Yeah, that's right. That's the Influence Peddler's damn near brilliant suggestion.

Remember, the Speaker of the House does not need to be an elected member of Congress, though he always (or almost always) has been. (Update: House rules say only a Member can be Speaker, but the Constitution does not so specify.)

Why not?

Thanks to Brian.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

And he hung up the phone when asked about it by reporters.

I demand an immediate investigation into what Harry Reid knew about his sketchy windfalls engineered by a Democratic hack implicated in a bribery scandal, and when he knew it.

Also, I'd like Nancy Pelosi to accept responsibility and resign.

Thanks to Phin, who, by the way, is responsible for cleaning up the site's comments.

Posted by: Ace at 12:31 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

And if there's anything worse than a terrorist, it's a terrorist zombie, by gum.

Andy the Squirrel throws some math at me. I have no idea what he's talking about, but he concludes that we're killing zombies, so it has the air of legitimacy to me.

Just deconstructing these numbers:

We've been @ war in Iraq for 3.58 years.

The latest "report" claims 655,000 deaths.

655,000/3.58= on average 182,960 deaths per year.

Iraq has a population of 26,074,900.

This would be a death rate of 70 basis points, or 0.70%.

The CIA FactBook states that the projected death rate, from ALL causes, in Iraq is 5.37 deaths per 1000 population.

(Also note this chart- Death rate has COME DOWN since 2000.)

5.37/1000 = 54 basis points, or 0.54%.

Somehow, the War in Iraq is causing a rate of death that is higher than ALL causes of death, INCLUDING THE WAR ON IRAQ!

Somehow, it appears that "Death by Causes Other Than The War On Iraq" is somehow RESURRECTING PEOPLE! I guess the United States kills them, and then they get raised from the dead to fight on.

Make any sense? It doesn't have to. Just know that there are 2 per 1000 zombies running around in Iraq. That's all you need to know.

He adds the original '03 "study" was discredited even by very liberal, anti-war amateur webzine Slate. They just took their old numbers, he says, and multiplied by the "Finageler's Constant" of 6.

Analog Kid also knocks down the study as being preposterous, but gets docked three points for failing to consider the Zombie Gap.

He does note that the "random" areas surveyers were sent to included Baghdad and Fallujah.

No problem extrapolating whole-country death numbers from anecdotal evidence gathered from jihadi propagandists in such "random" cities, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (57)
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Indictment coming down this afternoon.

Thanks to RobG.

Posted by: Ace at 11:59 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

STREAMING FOXNEWS VIDEO HERE.

THE FAA NOW SAYS IT WAS AN AIRPLANE, NOT A CHOPPER.

...

"Why is this plane doing acrobatics in New York City?" eyewitness asked of herself as she watched plane drop altitude and dip its wing to turn towards building.

...

Precautionary "Level 3 Mobilization," flooding officers into Manhattan to protect government, religious sites, until terrorism can be ruled out, according to Bernie Kerik, former NYPD Chief of Police.

...

NYFD thinks it's a chopper.

Damage is limited to several apartments on two floors, plus scorching and burn damage down the exterior wall.

On the upper east side, the Yorkville neighborhood, right on the FDR/East River.

72nd Street. Near the blogger Pretty Numbers, and not far from Karol from Alarming News.

No indication of terrorism. I'm inclined to believe that. This is not a megaterrorism type attack.

This map should point out the location. It's 524 East 72nd Street, on York Ave.

Bleg: What's the URL for watching Fox live on the computer, for those who want to watch at work?

Pic: At Hot Air. Hot Air quotes AP claiming it was a multi-engine small plane, but FoxNews, at the moment, is pretty insistent it was a helicopter.

It's a three-alarm fire, by the way. The damage to the apartments involved is complete, and fire is still raging there, but I can't imagine this caused major structural damage.

More: Two people dead, confirmed. An unknown number of people are trapped on the upper floors due to fire and smoke.

Mark Foley = Gary Condit: I'm reminded of our summer slumber in the August of Chandra Levy while Al Qaeda plotted.

Not that this is likely a terrorist attack. But it does focus the mind on the fact that a terrorist attack is always possible.

It may be pilot error, it may be a vicious suicide attempt, it may be that category of Jihadi attack which the MSM and government don't call terrorism -- a crazed Muslim fanatic who individually decides to kill people. It's probably the first one.

Could be the pilot just watched the aerobatic shows and thought he had some skills of his own.

Not to devolve into the trivial when people are dead and other trapped, awaiting rescue, but expect the 9/11 South Park episode to be cancelled, at least for a long while.

I question the timing.

10/11? Suggestive of an individual jihadi, but I'm still betting big on pilot error.

NORAD scrambling fighters over cities as a "prudent measure."

DU'ers Are Afraid Of Brown People! The DU'ers, who regularly accuse rightwingers of overreaction, are apparently going more batshit crazy than usual, and not just in a question-the-timing way.

They're already blaming brown people for this likely accident.

They note:

Turn the date upside down 9/11/01 = 10/11/6

Well, okay, there's something there, I guess, but not much. It does make the case for Sudden Jihad Syndrome a little stronger, as one commenter notes.

Thanks to Tushar for that.

I wish the DU'ers would man up and stop shitting themselves blaming everything that happens in the world on brown people, though.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.

I swiped this from Hot Air. Seems kind of cool.

Just curious where you guys come down.

The poll is primarily interested in Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. It's interesting that Romney has become a front runner in a lot of people's minds.

I think he's the odds-on favorite at this point. As much as I love Rudy, I don't know if he's going to be able to persuade social conservatives to give him a chance as President. Especially when there's a strong alternative not named "John McCain."

Results So Far... Not a surprise, really. Giuliani, Romney lead the polling (Giuliani first), with Gingrich making a dark-horse showing.

Pretty much how I figure it.

And John McCain?

Nowhere.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush calls The Lancet's claim of 655,000 casualties "not credible."

And still, this idiotic claim gets a Drudge link.

I want a Drudge link, too.

So:

During the unjust invastion/occupation of the sovereign kite-flying state of Iraq, seventy-three bajillion people have died.

I know the headline said "sixty-eight bajillion." But that was three minutes ago. Another five bajillion people have perished since I wrote that headline.

When will the carnage stop?

Let it be known that I've based my estimate of the dead in Iraq on the lastest information gleaned from official Iraq and US Government figures, data gleaned from jihadi websites, little tidbits passed to me in an IM cybersex session with Mr. Green Helmet, as well as my fondness for the number "one bajillion," which is a vague and fluid number that covers a lot of ground, the way a number should.

Don't want to get too pinned down on real numbers. Like the Lancet.

Here's what I found out from Mr. Green Helmet:

Ace_of_Cyber69: What are you wearing?

Green_Helmeted_Warrior_of_Love: Just shorts and a t-shirt. And of course my green helmet.

Ace_of_Cyber69: Sounds sexy. Did you spank it this week?

Green_Helmeted_Warrior_of_Love: No, I've been too busy planting Minnie Mouse dolls in bombed out buildings.

Ace_of_Cyber69: Sounds hot. Do I make you horny?

Green_Helmeted_Warrior_of_Love: LOL. A little.

Ace_of_Cyber69: Well why don't you slip out of your shorts and get comfortable?

Green_Helmeted_Warrior_of_Love: Okay... wait, my mom's calling me. By the way, sixty-eight bajillion people have been killed in Iraq.

Ace_of_Cyber69: Sounds hot. Would you like a pony for your birthday?

The Lancet also seems to finish its painstaking studies right before US elections.

Who will be brave enough to first question the timing?

Decision '08 uses the Lancet's methodology to guestimate the battle dead in previous conflicts.

Gettysburg: 4.78 million dead, 18.9 million wounded

I did not know that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.

...in response to coming sanctions.

Alllah asks what's left for North Korea to lose-- why not go to war?

Well, they have a lot to lose. Like, for example, their entire country. North Korea has about 24 hours to decimate Seoul by artillery and rocket fire before Big Daddy America bombs all their weapons to hell.

North Korea has a conventional army. Which means it's the sort of country that ought not be threatening the US with war.

How Long To Knock Out North Korea? The two big obstacles are the size of North Korea's army and the fact that it has thousands of artillery pieces ready to rain shells on Seoul.

The army is big, and, we're told, very disciplined, but we know exactly where they are. They're almost all massed on the border of South Korea. Putting them not only in range of our artillery, but also in easy range of our planes.

The turn-around time for fighter-bombers returning to Okinawa or an aircraft carrier, refueling and re-arming, and then making the quick trip to the North Korean border would be short. Their army is so big I don't think it's possible that a first strike could conceivably take out all their artillery, but 12-24 hours of constant sorties, targeting their artillery, should do the trick.

As for their infantry and armor -- well, a few large bombs take care of any attempts to surge south. Again, conventional army moving in mass... a bunch of daisy-cutters end that surge pretty quiclkly.

Military people note their artillery is "dug-in." That's another word for "immobile" and "easily targeted." Digging in doesn't help too much against a smart bomb, or even well-aimed American artillery.

North Korea also has a lot of rockets, but, as the Hezbollah-Israel war showed, rockets aren't particularly devastating weapons. They don't pack massive warheads and are often poorly aimed. Further, it's doubtful that many of their fixed missile positions would survive the first several hours of combat, and their mobile missile trucks would be destroyed not long after. Leaving them with man or truck portable rockets that Hezbollah fired off as "terror weapons," but were more accurately described as "nuisance weapons."

Seoul would be greatly damaged by the barrage of artillery fire. But perhaps not as much as feared. The Norks cannot train all their artillery on Seoul while American and South Korean artillery is simultaneously blasting their guns. The attack would pound Seoul, but it would be a fairly brief attack. And a few large bombs -- MOABs, for example -- would certainly send many units scattering back from the border.

North Korea is right on the sea, easily surrounded by gunships and aircraft carriers, easily reached by F-15's and Tomcats and Super Hornets and, of course, B-52's.

As for the atomic bomb: Even assuming they have one, they could only hope to bury one where they think we'll be invading and then detonate it under our troops' feet. They can't deliver it by missile; they can't deliver it by plane. It's unlikely they have a bomb small enough to deliver by plane, and even if they did, they wouldn't have many planes left after the first several hours of war, and the skies would be controlled by US planes afterwards. And no ships will be leaving North Korea, either.

They could move it through tunnels, perhaps, but again, we're likely talking about a fairly primative, and thus fairly large, device that will be pretty hard to move through anything but large tunnels.

The only thing I really see stopping a swift US decimation of all of North Korea's military power is South Korea, which is understandably reluctant to lose Seoul in the fight (and much of Seoul would be lost).

Still, if it comes to that, if North Korea really attempts to go out in a blaze of glory, the blaze will be short-lived and the glory will paltry, and bloody.

The downside is that hundreds of thousands of North Korean soldiers will be quickly killed, leaving the country for years with a massive debt in young men, and thus an even worse depopulation problem that it has now.

But the war can be won, and, I think, pretty quickly besides. North Korea is in worse shape, geographically, than Iraq was in the first Gulf War. A dug in conventional army, plus largely exposed to naval bombardment and easiily and quickly reached by air.

Kim Jong-Il should probably know this, but he probably doesn't. Hopefully his generals aren't as maniacally deluded as he is.

The Sanctions Route: Tough sanctions might actually avoid all this (or, perhaps, goad North Korea into launching a last-ditch attack as the country crumbles).

Without aid, without foreign oil, blockaded and unable to sell drugs, weapons, or counterfeit currency, without any sort of propping-up of their basket-case Dark Ages economy -- how long until the nation simply cracks?

Peasants can eat dogs and cats, but you have to feed soldiers if you want to keep them in position.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 847 words, total size 5 kb.

Set your DVRs.

Cartman seems to be the Truther. Which sort of makes sense, as he's the dumb one (when he's not the super-brilliant one). But I'd've liked to have seen Cartman tear into the Truthers as "stupid (bleeping) hippie assholes."

Fingers crossed he sees the light and does so at the end.

Posted by: Ace at 08:54 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Ellen Barkin is trying to get rid of a few unwanted baubles.

17 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AFP) - US actress Ellen Barkin has found the platinum lining to her divorce from billionaire ex-husband Ron Perelman by auctioning off the jewellery he gave her for more than 20 million dollars.

Barkin had made clear she wanted to get rid of the lot after her marriage broke down earlier this year, telling The New York Times last month: "These are just not memories I want to wear out every day."

The sale at Christie's in New York late Tuesday included 108 lots of diamond rings, necklaces and earrings from jewellers including Bulgari, Cartier, Tiffany and Van Cleef and Arpels, totalling hundreds of carats.

Will someone please pick my jaw up off the floor?

I can't even imagine that kind of wealth. How the hell can you be so rich that you have an ex-wife with $20 million in trinkets that she doesn't want?

Diamonds Are A Divocee's Best Friend

Posted by: Ace at 07:54 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.