Pretty damn good. Love the bar napkins.

Posted by: Ace at 06:46 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Look, no one gave me the Big Blogger's Book of Hints and Cheat-Codes.

I'm computer illiterate. I have no real idea what the hell is going on here. Ted Stevens' "pipes" speech confused me, because it was too technical.

After thanking Allah for finding the page story for me: more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:21 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Accused by an eighteen-year-old's father.

He is on the ballot for re-election in three weeks, but a South Dakota state senator's career is in jeopardy because of an accusation that's been brewing for eight months.

The father of an 18-year-old male page says democrat Dan Sutton sexually groped the young man while the two roomed together during the legislative session.

Now state senate leaders are asking Sutton to resign or face legislative action.

We won't identify the page because he is a potential victim.

But his father is involved in politics and Sutton's lawyer Mike Butler says the father and Sutton were long-time friends. Butler says the page roomed with Sutton during the last legislative session and accuses Sutton of sexually groping him then.

Sutton was the youngest man in the legislature when we interviewed him in 2000. Now alleged sexual contact with a page could end his young political career.

"Dan Sutton now is all but destroyed," Butler says.

" And he denies that it happened?" asked KELOLAND News.

"Absolutely denies anything ever happened," Butler responded. "This is guilt by accusation."

I know it's stupid to mention this-- after all, you've been hearing about little else but this story on the MSM, right?

Thanks to Allah for tracking down this story. I couldn't find it myself.

Posted by: Ace at 06:08 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

I ignored this all day. It seemed stupid to me. But then, I hadn't read the whole story. I just knew that Steny Hoyer had said someone "slavishly" supported something or other.

To the extent I was animated to post earlier, I was going to write, "How stupid. What a farce. Let's not descend to their level."

I was going to write -- I swear -- that it's wrong to go uber-politically-correct unless there's some reason to suspect someone deliberately used a racially-charged word with a racially-tinged intent.

B ut--

Reading the story in full, there does in fact seem to be the "racially-tinged intent" that I think is a prerequisite to making this charge. Every black Republican -- every one -- is mocked at some point by the left as being an "Unlce Tom" or "House Negro." Serving their white masters, etc.

And Steny Hoyer says Michael Steele "slavishly" supports the Republican Party?

It may just have been a slip of the tongue. "Slavishly" is a useful enough word.

But given the Democrats' history with punsihing blacks who dare to question their Liberal White Beneficence, it certainly can be taken as a deliberate and cowardly insinuation.

Steny Hoyer has "apologized." Fine. His message is out there though, isn't it? Michael Steele remains a slave who hasn't yet thrown off his shackles.

Worked out nicely for him. Of course, he won't be taken to task for the comment in the MSM, which makes it a cost-free "gaffe."

Posted by: Ace at 05:44 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

It was the London SkyBomb plot that finally convinced the government that it would be pretty easy for an Al Qaeda operative to qualify for a $12.00/hour job.

You couldn't have seen that coming, right? I mean, unless you've seen any airport hijack movie in the past thirty years, where an airport worker smuggles weapons on to the plane.

Or unless, say, you'd lived through 9/11, after which there was a great deal of speculation about an Al Qaeda plant in the airports smuggling box-cutters on to the planes.

Why are we this unserious? Evern the party that's supposedly serious on terrorism isn't very serious about it.

This isn't even something controversial like racial profiling. This is basic, common-sense, first-order-of-business stuff.

And yet we're only getting around to it now, and only because of the London SkyBomb plot.

Is anyone in government capable of using their imagination? Why does everyone wait to see that Al Qaeda may be using the most obvious strategies to infiltrate targets before acting to shut them down?

How many more people need to die before the government starts acting as if there are geunine people out there trying to kill us?

Posted by: Ace at 03:54 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

One poll -- SurveyUSA's -- says so.

Support the race-traitor!

Posted by: Ace at 03:14 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

If you want to crown them, crown them. But the [Democrats] are who we though they were. We [shouldn't]let them off the hook.

This is now dated, but I've been looking for it for two days.

Uncommon: It's pretty rare for a coach to basically say "The other team was a bunch of chumps." Usually they'll blame themselves for the loss, which is, yeah, just another way of saying "We're better than they are, they're not all that good, we just screwed up."

Still, you don't hear many coaches stating, more or less, that their opponents were overrated and a paper tiger.

Tangentially Related: Everyone seems to be coming up with excuses to cover this:

I don't know. For all the condemnation of the players, when something gets out of control like this, it's hard to blame any individual player for joining the brawl, isn't it? In a small brawl, it's more expected that players will intervene to separate the hot heads -- but what about when it becomes a full-on melee? How do you attempt to restrain a teammate when everyone's taking swings at everyone else?

The guy who swung is helmet got suspended. But that seems just a convenient reason to hang him -- and avoid suspending players who acted worse.

What about all those guys stomping on and kicking a downed opponent? Even in a street brawl, that's pretty thuggish, isn't it? Can't claim self-defense there, or sticking up for a teammate. There, you're just beating on a defenseless guy.

Posted by: Ace at 02:52 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

They were just waiting for someone with actual money to sue.

Nice job, Google.

Coming soon: a $1.65 billion YouTube in which the only thing you can watch are stupid teenagers lipsyncing to songs, with the music removed.

Couldn't happen to a nicer company.

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Lesson one: Find a nice protected corner or ledge and take snaiper-shots at fellow workers all day long.

Lesson two: Max out your constitution. You're going to want those extra hit points.

Why use videogames to teach? If books are too passe, why stop at half measures? Use what really animates young peoples' interests to teach them.

Porn.

It's sexucational!

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Glenn Greenwald claims that his hypocrisy on sexual privacy is justfied by claims of the right's hypocrisy. (BTW, that's a Hot Air link, so you won't get dirty by clicking on it. I'll never link Glenn Greenwald. Maybe Rick Ellensburg, but never Glenn Greenwald.)

Either one objects to invading someone's sexuality or one doesn't. One can't have it both ways. Greenwald can bluster all he likes about believed instances of the right's hypocrisy on the issue, but he proves he's just as hypocritical.

The rule seems to be, "I'm against it if it hurts my party."

Which is hardly an ethic worth calling such.

Many note that this will backfire on liberals. Well, it will, but it will backfire on people of principle generally. Everyone gets a little dirty when the pigs start rooting up shit.

I'm mystified at the liberal religious conviction that gays must think according to the gay agenda, and blacks must do similarly, else they are "hypocrites" and "sellouts" deserving of the worst sorts of blackmail and calumny imaginable.

Does that mean, I wonder, that straights who fail to endorse "the straight agenda" should be blackmailed by outing their own (straight) sexual misbhavior, and that whites who fail to support "the white agenda" (defined as whatever the GOP is in favor of) should be called "racial sell-outs"?

Glenn Greenwald: Racial sellout. A traitor to his race.

Kind of, err, Naziish, eh? What makes it any different when a group identity other than "whites" is used as a pretext for enforcement of group-identity orthodoxy?

Why are non-religious blue staters like me so in favor of the Republican Party?

Because the left is fundamentally creepy and nasty, and compounds the revulsion by claiming their creepiness and nastiness to be moral and principled.

Bonus: I assumed that Glenn/Rick Ellensburg would toss into his post the usual ass-covering "Of course I'm against this sort of thing usually" disclaimer. Which would hardly save him -- a single ass-covering sentence hardly makes up for a thousand-plus words vigorously, well-nigh fanatically defending the behavior.

But...

He didn't even bother to do that.

Did not even bother.

So it seems that he's all in favor of outing the sexual misbhaviors of public figures.

Given that he's, you know, a New York Times bestselling author whose blog is read by Senators in Congress, that might, you know, hurt him.

But he's forfeited any right to object. I could object on his behalf, I suppose. If I were animated to do so.

But Glenn himself? Nope. He's in favor of this, ergo he must hold himself to the standard he would impose on others.

Otherwise, he'd be a hypocrite. Non?

More... MKH on the flap.

Karol... continues the gay-smear campaign, now against me.

How dare she.

Gay Patriot West... chimes in, even quoting Andrew Sullivan. Who, to his very minor credit, proves capable of acknowleging the blatantly obvious in this case (i.e., it's wrong).

That puts him a bit above his wingman Glenn Greenwald, of course. But don't expect Sullivan to take issue with Greenwald, or decry his hatred. Sullivan has precious few allies out there. Principle, as ever, is subject to politics.

When Exactly Did Gay Marriage Become the Sine Qua Non of Gay Tolerance, Anyway? Just a few years ago Sullivan was writing about gay "marriage," but noted, realistically, it would take a long time of careful and patient persuasion to convince the public of the rectitude of such a thing.

Then the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling came down, and suddenly all that stuff about persuasion went out the window. Now was the time for it, by any means necessary, including imposing it on a population hostile to the notion by unelected judges.

How did this happen? How did the gay left go from understanding that this was the Big Magillah that would take perhaps a generation to enact through thoughtful argument, to suddenly deciding the moment was right now, and anyone who disagreed was not merely someone who had to be convinced through reason, but a "hater" to be despised like the Devil himself?

Most people are tolerant -- and more than tolerant; fully accepting, etc. -- of gays, but simply do not believe that gay "marriage" contributes to the actual purpose of marriage (creating stable families).

How did 70% of America suddenly get defined as the most vicious of homophobes?

I keep saying it, but here it goes again:

The fundamentalist, religious-zealot is present in many people, even those who are irrelgious or even atheistic. The may not believe in God, but they still have the need to believe in something as passionately as any self-flagellating fanatic might believe in his All Mighty.

The urge remains. It is simply channelled into a religion without a true god.

If you can defend shameful behavior without shame, you're a fanatic. If not for a acknowleged religion, than for one of your own devising.

You can have a religion without a god. But you can't have a religion without a Devil.

The Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwalds of the world may not acknowlege any Supreme Good, but they certainly believe in a Supreme Evil.

That would be you.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 870 words, total size 6 kb.