The show kinda-sorta got a little too self-indulgent and slapdash last half season, but I figure it'll come back into form. Maybe.

On USA.

What Is It? Oh, it's a light comedy/light mystery/light weight show about a chronic liar/conman who pretends to be a psychic detective, but is a charlatan, but actually is an astonishingly good natural detective due to a photographic memory and ability to spin out implausible theories of the crime heavily influenced by eighties tv shows and movies, and, this being a show, those goofball theories often turn out correct.

So basically he solves cases legitimately/nonsupernaturally but due to a deep-seated character flaw is compelled to lie, and so claims he's getting psychic emanations from the Astral Plane or telepathic signals from the victim's cat.

And if that description sounds like The Mentalist, the guys at Psych, who were doing this first, noticed that too, and enjoy pointing that out on the show itself.

Posted by: Ace at 05:25 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 177 words, total size 2 kb.

In the last thread, I asked, is this scene really in the beginning of Planet of the Apes?

I've seen the movie twenty times, and at least once on VHS from the beginning, and have no recollection of this scene at all. I remember the movie from the suspended-animation-malfunction and the dessicated female corpse, and then landing in the lake, etc.

It's odd to me -- I mean, Charleton Heston virtually tells you the surprise plot twist here, doesn't he? He more or less just says, "Oh, by the way, we're way into the future and this is an anti-race-war parable about Earth."

Anyway, a commenter who changes his name a lot mentioned that there are a whole bunch of these movies, movies we watch and re-watch on cable because they're comforting/kinda good, and yet not actually good enough that we've ever rented the DVD or sat down specifically to watch them from the beginning -- so, for some movies, I know them by heart, but I've never actually seen the first twenty minutes and wouldn't know what the hell happens there. (Except some guesses, based on what comes later.)

For me, my major movie like this was The Last of Sheila, which was constantly being shown on the ABC Late Movie in the eighties. I watched it fifteen times, but never saw the set-up. Until ten years after I'd first started watching it, when I finally caught the beginning.

Another movie that would almost qualify as one of these is Body Double, similarly always playing on late-night tv, and one I always come into during the mall stalking/kiss sequence, but in that case, I actually had seen it from the start, once.

You have any movies like this? Movies you know by heart but could not even hazard a guess about their actual beginnings?

Couple More: Looker and WestWorld.

I bet anything that anyone around my age has seen WestWorld ten times but never from the beginning. Okay, maybe once.

One of those movies you always come in at about the same place, and say, "Oh shit, WestWorld."

The beginning is... awful, it turns out. Saw it three years ago with a girlfriend after telling her it was great, and then... was like, "What's this crap?"

Posted by: Ace at 03:51 PM | Comments (320)
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm cynical. I think I'm even more cynical than most of you, and that's saying something.

So when I read that a Penn State investigation had "cleared" Michael Mann of wrongdoing, I assumed, of course, it was a whitewash, but I also assumed that they at least, you know, claimed things like "while the evidence is provocative, there is not enough to prove a case against Professor Mann..." That is, I thought they'd at least dress it up in that sort of judicial language, and rest their claims on the case not being established beyond a reasonable doubt, and so on.

Well, that's what I assumed.

Have you read this?

This, my dear friends, is amazing.

Recall that one of the biggest knocks on climate "science" is that it never makes a prediction that can be verified (actually, it does, but they're always wrong), but that "proof" of its veracity comes from the fact that everyone's models agree with everyone else's.

So, in other words, we know the theory is true because people who believe in the theory agree with other people who believe in the theory that the theory is true.

Look, the models they make, based on the same assumptions they agree on, all say about the same thing! Q.E.D. That's Latin for "How my ass taste, bitch?"

Right? So that's a big problem right there. There is no proof of this except that the people pushing it all agree with each other.

Now, if you can believe it (and I still can't; this is stunning) this is precisely the reason they claim that Michael Mann cannot possibly be guilty of scientific malfeasance.

Honestly, if you haven't read this, get ready to catch your falling jaw.

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

You think I exaggerate?

[Quoting the "investigation's" conclusions; emphasis added:]

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...

Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...

Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.

In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.

Once more, with feeling: We know Michael Mann couldn't be guilty of scientific misrepresentation because the same people he conspired with to misrepresent science gave him awards for misrepresenting science.

Also, that crap about people in the field being in disagreement with Mann and there opinions therefore absolving him? Mann and his cronies conspired specifically to keep dissenters out of the field by denying them publication in scientific journals.

Via Instapundit.

[Here's where the clip of the Orang-Utan Priest/Scientist/Tyrants doing the see no evil/hear no evil/speak no evil thing when confronted with "blasphemy" would go, but frickin' people don't load important clips like this on YouTube]

Question: Is this really at the beginning of Planet of the Apes?

I have no memory of this scene at all. My first memory is of the ship landing in the lake, and then the apes chasing them.

Is this a deleted scene? Or do I just never actually see the beginning of the movie?

Posted by: Ace at 02:57 PM | Comments (182)
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Good piece. I trust she's right because she usually is about these things.

Brennan was of course the unscrupulous uberliberal Justice who made up whole sections of "constitution" to push his liberal agenda.

According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption ruling [concerning a claim of preemption in prescription drug regulation], Arizona's law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens. In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument against state laws on immigrants – including laws somewhat at odds with federal law, which the Arizona law is not.

In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.

The court -– per Justice William Brennan – said that the federal government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: 1) a "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country," and 2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."

So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it can't do.

Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with who enters legally or the conditions of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."

Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)

So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.

On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.

Mark Levin also called the suit pure trash.

Unrelated, But Good: Coulter on what progressives mean when they say that discussions are wide-ranging and nothing is sacrosanct.

Posted by: Ace at 02:39 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

He's had 5 heart attacks in the last 32 years and now his problems are entering another stage.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a long history of heart problems, has been fitted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), which is a battery-operated, mechanical pump-type device that's surgically implanted to help a weakened heart sustain life.

Cheney, 69, underwent the procedure last week at Inova Fairfax Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.
...

About 5 million Americans have congestive heart failure, where the heart weakens over time — often as a result of heart attacks — and cannot pump enough blood. Heart transplants are one solution, but few patients find a donor and many are too old or sick for a transplant.

According to the American Heart Association (AHA) the device is sometimes called a “bridge to transplant” because it can “buy time” for the patient.

“In most cases, people who have LVADS are waiting or are being considered for a heart transplant,” Dr. Nieca Goldberg, medical director of the NYU Women’s Heart Program in New York City told FoxNews.com. ”The device helps people with heart failure that have really reduced heart function due to heart muscle damage. Every time he (Cheney) had a heart attack, some amount of heart muscle was damaged,” she said.

This is obviously very serious matter and our hopes and prayers should be with the former VP and his family.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:12 PM | Comments (98)
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

I confess, this line of questioning never even occurred to me. Kudos to the Washington Times -- you didn't think it was the MFM asking this question, did you? -- for advancing it.

Obama's lawsuit against Arizona contends the state is subverting federal law (they mean federal policy, because Arizona law says what federal law says) and hence is unconstitutional interference with the government's constitutionally-ennumerated power to control immigration and naturalization.

Ah, but what about the shoe on the other foot? What about sanctuary cities that explicitly declare policies of non-enforcement in direct contradiction of federal law?

Oh -- see, that's different or something.

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."

It is important to note always that a state can't obviate federal law in an area of special federal jurisdiction, but Arizona does not violate the law at all -- Arizona law simply restates it.

It is the Obama Administration that is in fact in conflict with federal law.

The federal law that was actually passed by Representatives in Congress and duly signed into law by an elected President says that there will be enforcement of immigration laws (and reporting of those in violation to the federal authorities).

It is only Obama -- and his buddies in Congress -- who say otherwise, but they have not even attempted to get that policy enacted into law. If they did -- well, that would be different. If they change the law, then fine, Arizona can be found to be in violation of the supremacy clause.

But they don't. They don't dare. They keep the law on the books because they know it would be politically suicidal to change it, and instead seek to simply ignore it through a policy that was never agreed to by regular constitutional order.

Thanks to JackStraw.

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Lot of that goin' 'round, eh?

Recovery Summer, baby. Catch the fever.

Federal Reserve leaders marked down their expectations for growth and inflation last month, concluding that the economic recovery is proceeding more slowly than they had thought in the spring but that the slowdown did not warrant new policy actions.

But Fed leaders did agree to explore options for supporting the economy further in case conditions worsen.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

And, they tell Us Weekly, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been kept in the dark about their plans Â… until now.

“We got engaged two weeks ago,” Bristol, 19, tells Us Weekly. “It felt right, even though we don’t have the approval of our parents.”…

“I really thought we were over,” Levi tells Us Weekly. “So when I went [to meet her about child custody], I had no hope. I think we both just started talking — and then we took Tripp for a walk.”

Says Bristol, “When he left that night, we didn’t hug or kiss, but I was thinking how different it was. He texted me: ‘I miss you. I love you. I want to be with you again’ … I was in shock.”

The good: A child should have his father, and a mother should have a husband. Anything that offers up a hope of that is a good thing.

The bad: This guy is a complete self-absorbed asshole and will likely leave her after three or four years.

The possibly good: But that's what guys are, often, especially at that age. The pregnancy was a shock to him, I'm sure, and he reacted cowardly and selfishly, but that is, again, how guys often act. It's not necessarily a predictor that someone can't grow up and accept responsibility.

Bill Murray has a good quote about this:

The truth is, anybody that becomes famous is an ass for a year and a half. You've got to give them a year and a half, two years. They are getting so much smoke blown, and their whole world gets so turned upside down, their responses become distorted. I give everybody a year or two to pull it together because, when it first happens, I know how it is.

I realize that "Ricky Hollywood" did not do anything but have irresponsible unprotected sex with a teenage girl and then jilt her rather than accepting his responsibilities as a man, and that is hardly a conventional way to become a "celebrity," but we are now in a culture where that kind of repulsive "fame" is the same as the well-earned kind.

And so, perhaps, he had his year and a half of being an asshole.

I hope so. Certainly it would be better for everyone involved for him to accept that "Ricky Hollywood" ain't happening and that being a deadbeat dad and liar-for-hire isn't really a career.

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (154)
Post contains 416 words, total size 2 kb.

No wonder Obama decided to short circuit the whole Advice and Consent thing for Donald Berwick's nomination to head The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Way too many inconvenient truths might have come out.

Last year, he said, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Of the NHS, Berwick says simply, "I love it," adding that it is "one of the great human health care endeavors on earth."

As it turns out, Berwick himself does not have to deal with the anxieties created by limited access to care and the extent of coverage. In a special benefit conferred on him by the board of directors of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, a nonprofit health care charitable organization he created and which he served as chief executive officer, Berwick and his wife will have health coverage "from retirement until death."

Follow the link to Byron York's piece to find out just how much this little benefit is worth.

And before the liberal trolls show up to cry about how Bush did this and Republicans are stalling all nominations...BS. Berwick didn't even have his hearing scheduled yet. You know who sets the hearing dates in the Senate? The Democrats, in this case Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (DEMOCRAT, Montana).

Posted by: DrewM at 11:00 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Great.

CBS and NBC have refused to air a provocative ad from the confrontational, well-funded National Republican Trust PAC that calls on Americans to oppose the building of a mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site.

...

"On September 11, they declared war against us," says the narrator. "And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at Ground Zero."

In her letter rejecting the spot, NBC Universal advertising standards manager Jennifer Riley wrote:

"An ad questioning the wisdom of building a mosque at ground zero would meet our issues of public controversy advertising criteria. However, this ad which ambiguously defines 'they' as referenced in the spot makes it unclear as to whether the reference is to terrorists or to the Islamic religious organization that is sponsoring the building of the mosque. Consequently, the ad is not acceptable under our guidelines for broadcast."

Presumably then if "they" is replaced by something more definite, they'll run the ad?

Or will they invent some new objection?

I think I know the answer.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.