Success isn't a result of spontaneous combustion. You must set yourself on fire.*

*Morons, do not try this at home. (Maybe at work or your in-laws'.)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:54 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Time To Started Spreading The Word Morons!

So the latest Wikio blog rankings are out and AoSHQ comes in at a respectable #51 in the top political blogs.

Well respectable that is until you look at exactly who's in the first 50: Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, Kevin Drum, and Balloon Juice. And then there's Riehl World View, Doug Ross, and McMaynerberry News. McMaynerberry!!

Come on people we can do better than this. And God knows Ace deserves better. The site just hit 100 millions hits and got linked twice this week by National Review's Morning Jolt. And yet we're still stuck out here at #51 along with Ahmet, Jugdish, Sydney, and Clayton. It's time to have some integrity people!

Now some of this is our fault since to date our marketing efforts have consisted mostly of blog posts and the occasional note scrawled in bathroom stalls. But we need your help too. So start passing the word about the blog.

Link it. Mention it in unrelated conversations. Write it on dollar bills you find. Link it. Leave it up on library computers. Link it some more. And evangelize the AoSHQ Way to anyone you meet. This Christmas Ace doesn't just need your money - he also needs you out selling the Moron Message among the masses.

The AoSHQ horde is on the march. And I say it's time we put some fear of the moron into #50 Doug Ross and #49 Dan Riehl.

Oh and be sure and leave your death cards so we get full credit.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:03 PM | Comments (591)
Post contains 848 words, total size 7 kb.

Lots of things going on.

The House just passed a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year (September '11). The GOP in the Senate isn't likely to go for that. With their increased numbers and Republican control of the House coming next month, they are going to want a shorter CR so they can have more control over the budget.

Also in the House, they are debating their version of the DREAM Act right now. Earlier today, Harry Reid said for procedural reasons, the Senate had to wait for the House to act. It's clear the House will pass it, though the vote on the rule was pretty close (I think this is it even though the title of the bill is odd). Once that's done the Senate can move but now there are reports it won't be tonight. (Update: MSNBC says no Senate DREAM Act vote tonight)

And finally, DADT. Susan Collins (Pain In The Ass, ME) really, really wants to vote for this and she's trying to make it impossible for Reid to say no to her (heads up, it's a link to TPM). She says she's sticking to the plan that the tax deal must come first. Reid has apparently pulled DADT from tonight's schedule, so that might mean he's going to do taxes and then get Collins on DADT. Someone needs to remind Collins that the letter from the GOP said taxes AND the Continuing Resolution had to come first, not just the taxes.

As always with Congress, this is all subject to change without notice.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:11 PM | Comments (377)
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Lately I've been thinking a little about culture, and how it's really just made up of three basics: Language, food, and sex. Oh, there is some stuff that is not language, food, or sex, but I'd say that stuff like tv, movies, and music are subsets of the "language" category, and stuff like manners is either a subset of the sex category or a subset of the food category.

Someone's culture, someone's basic preferences and mores in these things, are important to his sense of of identity, often in ways that are invisible to him. For example: Do you, like me, not only turn off Spanish-language music radio stations faster than any other station, and not only faster, but with a little extra punishment-pressure on the Scan button? Like you're annoyed that your radio actuall dared to pick up this station and present it to you?

Why do I do that? I know I'm annoyed by it. I'm also annoyed at people pushing such suspectly alien stuff on me. World Music. Foreign films. Foreplay. It's an intrusion. Not a violation, but I do sort of get my hackles up about it.

I reallly shouldn't. In the end, it's no big deal, isn't it? Who cares?

But I do care. It annoys me when people push elements of an intruder culture on me. It may be irrational, but nevertheless, it's real.

Behavioral psychologists often say that this is the mark of a conservative, and liberals are much more "open" to new experiences and different cultures. But behavioral psychologists tend to be overwhelmingly liberal, and wind up "proving" that which they want to be proven; their research tends to be directed, subconsciously, not towards objective results, but towards self-flattery. One cannot help but notice so much of results of soft/pop science tend to, oddly enough, flatter the liberal sensibilities of the researchers performing the experiments or collating the data. I doubt very much this is a coincidence. (But liberals do have an excuse for their biases: The Truth has a liberal bias, they will say, when cornered.)
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (526)
Post contains 2757 words, total size 17 kb.

Update: Allah points out they are voting on something else at the moment.

Update 2: Harry Reid just said he needs to wait until House votes on their version of the DREAM Act and that won't be for a few hours.

Dick Durbin is going on about how great all these illegals are. He's actually holding up a huge picture of an illegal immigrant, using his name, talking about where he goes to school. Now he says there are a bunch of illegal immigrant kids walking the halls of Congress on behalf of this bill What about those shadows they are supposed to be living in?

I think in Durbin's mind, only illegal immigrants do anything worth while like be named class valedictorian or something.

The GOP said they won't vote on anything until the tax deal and budget is passed.

Put up or shut time.

Vote about to start.

Funny how the day after Obama goes after the lefty base, the DREAM Act and DADT repeal come up? It's almost as if Nancy and Harry want to make sure the base knows who loves them.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:14 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

The biggest holiday of the year is now rushing us like a pack of ravening Russian wolves.

And one little ewok is standing out in the cold facing the onslaught with no support except for the indulgence of a few spastic twits such as yourselves, my sweetie-sweet darling hearts.

Cool Fact about AOSHQ: It's not the only blog where the commenters argue daily that the host is an asshole; but it IS the only one where there is a 50% chance that after much debate and clarification the host can be brought over to their point of view.

That's kind of special, don't you think?
Yeah, the cob-loggers are doing a bleg again without Ace's knowledge or consent. Because otherwise he always says 'no.'

Won't you please click the Paypal button and drop a little holiday cheer into Ace's life?
It might be the best way to prevent another horrifying SluShop™ like this one from infesting your nightmares again anytime soon:

Thanks to 'someone' for the idea and the great timing.

Posted by: LauraW at 10:18 AM | Comments (186)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Here we go again. Harry Reid is going to try and bring up the Defense Authorization Bill that failed to achieve cloture before because it included a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

A senior Democratic leadership aide said Mr. Reid planned a move to reconsider the vote on the annual defense authorization bill, a key piece of legislation that includes language that would begin the process of repealing the law. The move, known as a cloture vote, would effectively close debate and bring the bill to the Senate floor. It requires 60 votes to pass.

Realistically, the aide added, that vote would not happen until late this afternoon or early this evening.

...Several Republican senators have strongly opposed the repeal effort, and todayÂ’s effort is expected to fail.

I'm so sick of this. DADT is not in the top 100 list of problems facing the military today (we are at war you know) yet it takes up almost all the attention the public gives to military issues and the Democrats are using it to hold up passing the defense budget authorization (thanks to Dave from Garfield Ridge for the correction) for this year.

Most milbloggers I read, including some of the guys over at Blackfive, either support repeal or are more or less indifferent to it. If you are interested in the case against repealing DADT, check out this thread by "Grim" over at Blackfive. His number one point is mine as well.

The single appropriate determining factor in answering the question "Who should serve in the military?" is the needs of the military. This is because the military is the last cordon that holds back the world, and the final defender of the space in which our way of life is possible. It is a special responsibility, different from any other duty entrusted to any other government agency. This is a well-established principle in our nation's history: sometimes we have followed this principle even so far as to command involuntary service in the name of the needs of the military, as during the drafts of WWII or Vietnam. Currently, we seek volunteers, but only those who fit the profile of what the military needs.

The question before the Congress has been, "How much trouble would it be to repeal DADT?" The proper question is, "What is the military benefit of allowing openly gay soldiers and Marines?" Is there one?

I've heard a lot about how it will be good for individual gay servicemen and women to be able to live their lives openly or that allowing them to serve openly probably won't hurt the services. What I haven't seen is anyone make the positive case that repealing DADT leads to more dead bad guys and battle field victories. Short of that, I'm simply not all that interested in messing around with something that's working pretty well.

According to Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos, repeal will be a detriment to combat effectiveness.

Amos repeatedly cited the strong negative feelings of many Marines who fear gays in all-male combat units will undermine the close-knit bonds of infantrymen. He pointed to the “intricate, woven … almost a filial love” that characterizes the bonds among infantrymen.

Amos quoted the comments of one unnamed Marine lieutenant who said: “If you were to add any element of sexual competition into a unit, intra-unit sexuality or hesitancy of trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds from forming.”

Amos urged lawmakers to block immediate repeal of the ban.

“Based on what I know about the very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time,” Amos told lawmakers.

In fairness, the Chiefs of Naval Operations Air Force (thanks to Y-not in the comments) says they are ready to implement a repeal now.

Here's a modest proposal...why not remove the ban in those services and leave it in place in the Army and Marine Corps? While all service is important, there's no denying that each service operates in different ways, in different environments. Why should there be a one sized fits all policy? Gays who want to serve openly can do so, just not necessarily in the service they want. Seems that if people are really concerned with the opinions of the troops and the well being of the country, this would be a reasonable compromise. Now, if advocates of gays serving openly oppose this, then perhaps they are more concerned with a social agenda and not military policy.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:33 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 823 words, total size 5 kb.

It's like magic. We always lose the close ones.

In NY-1, the Democrat Bishop keeps his seat. Damn it a ll.

Bishop's victory keeps the GOP net gain in the House at 63 seats.

That leaves the final breakdown for the 112th Congress at 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats. The 63-seat gain for the GOP is the largest for any party since 1948.

There were several lead-chages here -- Bishop was aheaad on election night, then additional ballots put Altschuler ahead, then recounts and challenges put Bishop ahead again.

At Hot Air, Mark Dayton, a true spazzmoid, has won the right to misgovern Minnesota the same way he misrepresented it, earning at one point the honor of Worst Senator from liberal Time Magazine.

2012 must be the year of Tanner Boyle.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 161 words, total size 2 kb.

Sounds like the Portland, OR case where the freelancing terrorist was dealing with the FBI all along and there was no real danger.

Authorities say an individual has been arrested in the Baltimore area for plotting to blow up a military recruitment center.

Marcia Murphy, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Baltimore, confirms to The Associated Press that an arrest has been made and says the individual will appear in court Wednesday afternoon. Murphy did not provide any further details. An FBI spokesman also confirmed the arrest.

FNC just used the guy's name on air and you'll be surprised to find out he's a Muslim convert. I know, right? (the linked story has been updated to include, "Antonio Martinez, a Muslim convert who called himself Muhammed Hussain")

Some liberals, including members of the Glenn Greenwald collective object to these operations. Sure he says they might be catching real terrorist or maybe not.

But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction. Having stopped a plot which it itself manufactured, the FBI then publicly touts -- and an uncritical media amplifies -- its "success" to the world, thus proving both that domestic Terrorism from Muslims is a serious threat and the Government's vast surveillance powers -- current and future new ones -- are necessary.

And the post goes on like that for roughly...ever.

Note to the collective: You know why these operations are important? First, they get potentially dangerous lone wolves out of circulation before they can do real damage. Secondly, it puts doubt in the minds of individuals who might be able to make contact with real terrorists about who they are dealing with. Is the guy giving you a bomb really a 'brother' or is he working for the feds and your ass is about to be swept up by dozens of heavily armed federal agents?

That kind of doubt alone may have stopped plots or will in the future. But of course, the Greenwalds of the world are all that worried about that. It's not the stuff of 3,000 word blog posts.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:00 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

First off, it's useful to remember that 2 years is an eternity in politics; we need only look at the 2008 vs. 2010 elections to remember that. And, of course, it's hard to underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as the 2006 and 2008 (and, for that matter, 1992 and 1996) elections show.

That said, Obama is clearly damaged goods at this point. His approval rating is now lower than George W. Bush's. Much of his party is furious at him for his tax-cut "sellout". A large chunk of the population thinks that he shouldn't be re-elected in 2012, and that's starting to include vocal leftists as well.

I've been sure for some months that Hilary has been carefully keeping her powder dry -- artfully parsed denials, notwithstanding -- in anticipation of stepping into the 2012 Democratic primary. Michael Goodwin over at the New York Post thinks that it's too late for Hilary, that she bet on the wrong horse by accepting the SecState position, and that opposing Obama would be an "act of betrayal". I disagree; I think that Hilary would jump into the race only when enough top-ranking Dems begged her to, and almost everyone on the Left would fall into line.

Almost everyone. Goodwin then makes one more observation that really underscores the Dems' problem: "[Clinton would] forfeit the black vote, which could kill her in a general election."

Oops. He's exactly right. And that's the problem that any Dem challenger to Obama (short of another black candidate) would face. Blacks would see it as yet another case of white liberals shoving them aside and grabbing the steering wheel (to borrow a metaphor). And you can bet -- again, based on his track record in the 2008 and 2010 elections -- that Obama would play that for all it's worth.

The Left has lived on racial politics for decades, well after the Right largely abandoned it (hyperventilating by the Left notwithstanding). But unless someone in the Democratic leadership can bell the cat and convince Obama -- should he be in serious trouble 12 months from now -- to step down and let a new candidate be chosen, they're pretty much stuck with him. Even if someone can wrest the nomination from him -- an iffy prospect, see Carter v. Kennedy, 1980 -- they would alienate and depress the black vote, which not only means most likely losing the Presidential election, but also means throwing a lot of Senate, House, and state elections to the 'Pubs as well.

Now, given Obama's general track record over the past two years and in particular over the past month, post-election, in which he repeatedly blames everyone but himself, what do you think are the chances of him voluntarily not seeking reelection? Yeah, that's what I thought, too. ..fritz..

UPDATE: Link added ("He's exactly right") to show continued high support (91%) for Obama among blacks as of October 2010.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:22 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.