It's good to hear from the minority once in the while; isn't that what "diversity" is all about?:

I can definitely live with Bush as US president — or as the world’s sole policeman — for eight years or longer, but would hate to spend even eight days under the Taliban’s theocracy, Saddam’s dictatorship or a regime of Ayatollahs. I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of people everywhere feel the same way.

Worth your time.

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, not really, of course. But they are getting pissed off about unending tax hikes:

A TAX REVOLT in Berkeley?

That seems to be what's happening in one of the nation's most left- leaning strongholds.

After years of voting for various tax measures that have made Berkeley's property taxes the highest in the state, voters are now saying: enough already.

On Nov. 2, four tax measures designed to fund basic services such as fire and police, youth programs, medical services and libraries -- yes, libraries -- failed to get the two-thirds vote they needed to pass.

....

There are other reasons. As someone who has lived for much of his adult life in Berkeley -- and willingly paid extra property taxes so Berkeley could remain one of the world's most livable and innovative communities -- even I couldn't bring myself to vote for all the latest tax measures this time around.

I was incensed to see President Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger make cutting taxes the centerpiece of their respective campaigns -- and winning. I realized that voters in Berkeley (and San Francisco, and other similar communities who are not against taxes on ideological grounds) have in effect been enabling Bush and Schwarzenegger to continue on their anti-tax crusades. By continually voting to impose higher taxes on ourselves to keep essential services going, we have made it easier for them to carry on as if the taxes they're cutting weren't needed in the first place.

Dude, if you want to pay high taxes, fine, do it in your own neighborhood. But stop whining that others seek to block you from exporting your high-tax-regime where it's not wanted.

NickS, who provided the tip, enjoyed this passage:

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, a veteran of the Bay Area's progressive struggles, insists that Berkeley is still committed to its left-of-center politics. Ninety percent of all Berkeley voters, he points out, cast ballots for Sen. John Kerry, a higher figure than any other large city with as diverse a population as Berkeley. (Only in Detroit and Gary, Ind., with black populations of more than 80 percent, did Kerry get higher numbers.)

First of all, I don't know anything about Berkeley, but I get the feeling it's not particularly "diverse" in the typical euphemistic meaning (i.e., lots of blacks and Hispanics). I speak from ignorance, as usual, but I think Berkeley is most smelly white people and chicks that don't shave their legs very often.

I think they're using the word "diverse" here as a new euphemism for "progressive" or "super-liberal." Why not just call things what they are?

NickS also wants to know how "diverse" is a city that goes 90% for one candidate?

"Diverse" doesn't mean diverse anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

A FreeRepublic weisenheimer couldn't resist:

Braaainnsss... Braaaaiiinnsss... and gin-soaked raiiiiisins...

I'm especially grateful to "lowbridge" for giving my piece a political angle.

Posted by: Ace at 09:07 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

'Bout time:

Ever since Frist publicly embraced the nuclear option, he has been accused of abusing the Senate's cherished tradition of extended debate. In truth, during six years as majority leader, Democrat Robert C. Byrd four times detonated the nuclear option to rewrite Senate rules.

Thus, Frist would set no precedent, would not contradict past Republican behavior and would not strip the GOP of protection as a future Senate minority. The question is whether Republican senators will flinch from the only maneuver open to confirm Bush's judges.

Alas, yes, that has always been the question, and that question remains regrettably open to debate.

Frist drew a line in the sand Nov. 11 in addressing the conservative Federalist Society: ''One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end.'' The way he indicated was a rules change -- the nuclear option.

That generated speculation that, when the new Senate convenes Jan. 4, the Republican leadership will propose a rules change. Reid, the Senate's reigning master of parliamentary tactics, has promised to ''screw things up'' by bringing the chamber's activities to a standstill. Frist would only tell me he wants ''a full set of options, ready and available.'' However, Senate sources believe Frist will bide his time on opening day and wait to make a point of order to change the rules.

This is precisely what Byrd did as majority leader, as explained in an article by Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta to be published in the January issue of the Harvard Journal on Law and Public Policy. They write that Byrd ''developed four precedents that allowed a simple majority to change Senate procedures governing debate without altering the text of any standing rule.'' In each case, Byrd successfully overcame dilatory tactics by the Republican minority.

Let's stop calling it the nuclear option, which sounds pretty scary, and start calling it the Robert Byrd Option.

The man likes to put his fucking name on everything in West Virginia anyhow; I'm sure he wouldn't mind having a rule-change named after him too.

And the cost to the public for this particular bit of Byrd-branding? Nada.

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Two great pieces today.

He starts off with the quick rise of the black middle and upper class:

1. There are "more African Americans in the upper income bracket than ever before. The portion of black households making $75,000 to $99,999, for example, increased nearly fourfold between 1967 and 2003, rising to 7 percent of the black population." (For whites the figure is 11 percent.)

2 "Since 1967, the earliest year for which statistics are available, median household income for blacks has increased by nearly 47 percent, to $29,645 in 2003. That's much faster than the 31 percent growth rate for white households during that time."

3. "African Americans have made substantial advances in the service sector and have been opening small businesses at a pace quicker than whites."

But all that's right from the Washington Post. Kaus' contribution? Pointing out that the Washington Post spins this great, equalization-of-the-races news as "bleak." After all, blacks are finding that reaching the middle class to be a "hollow promise." Hey, guys-- welcome to the not-so-well-kept-secret of white America!

And then he speculates on why the WaPo would cover this story this way. Seems to be a combination of 1) reflexive liberal "we must do more" pessimissism and 2) the WaPo's need to pander to blacks in light of its recent racial semi-scandal.

He then notes that Michael Kinsley's piece of Social Security -- one that I confess I haven't read, as I stopped reading the much-diminished and increasingly shrill Kinsley about ten years ago, after once considering him the finest political writer in America -- only got all the attention it did because of blogs.

Which is probably undeniable.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, he'd be the one to know, wouldn't he?

Geraghty snipes back:

The next time Sullivan refers to the Daily Dish as one of the leading blogs and a quintessential example of the genre, recall that he also dismisses bloggers as being merely “about sniping,” not governing. (Hey, I wonder if he’ll feature that particular quote during Pledge Week?)

Hey, KerrySpot. Do you know how much it costs in terms of bandwidth to do a first-class job of sniping? Something close to $10,000 per month.

Thanks to NickS.

Posted by: Ace at 07:47 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

In the past couple of years, three superior-to-superb zombie films have been released: 28 Days Later, the equal-if-not-superior-to-the-original remake of Dawn of the Dead, and just out on DVD, maybe the best zombie movie ever made, Shaun of the Dead, which works not only as a comedy, not only as a loving spoof -- or rather homage -- to the best zombie films before it, but also works pretty well as a legitimate pure-zombie-survival picture.

If you haven't seen Shaun of the Dead, rent it immediately. It's great. The opening scenes do a great job of establishing character -- something that zombie films actually do a pretty good job of, overall, for reasons I'll explore later -- and providing great laughs. The early scenes rely upon the old-but-still-robust trick of the "audience superior" position -- that is, the audience knows more than the characters do, and the result is either tension (in a thriller) or giggles (in a comedy).

As Shaun goes through his boring daily routine, he keeps hearing snippets on the news about crashed sattelites and strange attacks by people who seem to be dead, but none of this registers, as he's far too busy to keep up with the news. Good laughs come as a newscaster is about to deliver some information the audience has heard in a dozen other zombie movies, but Shaun just changes the channel before hearing the critical information.

And so he goes through his hapless, pathetic life, only vaguely aware that the world is about to come to an end.

And then it gets even funnier.

What is it about zombie movies that make them so good? Take any genre on horror film, and I'll bet dimes to donuts that zombie flicks have the highest ratio of quality to crap of any of them. Sure, there are lots of awful zombie movies, but there are a lot more awful slasher movies and vampire movies and especially werewolf movies (quick-- name three good werewolf movies off the top of your head).

Zombie flicks approach a .500 batting average-- far above any other genre of horror. Is there any other sort of horror movie where you can go into a theater and say, "There's about a 50% chance this is a legitimately good, well-crafted movie"? I don't think so.

Why do they tend to be so good? How do they continue to delight and surprise while working, by and large, within the same basic and narrow parameters established by George Romero's Night of the Living Dead? I think it's a combination of several factors.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 1880 words, total size 12 kb.

I need to apologize for my horrific email response-rate of late. It's the Christmas season, things are busy, and I've been much slower to respond to emails that I usually am (and usually I'm not very good at it, either).

I got a lot of responses about the panic-attack thing, and lots of well-wishes and advice and personal stories of dealing with similar symptoms. I appreciate them, and I'll be responding to each of them. It's just taking me a little more time that I might like. And I apologize for that.

Thanks to everyone who contributes to this site, and who takes the time to send me tips and congratulations and letters of support. I appreciate it. Sometimes, though, I get an awful lot of email, and it's hard to keep up with it all. I hope you understand that, and that you also understand that if I don't say "Thank you" sometimes, it's not just because I'm a dick.

Well, not a total dick, anyway.

Web-Diva Kicks Ass: A reader told me the font-size on this site is too small, and that, because it's fixed-size, it resists his attempts to re-size it bigger using his browser's font-sizing feature.

I've contacted Web-Diva about this and she has generously offered to fix this soon. So, hopefully you'll be able to scale the font up to a comfortable size shortly.

Given the fact that I'm reliably informed by the Mainstream Media that you're all idiots, I imagine you'll be sizing up to an early-reader book size of font, maybe thirty point or so. And maybe using the "Read as Children's Rebus Puzzle" function that comes with some browsers especially designed for morons. And then this blog will be as fun as pudding.

Retards love pudding.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you missed it, it appears that almost all of the vehicles in that Guardsman's unit were armored on the day he asked his now famous reporter-planted question of Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest were armored the next day.

I'm so glad that the media refrains from hyping juicy stories until they've been thoroughly checked for accuracy, unlike these irresponsible "bloggers" I keep hearing about.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Catch of the Day by Kausfiles, who's picked up on this whole "get up Andrew Sullivan's nose" thing and just freaking ran with it.

Sullivan whines about a woman, saying of an attractive gay man, "What a waste":

If it emerges in conversation that a man is married to a woman, would he be offended if a gay guy were to say, "What a waste"? I think he would. Or am I wrong?

As Kausfiles notes, even when he's told he's wrong, he's still determined to be pissy about it. Mustn't dare impinge on the sacred sexual personhood of a gay man, it seems, even if by way of delivering a compliment.

The kicker, though, is this statement by Excitable Andy:

In general, I'm in favor of not taking offense unless you really have to. Life's too short.

Ahem, dear. Need I remind you yet again that your capacity for non-offense is not nearly so robust as you imagine?

A week ago, I instituted the Andrew Sullivan Award, for the bloviating commentator most blinded by vanity to be utterly unaware of his actual flaws. I named the award in honor of Sullivan's continuing insistence that he is "not the easiest person to offend, God knows."

Well, it's only been one week, but it's time to name a new winner. Proud winner of the Andrew Sullivan Award this week is, yes, Andrew Sullivan.

I understand this entire post is gob-smackingly vile. I hope he's not offended.

But then, I'm told that he's in favor of not taking offense unless you really have to. Life's too short, you see.

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.