Little Baby's Ice Cream is apparently a real outfit, selling "hand-made, premium ice cream." Philadelphia style. I don't know what that is.

Another commercial -- which I'm not linking, because it's twee and lame -- indicates the owners are a bunch of Hipster McGoo's.

But they have new commercials, and they want you to know how good their ice cream is.

Their secret ingredient? Horror. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:10 PM | Comments (192)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

The scary thing is that we don't even know how many victims the Searchlight Strangler may have in his past.

It could be any number. That's the horrifying thing: We just don't know. It could be ten. It could be more. It could even be less.

And if it's less, wouldn't that imply he took his time with his victims?

Meanwhile, a credible source, vetted by the Alabama State Bar, wonders why Harry Reid "inflitrated" the Boy Scouts, and for what purpose.

Funny: I was pretty hilarious last night on Twitter, changing my account to a memorial to Harry Reid's victims.

It's all pretty funny, but it's funnier in order, if you get the evolution of it, first from "interesting question" to pure demagoguery to jumped-up tabloid all-caps screaming headlines.

You want to go way back down, 19 hours ago, starting at around the point where I say to Drew, "These allegations have swirled too long. It's about time someone got to the heart of the Harry Reid Pederasty Issue." Then read up.

But here were the best bits of it. Before I went full tabloid, and was still just in demagogic insinuations mode.

Invisible Tears

An account in memory of Harry Reid's victims, both unknown and known.

The American public is entitled to know whether its Majority Leader is, or is not, or likely is, a pederast.

If Harry Reid isn't a pederast, why is everyone saying he is? People don't just make up vicious smears for political advantage.

Even if there's only a one in three chance Harry Reid is a pederast, are we really going to let that one child suffer?

If Harry Reid isn't a pederast, how come no DC liberals ever ask him to babysit?

The issue here isn't whether Harry Reid is, or isn't, or is a pederast. The question is only "What are we going to do about it?"

I'm not saying Harry Reid is a pederast. That's for the courts to say.

I'm saying there are children located in what I call "The Danger Zone" around Harry Reid. Do we gamble their innocence so lightly?

I have no proof that Harry Reid is guilty of pederasty, but can we at least keep kids out of the Harry Reid Molestation Perimeter?

You can't convict him in the press; obviously, this is America. But can we at least require him to wear a big hat that says LIKELY PEDERAST?

Harry Reid's defenders say, "You can't convict a man of pederasty based only on him being a pederast." I find their position untenable.

I think the important question is not, as some ask, "Is Harry Reid a pedophile?" The important question is "Why do DC Democrats enable him?"

hey media, can we at least make sure Harry Reid's victims are alive before ignoring them?

Harry Reid owes a full accounting on behalf of all he's killed.

We need to begin petitioning a statue commemorating the victims of Harry Reid, including all the unknown ones.

We need a Tomb of the Unknown Harry Reid Sex-Murder Victim. Can we do any less?

Why does Harry Reid not support the Victims of Harry Reid Memorial?

If Harry Reid has nothing to hide, why hasn't he contacted authorities? Why hasn't he pointed out where he buried his victims bodies?

If Harry Reid didn't kill those boys he victimized, then how come they're not around to testify against him? Think about it.

I can't say if these charges are true. Only the evidence and his countless victims can say that.

Let me just ask one legitimate question, containing no unfair implications whatsoever: Why does Harry Reid own gardening tools?

Why does he own trashbags? Why does he have a car with a trunk? These are reasonable questions that he must answer.

Does Harry Reid, or does he not, own any rope, twine, or extension cords easily used as ligatures and bonds?

Harry Reid says he's a big fan of baseball and car racing. Like a lot of young boys are. I guess that's just "another coincidence," huh?

And here's where I dubbed him with his Serial Killer name:

Why does Harry Reid, the Searchlight Maniac, own duct tape?

I call this picture "The Warning Signs."

Oh: I forgot about this, by @johnekdahl.

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (302)
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

Perhaps the news fashion is simply a manner of appeasing their patrons, then.

Posted by: Ace at 12:31 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, in the post below, I was going to claim the media blacked it out, but I didn't know if that was true; for one thing, I don't watch the media, so I had no idea. For another, I saw a stray mention in a comment or on Twitter that it was being covered on some local broadcast. So I thought maybe they were covering it.

Nope. The major papers embargoed the actual news.

[Y]ou wouldn't know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country's leading newspapers. There's no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the Boston Globe. The front pages of USA Today, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle have small headlines about the restaurant, while Chick-fil-A's hometown paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, fits in a story below the fold under the heading, "Chick-fil-A Controversy." And the front pages of major news websites are quiet in their coverage as well.

Inside some of those papers, the coverage is still relatively scant. The L.A. Times has a news story, while the New York Times has an op-ed from the gay dean at the Georgia Tech business school encouraging Americans to let Chick-fil-A "fly free." The Washington Post ran a photograph, but no story.

It's a phenomenon we now know well, and yet it is still worth pointing out how astonishing this all is. Simply because we have become inured to a perfectly bizarre situation does not mean we should not make frequent note of how truly bizarre this situation is.

The situation is this: The last place -- not the first place, not the second, not the sixth -- you'd want to go to find coverage of news is an American newspaper or an American news broadcast.

They're not in the business of news any longer. The analogue that strikes me is, if you pardon this weird neologism (and pardon it because what I'm trying to describe is itself weird), news fashion.

See, I wouldn't expect a boutique fashion store to be catholic in the clothing it displays and sells. I'd expect it to be highly selective, skewing to the proprietor's own sense of style, his own insistence on what Good Taste consists of. I'd expect that in that fashion shop, what isn't available is as large a statement of principle than what is available.

And that is perfectly understandable for a tony, boutique, specific-taste fashion shop.

But this same mentality is bizarre when applied to the business of informing the public of the events of the day. The news media seem to be employing the fashionista's sense of style and taste -- the fashionista's overwrought, half-kidding concealing of her eyes and exclamation of "I do not see that!" when confronted with a dress not to her liking -- to the news.

The fashionista is right to "edit" the reality of her fashion shop to accord with her specific, idiosyncratic sense of the aesthetic. In doing so, she creates not only a brand identity for herself, but puts forth a manifesto, and aspiration, a declaration that "This is what the world should look like."

But a newsman? Is a newsman equally right to edit the reality of the daily record of the world's events so that it, too confirms with their sense of style, their aspiration as to what the world should look like?

I know the people lining up for Chick-fil-A on Wednesday were not the quite the clientele (I'm pronouncing that in as French a manner as I can) the media considers worthy. And yet, unless my eyes deceive, they do in fact exist and furthermore act in the tangible, real world we inhabit.

Fashion editing is expected in a fashion shop, but is reality editing acceptable in a newspaper? What is the purpose? To create, like the fashionista did, a small, heavily stylized and artificial world where a select clientele may visit, by invitation only? So that they may glimpse your manifesto of What Makes The World Pretty?

Addendum: Virginia Postrel has the pet idea that in a world with many consumer alternatives, most acceptable in terms of functionality, aesthetics will become the key differentiation, and consumers will gravitate towards products expressing their own concept of The Good.

And that's fine for consumer products. Smart phones, cars, shoes, computers, trash cans (you know there are high-end fashion-model trash cans right? what a world), and so forth.

But the news?

Is the news now an aesthetically-sculpted consumer product as well?

Forgot a Link: Hat-tip to Twitchy, with more.

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (449)
Post contains 795 words, total size 5 kb.

Who are just protestors with cameras and lanyards.

TMZ has learned the chicken joint called police today claiming the MEDIA was harassing its employees.

Law enforcement sources tell us ... the Chick-fil-A staff wasn't bothered by the pro-gay marriage event taking place inside the restaurant, but felt the media was being too aggressive in trying to get commentary from Chick-fil-A employees.

Are you freaked out yet? Are you filled with hate?

Of course they are far more interested in the Gay Kiss In than the outpouring of support for liberty we saw Wednesday.

To cleanse the palate of the media's venality, here now cute pictures of cats and their singular ambition to stuff themselves into small confined spaces and then sleep.

"Ack"

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Wow.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (329)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

As you know by now, when baseless but serious charges are laid against a powerful political figure, it is the responsibility of the maligned individual to prove their innocence.

With that understanding, I requested comment from Harry Reid's office on the swirling charges that someone said they heard from someone that Harry Reid is pederast.

The email response from Reid Spokesman Adam Jentleson can only be characterized as chilling:

Cute

First, note the non-denial. Based on the rumors we've all heard, we can only conclude that at best questions of Reid's abuse remains an open question.

Second, "Cute" is not how I would describe this situation. Senator Reid has been accused by multiple unnamed figures as a serial abuser. The fact that Reid's spokesman thinks anything about this situation is "cute" is disturbing and only leads to more questions about the unreleased records that might (or might not) clear Senator Reid's name.

We will of course be following up on this explosive and developing story....for the children.

In fairness to Harry Reid, does he look like the kind of creepy old man who sees a young boy and thinks, "tasty"?

Hmmm, forget I asked.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:31 AM | Comments (517)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a hit-and-run from me.

The jobs news is, well, ambiguous enough for everyone to grab a piece.

The two-part nature of the monthly jobs report often provides political parties an opportunity to cherry-pick their favorite parts — and the release on Friday of the July numbers was no exception.

Democrats moved quickly to promote the surprisingly strong jobs growth for the month, while Republicans seized on a small uptick in the overall unemployment rate as a further indictment of President ObamaÂ’s economic policies.

That's the NYTimes. Ed had a similar sentiment:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics gave some mildly good news for the first time in four months. The US economy added 163,000 jobs, slightly outpacing population growth, while the jobless rate ticked up slightly to 8.3%

But I think it's fair that we embrace Obama's own claimed measures for a successful economy. Here he is in 2004 dismissing a jobs report that found 310,000 jobs added and a 5.6% unemployment rate:

Hey, if 310,000 jobs added isn't good enough for the President, than a mere 163,000 isn't good enough for me.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:26 AM | Comments (405)
Post contains 199 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess the difference is just shirt vs. jacket, right?

Posted by: Ace at 05:21 AM | Comments (224)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Utterly damning numbers came out of yesterday's Congressional hearing on Amtrak funding.

“It costs passengers $9.50 to buy a cheeseburger on Amtrak, but the cost to taxpayers is $16.15," said [Rep. John Mica (R-FL)]. "Riders pay $2.00 for a Pepsi, but each of these sodas costs the U.S. Treasury $3.40."

To some on the panel like Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), whose family is in the restaurant business, the figures were hard to swallow.

"Obviously the business model here is not working," said Barletta, who joined the grumbling over why Amtrak can't just recover their costs on food and beverage service aboard trains.

Barletta made clear that technically, Amtrak is breaking the law, because Congress approved a plan many years ago that said the railroad must at least break even on food and beverage service.

Will anything change? I wouldn't bet on it. Here's what the union tool had to say about contracting out the food services to a private company (which would, presumably, be more interested in turning a profit):

"Why are some members of Congress promoting the elimination of good middle class jobs with decent pay and benefits?" asked Dwayne Bateman, who has been working for Amtrak since 1977 and is Vice General Chairman of a union that represents train service workers.

See, a tool.

There are more bad numbers at the link.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:38 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.