« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

Perry Mason on speed

With the Congressional debate on the rights of terrorists in the background, it was with considerable interest that I tuned into the new James Woods series, Shark. Right off the bat, I'll describe Woods' character, Sebastian Stark, as Perry Mason on speed.

But there's an interesting twist: while Mason was a defense attorney charged with proving his client innocent within an hour's time, Stark is a prosecutor charged with proving the bad guy really is a bad guy, 41374 even if that means bending the rules a bit. Complicating matters is the fact that Stark is a former high-profile defense attorney who devoted the first part of his legal career to putting scumbags back on the street. So the cops don't exactly hold him in high regard.

In last night's episode alone, Stark uses a legal loophole to get into the the accused's residence, tells staff member to "put a band-aid on your bleeding heart" and is able to make planted evidence hold up in court just long enough to force the defendant into a plea bargain.

So what type of commentary is "Shark" making on society at large? Believe it or not, I see a balanced message. For every citizen concerned about the rights of the accused, there is a citizen concerned about people bending over backwards to make sure certain elements of society have "rights." It's a difficult situation our country has always faced, not made any easier by the events of the last five years.

Logic 101

John Hammer is to Bill O'Reilly as Brian Clarey is to Keith Olbermann.

You tell me which is the least favorable comparison.

Heads up from Cone.

I'm back.....

....from a wonderful extended weekend on Oak Island. Except for a little rain on Monday, the weather was perfect — sunshine and moderate temperatures combined with a warm, calm ocean Though I spent the majority of my time either on the beach or on the deck, I have a few thoughts on events from the real world.

I didn't see the actual Clinton blow-up, but got in on bits and pieces of analysis. On today's show, Rush paraphrased Morris when pointing out that the level of Clinton's indignation is always relative to his guilt. I thought the same thing.

But here's my question: Did Clinton not expect such a question, especially from a FOX reporter? Or did he expect it too much, considering the recent controversy surrounding his administration's role (or lack thereof) in 9/11? It's real easy to believe he genuinely didn't expect it because he's never asked such tough questions by his friends in the media.

It takes me all week to read the Sunday NYT, so I'm more than a week late with this one: former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo defends Bush's reinvigoration of the presidency:

"To his critics, Mr. Bush is a 'King George' bent on an 'imperial presidency.' But the inescapable fact is that war shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive. Harry Truman sent troops to fight in Korea without Congressional authority. George H. W. Bush did not have the consent of Congress when he invaded Panama to apprehend Manuel Noriega. Nor did Bill Clinton when he initiated NATO’s air war over Kosovo....

"A reinvigorated presidency enrages President Bush’s critics, who seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy. Perhaps this is to be expected of the generation of legislators that views the presidency through the lens of Vietnam and Watergate. But the founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress."

Though I spent most of my time outside, I did catch the second half of the Panthers-Bucs game. Thank God for Kasay. It's also very difficult for a defense to do its job when offensive turnovers and penalities puts the whole game on its shoulders. Still no need to panic, thought. Somehow I feel beeter about the Saints starting 3-0 than the Falcons.

The living room tube had cable, but I didn't take the time to keep up with the pennant races. I grew up looking at the standings in print, anyway. So when I got home, the first thing I did was bring in today's N&R and flip to the box scores. To my surprise, I saw where the Reds were only two-and-half behind the Cardinals. Suddenly hope shimmered in my sunburned head much like yesterday's late-afternoon light did over the ocean. But the Reds still linger below .500 and now have to worry about Houston, too.

I started a new book:

"'Long before it legally served me, the bar saved me,' asserts J.R. Moehringer, and his compelling memoir The Tender Bar is the story of how and why. A Pulitzer-Prize winning writer for the Los Angeles Times, Moehringer grew up fatherless in pub-heavy Manhasset, New York, in a ramshackle house crammed with cousins and ruled by an eccentric, unkind grandfather. Desperate for a paternal figure, he turns first to his father, a DJ whom he can only access via the radio (Moehringer calls him The Voice and pictures him as 'talking smoke'). Tenderbar_pb When The Voice suddenly disappears from the airwaves, Moehringer turns to his hairless Uncle Charlie, and subsequently, Uncle Charlie's place of employment--a bar called Dickens that soon takes center stage. While Moehringer may occasionally resort to an overwrought metaphor (the footsteps of his family sound like 'storm troopers on stilts'), his writing moves at a quick clip and his tale of a dysfunctional but tightly knit community is warmly told."


Fall break

I'm still busy wrapping up various projects before I take a short vacation starting tomorrow. Regular posts will resume.

Missing the logic

Sowell says exactly what I've been thinking the past week:

"Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?"

Overwhelmed

The start of a new new project, compounded by computer problems, have kept me hopping lately. But I'm paying for this blog, so it will not go away.

Navel gazing

So I rented Friends with Money over the weekend. The movie was of interest to me because I have some friends out there making real money while my poor ass sits here and puts pithy spins on the world for nothing.

But the movie was less a pseudo-class-warfare story than more baby boomer navel-gazing.Th12 As miserable as Jennifer Aniston is scrubbing other people's toilets, her wealthy friends aren't happy with their lives, either. While this is certainly true among many real-life people, it isn't with my friends; they're making plenty of money and are pretty damn happy. Maybe someday they'll finally rub off on me.

But the movie made me wonder how many aging baby boomer movies Hollywood has left. This has been going on for a good 25 years now,04m_1ever since The Big Chill hit the big screen. Frances McDormand's character, a clothing designer who's so miserable she can't even bring herself to wash her hair, mentions she's 43 years old, a year older than I am. So we're the tail end of the boomer generation, just now figuring out we're getting old and (slightly) freaking out about it.

So we're it. It makes you wonder, though how Generations X and Y with deal with lost their youth onscreen. Offscreen, they'll probably deal with it not so much with inner reflection as laser surgery.


Straight up

I watched with interest President Bush's press conference.

Interesting exchange:

QUESTION: "You're working with Congress, sort of, after the fact, after you established these programs on your own authority. And federal courts have ruled in both cases you overstepped your authority.
Is your willingness to work with Congress now an acknowledgement that that is a fact?"

BUSH: "First of all, I strongly believe that the district court ruling on the terrorist surveillance program was flawed. And there's a court process to determine whether or not my believe is true. That's why it's on appeal.We're working with Congress to add certainly to the program.In terms of the Hamdan decision, I obviously believed that I could move forward military commissions. Other presidents had. The Supreme Court didn't agree."

Sure, Bush acted first and asked later. Now the other two branches of government are responding. That's the way government works, right? It seems to me like it's working pretty well.

I thought he made the situation quite clear. Congress must "act promptly and wisely" and pass anti-terrorism legislation or our country will face an even greater terrorist threat. It didn't appear to me that Bush was using the challenge as a scare tactic; he was just telling it the way it is.

Bush also asked that Congress pass legislation before the recess. But in addition to driving home the urgency of the situation, which is real, he's is also exercising some election strategy. Sure, he wants to get the legislation passed while he still has a majority in Congress. But how many Democrats running for re-election want to tell their constituents they either voted against anti-terrorism legislation or let it die?

I also think Bush is taking a considerable political risk by pushing for the legislation so close to the election, even though the president himself is not running for re-election. No matter how this legislation turns out, he's still giving voters a clear choice of which course they want our country to follow. That's pretty straight up. And with that in mind, more than a few of them will think twice.

Easily amused

OK, I took Limbaugh with a grain of salt the other day.

But Rush had me laughing all day after hearing his impersonation of John Kerry giving Swift Boaters fair warning:

"I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other."

Yes, I'm easily amused.

National scolds

Will on liberals' obsession with Wal-Mart:

"Liberals think their campaign against Wal-Mart is a way of introducing the subject of class into America's political argument, and they are more correct than they understand. Their campaign is liberalism as condescension. It is a philosophic repugnance toward markets because consumer sovereignty results in the masses making messes. Liberals, aghast, see the choices Americans make with their dollars and their ballots, and announce -- yes, announce -- that Americans are sorely in need of more supervision by ... liberals......

"When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas, liberals do not rush to read a book titled 'What's the Matter With Liberals' Nominees?' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is titled 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' Notice a pattern here?"