Did he know about it months ago, which seems likely?

Did he tell Petraeus to resign after the election?

If Petraeus had to resign because he was compromised, he was compromised months ago.

Did Obama leave a compromised head of the CIA in place to avoid some difficult politics?

Petraeus' testimony about this -- not the affair, but Obama's knowledge of it and offers to resign -- is now required.

Posted by: Ace at 03:58 PM | Comments (443)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't care if he had an affair or not-- you don't get a pass from answering critical questions on a major debacle simply because you also might have done something else wrong in your personal life.

What the hell is this crap? Who cares if he had an affair? What does that have to do with Benghazi?

I don't know he should necessarily resign over this -- apart from the security breach (which seems minor, if the FBI already says it's not expecting charges).

But I sure the hell know he doesn't get a Get Out of Testifying Free Card.

Testifying before Congress isn't up to your own discretion, when it's convenient for you.

If he now says he doesn't want to testify, tough shit, subpoena him.

Posted by: Ace at 02:30 PM | Comments (417)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

One way to get the inside story.

The woman with whom Gen. David Petraeus was having an affair is Paula Broadwell, the author of a recent hagiographic book about him, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.

Petraeus resigned as CIA director on Friday, citing the affair.

A tweet from "Breaking News" (no idea who this is) says:

Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews

FBI investigating Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell for improperly trying to access his email, officials tell @NBCNews

So, is she hot?

Ehhh... Got somethin'.

Here she is, talking about her book about Petraeus, called, yes, All In.

You know, if you watch that interview, she does actually sound like she's having sex with him. It's a very "we did this, we did that" sort of thing. She sounds like she's talking about her boyfriend.

Corrected: I changed the email thing to a "claim," and dropped the claim that she was trying to get into his classified email.

The claim doesn't even say that.

However, given that he's head of the CIA, all of his email would be classified, it seems to me.

More: Apparently she is suspected of attempting to access classified emails.

Like I said, I assume all of his emails are classified.

The biographer for resigning CIA Director David Petraeus is under FBI investigation for improperly trying to access his email and possibly gaining access to classified information, law enforcement officials told NBC News on Friday.

But they say they do not expect the investigation to end in criminal charges.

Huh?

Posted by: Ace at 01:51 PM | Comments (427)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

By the way, if you're Prime member, all of the James Bond books are free to borrow right now.

Which isn't super-awesome. I don't know how good they actually are. I just read The Man With The Golden Gun for the first time. It was Ian Fleming's last, and I think it was published posthhumously, before he got done editing it. I'm pretty sure the book contains four pages of a scene, and then four rewritten pages of the same scene, with just minor differences. It was kind of weird to read the same basic thing twice.

Plus, it has nothing. No plot. It begins in a bang-up way. Bond, following the events of You Only Live Twice, has been missing for a year, presumed dead. He shows up one day in London saying it's crucial he meets with M; the Service suspects he's been turned, or brainwashed, and might be a Russian mole. I won't say if he is or not, because this is the only point of interest in the whole (very short, but very padded) book.

(I think the new Bond movie cribs this whole opening scenario.)

Anyway, after a very interesting beginning, he's sent down to Jamaica (again) on a completely unrelated mission, just to see if he's up to snuff. All he has to do is kill Scaramanga. For some reason he insinuates himself into Scaramanga's trust (instead of just blowing his brains out, which he has several chances to do) and hangs out at Scaramanga's half-finished casino-hotel for the whole book, meeting Scaramanga's investors in the property. Eavesdropping and stuff. And passing notes to Felix Leiter. And hearing about plans for a legitimate hotel-casino. Super-exciting stuff like that.

But none of the eavesdropping is important, because that's not his mission. He just has to plug the guy. No one asked him to eavesdrop, and he doesn't learn anything important (except maybe "M's right, I should plug this guy").

Let me just say the gripping conclusion takes place on a Disney-like miniature train. A miniature train shoot-out.

I guess that's where they got the idea for the movie version Funhouse Shootout. But a Funhouse Shootout is several degrees more interesting than a miniature train shootout. A Funhouse Shootout is even less silly than a miniature train shootout.

The story never revisits that very interesting set-up. Nope, Scaramanga was not involved in any of the opening stuff, so don't expect a revelation about that. Bond does not later discover that his current target turns out, coincidentally, to have been the guy who caused him such problems at the beginning of the book. The whole beginning of the book is just quickly dispensed with in a few pages, as if Fleming decided that maybe the whole "Is Bond a brainwashed mole?" story wasn't that interesting. (If so, he was wrong-- it was. Kind of the most compelling and unexpected premise I've ever seen in a Bond book, or movie.)

This really isn't a novel. It's a padded-out short story about a very simple mission, merely an assassination with no real investigation or espionage required, no twists, no turns. Just hangin' out at an unfinished hotel-casino. And shooting a guy. Who's kind of boring and not nearly as awesome as Christopher Lee.

Anyway, what the hell was I talking about? Oh right, the studio has sent Daniel Craig to insist that Bond isn't gay even though I hear they kind of insinuate he's had gay relationships in the new movie.

The scene in question sees a flirtatious Raoul caress Bond's legs and chest as the spy sits tied up in a chair, with 007 ending the scene by asking his foe: 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

However, asked if he could ever imagine a gay James Bond, Craig replied: 'No'.

Asked to explain why not, the 44-year-old actor told E! Online: 'Because he's not gay. And I don't think Javier's character is either - I think he'd f**k anything.'

But Craig's co-star Naomie Harris, who plays Bond girl Eve in the new movie, is more open to the idea of a homosexual Bond.

She said: 'I think everything is open. Everything is open. Who knows?!'

The screenwriter is also now saying Bond's not gay, but also says there's been a lot of "homoerotic subtext," as with Scaramanga (hey, I just mentioned him!) or Goldfinger.

Um... I think we've got a different idea of what "erotic" is.

Speaking of Scaramanga: "Come, come Mr. Bond" in the real movie, and then the awesome scene from The Trip where they work on their Scaramanga/Roger Moore impressions.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (219)
Post contains 788 words, total size 5 kb.

There are certain hard and fast rules in negotiating, and if you don't know those, you can't do it. I'm not saying John Boehner isn't a nice, intelligent man. But he is risky business adverse, even when it's not that risky. Some people are just like that. Some people would rather buy a Saturn, where you go in and pay the price--where you don't have to negotiate with the salesman. (That was one of the selling points of the Saturn; you paid a set price, no haggling.) A lot of people just don't like the pressure of negotiating, even when it doesn't hurt. They're not wired that way.

Remember last week when it seemed like Romney would win? Harry Reid put down his marker immediately: "I just can't work with Romney." Now, that's not necessarily true, but that's what you do in a tough negotiation; you stake out a tough position. You prep the battlefield. You take the hardest-line posture and then work back from there.

What did John Boehner do after the election? He talked immediately about raising revenue. "[T]he American people expect us to find common ground, we are willing to accept some additional revenues, via tax reform." See the difference? Reid knows how to deal.

Speaker Boehner should have matched Harry Reid: "President Obama is too extreme, and unless he's willing to finally give a little and bring a plan to the table, I don't see how anything will change." Although that's not necessarily true, that's what you would say. Then you would work back from the hardline ground that you've occupied. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 12:02 PM | Comments (361)
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

Over extra-marital affair?

I'm getting this second hand from people who saw it on TV.

Shit Just Got, Um, Weird [DrewM.]: Petraeus' affair was with a staffer for....Elizabeth Warren?

Or not. It was way too good to check or be true.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (842)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

A very odd and shaky performance.

She seems like she's stupid and empty.

The press discovers all sorts of crazy things days after an election.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (282)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

New tax: Any fee of $1 million or more, the performance for which is substantially completed over the course of six months or less, is hit with a 20% surtax above and beyond normal tax rates. If the work for fee is completed in five months or less, 30%; if the work for fee is completed in four months or less, 40%; if three months or less, 50%.

Reason? If you're making $10 million on a Hollywood shoot that lasts six weeks, that's not fair. Even among millionaires, that's not fair. The usual millionaire must work a full year for that kind of money. But a high paid actor, or athlete, can make that much in a season, and then take the rest of the year off.

That's leisure time the average person doesn't have-- even the average millionaire doesn't have it.

It's time to tax that, indirectly.

Let's take Glenn Reynolds' proposals seriously-- let's start making Hollywood and the Leisure Class pay its fair share.

I'd like to think of some way to tax the Kennedys' trusts at a higher rate. I don't know how to do that, though.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (512)
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

He just finished speaking.

I can't believe we have to listen to this guy for another four years.

I can't believe it. I really can't. I'm still processing this-- this happened.

Another four miserable, impoverished years.

Here's an idea. I don't know if this is a good idea. I imagine some will be pretty angry about it.

8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the country voted for Obama, and thus higher taxes.

Fine.

Here's my compromise solution. Let's agree to raise taxes on income greater than, say, $600,000 per year. Or better yet-- $1,000,000 year, which is what Joe Biden claimed their policy was in a debate.

But we'll insist that investment income rates be lowered.

Why? Because Hollywood-types and other celebrities (rappers, athletes, Bruce Springsteen) make a lot in income.

They want their income taxed at higher rates? Fine. You got it.

I know a lot of "innocent" Republicans will be trapped by this. That's why I don't know if it's a good idea. But it seems likely to me we will lose (Obama doesn't mind if he crashes the US economy by taking us over the cliff; he'll get a poll boost out of it).

So punish those who voted for this. It's what they wanted; give it to them.

And also change the rules of charitable deductions that things that celebrities donate -- their old shoes (for auction), their appearance at a gala -- cannot be counted as actual charitable deductions for tax purposes. Only cash counts, baby. So Kathy Griffin (or whoever) can't just keep reducing her taxes by occasionally showing up for an hour at an AIDS benefit.

Let us work assiduously to make sure they pay their "fair share." Vindictively, even.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (325)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Here's the problem: Hispanics are sort of in favor of amnesty.

But that's not why they vote Democratic. They vote Democratic because... they're Democrats.

So we're making a play for a very Democratic voting bloc by promising to make more Democrats.

An article I can't find at the moment (found it-- it's from a blog no one reads) noted that Hispanics say in polls they are broadly in favor of big government with more spending and more programs. I think they are more in favor of that than amnesty.

Not sure what amnesty gets us. One of the basic problems here is that pro-amnesty people brag that George W. Bush, who pushed amnesty, got 40% of the Hispanic vote.

40%. So he only lost it by 20%.

So every million Hispanics that vote, the GOP loses 200,000 votes. And that's Best Case Scenario. I don't see what amnesty does except increase the number of Hispanic voters who will vote against us.

Via Hot Air, this article by Heather Mac Donald rubbishes the "natural Republican constituency" hooey:

A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

...

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children....

The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.

The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.

And Now Cubans, Too: Cubans voted 49% for Obama in Florida. The one segment of the Hispanic vote that used to vote Republican is now moving strongly to join the Obama's Racial Coalition.

Ha Ha Ha Ha: Drew just emailed me to say the "more in favor of big government" statistic I wrote about came from a blog no one ever reads.

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (584)
Post contains 485 words, total size 4 kb.