Thanks to Jazz at H2.

Posted by: LauraW at 02:38 PM | Comments (105)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Sullivan just started humming a song.

The terrible thing about this, for me, is that you're all going to say the second fat dude swinging the sword (into the pig's head) looks exactly like me.

What's even worse than that is I have to admit, sadly, he does, a misfortune for both of us. My sad and overweight dorkleganger looks at the camera at 1:37. (Oh wait-- he's right there in the picture the video is frozen on.)

[VID moved below fold for site formatting purposes -- PA] more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:52 PM | Comments (116)
Post contains 303 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember this? Of course you do. It was like three weeks ago. You're morons, not retards.

Well, Newsweek's on the auction block, and the Washington Post Company's sales brochure for it advertises the fact that it's losing money hand over fist!

Well, who wouldn't want to buy into that?

Actually, they might just find a buyer, because some magazines are basically vanity presses for a rich guy who wants to get his opinions out there.

But then again, Newsweek isn't exactly a good brand, so it's questionable why you'd pay for the Newsweek name when you could start your own Vanity Publisher's Opinion Magazine for less.

And if they don't find a seller, they might just fold up, forever.

JPod thinks this is largely because they won't admit they're liberal:

For years, Newsweek was a liberal journal of opinion masquerading as a news publication that attempted to sell itself to a mass readership with a lot of health-care, entertainment, and lifestyle fluff. As a vehicle for news analysis, it was entirely conventional; as a purveyor of sociological fluff, it was kind of fun, though often enragingly so; as a journal of opinion, it was to actual journals of opinion as tofutti is to gelato, flavorless and bland and mock. Last year, Meacham and Co. ditched much of the news analysis and sociological fluff in favor of more and more opinion.

It will not surprise you to know that much of the opinion dealt with the ways in which Barack Obama was right and noble and good and strong and tough and resourceful and a good symbol and an agent of change and so is his wife, by the way — and when it was not about that, it was primarily about how the right is at war with itself and torn and in conflict and dominated by anger and full of rage and presumptively racist and anti-gay and anti-women and anti-media. That was to be expected. But there was really almost nothing else in there, and what was there as a matter of ideological coloration wasn’t especially tough or good or interesting or novel.

But in describing his redesign, there were two words that Meacham did not use, and they were “liberal” and “opinion.” Instead, he promised “complexity” and the publication of “the argued essay — a piece, grounded in reason and supported by evidence, that makes the case for something.” Even with the decision to jettison news from a magazine called Newsweek, its leaders could not bring themselves to acknowledge what the magazine actually was.

And the public beheld it, and like the child in the classic New Yorker cartoon, the public said, “I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it.”

(By th way, the below is not the long essay I was writing -- this sort of just happened. Apologies, as always, for the length of it-- as one letter writer once wrote, "I'm sorry to write you such a lengthy correspondence; I didn't have time to write you a shorter one.")_ more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:23 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 3063 words, total size 19 kb.

By which I mean our Spock-like First Diplomat already insulted him on-the-record earlier this year, when it was looking very likely he'd be the next PM. (In fact, it looked almost guaranteed he'd be the PM earlier in the year; Cameron didn't gain as many MPs as it was once thought he would.)

So, here's Captain Love on England's next likely leader:

ccording to tomorrow’s New Statesman, Barack Obama was unimpressed by his encounter with David Cameron earlier this year and commented: “What a lightweight!”

According to James Macintyre’s report, Cameron’s attempt to stress his pro-American and Eurosceptic credentials did not meet with Obama’s approval. According to Macintyre’s diplomatic sources, the Democratic candidate was “distinctly unimpressed” and labelled Cameron a lightweight.

Macintyre notes that 48 hours earlier Obama had delivered a speech in Berlin stressing “the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future”.

Following the meeting with Cameron, Obama apparently asked officials for more information on Tory Euroscepticism. Macintyre also speculates that Cameron’s support for the Iraq war – which Obama opposed – did not help the relationship either.

Yes, Mr. President, but does he also tea-bag?

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (451)
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

At Hot Air.

[VID MOVED BELOW FOLD FOR SITE FORMATTING PURPOSES -- PA]

Laura Ingraham interviewed the parents, too. Apparently Cinco de May is the wrong day for patriotism.

I wanted to post this quick (despite being a bit of a double-post, as DrewM. just posted on the same topic) to let you know I'm not slacking. I've been writing a longish essay on this since yesterday (well, I noodled in my head on it an hour or two yesterday) and wanted to bang it out today, but it's taking a while. The middle of the day is not a very good time to start composing a long-ish essay.

I'll start going back and forth between quick news posts and finishing that.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 AM | Comments (105)
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.

A follow up to the Cinco de Mayo story I blogged about yesterday.

The district superintendent issued a statement making it clear that the action taken by the principal does not reflect district policy. The statement doesn't include an apology or indicate any disciplinary action will be taken against the principal.

Of course there was a reaction from Mexican students yesterday.

On Thursday, about 200 Mexican-American students walked out of class in protest of the flag clothing incident. Members of the group waved the Mexican flag and said they were marching for respect and unity. They also demanded the school suspend the boys who wore the U.S. flag-adorned clothing.

Ah yes, demanding that Americans be suspended for having the temerity to wear the American flag really fosters 'respect' and 'unity'. Surrendering to a cancerous form of political correctness represents neither of those ideas.

Meanwhile, lefty blogger Charles Johnson terms the whole situation a wignut "notroversy" (no link you can Google "lgf outrageous outrage of the day" if you want to see it).

What school principal wouldnÂ’t have done the same thing? DonÂ’t they have a responsibility to maintain order in school? And if so, isnÂ’t it blindingly obvious that they need to take action when students do things that are designed to create conflict and bad feelings?

How would these bloggers feel if a group of Mexican students came to a school event wearing Mexican flags on July 4th? You can just imagine their overheated reactions. The hypocrisy reeks.

It takes a special type of lunacy to think that in America the American flag is a provocative symbol that needs to be banned to maintain order.

Now, I do agree that principals have a responsibility to maintain order. For that reason any student that threatened violence or actually committed a violent act should be suspended, expelled and criminally prosecuted.

Here's a newsflash for Chas and others...Mexicans demanding respect and primacy for their national pride and culture in the US creates "conflicts and bad feelings". I can assure you that wearing American flag apparel on say, St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day will not lead to bad feelings by Irish or Italian-Americans. There would be no need to send home anyone who wore a US or even a Mexican flag shirt to school that day.

What's the difference Charles?

I honestly don't hold the kids of Mexican descent responsible for their feelings. We have failed them by creating an education system and society that doesn't demand that there be some shared some sense of American identity. We always here the left talk about the need to capitalize on 'teachable moments'. Well, here's an ideal opportunity to explain to these students the traditional concept of the American melting pot.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:53 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

Could be something, could be people reporting stuff out of an abundance of caution.

Either way, I think I know who Contessa Brewer hopes is responsible.

UPDATE: Not sue what it is was but apparently nothing dangerous.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:46 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Behold the Obama administration at work...there's a leak, announcing that the pick will be leaked soon.

Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isnÂ’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if itÂ’s otherwise. KaganÂ’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post.

Kagan has obviously been at or near the top of everyone's list so it's not really a surprise if she's the choice.

Put aside the fact that we aren't going to like anyone Obama puts up and accept that Kagan is a liberal, this is not the hard-core lefty the base really wants. Kagan is not Diane Wood with her unabashed pro-abortion track record.

There's already some preemptive push back on Kagan for being insufficiently open to hiring women and minorities while Dean of Harvard Law. She brought in too many damn white men for some people's taste. If you follow the Politico link through to Salon, you'd get the idea that Kagan was a member of the Klan or something.

She was confirmed 61-31 to be Solicitor General last year. She got 7 Republican votes. Interestingly they included John Kyl, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn. Strangely Specter voted against her but mostly because he thought she ducked too many questions. Expect him to flip on that in heart beat. He's principled like that. I'm not sure how Lindsey Graham voted in committee (he missed the full Senate vote) but he's made nice noises about her recently.

Unless something new and damaging comes out (and no, whether or not she's gay doesn't count), Kagan would likely win confirmation. Elections, consequences, some assembly required.

Meanwhile, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions (who voted against Kagan last year) lays out the case against Obama's judicial philosophy.

President Obama said recently that his court nominee must have "a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people." This is nothing more than another thinly veiled attempt to justify judicial activism. What matters is what the Constitution says, not a judge's personal take on what laws are best for the country.

Consider Goodwin Liu, the University of California at Berkeley professor whom the president nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Liu has argued that judges should treat the Constitution as an infinitely flexible document to be interpreted through nebulous "social understandings" and the consideration of foreign law. This activist philosophy led Liu to conclude that the Constitution provides a right to government health care and welfare -- a remarkable view of a document designed to curb the excess of federal power.

The American people overwhelmingly disagree with this approach to judging. So the president is playing a rhetorical game, accusing the court's conservative, or traditional, justices of being the real activists: harboring a secret bias for big businesses. It is an absurd suggestion.

This is the real value of opposition to just about anyone Obama will nominate. It's really hard to defeat a Supreme Court nomination, especially when the opposition party has 41 Senate votes. Republicans can however draw some sharp distinctions about the appropriate role of the courts and the types of justices each party supports. That's a fight I think plays well for us.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:04 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.

The people of the UK voted and decided they pretty much don't like anyone.

The Conservatives picked up around 90 108 seats but they had so few seats after so many years of Labour rule even picking up that many seats wasn't enough to get them an outright majority. Labour has lost about 80 100 seats (there are still a handful of outstanding seats to be awarded). The Liberal Democrats seem to have about the same number of seats with 57 so far (actually, they lost 5 seats).

So at this point it looks like the Conservatives have 304, Labour 257 and Liberal Democrats 57 and a handful of minor parties (Scottish, Irish, Welsh based parties and the Greens even won one) have 28. It takes 326 to get a majority.

What happens now? Let's make a deal!

Despite the fact he's led his party to a historic defeat, as sitting Prime Minister Gordon Prime Minister gets first shot at forming a government. Technically his 'term' doesn't end and he doesn't need to go to the Queen. As long as he can produce a majority on "The Queen's Speech", he stays Prime Minister until he resigns or losses a vote of no-confidence in the House.

If he can't produce that majority, he will resign and the Conservatives, under David Cameron will get the chance to form a government.

Right now the fight is over how realistic it is for a 'coalition of the losers' (Labour and the Lib Dems) to form a government. It's kind of like 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote.

If Brown can't get a deal together Cameron will have the chance to either form a formal coalition with the Lib Dems or run a minority government. The minority government route means he either cuts deals with another party or parties to vote with them on a few key votes or promises to at least abstain on them (which would give Conservatives the pluralities they need in the Commons).

Right now the man of the hour is Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Dems. He was thought to have been the guy people thought won the first debate and that his party would surge. There was talk they would get in the neighborhood of 100 sets. Not so much.

Who will Clegg go with?

During the election campaign, leader Nick Clegg repeatedly said the party with the "biggest mandate" should get the right to govern.

Speaking on Friday morning, he said that he "stuck" by that position and that the Conservatives, having won the most seats and votes, should have first right to try and form a government in the "national interest".

Many commentators have interpreted his comments as suggesting he would not "prop-up" a government led by Mr Brown even though his predecessor Lord Ashdown has suggested his party is "too far apart" from the Conservatives.

The LibDems big meta issue is election reform. They want to do away with the UK's "First Past the Pole" system and towards proportional representation. On one hand a hung Parliament helps to get people thinking about reform but if people don't like the uncertainty it's producing, well this kind of backroom negotiating is a feature not a bug of a proportional representation type system.

Bottom line, someone will wind up forming a government and then they will likely wind up doing it all again later this year or early next.

All I can think of while watching this....Thank you James Madison!

Also...The exit poll looked a little shaky early on but it was vindicated by the end of things.

It was amusing to watch the BBC feed last night. All the analysts were befuddled by the results. The Conservatives released a list of their targets from 'most likely to take' to 'least likely'. They lost a fair number of the supposed low hanging fruit but made up for it by winning seats where they needed a big upset.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:32 AM | Comments (269)
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.

Something kind of awesome found over at S. Weasel's comments.

Check it out today if you have a few moments. It's an interview of Samuel Clemens by Rudyard Kipling.

Not all that long, and pretty nifty if you're into that sort of thing.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:32 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.