Turns out it's the South Park guys, who also explain how Moore pretty much stole their animation style for Bowling for Columbine.

Via Alarming News, who for some reason believes that Andrew Sullivan is a shrill partisan regarding Iraq.

Seriously-- she has evidence and everything.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

You say that's not breaking news? Sadly, it remains so for some.

Posted by: Ace at 12:17 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

GregoryS is apparently looking for a job with the Football Fans for Truth guys, because he sends this over:

During most of the first two games of the World Series (news - web sites), the Massachusetts senator has been on a plane flying between the swing states where he's seeking a presidential victory. But when he's tried to keep up with the baseball scores, he's had three strikes.

Twice on Sunday, the Democrat said he was basking in Boston's 10-9 win in Game 1 the night before.

Problem is, the Red Sox won 11-9.

"Ten-9, the Sox did fabulous," Kerry said with a big smile as he ducked into church Sunday morning in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Inside, the minister had asked worshippers to clap "if the Lord has done anything wonderful in your life this week," and Kerry applauded.

"Coming from Boston, I had a special reason to clap," Kerry explained to the congregation when he took the pulpit. "The Red Sox won 10-9."

What is it with this guy with a chick-level interest in sports and his constant numerological retardation? Maybe he's hitting the Chivas & Grape Kool-Aid again.

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

He was a candidate in 1972, yes, but still. I make it a rule to never miss an opportunity to annoy a libertarian. They're so doctrinaire and dopey.

Enter Stage Right has the goods (scroll down to headline).

Hey! I Resemble That Update: A reader wants to know what I have against libertarians generally.

Well, I don't have a lot against libertarians. I don't hate them or anything. But yeah, since college and whatever schooling may have followed, I have found them a little, well, pie-in-the-sky and sloganistic and whatnot.

I also continue to maintain that there are a lot quasi-conservatives who call themselves libertarians because they just like smoking pot.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not really anti-pot, so much as I'm pro-alcohol. But I just never had the brain-chemistry to enjoy pot, and so I don't understand people who sort of structure their lives around pot. It's kind of cult, but with a stinky, skunky smell.

So I'm really just kidding around (although, as usual, kidding for real). And I just don't get a lot of "libertarians" who are basically chosing their political affiliation according to who's going to let them get high legally.

I mean, it's practically legal now anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 11:54 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Pardon me for pushing this up in the queue so it posts today, but it's been a while since I've posted anything close to substantive. It's not the greatest essay, but I think it's worth reading, and I'm annoyed I printed it on my least-read day (Saturday).

If the United States chooses to cut and run in Iraq, then we are all but finished as a military power in the world. We have the best trained, best equipped, and highest-spirited troops in the entire world. But the soft underbelly of the military has always been the public's willingness to actually fight and prevail in a difficult struggle.

It must be pointed out that, despite all the bad headlines and gnashing of teeth from Henny Penny's like Andrew Sullivan, the Iraqi insurgents are offering our troops a token resistance. By that I do not mean they do not kill our troops. Of course the do. And to a family who has lost a beloved son or daughter, there is no such thing as a token resistance. I cannot grieve like the families of the lost grieve for their loved ones, but I do feel the pain of war, at least as much as a stranger can.

But nevertheless the Iraqi terrorists are not actually fighting a war that can be won in military terms. They dare not attack our troops in force; they have no conceivable plan to attrit our forces or our supplies anywhere near close to our capacity to replace them. The "war" they fight is not one of winning ground, or winning battles. It's of winning hearts and minds, as it were, or at least capturing them-- and by killing a thousand of our brave soldiers in a year, they have succeeded beyond my expectations.

Certainly they have captured the heart and mind of Andrew Sullivan (the most influential man in America, bar none). And they have captured the hearts and minds of John Kerry, John Edwards, and nearly the entirety of the Democratic Party, both leadership and membership.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 1824 words, total size 10 kb.

Drudge has a slug. Jen says his condition is "serious," and she's trustworthy, so she must have heard that on tv or the radio.

BREAKING: Underwent surgery-- a tracheotomy.

Pray for the man's life. The article says that he'll be on the bench when the Court resumes its work next Monday, but it sounds to me like he's likely to retire.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

But damnit, he's an astute political observer. He's always been pessimisstic about every election I can remember, but pessimists are right 50% of the time. He thought Bush would lose in 2000, and let's face it, it's hard to call that prediction completely "wrong." He called the 1998 midterms right, or at least more right than I did.

Here's Hokey, with a bit of Monday cheer. If any of this pisses you off, I suggest you take your anger into the voting booth with you and prove him wrong:

Hoke Malokey is telling you - start to position yourself for the Kerry win. The problem with the conservative groupthink is that it becomes its own echo chamber. Coupled with the conservative view that, in our heart, "you
just know he's right," there is this feeling that somehow, a Kerry win just
won't happen, because it would be so wrong. We rightly complain of the
emotionalism of the opposition, but it is we who have candy-coated the
reality. It is our emotion that feeds our certitude.

So we glom onto every favorable poll, ignorant of the fact that the president's job approval is in the toilet, and it is a mere struggle to make him competitive. And a new Swift Boat ad or "the wolf" or "the hug" -- that confirms our view that in the end, the message will sway the voters. We see "security moms" in polls, and we transform the suburban mother into a square-jawed Karen Hughes. We imagine a hidden steel in the backbone of the American voter while in the midst of the difficult Iraqi endeavor, even while Cold War conservatives begin to backbite the neocons because the costs, a mere 19 months in, are simply too great to bear.

A Kerry win will happen. Terezza's gaffe means nothing compared to the
cries of a desperate female British aid worker. That's the last image the
voters will take with them to the booths (or, more likely, her decapitation),
even if they aren't cognizant of it. And with Bush, the soft center of the American electorate will simply decide that the deaths and the abductions
and the explosions and the beheadings of women weren't there until, coincidentally, Bush arrived on the job. Hell, 9-11 wasn't here until Bush
was here, they'll conclude, however subconsciously (because, you know, 9-11
was so long ago).

And down Bush will go. It will be close, as the president's team has been valiant, but he'll take the tumble.

16 states are in play. Here is how it will pan out --

New Hampshire - Kerry
Nevada- Kerry
Ohio - Kerry
Pennsylvania - Kerry
Minnesota - Kerry
Hawaii - Kerry
Maine - Kerry

Colorado - Bush
New Mexico - Bush
Missouri - Bush
West Virginia - Bush
Florida - Bush
Wisconsin - Bush
Iowa - Bush
Arkansas -Bush

and my shocker - Virginia goes Kerry, sealing the win, 280 to 258.

Okay, here's my confession. Right Wing News polled 85 bloggers about election predictions. I delayed responding because I didn't want to answer.

He notes 6 bloggers thought that Kerry would win. I was one of the six.

That's not a hard and fast prediction. I know Bush is slightly, sorta-kinda ahead. But I'm watching this election with the same sense of dread as watching a New York Giants football game, with the Giants barely leading on the scoreboard but leaving their opponents in the game by never delivering the knockout blow; I feel a little momentum drifting towards the opponent. If you just leave an opponent in the game, at some point he's going to take the lead. Suck for you if he does so right before time expires.

Predictions are like opinions, and opinions are like-- well, I'm trying to clean things up here a bit. You know what opinions are like.

Vote. I keep saying this because I know that a little bit less than half of the readers of this site could vote, but won't. They'll be very interested in the election's outcome, but not quite so interested as to rouse themselves to take a trip to the local firehouse.

Vote. It's important. Polls and predictions are meaningless. What counts is whether or not those who actually support Bush can take the hour out of their day to register that support at the polls.

Posted by: Ace at 08:07 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 737 words, total size 4 kb.

A lot of people sent me the link to the story at the Guardian which formerly appeared at this URL; apparently now they've taken down the piece.

The offensive passage (apart from the typically offensively dumb and unfunny leftist shillery):

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

They issue a bullshit "apology" in place of the column now:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

I didn't blog about this for a couple of reasons. First, it was on Drudge, so everyone knew about it anyway.

But more than that, I didn't blog about it because the only good response to this piece is to say something that I don't want to say, and from which I recoil. But let me try to say it delicately:

Our democracy -- and I extend the idea of "our democracy" to Britain; I mean that we share a political tradition and national affinity -- is predicated upon the idea that we vote to resolve our differences, and if we lose, we still accept the regime which wins, no matter how much we might dislike it. The idea of peaceful democratic government is more important than which particular government may be in office at any moment.

Or at least that's more important to some of us-- some of us apparently still have faith in small-l liberalism, the procedures and practices of a working democracy. Some of us still think that democracy is worth preserving.

Others of us apparently don't, and want to win political power at any cost, including by inciting political violence. Some of us apparently do not distinguish between ballots and bullets; any method of removing a hated political opponent is, it seems, quite fair in the eyes of some.

This would seem to be the bright line between conservatives and sensible, principled liberals and the vicious thuggery of true leftism. The former two remain staunch supporters of small-l liberal democracy. The latter believe that the ends justify the means, and the "end" is always the accumulation of political power of others by any means necessary.

There is such a thing as a social compact. This bastard has violated it. I would never suggest that any political opponent be assassinated. But Brooker has.

He's violated the compact. If he no longer feels the need to respect the small-l liberalism's committment to peaceful resolution of political differences, why should I respect his? If he can "joke" about murdering my president, what possible objection can he have to anyone making a similar joke about him?

Whenever these bastards are caught doing something like this, they claim it was all "ironic." That's not what irony means. For it to be "ironic" it would have to involve Brooker meaning something close to the opposite of what he was saying. Quite clearly, Mr. Brooker would not be among those grieving should harm come to my President, so it's not ironic at all.

At best, it's "kidding on the square," as Al Franken once said. He's an idiot, but I like that phrase. "Kidding on the square" just means joking about something you're sort of serious about.

Is this talk of political violence irresponsible? Of course it's irresponsible. Any time you make a "joke" like this, you take the chance that you are encouraging an unhinged person who is a potential assassin. But apparently Mr. Brooker is quite willing to run that risk with respect to the life of my President, so I can't see how I can possibly be expected to care much about the risk to his own life.

I hate having to write that. The suggestion disgusts me. But time and time again we find that leftists simply will not observe the rules as regards the avoidance of inciting political violence. Appealing to their sense of principle and fair play, and understanding of history, does not seem to work.

Posted by: Ace at 07:42 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 812 words, total size 5 kb.

Although there was a lot of blogosphere buzz around this story; I figured it wasn't a huge story because you don't use the alternative media to generate buzz for a huge story. You use the alternative media to generate buzz for a kinda important story.

Bill from INDC has the best take on the story, I think. It's not the stake in Kerry's heart, but it's not a yawn either. If we're less than excited by the story, it's largely just because we've come to expect Kerry to lie about matters big and small, trivial and grave.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

INDC is apparently in the know, and hints as much in the comments (although he won't give it up).

From the Unpopulist, who compiles speculation from around the blogosphere.

And Bill from INDC isn't the only one in the know. RedState will be featuring the story's author, guest-blogging through the week. He also says it will be breaking on Drudge tonight.

Now, the question: how do I get to be in the know? What's a guy have to do to demonstrate his pro-Bush quals? Go down on the President?

I'm not saying it's necessarily off the table. I mean, I'm a big fan. I just want a ballpark of what's expected of me, precisely.

Geeze. Now I'm starting to think this story might be worth keeping an eye on. I guess I'll just have to put off watching Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and Desperate Housewives to follow it.

Damnit.

Well, at least The O.C. isn't on Sundays.*

*No, I don't watch these shows. Well, okay, Extreme Makeover, a little. But that involves demolition and construction, so I think I'm on safe ground there.

Update: Okay, now I'm kinda-sorta in the know. I can't say what the story is about, but I can say, I think how big it is. The answer: so-so big. It requires Kerry to answer questions, but it's not going to blow him out of the water.

It's damaging, but not even close to decimating. So don't get your hopes up too high.

Posted by: Ace at 05:02 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.