Not up to the usual high standards but hey it's free

On this date - Two of the world's great military powers won magnificent victories that forever secured the legends in the hearts of men:

In 1831 6000 Spanish soldiers defeated 100,000 Mexicans at the Battle of Calderon Bridge during the Mexican war of Independence. Somehow Spain still managed to lose that war.

In 1941 the French Navy defeated the Royal Thai Navy ending the Franco-Thai War. Who knew? There was actually a time when the French didn't rush to surrender.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:15 PM | Comments (433)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Jay Carney dodges the question by referring Ed Henry to the Obama campaign, which I'm sure Jay Carney has no contact at all with himself.

At Real Clear Politics (with video):

Ed Henry, FOX News: "I don't know how many years, maybe you do, George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain that the President has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?"

Jay Carney, White House: "I would refer you to the campaign."

How dare you, sir, ask for the intellectual credentials of a man who sells himself on the basis of his intellectual credentials?

Ed Henry

The most racist man in the history of the universe. Nazi!!!

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (390)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Third season starts tonight on FX at 10. If you haven't seen it, it's like Downton Abbey, but in Kentucky. And if it there were a lot of guns, and if the families were big in the meth and marijuana trade.

And if the main character shot a lot of people. Kind of by baiting them into a draw, which he knew he could win, and then had to explain to his boss, "Shucks, Chief, I done baited someone to their death yet again."

And the series ignores that, because let's face it, you want to see guys getting plugged in quick-draw contests.

It's like that.

No Maggie Smith.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:25 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Last Friday, a district court judge rejected Perry's lawsuit, later joined by Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman (hah), to get on the Virginia ballot. The Fourth Circuit super-expedited the challenge and issued its order today denying the lawsuit (PDF).

Just like the district court, the Fourth Circuit panel held that Perry had waited too long to bring the lawsuit. There's a doctrine in equity called "unclean hands." The short version is that if you want the courts to force somebody else to do something, particularly something burdensome, you better be pretty damn squeaky clean. You certainly can't have acted in a manner to increase the burden on the other party before raising your claims to the court.

Despite the fact [Perry] was able to bring these constitutional challenges for over four months before the filing deadline of December 22, 2011, Movant waited until the eleventh hour to pursue his claims. . . . Moreover, Movant had every incentive to challenge the requirement at that time. Success in an early constitutional challenge would have allowed Movant to maximize the number of his petition circulators and minimize the amount of time it took to acquire the requisite 10,000 signatures.

Nevertheless, he chose to sit on his right to challenge this provision until after he had been denied a place on the ballot. This deliberate delay precludes the possibility of equitable relief. For “equity ministers to the vigilant, not to those who sleep upon their rights.”

The panel found that Perry also can't win because he could only speculate that he would have acquired the 10,000 signatures required to be on the ballot if he'd been able to use non-resident petition circulators. Remember, he didn't challenge the 10,000-signature requirement as unconstitutional (and it's clearly not), just the requirement that the circulators be residents of the state of Virginia. It's pure speculation that he would have reached the 10,000-signature threshold and the court won't entertain it. Perry had months to raise an objection and use any circulators he wanted. More unclean hands.

The other problem was that the delays caused by such a late lawsuit are making it questionable whether the county elections boards could even get the ballots printed and mailed on time. Under federal law, military ballots are supposed to be mailed 45 days in advance of the election, which means they have to go in the mail Saturday at the latest. Because Perry waited until after the ballot petition deadline to sue it's made it very unlikely that ballots are going to be mailed on time. That's even more unclean hands.

Notably, the Fourth Circuit did not rule on the constitutionality of the residency requirement because it's entirely irrelevant to whether Perry can force the State of Virginia to put him on the ballot at this late date.

Perry's campaign says it's mulling its options. He could petition for rehearing by the same panel, or petition for rehearing en banc by the whole court. But for someone whose major fault in the case is delay, that will probably not be viewed well. His final option, of course, would be to petition the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:09 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess I can understand how he feels. I hate criticism too! You may have noticed. I do not exactly deal with it in a dispassionate, mature fashion.

That said, if he listened to the intense criticism of the first prequel, he might have resigned from duties as writer and director and taken the role he'd had the most success with -- producer, overseer, "story by" guy.

He did, if I remember this right, bring in bright guys to polish the dialogue in the later two films (I think British playwright great Tom Stoppard was mentioned as a ghost re-writer), but... someone giving your dialogue a polish probably isn't going to tell you: None of this works. You have a confused storyline altogether. You do not have any clear heroes or villains. You do not have a main character. There are zero stakes here. You cannot just write sequences, like Annikin and Padme on the conveyor belt robot-maker, just because it's been in all of your videogames and will make an easy transfer to the next one.

The whole thing was just misconceived from its earliest stages, and it was all downhill from there. When you've written dreck, even if you've spent a lot of hours on it (but seriously how long could these scripts have taken?), you kind of have to always be ready to just toss it all in the trash can if it's not working.

Because if it's not working, and no minor changes (dialogue polish) are fixing it, that means the problem is in the very basics of the thing, main idea, structure, main character.

Sometimes a re-write isn't enough. You need a re-think, and then a writing from zero.

Anyway, it's the audience's fault for not liking dreck.

On the Internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie,” Lucas tells the New York Times in a new profile, referring to YouTube fans who have re-cut his films in retaliation for the small changes he has made. “I’m saying: ‘Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it.’”

Combine that experience with the cool reception the three “Star Wars” prequel films received in the late 90s and early 2000s, and Lucas says he’s done making new films in the canon.

“Why would I make any more,” Lucas says, “when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?

Lucas' loss is our gain, though. I have to tell you that I have enjoyed Harry Plinkett's critiques of these movies not even more than those movies themselves -- that goes without saying -- but more than most movies.

I've watched each of those gems like three times. I actually think it might be four.

I might watch them again next month. They're that good. They have replay value. Every time I watch them I find a new favorite part. My latest favorite is Plinkett's attack on the implausibility that the Emperor, who now looks like a Scary Monster Man and wears an Evil Black Cloak, telling the Senate that the Jedi, the guardians of justice and peace in the galaxy for 1000 years, are now the bad guys, and so he's had them all executed -- including the children -- on his own authority and with no evidence, but seriously, listen to Monster Man, would this face lie to you?

"Please, stop applauding."

I gotta say, if three awful movies were the cost of getting the Plinkett reviews of them, it's an exchange I'd make every time.

One of these days I have to copy those, before Lucas gets them yanked off the internet forever.

Speaking of all this, James Taranto composed a bye-ku for Huntsman:

Call me crazy, but
I think insulting voters
Will warm them to me

Kind of Lucas-like.

Posted by: Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (214)
Post contains 687 words, total size 4 kb.

Update: Although Cuccinelli makes an argument to support his claim, the more I think about it, the more I have to categorize this story as Mostly Bullshit. Like 99.9%.

It is likely that wild rats and wild mice cannot be killed under the law, but those aren't really the varieties people worry about. If the wild rats and mice move into houses, presumably they'd become "commensable" rodents too, and then could be killed.

Sorry, I bit on this one. I wanted to believe.

...

Can it get more absurd?

You'd have to really work at it.

Lately, there have been reports of growing rat infestations around the Occupy DC protests at Freedom Plaza and McPherson Square.

...

Cuccinelli said D.C.'s new rat law--the Wildlife Protection Act of 2010 (Wildlife Protection Act of 2010.pdf) --is “crazier than fiction” because it requires that rats and other vermin not be killed but captured, preferably in families; no glue or snap traps can be utilized; the rodents must be relocated from where they are captured; and some of these animals may need to be transferred to a “wildlife rehabilitator” as part of their relocation process.

The law does not allow pest control professionals “to kill the dang rats,” Cuccinelli told CNSNews.com. “They have to capture them--then capture them in families. [Not sure] how you’re going to figure that out with rats. And then you have to relocate them. That brings us to Virginia. Now, if you don’t relocate them about 25 miles away, according to experts, rodents will find their way back. Well, an easy way to solve that problem is to cross a river, and what’s on the other side of the river? Virginia.”

Update: Bad Rap on Rats? RWC says "they need to read the law:"

Indeed, while the law applies to wildlife, it excludes "commensal rodents:"

(5) “Wildlife” shall include any free-roaming wild animal, but shall not include:
(A) Domestic animals;
(B) Commensal rodents;
(C) Invertebrates; and
(D) Fish.

However, Cuccinelli's argument is about specific rats.

While the law exempts “commensal rodents”--varieties of which most people know (or have seen) as common rats or house mice--the rice rat and deer mouse, which are found in the District, are not defined as commensal and apparently are not exempt from the law. In addition, the new law expands the definition of wildlife and sets the rules for handling it to include raccoons, squirrels, skunks, and other animals that can carry disease, such as rabies. The law applies to trained animal control officers, not to homeowners.

"Commensal" (I had to look this up) refers to a symbiotic relationship in which one party benefits and the other is unharmed. Presumably common rats -- vermin -- would be considered parasitic and hence excluded. (Although, technically, parasitic rats would actually be protected, but I assume they'd put those in the "conmmensal" category.)

I'm not sure about these "rice rats" and "deer mice." I don't know what those are. Rice rats apparently live in marshes in the northeastern US, so I assume they exist in DC.

Via @fredosso.

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (255)
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

Bullshit or Not?

I don't know. I know Romney has some significant problems. But all of our candidates do, and the guy I think has the fewest problems (all correctable, and being corrected) isn't getting traction.

The House’s top Democrat repeatedly jabbed at the former Massachusetts governor during an hour-long interview hosted by POLITICO and taunted the GOP for a slate of presidential contenders that she said was “not exactly what you would call the first string of the Republican Party.”

“If the far right thought that Romney could win, they might be more enthusiastic about him,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Mike Allen during Tuesday’s Playbook Breakfast. “But they question what he stands for and they don’t think he’s going to win. So what’s the sell? I’m not sure he knows what he stands for, and that makes it harder too.”

“I don’t know who knows him,” she added of Romney. “Does he know him?”

Yup, Pelosi's right. There's no way a cerebral, emotionally-disconnected man who we really don't have a sense of could possibly win the presidency.

I mean, a competent version of that. An incompetent, feckless, depressive loser could of course win, as he did in 2008.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Fairly funny video.

Damnit: The link was fragged.

Bumped due to my incompetence.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (122)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Of course he pays a crap-ton in actual dollars, but the 15% figure will be used against him.

But that's only part of the problem. The other part is that 15% will be used to advance the idea that the rich must pay more.

Here's the problem with nominating a rich guy: He's so vulnerable on the class-warfare stuff he has to preemptively surrender on it some.

A post from a few weeks back by Andy included Romney himself acknowledging the problem:

Drew also noted this problem on his own blog.

When Romney came in and spoke to The Wall Street Journal recently, he said that “someone with my background can’t make an argument for cutting taxes on wealthy individuals.” That was sort of why he–his argument for a more modest tax proposal here. What he didn’t say is whether he actually believes that cutting taxes on our most productive people would help grow the economy. And I think that’s where Gingrich thinks he has Romney. Does he actually believe this stuff?

That's quoted from the video below, Jason Riley reporting that.

Not saying this is disqualifying. But it should be borne in mind that Bush's idea of compassionate conservatism was born first of his sense of noblesse oblige, which itself arose from the fact that he was wealthy and always had been.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (335)
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

For what it's worth, I myself thought this statement was ill-advised. The president can't go around making incendiary comments; he's he chief diplomatic officer of the United States, after all. And a candidate for the job shouldn't either.

As they say, be the person you want to be.

Turkey's Foreign Ministry released a scathing statement saying Perry's comments were "baseless and inappropriate" and that the U.S. has no time to waste with candidates "who do not even know their allies."

Perry, the Texas governor whose candidacy briefly soared when he entered the race in August but whose shine faded after a series of weak debate performances, said Turkey was ruled by "what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists" and questioned the country's NATO membership.

In a debate ahead of the South Carolina primaries, he said Turkey was moving "far away from the country that I lived in back in the 1970s as a pilot in the United States Air Force that was our ally, that worked with us."

Turkey, which has assisted NATO in Afghanistan and other missions said it has been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. It said it was "strongly condemning" Perry's words.

I like the AP Stylebook recommendation on the word "Islamist:"

Turkey has been ruled by a government led by pious Muslims since 2002.

Am I to understand that AP believes that any "pious Muslim" will, if he's honoring his religion, therefore be an Islamist? If "pious Muslim" is a synonym for "Islamist," it follows that pious Muslims are expected to be Islamist. Thus AP settles the question of "Are Muslims commanded to be jihadists?" in favor of the Islamists.

But perhaps AP just doesn't write the English language very well.

Although it's ties with Israel have deteriorated...

"It's" ties? The AP needs to proofread it's copy.

There is a defense for what Perry said, in as much as it's (or its, to the AP) true that Turkey now seems more friendly to terrorists than it had been in the past.

For example:

• Prime Minister Erdoğan endorsed an Al Qaeda financier.

• Turkey also helped supply Al Qaeda in Iraq.

• Erdoğan had repeatedly embraced Hamas and acted to supply it.

Turkey has been flying its (or "it's," to the AP) flag on the Gaza blockade runner ships.

Plus, all that business of doing things that Islamists do, such as destroying free speech in favor of reading the Koran six billion times a day, and turning a blind eye to assaults on prostitutes, and by prostitutes I mean, of course, "women."

Still and all, that doesn't make them terrorists, and even if it did, one should deploy that word more carefully than Perry did.

Posted by: Ace at 09:29 AM | Comments (184)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.