Hello my pretties. ItÂ’s a beautiful Winter night in NE Florida. The air has just a slight chill, and IÂ’m lounging about in my pajamas (as all good bloggers are known to do), sipping on a glass of screw top wine. AndÂ… IÂ’m bored and IÂ’m feeling bossy. That means you will suffer through this ONT and like it because IÂ’m behind the wheel of this ship for the moment and the power is surging through my veins. I am invincible! Bwaaahahahahaha!

Anita Hill has reared her head yet again. Last night she appeared on The Daily Show where she essentially claimed to have single-handedly made sexual harassment a bad thing as if, silly as it sounds, we all thought it was a good thing before she showed up on the scene. Anyway, she is now the subject of a documentary, 'Anita'.

ANITA tells the story about a young, brilliant African American Anita Hill who accuses the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of unwanted sexual advances during explosive Senate Hearings in 1991 and ignites a political firestorm about sexual harassment, race, power and politics that resonates 20 years later today. ANITA is a dramatic look at the consequences to a private citizen acting out of a civic duty to 'speak truth to power.' For the first time on film Anita Hill speaks about her experience in the Senate Hearings, her impact on issues of sexual harassment, workplace rights for women and men, social justice and equality. The film is about the empowerment of girls and women, and men, through the extraordinary story of Anita Hill.

It will be released March 21.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:38 PM | Comments (846)
Post contains 1201 words, total size 9 kb.

Best day evah.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:49 PM | Comments (665)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

A combination thread: A blow-off thread for chatter, and an opportunity for lurking readers to delurk as commenters in a thread about nothing much at all.

Jason Sudeikis is being eyed to play one Irwin M. Fletcher (he has a byline called "Jane Doe," you know) in a Fletch reboot to be called Fletch Won.

Okay, Jason Sudeikis as done great work as a supporting actor. Can he lead? I don't know. Apparently We're the Millers made $270 million but I didn't see it. I guess people think he can lead.

As far as Fletch, I could see him in the role.

I'm a big fan of the Fletch film. Have you ever read the books?

Fletch Won is an origin story, described as a gritty action comedy with heart and more tonally in line with McDonald's novels than the Chase movies.

Um... I'm not sure that's a good idea. I have to admit I saw the movie before I read the books (and I only read a few). The first thing you see or read is generally the thing you like more, because that formed your first impressions; the second thing you see or read (even if it was the first thing in actual publication) seems "off," seems to be doing it all wrong.

I understand that bias and it's unfair to judge the Fletch books based on my first impressions of the Fletch character from the movie.* That said: The books seemed "off" and seemed to be doing it all wrong.

They weren't comedies. The book did include the famous "Will you kill me?"/"Sure" exchange (in fact, I think it was printed on the cover of the book), but otherwise, it was a fairly straight detective story.

The Wackiness Quotient was negligible. There was no Underhill Account to charge a steak sandwich to (and also a steak sandwich). Fletch did in fact give hard-to-remember pseudonyms, but I think they were hard-to-remember because they were so bland, rather than so strange (stuff like "John Forrest," not "John Cock-Toast-Uln.")

Fletch was not a double-talking hustler of the Rogue Slacker Who Skates By On Moxie and Charm sort, but instead a fairly standard ex-military tough-guy detective type. He served in Vietnam, actually.

It's hard to imagine the Fletch we know from the movies serving in Vietnam.

I've got nothing against the ex-military tough-guy detective type. I like that type a lot. I like Jack Reacher. I love Phillip Marlowe (not ex-military, but certainly tough).

But most of what made Fletch different from the regular shamus really comes from the movie (and Chase's rewrites/suggestions, probably), not from the novel itself. (Note: I think it's possible, or even likely, that after the Fletch film came out, the later Fletch novels emphasized the comedic side of the character, just like the comics' version of Tony Stark became a lot more like RDJr.'s film portrayal. But the first book, Fletch, wasn't a comedy.)

So, I assume when they claim that the movies will be more in the spirit of the books, they are doing what they do an awful lot in Hollywood, which is Lying About Everything for No Reason. And being Hollywood, they have that eternal chip on their shoulders that they're working in a second-rate medium, so whenever they want to claim they're doing serious, important work, they claim they're going back to the books for inspiration, because, you know, paperback detective novels are so elevated a form.

If they were doing the movie like the books, they wouldn't hire Jason Sudeikis.

They'd hire Jason Statham.

Seriously: Fletch is going to be gritty? How do you do a gritty urban crime drama in a world in which "Doctor Rosenpenis" is accepted as a plausible name?

Get out of town.

* Oh, and this is a silly thing, but the Fletch of the novels is blond.

See? It's completely unfair to the books for me to judge them by such absurd criteria -- Fletch is NOT blond!!!! -- but I did and I do.

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (535)
Post contains 691 words, total size 4 kb.

I have little use for Ezra Klein but I applaud him here for two things:

1. Hiring a guy who he knew would write things that his intended audience would react intolerantly towards.

2. Then defending his hiring of the guy, and imploring "liberals" to practice what they preach as regards tolerance for dissent.

The writer, Brandon Ambrosino, angered many on the intolerant left for writing that despite expecting to be shunned at his alma mater, Liberty University (a Christian institution founded by Jerry Falwell), his preconceptions were in fact wrong, and most at Liberty University didn't seem to care all that much that he was gay.

But then he truly crossed the line when he dared to venture the idea that not all on the left are perfect moral paragons with impeccable levels of psychological and emotional centeredness, but sometimes -- get this -- demonstrate their own form of ugly hostility to those perceived as The Other:

The world and the people in it are really wonderful with just a smidge of ugliness about them. I think the really vocal anti-gay Christians display this smidge, but I also think the really vocal anti-Christian gays display it as well.

He's annoyed the gay left in other ways, such as asserting that sexuality is not immutable. In one post he apparently noted his own previous persuasions of seemingly straight men to "try his sexuality," and wonders, then, if it can be true that sexuality is entirely inborn.

It's a fair point. I personally think sexuality is pretty much inborn myself, and I'd personally characterize those straight men enticed to "try his sexuality" as "probably already kinda secretly gay."

But would his critics on the gay left agree with that proposition? Or would they call that somehow hateful, and seriously contend that whereas homosexuality is inborn and immutable, heterosexuality is a social construct that is mainly "chosen"?

Would they claim that while straight people can (and perhaps should) be persuaded to try gay sex, it is monstrous to suggest the reverse?

Of course this is all a silly proxy fight over sideshow issues which really do not bear on the actual issue in contention (whether it is right, or even acceptable, to fault gays for engaging in gay sex).

The whole "Born this way"/"People choose their sexuality" argument is a bit silly, given that I think 95% of people would agree on the basics underlying sexual preference (sexuality is chiefly determined by inborn desires but can be modified in reaction to circumstance) and actually only disagree on what implications to draw from this predicate.

That is to say, people will chose to emphasize the "chiefly determined by inborn desires" or "can be modified" according to Arguing Preferences, but I have to imagine that 95% of the public (and 95% of gay activists, too) imagines both things are simultaneously true.

The arguments aren't really about the underlying facts; the underlying facts are just yelled a lot in service of whatever political position one wishes to take.

Noah Rothman has a couple of thoughts-- optimistic ones.

The lesson is becoming clear: the perpetually aggrieved can be, and often are, safely ignored. A once powerful movement, which apparently sees its relevance sustained only by the number of careers it is able to end, has been almost entirely marginalized, even if they do not recognize that fact yet. They have become as effective as those foolish cultural conservatives who were moved to boycott Coca-Cola over a harmless, multi-cultural Super Bowl ad –- which is to say, not at all.

Rothman has more on this (I didn't steal the whole thing, you know).

I hope he's right that the worm has turned and that ridiculous people are now being ignored for being so ridiculous.

You should listen to Powers Booth. He's a smart man.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (257)
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

At the world's most famous Anti-Hillary-Clinton website:

Here is the opening graf of an AP report on “anti-abortion voters” published Wednesday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling their opponents Satan worshippers and savages, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

“Calling their opponents Satan worshippers.” That sounds pretty serious. Tell us more, AP:

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is a favorite of the tea party, said supporters of abortion rights chant “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies. …

“Arm-in-arm, chanting ‘Hail, Satan,’ embracing the right to take the life of a late-term child,” Cruz said of supporters of abortion rights.

Sounds pretty crazy, huh?! Why, these pro-life loonies are so looney they're accusing abortion advocates of chanting looney things like "Hail, Satan!"

Which is the exact takeaway that AP intends.

One problem with this takeaway: Pro-abortion advocates actually did chant "Hail, Satan" as a taunt against pro-choice advocates, who were singing "Amazing Grace."

Which completely undermines AP's intended spin -- you can't suggest someone is crazy for saying something that is demonstrably true.

The World's Most Notorious Hillary Clinton Hate Site goes on to note that a moment of Googling by the AP reporter would have disclosed this fact.

Either the reporter didn't bother -- either he assumed, without bother to check at all, that Ted Cruz was a Crazy Liar -- or else he did check, and chose not to report it.

Which is worse?

Mollie Hemingway has a much longer piece asking if the AP can be trusted on any abortion story at all. (Spoiler alert: Nah, bro.)

Hemingway notes the importance of leftwing bloggers in shielding leftwing reporters from the facts (so that they can then report falsehoods in stories). She notes some heroic efforts to debunk the undebunkably true story of pro-choice agitators chanting "Hail, Satan!"

Now, if an AP reporter is Googling to determine the accuracy of this claim, and he sees a bunch of leftwing bloggers claiming it's all fake, that might give a partisan reporter all the cover he needs to pretend it's not true.

By the way, here is AP's rewrite. Note that now that the "Hail, Satan" chant is known to be something that pro-choice agitators actually chanted, it's no longer newsworthy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Invoking fiery references to Satan, “savagery” and a “culture of death” to criticize their opponents, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.

See, it was newsworthy when it seemed like a crazy allegation from Ted Cruz -- when it seemed like the information would tend to turn readers against the pro-life position.

But now that it is confessed (impliedly) that pro-choice agitators actually did chant "Hail, Satan" -- it's omitted from the story altogether. Now that it seems like information that would turn people away from the pro-choice position, it's embargoed. (As it was previously embargoed, back when it actually first happened.)

If the claim hurts conservatives by making them seem, to the reader or viewer, "Not Like You," then it leads a story.

But if the claim hurts progressives by making them seem, to the reader or viewer, "Not Like You," then it is disappeared from the story completely.

Hemingway goes on to analyze AP's and the media's behavior in the Gosnell case and in cases of abortion laws generally.

Anyone interested in the subject should also read an older piece by Carl M. Cannon, a former mainstream media reporter, called "Abortion: Journalism's Most Sacred Cow."

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (270)
Post contains 625 words, total size 5 kb.

Inadvertent omission. If you ask someone enough questions, eventually they slip up and say something close to the truth.

Asked if the White House had any ideas to fix the law, Sebelius answered:

“We have implemented a number of changes in the way the law was written to ease the transition into the marketplace for consumers, insurers and employers.”

The White House is usually vague about its authority to make changes, usually claiming some kind of ambiguity in the law that can only be resolved by executive rule-making. (For example, when the law says that the Individual Mandate must take effect by January 1st, 2014, this is "ambiguous," and permits Obama to interpret it as "sometime after the 2016 presidential elections.")

But here Sebelius they've actually changed the way the law is "written."

Thanks to @comradearthur.

Meanwhile... The New Yorker puts on its Political Thinking Cap and decides that the Democrat Party's "pussyfoot[ing]" around on Obamacare didn't work in the case of Alex Sink.

So they now urge the Democrat Party to wrap its arms around Obamacare and give it a big loving bearhug, endorsing it completely and in all details.

I endorse this position. I would like them to do this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (441)
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday Obama ordered the Department of Homeland Security to come up with some BS cover for him to not enforce immigration laws. Today Chuck Schumer tells Republicans give in because you can't beat a lawless tyrant bent on the destruction of the rule of law.

It's crystal clear where the issue of immigration reform is headed, and Republicans have only two choices to make. They can either help pass comprehensive reform which will greatly reduce the flow of illegal immigrants, grow our economy by bringing in needed workers in high tech and agriculture areas, and provide a hard-earned path to eventual citizenship for the 11 million in the shadows, or they can sit idly by and watch the President greatly curtail deportations while 11 million continue to live in limbo here in America. The choice is clear; a reform bill has the support of liberals, moderates, and conservatives and all we need is the courage of the Republican leadership to make the right and obvious choice.

Even if you're on Team Amnesty are you really willing to be blackmailed by Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer?

Shouldn't McCain, Rubio, Boehner and the rest make a stand for the Constitution and insist they won't support any deals with a President who refuses to recognize any check on what he can do?

Instead of passing meaningless bills, Boehner needs to make it clear there will be a price to pay if Obama continues to flaunt the laws. If the GOP won't stand up for the rule of law, what exactly is their purpose?

Posted by: DrewM at 09:05 AM | Comments (292)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

This has stopped being a morbid curiosity and become something more menacing.

Two sources said an unidentified aircraft that investigators believe was Flight MH370 was following a route between navigational waypoints - indicating it was being flown by someone with aviation training - when it was last plotted on military radar off the country's northwest coast.

...

A third source familiar with the investigation said inquiries were focusing increasingly on the theory that someone who knew how to fly a plane deliberately diverted the flight...

The Andsmans are a chain of hundreds of islands off the coast of India. Most are uninhabited.

India has announced a reconnaissance of the islands.

Indian officials have begun searching hundreds of uninhabited islands in the Andaman Sea using heat-seeking devices in the search for the Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared six days ago.

...

The archipelago, which stretches south of Burma, contains 572 islands across an area of 52 x 720km. Only 37 are inhabited, with the rest covered in dense forests.

It has been assumed (I think) that the plane had to land at an airport, either a functioning one or abandoned one, but if one is on an uninhabited island with some logging machines and a bulldozer, couldn't a group make their own dirt-strip landing area?

More at Hot Air, including a report from ABCNews that Flight 370's two communication systems were shut off separately, suggesting, again, that this was done by human action.

Many people are probably fearing the worst. Allah notes that one general was willing to Go There.

Gen. Tom McInerney casually wondered this morning on Fox News whether maybe jihadis targeted the plane because they need a delivery mechanism for, er, a nuclear weapon.

Something horrible like this would explain why there has been no terrorist chatter about the event (assuming it actually is terrorism). You don't talk about Act I until you've accomplished Act II.

Speculations: If one or more pilots intended suicide, they just would have crashed the plane, not flown it for hours more.

If it were a hijacking with an intended 9/11-style crash into a nearby city (like New Dehli or Bombay), presumably they would have just done that (assuming they had the fuel to reach those places, which I provisionally assume they would have).

However, if the intended target city was in America, presumably hijackers would have to fuel up the plane. I think planes are not loaded with excess fuel, only enough to reach their destination and a quantity of reserve fuel. So a plane bound for China would not have the fuel to reach North America.

I doubt the tanks could even hold so much fuel, but I don't know. This is pure speculation of the worst kind -- uninformed speculation.

If a 9/11-style attack on the American mainland is intended, it could be that the plane had to be landed in order to retrofit the passenger cabin with additional fuel tanks (and these of course would need to be connected to the main tanks, which would take time and tools and expertise).

Given what we uninformed people are now learning about radar and satellite coverage, it seems as if a plane can fly over thousands of miles of ocean without fear of being detected at all. It would only be when a plane comes within several hundred miles (or so) of a well-radared country that it would even be detected.

Which would give American airspace control only a half hour or hour to make a decision about passenger plane flying without transponders and without a flight plan.

Even worse, terrorists could keep most of the passengers alive and pack them aboard the plane -- thus giving the US the choice of killing over one hundred Chinese nationals or letting a plane crash into a US city.

Obviously we'd shoot it down. But maybe live Chinese passengers, killed by US jet pilots, is their Plan B, in case of a shoot-down.

Commenter Objections: Several commenters make the point that while a dirt-strip runway could be used, in a pinch, for a landing, it couldn't be used for a subsequent take-off. A heavy plane will sink, they say, into the dirt on anything other than tarmac or some other engineered surface.

I still don't think this rules out my Uninformed Speculation.

The fact is, the US military builds airports pretty quickly.

But Drew says:

A triple 7 weighs 600,000 pounds empty. On a dirt strip? Even paved you have to have a runway several feet thick. It's not like putting down 2 inches for a side road.

Again, you're ignoring what it takes to land a commercial jet and the amount of technology that pilots use to backup their approach.

Also, the plane took off at midnight local and flew for *west* for 6 or 7 hours total. It would still be dark by the time they got to these islands.

You have a great movie script but not one based on actually landing one of the largest commercial aircraft out there.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (704)
Post contains 856 words, total size 6 kb.

Cobloggers CAC and Ben K. join Ace and Drew to discuss various election-related topics and the perennial fan favorite Obamacare.

Intro/Outro: Adam Ant - Desperate But Not Serious / Space - Female of the Species

In ChillGroove^® Infotainment Format.

Questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

Listen: [Stitcher] | [MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

Posted by: andy at 12:10 PM | Comments (219)
Post contains 90 words, total size 2 kb.

FRIDAY, WOOOO!

I missed this one while I was gone: "McConnell was the Ted Cruz of campaign finance laws."

On Obamacare: "They have a lot more information than they're letting on," one industry source said of the Obama administration.

Et tu, NYTimes? "The defeat was devastating at a time when Democrats are desperate to change the prevailing story line that 2014 could cost them the Senate, with the House already out of reach."

I did happen to see some of this insane story on Twitter yesterday. The short version: (1) Pro-abortion activists chanted "Hail Satan" at a protest. (2) Sen. Cruz tells the Susan B. Anthony List gala that pro-abortion activists chanted "Hail Satan" at a protest. (3) AP's hack reporter Philip Elliott reports that Sen. Cruz called abortion supporters "Satan worshipers." What a douchebag. AP grudgingly issued a correction by early evening, although the correction isn't much better than the original misleading piece.

The podcast will be up later. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:48 AM | Comments (228)
Post contains 172 words, total size 2 kb.