Lowering the Bar

Joe Francis Is Following Me [Updated]

2012-06-01T12:25:30-07:00

Normally that phrase is being uttered in a panicked whisper during a 911 call, or possibly as part of a desperate, high-pitched shriek, but luckily here it only refers to Twitter:

This is a little puzzling since Joe and I don't really run in the same circles, and although he has been mentioned here something like ten or eleven times, he has yet to be mentioned favorably. But I guess no publicity is bad publicity.

If you also want to follow Lowering the Bar on Twitter, which is one of the few things Joe does that you should also do, the handle is @loweringthebar, or if you want to totally go wild, lift your shirt up while clicking on the button below.

UPDATE: Joe Francis has stopped following me. Normally that phrase is being uttered with great relief, but I have mixed emotions about it. His follow count is down to 38 now, so I wasn't the only one to get purged, but maybe he or his publicist actually got around to reading my posts. Or, since I have (for now) approximately 14,800,000 fewer followers than Kim Kardashian, who he is still following, maybe that has something to do with it. Oh, well, it was sleazy while it lasted.

BREAKING: John Edwards Found Creepy Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

2012-05-31T14:20:42-07:00

By America, at least; the jury in the campaign-finance case has found Edwards not guilty on one count, and deadlocked on the other five. The judge has declared a mistrial on those counts.

The not-guilty verdict was on the count involving donations from "Bunny" Mellon, which is the one to which the "haircut letter" was potentially relevant. It didn't seem like a good sign for Edwards that the jurors wanted to see that letter last week, but it turns out this is the only count they could agree on.

There don't seem to be any facts yet about how and why the jury split on the others. Sometimes there never are, of course. But I'd guess that some of the jurors will talk in this case, partly because it's high-profile and partly because of the reports that one of the female jurors was actually flirting with Edwards during the trial:

Since the alternates were identified [], it has been impossible to ignore the dynamic between Edwards and one of the female alternates, an attractive young woman with jet-black hair, who seems to have been flirting with Edwards for days.

The juror clearly instigated the exchanges. She smiles at him. He smiles politely back at her. She giggles. He blushes.

We vomit.

None of the alternates deliberated, as it turns out, but they did go to lunch with the other jurors every afternoon. So maybe the flirter happened to say something like "hey, what's sexier than a guy who cheats on his sick wife while running for president and decides to do it with a loon who asks her 'spiritual advisor' for sandwich advice?" I at least would like to know.

Don't Forget to Sign Up for the "Do Not Kill" List

2012-05-31T12:01:06-07:00

A number of sources (including the Wall Street Journal) report that someone has used the White House's "We the People" website to start a petition asking it to create a "Do Not Kill" list similar to the "Do Not Call" list that has been reasonably successful against telemarketers. This follows the New York Times report that every week or so, a bunch of National Security People get together to flip through some PowerPoint slides and "recommend to the president who should be the next to die." The president, who you may recall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, then personally approves names on the "kill list" for execution targeted killing by drone.

As I have explained before, I get just as excited about a good airstrike as any American, and have no sympathy for actual al-Qaeda members, but am a little concerned about our government bombing U.S. citizens (or anybody, really) without actually having to prove they are al-Qaeda members. At least three citizens have been droned in this way so far. (This is not to say that bombing non-U.S.-citizens without a trial is a good thing, it's just less clearly illegal.) Hence the theoretical appeal of a "Do Not Kill" list.

There may be no need to worry, of course, if you think the government will never get it wrong and target somebody who's actually innocent. And probably that never happens. In fact, it really can't happen, because the administration has adopted a rule defining any "military-age male" it has blown up as a terrorist unless proven innocent:

[The rule] in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.

All perfectly legal under the Fifth Amendment, of course, which provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, unless he is probably up to no good." And under the strike-zone rule, you also don't have to worry about killing foreign civilians, because there aren't any, at least not near your bomb. "This counting method," the Times says with some understatement, "may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths." You think?

Probably the administration won't let you take your name off the list, and in fact I suppose signing the petition might very slightly increase the chances that your face will appear on a poorly designed PowerPoint slide. To me it's worth it to get a look at what sort of explanation the interns who run the site might come up with. Maybe they'll screw up and post the mysterious memo that supposedly explains the legal basis for "targeted killing" of citizens. That's probably the only way we'll ever get a look at it.

Another Incident of Taco-Related Violence

2012-05-29T14:30:01-07:00

Filled with danger

Hot on the heels of this weekend's news that somebody tried to run over another person for canceling a taco order comes this report that a 23-year-old man crashed his truck into a Taco Bell after it failed to fill his taco order. (Both the Taco Bell and the taco-canceler suffered superficial injuries but neither was seriously harmed.)

According to a police report posted by the Smoking Gun, a 23-year-old Ohio man allegedly rammed his vehicle into the entrance of the restaurant and then fled, making this the first hit-and-run involving a Taco Bell of which I have been made aware. Unfortunately for the perpetrator, his truck was leaking fluid and police were reportedly able to follow the trail to the man's home.

Police said the man admitted "intentionally striking the building after realizing he did not get one of the tacos he ordered," which suggests the threshold for Taco-Bell-related violence may actually have dropped slightly. Last year, it took an unexpected fifty-cent price hike on each of seven Beefy Crunch Burritos to cause a San Antonio man to open fire, leading to a three-hour standoff at the end of what the local newspaper termed a "burrito-triggered spree."

On the other hand, there was also the incident in which an alleged failure to provide hot sauce resulted in production of a 12-gauge shotgun, but no shots were actually fired there. So I guess the jury is still out on this one.

Good Reason to Kill #23: Canceled His Taco Order

2012-05-27T18:52:11-07:00

Police [in Corpus Christi] said a 17-year-old man canceled his taco order when he realized he was late for school. The 19-year-old man followed the teen and tried to run him over with his truck, police said.

He missed, but jumped out and punched the taco-canceler, who still managed to keep running. The 19-year-old then got back in the truck to continue the chase, but lost control and hit a building.

Neither was seriously injured. One was charged with aggravated assault.