The working title, Do You Want Me To Ride Your Ass Like I Myself Would Do?, was apparently changed late in the process:

Joe Piscopo channeled Frank Sinatra the other night at a Barnes & Noble signing of "Frankly: Just Between Us," by former Sinatra bandleader Vinnie Falcone. Falcone's affectionate book recalls the day Sinatra was walking out of a rehearsal and got ambushed by a fan with a camera. "One of Mr. S's bodyguards asked the guy for the film," says Falcone. "Then a woman across the street shouted, 'Hey, Frank, may I have a photo?' He said, 'Take all you want, baby.' Because she'd asked."

The girls get pictures. That's just. The way. It fucking. Is.

Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

This is actually positive news. Push hard enough, make people's lives as dreary and miserable as possible, and you will one day find them pushing back:

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran's radio and TV stations, reviving one of the harshest cultural decrees from the early days of 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Songs such as George Michael's "Careless Whisper," Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles'"Hotel California" have regularly accompanied Iranian broadcasts, as do tunes by saxophonist Kenny G.

But the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban Western music.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.

Trivial? Not really. Let's face it, most of our days are pretty uneventful; say what you will about pop culture, but it's a small diversion from the tedium and stress of life.

And it's the young who care most passionately about that.

Ahmadinejad has violated the second most basic rule of Machiavelli. The first, of course, is that the Prince must make warfare his constant study.

The second is: don't take from the people their cheesy Wham! pop-ballads.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a week old, but is an absolute must-read.

Together with several colleagues, I had been trying for months to persuade the Western media to take an interest in Ganji, a former Khomeinist revolutionary who is now campaigning for human rights and democracy. But we never got anywhere because of one small hitch: President Bush had spoken publicly in support of Ganji and called for his immediate release.

And that, as far as a good part of the Western media is concerned, amounts to a kiss of death. How could newspapers that portray Bush as the world's biggest "violator of human rights" endorse his call in favor of Ganji?

To overcome that difficulty, some of Ganji's friends had tried to persuade him to make a few anti-American, more specifically anti-Bush, pronouncements so that the Western media could adopt him as a "hero-martyr."... Would Ganji adopt [this] tactic in order to get media attention in the West? The answer came last January and it was a firm no.

The result was that Ganji, probably the most outspoken and courageous prisoner of conscience in the Islamic Republic today, became a non-person for the Western media.

Read it all. It gets worse: "UNICEF Ambassador" Bianca Jagger won't take an interest in Ganji, because there are more important prisoners to worry about -- like the terrorists in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

"Is Ganji the same as the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay?" I asked.

"Well, yes, I mean no, I mean yes," she mumbled. "But they are all prisoners, aren't they?"

Yep. They're all prisoners, Bianca.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

No longer just a strong-man elected by tribal potentates. Full-blown parliamentary democracy:

Formation of the assembly marks the last major step on an internationally sponsored path to democracy and stability laid out after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

This is an interesting take from AP:

"This is going to be a new exercise for most people," Fishstein said. "There's not a clear and consistent understanding of what a parliamentarian does."

Karzai is likely to have strong support, but there is plenty of room for debate and opposition.

All members of the lower parliament house were elected as individuals, not party members -- a system that could make legislation painstaking and contentious. Shifting alliances and the need to assemble support for every action may slow the process.

Guys? That's what democracy is. What the AP notes here is quite true, but they seem to be implicitly pining for the strong-man dictator model that's so well-served the third world for the past thousand years.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Instapundit has links galore, and also this interesting take:

[O]ne big thing struck me: In this national televised speech, Bush went out of his way to take responsibility for the war. He repeatedly talked about "my decision to invade Iraq," even though, of course, it was also Congress's decision. He made very clear that, ultimately, this was his war, and the decisions were his.

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit.

That's very encouraging. If, as Instapundit says, Bush is "doubling down," he must know something. Maybe something like this:

Sunni religious leader Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the United States.

"We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans," Hemaiym said. "As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative."

Failure is an orphan and victory has a thousand fathers... but perhaps this time, they'll be a few less fathers who can prove their patromony for the coming victory in Iraq.

Video here.

Posted by: Ace at 10:02 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

At Anklebiting Pundits, in case you missed it.

First Question: Will you order investigation into leaks, and why didn't you go to court?

Answer: It was a SHAMEFUL ACT. (Absolutely!). The fact that we're discussing this is a victory to the enemy, and yes, that enemy still exists. The revelation of this program will cause them to change tactics. Gives example: In the 90's Govt. was following Osama, who was using certain type of telephone was revealed by the press and Osama stopped using the phone and changed behavior.

As to why he didn't go to court- after 9/11 knew we're fighting difft. kind of war. Asked administration what was best way to protect Americans. Looked at possible scenarios, and the answer was the current program because it enables the govt. to be "fast on their feet". FISA though, is for long term things, and this kind of action requires fast response. Asked then whether he had power to do this under law - said yes because of Patriot Act and Constitution.

I give him props for the SHAMEFUL line, but he never answers if there will be an investigation. It's about time the Bush Administration got more serious about protecting vital American national security secrets.

Preferred answer: There will be investigations, and those found guilty of illegally leaking highly-classified information will be stripped of their commissions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. Bush, the American people and the various leakers in the intelligence community will not take these laws seriously until you do.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, no! Please don't throw me in that national security Briar Patch!

Not recognizing the political ground had shifted beneath their feet, Democrats continued to press forward with their offensive against the President. TheyÂ’ve now foolishly climbed out on a limb that Rove and Bush have the real potential to chop off. One would think that after the political miscalculations the Democrats made during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns they would not make the same mistake a third time, but it is beginning to look a lot like Charlie Brown and the football again.

First, the Democrats still do not grasp that foreign affairs and national security issues are their vulnerabilities, not their strengths. All of the drumbeat about Iraq, spying, and torture that the left thinks is so damaging to the White House are actually positives for the President and Republicans. Apparently, Democrats still have not fully grasped that the public has profound and long-standing concerns about their ability to defend the nation. As long as national security related issues are front page news, the Democrats are operating at a structural political disadvantage. Perhaps the intensity of their left wing base and the overwhelmingly liberal press corps produces a disorientation among Democratic politicians and prevents a more realistic analysis of where the countryÂ’s true pulse lies on these issues.

Read the whole thing.

It's not so much that there isn't a good and useful public debate to be had on torture, an aggressive military policy against terrorists, whether or not Bush's Iraq idealism is naive, or an expansion of the NSA's eavesdropping program.

It's that 1, we're not actually having that debate because Democrats refuse to actually engage the critical issues honestly, seeing every issue through the nakedly-partisan prism of "How to get Bush" and "How to position myself for 2006 or 2008," and 2, the public can't help noticing that, on every single issue that flows over the political transom, the Democrats take either the anti-American, soft-on-terrorism, or passivity-in-the-face-of-genuine-danger line.

William F. Buckley once had to write about whether Patrick Buchanan was indeed anti-Semitic, as had been widely charged. He concluded that Buchanan's various positions, while each defensible when considered alone, nevertheless expressed, taken together, an unmitigated and unbroken hostility to Israel and American Jewish concerns.

Same deal here. When Democrats are apparently incapable of selective outrage and critique -- when they do not choose their fights, but simply climb aboard every anti-American and terrorist-coddling bandwagon -- it can't help be concluded that the San Fransisco Democrats are back, baby, and this time out and proud.

(As if they ever really went away, of course.)

Thanks to The Corner.

Posted by: Ace at 09:36 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

10. Old episodes of Joanie Loves Chiachi, dubbed into French to make the characters issue pronouncements on the "crudity of Anglo-Saxon economics" and "puritanical American notions of sexual restraint"

9. Pretty much the same deal as 10, except with Hunter... international audiences love Hunter

8. Le Jackass, an outrageous "stunt show" featuring skateboard tricks, parkour urban acrobatics, and of course lots and lots of burning Puegots

7. Le Etiquette Noueau , all about changing social standards, which explores issues such as "tasteful public urination" and "discreet copulation with a Bulgarian whore in a jazz-cafe storage closet"

6. Who da Jew?, a game-show in which contestants attempt to judge the kosherness of "Neocon Uninateralist Cryptozionist Warmongers" (hosted by Amiri Baraka)

5. Monsiuer Crocodile, Please Eat Us Last, a panel show about French national security in which guests detail and provide maps for buildings outside of France which they believe would make "tasty" targets for terrorists

4. A late-night erotic program named Gerard Depardieu's World of Sensual Foot Massage

3. Bathing and Personal Hygiene: Seriously, What's the Big Deal?

2. A French remake of The A-Team, in which four French Foreign Legion veterans, accused of crimes they did not commit, aid oppressed people in need of mercenary assistance by blowing up cars, jerry-rigging cool war-machines out of disused tractors and grain-combines, and then surrendering and collaborating with the oppressors

...and the Number One Show on Chirac's French World Broadcasting Network...

1. Le Philosophie, which explores metaphysical questions such as "If Jerry Lewis exists, why does He allow evil in the world?"

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Wall Street Journal's email newsletter:

From the Wall St. Journal's daily email newsletter:

Broadcasting Waterloo?

What do French President Jacques Chirac and former Vice President Al Gore have in common? Just lately, dreams of a media legacy.

Mr. Gore decided to pick up the post-presidential-run pieces by starting a current-affairs cable station called Current TV. Now, with a recent poll showing that only 3% of French voters are enthusiastic about President Chirac seeking a third term in 2007, the veteran politician has announced a grand plan to start a government-funded international news network, nicknamed "CNN à la française." The station is slated to hit the airwaves late next year, and French diplomats say it will "make France radiate" around the world.

The new channel is in part the brainchild of Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.... In 2003, Mr. de Villepin announced plans for the channel while he was serving as foreign minister. At the time, he announced that the world was thirsting for the French view. "Never has France been so listened to, and never have so many hopes been placed in it," he declared.

...

This latest Chirac venture is based partly on the premise that giant "Anglo-Saxon" news operations such as CNN broadcast news from a perspective that shortchanges the French. "France believes it has a point of view, which is not represented in international channels like BBC and CNN -- to say nothing of Fox News," says David-Herve Boutin, who helped design the channel's blueprint.

-- John Fund

It's amusing to me that Gore/Chirac/De Villepain believe that CNN, the BBC, and all the American network newscasts are not sufficiently solicitous of the liberal/French view of the world.

Thanks to the mighty Slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 08:51 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember the days when legislation used to be the job of legislators? How naive we were.

Three environmental groups sued the federal government Thursday, seeking to protect polar bears from extinction because of disappearing Arctic sea ice.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, demands that the government take action on a petition environmentalists filed earlier to have polar bears listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

Once a species is listed as threatened, the government is barred from doing anything to jeopardize the animal's existence or its habitat.

In the case of the polar bear, the environmentalists hope to force the government to curb U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Thanks to Steven den Beste.

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.