Pure racism.

No, I don't mean the anti-white bigotry of Spike Lee. Who gives a shit.

I mean the ineffable condescension and embarassing patronization of white people who hear a black person saying something so fucking jackass and feel the need to treat them as either children or retards by saying, "Why, yes, that's a cute little idea you have there, Scamp."

Again: this "honest discussion about race in this country" the liberal media and lefties are always talking about must procede with honesty in both directions. And that means that, yes, once in a while a white liberal might have to dare to disagree with a black person.

To his face.

Imagine such a thing! Treating black people as equal adult citizens whose most idiotic notions should be branded as such.

And maybe black people with more "reasonable theories" than Spike Lee has could be a little more forceful about telling him he's a moron.

Barbershop was a cute little movie, but it did big business because of that one ad where Cedric the Entertainer basically said a bunch of things that black people privately knew (to wit, OJ was guilty as sin, and, illegal or not, Rodney King deseved a few smacks in the head) but were afraid to say out of a misguided sense of racial solidarity.

Racial correctness-- it's got to go too, if we're to have this "honest discussion" that everyone claims to want. It makes it hard to have "honest discussions" when some are parrotting racially correct jackassery.

Thanks to Allah.

Just Curious: Did anyone else try watching Bamboozled, just to see if you could get through it?

I failed myself.

Posted by: Ace at 05:54 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Ummm... maybe to Andrew Sullivan:

A 76-year-old French woman with dyed red hair and a business-like look in her eye can legitimately lay claim to one of the most important inventions of the last century: the discotheque.

It's hardly any wonder the BBC reports the news the way they do when the staff considers strobe lights, velvet ropes, & I'll Tumble 4 Ya to be the zenith of Western civilization.

Apparently the disco just edged out radio & radar, penicillin, and, you know, human flight for the distinction.

Dr. Jonas Salk is said to be wearing a big Cat in the Hat chapeau and a necklace of glow-sticks wonderin' where all the love is.

Thanks to RCL.

Posted by: Ace at 05:44 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

It gets so tiresome. We've been making the same point for five f'n' years now and the MSM refuses to acknowledge it.

So, Judith Miller is being pilloried for being a shill for the Bush Administration for reporting on what the CIA told her about Saddam's WMD program. I don't give a fig about Judith Miller either way, but all of the media was reporting this through nineties and nulls, at least until Bush started saying the same thing. Then they stopped reporting that, and within a year they were calling anyone who'd ever said such a thing a bloodthirsty liar.

Robert Kagan makes this point again in the LA Times, quoting the Washington Post's and New York Times' fascist neocon fantasies about Saddam's extensive WMD program.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Posted by: Ace at 04:24 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

In 1860, the US population was a little over 10% of what it is today.

How many American troops died in the Civil War?

Between 600,000 and 700,000.

Can you imagine CBS or the NYT supporting a war to free slaves with deaths totalling between 6 and 7 million? Me neither.

The 1st Maine Heavy Artillery, in a charge at Petersburg, Virginia, 18 June, 1864, sustained a "record" loss of the war-635 of its 9oo men within seven minutes.

Posted by: Tanker at 02:49 PM | Comments (172)
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Most of today's internet energy has been expended hypothesizin over the Times story Ace linked to last night. And if you're just getting up to date, in short, it stated that Libby’s own notes, possessed by the prosecution, reflect Libby first learned ‘Wilsons-wife’s-in-CIA’ from the Veep himself.

So what, you wonder?

Well, the WaPo, today, tries to spell it out for you. Beside just theorizing that this may mean bad news for Cheney, they seem more certain this means charges for Libby. Why?

Libby is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from reporters -- but they denied it. And now, says the Times, Libby's own notes show he heard it from Cheney.

In short, there’s your perjury, buddy. Case closed. (“Where would you prefer we serve the indictment, Mr. Libby? Home or office?”)

“Hold on!” says Tom Maguire (Get out of his way. I’m warning you. The man is just steamrolling the rest of the net on this case.) In a piece today he reviews this “Libby’s Notes” angle, and reminds everyone Fitzgerald’s had these notes for over a year and, more importantly, Libby and his people have, in all likelihood, known this all along:

First, the NY Times reported in Feb 2004 that Fitzgerald's investigation was relying on Libby's "copious notes" which were delivered (we guessed) in response to a Sept 2003 document request when this Plame leak investigation started.

Now, the high priced legal talent is paid to review everything submitted to the prosecutor. What are the odds they overlooked this morsel that Cheney told Libby about Wilson's wife?

Not likely. AND, with this in mind - i.e. with Libby knowing his notes implicate Cheney as his source -Tom wonders why should we think Libby testified contrary?

Good question. Sure, Libby or his lawyers may leak to the media that he testified “Reporters told me.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean he actually told the Grand Jury that.

Remember, the only people who could inform otherwise, the prosecutors and Grand Jurors, are the very ones bound by law to secrecy – unlike Libby. (And anyone sourced a leak to coming from them yet?)

So, why the ‘one-story-to-GJ, another-to-media’ double entry bookkeeping? more...

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at 02:20 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 1369 words, total size 9 kb.

Most of today's internet energy has been expended hypothesizin over the Times story Ace linked to last night. And if you're just getting up to date, in short, it stated that Libby’s own notes, possessed by the prosecution, reflect Libby first learned ‘Wilsons-wife’s-in-CIA’ from the Veep himself.

So what, you wonder?

Well, the WaPo, today, tries to spell it out for you. Beside just theorizing that this may mean bad news for Cheney, they seem more certain this means charges for Libby. Why?

Libby is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from reporters -- but they denied it. And now, says the Times, Libby's own notes show he heard it from Cheney.

In short, there’s your perjury, buddy. Case closed. (“Where would you prefer we serve the indictment, Mr. Libby? Home or office?”)

“Hold on!” says Tom Maguire (Get out of his way. I’m warning you. The man is just steamrolling the rest of the net on this case.) In a piece today he reviews this “Libby’s Notes” angle, and reminds everyone Fitzgerald’s had these notes for over a year and, more importantly, Libby and his people have, in all likelihood, known this all along:

First, the NY Times reported in Feb 2004 that Fitzgerald's investigation was relying on Libby's "copious notes" which were delivered (we guessed) in response to a Sept 2003 document request when this Plame leak investigation started.

Now, the high priced legal talent is paid to review everything submitted to the prosecutor. What are the odds they overlooked this morsel that Cheney told Libby about Wilson's wife?

Not likely. AND, with this in mind - i.e. with Libby knowing his notes implicate Cheney as his source -Tom wonders why should we think Libby testified contrary?

Good question. Sure, Libby or his lawyers may leak to the media that he testified “Reporters told me.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean he actually told the Grand Jury that.

Remember, the only people who could inform otherwise, the prosecutors and Grand Jurors, are the very ones bound by law to secrecy – unlike Libby. (And anyone sourced a leak to coming from them yet?)

So, why the ‘one-story-to-GJ, another-to-media’ double entry bookkeeping? more...

Posted by: Dr. Reo Symes at 02:20 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 1376 words, total size 9 kb.

Go to Rightalk for the repeat, on the hour for the next several hours.

I know that rightalk.com was actually down for much of the show.

Posted by: Ace at 01:05 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

..."because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."

Via Mudville Gazette.

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 12:55 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

At Rightalk at 4:05 Eastern Time.

We'll be talking today with "J.P.," an Army National Guardsman who just returned from duty in Afghanistan. He's also begun an blog, Milblogging.com, [link fixed] with links to all the military blogs out there.

Who knew "milblogging.com" was still an available address. Sheesh. Could have snapped that one up and made a couple of hundred bucks.

We'll be taking calls throughout the show: 866-884-TALK.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Must have been a planned stunt. Which kind of makes it worse.

Correction: Gee, I didn't even notice the guy got his head bitten off. I thought he just bungeed in and got snapped at.

Readers checked Snopes (like I should have, damn me) and found this wasn't just a stunt, it was all a fake, a commercial for Foster's beer.

Sorry. The shit gets looser on Tuesdays.

Thanks for the correction, guys.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.