I donÂ’t know what more to say about this guy. ItÂ’s getting hard to even work up disappointment and disgust about him anymore. Here are some highlights form his latest energy speech.

In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project Ð named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025.

...We must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president – a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

...Some will say this goal is unattainable within that relatively short span of years – it’s too hard and we need more time. Let me remind them that in the space of half that time – about eight years – this nation conceived and carried out a plan to take three Americans to the Moon and bring them safely home.

Â… As president, I will turn all the apparatus of government in the direction of energy independence for our country -- authorizing new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us. Much will be asked of industry as well, as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power. And a great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good.

Haven't we heard a lot of this at one point or another for the last 25 to 30 years? And yet nothing ever happens, except for increased subsidies and mandates for technologies that no one would bother with if they weren't getting federal dollars.

The bigger issue is the reality is that energy isn’t simply a technological problem, it’s inexorably intertwined with the organization of the economy. Do we really want “all the apparatus of government” focused in that way? It’s not like anything could go wrong, right?

A cap and trade system, which really has nothing to do with energy independence but rather is a prescription for 'global warming', will simply be an expensive way for the federal government to stick it's hands into nearly every aspect of the economy.

The federal governments role in energy policy should be rather simpleÂ…get out of the way. Get rid of prohibitions against drilling off shore and ANWR. Streamline the approval process for nuclear and other types of plants (which in fairness McCain is for). Make it possible to build new refineries (there hasnÂ’t been a new one built in like 30 years) and get rid of boutique fuels and Ethanol subsidies.

Do some of those things and weÂ’d be in a lot better shape. But getting government out of the way isnÂ’t what politicians do. No, they have to insert government into things usually with predicable results. Ethanol wouldnÂ’t be skewing the food and fuel markets if the politicians had restrained their desire to pander to Iowa and other farm states.

The idea the government is going to create a whole new energy system and enforce it is frightening. When we went from wood to coal to oil, did the government mandate it? No. Technology and the marketplace took care of it. Why now do we need the government to find and mandate 'the next thing'?

A conservative would get government out of the way and let the market take care of innovations and all the rest, not saying "Much will be asked of industry". The government doesn't 'ask', it compels and usually in a harmful way.

Alas, no one is running as a conservative this year.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:59 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 729 words, total size 4 kb.

This is an outrage!

Chucking Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, Jim Johnson and the rest I get. But Scarlett Johansson? That sir is an error in judgment I can not over look.

You might remember the lovely Ms. Johansson recently gushed about “how can he return these personal emails?" Note the plural, ‘emails’.

Well, Obama says not so much.

"She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship.

“I don’t know why she would claim such a thing. This is not the blonde starlet with the big boobs and firm ass that I have known from movies such as Lost in Translation and Match Point ”

I may have made that last quote up. ItÂ’s hard to tell.

Either way, this distancing from Ms. Johansson is a mistake that will undoubtedly hurt Obama in the fall. Though perhaps the pain from Mrs. Obama simply out weighed the potential benefits.

Yeah, I'd text that.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:42 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, so I just can't quit you.

Reading through Justice Kennedy's opinion, I get the feeling that trying to describe this ruling to anyone else would be an exercise in "I am not making this up. Srsly." Let's pretend for a minute that we accepted the ridiculous idea that the Eighth Amendment rests on a combination of "evolving standards of decency" and "the Court's own judgment." Kennedy himself fudges the first part.

For example, he writes in page 22:

Aside from pending legislation [five additional states are considering capital punishment for child rapists], it is true that in the last
13 years there has been change towards making child rape a capital offense. This is evidenced by six new death penalty statutes, three enacted in the last two years. But this showing is not as significant as the data in Atkins, where 18 States between 1986 and 2001 had enacted legislation prohibiting the execution of mentally retarded persons.

What's so shameful is that Kennedy doesn't even bother trying to hide or address the inconsistency. Suddenly, he equates child rape to mental retardation. He makes no comment on the differences between the two, like for example, that one is a crime and the other a condition. It seems that any legislative movement limiting the death penalty in specific circumstances can be used to show a "national consensus" against the death penalty in general.

As I was reading through the opinion, I was on the lookout for that most infamous of execution-worthy crimes: treason. Like child rape, treason need not result in death. Under Kennedy's reasoning, the death penalty would therefore be an inappropriate punishment. For reasons passing understanding and with no explanation, Kennedy simply exempts "offenses against the State" from his reasoning.

Our concern here is limited to crimes against individual persons. We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State. As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victimÂ’s life was not taken.

Why? He doesn't say, but it's in section where he describes "the Court's own judgment" so it's not like citizens and legislatures need to know how and why the Court comes to a decision, right?

And that's one of the most frustrating things about Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The whole point of having a Constitution and precedential judgments is so that individuals and legislatures can predict with some success whether their actions will run afoul of the laws or Constitution. But when it comes to the Court's holdings on the Eighth Amendment, that goes right out the window. There's just no way to predict in advance "the Court's own judgment."

Well, that's not strictly true. We know how Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer are going to rule on death penalty cases. The conservative justices are a little harder to predict, if only because their holding is more likely to be based on the specific facts of a case. But how death penalty jurisprudence will change from Court to Court is a crapshoot. Maybe the Senate Judiciary committee should spend more time asking nominees about the Eighth Amendment and less time applying litmus tests for abortion.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:54 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't have much time to spend looking at this today, but I'm sure the cobloggers will weigh in. Heller was not handed down. It will come tomorrow at 10:00am Eastern. Three outstanding cases remain from this term.

There were, however, two cases that I think are important. Though I am opposed to the death penalty, cases where a judge or justice overturns capital punishment because of the Eight Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment make me want to tear my hair out. That's exactly what Justice Kennedy did today.

Exxon v. Baker: In a surprise ruling, the justices (except Alito) concurred that the punitive damages award was excessive. It will be limited to the amount of compensatory damages, which was $507.5 million. The opinion is here (PDF). This is a better holding than I expected, and includes some important discussion of punitive damages in American law.

Kennedy v. Louisiana: The Court 5-4 (usual suspects) holds that the death penalty for child rape is unconstitutional on Eighth Amendment grounds. Kennedy wrote the opinion, which is here (PDF). This is an important one because its reasoning would limit imposition of the death penalty to crimes that result in death or at least were intended to cause death. Kennedy's opinion rests in part on "evolving standards of decency" and "the Court's own judgment" on the "death penaltyÂ’s acceptability under the Eighth Amendment."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:27 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Preface: You know, until we can get beyond these “ism’s,” then we really haven’t fulfilled the dream that Barack Luther King laid out before us in his famous speech at the March on the South Bronx in 1979, where he asked us to “give up our little piece of turf” and also challenged us to “dig it.”

Yet, so far we’ve been unable to dig it. Sadly, according to an unnamed news source with a “C” and a couple of “N”-shaped squiggles after it, it still comes down to this.

”A Columbia University professor, who gained notoriety when a noose was found on the door of her office, has been fired after months of public and private allegations of plagiarism and racial targeting.”

“Madonna Constantine, professor of psychology and education at the university's Teachers College, was initially suspended after an independent 18-month investigation into allegations of plagiarism concluded that on several occasions she had published academic work without crediting others for content.”

But MadonnaÂ’s hopping mad about this:

"It is my opinion that this investigation, along with other incidents that have happened to me at Teachers College in recent months, point to a conspiracy and witch-hunt by certain current and former members of the Teachers College community," she said in a written statement.”

“Giacomo (her attorney) said Constantine may challenge the university's actions in court.”

In a brief press conference shortly after the decision was reached, Dee Snider, spokesman for Madonna adamantly proclaimed ”We’re not gonna’ take it”

And I certainly hope they do indeed fight against this chill wind of something or other. Sadly, this kind of mindless persecution has happened before. Wake up and smell the peyote, people!

(I have no idea why I put up that preface, but we’re mandated to provide at least 15% “Warriors” content per post these days. Management…go figure. Plus I just like doin’ things like that.)

Posted by: Open Blog at 02:38 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 332 words, total size 3 kb.

Meet Gus. Gus is some Scottish dude who specializes in covering old rock songs and movie themes using a plastic ukulele, a toy melodica, and a bunch of other junky thrift shop musical instruments. Along with his band he has recorded almost 50 songs and made them available on Youtube. One thing I can say about Gus is that once he covers a song it's his forever. Below the fold are few samples of his musical stylings.

via yesbutnobutyes more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:48 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 97 words, total size 2 kb.

1. U.K. “Lunch Box Police.”

The U.K. falls even further into the dark pits of stupidity with this:

”Under the Government's obesity strategy, all schools will be expected to design a "healthy lunchbox policy" on what makes a nutritional packed lunch over the next year.

Some parents may even be asked to sign a form agreeing to ban unhealthy foods from their children's lunches.

If a packed lunch is deemed to contain too much fat and sugar, parents could be sent warning letters or their children's meals confiscated.”

“Hand over the contraband, Johnny.” Also, apparently in the home country, lunch ladies are called “dinner ladies.” Maybe it has something to do with Greenwich Mean Time.

2. Margaret Cho Even Unfunny at a GBLT Concert

Or is it LGBT? Or BLT with G on the side, in a ramekin. Who knows. But she managed to even offend this reviewer of a "True Colors Tour"/diversity concert. (yeah, it was in Oklahoma, but the reviewer seemed otherwise sympathetic to the overall cause).

Mostly aging rockers(?) with Cyndi Lauper headlining, also including the B-52s and Joan Jett, plus many more. High point (to me anyway) was apparently the bikini-topped and still rock-hard abbed Jett at aged 50(!). Do ya' wanna touch...well maybe.

Regarding Cho:

"She seemed to think that just because half of her audience was GLB or T, every joke had to contain the "D" word or the "P" word and that the GLBTs wouldn't understand any other form of humor.

I, for one, was disappointed that she chose to perpetuate the negative stereotype that all homosexuals are sex-crazed, drug-abusing extremists. She has loads of comedic talent but needs to work up some new material. The shock factor will only take you so far."

Loads of comedic talent? Which "D" word by the way? Link used to require registration, but not sure these days.

And finally,

3. ”Naked Cowboy” Can Sue Makers of M&M’s
At least according to this article by a news organization with a “C” and a couple of “N”s in its name.

“An underpants-clad New York guitarist known as the "Naked Cowboy" can proceed with his trademark infringement lawsuit against the maker of M&Ms and its ad agency, a New York judge has ruled.”

“Robert Burck has become a fixture in Times Square for playing the guitar dressed in a white cowboy hat, white cowboy boots and white underpants while tourists pose with him for pictures and slip money into his boots.”

“In February, the street performer filed a lawsuit against Mars Inc. and Chute Gerdeman Inc., after they released a video billboard showing a guitar-playing blue M&M dressed in a white cowboy hat, cowboy boots and underpants.”

All I have to say is, Jon Voight is looking really buff these days. Attempts to interview him were repeatedly interrupted by a deranged man in the intersection randomly yelling at taxicabs “Hey! I’m walkin’ here!!!”

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:19 PM | Comments (37)
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

He's not going to win Alaska, but he could put the legislatures in Democratic control. Is that why he's buying ads there, and other states he can't win?

Posted by: Ace at 06:44 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

The first rule of Bolivia's Annual "Punch Your Neighbor In the Face" Festival? Don't talk about Bolivia's Annual "Punch Your Neighbor In the Face" Festival. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:03 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

State rep James Fagan, D-MA, explaining his principled obligation as a defense trial lawyer to ruin your daughter's life on the stand because Jessica's Law, a law that would mandate the "draconian" penalty of a 20 year sentence for a child rapist, well this would require him to "rip them apart"... ruin the rest of their lives... make them vomit over it at age 8, become 12 year old insomniacs... and suffer nightmares and ruined relationships for the rest of their lives.

This law would compel him to inflict that pain on a child, in defense of his client. See? He'd have to be even tougher in court. If it weren't for this law, well he could lighten up.

It would be the state, "forcing" him to turn the amp to eleven.

Words fail. Special place in hell for you pal.

UPDATE: DrewM makes a pretty good point in the comments; what kind of retard defense attorney is going to win over a jury by ripping into a child on the witness stand?

The guy's still a dick, but he's just bloviating on the floor with misdirectional bullshit to try to kill the bill.

via HotAir

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:00 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.