Patterico's Pontifications


M.E. Sprengelmeyer Eats Humble Pie — Sorry, I Just Love That Post Title!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:08 pm

M.E. Sprengelmeyer says:

UPDATE: We fell right into Times Square’s infamous PACKER TRAP! M.E.-a-culpa.

The link is to yours truly. Well played, Mr. M.E. Sprengelmeyer. Well played.


Filed under: General,Music — Patterico @ 9:35 pm

And the backstory from the always-reliable Wikipedia:

Gilbert continued to work in television and movie soundtrack work as well as studio work and producing and eventually released his first solo album Thud (1995) as well as partially reforming Giraffe to perform the Genesis masterpiece The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway at Progfest ’94. Gilbert’s manager sent a copy of the recording to Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford who were searching for a new Genesis front man to replace Phil Collins. His manager, Jon Rubin, had come to Gilbert’s home to tell him that he had managed to get him an audition and discovered his dead body.

If it’s true, it’s a terrible shame . . . that is, assuming Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford a) never saw the beginning of that video or b) had a really good sense of humor.

There Will Be Blood – Puncturing The Hot Air Balloon Of Praise Before The Oscars Go Off The Deep End

Filed under: Movies — Justin Levine @ 11:34 am

[posted by Justin Levine]

With the Academy Awards scheduled for Sunday, its time to address the issue of one the nominees for Best Picture.

If people ask me ask me, “Do you think ‘There Will Be Blood’ is good?” Id say “Yes.” If forced to choose between the adjectives of “good” or “bad”, I’d go with good.

But good works can also be overrated, and “There Will Be Blood” is certainly the most overrated film in recent memory (as is the praise for its director). I’m going to primarily rely on the words of the few fellow “Blood” dissenters out there.

Godfrey Cheshire manages to nail the problem

Memo to L.A. Times Editors: Illegal Immigration Is Illegal

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 1:08 am

Do the editors of the L.A. Times realize that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal? I wonder when I read editorials like this:

It’s getting ugly out there for illegal immigrants. States and cities are cracking down with harsh new ordinances, and the courts are upholding them. Not only are deportations at record highs, but immigrants are being detained at places previously understood to be off-limits, such as schools. The debate about illegal immigration, labor, social justice and international trade has devolved into open season on illegal immigrants.

Arizona penalizes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, suspending their business license for 10 days for the first offense, revoking it permanently for the second. Valley Park in Missouri fines businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Oklahoma not only forbids their hiring and bars them from receiving tax-supported services — except healthcare — it also makes it a felony for anyone to transport, shelter or conceal illegal immigrants.

Sounds reasonable to me. Not to the editors, who equate one court decision upholding such laws with the Dred Scott decision:

It’s nothing new for states and municipalities to try to regulate immigration. California pioneered that trail in 1994 with the passage of Proposition 187, which sought to discourage illegal immigration by denying noncitizens a range of public services. Last year, Hazleton, Pa., caught the nation’s attention when it tried to criminalize landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that hire them. Until recently, however, the courts stood as a bulwark against this spate of angry — and often unconstitutional — ordinances, ruling that immigration is federal territory.

Not anymore. In Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma, business groups or immigration advocates sued to block the new laws, and in each case federal judges upheld them. The Oklahoma ruling is particularly pernicious. With the spirit of Dred Scott hovering over his pen, Judge James H. Payne wrote that illegal immigrants do not have the right to sue: “An illegal alien, in willful violation of federal immigration law, is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state law, when compliance with federal law would absolve the illegal alien’s constitutional dilemma.”

Unfortunately, Payne’s dehumanizing tone echoes the callous treatment that too often is accorded illegal immigrants.

No, he simply recognizes that they are illegal. I’d like to think that maybe the spirit of Dred Scott really was hovering over his pen — whispering “I didn’t have a choice, but these people do” — when the judge wrote this:

[C]uriously absent from [the illegal alien plaintiffs’] voluminous complaint is any challenge to the federal laws rendering their presence in this country illegal. Instead, these Plaintiffs seemingly concede the validity of the federal immigration laws, and file this suit in order to remove any barriers the state of Oklahoma has erected to their continued violation of those federal laws. These illegal alien Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to use this Court as a vehicle for their continued unlawful presence in this country. To allow these Plaintiffs to do so would make this Court an “abetter of iniquity” and this Court finds that simply unpalatable.

Is the judge “callous” and “dehumanizing” here? Or is he demonstrating rare common sense?

You make the call!

Will Obama Keep His Public Financing Pledge? Are You Kidding?

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 12:05 am

So Obama appears to be on track to raise $60 million in a month. What’s more, that month is February — which, even with the leap year, is kinda short.

This is why Allahpundit says, regarding the likelihood of Obama standing by his pledge to take public financing: “Not a chance.”

Yeah, that’s right. He made a promise and he’ll break it. You think this is something new for him?

Hot Air commenter AZCoyote reminds us of a little chat Obama had with Tim Russert in 2006 in which he pledged to serve out his Senate term and not run for President in 2008:

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

Obama: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

As Homer Simpson says: Then it’s settled.

Ah, but I hear you saying: politicians all do that.

Right. It’s politics as usual. That’s the point. Mr. “Change” is Mr. “Politics as Usual.”

And he will not go back on that public financing pledge . . . unless it becomes really inconvenient, and gets in the way of his becoming President. Which it would. If he’s raising $60 million in a month, it really, really would be very, very inconvenient.

Which is why he will go back on that public financing pledge.

But surely McCain will get some political mileage out of it? Hah! From Big Media? McCain pointing this out will be portrayed as whining, evidence of his weakness and inability to compete on the fundraising front.

I see it all laid out before me like a movie I’m watching right now.

Except, if it were a movie, I already would have gotten up and left.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0767 secs.