Thursday, November 30, 2006

Stuff That Stocking!

Or, if you're an adherent of my religion, wrap it up and open it after lighting the menorah (and don't you dare buy it retail!).

I am of course referring to my friend's game available here, which OgreCave.com has named as one of the twelve stocking stuffer games of the season.

Another Reason Why I Don’t Trust MSM Reporters

Putting political bias aside (because I think that most people look at political news with a jaundiced eye by now in any event), many reporters are ignorant people who simply quote 'experts' without knowing whether what the 'expert' is trustworthy. I refer you to the following article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's business pages, with a byline by a Wall Street Journal reporter (who should know better!).

Take a look at the article and note the 'big company vs. small company' theme, which is a tip-off, but then scroll down to this paragraph: "The court's decision to side with Haute Diggity Dog is surprising, as big companies typically win in these kinds of disputes, says Leo Stoller, a Chicago trademark expert who has long testified as a witness in cases." (emphasis mine)

Do you know who Leo Stoller is? Why should you if you don't study, practice, or report on Intellectual Property law. Leo Stoller is a guy who files for a trademark, barely uses it, and then harasses companies he says are using his mark unlawfully, and always settles for far less than the litigation would cost.

"Why that's outrageous!" you might be saying. (And if you're not, go ahead and say it.) "How could any attorney get away with that, given the sanctions in Federal courts under Rule 11(c) for harassing lawsuits that are not based in good faith?" (Say that as well, you'll feel educated. Rule 11(c) has stopped more frivilous lawsuits that an entire battleship full of attorneys on LSD could dream up. And forgive me for making you think of a battleship full of attorneys.) Well, the problem is that Leo Stoller is NOT an attorney, he's a private citizen who always represents himself pro se, and thus he avoids having his license taken away because he doesn't have one, so the big sanction is out, and if his case gets thrown out he doesn't care, so the second sanction is out, and he will drop the case if it gets litigated, but he knows how much it will cost for them to go and fiel the response and do the search, so he knows what to ask for.

Don't take my word for this, here come the links, links that I may add are from the first few hits on Google. First there's wiki, which catalogs a lot of his idiocy. While wiki is not always reliable, some of the links on that page are to pdf files from Federal courthouses. Then there's this brilliant article written by a guy in DePaul that I worked with. Spyware warrior mentions him here, and the TTAB Blog (a blog that follows disputes adjudicated by the Trademark trial and Appeal board) has posts here and here.

I happen to know about Stoller because I helped do opposition research on him for the Chilling Effects website regarding his lawsuit over the word stealth when I was in DePaul's IP Clinic. Every frickin law school IP Clinic in the country was getting ready to write amici briefs against Stoller's activities, but the judge in his initial ruling smacked Stoller down and actually took his trademark away (that's pretty rare), making our plans of filing the amici briefs moot. But the reporter simply needed to look at the first few hits in Google to know it as well.

What's my point? The media often write things that the most casual research can prove to be off-base. No one who knows anything about trademarks should be quoting Leo Stoller as an expert. Don't trust what you read.

Will to Webb:  Grow up!

Most of us who paid attention to the election know about Senator-elect James Webb's bizarre behavior. He was dismissed as Secretary of the Navy after only 10 months in the Reagan administration. It is rumored that Webb and some ROTC buddies at USC drove through Watts with uloaded rifles and would point them at "niggers" to scare them (until these racists were caught and given a beat down). We also know that Webb has a "prolific" imagination illustrated in the numerous child-adult sex scenes in his novels. He's also been vocally opposed to women in uniform, inferring they were sluts looking for a good lay (with him, no doubt). Lastly, he was soundly beaten in a boxing match at USNA by Colonel Oliver North.

Yesterday, it was reported that he tried to snub the president and then continued to insult the president after Bush asked about his son. George Will totally destroys Webb in his column in WaPo this morning:

That was certainly swift. Washington has a way of quickly acculturating people, especially those who are most susceptible to derangement by the derivative dignity of office. But Jim Webb, Democratic senator-elect from Virginia, has become a pompous poseur and an abuser of the English language before actually becoming a senator.

Wednesday's Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb "tried to avoid President Bush," refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "I'd like to get them [sic] out of Iraq." When the president again asked "How's your boy?" Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy." Webb told The Post:

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall. No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor. Never mind the patent disrespect for the presidency. Webb's more gross offense was calculated rudeness toward another human being -- one who, disregarding many hard things Webb had said about him during the campaign, asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another. When -- if ever -- Webb grows weary of admiring his new grandeur as a "leader" who carefully calibrates the "symbolic things" he does to convey messages, he might consider this: In a republic, people decline to be led by leaders who are insufferably full of themselves.

Look, Jim Webb's ego was shovel-fed daily by Kos Kids in Northern Virginia. They found someone as nutty as they are with a lust for the spotlight. Many radio talk show hosts (and numerous bloggers) have stated repeatedly since the election that this guy is going to be trouble for the Dems. I am glad that the Dems are stuck with him.

Another point I'd like to make is that this schtick from the Dems about how politicians and presidents own children should be shipped off to war so they know what is at stake is totally false. If anything, having a child in harms way would only cloud the decision a person must make. I do not want a president to pull troops out of a danger zone after, say, his son is killed in war. That is too emotional and we need clear-headed people making decisions.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Nancy “Gerald Ford” Pelosi

Gerald Ford one said that there was no Soviet/Communist threat in Eastern Europe.

Today, Nancy Pelosi said that there was no al Qaeda threat in Iraq.

What makes me more upset is that SHE KNOWS she is lying and she is doing this solely for politics.

She cites as her "proof" the 9/11 commission report. What the hell was that commission doing looking into Iraq if it was just SO blatantly obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with terrorists? If it was so obvious, like the Dems claim, then the 9/11 Commission would not have had to look into it.

You know those losers that get paid to play video games?

Well, one of those losers is one of our local moonbats, TJ Duez.

I am just joshing. He's not a loser. Anyway, he's got a cameo on an upcoming game, Alan Wake. The game actually looks great; I might have to finally get an Xbox (or pump up my ram to some absurd 4 GB PC2-8000 configuration).

Well, here's a snapshot of our local hero of that gaming world (he's the one on the left).



Eh, he's hot and all, but is he smart? Considering he alternates from left-wing to full-on moonbat, I guess that's still up in the air.

But in his defense, he reads this site almost daily. So there's hope.

A Tale of Two Shootings

This from the AP:

Police committed a crime when they killed an unarmed [black -- ed.] bridegroom as the man left his bachelor party, civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Wednesday, noting that one officer reloaded during the 50-shot barrage.

"We believe a crime was committed against Sean. We believe a crime was committed against the other two," Sharpton said, referring to 23-year- old groom Sean Bell and two men who had been partying with him at a strip club.

The three were shot early Saturday as they sat inside a car.

Jesse Jackson is also involved in the outrage regarding this incident. By the way, here's a paragraph you might be interested in (it's from a Sunday WaPo article (h/t The Right Place):

The spray of bullets hit the car 21 times, after the vehicle rammed into an undercover officer and then twice into an unmarked New York Police Department minivan, police said. Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly would not say if the collisions were what prompted police to open fire. It was too early to say whether the shooting was justified, Kelly said.

Mitigating circumstances? Perhaps. We'll have to wait for the results of the investigation. But the whole story is essential, and most of us are not getting it.

Also from the AP:

A former fugitive whose dramatic capture at the edge of a Pennsylvania field ended the largest manhunt in New York state history pleaded guilty Wednesday to shooting three state troopers, one of whom died.
Ralph "Bucky" Phillips pleaded guilty to aggravated murder in the killing of Joseph Longobardo and the attempted aggravated murder of Donald Baker Jr. as the troopers staked out a home while searching for him Aug. 31.

[...]

The pleas in Chautauqua County came hours after the 44-year-old career criminal pleaded guilty in Chemung County to the attempted murder of Sean Brown, who was shot during a traffic stop near Elmira on June 10.

So far, there's no word on any protests or vigils by community "leaders" over these shootings. After all, they're just cops, right?

Hey Ya! (cover)

(nod to Chairman Ann)

compare and contrast with the GREAT original:

Frist Will not Run

He's really saving himself from embarrassment.

Republican U.S. Senate Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said on Wednesday he would not run for the White House in 2008 and will return to his medical practice after he leaves the U.S. Congress in January.

Frist, a surgeon who served two terms, had been preparing for a possible presidential run for more than a year but said he decided this was not the time.

"In the Bible, God tells us for everything there is a season, and for me, for now, this season of being an elected official has come to a close. I do not intend to run for president in 2008," Frist said in a statement.

He would make a good policy advocate for modernizing the health care industry; perhaps he should contact Newt to work on his initiative.

Partisan Agressiveness Vs. Real Ideas (Alternative Title: Why Obama Is Likely To Become President)

I made it clear that I was voting Republican a few weeks back because I didn't want the Democrats to betray our military again. I held out some hope that even if the Dems did win, the fact that they were doing so by running in swing districts as conservatives might mitigate the crazy, fruitcake, McGovern wing of the party. When I saw that the Dems could not actually take the Senate without the vote of one Joe Lieberman, a man who put his country ahead of his own political future - and ended up back in office anyway, I felt even better about it. Joe doesn't owe the whackos in his party anything after they shoved him out in the primary, and he knows the truth - that we can succeed in Iraq, and that we will. (The fact that the impeached, bribe-taking Rep. Hastings will not be placed in a position to oversee some of our most sensitive aspects of national security doesn't mean that the other Dems are following Joe Lieberman's example. Hastings should never have even been considered for that spot.)

So, a bit assuaged that our military seemed safe for the moment from a political betrayal by Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their fellow travelers, I wondered how far left the Dems would go. I thought they'd be safer on some things, like the minimum wage, and avoid a more openly leftist agenda (although some of them actually think they've persuaded the American people to reject conservative economic philosophy). Indeed there has been some media noise in that direction. On the other hand, the Democratic party has historically scored very big political points by constantly investigating everything Republicans do, whether there's any evidence of wrongdoing or not, and they're not dropping that tactic anytime soon. (Remember when Tom Foley led an investigation into accusations that the Reagan election committee in 1980 had arranged for an October Surprise with the Iranians? He said there was no evidence but they had to investigate due to the seriousness of the charge.)

The difference now is that the old media has lost its power to pump up these investigations, and report on them in a way that carefully leaves out facts damaging to the Demcorats' case. The media will try it anyway, of course, but the blogs will be watching them and talk radio will trumpet the bias in the presentation and it won't have the same effect. (Take a moment here to give Don Imus a hearty cheer, by the way.)

Nom the biggest threat to the Republicans (aside from their own blundering idiocy) is my junior senator, Barack Obama. There's been lots of media hype surrounding him ever since he stepped into politics at the national level (see here and here for some recent examples), and it's well-deserved.

Bad Language

I've griped before about how politicians use subjective words when they write legislation so that they can later claim "That's not what I meant" if the policy does not work out. A good example is the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the ideal of the ADA is a great one, especially the concept of ordering businesses to make themselves accessible to the wheelchair-bound. Normally I think the free market does a far better job of providing services and goods to the public than the government, but wihtout a market incentive (i.e. the threat of litigation), competitive businesses working on a thin profit margin (especially in the hospitality industry) have no economic incentive to make themselves accessible to the handicapped. (Disclaimer of personal interest: I spent a summer working for a Disability Law Clinic, and I wrote the draft of a lawsuit forcing someone to put in a ramp at his restaurant.)

My problem with the ADA is how loosely a disability is defined, and how badly access is defined. The ADA works great with a classic access problem, but due to broad language it has led to things like handicapped accessible shower stalls on stage in strip clubs.

The latest bit of "slap your forehead" is a ruling from a ruling handed down yesterday from a District Court in D.C. The American Council for the Blind sued the U.S. Treasury (which is why the suit was brought in D.C.) because the U.S. Treasury Dept. has failed to "design, produce and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people." The judge ruled for the plaintiffs, ruling that our money violates federal law, since paper money effectively precludes the blind from "meaningful access to U.S. currency."

I think that there is a far cry from making sure that paraplegics can get into buildings and up on curbs, making sure that braille is put on eleveator buttons, and other common sense issues are implemented, and on the other hand making paper currency (so made so you can fold and carry it) into something with ridges.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

7,000 Terrorists Killed or Captured in Iraq in Two Years

But the Democrats and the media assured us that there are no terrorists in Iraq - that it is a simple insurgency with some folks fighting out tribal differences of no consequence to the United States.

US and Iraqi forces have killed or captured at least 7,000 Al-Qaeda fighters in the past two years, with 30 "senior leaders' taken out of action since July.

The news comes hard on the heels of a leaked US Marine report that states US forces cannot defeat the Al-Qaeda-led insurgency in the vast western desert province of Al-Anbar.

"Since October 2004, we have now killed or captured over 7,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists," coalition spokesman Major General William Caldwell told journalists on Tuesday.

Where would these al-Qaeda terrorists be if not fighting our soldiers in Iraq? Living peacefully selling their wares at the local bizarre? Hardly. They'd be killing our soldiers in Afghanistan or, worse, they'd be here.

Meanwhile, the UN EXTENDS the troop mandate in Iraq.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the 160,000-member multinational force in Iraq.

The council acted quickly in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who said a top government priority is to assume full responsibility for security and stability in the country but it needs more time.

The resolution, drafted by the United States, extends the mandate of the multinational force for one year starting on Dec. 31 and authorizes a review at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15.

I forgot we even had this! Honestly, I couldn't care less, but UN approval is the magical "global test" necessary to use our military to the Democrats. And what's all this "multi-national" business; Democrats told us there was no real coalition.

Global Warming Strikes Canada

Was Al Gore scheduled to give a speech? He always seems to bring snow with him:

The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a 110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected to ease in the coming days.

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C record set on this day in 1896.

But factoring in the wind chill, it will feel even colder to people who have to brave the elements, said Environment Canada meteorologist Ross Macdonald.

"I wouldn't break out the shorts and go sunbathing right now," he joked.

"Bundle up."

The recent frigid weather is a far cry from the city's average late-November temperatures.

Dennis Prager Jumps the Shark, Too!

Do any of you have an issue with Keith Ellison being sworn in using the Koran? I don't.

Dennis Prager thinks a person should swear on the Bible or not go into public service:

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

This is a bit extreme for me. And you DON'T have to swear on the Bible. The Constitution specifically states that there will be NO RELIGIOUS TEST for office. Making a person swear on the Bible is a religious test.

Plus, don't some Muslims believe it is okay to break a vow, so long as it was not a vow on the Koran? I think I remember reading that somewhere. So if you force him to swear in on the Bible, then he has no obligation to keep his oath.

Tandcredo Jumped the Shark

There was a little argument on the Corner last week over Representative Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) comments on how President Bush is an "internationalist" that doesn't really believe in "borders." They discussed whether he is becoming a little too nut-casey. Well, it's official - after reading this I think he is a nut:

Rep. Tom Tancredo, the leader of the anti-illegal immigration faction in the U.S. House, spent a recent weekend at The Breakers in Palm Beach.

Ninety miles to the south, he found a symbol to bolster his belief that unfettered immigration is endangering the United States: Miami, he told a conservative online news site, ``has become a Third World country.''

In South Florida to attend Restoration Weekend, a gathering of conservative activists, the Colorado Republican, whose district includes suburbs of Denver, pointed to Miami as an example of how ''the nature of America can be changed by uncontrolled immigration,'' the story says.

''Look at what has happened to Miami,'' the WorldNetDaily quotes Tancredo as saying in an interview. ``It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a Third World country.''

This is just insane...and has nothing to do with my fondness of Cuban men. This just shows that he really is out of touch to believe that Miami, with its latin/art-deco flair, is like a third world country. I guess he missed the airport and freeways and sports stadiums.

What's also clear is that he's never been to Detroit.

He needs to visit Afghanistan or Somalia (or Detroit), then go to Miami and report back.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Rangel:  Kerry Was Right; Military Full of Schmuks

We tried to tell you before the election that the left hates our men and women in uniform and that Kerry's statement was no "botched joke."



(nod to CQ)