April 30, 2006
— Ace For those of you who haven't gotten over "Lazy Sunday" yet -- and, you know, it's starting to be about the time you did -- the British have offered their response, "We Drink Tea."
Content warning, as they say we drink mother-effin' tea a lot. They also reference the summer's most anticipated movie.
Apocalypto isn't the summer's most anticipated movie, but this trailer makes it look pretty damn cool.
That's not a silly link-- at least not when you watch it full-speed. But go to the part with the screaming monkey, pause it, and begin moving back frame-by-frame (the backwards arrow on the bottom right) to see a kinda-funny and very subliminal Easter egg.
Mel Gibson's all about the Easter, after all.
Self-navigating rectal-crawler auto-colonoscope. For people who want a robotic bug up their ass.
Thanks to yls and Ogre Gunner and Craig, respectively.
— Ace One was funny, the other wasn't.
Steve Colbert offered up the standard arch-liberal complaint about the media: that they were "too easy" on Bush as far as WMD intelligence and, get this, tax cuts. (!!!???)
In Colberts defense, he might not have been playing for laughs. The dissident posture is very important to our friends on the left; if SC had kept things light and wasted his opportunity to speak truth to power, theyd have crucified him for it. As it is, the moonbats will be building statues of him tomorrow. To paraphrase another delusional comedian who wasnt as funny as he thought he was, better to be Kos for a night than a schmuck for a lifetime.
The media is swooning over Colbert's performance -- despite the fact that he all but accused them in complicity in pushing the Iraq War. (And-- TAX CUTS!!)
Why? Why are they so happy to be insulted?
Because the media loves being criticized from the left.
They want the license to move further to the left than they already are, and, to have a pretext to do so, they require critics who accuse them of being too conservative.
When they get accused of being too conservative or too easy on Bush, they get to claim, absurdly, "Well, we get it from both the left and the right, so that proves that we're straight-down-the-middle fair and balanced."
Translating this from liberal-media-speak: "Keep the criticism coming, fellow liberals, because we need to be able to 'prove' we're not liberally biased. And, because we care more about what YOU say -- you agree with us and we agree with you, even if we have to play this Kabuki theater where we pretend we're in disagreement -- we'll be more responsive to your liberal/left complaints than we've ever been regarding complaints from the right."
It's the left's claims of the press being "too easy" on Bush that have inspired them to reveal extremely-damaging national security secrets in order to regain the praise from the only people whose opinions they care about-- other liberals and leftists.
And if Poland is exposed to an Al Qaeda attack, well, that's a small price to pay to regain the admiration of their fellow travellers.
Bush, meanwhile, was actually funny, as he goofed on himself alongside dead-on Bush impersonator Steven Bridges.
But then, his mission, unlike Colbert's, was to entertain, not to "educate."
As Thomas Jefferson said:
Jackass TV clowns who fancy themselves philosophers really steam my beans. More with the seltzer down the pants, Joke-Monkey, less with the retarded commentary.
Either I'm Psychic Or Liberals Are As Predicatable As Monkeys With A Big Stockpile of Feces Update: In his own update, Allah notes that a part of the broadcast he didn't include contains an endorsement of my liberals-need-to-be-told-they're-too-easy-on-Bush-as-an-excuse-to-go-harder-on-him theory.
Mark Smith, the president of the Correspondents Association, made exactly that point when introducing Bush.
I'm sure he means Smith made the "we're too easy on Bush" point, rather than explicitly asking for liberal critics to attack the press. But the invitation is there: Please call us cowards so we have the leeway to be "more brave," and by "more brave," I mean, of course, "more liberal." (They're synonymous, aren't they? After all, liberalism is the highest form of courage. James C. Calhoun said that.)
I didn't see the event, but Johnny Coldcuts, the time-travelling foul-mouthed baloney sandwich, saw it three months ago, so he tipped me to this angle.
— Ace We've all had great fun with Dave in Texas' (I think) dog-eared copy of Stuff Jefferson Said, a book which does not exist compiling quotes of Thomas Jefferson which he did not say or write.
Alas, what is silly fun among bloggers and commenters passes for serious, scholarly statesmanship among liberals, determined to retroactively infect Jefferson with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Liberals keep saying that Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Over and over again.
It's a great quote, a terrific applause line, delicious red meat for the slavering moonbat hordes.
But, as Mark Steyn notes, Jeffferson simply never said or wrote it.
John Kerry announced this week's John Kerry Iraq Policy of the Week the other day: "Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military."
With a sulky pout perhaps? With hands on hips and a full flip of the hair?
Did he get that from Churchill? "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, at least until May 15, when I have a windsurfing engagement off Nantucket."
Actually, no. He got it from Thomas Jefferson. "This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation," warned Sen. Kerry, placing his courage in the broader historical context. "No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.' "
Close enough. According to the Jefferson Library: "There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' "
It was the Aussie pundit Tim Blair who noted the Thomas Jeffefakery. American commentators were apparently too busy cooing that "Kerry may be reflecting a new boldness on the part of liberals to come out and say what they believe and to reclaim the moral high ground on patriotism" (CBS News) to complain that KERRY LIED!! SCHOLARLY ATTRIBUTION DIED!!! Instead, KERRY MISQUOTED!! MEDIA DOTED!!!
Indeed, America's hardboiled newsmen can't get enough of the Thomas Jefferbunk. The Berkshire Eagle used it as the headline for last year's Fourth of July editorial. Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press thundered: "We need to stop slicing this country in half, and saying those who support this act or this politician are 'good' Americans, and the rest are not. Sometimes 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' I didn't make that up. Thomas Jefferson did."
Er, no. You made up that he made it up. But former Georgia state Rep. Mike Snow uses it, and Miranda Yaver of Berkeley wore it on a button to the big anti-war demo in Washington last year, and Ted Kennedy deployed it as the stirring finale to his anti-Bush speech:
"It is not unpatriotic to tell the truth to the American people about the war in Iraq. In this grave moment of our country, to use the words of Thomas Jefferson, 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' "
As far as I can tell, it was Nadine Strosser, the ACLU's head honcho, who cooked up the Jefferson fake. At any rate, she seems to be the only one who ever deployed it pre-9/11. Since then, however, it's gone nuclear, it's everywhere, it's a bumper sticker and a T-shirt slogan and a surefire applause line for the entire Massachusetts congressional delegation. As Sen. Kennedy's brother so memorably said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what a fake quote can do for you."
Liberals all think of themselves as super-duper smarty-pants and "truth-tellers," but they seem to be both pretty dumb and pretty dishonest as regards words of wisdom from historical greats.
Barbra Streisand and thousands of other moonbats "quoted" William Shaekespeare's Julius Caesar warning us, 500 years ago, pretty specifically about George Bush's warmongering, in a bit of Nostradamus-esque prognostication that would be kinda interesting if he'd actually written the prophetic quatrain in any of his plays.
And of course moonbats are still inscribing shoddy placards with "Benjamin Franklin's" famous non-quote that "Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither." While there is a similar quote, it's far less emphatic about the tradeoff between liberty and state authority:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Emphasis Michelle's. You'd think the liberals would be all over the correct quote, seeing how wonderfully nuanced it is, and yet they prefer the fake quote.
As Snopes notes in the debunking of the "William Shakespeare" quote:
As Ralph Keyes explains in Nice Guys Finish Seventh, his compendium of misattributed and false quotes, "Famous dead people make excellent commentators on current events." The dead do not reappear to challenge words assigned to them, an attribute much prized by those looking for convenient spokesmen to lend authority to their convictions.
Or, as Alexander Hamilton once said:
Beware those willing to rewrite history to influence the future. They're generally liberal assholes who think they're so smart, but are actually dumber than a bag of retards. And seriously, they can all suck my stinking hog.
That quote, incidentally, was taken from the companion to the famous Stuff Jefferson Said, the 1965 Cambridge University Press imprint Stuff People Who Were Alive Around The Time of Jefferson Said (3rd edition, with a preface and extensive annotations by Walter "Chekov" Koening).
Thanks to Thaine and/or Howard.
April 28, 2006
— Ace Pupster sent this review of the movie.
It sounds grim, but absolutely necessary to see. If you think you can steel yourself for the experience, which some think they can't.
I'm going to see it this weekend myself, maybe today. I have the same reservations, though, that many readers express. A harrowing movie about the Holocaust, directed in a naturalistic, matter-of-fact style, may be a tremendous work of art and an unflinching look at evil, but it's not as if such a film exactly beckons a viewer to come and witness the horror.
Still, I'll see it... I just have to figure out when and where, and hope to God that no jerkoff Boston liberal moonbats are there to make announcements like "Bush knew, Osama slew."
I just got back from United 93. I went alone, following my plan to the letter.
My plan was to have 2 drinks before the showing as a bracer for what was to come. I had 4. (Crown Royal if it matters.)
I knew what was coming. I know how the movie ends. It's not enough.
45 minutes in, after everyone on screen knows it's a high jack, my jaw clenched.
50 minutes in, jaw still clenched, I start to mutter "MFer's, those MF'ers" under my breath.
60 minutes in, I start to tear up, along with the clenched jaw and MFer's under my breath.
70 minutes to the end the movie, I am sobbing. Not tearing up...sobbing. Not uncontrollably, just clenched jaw, MFing, sobbing.
You need to be ready for this movie. You need to see this movie.
— Ace Three former terrorists speak out, and repent.
Pretty compelling. It seems to be a dated video, maybe from 2004 or so, but it's worth listening to.
Incidentally, one of the ex-terrorists, Walid Shoebat, has a website where further interviews can be heard. He compares radical Islam to Naziism, and quotes Churchill's line about having a choice between shame (appeasement, concessions) and war... except, then as now, shame leads to war, too.
They seem to think that Bush is right to confront the terrorists in Iraq and everywhere else.
— Ace The bite from his harmless glass snake somehow puts him into a coma.
It's a strange and cruel world, where horrible calamities can befall a man when he's merely opening the cage of an innocuous glass snake.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: The snake in question was not, in fact, a harmless glass snake, but rather a lethal DEATH ADDER.
Guess he really should have seen that one coming, as it turns out.
So, you know, I guess the world isn't as strange and cruel as it seemed five seconds ago. Kind of makes a lot of sense, really.
Snakes On An Error: Ooops, there is no "garden snake." I changed it to glass snake.
It's sort of typical of me to make an error when writing a post in which a deliberate error is supposed to be the joke.
I screw up even when I'm actually trying to screw up.
— Ace Why put ketchup and mustard on your burger when what will really bring out that big burger flavor is a Philly cheesestake added on top of it as a garnish?
The innovation is surely inspired by Homer Simpson's famous dinner order: "A thirty-two ounce steak, and to drink...? Meatballs."
We live in an age of miracles and wonders, my friends. The singularity grows near.
Bonus! My genius idea of a "meata pita" -- a wrap actually just made of meat -- must be in R&D in the labs at this very moment.
— Ace Kind of backwards, but you get the idea.
At Patterico, Dana Priest insists the Framers of the Constitution gave her, and not the government, the right to decide what information it would keep classified.
And, of course, the MSM continues "forgetting" to mention McCarthy's deep partisanship. Remember-- it's only relevant to a story when the partisanship in question leans towards the right.
Dan from Riehl World View has a very interesting post indeed. He compares Dana Priest's little-noticed 2002 article about secret CIA prisons and her 2005 Pulitzer-prize winning article about secret CIA prisons and notes that they really aren't that different. So what the hell was such a big deal about her 2005 article that warranted a Pulitzer-- apart from her specifying (practically) which countries the prisons were located in, and thus wounding our allies Poland and Rumania?
Maybe damaging America's national security was the major accomplishment of the article. Maybe that's precisely why she won the Pulitzer to begin with.
Another difference: Priest's 2002 article was fairly objective, even leaning towards a positive assessment of the prisons as necessary, whereas her 2005 re-write of the same story was a screechy "This is not America" bit of terrorist-friendly Al Jazeera bait.
Again, the facts don't really matter. It's the attitude, the tone, the narrative, the "storytelling." Priest basically wrote the same article twice -- once, basically harmless to America's security interests and not particularly damaging to Bush on a political level, the second time, compromising two key allies and savaging Bush -- and yet only seems to have been granted any accolades for the second article.
— Ace Well, they've convinced me! Certainly attempting to hurt the economy is a patriotic action of true-hearted American. Look at the patriots at the NYT, for example!
Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood America's streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.
Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.
Oh, that's just crazy-talk. Americans love law-breakers who come here and begin making demands on us while making our lives difficult.
Seriously-- shut the cities down. Have fun. Because within a month, your asses will be booted nice and high over the Rio F'n' Grande.
"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it weighs the issue.
Immigration has split Congress, the Republican Party and public opinion. Conservatives want the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants returned to Mexico and a fence built along the border.
Others, including President George W. Bush, want a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship. Most agree some reform is needed to stem the flow of poor to the world's biggest economy.
"We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," Rodriguez said.
Let me quote the great American patriot and estimable jurist Judge Smails:
"You'll get nothing and like it."
— Ace And more extensive, too, with citations.
I know of this list because... well, see the Authoritative Scholarly Citation given for Lara Flynn Boyle.
Back when I used to keep track of such things, I would get one or two hits from this list a day.
Caution... See-Dub notes that the evidence for a lot of these people's conservative credentials is often pretty damn thin. Pretty much if you've ever said something nice about Bush, even if just to get money out of him for Africa, you're on the list as a "Rightie." (As Bob Geldof is.)
And the links providing the evidence are so old that most are broken so you can't check.
Still... it's what we've got at the moment.
Vince Vaughan? Yes! The Contact Music link is broken, so there's no proof of this, but I always kind of suspected. He always plays himself, a sort of charmingly arrogant dickhead, and that to me says "Republcian" in all-caps, bolded.
Jon Favreau is also listed, again with a broken link for a citation, which surprises and disappoints me, because he comes of as a bit of a liberal tool on his Dinner For Five show.
And for leaving a Celebrity Poker Challenge episode just because he got eliminated early and was too much of a big-shot to hang out in the Loser's Lounge.
(Yeah, he's talented; just saying-- tool. And a big bad-loser crybaby.)
— Ace Heh, heh, heh.
They can't even manage to put up numbers that would earn them profit in the biggest liberal market in the world?
As the manager consoled Spinal Tap after they were forced to cancel their Boston appearance, "Don't worry about it; Boston's not a big college town anyway."
Air America claims they will not "go silent" in NY on that date, though.
Hey, they could always try webcasting! Seems to be working like gangbusters for Jeff Goldstein, Karol Sheinen, and me!
— Ace Remember, these people are considered innocent of conservatism until found guilty by a competent tribunal.
EXPLANATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED: Some wonder what the BTK killer is doing on the list. Or Mary LeTorneau.
It's simple. (I think.) The list is taken directly from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "edited" by anyone who wants to log on, and any topic that is remotely political becomes a game of constant editing and re-editing by opposing political forces, sometimes with prankish intentions. (BTK killer, for example.)
As it's mostly liberals doing Wikipedia editing -- the whole "community" bullshit they stroke themselves over -- we're usually on the wrong side of the numbers and intensity of interest.
I'm told that anything to do with Palestein or Israel is the subject of furious minute-by-minute "Jews Suck!" "edits," for example.
Anyway, that's why those oddball names are on there. Ignore them.
Another Update: But this does cast doubt on some of the surprise entries on the list, as names like "Grace Slick" could just be added as a joke.
Meaning the only names on the list you can trust are those you already know to be Republican or Republican-leaning, making the list... a waste of time.
Except for obscure names, I think. Who would think to pull a prank with the name "Bob Gale," writer of the Back to the Future movies? (Damn, that was a tight, smart script.) The name is so random that my BS detector doesn't go off when I see it.
Back to original entry.
It's kind of sad how few there are. As I speculated on the webcast show a few weeks ago, I think it's a demonstration of how vindictively liberal Hollywood is. After all, even considering that actors, writers and such tend to skew liberal Democrat, surely there must be 10 or 15% of Hollywood types who are actually Republican. It couldn't be much lower than that.
And yet, because most B or C level celebrities have to worry about their next check (unlike A-level people like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis), they keep silent about their politics.
We hear a lot of yap from B, C, and D level liberal celebrities. Apparently they don't fear their politics will hurt them in the business. But we don't hear much from the B, C, and D level conservative celebrities-- and, again, they must exist.
But they're quiet, because they know getting a job requires goodwill from a producer, and they know that there'll be less goodwill from a liberal producer or executive if it's discovered your guilty of Republicanism. In the first degree.
A lot of these are pretty well known-- Robert Duvall, for example. Most of us know he's a founder of a Republican morning club that meets monthly.
But there are some surprises. GRACE SLICK of Jefferson Airplane/Starship? And an admitted "life-long Republican" to boot? WHAT?
Emily Proctor? Well, she's from North Carolina, so it's not shocking, but I'd never heard she was a Republican before.
Tony Danza? Ummm... let's skip over that one. He's just "Republian-linked," anyway.
Ivan Reitman? I guess he got too rich off of Stripes and Ghostbusters to not be a Republican.
Kurt Russell is listed as a "Libertarian," but we know he just ays that to keep his liberal pseudowife happy. A lot of people use "libertarian" to soft-pedal their actual politics; hey, archliberal Bill Maher claimed to be a "libertarian" for years.
And of course Adam "I'm Not Related To Those Other Idiots" Baldwin, who, per female reader demand, will become the permanent Cowbell Beefcake Dude here at AoSHQ.
Flashback: Lara Flynn Boyle, Dirty-Kinky Rightwing Hot.
Not only is she rightwing, rich, and an unabashed Bush-booster, she occasionally strips naked on airplanes and tries to have sex with random passengers, which is definitely a part of the Ace of Spades Lifestyle (TM) that I haven't yet dared myself.
On Grace Slick and Liberal Bubblehead Bullshit Happytalk: I should have suspected Grace Slick was a conservative. Because conservatives, by their nature, tend to recoil in disgust from the happytalk liberal conventional wisdom.
She was asked, by some idiot interviewer, if she thought she was sexier now (at around 50 or so) than she was when she was twenty.
She could have done the Madonna/Sharon Stone bullshit about feeling "sexier than ever" and being in her "prime sexual peak" and that crap.
Instead, she told the truth. She said something to the effect of: "I hate getting old. I hate not being thought of as a sex object the way I was when I was younger. I hate no longer attracting the eyes of men who used to stare at me. Getting old just sucks."
The impulse to speak uncomfortable truths is a conservative one. Liberals claim to have this impulse, but they don't. They just endlessly regurgitate the same herd-pleasing nonsense and call themselves "courageous" for daring to say what everyone else is saying.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying older women can't be sexy or any of that. I'm just praising her for being offered a pretty stupid question and answering it with a bit of uncomfortable candor her moronic interviewer wasn't expecting.
And hey, she's right. It does suck getting old. There are benefits to it, but I haven't enjoyed a birthday myself since my 25th one, and I only liked that one because my auto insurance rates went down. Minus that minor benefit, I think I'd've preferred to remain 22 for the rest of my life.
— Ace Well, back to being updated. I know I let them go for a couple of weeks, but I'm updating them again, pretty frequently, and only don't update them when there's too much going on on the main blog (like that Mary McCarthy blogburst a week ago).
Just so you know.
— Ace At least that's the advanced estimate.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis released its advance estimate of growth in the inflation-adjusted (real) gross domestic product (GDP) for the 1st quarter of 2006.
Annualized GDP growth in the 1st quarter was estimated at a rapid 4.8% rate; growth was 1.7% in the 4th quarter of last year.
* The major contributors to GDP growth in the 1st quarter were personal consumption expenditures (which grew 5.5%), business equipment and software spending (which grew 16.4%), exports (which grew 12.1%), and federal government spending (which grew 10.8%). Imports, which are a subtraction from GDP, grew 13.0%.
* The inflation-adjusted change in private inventories subtracted 0.52 percentage point from the 1st-quarter change in real GDP.
Not very happy about that big federal spending component, but the economy is growing rapidly.
...don't get too happy, because economists warn that "as a rule, growth tends to end at some point."
In related news, the NYT says it uses the word "but" so frequently in pieces about the Bush Boom because it has a "surplus of the conjunction" due "buts" being carefully rationed and stockpiled during the Clinton Expansion.
"We just didn't see the need to use too many 'buts' back then," a Times editor stated. "Pretty much we just highlighted the good economic news and let people use their common sense to realize that the good times wouldn't last forever, or that every postitive econmic factor comes, inevitably, with a negative or at least a cautionary note.
"But now we find ourselves with this but-load of buts, if you will, and we have to use them all up now before they reach their expiration dates."
— Ace I'd've never guessed. These guys always seemed like such balanced, centered kind of cats to me.
So how does a pious Islamic extremist and potential terrorist pass the time? He watches hardcore porn. Investigators found that at least one of two Islamic extremist planning an attack on the US from Canada was in possession of hardcore pornography.
In Muslim societies the calls for all women to be covered completely and constant diatribes that sexual immorality is a threat to Islamic nations have become commonplace. Yet there is mounting evidence that terrorist extremists commonly view hardcore pornography.
Toronto-based TheStar.com recently reported that two men from the US state of Georgia met in the Canadian city with Islamic extremists to discuss potential terror strikes in the United States, including attacks on oil refineries and military bases, according to recently unsealed US court documents.
Liberals love accusing sexual prudes of hypocrisy. But don't expect any gloating here. They're swarthy, they're "multicultural," they're sworn enemies of America-- ergo, they're owed a modicum of respect and sexual privacy.
— Ace Um, yeah. So, like, rape-shield laws are supposed to protect women, to the extent constitutionally permissible, from explorations into their sexual history.
Is a criminal complaint, apparently found to be without foundation, now considered part of someone's "sexual history"?
Just because she accused someone else of rape before doesn't mean she's lying now... or even lying then. Just because charges aren't brought doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
But I have difficulty comprehending how this is not very relevant evidence as to her credibility.
An interesting thing about rape-shield laws: They always have a caveat built into them that sexual history can be introduced if required by the Constitution's general thrust that defendants be afforded a fair trial, and be allowed to introduce any evidence that tends to exonerate them.
This issue gets fudged a lot, but I can't see how you can constitutionally convict these men without allowing the jury to consider the implications of this past charge.
Otherwise, we might as well just say that anyone accused of rape has no right whatsoever to put on any sort of defense, or offer an alibi, because, hey, doing so contradicts the word of the female accuser and hence subjects her to psychic pain (or, as Susan Estrich would have it, a "second rape," this one in the courtroom).
— Ace The attack is originating "internationally." Hmmmm... wonder who that might be.
Instapundit, Captain's Quarters, Powerline and other blogs hosted by Hosting Matters are all down due to denial-of-service attacks.
I wish they would attack this site. I could use a day off.
— Ace Some say that Rosie O'Donnell reading her "poetry" aloud for an audience of millions is the Key to the Gate of Entropic Death.*
The stars cruelly align; the heavens spin in a sickening spiral; the Outer Dark intrudes into our own world, and Mighty Cthulhu rouses from his slumber of aeons.
Which -- given that we just witnessed the cosmic horror of a team-up of Behar, Walters, and O'Donnell -- would be a glass-is-half-full sort of situation.
Thanks to Chickpea.
* As noted in both the Necronomicon and the
Book Scrolls of Skelos.
— Ace The liberals' favorite conjunction -- but, put to such good use in condemning terrorism but simultaneously apologizing for it -- finds itself working double-duty to undermine the powerfully favorable news on the economy the Times is sadly required to report.
Growth Accelerated in March, But a Slowdown Is Expected
And that's just the headline. "But," announced as an above-the-title star of the movie in the credit sequence, gives a powerful and moving performance throughout the piece, appearing in virtually every scene.
Related And Must-Read: Slapstick Politics looks at a different NYT piece -- loading all the bad stuf in the first paragraph, the one everyone reads, while only mentioning good stuff in the later paragraphs fewer people read -- and re-writes it the right way, with the lede ("economy growing like gangbusters") in the strange position of actually being the first paragraph. The lede is actually the lead, in other words.
At least when someone besides the NYT attempts to write an economic story.
April 27, 2006
— Ace Which is why we can't extend the Geneva Conventions to enemies who do not respect the conventions in turn. Like Islamists.
45 queries taking 0.726 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.