January 31, 2006
— Ace Yeah.
Okay. Let me instruct Begley and all the other lefty nitwits out there: This war is not about oil.
Bin Ladin has never once cited as a reason for declaring war on us that "we pay Arabs and Muslims lots of money for oil."
Actually, unburdening ourselves of so much dependency on Middle Eastern oil might cause more war. Certainly we'd have one less reason to bomb some of these countries.
— Ace Yeah, you've probably heard it before, but now there's a cute java animation to go with it.
Thanks to Armchair in Sin.
— Ace Quick, cover your ears, the media outrage over this is going to be deafening.
— Ace Heh:
We all have thought Congress toys the truth at times. Now, there appears to be proof of it at Wikipedia.
The publicly edited online encyclopedia says it has instituted a one-week ban on Congress from making additions or changes to the site. The ban follows discovery that a senior staff for a Massachusetts congressman authorized changes to his Wikipedia biography that distorted facts.
According to a newspaper investigation, staff for Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan made changes to Meehans biography that replaced negative yet accurate information with content having a more positive slant. Among the changes: removing references to Meehans promise to serve only eight years.
And Wikipedia has found thousands of other changes originating from Congressional computers, including the addition to one entry about a Congressman, noting that he "smells like cow dung."
Wikipedia may ban Congressional computers from editing the site. Won't help, of course. All of these people have home computers that can't easily be screened out.
I've always thought this was a naive and quixotic venture. You really can't take the author out of authorship. We're witnessing a cybernetic tragedy of the commons. With no one owning information, everyone's allowed to abuse it as they wish.
Thanks to Andrew's Dad.
— Ace I apologize for the lateness of this. Really, seriously, packing and cleaning sucks. I've had just about enough of it.
On the speech: What can I say? It was, as usual, okay.
The overarching theme was obviously his confidence of victory-- in the war on terror, in Iraq, on the economy, even on AIDS -- contrasted with retreat and defeat on all of these. (Well, except for AIDS, I guess. The Democrats aren't willing to call that war a quagmire.)
I was a little surprised that Bush was as forward-leaning in confronting the Democrats as he was. He repeatedly called them -- or some of them, by which he means most of them -- defeatist and weak on security.
He once again noted the stakes of the conflict -- defeat in Iraq would surrender "the world to the violent." I wondered why he didn't say it would surrender "the world to the vicious." He used that word later, but I think it's so much more potent than the empty word "violent." Hell, the US Marines are violent; violence, per se, isn't the problem.
I'm tired of the freedom rhetoric. I'm not tired of the idea, mind you. I just wish he would come up with a new way to describe the conflict. "Freedom" is nice rhetoric, but it feels a little threadworn at this point. I'd prefer that he was a little more concrete in providing examples and evidence along these lines. I realize these things tend to be bullet-point affairs, but one fleshed-out anecdote about, say, elections in Lebanon or Ukraine is better than just saying "freedom" fifteen times.
This is an important enough issue that he can afford not to bullet-point it quite so much.
I realize he's not a newscaster, but he is providing a public-information function. If the NSA wiretaps prevented a terrorist attack, why on earth not elaborate on the terrorist and his plan? Why just leave it as naked assertion without details that will awaken the interest and stick in the mind?
He called on Democrats for bipartisan solutions. Fat chance. It's a cute little silly nod to civility, but why not echo his father, and say something about leading, following, or getting the hell out of the way? His put-down that "hindsight is not a plan" is pithy, but I think it was probably lost on most. Economy of wording is sometimes not a virtue. Why not spell it out -- "There are those of you who wish to carp, to criticize, to castigate for partisan political advantage, but where, exactly, is your plan?"
An off-note-- Bush says we're winning but if we abandon Iraq we will leave the nascent government and its increasingly-effective security forces to be killed or jailed by Al Qaeda. That may not be a complete contradiction -- we are winning, and the Iraqi government can win, but only with our help for the moment -- but I imagine some wondered if things were going so well, why is it so desperately important that we stay?
Bush of course called for "earmark reform." And for the line-item veto. Again, no elaboration. Does the general public know what he's talking about? Why not put a number on the amount of pork-barrel spending and inform the public how many of their dollars are going to low-priority projects that local citizens don't feel are important enough to pay for with their own tax dollars?
Do people get what the line-item veto is? Why not follow up with, "... so I can strike out costly and ineffective pork barrel spending items one boondoggle at a time"?
I enjoyed how the Democrats all cheered that they had stymied any reform of Social Security, as if that's a feather in their cap. But it left the Republicans with an awkward part to applaud themselves-- they loudly applauded when Bush noted the Social Security problem continues to get worse and worse.
I tuned out for the rest of the domestic-policy bullet-points. I heard stuff about AIDS and alternative fuels made from "whipgrass" or something.
One question: On FoxNews, after Bush mentioned that it was time for all of us to come together and stand behind the troops, an unhappy and very large woman in bright red reluctantly clapped (but did not stand) and mouthed out the words, pretty clearly I thought, "I think that's bullshit." Was this Barbara Mikulsky? I don't know what the woman looks like, but this fat broad looked like a "Barbara Mikulsky."
Another workmanlike if uninspired speech, overly epigrammatic, and too repepitive of the same ten bullet-points and key phrases from previous speeches. I'd jokingly give it a B+, but I think a B- is more like it.
— Ace In case there's any news in the next hour and ten minutes or so.
CNN says... Cindy Sheehan, invited to sit in the gallery, was already arrested for trying to smuggle in a banner.
— Ace She wants to be Leia. I had her figured for Jabba.
She's black. While she wants someone to play Chewie, she doesn't mention Lando. What gives?
Thanks to compos mentis, who once pooped his pants as an adult.
— Ace Not sure how it's going to work when Karol and I are in different cities.
Our show's very first guest may be our last guest. Kind of a bookend sort of deal.
Michelle Malkin will discuss her latest book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. It's a funny book, but frequently infuriating. I guarantee you that if Republican operatives had slashed the tires of twenty rented vans for a Democratic get-out-the-vote operation, it would have resulted in criminal charges and a Congressional investigation. Of course, when Democrats do this to Republicans, it barely registers.
We're the party of hate, after all.
And as if that's not enough show, we'll then have on Jim Geraghty of TKS on NRO, who, for reasons unfathomable to me, moved to Turkey, and is doing us a great favor in staying up 'till 12 to talk to us. (National Review types are all in bed by 10 pm sharp, usually, judging by Corner entries.)
— Ace This from the Daily Kos, the new leader of the progressive movement.
while watching the fight over Alito ensue I was struck by the lack of conviction displayed by some members of the Democratic party and then it hit me.....the DLC doesnt want us to retake either congressional house this year....they want things to continue on a downward turn until its obvious to everyone in our country that control of government has to be taken away from republicans.
your comment 'things have to get a whole lot worse..." is exactly how i think the DLC see's the upcoming election and the chance for a BLUE revolution.
I think there is a faction in our own party that is secretly hoping for another mid term defeat for us JUST so they have an easier time of it in the 08 elections.
It's worked before. Rocky Balboa let Clubber Lang pummel him for three rounds. "He's not getting beat," Paulie observed. "He's getting angry!"
And we all know how that turned out.
So, you know, it's a perfectly viable theory. If you're on, say, Thorazine and/or crack.
Thanks to LauraW.
— Ace Classy and understated. I like the faux black velvet look. It'll look good with my Yosemite Sam tire-flaps and my Playboy-dice rearview mirror ornament.
It's a cool shirt, no doubt, I'm holding out for a t-shirt depicting a Chinese Dragon fighting an aircraft carrier. That would be a real conversation-starter. I imagine most conversations would begin, "Are you retarded?" And then, after that, the witty banter would ensue.
Thanks to taba.
— Ace Just keep scrolling.
I know I'm an interested observer, but does it not seem that one half of the blogosphere is nothing but rage and weapons-grade crazy, and the other half is pretty sensible and on-the-level?
Will anyone in the media ever notice this? Not to beat a dead horse, but everytime a commenter says something untoward on Free Republic or LGF, it seems to get cited by the MSM. Meanwhile, the actual owners/operators/writers/proprietors of left wing blogs are writing all sorts of unhinged nonsense and the MSM doesn't say a peep.
The media doesn't cover blogs much, and I'm not suggesting they should do more of it, necessarily. What coverage they offer is superficial and vapid. But if they are going to cover the phenomenon, they really should note where the real political craziness is. And it's not on the right.
— Ace They can claim they're doing it for public safety, after that rather unpleasant colon-perforation-by-a-horse incident.
"Sexual contact" means any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of a person and the sex organ, mouth, or anus of an animal, or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person.
Anyone see the loophole?
Thank goodness! I'll just say I was doing it to arouse the animal, and I'm all set, baby.
Thanks to RLW.
— Ace * Can assume any of the following forms, 3x per day: bat, wolf, cloud of fog, and, for economic reasons, Papa Gino's Pizza Delivery Boy.
* Only has 15 hit dice, but nine of them are where it counts, if you know what I'm sayin'.
* Often reads comic books while playing A-Ha's Take On Me cranked up to 10, hoping he can "break through" to the comic-world beyond the panel.
So far, he's managed this trick just once; he appeared in a single Family Circus cartoon in which he ritually sacrificed "Billy" to Lord Asmodeus.
* Has a cumulative 5% chance of picking up a woman per snake or skull-with-roses tatoo she has on her legs, ass, or pudendum. If she has a dragon tatoo on at least half of her back, he receives a 50% circumstance bonus. If she has a Led Zeppellin "Zoso" glyph just above her ass, he doesn't need to roll. Automatic, baby.
* Never sold out; was into the Dark Cult of the Prince of Lies before it became all about the commercial endorsements and MTV appearances. For Sharky, it's still about the Satanism, man.
* Briefly served as a roadie for GWAR, until he "freaked them out too much."
* Although is nickname is "The Impaler," he has a less threatening name for his penis, which he calls "Mr. Polite, the Perfect Little Gentleman."
* Surprisingly, his all-time favorite show is Major Dad.
* Once a man tried to cut in line as he was getting a funnel-cake at Busch Gardens. There were no survivors.
* Only known man to use the sentence "It puts the lotion on its skin" without a hint of irony.
* Turn ons: Long walks on the beach, sunsets, and sustainable enviro-friendly development. Turn offs: Having his head cut off and his mouth filled with holy wafers.
— Ace "The Impaler"? Stalking? The Deuce you say!
Jonathon The Impaler Sharkey, who announced in Princeton Jan. 13 that he was running for governor, was arrested at his Princeton apartment about 8:30 Monday evening.
Princeton officer Todd Frederick initiated a search yesterday afternoon that led to the discovery of two active felony warrants from... Indiana.
The 2005 warrants were issued in May for stalking and in September for escape on a $100,000 bond.
Just because you're hiding in the bushes, going through someone's trash, and collecting toe-nail clippings and discarded bandages doesn't mean you're "stalking."
Followers of the Dark Lord of Blood know that these steps are necessary to construct a voodoo doll.
The authorities call it "stalking." I call it "Magikal Path courting."
"You will love me, or I will bathe in
your blood before the Children of Babylon!
How's the Olive Garden at eight-ish sound?"
More Geek Jokes: Brain B--
So he failed his Move Silently and Hide in Shadow rolls?
Critical miss resulting in... let me look this up on my tables and matrices... loss of 4 Wisdom points and a booking on a Class C Felony. Ooooh! That's going to leave a mark!
Cleric! I need a Restoration spell! And a Reduce Bail spell!
Thanks to DeeGoGa.
— Ace Very, very funny.
I love how you dance for me
Can you move a little to the left, baby?
I can't see the TV
Baby, I can't wait 'til we start...
It's just that the save-points are quite far apart
on this game, baby...
Thanks to Blue Merle.
All but one of the Senate's majority Republicans voted for his confirmation, while all but four of the Democrats voted against Alito.
That is the smallest number of senators in the president's opposing party to support a Supreme Court justice in modern history. Chief Justice John Roberts got 22 Democratic votes last year, and Justice Clarence Thomas -- who was confirmed in 1991 on a 52-48 vote -- got 11 Democratic votes.
Related: Kos Gets One Right-- He basically proclaims he's the tail that wags the dog now, and Ankle Biting Pundits thinks he's right.
Which is great for Kos. And very bad for the Democratic Party, and American politics generally.
Bonus: Lapsed Leftist was hoping Alito garner fewer than 60 vote. Why? Because it's worse for the liberals. Now they will go bananas that if the Democrats had "just showed some spine" they could have filibustered Alito.
Dems Admit Alito "A Man of Honor:" From the NYT--
Their most indefatigable strategist was James Flug, a longtime friend of Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts who, at 67, was decades older than most of the other legal counsels on the Judiciary Committee staff. Mr. Flug first worked for Mr. Kennedy 35 years ago when they led a liberal minority of senators to block the Supreme Court nominations of Judges G. Harrold Carswell and Clement F. Haynsworth Jr., in both cases by mobilizing a coalition of civil rights groups and unearthing embarrassing aspects of the nominees' records.
Among other things, several Democratic aides said, Mr. Flug drove the investigation into Judge Alito's failure to recuse himself, as he had pledged to do during his court of appeals confirmation hearing, from cases involving his mutual fund company, Vanguard. But Mr. Flug met with polite skepticism from many of his colleagues.
"You are going to ask more questions about that oversight where Alito made no money?" a staff member for another Democratic senator said he asked Mr. Flug.
"It became clear to us early on," the staff member added, "that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes, but we think the guy is a man of honor."
— Ace Worth every penny they're paying him.
Jared Jarecki's "Why We Fight," a stupid burble of military-industrial-complex conspiracy-theorizing, isn't eligible for an Oscar for Best Documentary because it failed to follow the Academy's often-changing rules for a theatrical presentation. (Usually they require that a "movie" actually be exhibited in theaters before television, which seems to make sense.)
Clauses in the rules providing a limited exception to this rule were changed before "Why We Fight" premiered on (shocker!) British television, and Jarecki and his producers didn't notice the changes. (Supposedly.) So this dope suggests-- it's all Bush's fault!
Hollywood: Does BushCo Have Its Hand On Oscar?
by Jerry Politex
It's just a question, but it's a question worth asking, since we saw the excellent documentary "Why We Fight" and read "The Oscar Nominees Aren't..." in the NYT yesterday, explaining why Hollywood rules keep it from being considered for an Oscar. It appears that what's happening in Hollywood is that the Academy keeps changing its rules to keep out documentary films that, in one way or another, oppose the policies of the Bush administration.
At best, one could believe that the Oscar rulemakers are simply incompetent, or perhaps even biased toward certain kinds of documentary content, as Anderson implies elsewhere in his article, but in the same piece we learn that "at one point the academy's board of governors wanted to eliminate the short-documentary category altogether and banish documentary features to the science and technical awards, which are presented in a separate ceremony." Hollywood would look pretty silly doing so, given how closely the documentary film is woven into the fabric of film history and aesthetics, but this would not be the first time that Hollywood caved in to Washington. The bottom line is the Academy was put on the spot, politically, when Michael Moore won an Oscar for "Farenheit 9/11," and was cut off during his short but political acceptance speech amidst both cheers and boos, and what we're seeing now are attempts to prevent such an event from happening again. Given what we have learned over the years about Bush news management and propaganda, a White House hand in Hollywood is hardly out of the question.
It should be noted that Jarecki's film debuted theatrically on January 20, 2006, making me, at least, not terribly surprised he's not eligible for a 2005 Oscar.
Thanks to HD.
— Ace Otho, or as I call him, "Otto," notes this apparent blackmail attempt directed at a "Republican Senator" to influence his Alito vote.
Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.
Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.
How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.
When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do.
*While votes on many matters are considered, votes "FOR" either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.
The blackmailer adds:
UPDATE: Some of you have asked if he will be outed tomorrow. No. The blog will report on this closeted Republican Senator between tomorrow and a time when it may most impact the reelection effort of the Senator. Just because the Democratic establishment has given up the fight for our Nation, doesn't mean this site will...
Well, isn't that convenient. A blackmail threat coming 1 or 3 years down the road.
My take? There's a gay rumor mill that says that almost everyone is gay. Somewhere there's a guy in a chatroom claiming he had sex with just about everyone. That's most of my reason for the skepticism about the Tom Cruise gay rumors -- on an old chatboard, some old gay guy was always saying he "knew" this or that celebrity was gay. It seemed based entirely on rumors from young and immature gay men seeking attention on the Internet.
But that doesn't mean it's not true, and of course there have been suggestions that a current Republican Senator was gay before.
I hope it's not true. Not because I care if there's a gay Republican Senator, but because -- if it's true -- then we have an accomplished man who's been reduced by fear of outing to random sexual encounters in bathrooms.
FWIW, I once shacked up with Senator Fred Thompson for a summer when I was working as a cabana boy/gay hustler.
Frickin' fruit. Although he did have fingers like a concert cellist.
— Ace I suppose they're too be lauded for avoiding the Hollywood perennial of the "superpatriot" who actually does terrorism himself to get more CIA funding/as a pretext to invade an innocent "Central Asian country" for so long.
And I actually agree with Mike/Mary. I was looking for them to make the President like Bush from the beginning of the season, and I think they were using his weakness as a Bush analogue.
January 30, 2006
— Ace Referring to gay marriage in Sweden, he quoted Matthew "Ye shall know them by their fruits." The Rolling Stone reporter interviewing him thought he was making a joke; he says he wasn't, just quoting the Bible.
"Fruits." That's such an old-school put-down it's practically new-school.
I like how put-downs go in cycles. "Hump" and "tool" were old; then they kind of became cool again, just because no one was saying them. (Except for 60 year old alkies at the BPOE, but who listens to them.)
"Douchebag" seems very played. "Jagoff" seems like it's ready to come back into style. Ten years ago, you couldn't give jagoff put-downs away. Now maybe they're priced right for a big gain.
These are the things I notice.
I am not an intelligent man.
45 queries taking 0.0336 seconds, 232 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.