Formosa

Judging by your video and other posts, Taiwan must be some sort of paradise except, of course, for the ChiCom neighbors pointing ICBMs at it.

Ron Pearlman's

possible roles imo (in order)

1) Voice of Smaug
2) Voice of the Lord of the Eagles
3) The Warg rider general (character added by Jackson and del Torro to "enhance" the Battle of the Five Armies)
4) Goblin King (Bolg?)
5) One of the trolls that gets turned to stone (the only one that isn't CG)



He's too ugly to be King of Mirkwood and too cocky to be Bard. Beorn's a good guess, but I'm thinking they will go with someone fatter and harrier for that roll.

Also, according to IMDB, Gil-Galad was in the Fellowship. They don't have a picture of who played him, but if this is true, I'm even more disappointed that I didn't get to see him raging in all his Elf lord glory. And what's Jackson gonna do in the Hobbit when he has to portray the Elves as the selfish, greedy jerks they are?

Damn you Blizzard

Really? Right when I'm planning on going back to school? Starcraft 2 and now Diablo 3?

Seriously. I hate you Blizzard.

Re: Who will Ron Perlman play in the Hobbit?

If he isn't Beorn, he'll be Bard the Hunter. FACT.

Side note: Here is a list upcoming Ron Perlman projects. Needless to say, I'm most excited about The Mutant Chronicles and the Lovecraft.

Who will Ron Perlman play in the Hobbit?

According to this chat with Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro, they have "plans" for Ron Perlman in the Hobbit movie(s).

So speculate away! He'd make a decent King of Mirkwood, but only if David Bowie is unavailable. Or better yet, Beorn, if Beorn doesn't get cut out of the script (with two movies and del Toro's penchant for crazy-odd shit, I can't see them cutting a shapeshifter out).

WuBai (His name means 500. Really.)

This man is the biggest goddamn star here in Taiwan; watch the video to see why. And this isn't even one of his rocking songs (he really does kind of rock).



Sidenote: I've been here for less than one week and can sing the chorus for this song already.

Just to lighten the mood...

My roomate here at oreientation in Taiwan and I watch a mail-order bride infomercial for about an hour last night. Hilarious.

Also, I ate a sausage that used another sausage instead of a bun last night. With beer. Truly, Taipei is a city of kings.

Maybe some pictures this weekend, after I get settled into lab.

Not to change the subject...

Slate has a somewhat adulatory article on Che Guevara. Instead of "He was wrong; but he was great" the subhead should be "He was wrong; and he was a butcher, morons!"

I've just come off reading "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" which was recommended by the new teaching program, and uninhibitedly Marxist view of teaching and its revolutionary goals. Paolo Friere, the author, even writing in the 70's, engages in a mythicizing hero-worship of Guevara and Fidel Castro. The book's central pedagogical idea--that teachers should avoid treating students like empty banks into which they deposit information--is a worthwhile idea. But the rest of it is interested in the same kind of doe-eyed Marxist class-obliteration that seems to only remain within academia, as it quickly withers anywhere else. If any student of mine claims they are a member of the "oppressed", they'll soon be wishing for a bite from the sword of justice.

Proportional = exactly equal?

Help me understand. We can only execute those who kill people (i.e. proportional justice). So if someone steals my TV, the state should take his TV, or fine him the value of the stolen object? Likewise child rapists should themselves be raped in punishment?

Kennedy's understanding of "proportional" seems absolutely ridiculous. Even so, shouldn't the states be deciding this?

(And, according to Kennedy, the proportional punishment for possession of drugs should be what, exactly? since the court is now in the business of making criminal punishment law, etc....)

The Court

The evolving standards of decency "test" applies only to the eighth amendment, but you're not incorrect to relate other cases such as the issue of gay marriage. Although the evolving standards test is not used in other cases, the same mindset is at work. It basically boils down to we like it (or we don't like the thought of outlawing it) so the constitution must protect it. It's the notion that the constitution protects everything we (5 judges) think is good. Tomorrow it means something different than it did yesterday until our constitution doesn't constitute anything.

Kennedy v. Louisiana continued

This case is rich in entertainment. My heading on the last post seems like something from the Onion, but it's real! The petitioner (rapist) is actually Patrick Kennedy, but the opinion is also Kennedy (justice Anthony Kennedy) v. Louisiana.

Silliness aside, Justice Alito does a good job of rebutting the marjority's nonsense. So if you can't slog through Kennedy's opinion, don't quit. Read Alito's.

Thanks Bert

The quote at the end makes me totally want to read fantasy-law stories:

"Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today."

Seriously, though, I fail to see why the death of a victim is a prerequisite for the death penalty. I would think causing a lifetime of psychological damage would warrant such a thing. Moreover, I fail to see how the general trend of most states constitutes justification for a Supreme Court decision affecting one state (unless there's significantly more to it, that seemed to be the basis for Kennedy's decision?). Are they going to demand that all states allow gay marriage if a few more follow suit to California (it's fine with me, but that's a stupid reason to allow it)?
I suppose voting for a president based on his view of the Court is as good a way to decide as any. Not that I was going to vote for Obama anyway, but all I can find about McCain's view of the Constitution is that he likes guns. Has he expanded on that?

Supreme Court finds that Louisiana's standards of decency are insufficiently evovled

The Supreme Court extended erroneous precedent today. Here's the opinion. I'm not suggesting that a man who rapes his 8-year-old stepdaughter should die for it, but Louisiana had determined that that was the proper penalty for such a crime. 5 Supreme Court justices disagreed with this policy preference. Thus, the eighth amendment continues to mean whatever 5 justices want it to (meaning 5 justices notions of society's evolving standards of decency). Presumably our founding fathers were much less decent than are our enlightened, wholesome, 21st century selves. Why the opinion of 5 judges better reflects society's standards than a whole state's (actually 6 states') legislators is left unexplained.

According to Justice Kennedy the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime of rape. Presumably sentencing rapists to be raped (admittedly cruel and unusual in my opinion) is disproportionate as well although I cannot see the logic in it. It seems like 1:1 to me. How's that for a mathematical proof that the majority's reasoning has nothing to do with the eighth amendment. Really, it comes down to one justice's opinion these days. The eighth amendment allows only whatever Justice Kennedy can stomach.

Of the few reasons to be happy with President Bush are his appointments to the Court. While they have not been around long, so far they have remained relatively modest. The make-up of the Court remains one of the largest issues in the upcoming presidential election. Will we vote for the guy who thinks it is all well and good for judges to look to subjective judicially invented tests and their own policy preferences in deciding cases or the guy (one hopes) who will appoint judges who understand that they too are constrained by the law.

Regardless of what you think of the death penalty, sodomy, abortion or any other social issue the Court seems to think it must take sides on, the Court's jurisprudence over the last 70 years has struck a great blow to constitutional government, and in the process aggrandized the power of the Court and the federal government at the expense of the people, the states, and therefore, self government.

Donaghy

18 U.S.C.A. § 1084 makes it illegal to transmit wagering information by interstate means. It is basically Congress's way of making gambling illegal. You can receive up to two years in prison for this.

Ohio outlaws much gambling and has a gambling crime called cheating which includes "Engag[ing] in conduct designed to corrupt the outcome of an athletic or sporting event." If the cheating is for more than five hundred dollars it is a fifth degree felony and a higher degree of felony for subsequent offenses.

Further, Dongahy may be in trouble for racketeering (I haven't been following the story, so I don't know what the charges are). Finally, I think it is perfectly sensible for him to be jailed. He is basically fraudulently acquiring money for himself or others because of his ability to influence the outcomes of games. This is theft and fraud which are illegal in every state I hope.

Anyway, that's all the research I'm doing on the NBA. I think it the worst of the professional sports organizations at the moment which is why I'm becoming more of a hockey fan every year. Boo! NBA.

Bert

As resident lawyer, is there precedent for an NBA official being given jail time for "rigging" games? Especially since this is an action the NBA seems to encourage? Is it because Donaghy bet on games? That doesn't seem to warrant jail time either in my opinion. Fines I can see, but jail time for fixing an NBA game? That's preposterous.

FUTURE MAN

Here, Nick. We don't need a future man from Taiwan to tell us how movies fared. On that note, Slaps, you better come back as some sort of amalgamated robotic version of your Christmas-past self from the future. That, or enslave the elvish, Taiwanese people. Otherwise, I will be very, very disappointed in Asia. And also you. Mostly you.

Best Headline so far today

Dwarf Accused Of Pimping Runaway Teenager In NYC...

George Carlin Died

Shit. The title turned out to be the subject of the post. Piss.

Hey Future Guy

... can you tell me from late Sunday if "The Love Guru"s weekend take was as dismal as expected? Say goodbye to Mike Myers' career, such as it was...

Greetings....FROM THE FUTURE!

Just thought I'd let you guys know that I am sending this message on Sunday, June 23! And for you it's only Saturday! Anyway, I am sitting here in Taipei's Taoyuan Airport mooching off their free wireless waiting for my driver to come pick me up to take me to the hotel. That's about it for now. I'll let you know if I drink any fresh snake blood or something cool like that.

Don't know how to categorize this for you

Here's a good article by one of my favorite writers (although I haven't gotten around to any of his books yet, I enjoy his commentary). He writes about medicine, politics, the lower class, and much in between, usually illuminating his unsentimental view of human nature (a view I share needless to say).

Re: Boumediene

I take Will's overarching point about using the case as campaign posturing. Will has been remarkably consistent in his worries over executive tyranny. To your second point, Bert: yes, in theory the president is restrained by diplomatic pressures when dealing with other countries' citizens. In practice, however, this president has not been, and I think that may be the source of Will's alarm.

Boumediene

George Will weighs in on the Guantanamo detainee case. I must say I disagree. Ed Whelan rebuts Will here.

Will has been on the attack recently concerning the expansion of executive power, and perhaps rightly so. But I think his concern is misplaced here. He seems to be okay with further empowering federal courts against the precedent in this instance and against common sense. I don't think there is a real threat of executive tyranny here. Will fails to make the distinction that these are not citizens or even residents of the U.S. Further, the president is restrained by diplomatic pressures when the concerns of other countries' citizens are involved.

Free Trade

Obviously, John, among the many evils of free trade is the poisoning of children.

The old reliable of Democrat tactics: we must protect the children!

Damn it Jeff!

I just stumbled across this fun little nugget about Sherrod Brown:

Fair trade - Working with Ashland University Professor Dr. Jeff Weidenhamer, we are educating Americans on the threat of Halloween items painted with lead based paint. I have worked with other Senators to enforce those trade laws that protect America's middle class and have fought against other job killing trade pacts.

Can someone explain what lead paint has to do with fair trade? And what the hell happened to grass-killing winter salts, Weidenhamer?

Supreme Nonsense

You've probably heard about this by now, but the Supreme Court has given Guantanamo detainees access to federal court.

Airbourne rocks!!!

Here is the best new band you'll hear all year; Gentlemen, I give you AIRBOURNE!!!



Reasons they are awesome:
1. They rock. Hard.
2. The sound like AC/DC reborn, with none of the wussy songs (Jet, I'm looking in your direction)
3. Lemmy. 'Nuff said.
4. Seriously, did you read #3? Lemmy, dude. Come on.
5. To clarify, Lemmy driving a semi. While chased by the police. With Airbourne playing in the trailer.
6. Look I've listened to both albums in full. And they are rocktastic. Highly recommended.

The NBA comes out of this sounding pretty dirty...

From the article:

Without identifying anyone or naming teams, Donaghy also claimed the NBA routinely encouraged refs to ring up bogus fouls to manipulate results but discouraged them from calling technical fouls on star players to keep them in games and protect ticket sales and television ratings.

"If the NBA wanted a team to succeed, league officials would inform referees that opposing players were getting away with violations," the letter said. "Referees then would call fouls on certain players, frequently resulting in victory for the opposing team."

Update: Here's an article with more details (and more speculation). Where's my hockey scandal? Or the PGA? I mean Christ, they're letting a cyborg run in the Olympics. Make up your damn minds.

Revolution! II

A different (better) take on the Columbia/FARC story.

Those damn cruel market forces

Senate Democrats, with wailing and gnashing of teeth, have to privatize (the horror) the Senate restaurants. This is a rather humorous story.

Revolution!

Ah, the romance of left-wing terrorism. The Washington Post has a puff piece about FARC's new leader.

The Audacity of Hype...

...is how the Wall Street Journal Online puts it. A sample of Obama infatuation from best of the web today:

George Lucas has created legendary film heroes like Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones, but the US director says that in real life, his hero is Barack Obama.

Lucas was in Japan on Wednesday to promote his latest film, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," as Obama clinched the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

"We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama," Lucas said when asked who his childhood heroes were.

Obama, "for all of us that have dreams and hope, is a hero," Lucas said.

The headline--we're not making this up--reads, "The Force Is With Obama, 'Star Wars' Creator Says." We liked Lucas better when he was working on missile defense.

And Politico quotes Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat:

"I cried all night. I'm going to be crying for the next four years," he said. "What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation's political history. . . . The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."

Memo to Spike Lee:

Don't mess with Dirty Harry/The man with no name. Clint Eastwood tells Spike Lee to "shut his face."

I hate everyone too

Matt Welch, the newish editor of Reason, has a pretty fantastic rant about the 2008 election. Basically, he hates everyone, a feeling to which I am sympathetic.

Mullet > Steroids, Sex with Minors

"LHP Randy Johnson will break a tie with Roger Clemens for second place in career strikeouts against Milwaukee on Tuesday night. Each has 4,672 strikeouts, though Johnson reached that figure in 1,012 2/3 fewer innings." Significant difference, if correct. According to yahoo sports (not sure how good they are at math).