The cajones on this guy. I'm torn between calling him an asshole and calling him the coolest man who ever lived:

Donald Trump, who picked up $50,000 per show last season, now wants a modest raise to $18 million per episode of his runaway hit show "The Apprentice."

The real estate mogul turned TV star based his $18 million demand on the salaries paid to the six actors in "Friends," who each got about $1.5 million per show.

Trump's math: Since the Donald is the only star of his show, as far as he can tell, he figures he's entitled to $1.5M x 6, or $9 million.

Then he realized that his show runs a full hour and "Friends" runs for only half hour, so he is not facetiously asking for $18 million a show.

In related news, Bill Gates just pitched his own reality show, The Quest, wherein he will "take a group of complete strangers from all walks of life" and Dungeon-Master (or DM) them all the way from first to 20th level. "It's a can't-miss concept," a producer attached to the project said. "You've got the raw animal charisma of Bill Gates. You've got orcs. You've got gnolls. You've got other humanoid monsters which are neither orcs nor gnolls. It's like Survivor, except with graph paper."

Gates is said to have already trademarked his catch-phrase, "You failed your saving throw against eviction," which he'll say to one player per week as he dismisses them from the campaign. Contestants will compete for $100,000 and a voice-over role in the upcoming PC game, Zork X-treme: The Vengeance of Nerris Vranj.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Judge 'em by the company they keep.

Posted by: Ace at 12:39 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

It's been released.

Must-watch. It's not really new news, but the presentation is new and very effective. Siren-worthy, even.

Big thanks to Aaron Burr.

As Sharp as a Marble said:

I question the timing of this video.

Update: Geeze Louise, it looks like Instapundit had this at 11:36AM.

Eh, I'm still keeping the siren up. It's new to me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm a little skeptical.

In related news, Martha Stewart suffered an aneurysm and Scott Peterson developed a rare case of confinement-induced epilepsy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The Washington Post is taking votes for the best blogs of 2004:

You'll need to sign in with your normal (or a faked) registration, but you can't use the Bugmenot registrations.

Would I like to be named the Best Blog of 2004 by the Washington Post?

I sure would.

Would I like to flap my arms and fly to the moon?* You betcha.

* Anyone know where I got that from?

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Kausfiles links to this USAToday douche-nozzle, who apparently was responsible for the I DON'T GET IT "editing."

Guess what? By his own blogged confession, he "got" everything, he just didn't like the column. Why couldn't he have said that?

Why must every liberal claim that his actions are motivated by fidelity to some objective standard rather than a subjective, and politically-sensitive, mindset? What accounts for this reflexive impulsive to lie about motivations?

Other nuggets:

You won't be surprised to learn that USAToday had the idea to send Michael Moore to the Republican convention first; they then decided they needed to "balance" that, and chose Ann Coulter as the right firebrand to do so.

But it seems they never let Ann Coulter actually do any balancing at all.

And notice that while they are sending an unfair propagandist to cover the GOP, they have ended up with a much more responsible -- and much less vicious -- analyst for the Dems in the form of Jonah Goldberg. This is akin to the Crossfire situation-- the GOP is "represented" by Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson, both journalists with journalistic reputations to maintain, and thus constrained from engaging in full-on partisan venom. (In addition, CNN seems to love Robert Novak primarily because he hates the Bushes and doesn't much like Israel, and Tucker Carlson hasn't been particularly conservative at any point in his life, and especially not now.)

On the other hand, the Dems are ably represented by two bought-and-paid-for political hatchet men.

So, okay. A vicious, dishonest propagandist gets to savage the GOP, while Jonah Goldberg gets to take wry and cautious digs at the Democrats.

Seems fair to me! And remember, it "just worked out this way." USAToday tried like the Dickens to get Ann Coulter to pen a column, but goshdarnit, she just wasn't up to their high editorial standards.

You know-- the way Michael Moore is.

I DON'T GET IT.

Oh, wait, actually, I do get it.

Correction! I called this particular guy a liberal partisan. Reading the rest of his site, I'm not so sure. In fact, he seems to tilt to the right.

Whoops!

But the decision to kill Coulter's column was still in the hands of the higher-ups, not in the hands of this intern. And when I say he "apparently" edited the Coulter piece, I mean just that. Apparently. Kausfiles implies it, but there's no actual first hand statements to that effect.

Posted by: Ace at 10:54 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

And I wouldn't bet on Waylon Smithers, either.

Thanks to The Perfect World.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Mickey Kaus is a centrist, but reliable, Democratic voter. He wants very much to vote for Kerry, but he doesn't want to say he's voting for Kerry in order to appease the terrorists -- oh, I'm sorry, not "appease" them per se, just not make them all angry n' stuff, the way Bush has.

He wants them as peaceable and amiable as they were on September 11th 2001 when they crashed four airplanes filled with human beings into three buildings and the earth, killing 2800.

Now, see the problem with that rationale? Well, I suspect Mickey Kaus sees the problem here too, because he keeps trying to find cute ways to say "appease them" without actually uttering the words. His current formulation is that we need a "time out" from "Bush's history-making," by which he means we need to take a refreshing pause from our current policy of not appeasing terrorists.

Taking a time out from not appeasing them would seem to mean going back to appeasing them, but at least this way of saying it is sort of cute and vague and you can still claim to be all in favor of defeating maniacal Muslim murder-cultists.

After a time out, of course. A time out which will last anywhere from four to eight years.

Another cute way to say what he doesn't want to say is to employ the shorthand "Pedro Martinez."

Now, Pedro Martinez was the Red Sox ace who pitched a good game against the Yanks in last year's ALCS, but who was left in the game a little too long and wound up blowing the game. Kaus uses this analogy to say that while Bush has done all the right things, apparently we need to vote him out of office as soon as possible and put in the guy who didn't want to do the right things. See, because, you know, having the guy who did the right things in the game could lead to him doing not the right things in later innings.

Apparently Kerry, who's been wrong all along under this rationale, will do better in the late innings. I guess the theory is "he's due."

Here's the thing, though:

Kerry really ought to be foresquare behind this Pedro Martinez analogy, because, after all, in this silly little fart of an analysis he's the relief pitcher who'll be coming in to save the game. Trouble is, Kerry -- the very decisive man who wants to lead the free world -- that he can't even clearly say that the Red Sox should have yanked Pedro Martinez in that game without worrying that someone might take offense and not vote for him.

Son of Nixon finds Kerry unable to give a decisive answer on this, one of the more trivial questions posed to a presidential candidate:

Kerry actually responds that, yes, he believes that Grady should have removed Pedro. Then Kerry interjects "Am I in trouble?" for giving that answer. My God! He sensed that he actually provided a clear cut answer to a question and his first reaction was that he may be in "trouble". Isn't it painfully obvious that this man is in no way qualified to lead?

There's more there. Kerry, who notoriously said he didn't like this whole "Yea" or "Nay" system of casting votes, perferring a "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." system, also can't answer simple questions about baseball without launching into somnolent soliliquoys.

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 581 words, total size 3 kb.

Great stuff. It's a funny piece about what it would be like if USAToday's editor began redlining Bill Clinton's speech. Good for a laugh, and very origin--

Um.

Wait a minute.

Thanks to BJ.

Posted by: Ace at 04:40 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Does that headline, errrm, overstate the findings of the poll? Well, I'm thinking about applying to the New York Times as a political reporter; I'm emulating Adam Nagourney. I plan to use that headline as one of my "clips."

But, in all seriousness, it's the internals that really surprise.

Kerry has lost support against Bush in trust to handle five of six issues tested in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, including terrorism, Iraq, taxes and even health care. And Kerry's ratings on personal attributes — honesty, strong leadership, consistency, empathy and others — have softened as well.

...

The bottom line has shifted only very subtly. Head-to-head, the Massachuestts senator has slipped from a slight lead in late June to a dead heat today, with 49 percent support for Bush and 48 percent for Kerry among registered voters. Including Ralph Nader, it's 48 percent-46 percent-3 percent.

Better but not good. But hang on there.

Here's the really stunning part. Asked who the voters trusted to better handle issues...

Terrorism B55 v. K37 (was 48 v. 47 -- that's a 17 point swing)

Taxes B49 v K43 (was 41 v. 53 -- that's a stunning reversal)

Health Care B44 v. K47 (was 38 v. 56 -- from a trouncing to near-parity)

Iraq B52 v K40 ( was 49 v 47 -- a nine point swing)

Education B44 v K45 (was 43 v 52 -- nine-point deficit to near-parity)

Economy B47 v K46 (was 45 v 50 -- five point deficit to near parity, slightly ahead)

I don't know if this poll is right or one of the 5% that will just be wrong, but it seems to me that Kerry can't win when he's behind big on the war, slightly behind on the economy, and only slightly ahead on the Mommy issues.

An improving economy and the handover of authority in Iraq are among the likely factors influencing these assessments. So, too, is the attention focused on terrorism by the release of the Sept. 11 commission report last week. The nation's response to 9/11 has been Bush's finest hour in public approval; focus on it accrues to his advantage.

Probably the single most important advance for Bush on the issues in this poll is his rating for handling terrorism. Fifty-seven percent of Americans now approve, up from 50 percent last month. And registered voters trust Bush over Kerry to handle terrorism by 55 percent to 37 percent, compared with an even split, 48 percent to 47 percent, a month ago.

Among specific groups that are key to Kerry's chances, since June he has lost 13 points among women in trust to handle terrorism, 11 points among moderates and eight points among independents.

Who do women, moderates, and Independents trust on terrorism?

Women B46 v K43 (was 40 v 56 -- nice turnaround)
Moderates B40 v K43 (was 42 v 54 -- another nice turnaround)
Independents B50 v K40 (was all knotted up at 48-48 -- ten point lead with Independents. Nice.)

...

On the economy, public perceptions, while hardly enthusiastic, are their best (46 percent positive, 53 percent negative) in ABC/Post polls since July 2001. And Bush's approval rating for handling the economy, while not good, is better — up eight points since March, to 47 percent. Economic sentiment was vastly more sour at this time in 1992, when Bush's father was on his way to losing a second term.

This President Bush does remain vulnerable on his economic performance; 41 percent of Americans say most people have gotten worse off financially since he took office, while just 15 percent say most people are better off. That "worse off" number, though, is down from a high of 52 percent last fall — and it was worse still, 61 percent, in summer 1992.

Lots of good stuff here.

No Matter How Cynical I Try To Be, I Just Can't Keep Up Update: Kerry is Unelectable calls shenanigans on this poll, for an interesting reason:

This is meant to give the appearnace of a John Kerry boost after the convention. There will be no real gain for Kerry, the media have recognized that, and now they are doing their damnedest to manufacture one. Kerry has to have some kind of momentum post convention or else everyone will recognize he has no chance of winning and Donks will be discouraged and won't show on Nov.2. This poll is completely false.

Hmmmm... I don't know. I guess we'll have some idea in a week.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.