December 23, 2010
— Ace That's the Chicago Way.
Posted by: Ace at
01:23 PM
| Comments (48)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace I like the parentheses. It makes it classy.
The song is just plain awful, but it's the first intended "mainstream commercial" song with the f-word (in its literal sense) in the title.
I sort of thought this was going to happen, inevitably, once Cee-Lo demonstrated that one could get a major, major mainstream hit with the F word right in the title and the main chorus. (Big difference: That song's great.)
Once is innovation and novelty; twice is repetition and ripoff; three times it's hackneyed and empty and they'll have to wait a couple of years to figure out the next hot button they can push.
Posted by: Ace at
12:54 PM
| Comments (99)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace Gotta love books. If you're gay. more...
Posted by: Ace at
12:20 PM
| Comments (123)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace Allegedly.
We were told by one source that if this is Michelle Ryan, there's no way Rex knows about it. But listen closely to the voice of the cameraman. Multiple viewers, including a YouTube commenter, have observed that it sounds an awful lot like Rex. Now, we're not into feet or anything, but if that is indeed Michelle, and that is indeed Rex, well, more power to the both of them. Like many, many people out there, Rex is just in love with his wife's feet. Shit, it's almost romantic.But the connections only begin with surface resemblances. We found "ihaveprettyfeet"'s personal profile on a foot fetishist dating site. She lists her location as Ellicott City, Md. When Rex Ryan was an assistant coach with the Ravens, his profile on the official team city had him living with his family in Ellicott City, Md. Michelle Ryan was born in August 1963, a Virgo. "ihaveprettyfeet" lists herself as a Virgo. Michelle Ryan taught high school English before retiring to raise her kids; "ihaveprettyfeet" has a graduate degree, is married with kids, and lists herself as a homemaker. Michelle Ryan once said that, in heels, she was "a foot [shorter]" than her 6'4" husband; "ihaveprettyfeet" lists herself as 5'2". To be sure, there is also an Ellicott City "ihaveprettyfeet" listed on this swingers site. It's a couple's profile. The husband checks in at a very un-Rexlike 5'10, 180 pounds.
steve_in_hb says in a press conference yesterday, Ryan was actually asked about this newest Deadspin sex hit, and answered that he was only taking football questions, which is well-known football slang for "ilikeprettyfeet."
Let's Go Jets Go: Of course Favre asked that woman for a masturbation video.
Of course, the Jets aren't the only team in NYC with sex scandals. The Giants, for example, are rumored to enjoy a dangerous choking fetish. more...
Posted by: Ace at
12:10 PM
| Comments (91)
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.
— Ace They're really pushing for top-dog status, and really seem to have so much money they can burn a lot of it.
China has said it is willing to bail out debt-ridden countries in the euro zone using its $2.7trillion overseas investment fund.In a fresh humiliation for Europe, Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said it was one of the most important areas for China's foreign exchange investments.
The country has already approached struggling European countries with financial aid, including offering to buy Greece's debt in October and promising to buy $4billion of Portuguese government debt.
'To have any discernible effect China will have to buy a lot more than 5billion euros if they expect to have any impact on the negative sentiment surrounding Europe,' said Michael Hewson, currency analyst at CMC Markets.
China's astonishing economic growth has put it on track to overtake America as the world's economic powerhouse within two years, a recent report claimed.
I think this is a good thing. It means China's investing in stability and certainty, and aligns its interest more with our own (and against Iran and North Korea). When you invest in the established order you're more hostile to troublemaking threats to the return on your investment.
Posted by: Ace at
09:44 AM
| Comments (158)
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
— Ace I've always been more into the idea of Doctor Who than the actual show. Like, I don't watch it, but I approve of it. The only old Who I really remember was the Talons of Weng-Chieng, and old Tom Baker episode. (Set in Victorian London, it featured sewers, giant rats, a clockwork robot/homonculous, and an evil wizard who was actually some kind 54th-century Chinese technofascist or something.)
Anyway, for some time, steve_in_hb has been telling me the series reboot ("Nu Who") is worth watching, and he especially recommended "Blink" as a good episode. I watched it last night, and it is good. It's a really terrific example of how you can turn low-cost special effects into an advantage.
It's on your Netflix instant-download options -- series 3, episode 11.
One downside: This has been polled as the best new-series Doctor Who episode, and the second-best Doctor Who episode of all time , so if you get into show from this sampling, alas, you can expect it mostly to be all downhill from here. Personally, I'm going to hit the ones on this list. Next up: the two parter Human Nature/Family of Blood (season 3, episodes 9 and 10), which I hear is also really good.
Oh: Drew points out this is an atypical episode because The Doctor is barely in it at all. But that makes it an especially good episode for newcomers, because the viewer sees the Doctor the same way the main character (Sally Sparrow) sees him: as a mystery she doesn't really know or understand.
Posted by: Ace at
09:18 AM
| Comments (133)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.
Confirmed
— Ace DrewM alerted me to this.
You may remember this awful character.
In a series of cases involving defendants found guilty of child pornography, rape and sexual assault cases, Chatigny used the process of downward departure to reduce their sentences.
Chatigny's theory was that sexual sadism was a mental defect and therefore a mitigating, if not entirely exonerating, factor in sentencing. Which is true in its premise and utterly false in its conclusion: Yes, almost all serial killers, serial rapists, sexual predators, etc., do in fact have some kind of very bad chemicals in their head that causes them to channel all the energy human beings usually devote to sexual/romantic positioning and pursuit into targeting, stalking, capturing, torturing and killing people (especially women and children); that is, they're so evil they've conflated torture and murder with sexual release. Yes, that means they do suffer some compulsions the average person just doesn't.
But the conclusion? That they therefore should be given a limited (or even full!) pass for their crimes, which are spectacular in their evil horror? What?
The GOP struck a deal in which Obama's relatively uncontroversial judge picks, which were being held up as a bargaining chip, would go through whereas his controversial picks -- such as this Solid Citizen (as Lenny Briscoe, pbuh, might say) and Liu -- were blocked.
On page four of this digest of Congressional action, you can see the heading along the lines of "the following nominations were returned to the president" (that is, not approved) and there follows a long, long list of people whose nominations have been returned to the president without positive action.
Now, the thing is, the list is so long I'm certain that many of these names are not being blocked, but merely not acted on yet; but I think Drew is right that this is one of the "controversial" choices which is not going through in the deal. Update: DrewM is right, and all of these names are blocked. Some may be renominated, but for now, their nominations are dead. See below.
It may or may not be a good deal overall (YMMV), but it definitely had some good effect.
Cry: At the HuffPo, a liberal laments that 19 appointed judges failed to be confirmed.
one very important thing was left undone as a result of unrelenting Republican obstruction. Nineteen federal judicial nominees were left unconfirmed at the end of the session, just half of the number waiting on the Senate floor for a final yes-or-no vote.Three circuit court and 16 district court nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee were prevented from receiving votes, including even the most noncontroversial individuals, many of whom are actually supported by Republican Senators. Here is the tragic fact: as a result of unprecedented Republican political gamesmanship, President Obama ends the first half of his first term with a smaller percentage of his nominees confirmed than any previous president.
3 circuit court of appeals nominations went through, 19 were rejected.
Although we frequently get on the GOP for selling us out (quite properly), we can also note the times they get something right. I have to quote this guy again:
as a result of unprecedented Republican political gamesmanship, President Obama ends the first half of his first term with a smaller percentage of his nominees confirmed than any previous president.
If that were any briefer I would put that on a pro-GOP bumper sticker.
DrewM. Clarifies:
Nominations die when the Congress adjourns sine die like they did yesterday. Obama can reappoint the guy but he'd had to resubmit the name and start the process of hearings again.
"Sine die" he says means without a specified date to reconvene (and address the matter again). Thus, the nomination is killed, at least for now, and Obama would have to re-nominate the guy for consideration by a more hostile Senate. So he's gone.
Drew further explains something so obvious I'm embarrassed I didn't realize/recall it: When a Congress ends, all pending business for the Congress dies with it. Every Congress is a new Congress, and only business taken up by each individual Congress can be acted on by that Congress.
Should have let him write the post, I realize now.
I've rewritten the post to delete most of my initial uncertainty.
Posted by: Ace at
08:38 AM
| Comments (63)
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.
— Ace Pretty cute.
Best moment: The Alliance watches the same Ultimate Christmas Movie that I do. more...
Posted by: Ace at
07:58 AM
| Comments (46)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
— Gabriel Malor Jennifer Rubin, WaPo's new conservative blogger, riffs on Krauthammer's recent column, which suggests that, whether you agree with it or not, DADT repeal was achieved more properly because it was done through Congress rather than through the courts. Right up front, let me say: I absolutely agree with Krauthammer that these issues are best resolved when taken up by Congress (and at the state levels by legislatures and voter referenda) than by the courts.
But Rubin goes a step further, arguing that because it is better for gay policy goals to be decided by Congress, gay "activists" should demonstrate "political maturity" and forego lawsuits.
Although it may be too much to hope for, it would be a sign of political maturity, not to mention intellectual consistency, for gay rights activists to take the same approach with regard to other items on their agenda. If they can persuade 65 senators to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," can't they trust the voters in various states to decide marriage and other gay rights issues? If they agree that we are in the midst of that "generational change," (as some Senate Republicans argued during the DADT debate), then it would seem to be a smarter political tactic to work on changing hearts and minds, and then legislation, through elected leaders.
This argument, or a variation, is a fequent complaint about gays. For example, after the Prop 8 vote, it was not uncommon to see folks suggest that the lawsuits should be dismissed because "the voters have spoken." In comment threads about the Log Cabin Republicans' DADT lawsuit, it was often stated the lawsuit should be dismissed because Congress has constitutional authority to regulate the military and Congress has spoken.
But this argument entirely misplaces the purpose of the Constitution and of the courts. Certain congressional actions are expressly curtailed by the Constitution, regardless of how popular they are. This was, in the words of President Thomas Jefferson (recorded in Stuff Jefferson Said, 3rd Edition, Revised), "the whole fuckin' point."
I wonder if Rubin similarly hopes for "political maturity" from the following people:
(1) Individuals who are banned from showing a movie about a politician in advance of elections and who believe this ban to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the First Amendment.
(2) Individuals in D.C. and Chicago who are banned from possessing firearms and who believe those bans to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Second Amendment.
(3) Individuals who want to keep local and state governments from seizing their property to give it to other rich, politically-connected individuals and who believe such seizures to be an unconstitutional violation of rights protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(4) Individuals who are forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance and who believe that imposition is not within the constitutional powers of the federal government.
If these individuals file lawsuits, should they be sneeringly referred to as "activists" and told that they should demonstrate "political maturity" and "intellectual consistency" by sitting on their complaints until Congress (or state legislatures) get around to addressing them? Of course, I'm referring to the much-lauded plaintiffs who won in Citizens United, Heller, and McDonald, the plaintiffs who unfortunately lost in Kelo, and the plaintiffs in the multiple ObamaCare lawsuits currently pending.
Each group of individuals believed that their rights were being unconstitutionally denied and acted appropriately: they went to the courts for a constitutional remedy. That doesn't mean they are politically immature or even necessarily "activists." (To be sure, some were: the Heller and McDonald plaintiffs were specifically assembled to bring Second Amendment challenges before the Roberts Court. But the Kelo and Citizens United plaintiffs weren't. The government came after them, so they went to the courts for help.) That is no different from the lawfully married spouse of a federal employee who the government refuses to add to the employee's health insurance; the spouse has been wronged, and a constitutional remedy, if there is one, lies with the courts. The same is true for when the military discharges someone under DADT; that person has been wronged and a constitutional remedy lies with the courts.
In none of the cases listed above was the constitutional remedy assured (in fact, the Kelo Court denied the remedy). All were issues not yet addressed by the Supreme Court. But the plaintiffs believed that they had a constitutionally-protected right, and so they went to the courts to vindicate that right. That is the normal course of things (at least since Marbury v. Madison) and there is nothing "politically immature" about it, even though it bypasses "all that messy democracy", as Rubin puts it.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
05:35 AM
| Comments (230)
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.
— Gabriel Malor
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:51 AM
| Comments (142)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
32 queries taking 0.0193 seconds, 58 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
