The pet experience . . .

The PooTrap®. Do you think it will fly in Canada? I don't think my ol' Bull Terrier would have been happy.

This isn't her. Great beak.

If the Washington Post ever wanted to be known as a great newspaper...

It should have permanently silenced its presses after Nixon resigned.

No. I'm not joking.

Nova Scotia Jurisprudence

ACCORDING TO THR, Esq., which proclaims itself to be a blog which focuses on how the entertainment and media industries are impacted and influenced by the law, in Nova Scotia, you can't play like Adam Sandler. 

Apparently, the Honourable Justice Arthur J. LeBlanc of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, ruled that the "Happy Gilmore shot" breaches a duty of care on the golf course. In case you missed it a HGS comes from the 1996 film "Happy Gilmore", where Adam Sandler showcases an unorthodox golf swing to win the Tour Championship and save his grandmother's home from IRS debt. 

In the case, the plaintiff sued after the defendant tried to impress his golfing buddies during a bachelor party outing that included beer, tequila, and marijuana. On the 16th hole, under the influence, Travis Hayter whipped out his "Happy Gilmore shot," which the court defined in 2008 as "running from five to ten feet behind the ball and hitting it on the run."

The ball leapt up and struck the plaintiff in the wrist, then in the chest, causing permanent damage to the radial nerve. The plaintiff no longer was able to return to his former work as a woodsman on account of the incident.

THR, Esq. has a veritable cornucopia of titillation for the curious:

• Chris Brown's former agents sue for $475K
• Judge: Dixie Chick didn't defame man by suggesting role in murders
• Hollywood Docket: Meet the Comcast/NBCU lawyers; AT&T backs off Verizon suit; Redbox adds claim
• $110 million lawsuit says 'Bruno' and Letterman defamed Palestinian leader
• Can a science-fiction movie infringe a tech patent?
• Veoh seeks $3 mil in attorneys fees from Universal Music
• Hollywood Docket: Sumner wins; Smashing Pumpkins settle; MMA promoter fights DMX
• Has Bravo already agreed to put White House crashers on 'Real Housewives'?
• Business manager vs. lawyer in Black Eyed Peas spat
• Bob Yari faces contempt hearing, fines in secret battle with UTA
• Hollywood Docket: Warhol child porn?; Hasselbeck book infringement?; NY Post discrimination?
• Tyler Perry accused of stealing gospel song for 'Madea'
• Hollywood Docket: J-Lo sex tape as evidence?; Roger Avary rats himself out; video game disability
• Winona Ryder called to testify as expert in 'alienation'
• Who will be the first to sue 'The Biggest Loser'?
• 50 Cent settles beef with Taco Bell
• Hollywood Docket: Hulu clamps down; Wesley Snipes appeals sentence; domain theft indictment
• 'Daily Show' comedy turns into Iran spy drama

Finally . . . .

(Updated below)

Finally, some good news out of Iraq, by way of McClatchy:

Iraqi who threw shoes at Bush released to hero's welcome
Hannah Allam | McClatchy Newspapers | September 15, 2009

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at then-President George W. Bush last year was freed from prison Tuesday, expressing no remorse for hurling what he called a "flower to the occupier."

Muntathar al Zaidi received a hero's welcome at the offices of his employer, al Baghdadiya television station, where his colleagues slaughtered sheep and danced in celebration of his release. Originally a three-year term for assaulting a head of state, Zaidi's sentence was reduced and he was released early because he had no criminal record.

Sporting a dark suit and a scarf printed with the Iraqi flag, a paler and thinner Zaidi told a news conference that Iraqi guards tortured him with whippings and electric shocks during his nine-month detention. He was missing at least one front tooth.

_______________


Zaidi said the years of witnessing war's brutalities as a journalist built up inside him and exploded last Dec. 14, when Bush gave a farewell news conference alongside Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Baghdad. Zaidi interrupted Bush's remarks by throwing his shoes at the president, shouting the words that earned him admiration and notoriety around the globe: "This is a farewell kiss, you dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

Bush ducked the flying shoes, and the episode quickly went viral via YouTube, spawning online shoe-throwing games, parodies, folk songs and poetry. A wealthy Saudi reportedly offered millions for the shoes, Arab women have written love letters to Zaidi and a statue of a giant shoe was erected in Saddam Hussein's hometown before the Iraqi government ordered it removed.

al Zaidi should be given the keys to the city and a statue erected in his honour . . . .

Update: Mutadhar al-Zaidi's statement after being released from prison is here.


(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Mitt Romney: dogs aren't the only thing he abuses

I wouldn't trust Mansoor Ijaz as far as I could throw him but this time he asked Republican US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney a question that got a bit of a mind-numbing answer. (Emphasis mine)

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats.

So... given the Mitt's analysis of things, if you were, oh... I don't know, let's say an ethnic Pashtun, born in northern Afghanistan, emigrated to the US as a high-school student, got a PhD from Chicago University, became an assistant professor of political science at Columbia University, worked with Zbigniew Brzezinsky, served in the Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush administrations and were well-connected to the RAND corporation that, because you were a Muslim, you could only serve at the lower levels of a Republican Romney administration.

The 26th United States ambassador to the United Nations, formerly US ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq will be happy to know that.

TBogg does it better.

BUFFs over the heartland - USAF takes their nukes out for a walk

As Jill says, Who needs terrorists... ?

The USAF was simply moving a few old Advanced Cruise Missiles of to the decommissioning facility at Barksdale Air Force Base. They just made one little mistake before departing Minot, North Dakota: they forgot to remove the W80-1 nuclear warheads.

A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with at least five nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.

The B-52 was loaded with Advanced Cruise Missiles, part of a Defense Department effort to decommission 400 of the ACMs. But the nuclear warheads should have been removed at Minot before being transported to Barksdale, the officers said. The missiles were mounted onto the pylons of the bomber's wings.

Advanced Cruise Missiles carry a W80-1 warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons and are specifically designed for delivery by B-52 strategic bombers.

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Ed Thomas said the transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times. However, the mistake was not discovered until the B-52 landed at Barskdale, which left the warheads unaccounted for during the approximately 3-1/2 hour flight between the two bases, the officers said.

Ahem! Yes! Well, not knowing where they are is kind of loose control.

The AP also reported that the bomber was carrying six nuclear warheads, not five as sources told the Military Times.

Officials at Minot immediately conducted an inventory of its nuclear weapons after the oversight was discovered, and Thomas said he could confirm that all remaining nuclear weapons at Minot are accounted for.

Really? Are you sure? Maybe you should count them again. So, aside from the things being loaded on a BUFF with the "tits" attached, an oversight of gargantuan proportions, the actual number was also in question. That makes two massive errors.

At no time was there a risk for a nuclear detonation, even if the B-52 crashed on its way to Barksdale, said Steve Fetter, a former Defense Department official who worked on nuclear weapons policy in 1993-94. A crash could ignite the high explosives associated with the warhead, and possibly cause a leak of the plutonium, but the warheads' elaborate safeguards would prevent a nuclear detonation from occurring, he said.

That, is a serious piece of downplay, and I mean "serious". Given that it seems nobody actually knew the nukes were attached to the missiles one has to ask how anybody would know whether the appropriate safeguards were actually operating. Nukes travel in an isolated exclusion zone filled with strong links and weak links intended to provide failsafe protection against outside stresses like fire, increased pressure and the like. Before a nuke is transported all of those are thoroughly checked. But if no one knew the nukes were even there, is there a chance the exclusion zone checklist was not completed?

The likelihood of an accidental detonation is nearly impossible. The Permissive Action Link, an electronic arming code requiring a two-operator insertion of two different codes within a specified time with an automatic lockout, would have prevented the warheads from ever being armed, but it isn't explosion or detonation that presents the problem.

"The main risk would have been the way the Air Force responded to any problems with the flight because they would have handled it much differently if they would have known nuclear warheads were onboard," he said.

Because in the event of a catastrophe a plutonium leak is going to do more than make the corn South Dakota grow bigger, especially if the B-52 had fallen out of the sky, for any reason, over a densely populated area.

Air Combat Command will have a command-wide mission stand down Sept. 14 to review their procedures in response to this oversight, he said.

Ah yes. Heads will undoubtedly roll and we will hear no more of this.

Rock would not be amused.