It's fun to be the Establishment. You get to force your policies and your views down people's throats without having to ask permission from anyone. You get to control the media and the educational system, and you get to ban any thoughts or speech you don't like from the public square.

Being the Establishment, in short, rocks.

Except for one thing.

There's no energy in the Establishment. The Establishment -- whatever sort it might be -- always gets tired, lazy, and intellectually obese. It substitutes fiat for argument, because it can; it substitues bromides for reason, because it can.

And it really fucking pisses off a lot of people, who wind up having a lot of energy and passion and intellectual sharpness chiefly because the Establishment is such a fucking douchebag fat-ass of a thug.

And ultimately the Establishment winds up producing energetic and dedicated opponents like these kids, who are, bless them, the most magnificent pains-in-the-asses I've ever read about.

Note to the Liberal Establishment: Your thuggish tactics and repression of diverse thoughts are producing more conservative "terrorists" like these kids than you're successfully neutralizing. You're in a quagmire of your own creation.

This is an argument that should appeal to you. I've heard you make similar arguments yourself, Liberal Establishment.

Maybe you should stop fighting them and start appeasing them, granting them concessions and "reaching out" via constructive dialogue to find "common ground."

Isn't that what you're always urging on the rest of us? Why don't you take your own advice for once, Liberal Establishment?

Stop oppressing these kids and start asking yourselves: "Why do they hate us?"

.......

I usually don't find these protest reports too interesting, but I really liked this one. The narrator is a great writer, and he's got all sorts of pictures. He's cast his villain perfectly:

I mean: Come on. Just... look at her.

Fun stuff.

I don't know. I used to sort of worry about young people who were this committed to politics -- I know I wasn't at that age. But what the hell. All I know is that these kids are really, really pissing off their leftist teachers, and that's a less harmful past-time than other diversions favored by teenagers.

Thanks to Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

Yesterday I referenced a Salon article noting that the DHS's director of policy, Faisal Gill, had undisclosed connections to a terrorist money-launderer currently serving hard time for his crimes.

A reader (whose name and alias I'll withhold) sent along an email defending Mr. Gill. Here's most of the email:

For confidentiality reasons, let me just say that my "friend" is a senior DHS official, and works quite closely on a daily basis with Mr. Gill. My friend is a veteran of Iraqi Freedom and a very strong supporter of our War on Terror. My friend believes that Mr. Gill is helping us greatly in that effort and is, in his words, "a great American." Mr Gill's story is impressive---an immigrant as a child with a father who was a taxi driver, went to law school, etc. Though I have never myself met Mr. Gill, I trust my friend with my life, and accordingly value his opinion.

Although Mr. Gill plainly has ties to the AMC and Grover Norquist (both of which I hold in no high regard), my friend is certain that Mr. Gill is firmly on our side in this conflict. I can offer nothing more than my iron-clad faith in my friend's valuable and well-informed opinion.

I have sent this email from my personal account in the event you need to confirm the contents. [Contact information deleted.] It is my opinion that this story, coming out of the blue and published in an outlet without any real concern for the War on Terror, is simply a vendetta against this particular political appointee or the Administration. You are of course right to be concerned about potential dangers in our terrorism-fighting infrastructure, but I do not think that Mr. Gill represents such a threat. It appears that harming his reputation may end up impeding our war efforts.

That's all second (or third) hand stuff, none of which I can vouch for or corroborate, except to say that the reader who sent this email is on America's side in the war on terror. (Either that, or he's doing a hell of job mole-ing around on a minor blog.)

I will contact this reader tomorrow and see if he can provide me with Mr. Gill's side of the story. I'm particularly interested to know what his contacts were with the terrorist money-launderer, and why he deliberately concealed them from the FBI.

Rudy Guiliani, as great and patriotic an American as they come, had dubious "connections" himself. A New York City Italian, of course he had some family members and distant acquaintances who were in the Italian mafias. But he was a dedicated enemy of the mob, and he loudly announced this fact and acted vigorously against organized crime.

Perhaps Mr. Gill is similarly a dedicated terrorist-fighter. And perhaps there is an innocent reason he concealed his terrorist connections (or, if not a perfectly innocent reason, then at least not a malicious one).

The Salon article may be, as this reader claims, a politically-motivated smear job directed less at improving national security and more at undermining Bush's standing in the polls, and smearing an honorable public servant in the process.

Although I think it's quite fair that Mr. Gill's failure to disclose should raise suspicions -- a lack of candor is always grounds for suspicion -- this failure shouldn't necessarily lead to conclusions, particularly of the sort urged by the Salon piece, and, in fairness, by myself as well in uncritically repeating it.

I don't know either way.

I doubt I can resolve anything at all, but I'll see what I can see. Even if I can't resolve anything, the letter in defense of Mr. Gill provides some perspective.

Update: Malkin links this article by Frank Gaffney, which concludes:

The bottom line is that it is past time for a rigorous review of the extent and implications of the evident Islamist influence operation in official Washington and the troubling role that Grover Norquist has appeared to play in facilitating, if not actually enabling it. If the Bush Administration can or will not conduct such an examination, Congress should undertake to do so.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 692 words, total size 4 kb.

...is here.

Thanks to NRO.

I don't know how much I care about this. From what I've seen so far, the "anger" is fairly controlled. I'd say more like "peeved."

Oh-- the .ram file starts with other news, which is lame, because it's British news, the lamest of all news. Skip forward about one-eighth of the way through the thing to pick up the Clinton interview.

Update: Okay. I'm done with it. It's pretty boring.

The "fireworks," such as they are, last about a minute and a half. Clinton is defensive and indulges in paranoid and narcissistic fantasies, and he does lose his temper some, but he doesn't actually become "unhinged" as has been alleged.

Classic Clinton: Dimpelby presses him to admit he lied. He will not admit this, citing the "confusing" definition of sexual relations. So Dimpleby attempts to get him to concede he lied to his wife. CLinton won't even admit that; instead, he allows that he "didn't tell the truth."

That's an interesting distinction.

Summing up: He's not contrite at all, which is proven by the fact that he becomes physically angry when anyone suggests he did anything wrong. I don't know how someone can be "contrite" about actions they continue strenously defending.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:26 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

Michelle Malkin's annoyed that our "non-partisan watchdog organizations" turn out to be, surprise surprise, not quite so non-partisan as advertised.

This has provoked me into writing something that I've been wanting to write for some time, but I haven't, because it's so obvious as to be tedious. But it needs to be written anyway.

There are usually two ways to describe an advocacy organization or think tank.

First, you could term them "non-partisan." And this is indeed true, at least in a nominal, technical sense. Most of these organizations are officially non-partisan, meaning they are not necessarily committed to one party or the other.

These organizations usually maintain the right to support anyone from either party in any particular election. The NRA might support a pro-gun-rights Democrat over a pro-gun-control Republican. (The NRA, I think, endorsed Virginai Govenor Mark Warner, for example, or at least they gave him high marks.)

For these organizations, it's the philosophical cause that is the determinative factor, not a candidate's party affiliation.

Nevertheless, these organizations are usually on one side or the other. Obviously, the NRA will usually support the GOP candidate, because usually it's the GOP candidate who supports the NRA's basic ideological cause. Obviously NARAL and NOW will usually support the Democrat.

So it's also quite truthful to describe NOW as "an organization generally supporting Democratic candidates and liberal positions on gender issues."

Now, here's the fun part:

The media almost always describes liberal-leaning but nominally-nonpartisan groups as "non-partisan." They could honestly describe them as liberal-leaning and Democrat-aligned, but they choose not to. They think "non-partisan" says it better.

The media, however, almost always describes right-leaning but nominally-nonpartisan groups as "conservative" or "gun-rights supporting" or the like. Rather than describe them as "non-partisan," the media decides that the public really ought to know the group's core philosophical stance so that the public may discount their opinions for bias.

When's the last time you heard the Heritage think tank described as "non-partisan"? How about the American Enterprise Institute?

The media isn't lying, exactly, when it describes Citizens for Tax Justice as "non- partisan." They are, however, deliberately and purposefully withholding key information from the public -- to wit, that organization's ideological agenda and political bias. And it seems strange to me that when it's a conservative organization being reported upon, the media seems to grasp that this basic descriptive information is in fact important for the public to know.

Why the divergence?

The media is forever claiming that its various double-standards are justified by complicated judgments full of "nuance" and "context" which are so inpenetrable as to make the charge of bias unproveable.

But we have here an extremely simple situation. A simple rule would eliminate all bias in this regard. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the WP, the NYT: All can craft a very simple and short rule that says either:

1) nominally non-partisan organizations will be called "non-partisan"

or

2) nominally non-partisan organizations will be described according to their generally-accepted ideological leanings

or

3) they'll be described both ways, as being both non-partisan and generally supportive of one political philosophy

...no matter which side of the aisle they support.

The current rule is that there is no simple, black-letter rule. And the fact that there is no simple rule thereby allows reporters to make "complex" judgments of "nuance" and "context," which allows them, time and time again, to describe Heritage as "right-wing" and Emily's List as "non-partisan."

That is unacceptable. We are talking about a simple bright-line rule which everyone can easily understand and follow. The media won't enact this rule, because they want to continue labling conservative organizations as "conservative," while withholding similar important information from the public regarding liberal organizations and in fact affirmatively misleading the public by calling them "non-partisan."

The vaguer the rule is, the easier it is to engage in biased reporting. After all-- you're not constrained by any simple bright-line rule.

And just watch, watch, watch as you're repeatedly informed that Emily's List is "non-partisan" (you can trust them; they're independent and unbiased) but Heritage is "conservative" (take their claims with a grain of salt, or better yet, disbelieve them entirely, because they're a bunch of political hacks).

And one last point:

Since the media obviously understand the importance of reporting a source's possible political bias (at least in terms of conservative sources) so that the public can make informed judgments about the source's credibility...

...any chance the media will begin divulging its own political bias, so that we can make an informed judgment about the main provider of news and information?

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

Let me narrow it down for you: He didn't say anything about the latest ratings.

You won't exactly be shocked to learn the reason why.

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Take a guess which rogue regimes they're talking about.

Hint: It's not Pakistan, North Korea, China, or Iran.

Posted by: Ace at 11:07 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Al Qaeda Heroes Successfully Engage and Defeat a Single Defenseless, Unarmed Civilian

Brimming with martial pride, they boast they'll defeat defenseless, unarmed civilians wherever they find them. Their skill on the battlefield is unmatched in all of human history, so long as the battlefield in question is a restaurant, school, or day-care center.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

There is an entire cottage industry of not-funny comics. These are comics -- often female -- who are simply not funny at all, but who subsist on "clapper" material, material which is not actually funny but the sentiment of which is approved by the left-wing audience and thus garners appreciative, You Tell 'Em Girlfriend claps.

It's pretty easy to get claps. It's hard to get actual laughs. So some not-funny comics just specialize in the former.

The Clapper Hall of Fame contains such luminaries as Judy Gold, Jeneane Garafalo, and of course the reigning Queen of Courtesy Claps, Margaret Cho.

The amateur leftist webzine Slate predictably adores Cho, and insists she is hysterically funny despite all available evidence to the contrary.

The leftist douchebag writing the article seems to hint that in fact Margarat Cho is not-funny with this near-admission:

The funniest part of a Cho gag is neither the setup nor the punch line, but that in-between moment when the audience is left in suspension, wondering what kind of character will emerge to take over her voice and body.

Ah. So the best part of a Margaret Cho show isn't when she's actually talking or telling jokes. It's when she's got her mouth shut, and you're filled with the tantalizing hope that This joke might actually turn out to be funny.

Then she tells the joke, and the frisson of comedic promise is dashed, dashed and shattered like a ceramic bong dropping to the floor out of Andy Dick's drunkenly-gesticulating hands.

Talk about damning with faint praise. The best part of 95% of movies is the opening credits, when you're filled with anticipation that this might actually be an enjoyable, smartly-made movie. And then the actual movie begins, ruining everthing.

But Margaret Cho is going with what works for her:

With each successive tour, Cho extends the length of these liminal moments, and a viewer new to her comedy will no doubt think, "Jeez, this woman's timing is really off."

If I had her act, I'd extend my periods of absolute silence as well.

And speaking of pimping my old material, if you're new to this site, be sure to read Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny and More Margaret Cho Abuse.

Thanks, sort of, to Martin, who tipped me to the latest leftist praise of Margaret Cho's splendidly humor-free act. First I have to read about the imminent threat of nuclear terrorism, then I have to read that Margaret Cho is still slaying them in San Fransisco and Key West.

Thanks, guys. I think I'm going to duck into the garage and hang myself now.

Update: The admissions continue:

A disquisition on the paucity of role models available to Asian-American women treads familiar ground ("Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond") but ends in a hilarious impression of a Japanimation character: "I don't want to model myself after Hello Kitty," Cho pouts. "She has no mouth. Hello Kitty can't even say hi back to you after you say 'Hello, Kitty!' "

Now, I know what you're thinking: Those jokes aren't funny. In fact, I would dispute they are actually jokes at all.

The reviewer-- who, once again, thinks Cho is screamingly funny -- seems to realize that these jokes aren't funny, but tries to explain that they are hysterically funny despite being not-funny:

See? No dice. Cho's humor is not about jokes per se, and quoting her out of context, you lose the blank, puckered kitten face that makes this moment work.

Ah. Not about jokes "per se." More about making funny faces, which, let's face it, is no difficult trick if you have a face resembling Margaret Cho's.

I understand the Elephant Man will be at Caroline's next weekend. He's just going to discuss the living hell that is his life as a horrifically-twisted walking monster, but he'll be "punching it up" by occasionally sticking out his tongue and winking with his one good eye.

He also has a killer bit about the difference between dog-people and cat-people.

It Gets Better and Better:

True, Cho is increasingly subject to random bursts of hyper-sincere political monologuing ("How dare they ask you to die for your country, yet not allow you to be who you are?") that some viewers will find offensive, others courageous, and many, just plain dull.

Really? I had no idea.

Now this just plain dull comic you're talking about -- this is the one you claim to be hysterically funny, right?

But the odd soapbox rant seems a fair price to pay for 75 minutes in the company of this uniquely gifted and exceptionally honest performer, who appears to have been born to stand in front of thousands of people and speak the unspeakable: "I look at children and feel nothing," she deadpans in a subversive bit about her lack of maternal instincts. "I ovulate sand."

Yes, that is unspeakable indeed. No comic before Cho has ever stated that she despises children, especially other people's children.

I mean, it's not as if you can walk into the Laff-Shack any day of the week and find a hack comic telling the crowd that he thinks children ought to fly in the cargo compartment of a passenger jet. It's not as if Greg Giraldo, for example, does do 90% of his act about how much he hates his wife and kids and considers the travel associated with stand-up comedy to be its greatest selling point. (Giraldo is funny, by the way. I'm not calling him hack.)

Oh, no. Margaret Cho is the first comic telling her largely twenty-something, gay and/or single-and-without-children audience that she just doesn't like children and doesn't intend to have them. And it's very brave to say this to a largely twenty-something, gay and/or single-and-without-children audience, because when you tell them how much of a pain in the ass kids are, they'll get really, really angry about that. Twenty-something, gay and/or single-without-children people just adore children.

So, she's the first to boldy go down this unspeakable road. The first, at least, if you don't count W.C. Fields.

The courage that's on display here is truly inspiring.

Next up: Margaret Cho shocks America by stating without reservation that she decidedly does not enjoy the peanuts they give you on airplanes. She will then cause a national outrage by observing that you get eight hot-dogs in a pack, but ten hot dog rolls in a pack.

What. Is the deal. With that.

This Has Got to Be the Most Inadvertantly Honest Leftist I've Ever Read Update: Hobgoblin points out a line I can't believe I missed. Describing Cho's act, this idiot writes:

"...the sweaty, outsized immediacy of live performance...."

Sweaty. Outsized.

Spot fricking on.

I'm beginning to think this writer is a Republican mole. I cannot begin to trash Cho as completely as this "Cho fan" has managed.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 1163 words, total size 7 kb.

How's this for a Good Afternoon?:

Mohammed al Baradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said it was a "race against time" to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear materials.

Bill from INDC notes that when Mohammed "I see nossink" El Baradei begins hitting the panic button, it's probably a good time to begin taking the threat seriously.

In related news, Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd want to know why John Ashcroft keeps pestering them with terrorist APB's.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Salon Magazine has, I'm told, an outstanding article on Faisal Gill, the policy director for the Department for Homeland Security and also a man who maintained ties with jailed terrorist money-launderer Abdurahman Alamoudi, ties which he deliberately failed to disclose during his security check.

He has not been relieved of his job. Instead, he continues being privvy to very-sensitive information about America's capabilities and vulnerabilities.

It's always a tough call-- to read a Salon article, you have to click on an advertisement and thereby pour money into their coffers.

But you won't be faced with that cruel dilemma today, because Michelle Malkin has excerpted the guts of the article for you. She also provides a bit of her own hyperlinking background.

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.