Journalism.

Bear in mind, of course, "journalists" demand entry and act like pains in the ass on a daily basis. When they're going after the little people, you understand.

But do that to them and they'll sic the cops on you.

We do live in Two Americas. And it is increasingly clear that one of those Americas enjoys rights and privileges not shared by the other America.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Interesting Debate in the Comments... About whether Ziegler's purported right to free speech, or the university's right to dominion over what guests it allows on its property, is paramount.

But I don't think this is a strictly legal question, and I think this misses the point. While it may (or may not) be true the university has, strictly, a right to arrest uninvited persons who refuse to leave, in fact a lot of such rights are not excercised, even though they could be, when they clash with free speech rights.

In other words, whatever the true prioritization of rights, the conflict is usually avoided, because those holding the property rights usually refrain from insisting upon their full quantum of rights and, what is the word, just be chill about it.

An example: UNC had the right to arrest the vandals/trespassers, but didn't. Police claim that they are considering charges, but we all know there's a special secret caveat in the Constitution that leftwing lawbreakers are never arrested for vandalism and the like. (If they create a clear and unavoidable disruption, they will be detained, temporarily, and then sentenced to time served, which is usually like 12 hours.)

But here's Ziegler, just standing around with a microphone, being a bit of a pain in the ass, and here come the cops.

Posted by: Ace at 09:02 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Declaring a jihad on jeans.

On any American street, or in any airport or mall, you see the same sad tableau: A 10-year-old boy is walking with his father, whose development was evidently arrested when he was that age, judging by his clothes. Father and son are dressed identically -- running shoes, T-shirts. And jeans, always jeans. If mother is there, she, too, is draped in denim.

Writer Daniel Akst has noticed and has had a constructive conniption. He should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has earned it by identifying an obnoxious misuse of freedom. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche.

It is, he says, a manifestation of "the modern trend toward undifferentiated dressing, in which we all strive to look equally shabby." Denim reflects "our most nostalgic and destructive agrarian longings -- the ones that prompted all those exurban McMansions now sliding off their manicured lawns and into foreclosure." Jeans come prewashed and acid-treated to make them look like what they are not -- authentic work clothes for horny-handed sons of toil and the soil. Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant.

Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products. Akst's summa contra denim is grand as far as it goes, but it only scratches the surface of this blight on Americans' surfaces. Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

...

This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly.

This is not complicated: For anyone, do not trust men who spend hours and hours pondering the intricate messaging and social cues their clothes are sending.

Frigging jackass.

This gets at a problem with many of our conservative "elites:" This is less about politics for many of them then of making-over the country into a Nantucket apres-duck-hunt soiree. Culture is, admittedly, a driving force behind politics -- politics shares war's relationship with diplomacy, i.e., politics is just the urging of cultural preferences by other means -- but many of our "elites" have a decidedly idiosyncratic and quite frankly unpopular view of what our prevailing culture ought to be.*

And that's why so many of these fancyboys supported Obama, or at least did not oppose him strenuously. For them, Obama represented a much closer version of the Platonic good than did Sarah Palin with her declasse number of children and her brassy, earthy manner.

I don't have a problem with preppie culture, really. It's not my culture, but, as with French culture, I do see agreeable elements in it.

Nor do I have a problem with George Will's yachtocentric Urban Haute Bourgeoise culture. (Recognize the reference?) If I had the money, sure, maybe I'd chase his ideal.

On the other hand, I do so wish he'd shut the fuck and get over himself. Silly narrow-shouldered fuck's been wearing a bowtie like it was some kind of Jolly Roger of neckware since he was fucking thirteen years old and I'm supposed to be be taken with his vision of proper men's fashion?

* It's also a largely inaccessible one. If I can be so declasse to quote the Bard of Long Island, "Have you heard of the new fashion, honey? All you need are looks and a whole lot of money."

There is a nice benefit of Levis: They're fashionable, or, if not quite fashionable, unobjectionable, and you can get a pair at Wal*Mart for like fifteen bucks still.

Now, slacks are... well, fine, and I do wear them, but I wear the cheap ones, and of course I worry that they're unstylish and people will make fun of me if they notice the budget manufacturer.

I don't sweat that with Levis. There are more expensive jeans, of course, but I don't worry that by wearing Levis I'm declaring to the world I'm broke-ass poor.

Plus, maybe Will doesn't get this, but for many of us, they're just comfortable. They have the proper amount of thickness to cover our junk, take a bit of beating and lack of care in laundering, and just feel generally good.

Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 923 words, total size 6 kb.

Awesome.

"Are you trying to play stupid?"

Plucked from the Corner, thanks to JackM.

Posted by: Ace at 08:01 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

As another Cornerite, David Fredosso, notes, it's much like John Ashcroft covering up a bare-breasted statue, except, of course, with 99.999% less press coverage.

Bammy even needs the "IHS" on the podium covered up (a reference to Christ).

Why?

Well, the answer is simple: You don't give free advertising to your competitors, do you?

The only exception is if you're doing a taste-test. I expect Bambi will do one of those around 2015. Take the Messiah challenge.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Beautiful. Simply beautiful. I challenge you to get through this without crying. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:28 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

...but not now. It actually takes a a lot of time to post pictures, which is why I usually don't like posting them. I wind up doing nothing but that.

But I do have the latest pics, including some Protest Babes, and I'll get to them tonight-ish when we're not in peak traffic hours.

For now... Just one more picture of three-corner-hat tea-party babe.

I'm just posting her because -- how do I put this delicately? -- she gives my heart an erection.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:00 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday we watched this sac of vinegar and mons-cheese make a beeline to a guy holding an "Obama is a fascist" sign (ignoring hundreds of other people, by the way) and give him a piece of her mind about how "offensive" that was.

Apparently she was sick from work from January 2001 to January 2009, and failed to notice that Bush was called a "fascist" every single protest the MSM covered. Without any network scolding about it, either. In fact, "fascist" was one of the more charitable epithets applied to Bush; "murderer" was one of the stronger ones.

But what's this? Turns out she wasn't absent from work for eight straight years after all. Not only did she see that the left was offensively denigrating Bush as a fascist, she actually used their imagery to illustrate a story she was doing.

And not a story about how wrong it is to call the President a fascist, either. She used the imagery to make the same point the protesters intended, in fact.

As far as I can tell, she didn't scold anyone here.

Does President Bush resemble Adolf Hitler and Satan? That seemed to be the implication during the 9am half hour of CNN's American Morning. A protester wearing a George W. Bush mask, complete with a colored in Hitler-esque mustache and red horns attached to the forehead was deemed a Bush "look-alike" by reporter Susan Roesgen. In her report on how the bureaucracy at FEMA is delaying federal funds for rebuilding New Orleans, Roesgen highlighted a group of female Catholic school students demonstrating for money to repair the city's levees. The students, as Roesgen noted, "hoped the President would stop by" the protest. It was then that the demonstrator wearing the Bush mask was highlighted on camera, while Roesgen narrated, "But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not." The "wad of cash" in the demonstrator's hand was actually several phony dollar bills mocking the Bush administration.

So, Roesgen wanted to mock Bush for disappointing some students who wanted Bush to show up (so they could mock him). She used their Satanic Hitler Bush "look-alike" to mock Bush along with them, without apparently giving any thought as to whether such a comparison was "offensive" to "many Americans" or not.

But carry a sign calling Obama a fascist, and Susan Roesgen will be all over you like Oliver Willis on a Real Doll made entirely out of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches to let you know in no uncertain terms You've crossed the line, dude.

Posted by: Ace at 06:41 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

Wait, did I say MSNBC? My mistake. CNBC.

"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."

One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli's rant two months ago about staging a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the president's bailout programs -- an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.

No edict was handed down? Oh, how comforting. Just your corporate bosses giving you a "friendly warning" then, I guess. No edict. They're as free as ever to voice their opinions without fear of corporate repercussions whatsoever.

GE thinks that a network shouldn't bash a President too much?

Really?

When did they decide that? Near as I can figure it, the sea-change in thinking occurred January 20, 2009. I wonder if that date has any significance.

In honor of GE's bold decision to protect the President of the United States -- who, it turns out, is a bit of a cake-eating pansy -- here's a collection of unicorns and pegasi drawn on black velvet, from DaryIT.

Posted by: Ace at 06:22 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

It's now been over two months since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed. According to the president, here's what the act was supposed to fund:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an unprecedented effort to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century.

Fishermen and lobster industry regulators have accepted such gear loss, but the slow accumulation of lost traps on the bottom has attracted the interest of officials because of the potential impact the traps could have on underwater habitat. Though lost, traps can continue to catch lobsters that eventually die because they cannot get back out.

To deal with the problem, the State Planning Office is proposing to use federal stimulus money to pay for a $2.3 million, 18-month project that would retrieve some of these lost traps from the ocean depths. The federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is expected to announce next month whether it will fund the project, which would run from May of this year through October 2010.

State officials say they do not know how many lost traps are in Maine waters but they do know how many replacement tags they issue each year. Each year lobstermen in Maine are allowed to buy up to 800 tags apiece, which they then fasten to their traps to identify themselves as the owner of the gear.

Carl Wilson, chief lobster scientist for the Department of Marine Resources, said Tuesday that to make up for lost traps, the department allows fishermen to replace 10 percent of the number of tags they buy each year. DMR sells about 3.2 million trap tags annually, he said, so with that 10 percent replacement figure, it could be estimated that 320,000 traps are lost every 12 months. Over a few years, that quickly would add up to millions of traps littering the ocean bottom.

Unbelievably, that's not the worst of it. If you really want to see what sorts of projects this administration deems 'stimulus,' wander over to Grants.gov and click 'Recovery Act Opportunities.' Below the fold, a taste: more...

Posted by: Slublog at 04:34 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 795 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:51 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.