Pic of the Day: 3/4

Click pic for photo.

Now take a look at Blair's rock-and-roll past. [WARNING: Humor alert.]

Pic of the Day: 3/3

Click pic for story.

Casey joins Chron anti-death penalty shriek

The Chronicle's Rick Casey, who has called for mandatory vasectomies of all 12-year-old boys, is applying his genius in criminal justice to the death penalty:

You'd think an anti-death penalty activist living in the Death Penalty Capital of the World (a.k.a. Harris County) would celebrate victories exuberantly and then fade back into the slough of despond.

Oh, come on. First of all, thousands of mass-executed Chinese would disagree with you, Rick. Secondly, it's "aka", not "a.k.a." Please refer to page 11 of your AP Stylebook. That would be the very dusty book that's probably propping open a door somewhere at 801 Texas Avenue.

Update: Gigantic lobster dies in Pittsburgh

I need five pounds of drawn butter, stat! This is a very big lobster:

He's Bubba, a 22-pound leviathan of a lobster pulled from the waters off Nantucket, Mass., and shipped to a Pittsburgh fish market. "It is overwhelming," owner Bob Wholey said. "If you see it, you will never forget it. Customers are just in awe."

No matter his age, Bubba dwarfs a typical 1 1/2-pound lobster. He's about three feet long and took up about half a 4-foot-by-4-foot tank at Wholey's Market. A lobster sharing his tank was about as big as one of Bubba's claws.

[Hat-tip: Clotille] UPDATE: It is with a heavy heart that I report Bubba's death. All those spindly legs have shuffled off this mortal coil:

A huge lobster that had become something of a celebrity died Wednesday afternoon at the Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium.

The ultimate destination was supposed to be Ripley's Aquarium in Myrtle Beach, S.C., but Bubba never made it out of Pittsburgh. Zoo officials said the lobster did not eat since leaving Wholey's. A necropsy will determine the cause of death.

See ya on the other side, Bubba.

Metro puts surplus gear on auction block

Now that our beloved transit authority is moving into a new building, Metro is auctioning off tons of surplus equipment:

Beginning March 22, surplus inventory and vehicles, including buses, support vehicles, computer equipment, office furnishings and other miscellaneous equipment, will be featured.

For now, let's not even worry about the wasteful-government implications of buying huge surpluses of equipment and then selling it at fire-sale prices. Let's think about buses for a moment. We all know Dan loves his Lincoln Navigator, and Edd prefers a good pre-owned Lexus, but wouldn't they be more comfortable in a huge, plushly appointed tour bus, built by the lowest bidder, picked up at auction and retrofitted to our exacting standards? Artist's rendition of a Metro transit bus, specially modified for conservative use. What do y'all think? Let me know your ideas for a KSEV, Lone Star Times, or C.L.O.U.T. vehicle. We just might have to rig a whole fleet. [Hat-tip: Anne Linehan]

Pic of the Day: 3/2

Click pic for story.

Hines distorts facts on Supreme Court ruling

Well, the Chronicle's Cragg Hines is wearing a smug little smirk on his enormous face today, as he ponders the expressions of dead judges:

Somewhere William J. Brennan is smiling. Not a face-splitting beam, you understand, because four members of his beloved Supreme Court still believe it's just fine to execute 16- and 17-year-olds.

Whoops! That sentence pegged my Lie-O-Meter. You see, no one is trying to execute 16- and 17-year-olds. This case centered around Christopher Simmons, who is 28 years old. Not 16 or 17. This is a monster who decided to rob a neighbor, beat her, tie her up with tape, and toss her over a bridge. She drowned. The scumbag's rationale? He could "get away with it" because he was a juvenile. Cragg aims to prove him right. But I digress. Back to Hines' screed:

As a leader of the American Psychiatric Association, one of several medical groups that favored banning juvenile executions, noted Tuesday, the decision acknowledges "that the brains of adolescents function in fundamentally different ways than the brains of adults."

Whoa, Cragg! Hold it right there. Would this be the same American Psychiatric Association who opposed parental notification for abortions, on the grounds that young girls can make life-or-death decisions?

The arguments for mandatory parental notification or consent are that women, or girls, below the age of majority, are not mature enough to decide to terminate pregnancies without the involvement of their parents, that parental involvement is necessary for medical follow-up, and that mandatory parental involvement enhances family strength. However, there are several problems with these arguments.

Cragg's not quite done looking foolish, though. Now he argues against representative government. (I know, what a shocker!):

I'd hesitate to see that proposition brought to a vote in the Texas Legislature as currently constituted.

Oh, yes! God forbid! An elected body creating public policy by voting on it? We couldn't let that happen!

The nanny state, coming to a road near you

Today's Chronicle has a story on pending legislation that would ban the use of cell phones while driving. Predictably, it's a laundry list of glaring media bias. Let's analyze the story, and see if it has any bias indicators:

Four years ago, 18-year-old Brandon Grisham was killed on a Fort Worth road after swerving to avoid another car whose driver was merging into his lane while talking on her cell phone. Hoping to protect others from the same fate, Brandon's mother, Dorothy, lobbied the House State Affairs Committee on Monday in favor of several bills aimed to restrict cell phone use while driving.

This is what we call "embedded opinion" and an "unchallenged assumption." The story offers no evidence that Brandon's death had anything to do with a cell phone. Now let's look at the quotes in the story:

"My (family) and I are confident that each of you have witnessed someone (so) distracted by their cell phone conversation that they are oblivious to their surroundings," she said. "They impede traffic, cause increased lane changes and greatly multiply the amount of accidents."

"Greatly multiply?" By how many times? Two? Ten? Fifty? Even if it's two, this woman claims that if we ban cellphones, the number of accidents will fall by half. It's hyperbole, pulled out of the air. Does the Chron's reporter try to dig up any actual facts? Nope. Unchallenged assumption.

"All we are trying to do here is ask folks to pay attention to what they are doing and keep both hands on the wheel," Menendez said.

School bus drivers "have to operate a two-way radio, watch their gauges, be alert to road hazards and conditions and maneuver the bus through traffic," Giddings said. "A single driver must also supervise up to 65 students. They have too many things to do ... to be having a casual conversation."

"Reading maps, changing radio stations, addressing their children, changing CDs or cassettes. These are what we should be focusing on, inattentive driving," Flores said.

"Not every Texas resident uses a cell phone, but every Texas resident could be put in danger by someone who is distracted," [Menendez] said.

Three pro-ban quotes, one against. This is also an example of quote tilting. It pits a mourning mother against an eeeevil cellular provider, and we know that those guys are only after money. And eeeevil.

Here's something you don't see every day

Thanks to LST reader Gary, who pointed out this photo from The Australian: Through the perilous fight...Excellent.

Red Letter Day: I actually agree with the ACLU!

I've got to take issue with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Courreges, about Tasers. Here's why:

Tasers are supposed to reduce deaths because now, cops can zap a suspect instead of shooting him with a conventional firearm. Makes sense, right? If you zap a guy that you would've shot in the pre-Taser era, you've saved a life.

Nice theory, but it's not quite working out that way. Instead, police are zapping people in situations that wouldn't even call for a nightstick. Like putting 50,000 volts into a 6-year-old child.

Second, Owen implies that nightsticks are more dangerous than Tasers. But they're not. It's easy to adjust the level of force with a baton. The officer uses his discretion to determine how hard to hit, how many times, and where. Tasers don't offer that flexibility to adapt the level of force to the situation. It's just point, shoot, fry.

What we should be rely on is the expertise of our officers, augmented with proper training. Tasers are a clumsy substitute.