Schmitty's Blog

Homer = Obama?

2008-08-23T15:42:00.001-07:00

I was watching The Simpsons the other day (not a shock there), when I had an epiphany. It was the episode where Homer goes into the grease business, collecting grease and selling it for recycling. When he brings in his first load of grease, he has this exchange:

Homer: Okay, boy. This is where all the hard work, sacrifice and painful scaldings pay off.
Clerk: Four pounds of grease. That comes to... sixty-three cents.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
Bart: Dad, all that bacon cost twenty-seven dollars.
Homer: Yeah, but your mom paid for that.
Bart: But, doesn't she get her money from you?
Homer: And I get my money from grease. What's the problem?

What I realized was this exchange essentially encapsulates the Obama economic plan. Obama plans to spend billions of dollars to fund “programs” that will create jobs for Americans. But where does he get that money? Oh yeah, from American tax dollars. Thanks to waste and inefficiency in the government at every step of the way, those billions will only be worth pennies on the dollar by the time the money makes it back to Americans -- like wasting $27 worth of bacon to get 63 cents.

Of course, this is also further proof that everything you need to know you can learn from The Simpsons. At the very least, it’s more insightful political commentary than Keith Olbermann.

Scalia On The Death Penalty

2008-04-19T19:08:00.000-07:00

By now most people have heard about the Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees, in which the Court essentially held the current lethal injection method of execution does not violate the Constitution. Most people, though, probably don't know the specifics of the decision, particularly the fact that, while seven of the nine justices concurred in the ultimate result, they couldn't reach a majority agreement on the reasoning. Basically, a bunch of justices wrote their own concurring opinions explaining their reasoning.

And then there was Justice Scalia. He wrote a separate concurring opinion solely to respond to Justice Stevens' dissent (in which Stevens basically wrote he would find the death penalty unconstitutional in whatever form it were carried out). To say that Justice Scalia got the better of the argument would be an understatement . . . it was an ass-kicking.

Here is Scalia's opinion. He points out that capital punishment was obviously envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, because they actually set forth procedural protections (the Fifth Amendment requires a presentment or indictment of a grand jury to hold a person to answer for “a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,” and prohibits deprivation of “life” without due process of law). Why would the Constitution set forth procedural safeguards for the death penalty if the death penalty were unconstitutional?

The answer is it's not unconstitutional under the text of the Constitution, but rather is somehow unconstitutional because it offends Justice Stevens -- which is exactly what Scalia calls Stevens on. Scalia writes, "In the face of Justice Stevens’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as 'the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.' The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a 'thirst for vengeance.' It is Justice Stevens’ experience that reigns over all."

He also writes, "But of all Justice Stevens’ criticisms of the death penalty, the hardest to take is his bemoaning of 'the enormous costs that death penalty litigation imposes on society,' including the 'burden on the courts and the lack of finality for victim’s families.' Those costs, those burdens, and that lack of finality are in large measure the creation of Justice Stevens and other Justices opposed to the death penalty, who have 'encumber[ed] [it] … with unwarranted restrictions neither contained in the text of the Constitution nor reflected in two centuries of practice under it . . . ."

Wow. That's a beatdown. If this were a fight, the referee would be flailing his arms to put an end to it and Stevens' corner would have thrown in the towel.

What's worse than the Spitzer scandal?

2008-03-31T13:57:00.000-07:00

From Marv Albert to Bill Clinton to Eliot Spitzer, I love a good sex scandal. And believe me, this is a good one. The president of the governing body of Formula One racing has allegedly been caught on tape engaged in a "'sadomasochistic orgy' with five prostitutes that reportedly involved Nazi role-playing." Yes, that's right -- the always highly sensual Nazi role-playing. Apparently, they "re-enacted a concentration camp scene in which he played the role of both guard and inmate," which involved this guy being "chained over a torture bench while being caned by a woman."

What?! First of all, how sick are you to come up with this fantasy to begin with? For other people, the most taboo it gets is using the old teacher and naughty school girl scenario, but you're going right to the concentration camp scene?! And then to actually take the time and effort to track down prostitutes (note the plural, because one apparently isn't enough for this little fantasy) and explain in detail what scene you want to re-enact?! You've got to be kidding me. I mean, do you place an ad: "Wanted: group of whores for role playing. Must have cane/Nazi paraphernalia."

Why I love the local news

2008-03-30T21:05:00.001-07:00

I have seen this clip at least 20 times now, and I still laugh every time I watch it. What type of evidence were they collecting exactly? I'm pretty sure that thing wasn't used for bagging the coke.

Germany or Florida

2008-03-28T22:14:00.001-07:00

You know what? I'm not even going to have you guess (though it would be pretty obvious by looking at the picture anyway). Have a look at these idiots from Florida. By the way, how delightful it is that this dirtbag has eight children.

Punitive Damages

2008-03-28T21:47:00.000-07:00

The N.Y. Times has a very interesting article that touches on how other countries' courts look at the American system of imposing punitive damages. Frankly, I've always felt the same way as these other countries. It seems so bizarre to me that punitive damages even exist in civil cases. After all, we have a criminal system to punish wrongdoers -- including those "evil" corporations. Yet we likewise have punitive damages in civil cases.

Unlike criminal cases, though, we do not have nearly the level of procedural safeguards in civil cases. Sure, we have "due process," but not to the same level as criminal cases. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in civil cases -- someone seeking punitive damages in civil cases need only establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is guilty of malice, fraud, or oppression. And you can forget about that whole unanimous jury thing you get in criminal cases -- try only 9 out of 12 having to agree to impose punitive damages (in many state courts). By the way, when you're charged with a crime, the statutes provide a set sentence, or at least range of a sentence, you can get. When you're sued for punitive damages, it's a free for all, with juries having free reign to impose whatever punishment they think is necessary to make an example of the defendant and deter such conduct in the future (with the Supreme Court only in recent years stepping in to provide loose Constitutional guidelines that punitive damage awards need to be reasonably related to the amount of actual damages awarded).

But beyond this lack of procedural safeguards, why does it even make sense to have a system where a single, private person can seek punishment against another private person or entity? Even more, why should a single private person be given a windfall, just to punish a defendant? The purpose of a lawsuit is to compensate a plaintiff for his loss, not give him more than he lost. To do otherwise is to encourage lawsuits by people trying to hit the jackpot.

Schmitty Jr.

2008-02-24T20:27:00.000-08:00

Samuel John was born on Thursday (February 21) at 7:52 a.m. Sam weighed in at 10 lbs., 4 oz., and is over 21.5 inches long -- thankfully, mom had a C-section. He and Mrs. Schmitty are both fine, and we are already back home, resting comfortably.

Fat People Save Us Money

2008-02-07T20:02:00.000-08:00

Well, I am finally back from a very lengthy leave. Between ever-increasing hours at work and a now nine-month pregnant wife, I have had absolutely no time to write anything. Of course, I'm not sure I will have a lot of time after my son is born in the next week or so either, but perhaps I'll learn how to type with one hand so I have something to do while I'm up doing late-night feedings with the other hand. (For the record, I deny having any experience "typing with one hand" . . . .)

What better way to jump back into the blogosphere, though, than to find out you were right all along. You see, when politicians want to control your personal choices because they think they know what's best for, they all resort to the same argument: it's their business because it costs taxpayers money in health care costs. Smoking? No way, your smoking-related diseases are burdening our health care system. Seatbealts? You have to wear them, otherwise you'll be hurt in a crash and burden our health care system.

The only problem, though, is that in calculating the amount of money these issues "cost" taxpayes, they always fail to calculate how much money they save. For a long time now, for instance, studies like this one in the New England Journal of Medicine have repeatedly shown that smoking decreases health care costs because people die younger. I have always hypothesized that the same would be true for obesity -- and now I have been proven right. A new study showed that, like smokers, the obese die younger, and thus save society money in the long run.

So instead of spouting statistics like "obesity costs taxpayers millions every year," I'd rather you just say "thank you" and be on your way.

Cuba Gooding

2007-08-09T07:25:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of Cuba Gooding, Jr. His one well-recognized role, in Jerry Maguire, was so unbelievably overrated, and he has basically continued to play that same loud, obnoxious character in every movie. So I was quite amused to come across this faux open letter from the Academy to Cuba:

Dear Mr. Gooding:

I am writing on behalf of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. As you recall, in 1997, we awarded you the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor after your star turn in Cameron Crowe’s Jerry Maguire. At the time, Mr. Gooding, we were very impressed with you. You had a decent track record in small roles, including a very impressive performance in Boyz n the Hood. Your presence in Jerry Maguire, in the role of Rod Tidwell, was vibrant and magnetic; you even overshadowed then twice-nominated Tom Cruise, stealing nearly every scene you were in. It was not a particularly adventurous, difficult, or challenging role, but you imbued Rod Tidwell with enough excitement that we decided to give you the Oscar over the arguably better choice of Ed Norton, in Primal Fear. Though it made for a good story at the time (and thank you for your Oscar speech; it was the only decent moment in the otherwise dull Oscar telecast), it is a decision we deeply regret today.

Mr. Gooding, when we hand out Oscars, we expect certain things from the recipients. First and foremost, we expect that Oscar awardees will not embarrass the Academy. It happens, of course: After her award in 1992, Marisa Tomei made the un-Oscar worthy Untamed Heart and Only You before heading off into romantic comedies, bit parts, and relative obscurity. However, Ms. Tomei — per our instructions — has kept a largely low profile, so as not to remind the world of our rueful mistake, providing a small bit of redemption with her role in In the Bedroom. Similarly, our regretful decision to award Whoopi Goldberg an Oscar for her supporting turn in Ghost has not entirely backfired — she, too, has done a number of different things in the media that have, at the very least, allowed the public to forget that she was ever awarded an Oscar, thus largely masking the stink of our lamentable choice. Likewise, Roberto Benigni — awarded a Best Actor Oscar in 1997 for his role in Life is Beautiful — has also thankfully faded into obscurity (though, it took a little pushing on our behalf; who do you think made his Pinocchio disappear? Yeah. That was us).

But, despite repeated warnings and letters, you simply will not go away, Mr. Gooding. Indeed, despite our best efforts, you continue to bring shame upon our 80-year-old institution. We did appreciate you taking a supporting role in the decent, if not overrated, As Good As It Gets and, we could at least see what you were going for in What Dreams May Come, even if it was a total failure. However, things began to go decidedly downhill in 1999 when you had the audacity to take a role opposite Skeet Ulrich in the ice-cream truck action flick, Chill Factor. What were you thinking, Mr. Gooding? It was then, I’m afraid, that your career took a very nasty turn for the worse.

We sent you a warning at the time, requesting that you refrain from making further unwise career decisions. Unfortunately, you refused to heed our advice. Pearl Harbor and Rat Race we understood — you needed the money. Besides, few remember you were in those films. However, it went from bad to worse when you made the deeply unfortunate decision to take the lead in Snow Dogs, alongside Sisqo and a pack of dogs. Mr. Gooding, you really should’ve known better. Oscar award winners do not share screen time with musical artist responsible for songs about thongs. And Boat Trip: Inexcusable. In fact, after you so brazenly chose to make the gay boat film, we very kindly insisted that you either find a new career or choose roles that would reflect better upon our institution. Mr. Gooding, sir, Radio was not what we had in mind — it takes an exceptionally gifted actor to pull off a mentally-challenged character, Mr. Gooding, especially one that rides around on a lawn mower. And you, sir, are not that actor.

As you recall, we wrote to you after Radio appeared in theaters for a scant few days and disappeared into TBS oblivion, to warn you that if you didn’t keep a lower profile, there would be dire consequences. We appreciate, Mr. Gooding, that though you haven’t fallen completely off the map over the last four years, you have been responsible enough to take roles that would not attract undue attention to your mediocrity — Shadowboxer, Dirty, and End Game were wise decisions, films that got hidden in the back corners of Blockbuster. Indeed, for the most part, the world at large thought you were dead. That’s the way we would’ve preferred it, of course (premature death always reflects well upon our recipients), but relative obscurity is a decent second option.

However, the Academy — for reasons that don’t quite make sense to me — insisted that I go see your new film, Daddy Day Camp this afternoon. Sir, in my life, I have rarely spent a more torturous 30-minutes doing anything, including the time the Academy sent me to remove an Oscar statuette from an unnamed narcissistic actor’s rectum after he “slipped and fell” while changing a light bulb. I say only 30 minutes, sir, because that’s all I could stomach before moving into an adjacent theater to see the remarkably talented Mr. Damon open up a can of whoop ass (pardon the expression) on bad guys— and rest assured, Mr. Gooding, I paid for Bourne Ultimatum and snuck into Daddy Day Camp, lest my $7 embolden you to continue pursuing acting roles.

It is my understanding that Daddy Day Camp is a sequel to Eddie Murphy’s Daddy Day Care (and wow! Did we ever dodge a bullet this year by not awarding Mr. Murphy an Academy Award — I feel terrible for any critic who had to see Norbit), though I have not had the displeasure of seeing Day Care. However, it if is half as bad as your film, Mr. Gooding, I hope that admission came with free antidepressants and an ipecac , which would allow the viewer to regurgitate all memory of its existence. Am I to understand that you actually took the same role that Mr. Murphy held in the original, supposing perhaps that the film’s core audience of overstuffed toddlers who snack on the contents of their nasal cavities wouldn’t notice that the two of you bear little resemblance? Even more criminal is that even Eddie Murphy’s sidekick in the original, Jeff Garlin, refused to reprise his role. When your stature falls below even that of Jeff Garlin, Mr. Gooding, you ought to be able to recognize how much shame you have not only brought upon The Academy, but yourself. Besides, Mr. Gooding, did you notice when you signed onto this film that it was directed by Fred Savage? Sometimes, there’s a reason former child stars enter a life of drugs and debauchery — it’s so they will never be put in a position to direct a movie like Daddy Day Camp.

Indeed, in the 30 minutes I spent with you this afternoon, Mr. Gooding, I had the very unfortunate experience of witnessing a seven-year-old gentleman stick carrots in his nose, two small children engaged in a ketchup war, and another small boy scratching his anus beneath his diaper. Moreover, you suddenly seem to believe, Mr. Gooding, that you are Ben Stiller — that you excel at self-abuse comedy. Let me make this crystal clear, Mr. Gooding: You excel at nothing — nothing — except bringing shame and humiliation upon our hallowed institution. Indeed, upon learning that your character and your sidekick were buying a day camp out of spite and revenge, I had no choice but to leave the screening, Mr. Gooding. Blisters began to form around my brain. Furthermore, I began to get the sense that the few restless toddlers in attendance would soon rebel and fling their feces at the screen. Mr. Gooding, had I stayed, I don’t believe I could’ve resisted the urge to join them.

It didn’t matter, anyway. In that short period of time, Mr. Gooding, I amassed all the evidence I would need. I am certain you’ve heard film critics joke over the years that the Academy should revoke your Oscar. Sadly, Mr. Gooding, that joke has now become a reality. We here at the Academy — which is made up of a group of your peers, mind you — have unanimously voted to take such a drastic measure for the first time in our history. We are taking back the Oscar, Mr. Gooding. We ask that you return it at your soonest convenience. It would behoove you, also, to comply with our demands. We have not been kind to those who have not. Do you know, Mr. Gooding, what we did to Jack Palance after we awarded him an Oscar in 1992 and he insisted upon following that up with an ill-advised sequel, as well as Treasure Island and Prancer Returns? We killed him, Mr. Gooding. We snuffed out his last breath.
Don’t let this happen to you, Mr. Gooding. Return the Oscar to the address above in due course. If the statue is not returned before Harold is released (a movie, I understand, in which you will play a janitor and share the silver screen with Ally Sheedy and Chris Parnell), we will be forced to take irreversible action.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely Yours,
Sid GanisPresident, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Very amusing.

Sports

2007-07-19T23:15:00.000-07:00

As I was relaxing on the couch last weekend, I was flicking through channels when I noticed the rock, paper, scissors championship ON ESPN!! I sat and watched in amazement as these people talked, with a completely straight face, about how they trained for their “sport.” Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen a lot of crap on ESPN that has no business being on a sports network – poker, cheerleading . . . Stephen A. Smith. But of all the non-sports that have made it on ESPN, I think the rock, paper, scissors competition takes the cake.

The problem is I think people are confused as to what is a sport and what isn’t. So now I am inspired to once again bring out my two simple rules to help determine whether is something is a sport or not. Now before I even write these two rules, I will note that these rules do not solve every question of whether something is a sport or not. There are still gray areas. But I think these two simple rules can eliminate most of the non-sports.

To be a sport, an event must satisfy both of the following two rules:

1. The event must be objectively scored.

2. The scoring in said event must be achieved primarily through physical prowess and achievement, as opposed to mental acuity or other non-physical abilities.

Now, I know what you’re going to say: “Every activity that is subjectively scored is automatically not a sport?” In short, yes. Gymnastics is a sport you say? Fat chance. Do you know what the different is between gymnastics and ballet? Gymnasts are shorter. That’s it. They’re both just expressive activities of movement, yet one is called a “sport” and the other is an art. No longer I say! The same goes for ice skating. The bottom line is that if you can’t tell who the winner is from an objective score, then you weren’t watching a sport.

Of course, this does create a gray area for boxing / MMA. On the one hand, it’s objectively scored in that a knockout or submission means a victory. On the other hand, each round is scored on a 10-point-must system that takes into account subjective factors, and if there is no knockout or submission, the scorecard determines the winner. So I’ll go ahead and just make an executive declaration that combat sports are indeed sports, because they can be objectively won, and because even the “subjective” scoring of the rounds is based on such obviously objective factors (punches landed, etc.) that even a decision based on points is as close to an objective standard as possible (unless, of course, Don King is involved).

Other gray areas: darts (no, not physical enough); pool (ditto); golf (yes, because scoring is achieved more through physical ability than darts or pool); bowling (ditto, though a very close call); poker (not a chance); foxy boxing (does it matter?).

And then there are some that I just haven’t made a decision on yet, particularly horse racing and auto racing. It seems to me that, while objectively scored, these are not based so much on a person’s physical ability, but rather the ability of a horse or a car. But then again people have told me it takes a lot of stamina to drive a car and a lot of strength in the legs to race a horse. So I’ll reserve judgment on those.

There are gray areas, yes, but I think we’re off to a good start with these two rules. So ESPN, please stop airing anything that doesn’t satisfy these two rules, and instead focus on real sports . . . like hot dog eating contests.

Corruption

2007-06-05T07:24:00.000-07:00

Unbelievable. Does everyone remember when Randy "Duke" Cunningham got busted for bribery? Nancy Pelosi gleefully declared that it was "just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress, which ignores the needs of the American people to serve wealthy special interests and their cronies."

Cut to one year later, when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson is facing bribery and corruption charges stemming from accepting close to a half million dollars in bribes, including $90,000 found in his freezer. Does Nancy say that this is "just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Democratic-controlled congress?" No, no. Pelosi says, "Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress."

Josh Hancock suit

2007-05-24T18:21:00.001-07:00

Unbelievable. Josh Hancock's estate / survivors have filed a lawsuit on his behalf. So in case you're wondering, when you're drunk and high and speeding down the highway with no seatbelt on while you're talking on your cell phone trying to arrange a hooker for later, the accident is still someone else's fault.

He even sued the poor sap he hit, whose disabled car was off on the side of the roadway!! If you drunkenly hit a parked car, how do you have the balls to sue the owner of the parked car? That's like rear-ending someone stopped at a red light and then jumping out of your car screaming, "What the hell are you doing?"

I just wonder how long it will take before we hear the magic words, "It's not about the money." Yeah, right. It never is.

Torture

2007-05-24T18:17:00.000-07:00

Quick message for all of you pain-in-the-ass, anti-American hippies who accuse America of torture because some terrorists got photographed nude or had loud music played while they were trying to sleep: That's not torture. This is torture. Learn the difference.

Billy Packer

2007-04-04T08:01:00.000-07:00

Why isn't this one of the biggest sports stories in America right now? CBS's basketball analyst just drops the "f-bomb" on the air days before the championship game and no one picks up the story? This is bizarre. I mean, shouldn't he be entering rehab or something for his "anger" issues?

Oh, by the way, this isn't exactly the first time Mr. Packer has used a poor choice of words. In 1996, he apparently referred to then-Georgetown player Allen Iverson as a "tough monkey." In 2000, after a female Duke student asked to see his press pass before allowing him into a Duke basketball game, he allegedly said, "Since when do we let women control who gets into a men's basketball game? Why don't you go find a women's game to let people into?"

Comments about blacks, women, and gays -- Packer now has the trifecta.

The Aftermath Of The Deathstar

2007-04-02T20:40:00.000-07:00

I've never been one of those computer geeks who sifts through the annals of YouTube, and I don't think I've even ever linked to it on this Blog. But this is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time, so I just had to link to it. Maybe you need to be a bit of a Star Wars nerd to fully appreciate it, but I've watched it five times now and I still can't stop laughing.

"What do you mean they blew up the Deathstar? Oh *%$@!!! Who's they?! What the hell is an aluminum falcon?"

Basketball Season

2007-01-25T09:02:00.000-08:00

Well, I am still not over the humiliating defeat of the Chargers at the hands of New England. But I am trying to comfort myself with basketball, in particular the Suns, who are in the midst of one of the most amazing runs I have ever seen. The Suns are currently on a 16-game win streak -- impressive, but by no means amazing. Throw in the fact that this 16-game steak is coming on the heels of another 15-game winning streak -- now it's sounding more impressive.

What vaults this into the realm of amazing, though, is when you put these streaks together, and look at losses in between. Since November 11, about 2 1/2 months ago, the Suns have lost exactly three games: an overtime loss to Utah on November 18; an overtime loss to Washington on December 22; and a two-point loss to Dallas on December 28. The overtime loss to Washington was after the Suns were stranded at the Denver airport due to the blizzard, arriving home for the Washington game just hours before tip-off. The two-point loss to Dallas, meanwhile, was off a ridiculous buzzer-beater shot by Nowitzki.

So basically, if not for an overtime loss to Utah, a sleep-deprivation-induced overtime loss to Washington, and a miraculous buzzer-beater by Dirk, the Suns would not have lost a game in 2 1/2 months, and would be in the midst of a 37-game winning streak! Yes, nearly half of an NBA season.

In any event, while it is still little comfort after the Charger debacle, I am enjoying the run.

Update

2007-01-07T21:38:00.000-08:00

So I still haven't exactly found time to keep this blog up to date. But I suppose I can at least take time to give one interesting personal update. The Schmittys have adopted a dog! Zoey (pictured to the right in her normal, active position) is a five-year-old Bulldog. Yes, she is adorable. Anyway, hopefully in the future I'll be able to create some time to write some rants -- I know Mrs. Schmitty would prefer that to having to hear them.

Coaching Affirmative Action

2006-09-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

Well, now that things have slowed down a bit with a few of my big cases, I have time to once again renew by bizarre ramblings. And what better way to get back into the swing of things than with this delightful story.

Apparently some black activist groups say that colleges are not hiring enough black coaches for their Division I programs. According to the group, in the last 24 years there have been 414 coaching vacancies, but only 21 blacks have been hired for those jobs. The group is even making rumblings about taking legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The problem is the group can't come up with a single example of where a white coach was hired instead of a more qualified black candidate. Not a single example. Instead, they just point to numbers and say there are too few black coaches hired. Apparently you are entitled to be a coach as a matter of right because you are black.

But hey, instead of hiring the coaches the schools think are most qualified, let's just start hiring by the numbers. We'll set quotas for hiring coaches. I mean, somewhere around 15% of the population is black, so 15% of coaches of Division I schools has to be black. As a matter of fact, let's apply this to the players as well. Around 75% of the population is white, so 75% of all football teams now needs to be white. Hell, let's expand it to all sports -- 75% percent of the Division I basketball teams has to be white now, too. Oh, and a little over 15% of all teams needs to be Hispanic, and around 4% needs to be Asian. Let's see what that does to the March Madness ratings.

Schools want one thing: to win! They recruit the players and hire the coaches that they think will help them win, regardless of color.

Germany or Florida

2006-06-10T11:12:00.000-07:00

A naughty Germany or Florida:

Two teachers have resigned after their students observed them having sex in a locked classroom. Officials learned of the trysting last month when students at the school reported spotting the teachers getting busy.

According to an investigative report prepared by school officials, one student said that he saw the female teacher with "her pants down, bouncing up and down, and [the male teacher] standing and sitting behind [her]." Though there was paper covering the usually unlocked door's window, students saw through a "hole and a crack" in the paper. After initially denying to an investigator that they were having sex in school, the teachers admitted to the assignations and resigned shortly thereafter.

So where did this happen, Germany or Florida? Here's your answer.

Unification

2006-05-24T09:23:00.000-07:00

This is just great to see. Republicans and Democrats . . . Liberals and conservatives . . . All coming together for a cause. What is the cause that could bring all these people together? Covering their own asses, of course!

They are insisting that the FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's office was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Wait a sec . . . so because there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches, the FBI can't investigate crimes by Congressmen?! The FBI had a reasonable suspicion that there were documents located in this guy's office that prove that he took bribes, so they searched his office. It's that simple. What if a Congressman raped and murdered a woman in his Congressional office? Would the FBI not be able to investigate because of a separation of powers?

The separation of powers does not grant immunity to Congressmen. This is just a bunch of crooked lawmakers all trying to make sure they're not the next ones to get caught.

Moving On Up

2006-05-21T20:58:00.000-07:00

The Schmittys are homeowners! Well, almost. We reached a deal on a townhome, and escrow opened, but there are still a lot of things that need to happen before we take ownership, so we're not there yet. Anyway, you can see the place here. Now we get to look forward to the joy of moving all our stuff . . . .

Robertson Is Insane

2006-05-18T11:45:00.000-07:00

I absolutely love this. He has completely lost his mind. At this point, God's probably got His PR department trying to figure out ways to distance Himself from Robertson. On the bright side, maybe Robertson can parlay these divine predictions into some sort of psychic network business.

Immigrant Boycott

2006-04-30T22:42:00.000-07:00

It's all over the news that today immigrants will be having a boycott of various things American. I think it's a terrific idea. I would encourage all illegal immigrants to boycott our hospitals. Boycott our welfare office. Boycott our classrooms.

In fact, why stop with one day? Illegal immigrants should just boycott all the benefits of this country indefinitely. Even better, they should just boycott our country all together. Just boycott our country and flood into Canada from now on.

A Medical Germany or Florida

2006-04-19T15:57:00.000-07:00

It's time yet again for Germany or Florida:

A 76-year-old man was arrested and charged with numerous crimes after he posed as a doctor and went door-to-door, black doctor's bag in hand, offering women free breast exams. According to a police, two women, ages 33 and 36, fell for the scam. Police are now investigating whether other women may have been tricked into impromptu examinations.

Did this happen in Germany or Florida? Here's your answer.

An Easter Germany or Florida

2006-04-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

This one's pretty easy, but it's a good one to celebrate the holiday:

A dispute at a mall ended Saturday night with the arrest of the Easter Bunny on battery charges. The rambunctious rabbit (a.k.a. Arthur McClure) was nabbed after he allegedly struck a mall visitor who beefed about the early closure of a photo line where kids and parents waited for a snapshot with the cuddly character. According to police reports, one of the parents, Erin Johansson, complained to the Easter Bunny's assistant (Crystal Frechette) and the two women began to argue.

That's when Frechette, McClure's wife, allegedly punched Johansson in the face. At that point, according to police, the 280-pound McClure removed his costume's head and joined the fray, clocking Johansson in the back of her head. McClure and Frechette, pictured below in Lee County Sheriff's Office mug shots, were each charged for their alleged roles in the brawl.

Most amusing, of course, is that the arrest report lists McClure's occupation as "Easter Bunny."

So where did this happen? Germany or Florida? Happy Easter.

Racist Math

2006-04-13T13:36:00.000-07:00

I used to think that math was the one subject that no one could possibly claim was culturally biased. After all, no matter where you come from or how you grow up, 1+1=2. Apparently I was wrong.

A community college in Washington is in an uproar over a math problem that is supposedly racist. Here's the question, which appeared on a practice test:

"Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of roof [sic] of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second. The height of the watermelon above the ground t seconds later is given by formula [sic] h= -16t[squared]+20t+300."

The problem goes on to ask several questions based on that set-up.

Despite the fact this exact question was previously put on an actual exam in 2004 and received no objections, this time around it set off a firestorm. And, of course, the college officials completely folded, condemning the problem as racist and agreeing to set up sensitivity training.

Here's my question. How in the hell is this question racist? Is it racist just to include "watermelon" in the same sentence as as a black person? It's not like she was on top of the federal building eating fried chicken and watermelon and drinking malt liquor. She threw a watermelon off a building! I'm more offended by the many grammatical errors in the problem. Am I missing something?!

By the way, I'm guessing this community college isn't exactly the Harvard of the West Coast. Even I could answer most of the questions on that test. Me. The guy who dropped out of Calculus in high school to take Senior P.E., and who hasn't used any math outside of basic arithmetic in almost 10 years.

Another Entertaining Decision

2006-04-13T09:25:00.000-07:00

Speaking of appellate court decisions, this is a tough decision for the attorney who filed an appeal in this case. I won’t go into the background of the case (which is sufficiently sordid in-and-of itself). Rather, I’d just like to point out how badly the attorney for the appellant got smacked by the court.

You can probably guess you’re not going to win your appeal when the court starts off its decision with the following:

"This is an appeal run amok. Not only does the appeal lack merit, the opening brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be.

In 76,235 words, rambling and ranting over the opening brief’s 202 pages, appellants counsel has managed to violate rules of court; ignore standards of review; misrepresent the record; base arguments on matters not in the record on appeal; fail to support arguments with any meaningful analysis and citation to authority; raise an issue that is not cognizable in an appeal by her client; unjustly challenge the integrity of the opposing party; make a contemptuous attack on the trial judge; and present claims of error in other ways that are contrary to common sense notions of effective appellate advocacy."

Needless to say, the appellant does not win. But even worse, this is the last paragraph of the decision:

"The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed. Upon issuance of the remittitur, the Clerk/Administrator of this court is directed to send a copy of this opinion to the State Bar of California."

Not a good day for that attorney.

Still Not Ready For Tort Reform?

2006-04-13T09:07:00.000-07:00

Does anyone still believe we don’t need tort reform in this country? Then have a look at this opinion by the Michigan Appeals Court.

Here’s the scenario: Theresa Kocoloski-Young (hyphenated name – already a bad start) decides to have a Diet Coke one day. Upon opening the soda, she is shocked and horrified when it sprays her in the face. Apparently scarred for life, Ms. Kocoloski-Young (really, Kocoloski wasn’t long enough? – she needed another name tacked on the end?) sues the Coca-Cola Company.

Coca-Cola, of course, tried to have the case thrown out, which is how it ended up on appeal. The appellate court refused to throw it out. Although the court rejected the theory that the can was defective, it found that the company could be held liable for failing to warn consumers that "the beverage might exit the can at a high velocity upon opening," not to mention the dangers of having the soda come near your eyes (apparently you can drink all the soda you want and not damage your stomach, but get it near your eyes and God help you!).

So the next time you buy a soda and see another ridiculous warning label, you know who to thank: Theresa Kocoloski-Young.

Speaking of Depositions

2006-04-11T10:22:00.000-07:00

As long as we're on the topic of depositions, I had to take the deposition of the father of the decedent in a wrongful death case a few weeks back. I recently reviewed the transcript of that deposition, and realized I made a slight faux pas during my questioning.

The deposition started off with the deponent explaining to me that he was born in Germany, but fled in 1939 to avoid the Holocaust -- always an interesting start to a deposition. Well, about two hours later, I had the following exchange with the deponent:

"Q: In the five years prior to the accident, did [your son] give you any gifts?
A: He gave me once in a while a present, yeah.
Q: How often would you say, per year, would he give you a present?
A: Oh, at least once on my birthday.
Q: And would he get you a Christmas present?
A: Yeah, something like that."

Obviously, I am a master of many religions.

A Deposition Gone Very Bad

2006-04-09T11:13:00.000-07:00

This is an unbelievable video of a deposition gone very bad. As a bit of background, this is a deposition taken in a lawsuit presumably against the Monsanto Corp. The man on camera with the glasses is being deposed (he appears to be a former employee of Monsanto). Off camera to the right is the attorney taking the deposition, famed Texas attorney Joe Jamail. The guy just off screen to the left is Edward M. Carstarphen, the attorney representing Monsanto. The other voice you hear ('Tucker") is an attorney representing another party in the case. The dispute ensues because Mr. Carstarphen claims he is not representing the witness (rather, he's representing Monsanto), yet Mr. Carstarphen tries to give the witness instructions.

Of course, this deposition video is not particularly shocking for me. Depositions are styled very similar to giving testimony during trial, with the major exception that a judge is not present at a deposition. This means lawyers are left to supervise themselves during the deposition. Needless to say, this doesn't always work. It's not too uncommon to see threats and insults and the like during depositions, but I've never seen anything get as bad as this deposition.

This is particularly amusing because this is not the first time Joe Jamail has been recognized for his unprofessional behavior. Joe Jamail first gained recognition in the case of Texaco v. Pennzoil, where he obtained a $10.3 billion judgment in a breach of contract action. During years of appeals afterwards, the case settled for $3 billion, and it is believed that Mr. Jamail took home $1 billion of that in attorneys' fees (based on a 1/3 contingency). The case is now taught in pretty much every law school in the country during the first-year Contracts course.

Always known for his aggressive style, Mr. Jamail was later reprimanded by the Delaware Supreme Court in the case of Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc. Although the case had nothing to do with attorney professionalism, the Court actually felt compelled to comment on one exchange in a deposition that had occurred in the case:

"Q. . . . Do you have any idea why Mr. Oresman was calling that material to your attention?
MR. JAMAIL: Don't answer that. How would he know what was going on in Mr. Oresman's mind? Don't answer it. Go on to your next question.
MR. JOHNSTON: No, Joe--
MR. JAMAIL: He's not going to answer that. Certify it. I'm going to shut it down if you don't go to your next question.
MR. JOHNSTON: No. Joe, Joe . . .
MR. JAMAIL: Don't 'Joe' me, asshole. You can ask some questions, but get off that. You could gag a maggot off a meat wagon. Now, we've helped you every way we can."

The Court wrote that this exchange was "extraordinarily rude, uncivil, and vulgar." I can only imagine what the Court would say if it saw this video.

Immigration Explosion

2006-04-05T08:09:00.000-07:00

I was on vacation all last week, and somehow between when I left and got back, this whole illegal immigration issue exploded. This is one area where my views greatly depart from those of my Libertarian brethren, so I think it's about time for a rant on the subject.

First of all, I love the protests that have been going on. Illegal aliens have been taking to the streets, saying they are just here to work and demanding amnesty (which is like smoking a joint and blowing the smoke in a cop's face, and then demanding legalization of marijuana). Of course, if these people are actually here to work, one has to wonder who is doing their jobs while they are off protesting. By the way, I'm sure the politicians are really influenced by the protests of a bunch of illegal immigrants who can't vote.

These protestors all keep saying the same things, too. They just keep repeating that illegal immigrants are vital to America's economy and that they do jobs that no one else will do. I don't think that you can dispute that immigrants contribute to America's economy by providing cheap labor. But that is an absurdly incomplete analysis of the net value of labor of illegal immigrants. In order to determine the true value of the labor, you need to know how much they cost society in welfare, health care, and other costs.

Here is a little taste of the costs of illegal immigration. Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

Of course, those statistics are only for the federal government, which does not take into account the extreme burdens on the states, such as California. In California, for instance, it is estimated that illegal immigration costs taxpayers over $10 million each year. With these costs, it is insane for advocates to claim that illegal immigration is helping our economy.

By the way, it's also ridiculous to say that illegal immigrants take jobs that no one else will do. Advocates like to paint a picture of immigrants picking crops for dollars a day, but that is simply not the case. Millions of illegal immigrants hold jobs in the construction industry, for instance. Are you telling me no one else in America would work construction for $14 or $15 per hour?

So what can be done? Obviously, border security needs to be stepped up and entities employing illegal immigrants must be punished severely. But what about the illegal immigrants that are already here? I tend to lean towards Bush's guest worker plan. I think amnesty is out of the question, because it simply rewards people that have already broken the law. But on the other end of the spectrum, I wonder whether it is really feasible to round up the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here and deport them.

That's why I think Bush's plan may be a nice compromise. Essentially, if illegals want to stay, they would have to pay fines, work for a certain number of years, learn English, undergo a background check, and pay any back taxes they owe. Essentially, they have to earn their citizenship.

Germany or Florida

2006-03-22T21:06:00.000-08:00

Here's an easy Germany or Florida:

A man is behind bars after allegedly asking two uniformed officers to test a crack pipe. Police say the man doubted whether he was being sold actual crack cocaine, so he approached the officers and asked them to test his pipe so he could be sure. Turned out it was the real thing. Authorities say the man was arrested after the residue in his pipe tested positive for crack cocaine.

Here's your answer.

Germany or Florida

2006-03-07T17:14:00.001-08:00

It's time for another exciting round of Germany or Florida. Here's the story:

A farmer confessed to feeding the corpse of an elderly family friend to his pigs and then stealing from his bank account, police said on Monday.

The elderly friend died in the farmer's yard in February 2005, and the farmer, through his mother, had power-of-attorney, giving him access to the dead man's bank account and pension. The farmer initially put the corpse in a deep freezer, police said, and told neighbors that the man had been placed in a nursing home.

"From lectures about various religions, the 29-year-old knew that Buddhists either burn the dead or allow wild animals to eat them. That was how he decided to feed the corpse to his pigs," the police statement said.

So, the farmer let the corpse thaw, dismembered it, and fed it to his pigs. He put the parts the pigs did not eat into a sack and buried it. Police have ruled out murder, and the 29-year-old farmer has instead been charged with improper burial and fraud.

Did this happen in Germany or Florida? Here's your answer.

Another Germany or Florida

2006-03-07T17:14:00.000-08:00

And here's another Germany or Florida for you:

A drunken hearse driver has been arrested after biting a police officer who attempted to take the driver in for an alcohol test, police said on Monday. Police had called for a hearse at a funeral home to transport a body to the cemetery.

“The hearse driver nearly fell over when he got out of the car. Then he had to hold onto everything he could find as he stumbled to the house,” said a police spokesperson.

Police decided to take the man to the station to test his blood-alcohol level, but when they tried to get him out of the car, he started a fight and bit an officer several times in the hand.

Germany or Florida? Here is your answer.

Morning After Pill

2006-02-27T08:44:00.000-08:00

Apparently, the debate over the morning after pill is reaching new heights, with 60 bills pending in the various states to either restrict access or expand access to the drug. Apparently, much like many issues in our country today, the states are pretty much divided between the "red" and "blue" states, with the reds looking to restrict access and the blues looking to expand access.

As I have said before, I can't understand why the red states aren't in favor of this. If these red states really want to decrease abortions, this is the way to do it! Emergency contraception could greatly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing abortions. Maybe these people simply don't understand how the pill works. I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority believes the morning-after pill is the abortion pill (RU-486), which it is not. It simply helps prevent fertilization, just like any birth control device.

Yet states are moving to restrict access to this. New Hampshire is trying to push through a measure that would require parental notification prior to dispensing the drug. What possible good would this do? Someone with a medical background (Leslie, I'm looking your way here) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe there have been any significant side effects found with the morning after pill. Parental notification to get the pill would not be a safety issue, and instead would just discourage kids from getting the pill, which would then create . . . you guessed it -- more unwanted pregnancies! Basically, requiring notification prior to obtaining the morning after pill is no different that requiring parental notification prior to purchasing condoms.

By the way, let me touch on this whole religious objection thing for a minute. In some instances, Catholic pharmacists have refused to dispense the drug, citing their retarded objection to birth control. First of all, my question is do these people also refuse to sell condoms, the birth control pill, etc.? If so, perhaps this is not the best line of work for them. I am a tremendous believer in religious freedoms, and believe reasonable accommodations need to be made. But as a pharmacist, you have a duty to provide the medication that people need. I mean, what would we do if a Christian Scientist, who essentially believes in using prayer instead of medicine, was a pharmacist? Would we have to make accommodations based on the fact that he or she did not believe in medication, and thus refused to fill prescriptions?

Torture

2006-02-25T08:32:00.000-08:00

This is absolutely hilarious -- the U.N. has accused the U.S. of torturing its prisoners. Wow, that is serious, right? What torture was it? Bamboo shoots up the fingernails? The Chinese Water Torture? Non-stop marathons of Dancing With The Stars? None of the above. No, the U.S. has been "torturing" its prisoners by placing them in solitary confinement and forcing them to eat.

Apparently these terrorists have a fundamental right to have a roommate, and thus cannot be placed in solitary confinement (nevermind the fact that maybe these terrorists should be segregated to prevent them from conspiring with one another). But even more hilarious than the solitary confinement allegation is the thought that it is inhumane and, in fact, is torture to force someone to eat to prevent him from killing himself through starvation. What a revelation!! I wish we had known that last year; we could have ended that whole Terry Schiavo case really quickly. By the way, how much do you want to bet that if we had sat back and allowed these prisoners to just kill themselves with a hunger strike, we would have been cited for torture for allowing them to die.

Perhaps the U.N.'s definitions of "torture" are off because the U.N. analyzed the situation in light of "peacetime" rules. Apparently the U.N. does not recognize that we are in a time of war, meaning different rules apply. Then again, this makes sense, because the U.N. is not doing anything to combat terrorism (just like it has not done for the last 25 years), so why should the U.N. recognize that the U.S. is in a war to prevent psychos is turbans from flying into buildings?

Regardless of what set of rules you use, though, there is no way that forcing prisoners to eat to prevent them from killing themselves constitutes torture. Nor is there any set of rules that can conceivably label solitary confinement as torture. As a frame of reference, the Nazis performing surgery on Jews without anesthetic was torture. And Saddam's rape chambers were torture. And worst of all, this is torture. But apparently the U.N. can't tell the difference.

Next, On A Very Special Schmitty's Blog

2006-02-24T08:35:00.000-08:00

I'm not usually one to use this blog to repeat sappy, inspirational stories. But this is just so great I had to post a link to it. It's a story about Jason McElwain, a senior in high school in Rochester, New York. McElwain, who is autistic, had been the "manager" of the basketball team all season, and finally got to play in the last game of the season . . . with interesting results. Do yourself a favor and when you click on the link, watch the video instead of reading the story. If it doesn't get to you, you're a cold-hearted bastard.

This story actually reminds me of a basketball game back when I was in high school. Our team was getting beaten so bady that the other team decided to put a blind student into the game. Yes, a blind player. The team positioned the kid at the three-point line at the top of the key near their basket, and then the four others would go play defense. Those four players, not surprisingly, would still prevent our five from scoring, and then whoever on their team got the ball would try to lob a pass to the blind player at the other end of the court, who was waiting with arms cradled to catch the pass.

Well, after a few possessions and a few errant passes, the other team grabbed a rebound and threw a perfect bouncing pass to the blind player. The ball landed perfectly in the kid's cradled arms. He turned, he shot the ball, and he hit the shot!!! The crowd started going crazy (mind you, we were playing in our own gym, and the crowd still went nuts). People were cheering and the other team was rushing the kid to congratulate him. It was insane.

Unfortunately, due to the commotion, no one noticed the referee running towards mid-court, flailing his arms . . . waiving off the shot. It seems that when the kid caught the pass and turned to shoot, he traveled, meaning the shot did not count. Time ran out before he got another chance to shoot.

Of course, I had mixed reactions. On the one hand, I thought, "How do you call that on a blind kid? Just let him shoot." On the other hand, I'll admit I was a bit happy our school did not make the news as the team that even the blind players can score against.

Germany or Florida

2006-02-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

Here's yet another Germany or Florida for you:

A man was arrested and accused of fatally beating his roommate with hammers because there was no toilet paper in their home, police said. The man told investigators that he and his roommate were fighting about the toilet paper over the weekend when his roommate pulled out a rifle. The man said he then began beating his roommate with a sledgehammer and claw hammer, killing him.

All I had to do was read the headline "Man Killed Over Toilet Paper," and I knew it happened in Germany or Florida. But which one? Here's your answer.

It Must Be That Right Wing Conspiracy

2006-02-16T11:22:00.000-08:00

Does everyone remember when Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, joyfully declared that Republican Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham's scandal was "just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress . . . ." Well, perhaps she did not see this coming before sticking her foot in her mouth. Shockingly, it turns out I was right . . . both sides of the aisle are corrupt.

Germany or Florida

2006-02-16T11:06:00.000-08:00

It's been a while, but I think it's time for another round of Germany or Florida:

Story One:

Airport baggage screeners found a human head with teeth, hair, and skin in the luggage of a woman who said she intended to ward off evil spirits with it, authorities said Friday. The woman told authorities she had obtained the package for “use as a part of her voodoo beliefs,” and "that the purpose of the package was to ward off evil spirits.” The woman was charged with failing to declare the head and transporting hazardous material in air commerce.

Did this happen in Germany or Florida? Here's your answer.

Story Two:

A priest got more than he bargained for during confession when a man not only declared his sins, but also handed over a machine gun and a hand grenade, police said on Tuesday. “He also gave the priest a cardboard box with a clown’s face . . . on it containing 34 cartridges of 7.65 mm caliber,” police said in a statement. The priest turned in the weapons to police but told them church rules governing confession prevented him from revealing the man’s identity.

Germany or Florida? The answer is here.

Story Three:

A school gym teacher let children sit out his class if they paid him daily bribes, collecting perhaps thousands of dollars, officials said Thursday. The teacher took the payoffs between September and December, resigning after school officials learned of the scheme from a parent, authorities said. He is being sought on bribery charges.

Germany or Florida? Here is your answer.

Defining A Sport

2006-02-15T08:17:00.000-08:00

As the Winter Olympics continue with plenty of absurd events labeled as "sports," I am inspired to once again try to define what is a sport, and what is not. It can be very hard to distinguish between the two, but I think two simple rules can eliminate the vast majority non-sports.

RULE NUMBER ONE: The activity must be objectively scored to be a sport.

This one rule should eliminate the vast majority of non-sports. From rhythmic gymnastics to synchronized swimming, these subjectively scored activities are not sports. I'm sure people are going to be crying, "Figure skating is subjectively scored, and that's a sport." No it's not!! We don't consider ballet to be a sport, and ice skating is nothing more than ballet on ice. Note, by the way, that speed skating is a sport, because it is objectively scored.

Of course, the one problem this rule creates is with activities that are a mix of subjectively and objectively scored. For example, boxing is objectively scored, insofar as the last man standing wins; but it is also subjectively scored, insofar as judges decide who wins each round, and if neither man is knocked out, the judges decide who won. For boxing / fighting / mixed martial arts, I will just create a special exception, which I will calle "Rule 1-A," that makes it a sport. However, all other mixed subjectively / objectively scored events are not sports (unless I realize another one that needs an exception).

RULE NUMBER TWO: Scoring in the activity must be achieved primarily through physical exertion, as opposed to mental acuity, to be considered a sport.

This second rule is meant to clean up those lingering activities that, while objectively scored, still are not sports. For example, chess, poker, and Magic the Gathering are not sports. While they are objectively scored, they involve no significant physical activity, and therefore cannot be considered sports.

Of course, these two rules do leave some ambiguities. First, there are the "aim" games, as I classify them -- things like bowling, pool, and darts. These may have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, because while I think something like bowling involves enough exertion to pass under the second rule, pool and darts may not make it. Second, there are the machine- / animal-assisted sports, like auto racing and horse racing, where the exertion of something other than the human wins the race. Again, these may have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but I think the exertion and stamina needed to control a horse or car at high speeds is enough to be a sport.

I by no means have all the answers. Nor do I believe the above rules are perfect. But they are a good start to achieving my dream -- my dream that someday little pansy "men" with their sparkley outfits and shiny blades doing spins on the ice will not be called athletes!!

Bizarre Oregon Law

2006-02-15T07:54:00.000-08:00

Like most liberal states, Oregon is owned by the trial lawyers and their powerful lobbyists, who push for any legislation that will make it easier for them to get huge awards against those evil corporations, especially insurance companies. But I just heard of a new law up there that takes the cake:

"ORS 31.760 -- Evidence of nonuse of safety belt or harness to mitigate damages.

(1) In an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident, evidence of the nonuse of a safety belt or harness may be admitted only to mitigate the injured party's damages. The mitigation shall not exceed five percent of the amount to which the injured party would otherwise be entitled.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to: (a) Actions brought under ORS 30.900 to 30.920; or (b) Actions to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident when nonuse of a safety belt or harness is a substantial contributing cause of the accident itself. "

So under this law, if someone gets into a car accident while not wearing his seatbelt, the defendant cannot argue that the plaintiff would have been completely unharmed if he had just been wearing his seatbelt. The defendant just gets to decrease the total damages by (at most) five percent! Really? Five percent? So basically seatbelts only reduce your risk of injury by five percent, at most? That certainly hurts the argument that we need vigorous enforcement of these ridiculous seatbelt laws.

Cartoon Madness

2006-02-11T13:17:00.000-08:00

Is this mess ever going to end? Weeks ago an independent paper in Denmark published political cartoons involving Muhammad and Islam. One cartoon showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb. Another showed Muhammad at the gates of heaven turning away suicide bombers because they "ran out of virgins." And what have Muslims done in response? What they always do . . . they got violent.

All I heard after 9/11 was that Islam is not a violent religion. It was just that a very small percentage had twisted the meaning to preach terrorism. I think it's time we collectively say, "bullshit" to this excuse. As it has become painfully obvious from continued suicide bombers and attacks and riots in France and the mob actions over these cartoons, Islam (at least insofar as it's practiced outside of America) is nothing but a violent group of extremists.

I mean, let's compare the reaction to the cartoons to a similar situation in America from a few years back. In 2000, New York had an art exhibit that included of a statue of the Virgin Mary covered in manure. That was it. It had no political meaning -- no truth -- like the Danish cartoons had. No, it was just a religious statue covered in shit, solely meant to piss off Catholics. The reaction? There were protests. There were efforts to cut off the museum's funding. But Catholics did not carry on for weeks, taking to the streets with violence. Catholics in Mexico did not start burning the American flag. There were no bomb threats made against the museum.

Yet when cartoons come out that offend Muslims, they burn flags, attack embassies, and threaten citizens. It doesn't matter that Denmark as a country has absolutely no control over that independent newspaper, just as New York had no control over the content of the museum with the Virgin Mary exhibit. Maybe the Muslims just don't understand that -- after all, this whole freedom of speech thing is a foreign concept over there.

I do love the irony of this whole situation, though. A paper publishes political cartoons that criticize Islam and its violent tendencies. What do Muslims do to show these cartoons are unfair stereotypes and that Islam is not a violent religion? They gather in mobs and engage in violent protests. That'll show 'em!

One final issue bugging me about this whole thing is that no one in America will just come out and criticize Islam as a violent religion. No, you can't do that. That makes you a racist. If they take to the streets with mob violence whenever they don't like something, well that's just their culture. Who are we to say that's wrong? It's political correctness gone amuck! I understand we have to embrace other cultures, particularly in America, because our country is a melting pot. But isn't there a point where a culture or a religion is so out of control that we finally have to take a stand and say, "That's not right."

There are different cultures and religions in this world, and their differences do not necessarily make one better or more acceptable than another. But there's also good and evil in this world, and it's about time someone finally takes a stand and says that Islam, as it's practiced in the Middle East, is the latter.

UPDATE: This afternoon, there were reports of Muslim protestors in Philadelphia picketing against a newspaper there that reprinted the cartoons. The picketers were described as peaceful and respectful. No flags were burned. No embassies were evacuated. Anyone notice a difference?

Privatizing The Highways

2006-02-02T17:25:00.000-08:00

This is a great idea, and I'm happy to see some states with the balls to do it. Toll highways now just send money to the government to waste, mostly on other programs completely unrelated to the highways. By privatizing the roadways, it puts them in the hands of companies that can run them more efficiently. Plus, the lease of the roadway generates money for the states.

The Left's Vision Of America

2006-02-01T11:21:00.000-08:00

The Far Left in America seems to view Europe as a paradise of enlightened people who have banned capital punishment, have called on the government to make all the important decisions for citizens, and have broken free of the shackles of the puritanical views that govern ordinary Americans' views on sex. Perhaps if the Far Left had its way, this could someday be America:

"Denmark's government ruled in 2001 that institutionalized citizens have the right to have sex, and that caregivers must even take them to visit prostitutes. (Prostitution is legal in Denmark.) According to a January dispatch from Aarhus, Denmark, in London's Observer, Mr. Torben Vegener Hansen, 59, who has cerebral palsy and lives at home on government assistance, is challenging the government also to pay for prostitutes to make house calls, claiming that he is unable to have sex manually because of his illness and must be accorded this 'human right' by a service similar to the government's meals-on-wheels program."

Of course, I don't necessarily object to legalizing prostitution, but I am amused by the notion of the government having to provide hookers. Mental note: move to Denmark and open up a "Whores-On-Wheels" business.

An Opponent For Feinstein

2006-01-31T07:34:00.000-08:00

This is amusing. I didn't think there could be a candidate more absurd than Diane Feinstein, but I was wrong. By the way, Sheehan has made some great headlines lately, in particular her trip to Venezuela. She joined anti-American socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, who declared, "[D]own with the U.S. empire."

Is this what it has come to on the far left? The only people that they can find to agree with them are anti-American dictators like Chavez and Castro. How out of control are these far-left nut jobs that they have crossed the line from opposing the war to spewing anti-American sentiment and calling for the downfall of America?

By the way, I just found out something very interesting about Cindy Sheehan's son yesterday. Cindy claims that the tragic death of her son shows that the war in Iraq is a waste of lives and resources. But her son didn't feel that way. Her son, who first enlisted in 2000, re-enlisted in 2003, after the war in Iraq had begun. Obviously, her son thought the war was a good cause, which was why he re-enlisted. It was also why he bravely volunteered for a rescue mission in Sadr City, during which he was killed.

Her son was fighting for what he believed in, and he died a hero, being awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. It seems rather pathetic for his mom, a Berkeley far-left nut job, to then exploit his death to further her own political views, contrary to her son's beliefs.

Gonzalez v. Oregon

2006-01-24T12:11:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court handed down an interesting ruling last week in Gonzalez v. Oregon, regarding a doctor's ability to prescribe lethal doses of "Schedule II" drugs under Oregon's Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). In a 6-3 ruling, with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting, the Court held that federal law (namely the Controlled Substances Act -- "CSA") did not prevent such a prescription, if allowed by ODWDA.

Looking at the decision, though, I don't see this case as one particularly involving states' rights. The case was merely a question of statutory interpretation. The statute allows Schedule II drugs to be prescribed "for a legitimate medical purpose." Former Attorney General Ashcroft issued an interpretive rule in 2001 stating that prescribing lethal doses is not a legitimate medical purpose. The Court basically held that Ashcroft's rule was not entitled to deference (because he had not been given authority to create this interpretive rule), and held that the CSA does not bar the prescription of lethal doses under the ODWDA.

Thus, the decision really does not address states' rights as much as statutory interpretation, so I don't see much of a contradiction in the conservative justices dissenting. The ruling really addresses a narrow issue of the Attorney General's interpretive rule. The real knockout punch for states' rights and the CSA came last summer in Gonzalez v. Raich, the medicinal marijuana case.

There, the Court held that, pursuant to the commerce clause, the federal government can pass laws to invalidate California's legalization of medicinal marijuana, even if the marijuana was grown in California and prescribed by a California doctor to a California resident. In Raich, three conservative justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas) were the ones who wanted to prevent the federal government from usurping the state's right to allow medicinal marijuana, while the liberal wing prevailed in stripping the states of that ability.

In other words, while the liberal members of the Court may have voted last week to prevent an Attorney General's interpretive rule from banning assisted suicide allowed by Oregon, the decision means little in light of the Court's decision from last summer. All Congress has to do is amend the CSA to ban the prescription of lethal doses, and it will crush Oregon's right to allow assisted suicide, because, under Raich, Congress can pass all the drug laws it wants, and those drug laws will trump any contradictory state law.

Animal Liberation Front

2006-01-23T09:09:00.000-08:00

Eleven members of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front have been indicted on a variety of domestic terrorism charges, including arson. Of course, this is the same Animal Liberation Front that PETA financially supports. In fact, just have a look at PETA's website, where they defend the ALF!

Yes, according PETA, the ALF is the Harriet Tubman of the animal rights movement. All they do is burn down empty buildings . . . as if arson is not a serious crime. But if arson isn't enough, the ALF is responsible for dozens of violent attacks in England, including this attack against a manager of a medical research facility. The reality is PETA is about one step away from being a domestic terrorist group, just like the ALF.

Look Who's Talking

2006-01-23T08:24:00.000-08:00

John Kerry has called the White House "incompetent." Wait a minute. Is John Kerry really the one that should be calling the Bush administration incompetent? Kerry lost an election to this administration! If you lose an election to an incompetent administration, what does that make you? That’s like the Panthers losing the NFC Championship game and turning around and saying the Seahawks suck.

I'm Back

2006-01-23T08:12:00.000-08:00

Between the holidays and catching a horrendous cold that has put me on the disabled list for over two weeks, a lot of news has passed by without me being able to rant with my blowhard opinions. Perhaps the most interesting were the two cases that put the death penalty in the news once again.

First, DNA tests finally proved that Roger Keith Coleman, the darling of anti-death penalty advocates, was properly executed. Coleman, a rapist and murderer, became the focus of anti-death penalty advocates after he proclaimed his innocence all the way to the electric chair in 1992. Anti-death penalty idiots were convinced that the wrong man had been executed. Well surprise, surprise . . . DNA evidence now shows that, without a doubt, Coleman was properly convicted. So, just to update everyone, no person executed in the United States has ever been exonerated by scientific testing. Not one!!

Then, fresh off the execution of Tookie Williams, California was faced with another death penalty dispute when it came time to execute Clarence Ray Allen. Who is Clarence Ray Allen, you ask?

Mr. Allen is a delightful mass murderer. He was originally convicted of burglary and murder for ordering the death of a woman. Unfortunately, at the time of his conviction, a moratorium on the death penalty was in effect, thanks to an absurd Supreme Court ruling. While in prison, he then ordered the murder of three witnesses who had testified against him (which also resulted in two others being wounded). At this point, fortunately, the death penalty was back in effect, so after killing four people and wounding several others, Allen was finally sentenced to the death penalty.

So what’s the problem? Well, Mr. Allen was now 75 years old, thanks to the absurd appeals process in death penalty cases in California, under which inmates spend an average of 17 years on death row while their cases are appealed. Now, anti-death penalty groups are crying that Mr. Allen should not be executed, because executing an elderly man would be cruel and unusual.

What an amazing new tactic they have created! You file frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal on behalf of a murderer, delaying justice indefinitely. Then, when it finally comes time to pay the price, you claim the murderer is too old. Genius!

Internet Use

2005-12-29T09:39:00.000-08:00

A new study has been released that compares Internet usage of males versus females. The results are not particularly surprising, in that males are more likely to use the Internet for sports, news, stocks, and pornography. Meanwhile, women are more likely to use the Internet for health and religious guidance.

What was interesting, however, was that the study found that only 21 percent of men admit to looking at pornography online. But then again, this actually fits in with my own research, which found that 79 percent of men are liars.

A Holiday Germany Or Florida

2005-12-22T12:02:00.000-08:00

Armed with a gun, a man in a Santa outfit held up a furniture store and forced two cashiers to open the safe. He filled his sack with cash, locked the two women in the safe and escaped. He is still on the loose, but police were able to nab a different bank robber armed with a machine gun in a Santa costume with the aid of an infrared camera and helicopter. They found him hiding in a ditch in a nearby forest.

“The machine gun was fake,” a police spokesman said. Dressed in a Santa cap, beard and wearing sun glasses, he was wanted for stealing almost $600,000 in four separate bank robberies.

A third Santa was stopped by police for driving 90 mph, 30 mph over the speed limit.

“He said he was in a rush because he still had packages to deliver,” said a spokesman for the police. They gave Santa a fine and took away his license.

Did all of these happen in Germany or Florda? Here's your answer.

Taxing The Poor

2005-12-20T09:25:00.000-08:00

Chicago is making a move to double the current cigarette tax. This is a common move politicians use to raise money, because politicians know (a) smokers are in the minority and (b) non-smokers have contempt towards smokers. A combination of these two factors means politicians can raise cigarette taxes with impunity to fund their bloated budgets, without fear of losing votes.

What I find so amusing, though, is that the Democrats (such as John Stroger in Chicago) are the proponents behind these cigarette taxes. Apparently, Democrats fail to recognize that it is the poorest segment of the population that ends up having to pay these taxes. In Illinois, for instance, the median household income for a smoker is only $36,000. That's approximately $10,000 less than the median household income for a nonsmoker in Illinois.

So for all the rhetoric from Democrats about cutting taxes for the poor and middle class, and making the "rich" pay their "fair share," apparently this only applies to non-smoking poor people.

Obesity "Epidemic" And Legislation

2005-12-13T11:12:00.000-08:00

Radley Balko, over at the CATO Institute, has a great piece analyzing the flawed statistics supposedly supporting the so-called obesity epidemic, and arguing against the horrible idea of legislation to counteract this "epidemic."

I have written plenty of postings criticizing the incompetent CDC for its outrageous statistics, both regarding its obesity statistics and its anti-smoking statistics. But more important than whether or not you believe the statistics, I think the bigger problem is why people feel the government needs to legislate anything that it thinks isn't good for us. How does one make the jump from "this is bad for you" to "no one should be allowed to do this." Shouldn't one be free to make his or her own decisions, even if it is a bad decision?

Of course, this is a problem evident on both sides of the political aisle, in everything from drug laws to obesity legislation to "decency" standards to seatbelt laws. Can't we just agree to let people be free to be fat, stupid, and immoral?

Getting Warmer?

2005-12-07T11:46:00.000-08:00

Obviously, global warming is having a tremendous impact.

End Of The Line For Tookie?

2005-12-07T07:37:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, the Governator is going to hold a clemency hearing for Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a serial killer that murdered four people and founded the Crips gang. For those that haven't heard about Tookie, he gained notoriety while on death row for showing remorse for his street gang involvement, and authoring children's books against gangs. He was the subject of an FX movie called Redemption a while back, and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on death row. Now, he has become the latest issue du jour for pain-in-the ass celebrities, who want the Governor to grant clemency.

Why is this scumbag possibly deserving of clemency? Because he has shown remorse for founding the Crips? He wasn't convicted of founding the Crips! He was convicted of killing four people in cold blood, a crime for which he has continued to deny responsibility and for which he has never shown remorse. Every court, state and federal, that Tookie has appealed to has found absolutely nothing that indicates Tookie's innocence or any irregularities in his trial.

But he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize -- doesn't that count for something? Yes, by being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, Tookie joined an exclusive list of past nominees, including Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Fidel Castro.

These celebrities and anti-death penalty advocates like to point to Tookie's recent actions as a reason for clemency, but they don't like to talk about his particularly violent crimes. They don't like to talk about his first murder, when he killed 7-11 clerk Albert Owens during a robbery. Tookie took money from the register, forced Owens to a back storage room, made him lie down face-first on the floor, and then executed him by shooting him twice in the back at point-blank range.

And these celebrities certainly don't want to talk about Tookie's next murders, when he murdered an entire family, the Yangs. The Yangs were Taiwan immigrants that ran a hotel in South Central Los Angeles. Tookie broke into the hotel, executed Yi Yang, Tsai-Shai, and Ye-Chen Lin, and made off with $100.

Oh, by the way. After he was convicted, Tookie looked at the jurors and said he "was going to get each and every one of you motherfuckers." He conspired to escape from the Los Angeles County Jail, a plan that involved killing two deputies in the process and then murdering an accomplice that had testified against him. And since his incarceration on death row, there have been at least 11 separate serious incidents of violence instigated by Tookie.

Tookie Williams is a serial killer who must be given the ultimate punishment. I can only hope that our Governor does not cave to the pressure of know-nothing celebrities, naive anti-death penalty advocates, and the racist NAALCP.

Germany or Florida

2005-11-30T17:25:00.000-08:00

It's time for another round of Germany or Florida (wow, two in one week!). For those who are unfamiliar with the game, read the following story and guess whether it comes to us from Germany or Florida:

Authorities are searching for the parents of a 3-month-old girl who died last year after her parents allegedly gave her lethal doses of vodka to quiet her crying. The baby died in 2004, but her parents were not charged until last month. By that time, they had disappeared.

According to a police report, the parents told officers that for about a month they had fed their daughter a bottle filled with a mixture of water, sugar and vodka to help her sleep. Small quantities of alcohol have historically been used to quiet crying babies, but authorities said the amount in this case was extreme. The Medical Examiner’s Office determined that the infant had a blood alcohol level of 0.47 percent. Experts say that for a baby to ingest that much alcohol would be the equivalent of a 160-pound adult drinking 18 beers.

Give up? Here's your answer.

Cunningham Gone

2005-11-29T09:48:00.000-08:00

San Diego's own Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty to bribery charges and resigned from Congress. Needless to say, this news is quite shocking. I don't think anyone could have expected this from Randy Cunningham, a war hero who was repeatedly overwhelmingly re-elected in his district.

What's also shocking, though, is what Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, had to say about the resignation: "[This] is just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress . . . ."

Yes, this is just the latest example of corruption by Republicans, just like . . .

(1) James Traficant, who was arrested for racketeering and bribery;

(2) Robert Torricelli, who withdrew from the 2002 Senate race with less than 30 days before the election after it was exposed that he took personal gifts from a major campaign donor and allegedly broke campaign finance laws in his 1996 campaign;

(3) Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor during the Clinton Administration, who became the focus of a criminal investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from the National Archives during preparations for the September 11 commission hearings;

(4) James McGreevey, the New Jersey governor who, after admitting to having a gay affair, resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, fundraising investigations, and rumors of blackmail;

(5) Gary Condit, who, after having an affair with an intern, covered up the affair and lied to police after she went missing (he was not charged, but was trounced in his re-election bid);

(6) Daniel David Rostenkowski, who was indicted on 17 felony charges and pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of public funds;

(7) Melvin Jay Reynolds, who was convicted of sexual misconduct and obstruction of justice charges and sentenced to five years in prison;

(8) And, of course, Bill Clinton, who became only the second president in American history to be impeached.

Oh wait . . . these were all Democrats involved in scandals over the course of the last decade.

The fact is corruption permeates through all parties and levels of government in this country (and, indeed, all countries). There is unethical conduct on both sides of the aisle, and it is ridiculous and hypocritical for a Democrat to point to Republicans as the sole source of corruption (or vice versa).

Germany or Florida

2005-11-23T09:46:00.000-08:00

As part of my continuing homage to Loveline, it's time for another round of Germany or Florida. You know the rules. Simply read the story below and guess whether it originates from Germany or Florida:

After a night of heavy drinking, a man not only wet his bed, but upon attempting to dry his sheets the next morning, set his house on fire.

"He was too drunk to go to the toilet," said a police spokesman. "The next morning he put a switched-on hairdryer on the bed to dry it and left the apartment." The man, of course, returned home to find his apartment in flames.

So what do you think . . . Germany or Florida?

Here's the answer.

Stop The Smokescreen

2005-11-01T08:18:00.000-08:00

All I have heard for the past 24 hours since Judge Alito's nomination is that Bush is replacing O'Connor with a right-wing lunatic who is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nutty groups like N.O.W. are taking to the streets with coat hangers, predicting the apocalypse.

But no one seems to realize/care that this is just a smokescreen, because O'Connor was/is not the swing vote to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade. I REPEAT, O'CONNOR IS NOT THE SWING VOTE ON THIS ONE!! Put down your hangers, people, and listen to me for one minute: even if Alito is confirmed, there is a 5-4 majority in favor of the "constitutional right to an abortion" that was invented in Roe v. Wade.

The liberal core of the Court, namely Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg, will support the Roe v. Wade decision, of course. And let's assume Alito is confirmed and that Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts will all oppose Roe v. Wade and fight to overturn it. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the deciding vote.

Justice Kennedy already voted in 1992 to uphold the logic of Roe v. Wade in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey !! So really, even if the two new justices were in favor of overturning the Roe decision, there still would not be enough votes to do so. But hey, these wacko groups shouldn't let facts get in the way of their protests and rhetoric.

The thing is, while I believe the majority of the American public is ignorant of the fact that there would still be a 5-4 majority supporting Roe v. Wade, I have to believe groups like N.O.W. and MOVEON.ORG are well aware of this fact But they are using this ignorance of the public as a fear tactic to further their agenda. If they can convince the public that nominating Alito means the end of Roe v. Wade, they can try to prevent the nomination of a judge that will oppose their many other liberal agenda items.

This isn't the only deception far-left groups are hiding behind. What percentage of the public actually understands what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned? I would say that at least 90% of the public thinks that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions become illegal in this country. Of course, if Roe v. Wade were actually overturned, all it would mean is there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. It would rightfully be left up to the states to decide whether or not to allow abortions in their states. But, again, this is not the picture that far-left groups would like to paint-- it's not scary enough.

There is one other thing that has been bugging me about the far-left's criticism of Justice Alito, and that is their attempt to label any judge that opposes Roe v. Wade as outside the mainstream. N.O.W. posted an article on its website calling Alito "far right of the judicial spectrum, distinctly outside the mainstream . . . ." Why? Because he opposes abortions? Polls consistently show a 50/50 split on the abortion issue (at best, a 60/40 split in favor of allowing abortions).

With 40-50% of the population against abortion, how can you call a judge that is against abortions outside of the mainstream? There are two possible answers: (1) these far-left groups are delusional enough to somehow believe they represent the opinions of mainstream America, or (2) they are relying on unsupported rhetoric to drum up opposition to a well-qualified nominee. Maybe it's both.

President Bush Listens To Schmitty

2005-10-31T11:41:00.000-08:00

Apparently, President Bush has been reading my Blog. Last Thursday, in my posting about Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination, I suggested several qualified nominees, with Judge Samuel Alito of the Third Circuit as the first one I mentioned. Well, President Bush took my advice and nominated Judge Alito. That just shows the influence that Schmitty's Rants has on this country.

As a side note, I think Judge Alito is more than qualified to join the Supreme Court. A Yale Law graduate, Judge Alito has been a federal appeals court judge for 15 years. Granted, he was never Texas Lottery Commissioner, but I still think he's qualified.

Miers Gone, Finally!

2005-10-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers has finally withdrawn her Supreme Court nomination. I have not had time to comment on her nomination before this latest news, but I must say I am quite happy to hear this, because she is completely unqualified.

Let's compare Harriet Miers to Bush's other Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts:

John Roberts graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Harriet Miers graduated (no honors mentioned) from Southern Methodist School of Law.

Upon graduating, John Roberts served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (one of the most influential circuits in the country, along with the D.C. Circuit). Roberts then served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Harriet Miers clerked for some District Court Judge in Texas.

After serving as a clerk for Judge Friendly and Justice Rehnquist, John Roberts served as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General, and as associate counsel to the president in the White House Counsel's office. After clerking for some shit-kicking district judge, Harriet Miers went into private practice.

Speaking of private practice, Harriet Miers worked her way up to partner at a firm that eventually became known as Locke, Liddell, & Sapp, a Texas firm that, at one point, had over 400 attorneys and is well respected in Texas. After serving as counsel for the White House and assistant to the U.S. Attorney, John Roberts became a partner at Hogan & Hartson, a firm that, with over 1,000 attorneys in 23 offices on four continents, is considered not only one of the top firms in the country, but also one of the top firms internationally.

In private practice, John Roberts specialized in appellate advocacy, arguing numerous cases before the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers did corporate litigation, but once took a tour of the Supreme Court.

John Roberts left private practice to serve as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the Department of Justice. Harriet Miers left private practice to serve as the Texas Lottery Commissioner.

Finally, for the two years leading up to his nomination, John Roberts served as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For the years leading up to her nomination, Harriet Miers has been working at the White House in various positions, as assistant to the President and staff secretary, and, most recently, counsel to the President since February of 2005.

Can anybody compare these two people and still have the balls to tell me Harriet Miers is qualified?

Man-Made Hurricane

2005-09-24T13:40:00.000-07:00

This is quite amusing. Some nutjob weatherman in Idaho is insisting that hurricane Katrina, and other major weather patterns, are from a man-made weapon being used against us. What's even more hilarious is his explanation of who is controlling this weapon. It's got to be Al Qaeda, right? Nope. According this weatherman, Japan's Yakuza mafia is using a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to create hurricanes in an attempt to avenge the Hiroshima atom bomb attack.

I've done a little research on this, and I actually found another newspaper that got a picture of the man behind the plan. According to the newspaper, the man is demanding one million dollars.

Affirmative Action

2005-09-20T06:40:00.000-07:00

During the existence of this wildly popular blog, I don't think I have ever written a post on affirmative action. But given this story, I'd say now is as good a time as any, because as far as I'm concerned, affirmative action is racist, illogical, and completely indefensible.

How can affirmative action not be considered racist? Affirmative action gives preferential treatment to minorities (or, more accurately, only certain minorities) solely on the basis of race. If a white guy and a black guy, equally qualified, apply to the same college that uses affirmative action, the black guy gets preferential treatment to the detriment of the white guy. Affirmative action intentionally gives preferential treatment solely on race -- that's the very definition of racist. Is there any argument against this being racist?

But affirmative action is not just racist against whites; its very premise shows a racist attitude towards minorities. First, affirmative action assumes that minorities need help in order to succeed -- that they can't do it themselves. Second, it is defended on the basis that certain minorities have come from tough backgrounds, and it is only because of this lack of opportunity that these minorities don't have the test scores or grades to otherwise get into a top college. But this again presupposes that all minorities have "struggled" or lacked opportunity (i.e. they all came from the ghetto), which is wildly racist. And third, affirmative action singles out only certain minorities as needing assistance. How many colleges do you know that feel they have to provide a helping hand to get more Asians enrolled? No, it's only certain minorities that need help, which is equally racist.

But beyond affirmative action being inherently racist both against whites and minorities, it is not an effective way to promote the interests of minorities. In a college setting, for instance, all affirmative action does is admit minorities who otherwise would not be accepted. In other words, it accepts someone who is otherwise not qualified.

For instance, assume a black high schooler has a 3.0 GPA and scores 1030 on his SATs. Those are perfectly good scores that would get him into an average college, but are not enough to get him into Berkley. Yet Berkley accepts him because he's black, wanting to give this young lad, whose scores and grades are only low because of lack of opportunity, a chance to succeed. But this fails to realize that, regardless of why his scores are lower (i.e. lack of opportunity), he does not have the requisite skills to compete at Berkley.

It's like giving a fat guy with a 12:00 mile time preferential treatment and allowing him to qualify for the Olympic marathon. After all, the only reason he is so slow is because he was born with genetics to be heavy. He didn't have the opportunity to be a good runner growing up because of what he was born with. He just needs a helping hand to achieve his potential. But in reality, regardless of why he is so slow, he is going to get his ass kicked in the race.

If you don't believe me, have a look at this study done Prof. Richard H. Sander, a law professor at UCLA, regarding the effect of using affirmative action in law schools. Published in the Stanford Law Review, the study shows that racial preferences in law school admissions results in a counterproductive mismatch between the academic abilities of black beneficiaries of racial preferences and the law schools to which these students are admitted under "affirmative action." The result was higher failure rates amongst the minorities admitted through affirmative action, including minorities being more likely to be in the bottom of the class and minorities being more likely to fail the bar exam.

Of course, the same logic applies in whatever setting you're talking about with affirmative action, be it colleges or jobs. People are given something that they otherwise are not qualified for. It's a program that is both racist and fails to further the interests of those whom it purports to help. All employers and colleges should be prevented from considering race, and should only consider merit. As someone once said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Blame Parents, Not Pepsi

2005-09-17T15:00:00.000-07:00

In move to trample personal choice that would make former Governor Gray Davis proud, Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation banning soda in schools in California. The school nutrition Nazis have already taken hold in other states, like Connecticut. And now their insanity has taken hold of California, only to be endorsed by a man that obtained his physique not by avoiding soda, but by taking steroids.

Just look at the absurd rhetoric spewed by the Governator. He said, “California is facing an obesity epidemic,” and that he was “taking some first steps in creating a healthy future for California.”

First of all, obesity is hardly an “epidemic” among children. As I’ve pointed out before, the BMI is junk science, yet the CDC continues to rely on that formula to provide inflated statistics of obesity. But even according to the CDC, only 16% of children are overweight (with even less being obese). That means that 84% of children who are not even overweight will not be able to get soda in school, just because the government wants to police the fat kids.

Second, studies have shown that the intake of soda and sweets has no impact on obesity. Indeed, studies show that levels of caloric intake among the young haven’t appreciably changed over the last 20 years. So if kids aren’t taking in more calories – not eating more high-calorie sweets – then how can we explain this “epidemic”? It’s lack of physical activity that is the leading cause of childhood obesity. Kids today have television, video games, computers, etc., so they’re less inclined to spend their free time engaging in physical activity. But instead of blaming the parents for letting their kids sit around, we’re blaming Pepsi.

Oh by the way, the ban will also cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income from vending machines. So this decision really hits the trifecta: it relies on junk science, it furthers the government nanny-state, and it will cost cash-strapped schools hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Nice work Governator.

I'm Back

2005-09-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

I’ve had a lot going on in the past month, between billing over 240 hours last month and dealing with some family issues, so I’ve been on a bit of a blogging hiatus. But with all that’s going on in the news, I’d say now is a good time to get back in the game. First up . . . the worst natural disaster in American history.

There are too many troubling things about hurricane Katrina to talk about at once: from the federal government showing once again that it is so focused on other areas where it has no business being that it can’t perform its most basic function of protecting us, to people showing through looting and sniping that there are people in this world that are just plain evil.

But this takes the cake. Yes, George Bush hates black people. In fact, he created the hurricane just to hurt black people. It was a nearly 6-year project in conjunction with the CIA, FBI, and "Da Man." I love Mike Meyers in that clip, by the way. Talk about a deer in headlights. And how about when they cut back to Chris Tucker? Even he is looking at Kanye like, "What in the hell are you talking about?"

But beyond Kanye’s retarded logic, I love how GW is to blame for all of this in the eyes of liberals. That’s right: GW built a city on the Gulf Coast below sea level; GW built faulty levies; GW encouraged people to stay in their homes in the face of a major natural disaster; GW personally prevented FEMA from responding quicker.

Don’t get me wrong – the government did screw up and completely failed to provide rescue personnel. Plus, the government has shown once again that it has only one response to any problem: create a bureaucracy and throw money at the problem to make it seem like you’re concerned. The government has pledged hundreds of millions to help the victims and rebuild the city. And because it is in response to a tragedy, no one is going to stand up and say that this is a waste of money.

Anything the government can do in this situation can be done cheaper, better, and more efficiently by private charities. What’s the government going to do? Just hand out money and trust people will spend it on what they need, and not on a Best Buy shopping spree? Or maybe they can had out some sweetheart deals to some developers who made contributions to their campaigns. (Reminder to Dick Cheney – check to see if Haliburton can do general contracting work).

Plus, what about insurance? Many of the individual homeowners, and likely nearly all of the businesses, are insured and will receive payment without government assistance. And for those without insurance, does anyone have the balls to point out their irresponsibility?

I am not heartless. This hurricane was a horrible tragedy, and there are people in need, regardless of whether their irresponsibility caused their problems. But we just need to be smart in the way we help them.

John William Schmitthenner II (1920 - 2005)

2005-09-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

John William Schmitthenner II died Friday after a long bout with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He was 84.

John, the son of a Lutheran minister, was born August 30, 1920. During his childhood, he lived in New York, Pennsylvania, and various other places where his father's ministry took the family.

Upon graduating from college, he joined the Army during World War II and served as a navigator and bomber. In 1944, while conducting bombing raids over Austria, his plane was shot down in enemy territory. He parachuted to safety, only to be captured by the enemy. He was placed in a Nazi POW camp for 11 months before being freed by Allied forces.

Upon his return to the U.S., he enrolled in law school at Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law. He began practicing law for Nationwide Insurance before co-founding his own law firm, Epstein & Schmitthenner.

During his time practicing law, he dedicated himself to battling the expanding tort law of the time. He also took cases to protect the land rights of individuals, battling the government in eminent domain proceedings. In 1957, he successfully argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Mazur v. Commonwealth on behalf of a farm owner whose land had been seized under the state's eminent domain powers.

John Schmitthenner was a war hero, a zealous advocate, and a loving patriarch. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him. He is survived by his wife of over 60 years, Jesse, as well as his three children, five grandchildren, and new great-grandson.

Barkley Overrated?

2005-08-16T07:14:00.000-07:00

Joel was kind enough to send me this link to a story by some jackass named Charley Rosen, who tries to argue that certain Hall of Fame basketball players are overrated. Among them . . . Charles Barkley!! Are you kidding me?

Charles Barkley has a career average of 22 points and nearly 12 rebounds per game! He won the MVP award in 1993, was an 11-time All Star, was a 5-time All-NBA First Team member, and was a 5-time All-NBA Second Team member. Oh yeah . . . he also won two Olympic gold medals and was named one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history.

Of course, Charley Rosen doesn't bother to argue statistics with Barkley or any of these "overrated" players. Instead, Rosen criticizes Barkley for showing up to a Houston training camp 20 pounds overweight. Rosen doesn't bother to cite what year this was, but Barkley didn't start playing for Houston until the 13th year of his career!! Stop the presses . . . players aren't as well-conditioned in their mid-30s as when they were in their early 20s?!

Rosen also argues Barkley didn't play defense. Granted, Barkley does not have the defensive statistics of, for instance, Tim Duncan. But Barkley was also playing undersized for his position. Barkley was a 6'6'' power forward . . . Duncan clears 7'0''! Of course Barkley isn't going to have the shot blocks of taller power forwards. You want defense? How about the nearly 12 rebounds per game that Barkley, despite his size, pulled down for his career. As a comparison, the 7'1'' giant Shaq also averages just under 12 rebounds per game for his career.

If a poll were held today, I would vote for Barkley as the greatest power forward of all time. Some people would argue Malone (who, amusingly, also made Rosen's list of "overrated" players, yet strangely made that moron's list of all-time greatest power forwards). Malone has a slightly higher career scoring average (25 ppg), but a fairly significantly lower rebounding average (10 rpg). The difference is Barkley never played with someone like John Stockton, whom Malone had the good fortune to spend nearly his entire career with. Of course, when Tim Duncan's career is over, I'm sure he will be known nearly unanimously as the greatest power forward of all time, but that's beyond the point.

The fact is Barkley single-handedly carried horrible Philadelphia teams deep into the playoffs year after year. When Barkley finally got some role players around him in Phoenix in 1993, he won the MVP and went to the NBA Finals (only to run into a brick wall known as the Chicago Bulls, who had some guy named Michael Jordan -- perhaps Rosen thinks he's overrated too). Barkley is, without question, one of the greats.

Tort Reform

2005-08-15T06:37:00.000-07:00

The L.A. Times, ever the non-biased newspaper (hopefully you're picking up my sarcasm), has published an absurd article essentially blaming America's move toward tort reform on the propagation of "myths" of cases that never really happened. I'm not going to bother pointing out every error in that absurd story, because the good people at Overlawyered.com have already done so here and here.

But if you believe frivolous lawsuits are just a product of evil corporations creating myths to scare the public, let me cite three frivolous cases that I have already defended against in the very brief time I have been practicing:

1. A 22-month-old child, while playing unsupervised in his room, fell off his top bunk and landed on a toy, injuring himself. The family sued the toy manufacturer because the toy, which was recommended for children 5 years old and up, was too pointy (apparently making it foreseeable that an unsupervised infant would fall off his top bunk and injure himself).

2. A truck driver, after loading his truck in an industrial area, ran over and killed a security guard at the exit gate of the industrial area. The driver then sued the owner of the industrial area for the emotional distress of having witnessed the accident, claiming the property had somehow caused him to run down the pedestrian. Yes, the driver was suing for the emotional distress of witnessing the death of a man that the driver ran over.

3. An extreme sports lover who was snowboarding on a professional-level mountain fell 200 feet. He sued the owner of the snowboarding resort for having such a dangerous mountain available to snowboard on, and sued the manufacturer of the snowboard because the board should not have snapped when he hit the ground after falling 200 feet.

But hey . . . maybe this whole frivolous lawsuit thing is just a myth.

Third Year Of Law School

2005-08-12T07:37:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting article about law students not taking their third year of law school seriously. I will first say that, personally, my third year wasn't exactly a cakewalk. I took Remedies, Tax, California Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy, and Trusts & Estates, among others. I was also working 20 hours a week at my firm and serving as editor of the Law Review.

Of course, I also knew others that were just killing time until graduation. They were taking classes like Legislation or Negotiation. Sports Law was the most popular third-year course.

But I think I actually learned the most during my third year. The article makes the point that the most practical experience is gained through the third year, and that was certainly true for me. As I said, I was working 20 hours a week getting real litigation experience. Plus, I took the Civil Clinic, where I got to handle my own real civil cases under the supervision of an attorney. Throw in Lawyering Skills II and Advanced Trial Advocacy, where I learned everything from how to conduct a deposition to how to run a trial, and you've got some pretty good preparation.

The article also talks about cutting the third year out, which is a horrible idea. My school had 29 credits in mandatory classes the first year (five full-year classes and one half-year class). Then there were only 19 credits in mandatory classes for the second and third years combined. There were also several other classes like Corporations and Community Property that, while not mandatory, are tested on the California Bar, so it's generally a good idea to take them. The rest of the credits required for graduation were meant for students to take elective classes in the area in which they intend to practice (I wanted to litigate, so I took those classes I mentioned). If you just made students take the mandatory classes and Bar classes, they could graduate in two years and even pass the Bar, but they would be completely unprepared to practice law because they lack any real-life experience.

The bottom line is that, just like any other institution that has electives, you have choose your own path in law school, which will dictate how hard your third year will be. Just because some students will choose the easiest route is certainly not a justification for graduating would-be attorneys after two years and throwing them to the wolves.

Well-Timed Warning

2005-08-09T23:40:00.000-07:00

Madden 2006 came out today, and this story serves as a well-timed warning for me. I guess I better stop at about hour 49 this weekend.

Helmet Laws

2005-08-09T23:10:00.000-07:00

A while back I had a rant about seatbelt laws. On the same theme, Eric has pointed out a new article that claims to show evidence of the need for helmet laws. It claims that the fatality rate and health care costs both went up when the helmet law was repealed in Florida.

The mortality rate is a red herring, as far as I'm concerned. People need to be free to be stupid. They need to be able to make the choice of whether or not they want to take their lives in their hands and not wear their helmets.

But the main argument by proponents of this and other invasive government laws is that the laws save on health care costs. They simply look at the amount of health care costs associated with accidents due to people not wearing helmets, and suddenly conclude that this is an increased cost. But this analysis is incomplete unless you look at the money spent in enforcement and the money saved due to lowered life spans. The contradictory story makes a point of mentioning increased deaths, but fails to take this into account in calculating costs.

This is the same type of incomplete analysis that leads people to conclude that obesity, smoking, and the like are costing our society money. But when a complete study was actually done regarding smoking, the conclusions showed that the reduction in life spans of smokers actually reduced health care costs, and that by eliminating smoking, health care costs would rise. When are we finally going to get a complete study like this regarding seatbelts and helmets? Then we'll see if there is really a cost to not wearing seatbelts.

But beyond this, I absolutely love the argument that liberals make that smoking, obesity, seatbelts, helmets, etc. all have to be regulated because failing to do so costs society though health care costs. The only reason it costs "society" is because of the socialized medicine programs created by left-wingers. Yet then liberals use the same programs they created that cost taxpayers billions as a reason to invade our personal choices with their "government knows best" attitude. Quite a cycle they created.

Always Looking For Deep Pockets

2005-08-05T06:42:00.000-07:00

Does everyone remember this horrible criminal case? This scumbag piled 70 illegal aliens into the trailer of his truck to transport them, but for whatever reason, he abandoned the jam-packed trailer at a truck stop outside of Houston. Meanwhile, the interior temperature of the trailer cleared 170 degrees and the immigrants could do nothing but scream for help. There was evidence in the truck that people were scratching at the walls in a desperate attempt to get air; 19 ended up dying. Unfortunately, from what I recall, this guy managed to escape the death penalty, but thankfully he was convicted.

Well, you knew this wasn't going to end with the criminal action . . . someone was going to file a civil suit. And here it is. Who is liable for the deaths of these immigrants? Why the defendant's employer and the manufacturer of the trailer, of course! I mean, it was completely foreseeable that someone might try to smuggle 70 immigrants in that trailer, only to abandon it in the middle of Texas during the summer. There should have been emergency escape hatches, air conditioning, and a fully stocked fridge!

I love how the article tries to justify the lawsuit: "Legal experts say the relatives' effort to recover damages from the trailer manufacturer is not unusual. Attorneys are ethically bound, they said, to recover whatever possible for their clients." Attorneys are ethically bound to try to extort money from companies? And here I thought attorneys are ethically bound not to file frivolous actions!

And here's my favorite quote: "'Attorneys are looking for the deep pockets,' said Charles Rhodes, law professor at South Texas College of Law and an expert in federal civil procedure. 'This not an unusual practice.'"

Well, I guess that makes it ok, then.

Germany or Florida

2005-08-04T23:28:00.000-07:00

A man was charged with killing his wife with a claw hammer because he got angry when she wanted to cuddle after sex , but he wanted to watch sports on television. “The defendant struck his wife [with] approximately 70 individual blows after spending a happy interlude with her . . . . Her desire to cuddle after sex does not justify the extremely violent, brutal response of the defendant.”

What do you think? Germany or Florida? Here's your answer.

Another Loss For The Morning After Pill

2005-08-04T23:19:00.000-07:00

I had a post a while back about a study in the UK that showed that moving the morning after pill from a prescription to non-prescription drug did not create any major change in the use of contraceptives or the rate of unprotected sex. Well, New York has now blown an opportunity to make the morning after pill available without a prescription.

I have yet to hear a logical argument against making this available without a prescription. Governor Pataki apparently said he was most upset that the bill did not require minors to see a physician. Yes, because Lord knows we don't want to make it any easier to prevent teenage pregnancies. These kids need to have to go to their parents and say, "Mom . . . I got slammed by my boyfriend last night and he broke right through the condom. Can you bring me to the doctor so I can get the morning after pill?"

Shopping With Women

2005-08-03T07:48:00.000-07:00

I realized while shopping with my wife a while back the reason why men and women should never shop for clothes together. We were in the store looking at some new t-shirts for me, when I picked one up off the rack that I liked. My wife looked at me holding the shirt and said, "That's a cute top."

Ok . . . two huge problems. One, guys don't wear things that are "cute." Second, guys don't get "tops" . . . they get shirts.

On the bright side, I did end up buying myself a cute top.

Germany or Florida

2005-08-03T07:24:00.000-07:00

Here's any easy one:

"A 49-year-old man was arrested Monday and charged with flinging his teenage son's dog off a fifth-floor balcony after the two-month-old puppy soiled the family's apartment. The dog died after being tossed more than 25 feet through the air from the 50-foot high balcony, according to the Police Department report."

Germany or Florida?

Here's your answer.

Prescribe Some Cold Medicine

2005-08-01T07:59:00.000-07:00

Well, here's a nice overreaction by Oregon. In order to stop its meth problem, Oregon is going to require prescriptions for cold medicine. Many cold medicines contain ingredients used to make meth, so, of course, requiring a prescription will end that problem. Of course, it may also keep cold medicines out of the hands of sick people who are poor and can't go to the doctor to get a prescription.

As a side note, heat lamps, often used to grow marijuana, will now be illegal in Oregon. Luckily, though, baggies, which are used to separate and stash drugs, will still be available, but only to those with a state baggie license.

A Nice Baseball Story

2005-08-01T07:53:00.000-07:00

This is yet another reason why the Dodgers suck. Petco Park is still stabbing free.

Law School Ranking

2005-08-01T07:04:00.000-07:00

Despite criticisms by numerous law school deans and professors, the law school rankings put out by U.S. News and World Reports is, for the vast majority of pre-law students, the be-all, end-all guide for choosing a law school. I must admit that when I was deciding which law schools to apply to, the rankings were, at least initially, the biggest consideration. Of course, I later took into account location and the fact that I could attend on scholarship, but I have since wondered whether I should have attended elsewhere simply because other schools were ranked higher.

Well, now a New York Times article criticizes the ranking system, and shows just how law schools manipulate their statistics to allow them to get a higher ranking. Here's an example of the manipulation:

As part of its methodology, U.S. News factors in how much a law school spends per student. But just how those costs are calculated has become a matter of considerable discussion, both in legal education circles and at the American Bar Association.

Consider library costs at the University of Illinois College of Law in Urbana-Champaign. Like all law schools, Illinois pays a flat rate for unlimited access to LexisNexis and Westlaw's comprehensive online legal databases. Law students troll them for hours, downloading and printing reams of case law. To build user loyalty, the two suppliers charge institutions a total of $75,000 to $100,000 a year, far below per-use rates.

But in what it calls a longstanding practice, Illinois has calculated a fair market value for these online legal resources and submitted that number to U.S. News. For this year's rankings, the school put that figure at $8.78 million, more than 80 times what LexisNexis and Westlaw actually charge. This inflated expense accounted for 28 percent of the law school's total expenditures on students, according to confidential data filed with U.S. News and the bar association and provided to The New York Times by legal educators who are critical of rankings and concerned about the accurate reporting of data.

Speaking of rankings, a recent ranking of law school faculties put my school at number 22 in the nation! Apparently we are drawing more and more highly distinguished faculty members from other schools. Of course, this makes sense to me . . . if I had a choice between freezing my ass off teaching at a distinguished school like University of Michigan and coming to sunny San Diego to teach, I'm coming to San Diego.

Another Weird DUI

2005-07-28T07:27:00.000-07:00

My last post about strange instances of operating a vehicle while intoxicated was about the very different types of vehicles that can lead to a conviction (from airplanes to Zambonis). Well, now there's an interesting story that pushes the limits of what is considered "operating" a vehicle.

Apparently, these two drunken women were "operating" a non-running car. One was pushing while the other was steering, and they ended up hitting a parked car. Why not charge them with DUI? If you can get busted for DUI while pedaling a bicycle, why not while pushing a car?

And So The Lawsuits Begin

2005-07-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

I have written about the Grand Theft Auto hidden sex scene, and knew this was only a matter of time . . . a class action has been filed. There are so many absurd things about this suit it's hard to list them all.

First of all, why did the woman buy a game that was rated M for Mature (17+) for her 14-year-old grandson? Hilariously, the lawyer said that no parent would knowingly buy an adults-only video game for their children. But a game made for people 17 or older, that's ok for kids?

This is just like an incident I had when I briefly worked at a movie theater during college. I had a woman come complain to me that her 10-year-old was freaked out by the Sixth Sense. Of course, the Sixth Sense is rated PG-13, and yet it was our fault she brought an underage kid to the movie!

Second, the patch is only available by going on the Internet and downloading it. Gee, you think a 14-year-old kid is looking at other inappropriate stuff ont he Internet? I'm sure his grandmother would have a heart attack if she checked his site history. I pray the video game company subpoenas the kid's computer.

And third, I love the causes of action: false advertising, consumer deception and unfair business practices. That's right . . . they only advertised that the game featured stealing cars, killing cops, slapping hoes, and doing drug deals. It never said anything about a simulated sex scene that can be downloaded!

Preventing Gun Industry Lawsuits

2005-07-27T07:28:00.000-07:00

Congress has finally decided to take action to prevent lawsuits against the gun industry for crimes committed by people using guns. The legislation would prevent suits in both state and federal court for damages done by criminals who use guns, but would not prevent suits for defective products (e.g. you shoot your eye out because your gun is defective).

I have some mixed feelings about this legislation. On the one hand, I believe we really need to ban these suits. These lawsuits against gun manufacturers are a mix of the two most abhorrent abuses of our legal system: (1) the use of civil suits to further political agendas and (2) the targeting of deep-pocket defendants for ambulance chaser lawyers to get rich.

On the other hand, I get nervous any time the federal government usurps states' rights. Really, states should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to ban these lawsuits. California, for instance, banned such suits (but from what I understand, the statute was actually repealed as of 1/1/03). Gun manufacturers could then refuse to sell their products in the states that held them liable in such suits, and thus avoid suits in those states.

The problem, however, is that gun manufacturers could possiby get sued in states with such lawsuits, even if the gun makers did not actually sell guns in that state. Not to get into boring legal principles, but someone can sue a company in a state as long as the company has certain minimum contacts with that state. A company does not have to actually sell its product in that state to have minimum contacts -- merely directing commerce towards that state may be enough (e.g. advertising in that state). You can click here to read an exchange I had with the good people of Overlawyered.com on this subject.

In the end, I still believe states should be the ones to decide whether to allow such suits, and I think that gun manufacturers will be able to avoid such suits by not directing commerce towards states that allow these absurd suits. It may be a process that takes a little longer than merely passing a federal ban, but I believe it is the proper conceptual approach. Then again, I'm not exactly going to shed a tear if the feds pass legislation banning these absurd suits.

ACLU . . . A Terrorist's Best Friend

2005-07-26T07:06:00.000-07:00

Every time this country takes steps to try make us more secure, it seems that the ACLU or a similar group is there to cry foul and say our rights are being violated. Here is the latest example. NYC has wisely started requiring a search of all bags before people can board subways. Of course, liberal extremists are already crying that this is a violation of the Constitution, and is an unreasonable search.

Have these people never been to the airport? Are they unfamiliar with the procedure of having your bags checked before boarding? How is the subway any different? If you don't like it, take a cab. The rest of us want to be able to feel safe when we ride.

Extremists like the ACLU have all sorts of theoretical visions of our rights, but they simply are not practical. In a perfect world, there would never have to be any searches of our private property. Unfortunately, we have people that want to kill the civilians in this country, and we need to take measures to protect them. You're rights aren't worth much if you're dead.

Border Safety

2005-07-25T21:54:00.000-07:00

Thank God we know that the Candian border is safe . . . from pornography, at least. Canada has apparently endowed its Border Services Agency with the ever-important duty of preventing obscene material from entering into Canada. The Smoking Gun has gotten ahold of a report from the BSA, which chronicles not only what materials were denied entry to Canada, but, more amusingly, what materials were allowed into Canada.

You see, you have to take into account the subtle nuances of the films to understand which films are allowed and which are not. For instance, American Bukake IV was allowed, while Anal Latex Whores II was not allowed. Hung Hotel was admissible, but the Gag Factor series was not. Interestingly, Hairy Studs I, II, IV, V and VI were ok, but Volume III was not. I'd love an explanation as to what Volume III had in it to make the agent say, "Now that's over the line. . . ."

By the way, I'm sure this job sounded great to these guys when they were first recruited -- get paid to watch porn! But after about four volumes of Bareback Jocks, I'm thinking these guys are ready to throw themselves out the nearest window.

Next You Won't Be Able To Smoke At Home

2005-07-25T08:38:00.000-07:00

First it was public buildings. Then it was public parks. Anti-smoking Nazis even went so far as to tell bar owners they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. And now they want to go a step further -- they want to ban smoking in cars.

You mean smoking in public transportation or even taxi cabs, right? Nope. I mean New Jersey is proposing a law that will prevent smoking in your own car. The lawmaker proposing the bill insists that smoking causes car accidents. He cites a AAA-sponsored study on driver distractions in which the automobile association found that of 32,000 accidents linked to distraction, 1 percent were related to smoking.

One percent?! I am willing to bet there are more accidents caused by engaging in fellatio while driving than from smoking! Ok . . . bad example, because fellatio is probably illegal too. But I guarantee you there are 20 to 30 times as many accidents due to eating in the car than smoking in the car.

Obviously, the lawmakers have no interest in preventing accidents. This legislator's father died from lung disease, so he obviously just wants to prevent people from having the choice to smoke. I have been saying it all along -- it's just a matter of time after banning smoking everywhere else that they try to ban smoking in your home. People said that was just a paranoid slippery slope argument. Well, this bill would bring us one step closer.

Baghdad Jane

2005-07-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

For all the that harm liberal extremists like Michael Moore did to the Democratic Party, nothing will compare to this. Yes, Jane Fonda -- Hanoi Jane -- is going to start campaigning against the war in Iraq.

For those unfamiliar with Hanoi Jane's history, Ms. Fonda traveled to North Vietnam in the middle of the Vietnam War and gave support to the enemy. While U.S. troops were dying, Fonda broadcast the following message in North Vietnam, inspiring the enemy to strengthen its resolve against democracy:

"But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created . . . against them by Richard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools . . . illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives.

And after 4,000 years of struggling against nature and foreign invaders - and the last 25 years, prior to the revolution, of struggling against French colonialism - I don't think that the people of Vietnam are about to compromise in any way, shape or form about the freedom and independence of their country, and I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh."

Perhaps she will encourage us to read Saddam's haikus. He's not such a bad guy after all.

Beyond these encouraging words for the enemy, Fonda also spread lies that undoubtedly subjected thousands of troops to further torture and death. Fonda reported back after a 1972 trip to Vietnam that American POWs were being treated well and not being subject to torture. Of course, this was contradicted as POWs started to return from the war with horrible stories of torture. And yes, this was real torture -- not having your Koran put in a toilet or being forced to pose for naked pictures . . . .

Among other highlights of Fonda's life as a traitor:

1. She actively recruited college students to become communists, declaring at one speech in the early '70s: "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist."

2. Fonda helped organize a group called the F.T.A. (Fuck The Army).

And now Jane has decided to take on a new war. Anti-war activist should be cringing at the thought of the damage Jane will do to their crusade. That's like Michael Jackson joining a campaign against child abuse. Let's just hope she doesn't get any troops killed this time.

Goodbye Hanoi Jane . . . hello Baghdad Jane.

Germany Or Florida

2005-07-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

As an homage to Loveline, it's time for a little game of Germany or Florida. For those of you unfamiliar with the game, it's based on the theory that the strangest stories of idiocy and macabre all emanate from either Germany or Florida. With that in mind, you read each of the strange stories below, and then try to guess whether it comes from Germany or Florida.

Story One:

Police let a nearly naked shopper go home after she told them she was getting groceries in the nude because she lost a contest, a police spokesman said on Wednesday. The 35-year-old woman entered the 24-hour shop at 4 a.m. wearing nothing but an unbuttoned jacket. The police decided to let her go because few people and presumably no small children saw her at that time of day.

So, what do you think . . . Germany or Florida? Here is your answer.

Ok, I thought that one was easy. Here's one that's a bit harder . . .

Story Two:

Bald men have no entitlement to state support for toupees, a court ruled on Wednesday. Throwing out a legal challenge by a bald 46-year-old man, the court said the state was not discriminating against men even though health insurance covers the cost of wigs for women. “In contrast to women, the involuntary loss of hair among men is common and accepted as nothing out of the ordinary,” the court ruled, rejecting the suit from the man who said he suffered because of his baldness.

Here's your answer.

I Can Admit When I'm Wrong

2005-07-21T13:05:00.000-07:00

I'm sure this will be shocking to everyone, but it turns out I was wrong about something I wrote in an earlier post. I had insisted earlier that the modification of Grand Theft Auto that inserts a sex scene was created by a third party, not by the game's creator. It turns out the sex scene in Grand Theft Auto was part of the game created by the developer, but the scene was hidden. The downloadable "patch," which was created by a third party, simply brought out a scene that was already embedded within the game, through the scene was otherwise inaccessible.

However, my overall point still remains true. First, I hope they are only re-rating the PC version as "AO." From what I understand, you can only download the patch for the PC version, not the PS2 or XBOX versions, so there is no need to relabel the game console versions.

Second, I love how having an animated simulated sex scene gets people up in arms. With all the stuff that's in the GTA games, you're worried about a simulated sex scene? There's a hilarious note at the end about the Parents Television Counsel demanding that the manufacturer offer refunds to people. I'd love to see the request for a refund: Yes, I was aware the game featured stealing cars, killing cops, slapping hoes, and doing drug deals, but animated simulated sex scenes . . . that's where I draw the line!

What's even better is that the patch is only available on the Internet. You mean there's pornography available on the Internet?! I call for a full government investigation!

Of course, Clinton is still feigning concern: "Clinton has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate, and said the ESRB must do more to police content." How much longer do you think it will be before she demands a government bureaucracy to hand down ratings for all video games? Why not . . . it involves interstate commerce.

Interesting Scholarship

2005-07-20T06:50:00.000-07:00

Uganda is offering college scholarships based on an interesting criterion. Imagine if they implemented this program here. There would be no one at SDSU eligible.

Minutemen

2005-07-19T07:17:00.000-07:00

Here is a stunningly left-biased article about the Minuteman Project, a group of citizens who patrol the border and report illegal immigration. This is supposed to be a real article, not an editorial, yet the "news" article contains lines like this: "At least 40 anti-immigration groups have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project . . . ." Are you kidding me? Anti-immigration? They are anti-illegal-immigration. They are not a bunch of xenophobic racists, looking to kick out everyone with brown skin!

Why not just portray them as Klan members? Oh wait, the article does that too: "Critics call the movement vigilantism, and some hear in the words of the Minutemen a vitriol similar to what hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan used against Southern blacks in the 1960s." So the Klan's oppressive actions against black citizens in the '60s is the same as people monitoring the border to keep non-citizens from illegally entering this country . . . yeah, that's the same.

Nowhere does the article bother to mention that, in the age of terrorism, it might be a good idea to actually know who is coming into this country. And nowhere does it mention that the most recent studies, based on the 2002 census, estimate that illegal households create a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion. Plus, illegal immigration costs California alone an additional $9 billion.

No, the article would rather put a slant on the story and paint a picture the Minutemen as Klan members. You tell me . . . is the liberal bias in media real?

No Mayor

2005-07-19T06:45:00.000-07:00

Well, three months ago I predicted this would happen, and now the day has come -- San Diego has no Mayor! As I explained in that earlier post, our (former) Mayor, Dick Murphy, resigned effective July 15. The Deputy Mayor, Michael Zucchet, took over. And what did he do on his first official day of business as Mayor on Monday? He was convicted of federal wire fraud and extortion charges. So now we have no mayor.

Apparently, what happens now is the city council names a mayor pro tem, who will serve until a new mayor is elected during our special election at the end of the month. Speaking of the special election, I'm very glad to see Rich Rider, of the San Diego Libertarian Party, is running for mayor.

Taking Tee Ball A Bit Far

2005-07-18T07:35:00.000-07:00

This is unbelievable. A tee ball coach paid one of his 8-year-old players $25 to hurt a mentally disabled teammate. That way, the coach would not have to put the mentally challenged player in the game. The 8-year-old hired goon responded by drilling the poor kid with pitches to the head and the nuts. I really have nothing more to say about this story, except that I can't believe it didn't happen in Florida.

NAALCP

2005-07-15T18:57:00.000-07:00

Can it get any more obvious that the NAACP doesn't represent CP any more -- just the LCP -- Liberal Colored People? How many meetings do you think Powell has been invited to? Or Justice Thomas? Please, the NAACP wouldn't even support Thomas for the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it would put just the second black man on the Court.

Get Back To Work, Hillary

2005-07-15T18:01:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton has managed to take time away from pushing socialized medicine and voting for every increased spending proposal to courageously request an investigation. An investigation into Rove's CIA leak? No -- even more important! Hillary is demanding an investigation about a video game! Yes, Hillary Clinton is outraged, and is demanding an investigation as to how people can download an addition to Grand Theft Auto that creates scenes of simulated sex. There are so many things idiotic about this, it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, it exposes the absolute technological ignorance of legislators. Forget about being one step behind the technology -- the legislators are always about a decade behind. Does anyone remember when we first started hearing about horrible cases of disgusting people spying on others via tiny cameras? At that point, the technology was so new that there were no laws against the videotaping -- only for wiretapping -- so people got off free! And today, while people are crying out for legislation to prevent e-mail SPAM, the FCC has only managed as of the beginning of this year to have a regulation go into effect that prevents junk faxes. Thank God, we're saved! Maybe in 2015 when we are starting to get junk holograms we'll finally get that anti-spam e-mail law.

The situation with the video games is no different. It is not the manufacturers of the video games that create these alterations. For a long time now people have had the ability to create programs that alter the gameplay of existing games. I remember back when the original Wolfenstein came out, there was an alteration that added nude women. And that was well over a decade ago! Yet apparently this is all new to Hillary, so she is proposing spending millions of our tax dollars on some stupid probe to find out what I just said.

She also says she is worried about the children, and wants to know why the game isn't rated "AO" (for adults only). But she misses the point that this game is rated "MA," meaning it is not for children under 17. That's the equivalent of an "R" rating for a movie, yet an "R"-rated movie can have nudity and simulated sex! What's more, Rockstar Games (the maker of Grand Theft Auto) didn't even create this addition. It would be like me editing in nudity in the middle of Batman Returns, spreading it around the internet, and then demanding that the MPAA raise the rating of Batman Returns to NC-17.

And by the way, Hillary, this addition to the game that features nudity is only available by download on the internet. Idiot!! What good is going to be to prevent stores from selling the game to kids, when there is absolutely no way to prevent kids from downloading the actual version with the nudity?! Well, no way to prevent it unless you count parents actually watching their kids. But the intrusive government can't possibly trust us common folk to actually watch our kids. No, elitist liberals know what's best for our kids, and they say we need regulations to protect kids!!

Really, that's what I find most offensive about this -- it's wasted money spent for the government to babysit our kids. I mean, this is something I would expect from the idiots at the Parents Television Counsel, not Hillary Clinton. Apparently Hillary only wants the government to stay out of our private lives sometimes. She wants complete freedom from government for homosexuals to marry and engage in sodomy, but when it comes to an obscure addition for a computer video game, well, by God, then the government needs to step in. Maybe if the scene had been two guys together, she would have been ok with it.

The Meaning Of The Constitution

2005-07-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

I believe the Constitution says what it says and protects what it expressly protects. I don't believe in this whole idea that we should read new rights into the Constitution as a way of making the Constitution evolve. The founding fathers created a process to amend the Constitution in the event the people felt it should evolve. It was not left to some single federal judge (or a group of five on the Supreme Court) to make it evolve.

Edward Whelan has created the following test to see how many people are so-called "originalists," meaning they believe the Constituion says what it says, under a common-sense reading:

Q. The Constitution provides, as one of the criteria to be eligible to become president, that a person must be a "natural born Citizen" (or, alternatively, in a provision that long ago ceased to apply to any living persons, "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"). How would you figure out what the phrase "natural born Citizen" means?

(A) You would determine that the "natural born Citizen" requirement, whatever it means, is obviously a relic of a benighted and xenophobic past, a past that "evolving standards of decency," as reflected in modern European electoral practices, requires be abandoned. It simply isn't fair, you would conclude, that any candidates should be excluded by such an arbitrary requirement from running for president. You would invoke "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" as you instead substituted your own arbitrary criteria for eligibility.

(B) You would try to discern the current meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen." Its closest connection would appear to be to the concept of natural childbirth. Therefore, you would conclude that only those whose mothers did not use drugs during birth satisfy the requirement.

(C) You would look to literature as your guide. Macbeth finds great comfort in the promise that "none of woman born/Shall harm" him. But his comfort proves unwarranted when Macduff, who "was from his mother's womb/Untimely ripp'd," kills Macbeth. It follows that anyone whose birth was by Cesarean section is not a "natural born Citizen."

(D) You would try to determine the public meaning of the "natural born Citizen" requirement at the time that the Constitution was adopted.

If it is obvious to you that the proper response is (D), then you are an originalist. If you think that the answer might be (A), then you are probably Justice Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, or Breyer.

Tree Huggers

2005-07-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

A bunch of treehuggers are now lodging a protest against Exxon. Apparently, they are upset that Exxon is in favor of drilling in Alaska, is funding research into global warming, and is appealing a $4.5 billion verdict over the Alaskan oil spill. First of all, I'm not going to get into the whole global warming debate again, but how dare Exxon actually fund a scientific investigation! These treehuggers just can't stand to hear any evidence that contradicts global warming. They are like the fundamental Christians who stick their fingers in their ears and start humming at the first mention of evolution.

As for the $4.5 billion verdict, damn Exxon for appealing an absurd verdict like that!! Please . . . how could you not appeal that ridiculous verdict? Think about it . . . how much legally cognizable damage did the oil spill actually create?! I would absolutely agree that the spill did harm to the wildlife. But guess what -- seals can't sue!! There has to be a person that suffered damage.

This oil spill occurred in one of the most remote, desolate, deserted places in the world. There were very few Alaskans that were truly "injured" by the spill. According to the most recent census data, there are just under 650,000 people living in Alaska. Only a very small percentage of the population lives near the coast and was affected by the spill, yet the Court awarded $4.5 billion. That's enough to give every single resident in Alaska almost seven grand!! How dare Exxon appeal!

And finally, as for the Alaskan drilling, all I can say is these tree huggers have a lot of balls. Backed by liberal extremists like MoveOn.org, they oppose drilling in Alaska, yet at the same time they proclaim that Bush is doing nothing to lower gas prices, which are gouging the middle and lower class. They do plenty of complaining, but offer no feasible solutions. Gas prices are too high and we rely too much on foreign oil, but they won't allow drilling in Alaska so we can better sustain ourselves. And they're opposed to nuclear energy. Really, they won't be happy until every person drives one of those gutless hybrids and lives in a mud hut, walking around barefooted and living off the land.

When Will People Learn?

2005-07-11T07:19:00.000-07:00

It seems like stories like this pop up every single summer. When are people going to learn you can't just leave animals and kids in the car in the middle of summer? By the way, is this really a surprise from a person who is a 36-year-old grandmother of at least two!! The elder grandchild is five, so let's do some quick math: she was 31 when the first grandkid came around, which means the average age of giving birth for both she and her daughter was 15 1/2!! Sounds like she was a dynamite parent, and now she's an even worse grandparent. But I guess I'm just a judgmental jerk.

Discrimination Based On Residency

2005-07-11T07:04:00.000-07:00

The ACLU has filed suit in Hawaii over a policy in that state that prevents residents of other states from obtaining government employment. Some Florida residents were apparently denied government employment based solely on their residency. This area of the law is a bit complicated, and I won't bore people with an explanation of the Constitutional issues. What I find interesting, though, is that the ACLU accepted a case that doesn't seem to have any obvious liberal bias.

I think Hawaii may be on to something here, though. But instead of such a broad policy of exclusion, all other states should just deny employment only to citizens of Florida. I think everyone will be a lot safer that way.

Morning After Pill

2005-07-08T17:19:00.000-07:00

A recent study in the UK, where the morning after pill is available without a prescription, shows that moving the pill from a prescription to non-prescription drug did not create any major change in the use of contraceptives or the rate of unprotected sex. So my question is when can we finally get this damn think in America without a prescription?

I blame two groups for not making this pill available without a prescription. First, I blame the religious retards, who I believe are completely ignorant of what this pill actually is. The morning after pill is not RU-486. RU-486 is an abortion pill that destroys a fertilized and implanted egg. The morning after pill either prevents fertilization of the egg from implanting or prevents the egg from being fertilized. In other words, it prevents conception (just as any other birth control is intended to do). If religious retards really cared about reducing the number of abortions in this country, you'd think they would get on board with this pill as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Second, I blame the FDA, which is a hulking, Goliath of a bureaucratic mess. It creates so many hoops for drug companies to have to jump through that it drives up to cost of health care for everyone and prevents useful drugs from making it to the marketplace. All of the doctors I have heard speak about this drug all say there are absolutely no dangerous side effects, and that it should be available over the counter.