Sobek asked about this awesome video of acrobatic-urban stunts performed by a kid calling himself "The French Spiderman."

Sorry: Link should be fixed now.

More: Same video as above, but in .mov format, and plays in window.

A different video here.

And yet another video here.

Thanks to Addison for these.

In related news, John Kerry just tripped on a curb. He demaned his Secret Service detail immediately wrestle the curb to the ground.

And then he went windsurfing.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

So, what the hell, it's Friday night and you don't have dates. You might as well get your buddy to shoot 25 roman candles directly at a bullseye on your chest, right?

The thing is, as stupid as this is, I personally wanted to do something like this in high school.

The dude getting pelted by 25 scorching-hot roman candles is funny enough. Funnier still is the ending-- "Water, water!"

That clip is work-safe.

I have to give credit to the site I got it from, but before I do, I have to say that many of the clips at this site are definitely not work-safe, and you can't always tell which are safe and which aren't based on a clip's description. This guy has some funny videos, and some videos which aren't so much funny as dirty-filthy, so you should be careful about opening them.

By the Way: The guy armed with the rockets is like a freaking James Bond of roman candles. He hits with half of them from a range of twenty or twenty five feet. How the hell did he get so good about aiming them?

I think we have to conclude that this isn't the first time they've done this. Which makes it an even greater moment in male stupidity-- doing something stupid once is understandable, but doing something stupid repeatedly until you actually become skilled at it is downright praisworthy.

We may have found John Kerry's next campaign manager.

The Coolest Moments in Male Stupidity: Awesome urban-acrobatic stunts from "The French Spiderman.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

How could such an article not be linked here?

Posted by: Ace at 01:57 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Brooks' column is worth reading, I wonder if the following sentence were inserted in order to appease his editors:

We should by now have become used to the death cult that is thriving at the fringes of the Muslim world.

First of all, the problem here isn't a "death cult," but rather a murder cult. A death cult might merely encourage suicides or a veneration of the macabre, which might be ghastly, but it wouldn't be a threat to us.

Let us say what we mean, Mr. Brooks. The problem isn't a fascination with "death" generally, but a nearly-sexual lusting for our deaths, and even our children's deaths, in particular.

Second of all-- for exactly how long do we have to pay lip service to the cretinously "tolerant" lie that this is something at the "fringes" of Muslim society?

Timothy McVeigh and his fellow murderers were at the fringes of American society. They were a collection of poorly-educated no-account criminals, some of whom (the Nichols guy) are quite plainly insane.

The Islamist murder-cult is not at the "fringes" of Muslim society; it is largely at its heart, and, where it is not actually the core of the society, it is powerfully influential on the society.

Islamist murderers are given technical training by respected Muslim engineers and chemists teaching at the most prestigious Muslim university.

Islamist murderers are recruited in the most revered Muslim mosques, often by the top imams of the faith.

Islamist murderers are knowingly assisted in their financial activities by the most senior men at Muslim-controlled banks.

Islamist murderers are praised and/or defended on Muslim-controlled television and in Muslim-controlled newspapers, often by the most respected commentators in the Muslim world.

Islamist murderers proudly declare their "achievements" to throngs who cheer them, and the coffins of Islamist "martyrs" are swarmed by adoring admirers who jostle and surge just to lay a hand on their caskets.

And Islamist murderers have their first training in extremist religious schools, where they are taught every hour on the hour that there is no viciousness that cannot be justified by the will of Allah.

I do not say that all foreign Muslims are guilty of aiding and abetting Islamist murderers. Obviously, that's not true.

But I for one tire of the politically-correct lie that that all these problems are caused by "a few bad apples" operating "at the fringes" with only little or no support from the populaces at large. Those supporting terrorism -- either with money or favors or merely prayers and kind words -- may or may not control Muslim societies, but they've certainly permeated it, from bottom to top (and especially at the top), and are too powerful to dislodge from their positions of influence even by governments willing to attempt doing so.

Were the Nazis, too, a "fringe" movement? Did the "Nazis invade Germany," forcing their vile creed on an innocent and resistant people?

I do not know the exact fraction of the Islamic world that actually supports these monsters. But it cannot possibly be lower than 20%, and it might be as high as 40% -- or higher.

Look at the ratings for the pro-terrorist cable "news" networks. Those people aren't being forced to watch vile apologism on behalf of monsters. They're choosing to do so.

The Nazis were history's most prolific psychopaths (thusfar), but I do note this: the Nazis made efforts to conceal the extent of their mass-butcheries from the populace they ruled. I am not one of those German apologists who believe the German people were essentially innocent and "duped" by Hitler -- most at the very least suspected the extent of the Holocaust, and what they knew from their own firsthand witnessing is enough to brand nearly the entirety of the 1930's-1940's German public as accomplices to genocide.

When they load up the trains with innocent civilians and "evacuate" them to never be seen or heard from again, one can hardly claim moral innocence simply because he didn't know the train's physical destination.

But compare the Nazis to the Islamist murder-cult on this point: The Islamist murder-cultists don't attempt to conceal their savagery from the public they live amongst; rather, they proudly announce the full dimensions of their crimes, and are furthermore adulated by many in response.

If we reject excusing the bulk of the German populace for the crimes committed by the Nazis, how on earth can we continue insisting that it's merely "a few lunatics" responsible for Islamist savagery? As ghastly a thought it is to minimize German viciousness during the Nazi era to any extent, at least the the German people would have be disgusted were they to know the full extent of Hitler's psychopathic program.

Apparently Islamist murderers have little to fear on that score.

When a psychopathic movement does not even feel the least need to conceal its butchery from the society supporting it, but rather trumpets that savagery in videotaped murder-pageants, I think we've crossed the line where we can honestly speak of "fringe elements" and "a few rogue actors."

Progress? The Saudis say they'll no longer allow "fanatics" to teach children. The Saudis say a lot of things, but at least lying about wanting to remove murder-preachers from children's education is a start. Concealing one's crimes at least displays some shame about them.

It does not change the fact, however, that such teachers are at the moment teaching very young children to kill and die in support of lunatic barbarism.

Posted by: Ace at 01:33 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 950 words, total size 6 kb.

No, I'm not saying that Muslims are savages, although clearly some are.

What I'm saying is that while savagery is generally condemned by all of humanity, savagery committed by Muslims is often minimized and excused away.

No one, save Gore Vidal, attempts to "contextualize" the mass murder perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh, nor seeks to minimize the vileness of his crime by suggesting that "We must understand that Timothy McVeigh did not like American foreign policy."

And yet there is no act of bestial ferocity committed by a Muslim that cannot be mitigated or even justified by bringing up the Palestinians.

Or Iraq. Or the Crusades. Or Vienna, or Spain, or any other historical grievance.

Dennis Prager's had enough.

As has Christopher Hitchens.

And David Brooks, too.

And, sanguinely, so has the general manager of Al-Arabiya television, who writes:

It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.

Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.

Bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.

What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement". Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

...

For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realise the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realisation and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.
...

We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.

We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the Sheikhs who thought it ennobling to re-invent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

This double-standard has been driving me crazy for years: liberals can talk up God all they like without raising any eyebrows from the press. But the minute conservatives mention the G-word, it's a prelude to a fundamentalist theocracy.

I think the reasons for this are two-fold: 1, the press is liberal. Okay, so that's not exactly a Pulitzer-worthy observation.

And 2, the press knows that when liberals mention God, they don't mean it. They're just pandering to the inbred knuckle-draggers of the hinterlands. It's shameless and utterly dishonest, which is why, strangely enough, it's "better" than when a conservative mentions the Allmighty.

Um... okay, that's not really much of a newsflash either.

Paul Kengor at NRO finally writes what many of us have been screaming about for years:

Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation's presidents, including his most recent predecessor. I researched the Presidential Documents (the official collection of every public presidential statement); an examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush's 4.7.

Bush's biggest year was 2001, when he mentioned Christ in seven statements. This was the year of September 11; he was especially introspective, and often looked upward for strength. In 2002, he cited Christ in five statements. Most interesting, in all of 2003, the Presidential Documents displayed only two statements in which Bush mentioned his Savior: the Easter and Christmas messages. It may be reasonable to conclude that the hostile press reaction to Bush's mention of Jesus has pressured him into silence.

Such pressure was never placed on Bush's Democratic predecessor. Bill Clinton's top year for presidential Christ remarks was 1996 — the year of his reelection campaign — when he spoke of Christ in nine separate statements. Clinton mentioned Christ almost twice as much in election years.

Twice as much in an election year, you say?

Not to be cynical, but I question the timing.

More -- much more -- at the link.

And... Speaking of double-standards, I wonder if conservatives will also be allowed by the press to joke about killing political opponents.

Seems to me that John Forbes Kerry has already admitted to "cutting off ears, cutting off heads, blown (sic) up bodies, shot livestock and burned crops" and all the rest of it. By his own admission, the man has a well-documented (?) record of indiscriminate violence in the service of advancing a corrupt regime.

He's clearly a dangerous individual. One might even call him a "desperate loner with nothing left to lose."

I think we should take his threats seriously.

Posted by: Ace at 11:20 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

A source has passed him an important Kerry campaign document.

I question the timing.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Drudge:

In the headlines this afternoon, the Congressional Budget Office will project that this year's U.S. budget deficit will be smaller than expected. The nonpartisan CBO is expected to say that the deficit will reach $422 billion.

While that is a record, it is down from the $477 billion estimated for the year in January. The estimated revision is largely attributed to stronger revenue collections. The government is expected to spend $2.3 trillion before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, which translates into borrowing one out of every five dollars it spends.

No cowbell, because that deficit is still much too high. But certainly it's a good sign that "stronger revenue collections" (seems to be a way to say "a better economy" without actually saying it) are reducing it.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of people say they're happy to add new additions to their blog rolls. Personally, I think that's a lot of bullshit.

Basically, linking other bloggers means giving attention to your direct competitors. When I go into a GM dealership, the salesman doesn't walk me over the Toyota lot and suggest that I check out the new Camry. And yet, in blogging, I'm supposed to just graciously deflect away all the attention and validation I so desperately crave to some other dude.

Oh, well. Just another one of those crazy "rules" our so-called "society" imposes on us, like the requirement that keep their pants on in mixed company. On this one point, I'm in perfect agreement with Ted Kennedy. It's not always a sexual thing-- sometimes it's just about comfort.

And convenience.

All of the new bloggers get the Ace of Spades HQ stamp of approval. They've got good links and interesting ideas. Some are analysts; some are humorists; some are incorrigible rapscallions. Unless I'm mistaken, there's even one or two ribald jackanapes on the list.

And some are Hugh Hewitt who, apart from being a fine commentator and an important voice in the conservative movement, could probably also finagle me Ann Coulter's phone number.

A few of these bloggers already are getting a lot of attention; others are going to garner attention. Some of these people might even wind up as beloved television hosts. Meanwhile, I -- long-suffering I -- will languish in unrewarded obscurity; the closest I'll ever come to celebrity will remain the time I inadvertently received a cable bill addressed to Tacklebury from the Police Academy movies.

If I didn't link you and you think I should have, drop me a line. I'm sure I missed people here and there. Also, some of the people I "welcome" below have actually been on the list for a couple of months, but I never actually welcomed them, so I'm welcoming them now.

For one blogger -- Sydney T of Sydney T's Weblog -- I offer both a welcome and an apology, for, although I've had her "linked" for months, I had a non-working link in the blogroll, which is sort of like having an Orbitrek in your apartment-- it looks nice and all, but it's utterly useless, except perhaps as a poorly-conceived towel-rack.

At any rate: I'm now pleased (not really) to welcome the following new additions to my blogroll.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 680 words, total size 8 kb.

U P D A T E D -- Now with quoted print source

Heard about this on Special Report With Brit Hume, and a reader just tipped me with an English-language print link.

According to the report, the Italians are fingering the the French intelligence services as the culprits behind the forged the Niger-uranium documents. They intended to first fool Bush and Blair and then reveal them as forgeries later, so as to embarass them, discredit them, undermine the case for war, and protect their client Saddam Hussein.

They used an Italian-born hustler as their catspaw.

Their desire to continue their lucrative business dealings with Saddam is named as the primary motive.

HERE is a link to the UK Telegraph's story. Excerpts follow.

A row has broken out between France and Italy over whose intelligence service is to blame for the Niger uranium controversy, which led to Britain and America claiming wrongly that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy material for nuclear bombs.

Italian diplomats say that France was behind forged documents which at first appeared to prove that Iraq was seeking "yellow-cake" uranium in Niger - evidence used by Britain and America to promote the case for last year's Gulf war.

They say that France's intelligence services used an Italian-born middle-man to circulate a mixture of genuine and bogus documents to "trap" the two leading proponents of war with Saddam into making unsupportable claims.

They have passed to The Sunday Telegraph a photograph which they claim shows the Italian go-between, sometimes known as "Giacomo" - who cannot be identified for legal reasons - meeting a senior French intelligence officer based in Brussels. "The French hoped that the bulk of the documents would be exposed as false, since many of them obviously were," an Italian official said.

"Their aim was to make the allies look ridiculous in order to undermine their case for war."

According to an account given to The Sunday Telegraph, France was driven by "a cold desire to protect their privileged, dominant trading relationship with Saddam, which in the case of war would have been at risk".

...

"This was la grande trappola [the big trap]. The Americans were now convinced by the French that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium. They thought the French must be right, since not even a gram of uranium in Niger could be shifted without their knowledge."

British officials still say that the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases rested on a second source, not just the now-discredited documents. Intelligence officials from some other Western countries now believe, however, that the second source was also France - part of a "sinister trap" for Mr Blair.

French intelligence was asked by The Sunday Telegraph for a public comment on the allegations against it, but has yet to give one.

There's more at the link, especially about the Italian cut-out "Giacomo."

.........

Our "valuable allies"? Will John Forbes Kerry dare to defend France against this clear-cut enemy action?

As the man says:

IMPACTING HARD...

Background: France has previously denied any involvement, despite the suspicions of the British.

A similar story here.

VCR/TIVO Alert: If you want to see the report yourself, check out the repeat at 12:00 AM eastern time. The item is the leadoff of the Political (or Wartime) Grapevine section of the show, about halfway through the show.

Thanks to AKA Q for finding the print report, which utterly eluded me.

Been There, Done That: MeTooThen disappoints me by noting that both Barcepundit and Roger L. Simon had this yesterday.

Sorry-- I really thought I was scooping the blogosphere. I guess one needs to be quicker than that.

I'm still leaving the siren up, though.

Irresponsible Speculation Update: Recall that Joe Wilson publically said he knew for a fact these documents were forgeries, despite his later admission that he never saw them (or saw them very late into the process).

Mark wants to know: was Wilson an agent, either witting or unwitting, of the French Deception?

Posted by: Ace at 05:52 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 687 words, total size 5 kb.