Guess the Democrats didn't want their fingerprints on this. So they seem to have confabulated a fake blog and pushed the story there.

StopSexualPredators seems created entirely to push the Foley story into the MSM. It deserves to be in the MSM, of course; but why the chicanery?

What I find interesting — baffling, really — is this: Why did the blog’s creator(s) even bother with the unpersuasive posting history? Why fake it if you can’t be convincing? As we’re seeing, it didn’t take very long for questions to arise about the source of this information. This hack job only makes it more likely it came from an interested DC group rather than, say, the pages who received them in the first place. If SSP’s author had merely posted them to a brand new Blogspot page without the shoddy posting history, the Foley e-mails might’ve been taken more seriously. At least the situation doesn’t lack for irony: The facts reported by the blog appear to be legitimate, while the blog itself appears to not be. Is this a new variation on that storied phrase, “fake but accurate”?

The stupid thing is that this guy could have just sent the emails to a Republican blogger, like myself or hundreds or others, and, after a bit of fact-checking, we would have run them.

Then again, the source would have had to reveal himself, huh?

This is a dirty trick, in the sense of dishonest manipulation. Again, Mark Foley deserves to have been exposed (but should have been exposed long ago). But someone wanted this story out there but wanted to hide his involvement. Who, and why?

Don't expect the MSM to express any interest in that. When a leak damages Democrats, the MSM are only interested in the leakers' skullduggery. When a leak damages Republicans, of course, the MSM are only interested in the content of the leak and don't ask too many questions about how the information got dropped in their laps.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Frist, who's been a hard-on about this, snuck the provision into a ports security bill few could vote against. Bush will sign it, of course.

As Instapundit used to say, it's a good thing we're not fighting a war or anything important like that.

I'm sort of over the poker craze myself. Never got very good at it, and it was a semi-expensive pasttime. It's fun to play with friends, of course.

No doubt it's addictive for some and ruins some people's credit ratings. Still, maybe a little too much busybodyism for my tastes.

Whoopsie! They added the internet gambling ban, but stripped out provisions forbidding serious felons from working at ports.

So: The port security bill provides no actual port security, but it does keep you from reraising with AK.

Update: And just because the FBI suspects the mafia is now cooperating with Al Qaeda, that's hardly any reason to go looking into the criminal backgrounds of dockworkers. Surely no dockworkers have any mob connections or anything.

Why, that's as absurd of thinking the mob may be involved in the waste-management, olive oil, or protection-racket industries.

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 201 words, total size 1 kb.

You Bastards!

In what may yet prove to be the greatest synthesis of geek and pop culture since The Talking Heads filmed "Stop Making Sense", the guys at South Park are opening the new season with a "World of Warcraft" themed episode on Wednesday.

Here is the 19 second promo clip that has been released to hype the show.

What can we learn in advance of this show by watching the video?

1) That Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman are all Alliance players.
2) That, based on their gear, Stan appears to be a Male Human Paladin, Kyle a Female Human Priest, Kenny a Male Human Mage or Warlock, and Cartman a Male Dwarf Warrior.
3) That I obviously have no life.

I just hope that Cartman makes the Horde "respect his authoritah."

Because I'm still pissed off at the 60's that corpse camped my level 25 outside of Southshore. And everyone knows that the Horde are nothin' but a bunch of stinkin' hippies.

Especially the Tauren.

Posted by: Ace at 02:27 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the other funny part of the movie. There, you just pretty much saw the whole thing.

Posted by: Ace at 06:05 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

We have just been visited by very disturbed mind.

Money quote? "The gods (Counsel/Management team)..." repeated multiple times.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:13 PM | Comments (83)
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

"...I'd be nervous," he says, nervously.

Oh Dear: Foley's own webpage about getting tough on Internet predators.

Via Kaus, who notes the New York Times' -- the paper of record, remember -- deliberate conflation of the earlier, less salacious emails with the later, damning ones in trying to rope Denny Hastert into this.

You just can't believe them. It's that simple. They intentionally lie.

This story is quite bad enough, as Kaus (and everyone else) notes, without the NYT deliberately misleading its readership about it.

Congressional Pages Warned Not To Get Too Close To Foley... Back In 2001: According to ABCNews.

Sweetness & Light, meanwhile, notes Gerry Studds (D) was censured for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old page, and yet defiantly turned his back on Congressmen as the censure was read a loud. And he was relected to five more terms as Congressmen-- despite having fucked a minor.

He also posts a dynamite picture of Barney Frank, conducting his own "outreach" on what appears to an underage boy.

I'm sure you remember all the furor over this picture.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Video blogging came up a lot when I was in DC. I have no firm thoughts on it. I'm not sure if it's "the future of blogging," because reading/skimming gives you so much more information in a much shorter amount of time.

Pretty much I think video blogging will be the province of 1) chicks 2) who are hot and/or 3) hot people who 4) happen to be chicks.

I mean, if you're going to spend three minutes watching something it could take you a minute to read, you're going to want some bonus material to go along with it.

Which makes me somewhat skeptical of this newest venture of Oliver Willis':

I guess it worked for Charles Kurault.

Via Ian at HotAir.

Why? Part II: Can anyone even listen to the radio anymore? With Justin Timberlake's FutureSex/LoveSounds at No. 1 (promising, I'm sorry to say I know, to "bring Sexy back") and Clay Aiken at No. 2 (featuring the inadvisedly named single "The Measure of a Man"), the pop charts have now pretty much been dominated by acts appealing to 12 year old girls for about ten years.

"Bringin' sexy back." Right. 1, When did "sexy" go away, and 2, Who the hell nominated Justin Timberlake to go and retrieve it?

Also big on the charts is Fergie (of Black Eyed Peas) with a moronic bit of tramp-pop called "London Bridge." It wouldn't annoy me all that much, except it's awful, and it's a direct ripoff of the popularity of juvenile taunt songs like "My Milkshake" and "Holloback Girl." Those songs were fun and novel; this one's just musty and old and past its expiration date, much like Fergie's dirty nethers.

Posted by: Ace at 02:02 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Allah sends this. He notes that Ken Layne was such a legendary wordsmith he managed to serve as editor for Sploid, the only one of Nick Denton's overpublicized blogs to go under.

Did Ken Layne have a hand in the following unhinged screed, which advances the hypothesis that Bush deliberately leaves bin Ladin free because he's useful to have around as an uncaptured, vote-boosting enemy? And suggests doubt as to bin Ladin's complicity in 9/11?

It's an unsigned bit, usually meaning that the editorial staff wrote it, which would include, of course, Ken Layne. Whether he penned it nor not, he seems to have given it the greenlight.

So, there you go: the very important internet journalist Ken Layne, who is, as previously demonstrated, a goddamned liar.

Once again: if any of the above information is erroneous, all of this was intended as a parody. Not, not a parody -- the one where it reads the same forwards as backwards.

It was intended as a palindrome, that's it. Like Notlob or something.

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Seems to be how the entertainingly named Billy Shields, Chairman of the Arizona Commission that designed their 9/11 memorial, defends his role in the project.

Q: You've said that you're interested in reconsidering some passages on the memorial, re-evaluating the messages. What's going to stay on the memorial and what's going to be excluded?

A: I'm one member of a 31-member commission that meets in public. I'd just like to see it all re-examined.

I'm really concerned about some of those statements. Sometimes things go off into conspiracy (theories) for some people. That's just so far off base in this case. If there are some statements that are . . . really hurtful and offensive to folks . . . we ought to re-examine them. If we have to remove them we should.

Translation: Don't blame me! John, Paul and George didn't see anything wrong with the lyrics either. And for those who did object? Just a bunch of conspiracy theorists, and Mean Mr. Mustards.

Q: Len Munsil has said that, if he's elected, he'd demolish the entire memorial and start over from scratch. How does that sit with you, given all the efforts you and the commission put out over the last three or four years?

A: This is what I'm outraged about. This is not a campaign or political party's toy. This is a . . . memorial, a sacred place.

Three-thousand people lost their lives and their families. It should not be politicized. It shouldn't even be talked about by candidates and political parties. . . . It should be done in a reverent and solemn setting and in a dignified way to those that died.

Please, spare us your outrage Mr. Shields. Your commission decided to incorporate the well documented Anti-American, "we had it coming" rhetoric that has helped make this monument such a public disgrace. Where was your outrage when it mattered, Ringo?

It shouldn't even be talked about by political party's? Heaven forbid that the actions and judgements of individuals on a State Government Commission, spending taxpayer money, be subject to public debate.

What other topics are off limits for political discourse in your opinion, Ringo?

Face it, it's more likely that what really has you outraged is that people dare to question the judgment of you, the moonbat left, the Truthers, and the dispassionate, neutral arbiters of reality-based discourse like left wing Arizona State University History professors.

Q: Were the criticisms that have just come to light in the past week or so simply not out there three years ago, when you were planning?

A: The things that are on (the monument) are all fact-based concerns. I may not like some of them either, but that doesn't change the event. Just because I don't like what happened doesn't mean it didn't occur. . . .

We fought with this internally as a commission. What's going to do a complete and accurate . . . report of those events and issues that surrounded this? Do I have to like that these events occurred? No. But I can't make them go away.

The things on the monument are all "fact based", Ringo? Really? "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" is a fact? Sounds like an opinion, to me. But then I also think it's a "fact" that "Octopus' Garden" is the shittiest song on Abbey Road.

So maybe I'm not as clear on the whole "fact/opinion" distinction. Maybe you could recommend some ASU professors to help me out.

And the monument represents a "completely accurate" representation of the events of 9/11/2001? Please show me why how your inclusion of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the accidental deaths of some Uruzgan civilians in 2002 contributed to the intentional attacks on the World Trade Center orchestrated and conducted by Islamic nutjobs.

For what it's worth Len Munsil, the GOP candidate for Governor in Arizona, has pledged to demolish this abomination. I'll be sending him a check this afternoon.

Maybe I'll make the amount $64. After all, "When I'm 64" is better than anything Billy Shields ever wrote.

UPDATE: Epobirs revokes my Beatle-fan creds by reminding me that Ringo's alias on the Sgt. Pepper album was "Billy Shears" and not "Billy Shields".

To which I reply, sure....if you only listen to the album forwards.

Anyway, thanks for fact-checking my ass, Epo. I didn't even have to buy you dinner.

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.

Anyone a bit tired of our supposed intelligence experts?

AMERICA will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, top US intelligence analysts have concluded at a secret meeting.
Senior operatives and analysts from the intelligence community were almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop Iran acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb.

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking.

"We only have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the Iranian program," said one source with knowledge of last week's meeting near Washington. "Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn't know how to."

The White House's earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence analysts that the risk-to-reward ratio of taking action is too high. At best, 80 per cent of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily.

The "collateral damage" to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

"Unless you can be 100 per cent effective and set the program back by two decades, you'll just get a short-term delay in the program and you may not produce a result that is better than the current one," an intelligence analyst said.

Bullshit. You don't need 100% effective strikes; this is precisely the nonsense that the pacifism-at-any-cost brigades suggested about Al Qaeda and Iraq.

And, quite frankly, you can do a lot of damage of a cruel sort simply by destroying Iran's economy and destroying any and all command and control centers -- putting it into a state of economic misery and anarchy.

Incidentally, if any of the above information is false, I would like it noted I meant it as a "pure straight goof," and that furthermore, Michelle Malkin is a whore for wearing lipstick.

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.