hobbitses. After framing Sam as a big fatso and betraying Frodo to Shelob, he goes complete batshit when Frodo claims the ring as his own. (BTW, the standard Microsoft Windows spellcheck dictionary has Sméagol in it. J.R.R. Tolkien FTW!)

9. Harry Waters—In Bruges (200
Ralph Fiennes plays a crime boss with an unbreakable rule: you do NOT kill children. So when one of his hitmen (played by Colin Farrell, who won an Oscar for it) does just that on his very first assignment, he orders another (played by Brendan Gleason, who was also nominated for and should have won that Oscar) to kill him. Of course, GleasonÂ’s character is FarrellÂ’s friend and mentor, which makes Harry one heckuva dirty bastard. Not going to give the ending of this one away because you really should drop what youÂ’re doing and go rent it right now. Suffice it to say, Harry will have to face his unbreakable rule before all is said and done.

8. Robert Angier—The Prestige (2006)
Hugh Jackman plays the murderous stage magician in a movie all about misdirection. The first but not the last villain on my list set against Christian Bale and with Michael Caine as an irreplaceable supporting actor, Angier carries a grudge for decades that leads him ultimately to kill himself. But not before killing himself. And killing himself. And killing Christian BaleÂ’s character. But after all that Christian BaleÂ’s character kills him. SoÂ…happy ending. Sorta. (Yes, thatÂ’s really what happens.)

7. Brick Top Polford—Snatch (2000)
Brick Top knows how to deal with people he doesn’t like and I’ve started using his policy in the office for when subordinates piss me off: “Feed ‘em to the pigs, Errol.” When he’s not giving Hannibal Lectures, he’s fixing illegal fights and burning down caravans. Brick Top will always have a place in my heart for his wit: “In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary…come again.”

6. Anton Chigurh—No Country For Old Men (2007)
A second movie about a hitman on our list, and, yes, the movie was really about Javier Bardem’s Anton, not Josh Brolin’s character, Llewelyn Moss. Anton knows what he wants and he’ll get it however he can, but the word “sociopath” hardly does him justice. Watching this character was like watching one of those horrifying Australian spiders catch and eat a bird: awesome and I’m gonna need a pants change.

5. Captain Vidal—Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
Now weÂ’re moving beyond villains who are merely evil to those who have gone so far, theyÂ’re on the other side of the Moral Event Horizon. In a movie filled with creepy special effects from the depths of Guillermo del ToroÂ’s genius, the creepiest element is fascist Captain Vidal. A torturer and murderer, this deranged psycho shoots a child before the end.

4. Ward Abbot—The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
I know. You donÂ’t think he made a great villain at least not in the top 5. HeÂ’s here on the list, ahead of folks like Captain Vidal and Anton, because he is a betrayer. Quietly ordering the deaths of Bourne and his squeeze while running Landy and the rest of the CIA in circles gets him on the list. His surprise betrayal of a trusting subordinate and hands-on stabbing puts him ahead of those mere murderers listed above. Betrayal has always been an especially keen transgression. Ask Dante.

3. Colin Sullivan—The Departed (2006)
Which brings us to Colin Sullivan. Matt Damon plays Sullivan, a deep-cover mole in the Boston PD for the Irish mob. So, again, betrayer. CanÂ’t really say more without giving things away, butÂ…a lot of people die.

2. V—V for Vendetta (2005)
V’s on the list because he’s a killer and kidnapper and terrorist and anarchist. He’s not a role model or an anti-hero. He’s the embodiment of “ends justifies the means” thinking. And he’s a bad guy. The second-largest of the decade, actually, because despite his patent evil he manages not only to convince the film’s other characters that he’s doing the right thing, but most of the audience as well. Seriously, I want to kick those idiots wearing V paraphernalia right in the nuts.

And so we come to my favorite villain and favorite film of the decade: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:17 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 1272 words, total size 8 kb.

Of course it is, any way you slice it.

With centuries, the commonly used English labels happened to use counting terminology: 19th century, 20th century, etc. Some socially inept people, failing to understand the difference between English usage and math, used this coincidence as a basis for quibbling.

We donÂ’t label decades the same way as centuries: for example, people refer often to the 1960s and never to the 197th decade. There is no coincidence of terminology to quibble over. Regardless of whether 1970 fell outside the 197th decade from the perspective of a counting quibble, 1970 has never been part of the 1960s in the context of how people use that label to communicate.

While words don’t have objective meanings, a dictionary is an excellent tool for confirming how a word will be understood in actual usage. Random House (via Dictionary.com) defines decade as: “A period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.”

When using language to communicate, the most successful approach involves using words as your readers and listeners will understand them. The alternative is acting like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Now, we start counting centuries on the year labeled 1. For example, the Nineteenth Century began on January 1, 1801, rather than on January 1, 1800. That does not mean that when we refer to the 1800s, the year 1800 is automatically excluded. English doesn't work that way. Meaning is derived from usage, not a mathematical quibble.

Moreover, there's no reason to hook our manner of speech to an arbitrary mathematical quibble. In other words, why does anyone care whether the decade starts on a year ending in 1 or 0? There is no reason to do it one way or another, except that the common English usage for decades is to lump them together starting on a year ending in 0: the Seventies, the Eighties, etc. Whether we call the present decade the Aughties, the Naughties, or just 2000-2009, a decade has passed since the Nineties and so it's time for some Top Ten lists.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:05 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

I will be indulging in the usual end-of-the-year and end-of-the-decade "top" lists, but I'm trying to keep them to the relevant or unusual. Here's a bit of the list put together by Howard Friedman of the indispensable Religion Clause blog:

1. U.S. Catholic bishops are at increasing odds with President Obama over abortion. Very public disputes, sometimes splitting the Catholic community, erupted over Notre Dame's award of an honorary degree to Obama and over the USCCB's insistence on strict language in health care reform bills to limit abortion coverage.

2. Conservative Christian groups mount extensive but unsuccessful attempt to prevent passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

3. The Freedom From Religion Foundation becomes a major player in pressing for church-state separation by challenging a wide variety of practices, from sectarian prayers at city council meetings, to the tax code's parsonage allowance, to engravings at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center.

4. The Rifqa Bary case requires Florida and Ohio courts to become involved in run-away teenager's claim that her Muslim father threatens her life because of her conversion to Christianity.

Amusingly Predictably, religion journalists' top religion-related story of the year was Obama's Cairo speech.

Really? Apparently, some have mistaken Religion Clause to be a blog opposed to religious freedom. I don't know why they made that jump and I'll just assume it has to be because they didn't bother to check it out. Rest assured, it is a valuable, pro-religion resource to find up-to-date information on religious issues in politics and at the courts.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:21 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Hawaii's 1st District will be up for grabs in a special election just as soon as current Rep. Neil Abercrombie resigns to pursue the Governorship. Enter Republican candidate Charles Djou.

While confusion remains over the date of the special election, it will be a “winner-takes-all” format, meaning it’s an open race without a primary and with no runoff — the candidate with a plurality of votes wins.

Democrats have two candidates in the race: former Rep. Ed Case (D) and state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa. But Honolulu Councilor Charles Djou is the only candidate on the GOP side.

Making things even more advantageous; the two Democrats are reputed to hate each other more than they love their party, and are unlikely to step aside for the other.

As of last October:

The results are in and Republican Congressional Candidate Charles Djou's cash-on-hand total--a key early measure of political support--beats that of Democrat Ed Case by more than 2-1. Djou, an outgoing Honolulu City Council member, also beats Senate President Colleen Hanabusa (D-Ko`olina) by more than 40-1.

I assume the money race has tightened up by now (if anybody knows different please put me some knowledge), but still, that's encouraging in such a blue state.

Here's Charles Djou's site. His essays in the 'Issues' tabs represent a solidly conservative POV. Very encouraging, very very encouraging. His biography page (yeah, the whole thing, pretty much):

Charles represents the area from Waikiki to Hawaii Kai on the Honolulu City Council. Before entering the City Council, Charles served in the Hawaii State House where he was the Minority Floor Leader. Charles has spent most of his life in Hawaii. Charles graduated from Punahou School and earned both a B.A. in Political Science and a B.S. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, graduating magna cum laude with distinction. Charles earned his law degree from the University of Southern California law school.

Outside of the City Council, Charles serves as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. Charles also practices as an attorney specializing in business law and teaches at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law.

Charles is an active member of the community. He has served on the Board of Directors of the American Lung Association and is a former member of the Neighborhood Board. Charles is a member of the Young Business Roundtable, the Rotary Club, and the Hawaii Telecommunications Association. Charles is also a member of the Hawaii Republican Party, where he previously served as Vice Chair.

Lazybones.

Thanks to Krukke1.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:20 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' paranoiac lawsuits against just about anyone who ever crossed them. I also criticised the amateurish RICO lawsuit they filed alleging a massive conspiracy against them among Maricopa County officials and judges.

It comes as no surprise that when the county attorneys from neighboring Arizona counties also criticised the conspiracy-minded duo, Thomas responded by...wait for it...accusing them of breaking the law and calling for an investigation.

Thomas wants a former state Supreme Court justice to investigate his neighboring prosecutors as part of what he calls “an orchestrated campaign to pressure law enforcement in Maricopa County to drop charges against influential criminal defendants and suspects.”

The stateÂ’s highest court brought former Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor out of retirement on Wednesday to referee the ongoing mess in Maricopa County. McGregor was appointed to oversee all of the ongoing lawsuits and criminal cases between Maricopa County officials, which have become almost too numerous to count.

In his request to McGregor [PDF], Thomas accused the other prosecutors of essentially breaking the law by criticizing him and the sheriff. He said the pair violated rules for attorneys in Arizona, as well as tainted the pool of possible jurors in the ongoing cases.

Messages left at the offices of [County Attorneys] Polk and Walsh were not immediately returned. Michael Scerbo, a spokesman for Thomas, refused multiple times to answer questions or make his boss available for an interview. “The motions speak for themselves,” Scerbo said.

When asked why the county attorney, who is normally willing to answer questions, would not speak about his latest requests, Scerbo repeated his response and added: “Editorialize all you want, but that’s the only thing I’m going to say.” He then hung up.

It has been an extraordinary week for Thomas and Arpaio, one in which criticism against them has reached never-before-seen highs, particularly from their own Republican Party.

On Monday, the day before Polk’s letter was published in the newspaper, high-profile Republican attorney Tom Ryan led a rally of more than 300 people in front of Maricopa County’s main courthouse. The group, made up mostly of attorneys, said Thomas’ recent actions have made him “a domestic enemy to our Constitution.”

It can only be a matter of time before County Attorney's Polk and Walsh get added to the RICO suit. After all, they're clearly part of the "orchestrated campaign" against Thomas and Arpaio.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:34 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Can a person throw themselves under the bus?

A day after saying the system worked, Napolitano backtracked, saying her words had been taken out of context.

"Our system did not work in this instance," she said on NBC's "Today" show. "No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Genius.

More: Spinning at the Washington Post. Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:35 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

All part of the Left's unserious response to terrorism; the President will get around to doing his job just as soon has he finishes his waffles:

White House sources tell ABC News the President will "likely" speak publicly about the alleged attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253 in the next few days. The President is on vacation in his native state of Hawaii - he has received regularly briefings on the incident and called for increased security for air travel, along with a full review of the terror watch list procedures. The White House is adamant that the President is actively engaged on the incident behind the scenes, receiving regular updates as information comes in. While on vacation Mr. Obama does not keep a public schedule, but he did spend much of the day golfing on Saturday and is spending Sunday with his family at the beach.

The President's disengagement from one of his primary duties—to defend the United States—is so galling because Obama so clearly knows what he is supposed to be doing, but doesn't want to be bothered. That's why every single unnamed White House source for the past three days has "stressed that the President is very concerned about what is going on in the world and is actively engaged at all levels."

But by "actively engaged" they must mean perfecting his golf swing, because that is what he has been up to. If you believe that he is "actively engaged" you probably also believe that "the system worked" and that the president's performance this year deserves a solid B-plus.

Here's the real heresy: if you doubt that he is actively engaged, as anyone not neck deep in David Axelrod's colon must, then there's good reason to doubt that the President is "very concerned about what is going on in the world." Honestly, I think the President is very concerned about his plummeting favorability ratings. I think he's very concerned that Michael Moore isn't taking his phone calls anymore. I think he's very concerned that people treated his Nobel prize like a joke. But I don't think he gives a damn about what is going on in the world unless Rahm Emanuel tells him to.

Speaking of people getting used to the taste of Axelrod's ass, the Left is trying to justify Obama's disengagement and Napolitano's rank ignorance by mischaracterizing the Christmas Day attack as "not so scary", "pretty unserious", "hardly a first-order national security threat" and "a joke."

See, it doesn't matter that the President, who in the past eleven months hasn't been able to keep himself from imposing his ugly mug on primetime television more often than President Bush did in his first four years, hasn't made a statement because this isn't "serious" terrorism. Presumably terrorism is only serious when it's successful; anything without a body count is meant to be laughed off and ignored.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:28 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Hot Air's Headlines, David Frum provides me with a wonderful belated Christmas present...the chance to beat on him.

Our man Frum is back and arguing that objections to ObamaCare (specifically the individual mandate) on constitutional grounds shows what Neanderthals conservatives are. In doing so he demonstrates that he hasn't actually read the Constitution lately or just doesn't understand it. I'm not talking about interpretive differences upon which reasonable people disagree (there are those too) but one big glaring factual error.

Let's see if you can spot it!

DeMint's and Ensign's argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution speaks only of a Supreme Court, Congress has no power to create lower federal courts. Since the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

No lower federal courts? How could the founders have been so stupid? Did those idiots think that we'd only need one court? No wonder Frum doesn't see any reason to pay attention to their outdated design. I mean they didn't even provide for lower, one might say 'inferior', courts!

Oh wait, they did. Yep, right there next to that Supreme Court Frum knows so much about. Hell, they even provided for the staffing of those non-existnat courts.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Okay, enough of the gotcha stuff. Let's look at Frum's other arguments.

First he says, hey this buy insurance or else thing is nothing new.

The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That's what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.

Again thanks for playing Dave but...WRONG. This is an apples to oranges comparison when made with the proposed individual mandate. Why? Medicare is a tax levied by the government which then provides those who pay in with a benefit. While one can argue whether this is an appropriate exercise of the 'tax and spending' power but it's not the same as requiring individuals to purchase a product from a private entity.

You'd think someone as smart as Frum thinks he is would get that difference. The case he sites in his piece (Helvering v. Davis) is all about the constitutionality of the Social Security tax. Alas...

Tell you what Dave, why donÂ’t you run along and find me an actual example where the federal government mandates people buy a product on the open market as a condition of not going to jail. IÂ’ll wait. Actually, I wonÂ’t because you canÂ’t and IÂ’ll be here forever.

Frum also argues that we really just need to get over this whole limited government thing.

The theory exerted a lively influence upon the politics of the 1790s, when it was enthusiastically promoted by the party led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The heart went out of the theory in 1805, when then President Jefferson purchased Louisiana from the French in 1805. The Constitution had said nothing about THAT either.

The Civil War finished off the theory for all practical political purposes. Since 1865, the doctrine of enumerated power has subsisted at the remote margins of American politics. Are Republicans proposing now to resurrect the constitutional theories of Roger Taney?

Really? There was no attempt to reign the government in after the Civil War? Now, there's no doubt that the courts have broadened the reach of the government based on the 14th Amendment but it seems there were some fairly heated debates about the scope of government authority under the enumerated powers theory during the administration of FDR (Schecter v. US anyone?).

Oh and by the way, notice the reference to Roger Taney? Yeah, that's Frum's weasel way of calling DeMint, Ensign and er, me, racists.

In case you aren't familiar with the name, Taney was the Chief Justice who wrote the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.

For a guy who says he wants to lead conservatives, he's pretty quick insult them.

And once again Frum is simply wrong on the facts.

As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out many times (including in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), Dred Scott, was an awful decision which did great harm to the Court and the nation.

When it comes to arbiters of conservative legal traditions and theories, I'll go with Scalia over Frum every time.

Again, IÂ’ll wait while Frum goes and finds an actual conservative legal scholar who yearns for the day when we embrace the constitutional theories of Roger Taney.

Now, here's a point where I agree with Frum...the idea of restraining the government based on a limited powers argument is an anachronism. Most Americans have no real understanding of the Constitution or the concepts upon which this country was founded. An overwhelming number of Americans are far to willing to accept any government action as legitimate even if it involves trading a little freedom for the promise of some government goodies.

I wish it werenÂ’t so but it demonstrably is.

Where I part with Frum is what we should do about that. He's clearly of the opinion that we can't (and maybe shouldn't) do anything about it. He seems to be of the opinion that for conservatives to succeed we need to surrender to an ever expanding government. Maybe we can move it a bit to the right as it grows but never stop it.

Well, if that's success, failure can't be much worse.

This is a fight worth having. When it comes to ObmaCare, we're not even trying to reverse the tide of constitutional overreach, just stop the latest incursion of government into our lives.

As Mark Steyn has repeatedly said, turning your health over to the government reconfigures the relationship between the state and the individual. Once the state is responsible for your physical well being, there is simply no aspect of your life that is off limits.

This is a fight Frum isn't up for.

Again, if the choice is between Steyn and Frum, well I stand with Steyn.

When the DeMint constitutional point of order came up in the Senate, all 39 Republicans present voted to uphold the challenge. I really think that Mr. Frum needs to consider that when heÂ’s to the left of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, you may want to rethink your position and your fitness to be a conservative leader. Of course when your sense of self worth is as large as FrumÂ’s, you never rethink anything, you just attack those too stupid to agree with you.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:18 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 1223 words, total size 8 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:39 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.