Good crazy:

North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong-Il has at least two nearly identical doubles to stand in for him at public appearances due to fears over his safety, South Korean intelligence officials said.

"They are the spitting image of Kim — the same age, same height and with the same bouffant hairstyle and pot belly," an official told the Yonhap News Agency.
"As far as I know, at least two Kim Jong-Il look-alikes fill in for him for some lower profile official events to reduce the chances of Kim being exposed to terrorist attempts," said the official at the National Intelligence Service.

The look-alikes had plastic surgery and were trained to speak and act like the reclusive leader at public functions such as "on-spot guidance tours," the official said.

Attempts to assassinate Kim Il-Jong are thus complicated by a veritable army of identical look-alikes, sometimes called "Kim clones," other times simply called... "Asians."

I keed, I keed.

Thanks to RobG.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

With the mantra "Hate the sin, love the sinner," left suggests re-educating Republican gays to embrace "God's Plan" of passionate fidelity to the gay left and Democratic Party

W A S H I N G T O N -- John Avarosis of AmericaBlog refuses to discuss whether gay Republicanism is a true "mental disorder" or simply an inborn orientation. Whatever causes gays to chose to be Republicans -- whether it's an upbringing by parents with "perverse" political ideas, or the scar of a youthful molestation by an issue of National Review -- he firmly believes that inside every "filthy, disease-spreading gay Republican" is an "angelic, God-fearing gay Democrat longing to come out."

And if he has his way, camps will be established to "re-direct" gay Republicans' "disordered political thinking" into more "socially appropriate channels," such as signing up as volunteers with the Human Rights Commission and pretending Margaret Cho is gut-bustingly funny.

"Some say they're born that way," Avarosis muses. "I reject that. I don't believe God would condemn an innocent baby to such a filthy, degenerate lifestyle." He believes that with the right mix of "re-education" and outing threats, he can convert millions of "misguided" gay Republicans to a more healthy political lifestyle.

Avarosis' plan is not without its detractors, who question whether anyone should presume to forcibly change a gay Republican's orientation. "It's simply impossible," says one unidentified gay Republican. "Gay Republicanism is an inborn temperament, a way of thinking, a core part of one's identity. It can't be altered by simply forcing gays to stare at pictures of Hillary Clinton and memorize long passages of It Takes a Village." In fact, he contends, that could be counterproductive.

But Avarosis insists that his techniques work. He points to "ex-gay Republican success stories," such as Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald, as proof that a gay Republican "can find the light" if he's simply shown the way, and also blackmailed into following that way.

"Take a look at Glenn Greenwald," Avarosis says, pointing to a copy of Greenwald's New York Times bestelling book, What Would A Patriot Do?, which by the way has been quoted on the Senate floor and is also rumored to cure psoriasis when rubbed on the afflicted areas. "He says that he was once a gay Republican, and three people in America believe him. But through the proper re-orientation, he's now on a Holy Path of self-righteous gay-left vile and hatred."

As proof of this, he points to a recent posting by Glenn Greenwald, in which the supposed former gay Republican writes about Rush Limbaugh:

If the term "moral degenerate" has any validity and can be fairly applied to anyone, there are few people who merit that term more than Rush Limbaugh. He is the living and breathing embodiment of moral degeneracy, with his countless overlapping sexual affairs, his series of shattered, dissolved marriages, his hedonistic and illegal drug abuse, his jaunts, with fistfulls of Viagra (but no wife), to an impoverished Latin American island renowned for its easy access to underage female prostitutes.

"Note that he was once a moral degenerate himself," Avarosis says proudly. "And yet now he has embraced morality, and condemns 'hedonism' in language so stridently you'd think he was inspired by the Lord Him(?)self." Avarosis also notes that Glenn Greenwald is only one of "dozens" of ex-Republican-gays who have now embraced a more Godly politics, offering other names of former Republican gays, such as Rick Ellensburg, Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Wilson, and Sam Matthews. Each of them, Avarosis says, can offer a life story precisely identical to Greenwald's.

Hubris author David Corn calls the ex-Gay-Republican movement, sometimes called "XGR," "a good idea whose time has come." "I have no problem with what gay Republicans do in the privacy of their own bedrooms," he says. "But when I see a gay wearing an American flag lapel-pin, or a 'W' sticker on the back of their cars, I can't help but be a little bit nauseated. It's one thing to have these inclinations, it's another thing entirely to parade them around in public."

Mike Rogers, Avarosis' partner in the "Ex-Gay-Republican" outreach/blackmail project, blames the increasing acceptability of gay Republicanism on an ever-more "permissive" society. "Twenty years ago," Rogers says, "gays knew there was only One Path to political salvation. But a society determined to ram the 'gay Republican agenda' down our throats has taught impressionable youths it's okay to 'experiment' with gay Republicanism, that people should be free to shape their own individual political identiies. It's political perversion, pure and simple, aided and abetted by a godless Republican Party, which just keeps telling our nation's youths 'if Reaganism feels all right, then do it all night.' We wouldn't have these problems if we could just return to the teachings of the Good Book."

At this point he pats his leather-bound edition of David Brock's Blinded By The Right.

But is the Prophet David enough to stem the tide of rampant gay Republcanism? Doesn't alleged "ex-gay-Republican success story" Andrew Sullivan still claim to speak for "true conservatism"?

Avarosis just chuckles. "Well, first of all, no one believes him, now do they? He can't fight what he is inside. Second of all, you have to understand, a person can truly repent and convert only if they are dedicated to doing so. Sure, there are the occasional stories about ex-gay-Republicans 'backsliding,' being caught on ungodly websites like The Weekly Standard, or slipping off to a conservative blogger party. Such are the temptations of the mind. But given sufficient encouragement, and sufficient threats -- did I mention the threats? -- we expect a 90-95% conversion success rate."

He sits back in his chair and beams beatifically at the prospect of doing God's work. "Re-orientation is a journey, after all, not a destination."

Avarosis flashes some anger when it's suggested that his plan for "ex-gay-Republican camps" closely resembles conservative Christian's "ec-gay camps," which seek to "cure" someone of their sexual, rather than political, orientation.

"That's absurd," Avarosis says firmly. "Conservative Christians threaten gays to convert with dire promises of Hell in the next life. We, on the other hand, threaten gay Republicans with Hell in this life, by outing them and smearing them and making them the subject of public ridicule and stripping them of their sexual privacy."

The mask of religious bliss returns to his face. "So, you can see, there's hardly any comparison at all."

"All Gay, All The Time:" So objects a commenter. All I can say is, Dude, this is what the news is. The MSM gets to set the agenda, and their agenda is Getting the GOP For Being Soft On Queers. As an engineer says in Apollo 13 when his math is challenged, "I'm not making this stuff up."

If I were making it up, I'd stop it, because this is looking worse for the GOP than it did a few days ago.

GayPatriotWest objects to the coming gay Repubican witch hunt. I think he goes too far, however, in defending Kirk Fordham, Tom Reynold's chief of staff. There's good reason to suspect he actually did attempt to cover up the Foley scandal, though he denies it, claiming he's being "scapegoated" by Denny Hastert.

This is potentially very bad stuff. I wrote earlier I didn't think it was absurd to think that someone, somewhere had heard about this and tried to protect Foley. If Kirk Fordham did so, he's complicit in this, whether he was acting as a "friend" or political hack.

Friends don't let friends screw seventeen year old pages.

"Who'd have ever expected to see gays and antigays rejoicing together?" So asks Eric of Classical Values.

Who'd have expected it? Well, most, actually. Especially because a lot of gays are pretty damn anti-gay when it comes to gays who disagree with them.

I mean, jeeze, remember when gays were so anti-gay they published private, and very explicit, sex ads from Andrew Sullivan?

But that was back when he was (more or less) against the gay left. At this point he could rape a colt wildebeest and the gay left would hush it up.

I don't think that most Republicans think that gays "don't belong in the Republican Party," as Eric suggests. Some, sure. Some are happy, I'm guessing, to see the makings of purge, to get those damn degenerates out of the Family Values Party.

But the vast majority of Republicans are tolerant of gays, and are proud to have them on the team.

It's the left that really has a problem with this, just as they have a big problem (as Eric notes) with black Republicans and any non-white Republican. Ask Michelle Malkin about that.

It's all about sex with these cats. They're big on sexual autonomy; and good for them, I suppose. But what about political autonomy? What about true political freedom?

There are some heresies that are simply too dispicable to tolerate, it seems.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 1502 words, total size 10 kb.

I don't have much to say about this story. I avoided it because it was simply so evil that hardly any comment could be added to it.

Still, perhaps you'd like to vent.

I don't know of any real political take, except that maybe it's time for even the smallest schools to have one responsible individual have access to a shotgun (locked in a safe, of course).

And I know this guy barricaded himself inside, and there was not a long delay in attempting to take him out, but I've long wondered about the mentality of the police in hostage situations, trying first to talk someone out without killing the hostage taker. I don't know why they do that. If you take hostages, you ought to be killed at the first opportunity. Seeking a peaceful resolution not only puts innocents unnecessarily at risk, it's not even a particularly worthy goal-- who cares if subhumans like this live or not? Frankly it's better for all concerned, including themselves, if they're killed by a sniper's headshot on site.

Again, I don't think that really applies to this situation. But it still makes me think about it.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's see... we're running on national security and the economy, they're running on general anti-faggotry.

Good times.

David Corn defends the outing of gay Republican staffers, though he says he doesn't "fancy" doing so himself, and pretty much threatens gay GOPers to get right with gay "rights" or face the consequences.

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.

I don't know of any "family values conservaties" suggesting the Mark Foley scandal is about homosexuality itself; if Corn has names in mind, perhaps he'd be so kind as to suggest them?

The MSM continues doing its best to keep the Democrats out of this. Why, it's not only Republicans who are the faggots, it's Republicans who are the fag-haters, too!

On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there's anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a "network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice." The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List--drawn up by gay politicos--is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.

Unidentified House GOPer? That could be anyone from a page to a Congressman.

This is the story the Democrats are pushing, and yet Gloria Borger makes sure she doesn't quote any of them suggesting that. After all, they're the party that embraces faggots (unless they vote the wrong way).

The whole kabuki theater here is absurd. It's Democrats who want gays outed; it's Democrats who want homosexuality made an issue (because they think, perhaps somewhat correctly, that gay aides will turn off some conservative voters).

But the Democrats can't be seen behind these moves, otherwise they'll have problems of their own. They'll be trading in the sort of slime they accuse Republicans of trading in (though, of course, most comments about people's sexuality come from Democrats).

Or at least they think they may have problems. In reality, they won't; the entire gay left and "pro-gay" media and Democratic Party are solidly behind a little gay-baiting, so long as it's politically useful. So I don't know why they don't just drop the ruse and run with the one issue that's working for them: homophobia.

The Democratic Party

Soft on terrorists. Hard on fags.

PS: The charge that gay staffers might have known more about this than most is not, I have to admit, all that absurd. Based on my limited experience, the gay rumor wire is a lightning fast one. Chat up a guy in a piano bar in LA, and gay dudes are going to hear about in New York the following day.

I don't know anyone knew anything actionable. I just don't find the suggestion patently absurd. People hear stuff. Gay people hear a lot of gay stuff.

No evidence for this. But not necessarily absurd.

But I do wonder why it is suggested that only gay Republican staffers would have heard about this. Why not gay Democratic staffers? Again, in my limited experience, a good rumor cares little for party affiliation.

Hm: Some posters question the use of "fag/faggot/faggotry."

Well, sometimes I use those words for humorous reasons. Not here, though. I'm basically using the crudest possible language to describe the left's anti-gay jihad, to put it in stark terms. To basically attempt to shame them, which, of course, would never work anyway, so maybe I shouldn't bother.

The gay left is in perfect alignment here with the fag-hatin' elements of America. They ought to know who their allies are, and whose tactics they're emulating.

David Corn tries to dress up his threat against gays in pro-gay language. Hey, dick, if you're going to trade in homophobia, learn the proper terminology: Queers. Faggits Perverts. Buggerers. Don't hide behind some bullshit pose; embrace your inner fag-hater.

I thought that was obvious, but I guess I need to explain.

I didn't intend to offend any gays (or straights, for that matter, who don't like the word either), and I apologize if I did.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

The S&P also set a five-year intraday high.

The surge was driven by an ISM report, which slipped, but mostly in the prices paid component.

Oil edged up, but is still below $60. It's below $59 for spot purchases.

The Institute for Supply Management said its gauge of the services sector, which accounts for about 80 percent of the U.S. economy, slipped in September more than economists had expected. In addition, the index's prices-paid component fell sharply, stemming inflation fears.

"The report was not nearly as bad as the headline figure. Most of the weakness was concentrated in the prices paid, which is actually a positive for the market in that it takes some of the pressure off the Fed and points to moderating inflation pressures in the economy," said Michael Sheldon, chief market strategist at New York brokerage Spencer Clarke.

Growth with low inflation.

Worst. Economy. Ever.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

For a while it's been suspected, with some evidence, that the vicious lefty gay blogs AmericaBlog and Mike Rogers were somehow involved in the Foley outing, and then hid their tracks for one reason or another.

It's beginning to look like that's exactly what happened.

One of Mike Rogers' old posts hinted a year ago that "more was coming" as regards Mark Foley's sexual problems.

That line has now been deleted. Why?

And Dick Morris says that he's been told a "one very prominent member of the Democratic leadership knew about this for months." Video here.

The Democrats can hardly accuse the Republicans of sitting on the story if they knew more about the story and sat on it, right?

One would think. But the MSM will be there to provide cover for them.

Brian Ross Disingenuousness Watch: Brian Ross has claimed this story got fed to him from people "from the same party" as Foley.

We'll see.

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

I mean, the photo used for the photoshop has been found.

Allah wants to know if Ken Layne will now offer a retraction. Of course not. It was all a "joke," so there's nothing to retract.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

I really have nothing to say about this.

MIAMI -- Miami Heat center Shaquille O'Neal is no basketball fan -- that is, when it comes to the new type of basketball being used by the NBA this coming season.
He described the new ball as "terrible."

The NBA said the ball, designed by longtime athletic equipment maker Spalding, is made with "a microfiber composite" and has a moisture management system that helps keep its feel consistent.

The only reason to post this story was to come up with a cheeky headline. I'm not sorry, and would do it again.

Posted by: LauraW. at 07:23 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

With his pointed shoes and his bells
Speaking to some Venezuelan Dictator
Who says, he knows me well.

OK...so thats not exactly how the lyric goes in Bob Dylan's "Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again", but how many songs have been written about crazy South American dictators anyway?

Besides that musical theater homo-shit "Evita", that is. And I'm not about to quote that.

Because the minute I do, you morons will be trading favorite Broadway musical links in the comments, and it will be all my fault.

No, I'm sticking with the Dylan lyric because it gives me a tenuous segue into a much more relevant quote. One that should be perfectly well known to a bunch of foaming at the mouth caesarists like, well, us.

ANTONY:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

That's Shakespeare, Holmes. "Julius Caesar" to be exact.

Why am I adding Shakespeare to the AoS Lexicon?

Because Venezuela's muy loco leader has decided that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should be referred to from now on as Chavez' dog and that's the greatest quote referring to dogs that I can think of off the top of my head.

President Hugo Chavez called U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a "dog of war" on Tuesday, saying the defense chief has no business suggesting neighboring countries are concerned about Venezuela's arms purchases.

Chavez said it's disingenuous for Rumsfeld to say he knows of no country that is threatening Venezuela, and he insisted that the U.S. is a threat.

Heh...sounds to me like Chavez is the dog with a bone for the US. I'm not too sure that anyone besides Keith Olbermann and the DU has a hard-on for Mr. Chavez.

"If this man is saying that my neighbors are worried because the weapons that Venezuela is acquiring could go to the leftist guerrillas, I need to know, President Uribe, if you have some type of worry regarding this," Chavez said. "It should be you who says it, not the dog of war."

In his televised speech, Chavez also chuckled as he called Rumsfeld "little dog" and "Mr. Dog."

Uribe is the President of Columbia. Which begs an interesting question. Should Venezuela and Columbia get into a shooting war, is that not what one would define as a "win-win" proposition? Doesn't it setup a gangsta Oil Cartel vs. the criminal Cali Cartel? Does anyone here see a screenplay for "Scarface 2" in the works?

The thing that gets me, though, is just how many dogs the Bush Administration has. There is Barney. And Miss Beazley is running around somewhere. And you can't forget that poodle, Tony Blair. And now Rumsfeld.

Oh well, so long as the dogs in question aren't beagles, I suppose.

Because that would raise serious competency questions.

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 554 words, total size 3 kb.

Why doesn't Bush drop the "uniter, not a divder" nonsense and offer some red meat like this?

In case he hasn't noticed, he is a divider, whether he likes it or not.

They say every prosecutor has to point the literal finger of guilt at the accused and state his guilt without equivocation. The jury won't convict a man unless the prosecutor seems wholly convinced of his own case. (That's not all it takes, of course, but it's a prerequisite.)

If Bush wants the jury of the voting public to convict the Democratic Party of negligence and dangerous naivete on war and terror, he too has to rise and point the finger of guilt and state in no ambiguous terms they are guilty as charged.

If he's hesitant to do that, who can believe the charges?

Posted by: Ace at 04:05 PM | Comments (97)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.