... as the filthy little murder-monkey is led away to his cushy berth in a federal penn.

Son of a bitch.

Thanks to Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Shawn:

Okay. I'm going to look at the bright side of the verdict: The time it will take for him to be murdered by a fellow inmate is shorter than the time it would have taken to exhaust his appeals if he had received the death penalty. Even if he wasn't such a notorious murderer, his big fat mouth is guaranteed to get him killed in prison.

Raped first, multiple times, I'm hoping. Not a joke. I do in fact wish him to be gang raped, and then, at some later point, murdered.

Yes, I despise prison rape and I think this country is disgraced for continuing to allow it, but I'm willing to make an exception.

There is simply not a violation or torture I do not gladly wish upon this demonic animal posing as a human being.

Drew:

And jihadis around the world laugh as us. And rightly so in this case.

Well, we've proclaimed loudly...commit an act of war against us and we'll treat just like a common criminal. This is the kind of sentence a drug kingpin gets or a murderer.

We used to be a serious nation, now not so much.

I hope this ends our little experiment in judicial trials. Everyone goes to Gitmo now no matter where they were captured. And speaking of Gitmo, how come none of those SOBs have been offed yet? Are we fighting to win or not?

Just asking.

I wanted to write something similar to this. Now I don't have to.

It's Time... to move the Federal courts with responsibility for these sorts of cases out of the Norther Virginia/Chevy Chase Maryland liberal-land assign all these cases to a hanging county in Texas or Mississippi or fucking Mirror-Image Star Trek Universe where Rusty the Bailiff has a goatee.

We cannot trust our security to these bleeding heart women and nancyboys.

Posted by: Ace at 12:23 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Idiots. There was, I think, one liberal son-of-a-bitch on the jury who lied to get on the jury and refused to endorse the appopriate sentence of death.

The article.

What the hell does one need to do, precisely, to earn the death penalty?

I mean, besides "outing" a superspy like Valerie Plame. Obviously that's a capital crime.

More... To get on a jury in a capital case, you have to be "death-qualified." You can't have any philosophical objection to the death penalty, that means. Because you have to judge the merits of imposing a capital sentence on the facts of the case and the law (which permits the death penalty), not on some external, pre-existing objection to the death penalty as a general matter.

My Pet Jawa links the questionnaire jurors were required to fill out to get on this jury impose the death penalty.

I wonder if Margie Brinkema made it a little harder than it should have been.

I made a mistake in saying Jawa had linked the questionnaire needed to get on the jury. He didn't; he linked the questions that had to be answered in the affirmative to give Moussaoui the death he deseves.

But, on the questionnaire, or the voir dire which occurred before this case:

Either one or two of the jurors lied, or Judge Brinkema let one or two in whose answers should have disqualified them.

I cannot imagine that anyone who is not against the death penalty in principle could find this a case in which the accused was not deserving of that punishment.

And the other jurors gave in, of course. They should have hung tough, and hung the jury.

Gee, I sure hope that his guards take special care of him in prison. It would be such a shame for him to be, I don't know, beaten to death with a pillowcase filled with batteries or something.

"Martyrdom" Considered A Mitigating Circumstance: Hot Air (Allah) says that at least one juror no jurors believed that denying Moussaoui martyrdom was a mitigating circumstance that weighed against death, which some bloggers seem to think.

Correction: Sorry, I read Allah's "none of the jurors" as "one of the jurors." No jurors, he says, considered the denial-of-martyrdom aspect a mitigating factor.

Allah also notes what I assumed-- this was not an unamimous decision; there were those who wanted death.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

No, not really. That's his gut. The caption:

Manuel Uribe... who at 1,212 pounds is possibly the heaviest person in the world, hopes to travel to Italy for a life-saving operation to shed weight.

The article:

Manuel Uribe, bedridden for the past five years, cannot stand on his own and will need a special flight to take him from Monterrey, Mexico to Modena, where a surgical team has offered to perform an intestinal bypass free of charge.

"I can't walk. I'm can't leave my bed," the 40-year-old Uribe, who weighs the same as five baby elephants, said in a recent telephone interview.

"I'm trying to reduce my weight a bit right now so I can be in the right condition for the operation."

He hopes to shed at least 300 pounds before the operation through a special sort of calesthenics called "finger-wiggling."

Sad story-- the guy was normal until age 22 and then some strange defect in his metabolism caused him to balloon up. I kinda had that myself, but not quite to this extent.

As the guy cannot leave his bed or walk, I will leave it to you to imagine what his apartment must smell like. Probably similar to "five baby elephants" with massive bedpans, I'm thinking.

Thanks to Jack Straw.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Where he goes around the country dispensing advice and inspiration.

Mr. T says the "T" stands for "Talking."

No, I'm not kidding.

His advice will fall into four broad categories:

* Don't be a fool, stay in school.

* Don't hang out with thugs, stay off of drugs.

* Burgess Meredith deserved exactly what he got.

* If life gives you lemons, get captured and imprisoned in a garage with loads of tools and big vehicles and build yourself an armor-plated war-thresher to make lemonade.

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Or her "mysterious death" was the first bit of good luck.

Some call it luck, but Keith Selix knows better. The 81-year-old Waterloo man has won three big lottery prizes since last year — a streak he believes would normally be impossible.

But since his wife died in February 2005, the man's fortune has mysteriously changed.

"I'm still thinking that I'm being led from up above," said Selix, a retired John Deere machinist who spends about $200 a week on lottery scratch-off tickets. "I'm firmly in belief of that."

Ironically, Selix's wife had often scolded him for wasting his money on the "those cotton-picking tickets."

But Selix kept scratching after his wife's departure, and he has since cashed in three winning tickets totaling $81,000.

Selix's latest win came late last month and included $30,000 from the "Wild Crossword" confetti instant-scratch game. He also won $30,000 in June playing the "Wild Crossword" lizard game and $21,000 in September playing the "Double Blackjack" instant-scratch game.

The odds of winning the grand prize in either "Wild Crossword" game is 1 in 89,775, according to the Iowa Lottery. The odds of winning the grand prize in "Double Blackjack" is 1 in 119,700.

And the odds of your henpecking wife "mysteriously dying" just before you start getting rich? Sometimes, better than you'd think.

Thanks to Jack Straw.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

At Boston College.

Two leading theologians at Boston College have written a stinging letter objecting to the college's decision to invite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at graduation and to give her an honorary degree.

Nearly 100 faculty members have signed the letter, according to the theology department, which declined to release their names.

The letter, which will be delivered to the president and board of trustees, has set off a fiery debate.

Kenneth Himes, chairman of the department of theology, and the Rev. David Hollenbach, who holds the Margaret O'Brien Flatley chair in the department, titled their letter ''Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree," and sent it to the entire faculty inviting members to sign on. The writers said they were distressed with the university's decision to invite Rice to commencement May 22. Her selection was announced Monday.

''On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work," the letter said. It pointed out Pope John Paul II's opposition to the war in Iraq.

''I have no objection to her coming here to speak -- I am in favor of free speech -- but I don't believe we should be honoring her with an honorary degree," Hollenbach said.

Apologies: Seems I crossed a line in offending Catholics, which wasn't my intent. I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of left-leaning "leading theologans" who demand Rice perfectly observe Catholic teaching, while apparently not noticing that some in the Catholic heirarchy haven't been perfect examples themselves.

The crack was:

"If perfect respect for 'the traditions and values of Catholics and Jesuits' is the most important criterion here, then BC should be giving an honorary degree to Michael F'n' Jackson."

Anyway, Bart's always on my case, but it was the objection from very longtime reader Hondo that stung.

You guys know sometimes these cracks aren't very carefully thought out, right?

The Raven expressed the intended point in a much better way:

I wonder if BC has a Gay/Lesbian club. That wouldn't be consistent with Catholic teachings either. And of course, I assume the Democratic Party, as an instrument of outspoken support for abortion, is forbidden from holding pro-choice events on campus.

I can't imagine BC would ever be so hypocritical as to award an honorary degree to anyone who supports abortion or the gay lifestyle.

That's what I was getting at. If you're going to be sticklers for Church orthodoxy, you'd better be sticklers across-the-board, not just as regards people you disapprove of for political, not theological, reasons.

Don't use theology as a ruse to make your political objections seem nonpartisan and objective and, indeed, compelled by God Himself. If you can make, errr, allowances for the heterodoxies of those you approve of politically, you can make allowances for the heterodoxies of those you don't approve of as well.

And It's Shaky Theology, Too: For every liberal-leaning Jesuit who claims to know absolutely that God's Law forbade the Iraq War, there is a conservative-leaning priest who believes it is, or could be, justified by, say, the Just War Doctrine.

There is debate on this issue in the Church.

On the other hand, it is fairly well established that the church forbids abortion, homosexuality, etc., as commenters point out, and yet these self-righteous Warriors of God seem to view those as, at most, "guidelines" which may be suspended or observed according to one's conscience.

Not to re-offend, but these selectively-strict Jesuits seem to be followers of the cafeteria-style theological code most perfectly formulated by Chief Wiggams in the Treehouse of Terror episode where Marge was a witch in Salem:

(as they're about to kill Marge for witchcraft)

LISA: Doesn't the Bible say "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself?"

GOODMAN WIGGAMS: The Bible says a lot of things, kid. Push her off the cliff.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (74)
Post contains 688 words, total size 5 kb.

It's always fun when feminists or women's advocates generally do the "this sort of work is just like that sort of work" dealio:

A full-time stay-at-home mother would earn $134,121 a year if paid for all her work, an amount similar to a top U.S. ad executive, a marketing director or a judge, according to a study released Wednesday.

A mother who works outside the home would earn an extra $85,876 annually on top of her actual wages for the work she does at home, according to the study by Waltham, Massachusetts-based compensation experts Salary.com.

To reach the projected pay figures, the survey calculated the earning power of the 10 jobs respondents said most closely comprise a mother's role -- housekeeper, day-care teacher, cook, computer operator, laundry machine operator, janitor, facilities manager, van driver, chief executive and psychologist.

"You can't put a dollar value on it. It's worth a lot more," said Kristen Krauss, 35, as she hurriedly packed her four children, all aged under 8, into a minivan in New York while searching frantically for her keys. "Just look at me."

No offense, but almost all of those "jobs" are what we call menial work, and we don't usually pay someone huge money to do laundry.

A psychologist? Right. In other words, someone who talks to people and tries to give advice. Like, you know, every other person.

Hey, I act as my own cook, laundry operator, van driver, chief executive and psychologist all the time. Where's my check? I figure I'm worth at least $150,000 per year, from my new employer, the Department of Paying People To Take Care of Themselves.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

What a shock:

never found any of his co-stars attractive, because actresses are never as sexy in the flesh as they are in magazines. Despite working with ANGELINA JOLIE and SCARLETT JOHANSSON, the Irish heart-throb has never been tempted. ...

"These women are much more beautiful in magazines than they'll ever be in real life. They're all airbrushed. I'm not sure that I fancy movie stars. I'm not sure that turns me on."

I don't think he's gay; I just think he finds all women rather pedestrian when compared to the blaze of his own prettiness.

When last we heard from the self-infatuated douchecannon, he was praising himself for all the hard work he'd done to become a star, said hard work consisting of being spotted by a talent agent and immediately offered a big contract and lots of work showing off his cheekbones.

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Ummm, okay, that's... semi-interesting. The timeline has now gotten so ridiculous that at some point they sort of had to do this.

But if a reboot, why bring back Judi Densch, for crying out loud? What a terrific opportunity to bring in a new support cast and make it more old-school.

I'm always incredibly annoyed at Judi Densch; she doesn't have the gravity or heft of any of the previous M's. Well, okay, the physical heft, but not the heft of authority. She seems to be precisely what she is -- a somewhat absurd nod to political correctness and an attempt to "update" Bond by bringing him into the 21st 22nd century, when it's a bit more plausible that a woman would have accumulated the military and covert-action experience to head up the 00-section.

There was always an interesting dynamic between Bond and the male M's; it was somewhat of a father-son or dean-student relationship, but with the occasional furious dressing-downs and more rare expressions of approval for Bond's successes. In a series with so little genuine human interaction, the M-Bond relationship was at least a nod to something approaching an interesting and realistic dynamic.

Densch doesn't bring that. Her relationship with Bond is... what? Motherly? Great aunt-once-removed-ly? Who knows. It doesn't work, whatever it's supposed to be.

And now that the series is in reboot, it's even sillier. So Densch is the first and last of Bond's superiors?

Ehhh. Even when they try to do something vaguely interesting, they half-ass it and cannot really rouse the courage to do it without familiar faces. It's supposed to break with previous Bond continuity, but there's that frumpy Miss Marple-ish M, providing continuity after all.

Thanks to CT.

Message: "I Care" Update: It just occurred to me why I so object to Densch's annoying "You're a thug, a blunt instrument" lines.

They're trying to convey through clumsy dialogue what is never evident through performance or story.

The Connery Bond was always being called, in praise, a bit thuggish, a bit nasty, a bit amoral, a bit sadistic... by critics. The "educated, smooth thug" element of Bond came through in Connery's performance, as well as in the not-very-nice things he did in some movies. Like slapping women, or strangling them with their bikini straps, and so forth. (Stuff he did convincingly in the movies, because, as it turns out, Sir Sean was also doing similar stuff in real life.)

In all these later Bonds, from Dalton on, they keep trying to insist through dialogue and clumsy exposition that "This is the Connery style Bond you all want!," and yet... he's not. He's an overemotional dorkwad (Dalton) or a walking mannquin prettyboy who always seems to be posing or voguing like he's on the catwalk (Brosnan) or... Daniel Craig, whatever he is.

Hey, how about a little "show, don't tell"? If this Bond is really bad-ass and tough and sadistic and a bit of a bastard, shouldn't we be able to see that in the actor's performance and character's actions?

Nope. Because he's not going to really be a thug. He's going to be a generic action-hero, and one with a somewhat effeminate personality at that, but we'll just keep having M say over and over what a thug he is.

Anyway. I can't believe I used to like these movies.

Thanks to MatthewM for the Connery-hits-women link, which I didn't really want to post, because I like Sean Connery, but, hey, it's news, and it seems to be true. He's said such things himself, though he later claims he was "misquoted."

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.