I met up with Candace Kita at the Ace of Spades HQ safe house located on Tiki Island near Galveston, Texas. As we sipped breakfast Mojitos, Candace excitedly described her latest acting venture. "I have a great guest appearance role on the season finale of ABC's hit comedy series "Better With You."

"The series revolves around three different relationships that are tightly intertwined in one family." "The cast is truly exceptional and I greatly enjoyed working with them." "I can't divulge the plot of tonight's episode so please tune in tonight at 8:30pm EST (7:30c) on ABC."

Candace on the set with Edward Herrmann

Posted by: Open Blogger at 02:31 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 145 words, total size 2 kb.

So Who's Got Inflation?

Well not here of course per Ben Bernanke.

But pity the poor Venezuelans suffering from a nearly 30% annual inflation rate - higher than even Zimbabwe and the Congo. It's takes a special kind of old school socialism to bring even an oil rich country's economy to its knees. And then you have Ireland which actually had a 1.6% deflation rate in 2010.

And even if world inflation rates aren't out of control (yet), food prices are already near historical highs. And nothing makes the world more unstable than hungry, impoverished people who suddenly can't afford food. So look for uh, interesting times ahead.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:25 PM | Comments (1087)
Post contains 1288 words, total size 11 kb.

I guess they think we're pretty touchy about this "3000 dead" thing. They just can't believe we're making such a big deal about that.

So they're going to show us.

Because it's mean of us to say that they are in direct cooperation with the man who killed 3000 of us.

They'll fix our wagons.

The U.S. has already asked the Pakistanis for the helicopter wreckage back, but one Pakistani official told ABC News the Chinese were also "very interested" in seeing the remains. Another official said, "We might let them [the Chinese] take a look."

A U.S. official said he did not know if the Pakistanis had offered a peek to the Chinese, but said he would be "shocked" if the Chinese hadn't already been given access to the damaged aircraft.

Point of no return.

When we pull the plug financially -- and they leave us no other choice -- they will simply go full-on terrorist, and then we'll see what we see.

When we cut off the carrots, we'll just have a handful of sticks.

Thanks to Ben, in the sidebar.

Posted by: Ace at 03:21 PM | Comments (302)
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Slim pickings past that, though, as Jake Tapper notes Obama basically gets two facts right:

1. There is a country called "Mexico," and

2. It has a border.

Well, it's not the actual facts, it's just that they are deployed to be so misleading as to border on truth. He claims the "border fence" is "almost" complete, which might suggest, to the ignorant, that we almost have a fence all the way across our border. Not even close. He means the tiny amount of fence mandated by Congress has almost been built... and that covers about 650 miles of our nearly 2000 mile border with Mexico.

So, done and done!

He also claims we've doubled our border patrol "since 2004." Well, okay, but what's this "we" business, Obama?

Even allowing him to date his build up from the middle of the Bush presidency -- he has only increased border agents about 15% on the southern border.

Yes, we have added thousands and thousands of border agents... to guard the Canadian border.

As of April 9, 2011, there were 20,745 Border Patrol agents nationwide – an increase of approximately 3,246 since President Obama took office.

And what about those agents on the US-Mexican border? Surely that’s what many in the audience thought the president was talking about as he stood on the border and talked about border agents – not those in Buffalo, NY.

As of October 2008, there were 15,442 Border Patrol agents at the Southwest border. There are currently 17,659 Border Patrol Agents between the more than 160 ports of entry on the Southwest border.

ThatÂ’s an increase of 2,217 Border Patrol agents on the Southwest border in two years.

The administration has made it a goal to have 18,000 Border Patrol agents at the Southwest border by October 2011.

We need border agents for other purposes besides the Mexican border, but to speak of those agents achieving other purposes in the context of a speech about immigration from Mexico and parts south is deliberately misleading.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (86)
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Bughunts, I guess.

One raid was for Zawahiri, the other one for a madrassa suspected of harboring terrorists.

"Bloodthirsty liberals" who are suddenly pro-assassination are just overjoyed at all this murder-shit.

They're so proud that Obama is almost as good on this single issue as any conventional Republican would be.

Yayyyy...! We've proved we're slightly inferior to our direct competitors!

Anyone ever notice that no beer sells itself as "the Budweiser of Beers"? Like, to do so would just be to confirm that maybe you should just buy Budweiser?

So Obama's the Republican of Democrats on killin' stuff?

Okay. Well... what about a Republican? Presumably a Republican of Republicans could beat the Republican of Democrats, right?

Posted by: Ace at 02:41 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Three Stars. Worth seeing, and in theaters, if you can still bear theaters.

I have two reactions to the film. The first reaction was my fresh, unguarded reaction upon seeing it -- I liked it a great deal.

The second reaction was formed after reading critics. At Rotten Tomatoes, 79% rate it as good, which struck me as a bit low -- even if you didn't think it was great, what was wrong with it? Actually, many of the critics giving it a negative review concede that -- there's nothing actually wrong with the movie, exactly, nothing you can point at and laugh and declare a clear mistake, but it didn't work for them.

For some of these critics, it's pretty obvious they simply hate superhero movies and are determined to pan all of them. Which is a valid feeling, certainly -- these are popcorn movies, and silly ones to boot; not everyone is a 12 year old boy or frozen for life at that moment of immaturity, like me -- but it's not a posture that's capable of parsing between "good" and "bad" entries in the genre. If they all suck, they all suck -- not much needing of review. If you went in knowing, for a fact, you wouldn't like Thor, and left the theater not liking Thor, then what was the purpose of actually seeing Thor? Actually seeing the film was irrelevant to the determination. The review could have been written without seeing it.

However, some critics used a word that stuck with me and caused me to re-evaluate my initial positive feeling -- that word was "inconsequential." And I think, on that point, the criticism is on firm ground. Thor is good in many ways, but yes, looking back, when you think about it (and even popcorn movies, if they're really good, can bear the scrutiny of a "looking back" review), the film is light on its feet precisely because it is so lightweight. I don't mean "inconsequential" as regards the film's importance in the history of cinema -- we knew this was never going to be on the AFI Most Important Films list. I mean "inconsequential" in the fictional world depicted in the film -- even by the terms of the film's fictional reality, the stakes presented are just not all that high, and the journey basically takes you from the initial situation to... a slight variation on the initial situation.

On one hand, critics are praising it, justifiably, for being a lightweight, funny entertainment that doesn't take itself very seriously. And that's true, and that's a good thing... up to a point. On the other hand, even a film like this can aim for, and accomplish, something more than that. Thor doesn't, though. It doesn't try. It ambles along affably and enjoyably, and doesn't take any dramatic risks to be something more than a finely-made light entertainment.

Is that bad? Probably not, given the subject matter, but I do think Kenneth Brannagh could have invested more dramatic weight here (not too much; the material won't bear it) and wound up with a surprising, unambiguously-good "almost a real movie" movie.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (277)
Post contains 6042 words, total size 35 kb.

President Gutsy Call is giving a speech right now in El Paso. He's expected to tout deportation numbers and efforts made to secure the border. But really, that's just a stage setter for what he really wants, amnesty.

President Obama today will try to “create a sense of urgency” here around the issue of immigration and once again call on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, senior White House aides said.

But there will be few specifics in the presidentÂ’s speech beyond a basic outline he laid out nearly a year ago in a July 2010 speech on the subject, and the president will not issue a deadline or a timeline, those advisers said in a conference call with reporters yesterday.

Early materials provided by the White House yesterday, previewing the president’s speech, noted he will “work to build bipartisan consensus in Congress.” That means it’s unlikely something passes or even get voted on before the 2012 election – though Democrats suggested yesterday it is possible there could be some kind of vote that would once again put Republicans on record.

Amnesty of any sort is simply not going to happen. This is another example of media bias. They will simply act as if this is a serious policy proposal and not simply a political ploy that wastes time and is dead on arrival. Of course, when the GOP puts forward things like repealing ObamaCare is simply an effort to revisit settle fights and a waste of precious time. Well, from the defeat of "comprehensive reform" and the theoretically more limited "DREAM Act", it's pretty clear there's no support for amnesty of any kind.

He's just starting his speech and of course he's doing the whole, false-choice, I'm just trying to find the sensible middle. Bull.

Now he's saying giving amnesty to poor workers will raise middle class wages and standards of living. This is just silly.

Once again, Obama is conflating high skilled legal immigrants with low skilled illegal ones. I have no problem letting kids who get high tech, high skilled degrees in this country stay here. What exactly does that have to do with illegal immigrants who don't speak the language and have limited or no skills?

Heh, Obama is touting the fence and the crowd boos at its mention. Come on guys, get with the message!

Mission Accomplished! Obama says people who wanted to trade border security for amnesty have gotten everything they've asked for. I'm guessing the kicker is going to be...now we want our amnesty!

Other than Democratic Party politics, is there any reason to conflate legal, high-skilled immigration with amnesty for those who are low skilled, illegals?

Here we go...

Government has to secure the border
Hold accountable business who "exploit" illegals
Illegals pay back taxes, a fine and a background check
Reform legal immigration to make it easier for high skilled workers, entrepreneurs and guest worker program that leads to citizenship.

He also wants quicker reunification of families. Yeah, more chain migration! Awesome.

Nothing about E-Verify.

In Obama's (and the Democrats) telling of it, illegal immigrants are always a boon to society and wind up as class valedictorian. They never add any economic burden or commit crimes (like say, identity theft).

"Pass the DREAM Act". Says politics can't get in the way. And he said it with a straight face. Gutsy.

Welcome to the 2012 campaign.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:34 AM | Comments (552)
Post contains 640 words, total size 4 kb.

You might have been bothered that of course authorities announced "no known motive."

Well, that is true, I concede. The motive is not known.

I could guess the living shit out of it, though.

Speaking of.

The AP, oddly enough, is brave enough to speculate as to motive.

I have to give them credit here: Most media organizations will not touch the issue of the motivation of oddly-behaving Muslim men with a ten foot pole.

AP is making a true gutsy call here. Nearly alone among the media, they're willing to speak uncomfortable truths.

AP attempted to shed some light on the man's intentions by quoting a relative of the man who helpfully suggested, "He might have seriously mistaken the cockpit for the bathroom.... He's only been on three planes in his whole life."

No "might have" about it. I'm sure that's it. It has the, what do you call it?, the texture of reality to it.

He was probably misquoted. In Arabic, I'm sure he probably said, "Allah willing, I must use the facilities. I've got a cliffhanger episode of Prison Break unfolding in my colon; Sucre's building a bomb and C-Note's crashing a van through the wall."

Great. Now, on top of pipebombs, mall-shootings, trail derailments, box cutters, and anthrax, we now have to worry about sharts.

(Thanks to Fritz for reminding me of that great word. No, not anthrax.)

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (211)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

I think we all knew this without knowing this. No one talked about Trump last week. A lot of his momentum was just momentum, if you know what I mean.

Momentum arrested, and then reversed.

Donald Trump has had one of the quickest rises and falls in the history of Presidential politics. Last month we found him leading the Republican field with 26%. In the space of just four weeks he's dropped all the way down to 8%, putting him in a tie for fifth place with Ron Paul.

Why? Well, the obvious:

Trump really made hay out of the 'birther' issue and as the resonance of that has declined, so has his standing. In February we found that 51% of Republican primary voters thought Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Now with the release of his birth certificate only 34% of GOP partisans fall into that camp, and Trump's only in fifth place with that now smaller group of the electorate at 9%.

Another poll says the number of birthers was cut in half.

And, as Allah notes, a lot of birthers weren't, and aren't, really birthers. "Birthers" may talk about the birth certificate for a lot of reasons:

1. They really believe the conspiracy theory.

2. They do not really believe the conspiracy theory, but also are not very trusting of Obama and the media, and take a "Prove it" stance.

3. They became sort of surprised (as many were) that there seems to be no clear mechanism for enforcing the Constitution's requirement of "natural born citizen," and for reasons I call "hygienic," wished to make sure this particular part of the Constitution was not ignored as dead-letter and some clear mechanism of enforcement was either created, or an informal method (public pressure) was brought to bear.

4. They generally are sick of Obama getting a pass on everything in life and decided to draw the line here, for whatever reason.

5. They generally want him to produce background information and finally get the vetting Joe the Plumper did, and figured, let's start from birth.

6. They figure any tool to dig up negative information on Obama is a useful catspaw which should be encouraged, not restrained, by conservatives.

Where the mix is now, I don't know. I don't know if the remaining believers are now mostly true believers, or still a mix of people who think there is some kind of hygienic reason or partisan-catspaw reason to push this.

I suspect it's still more the latter kind, the not-really-believers-in-the-theory but believers-in-its-usefulness types. I think they're wrong about that -- I don't think it's useful any longer, and in fact is where the establishment previously thought it was: damaging to those who push it.

It's not so much that he's damaged by the implosion of this issue, so much as he was only elevated by it, and now that it's more or less gone, so too his elevation.

Of course he is also damaged. If you build a house on shaky ground, it's going to collapse, and you'll look like a foolish builder.

Candidates still can learn a lot from Trump: The party is eager to embrace a tough-talking candidate who treats Obama as what he is, and what he always has been: A professional politician, remarkable only for his ambition and narcissism.

I do not believe that any old attack will work. Some attacks are easier to sell, some are harder; some will resonate, and some will mostly just damage the candidate offering them. But the stronger attacks can and should be made.

Question: Did Trump's profanity-laced speech hurt him too? I know a lot of people thought it would. I actually didn't think it would hurt him much, given the crowd's positive reaction, and given, too, the base's strong desire to hear Obama treated dismissively. (Yes, I know I'm confusing two things, because Trump's f-bombs were about pressuring the Saudis and Chinese.) So I thought he'd be given a pass, even by those who normally reject profanity.

Not a full pass. More like Chris Rock's joke about O.J. killing his wife: "I'm not saying he should have done it. I'm not saying any man should kill his wife. I'm just saying -- I understand."

But I could be wrong. Hell, look, based on my track record: I probably am wrong.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (86)
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

This isn't the 11th Circuit (which will consider Judge Roger Vinson's more expansive ruling on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare), but one of the rulings against it will fall on very administration-friendly ears -- two of the judges selected are Obama appointees.

For balance, the third judge was appointed by the husband of Obama's Secretary of State.

According to the Fourth Circuit, the panel is chosen by "a computer program designed to achieve total random selection."

In certain cases, the entire court will rehear a case, what's referred to as en banc, but only if a majority of all active judges in the circuit agree to it. While once seen as a very conservative court, the Fourth Circuit has become more liberal over time, especially in the past few years, because Obama has been able to name four judges to the court.

In the first of the two suits, to be heard at 9:30 am, Liberty University will challenge the constitutionality of the law's mandate that forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a fine as well the requirement that larger employers offer insurance.

After 40 minutes of oral arguments, the judges will move to the next suit, in which the state of Virginia will challenge the individual mandate as a threat to state's rights and personal liberty.

The Obama administration will seek to have the suits thrown out, arguing that the parties lack standing to sue, or dismissed on the grounds that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress broad regulatory authority allowing them to require the purchase of health insurance.

...

At the lower court level, one federal judge dismissed the Liberty University lawsuit while another judge agreed with the state of Virginia that the health care law's individual mandate was unconstitutional.

Just to note, this is by Phillip Klein at the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner. I note that because the liberal media always makes a big issue of judge's partisan affiliations when they rule against Obama... but strangely not so much when Democrats rule with Obama. Klein is of course outside of that rule, as he's not the liberal media.

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 373 words, total size 2 kb.