Liberal "Mike" called for further attacks on Republicans on Michael Medved's radio show-- details, as well as audio, here.

The media sure did seem to care about this sort of thing a lot more when it could be used as a cudgel against conservatives.

Now that it's their ideological allies calling for violence-- gee, it's just not all that important, is it?

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Krauthammer debunks the "Angry White Christian" theory of the election.

Andrew Stuttaford makes a point that I think needs further exploration:

Amid all the weird, wild wailing in Manhattan, amid the hot air and hysteria in Hollywood, amid all the crazy-lady shrieks of mainstream-media anguish (yes, Maureen, I'm talking about you) and the banshee howling of liberal complaint, Americans heard one overarching theme from the disappointed and distraught left — one meme, one fear, one insult that finally spoke its name. Jesusland (that's what they call it now) had won.

The left likes to imagine that the right votes almost exclusively on these irrational culture-war issues.

But read the words of the left. Look at what seems most hateful to them-- not the War in Iraq, hated though that is. Not Bush's stand against increasing the minimum wage. Not partial privatization of Social Security. Not the so-called "jobless recovery."

No-- it's that "Jesusland" won the election.

Recall that Clinton was never popular with the left until he traded DNA with an intern.

Who, precisely, is voting on "values"? Who is animated chiefly by their idiosyncratic (and irrational, or at least not logically proveable) beliefs about what sort of sexual climate is best for us all?

The left is voting on "values," too. In fact, sometimes it seems hard to discern what the hard left is interested in apart from the culture war. They have values they cherish and seek to evangelize to the nation through politics.

Guys-- you can't whine endlessly about gay marriage and The Passion of the Christ and how uptight this bourgeois country of ours is (gee, it's practically 1952 again!) and then sit there and critique your opponents for voting on "values."

You're voting on values too-- or rather for the rubbishing of them.

Some people are voting for Jesus, yes. But can you really deny that many of you aren't voting on your hatred of Jesus-- and your obsessive desire to see the hated religion Christianity once and for all branded an antisocial cult?

I had a funny argument one time. I think liberals make this argument constantly.

A guy was saying we shouldn't have a flag-burning amendment, because "it just doesn't matter either way." There were more important issues, he asserted.

Fine, I said. If it doesn't matter either way, stop opposing it, let us pass it, and then we can deal with these more important issues of which you speak.

No, he said. It's unconstitutional and bad for the country.

I thought it "just didn't matter either way"? I queried.

It doesn't matter, he reasserted. It's a non-issue.

If it's a non-issue, I patiently re-explained, then you ought to be neutral about whether we have a flag-burning amendment or not. Obviously, you have a strong opinion on it, so stop claiming that you "don't care either way." You do care-- passionately. You're using this "who cares?" claim -- a false claim, by the way-- as a way to denigrate your opponents for bothering to care, while refusing to admit that you care just as much as they do.

But I don't care, he told me once again.

Then let it pass, I suggested once again.

No, he said firmly. It's unconstitutional and will bring this country back into the dark ages.

And on. And on. And on. And on.

I don't understand how the left can continue to delude itself that these issues are "irrelevant" and "not even things we should be discussing" when they are clearly, themselves, so animated by these issues.

They have very firm ideas on what "values" this nation ought to embrace. They're just not willing to discuss what those values might be-- at least not publicly.

Hence, the perpetual claim that these issues are beneath them and of little concern to any enlightened person. And yet they're what they vote on, cycle after cycle after cycle.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

Any chance you think they'll take any kind of interest in the subterranean murder-porn being peddled by the lunatic left on the Internet?

Or is dangerous rhetoric only newsworthy when it can be used to attack conservatives?

The media's on notice. If something bad happens, and they never get around to exposing this vile hate speech before tragedy falls, then I'm afraid that I won't be willing to accept their dishonest apologies afterwards. "Gee, we just didn't know" won't cut it.

They know. They just don't care.

Hell, some of them are probably posting on these sites, for crying out loud.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

So says Power Line, and I've had the same fear for some time.

The hard left and lunatic liberals simply will not stop agitating for political assassination of their opponents. They're each of them daring each other to take that single orgasmic shot.

This is how violence starts. Most people are not quite so crazy as to do such a thing without provocation. But you add lots of encouragement from their political buddies, the chance to become a "star" among those you seek respect from, and now you're cooking a political-hit stew.

It becomes increasingly difficult to warn them from this behavior without crossing the line oneself. They simply do not hear any kind of sense or moral suasion.

The only thing they might possibly respond to is the caution that political violence from the left will certainly beget retalliatory political violence from the right.

Do they imagine they're the only crazies with ready access to firearms? For crying out loud, if they believe half of the crap they spew, they firmly believe that the state of Idaho consists of little else.

I don't want to go down that road. Why do so many of these lunatics long for just that?

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Target bans Salvation Army bell-ringers from collecting for charity outside their stores.

The article Beck links to says that Target's given rationale is that they have a "no solicitation" policy, and it was becoming "increasingly difficult" to tell other charities why they would not be excepted from that rule, as the Salvation Army was. Um, why would this be a difficult thing? Just say no.

Anyway, Target says they needed to have consistency in their policy, and so they just banned the Salvation Army, too.

I don't know. It just sounds to me like yet another corporation has decided that any visible sign of a Christian holiday is a horrible offense to some customers.

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Content Warning.

This is yet another Paul Anka post. If you still haven't listened to the hilarious audio of him chewing out his band without any semblance of human mercy, you won't get a word of it.

But See-Dubya asked me about this, and re-reading it, it kinda cracked me up, so what the hell. The only important one in that Government, George Bush, reams out Don Rumsfield for the naked pictures of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The guys get shorts. You understand that? The guys get shorts. Don't make a maniac out of me.

It Just Showed Up In the Same Search Update: Non-fans of Wonkette's charmlessly puerile dirty-talk comedy stylings may also appreciate this, a transcript of her first and only appearance at Open Mike Night at the Dupont Circle Laff-Shack.

It's a piece of blog-history. You can witness first-hand the birth of a comedic non-genius.

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

On the one hand, this shows that CBSNews only cares about ratings and dollars.

On the other hand, it shows that no one gives a fig about Dan Rather and CBS News.

Shee-oot. Too bad Dan Rather didn't pre-empt Everyone Loves Raymond for his big exclusive forgeries. Then heads would already have rolled.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

The words are hateful to them, but they've had to write them just the same:

In the space of seven days, an online market of dark ideas surrounding last week's presidential election took root and multiplied.

But while the widely read universe of Web logs was often blamed for the swift propagation of faulty analyses, the blogosphere, as it has come to be known, also accelerated the resolution of questions that, in an earlier age, might have lingered and fed conspiracy theories for years. Within days of the first rumors of a stolen election, in fact, the most popular theories were being proved wrong - though many were still reluctant to let them go.

So, let me get this straight.

Right wing blogs debunk fraudulent MSM stories.

Right wing blogs also debunk left-wing blog contrivances and fantasias.

Seems to me only one side is doing any debunking, and only one side is putting out false information.

Why is that, I wonder?

Meanwhile, PoliPundit wonders if lefty blogs have Rathergate envy.

Guys, it would probably help if you weren't so over-the-moon crazy. Every once in a while a really crazy, full-on-nutter thought occurs to me.

But I don't write it, see? I don't actually start up a blog cause to prove that, oh, I don't know, Hillary Clinton owes her political success to dancing with the devil at midnight.

I mean, I could probably get a few hits off that -- that I saw Goodwife Clinton donning the black robes and singing backwards-Zeppelin-lyric hymns to the Horned One, I mean -- but I just don't know if I have the actual evidence to back it up.

Yet.

Maybe Joshua "Story of My Life" Marshall and like-minded lefties would do themselves a favor to stop credulously believing every hopeful story they pick up off the Internet. Believe it or not, fellas, the MSM is biased to the left-- so if not even the MSM is covering something, there may be a reason for it.

Like, it's maybe just plain batshit crazy. You know?

Meanwhile, maybe the lefties do have a reason for envy.

I never thought I'd say this -- and I don't know if I like the way it sounds -- but I'm now bigger than Michael Moore.

Sweet.

When you're bigger than Michael Moore, hey, you're big.

This site can now officially be categorized as "morbidly obese."

Posted by: Ace at 07:04 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

Awesome.

Even more awesomer: the poignant It Puts the Fucking Lotion in the Basket.

Big, big thanks to ChristopherF.

Update: Okay, I can't even write the song's name, but I'm laughing out loud at the foulest-named song on the list. I think you'll recognize the one I mean.

And, in case you're not sure, none of this is work-safe. The last song I was talking about isn't even home-safe. It's offensive and foul. But funny.

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

They insist they're not there to contest the election, just make sure that "every vote is counted."

I've got no problems with fact-finding missions.

When do you think they'll begin the fact-facing mission? It's a bit overdue.

Thanks to TLowery.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.