Vote for Ace or the little furry ones die.

More endorsements here. Don't forget to vote for Dave from Garfield Ridge, Wuzzadem, Demure Thoughts, SondraK, and Florida Cracker in the Top 251-500 Category, for whom I previously provided a bad link.

Thanks to Slublog for the 'shop.

Posted by: Ace at 12:43 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Newsweek tries to paint a picture of an aloof and noncommunicative Bush Administration -- well, perhaps they have a point there -- but John Murtha perhaps says more than he intended with this juicy quote:

...when Murtha tried to write George W. Bush with some suggestions for fighting the Iraq war, the congressman's letter was ignored by the White House (after waiting for seven months, Murtha received a polite kiss-off from a deputy under secretary of Defense). Murtha, who has always preferred to operate behind the scenes, finally went public, calling for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq. In the furor that followed, a White House spokesman compared the Vietnam War hero to "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party." When that approach backfired, President Bush called Murtha a "fine man... who served our country with honor." The White House has made no attempt to reach out to Murtha since then. "None. None. Zero. Not one call," a baffled Murtha told NEWSWEEK. "I don't know who the hell they're talking to. If they talked to people, they wouldn't get these outbursts. If they'd talked to me, it wouldn't have happened."

What wouldn't have happened? You wouldn't have taken the drastic step of calling for immediate withdrawal if the WH had been more prompt about returning your phone calls? Your call for withdrawal came because you weren't getting stroked enough, Hero?

I'm having trouble understanding what else he could possibly have meant. In his mind, perhaps he believes that if only the WH had listened to his scary-important suggestions, we wouldn't be losing (supposedly) the war, and no talk of withdrawal would be necessary.

But that seems pretty unlikely -- his ideas would win the war? -- and even if that were true, that means that he must still believe the war is winnable, if only someone would listen to him. So why would he call withdrawal in a war that he believes is still winnable (were his genius strategems executed, of course)?

It seems unfathomable to me that someone could make such a dramatic announcement out of such petty egotism... but then, I'm not a Congressman.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean is claiming his statement about the war in Iraq being unwinnable was "taken out of context."

Brit Hume offered the full context on Thursday. It doesn't seem to help him much:

"I supported President Bush, the first President Bush's war in Iraq. I supported this president Bush's war in Afghanistan. But I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice. I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we'd gotten in there. The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that is unfortunately just plain wrong, and I've seen this before in my life. It cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam, and I don't want to go down that road again."

Nothing there that suggests a different plan would make it winnable, or that caveats his claim that it's not winnable. In fact, he compares it to the most famously unwinnable war in American history, Vietnam. (At least it's so in the conventional liberal wisdom.)

And of course John Murtha is claiming he wasn't accurately quoted, either, regarding his now-radioactive call for "immediate" withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Brit Hume's having none of that, either:

Even before today, Democrats were complaining that Rep. John Murtha's plan to remove troops from Iraq has been "mischaracterized" for political reasons, saying the Pennsylvania Democrat never proposed an immediate withdrawal. In fact, in announcing his plan last month, Murtha said his plan would "immediately redeploy U.S. troops," adding, "It is time to bring them home." He said some troops should be rebased in the region with a Marine force over the horizon. A few days later, he made clear that by that, he meant outside Iraq.

Liberal partisan Democrat Juan Williams is also fond of this silliness. He'll spend ten minutes attacking Bush for being so "inflexible" about withdrawal, supporting the Democrats' calls for such, and then when it's pointed out that the Democrats are supporting, effectively, surrender and defeat, he'll claim that the Democrats aren't really suggesting anything at all different than Bush, and so it's unfair to attack them.

He claims that since Bush says he wants security followed by a withdrawal, and the Democrats want a withdrawal which they hope will lead to security, both positions are in fact essentially the same and it's cheap and demagogic to suggest the Democrats want anything different than Bush.

Of course this is absurd. Bush demands objective goals be met, and then he hopes for a fairly quick withdrawal. While the Democrats demand a fairly quick withdrawal, and hope that objective military goals will be achieved by the Iraqis. That's a pretty big difference in prioritization there, and not even Juan Williams could be so stupid as to not comprehend it.

Well, wait: This is Juan Williams we're talking about. So perhaps I shouldn't suggest he's being dishonest in his partisan hackery. Maybe he really is that stupid. Certainly I don't foresee him unifying the four forces anytime soon.

But Juan makes no sense any way you slice it. If it's true the Democrats aren't suggesting anything different than Bush, why are they all pounding on him? How can you criticize a man when you're also claiming you support the same policies he does?

Juan Williams and other liberal partisans believe in drawing distinctions for their own political advantage, but when their opponents point out those distinctions, they claim there aren't really any meaningful distinctions in the first place.

It's a replay of the Democrats' notorious 2004 campaign "position" on gay marriage: John Kerry has the exact same policy on gay marriage as Bush and Cheney, but Bush and Cheney are terrible homophobes for supporting that policy.

At the risk of being obvious (but apparently some liberals need to read the obvious): You can claim to either have a better policy than Bush, or you can claim your policy is exactly the same as Bush's, but you can't claim your policy is both exactly the same as Bush's and also, somehow, better than Bush's. Either they're different or they're not.

The real "context" which explains this nonsense is that Democrats want it both ways. They want to be viewed as tough and resolute on matters military while simultaneously rejecting military solutions and calling for withdrawals; they want to placate their strenuously antiwar base while reassuring moderates who think that maybe it's a good idea to win wars our country begins.

These competing demands really can't be met simultaneously, so they say one thing one day and the complete opposite another, and then cry foul when someone (accurately) quotes one day's statement.

The real "context," in other words, is that they don't have a policy at all on the War on Terror. At least none they feel comfortable publicly and clearly admitting to.

Posted by: Ace at 11:13 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 827 words, total size 5 kb.

Actual birth name of ABCNews reporter/pundit "Cokie" Roberts?

Cokewhore Roberts. She was named for her grandmother.

It's a fact!*

*Note: This may not be a fact.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

If this wasn't in the New York Times, I'd swear someone just got monkey-fished but good. But it is:

One of China's newest factories operates here in the basement of an old warehouse. Posters of World of Warcraft and Magic Land hang above a corps of young people glued to their computer screens, pounding away at their keyboards in the latest hustle for money.

The people working at this clandestine locale are "gold farmers." Every day, in 12-hour shifts, they "play" computer games by killing onscreen monsters and winning battles, harvesting artificial gold coins and other virtual goods as rewards that, as it turns out, can be transformed into real cash.

That is because, from Seoul to San Francisco, affluent online gamers who lack the time and patience to work their way up to the higher levels of gamedom are willing to pay the young Chinese here to play the early rounds for them.

"For 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, my colleagues and I are killing monsters," said a 23-year-old gamer who works here in this makeshift factory and goes by the online code name Wandering. "I make about $250 a month, which is pretty good compared with the other jobs I've had...."

Gee, ya think?

Now I've read about very wealthy and very juvenile sheiks and princes and such paying high-level (ahem) video gamers to come to their country and teach them how to master a video game. They pay a lot of money, and of course it costs a lot just to put someone on a plane and pay for hotel and dining, but at least -- as absurd as that is -- the rich, bored princeling ultimately ends up playing the game himself.

But paying someone to play the game for you? What is the point of that?

Can someone pay me to watch porn for them? I mean, in case they'd really like to watch porn but find they just don't have the time?

BTW: "Monkey-fished" means "scammed with a fake story almost too incredible to believe but too interesting not to publish." The term comes from a story the amateur online webzine Slate once run about the controversial sport of "monkey-fishing," where guys in powerboats cast fishing-lines onto the shores of jungle islands, baited with fruit... and fish monkeys right off the beach.

Sound ridiculous? It did to Michael Kinsley too, which is why he ran it. It was too ridiculous to not be true, he must have figured.

Slate got scammed by a freelance writer who needed some bread.

I'd like to get all high and mighty about that, but then, I just ran a story about Der Spiegel suggesting that Israel be moved to a German state.

Context: Several readers say these on-line games have lots of pointless "timesuck" activity, from digging gold out of a mine (and you have to hit the buttons for every swing of the pick) to killing thousands of rats just to earn enough experience points to reach second level. So, they say, it makes sense for someone with a lot of money and less time to just pay someone else to get them up to a reasonable power level in the game.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 566 words, total size 3 kb.

For some reason I don't think the Russians are going to be overly concerned about giving offense to a minority population.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

No word on where "conscious" or "heart" were listed, though.

The noun, formally defined as a "firm adherence to a code" and "incorruptibility," has always been a popular one on the Springfield-based company's Web site, said Merriam-Webster president John Morse. But this year, the true meaning of integrity seemed to be of extraordinary concern. About 200,000 people sought its definition online.

This is the proudest moment of my life.

For those of you who've wondered what the strange references to "integrity" and "the guys get shirts" are all about, check out Mr. Paul Anka reaming out his band.

Then there's the parodies-- starting with AllahPundit's Paul Anka record collection, and this Integrity SATs, the entrance exam for Mr. Paul Anka's band.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

Pretty good.

I guess that means a $70M or so opening weekend, which also sounds pretty good to me, but I don't know what the expectations for it were.

Just Fandango'd the tickets, so I'll be seeing a 5PM show. I guess I'll post a review, in case you care. I should note I'm not particularly interested in the movie, and I never read the books (as they were fairy-tales, and that's not the way I roll), and the Christian allegory stuff doesn't matter to me one way or the other. (Except that I'm curious as to how subtle or overt it is, and if there's any genuine reason for secularist panic over a movie about a talking lion.) I'm mainly seeing it because it's sort of a cultural thingee and I'm, ahem, "in the media."

Hopefully, Ice-T and his pornstar wife will be there and I can get comment from them.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Howard Dean, the Sage of Montpelier, now reverses himself and decides heck, maybe this war is winnable after all.

We just need a "new plan." That's all we need. That's what he meant to say when he deemed it a crazy notion that the war was winnable -- just that we needed a "new plan" and everything would then go just swimmingly.

And what is that plan? Not really any specifics, except for immediately extracting 70,000 troops from Iraq. The key to his plan, you see, is "honesty:"

"A smarter, more honest strategy that respects our troops and our military leaders is possible. And I believe our course is far more likely to defeat terror than the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq."

...

Dean compared the war to Vietnam and repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the nation and to troops.

"Tell the American people the truth," Dean said. "Policies which are built on truth, on honest dealings with our soldiers, our citizens and our allies are much more likely to succeed than policies built on the quicksand of deceiving the American people. Our troops deserve better."

Apparently Bush's lies to the American people reduce battlefield effectiveness in Iraq.

At the risk of stating the freaking obvious, this is not a military plan for victory, but a political posture designed only to defeat the true enemy-- the Republicans.

You will not be surprised to learn his remarks were "taken out of context."

His remarks came as Republicans continued to criticize Dean for a statement made Monday that the United States can't win the war. Dean on Thursday said the remarks were taken out of context and that he meant the war was not winnable under the current strategy.

Of course, of course. "This war is not winnable" meant, of course, only that "this war is not winnable with the current strategy." He didn't actually say that, of course, but the Double-Secret Implied Caveats should have made that quite clear to any fair-minded reader.

His remarks were well-received by Democrats of all levels of diagnosable lunacy:

"If you go in and attack like a bully, you won't win," Valerie Guenther of Charlotte County said before Dean spoke.

Ah. The "plan" consists of two parts: Stage One, "tell the truth," and Stage Two, "don't be a bully."

Stage Three? "Always bring enough cup-cakes to share with the Sunni insurgents."

Everything the liberals ever needed to know about national security they learned in kindergarten.

Video Update: See the Sage of Montpelier detail his "Always Tell the Truth" Warfighting Doctrine. And then his "I Brake For Animals" Combined Air-Sea-Land Dominance Strategy.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Welcome Again Corner Readers! This post's okay, but if you want a really good laugh, check out the Paul Anka links here. You're thinking Paul Anka isn't funny. You couldn't be more wrong.

Actual "Talking to Kids About Terrorism Post" now begins.

This is so bizarre that it's funny in that what-the-eff kind of way.

First: What is the deal with that cover?

I've got to say that cover picture doesn't seem very reassuring to me. And I'm an adult. You've got a plane flying into a house, for crying out loud, and even the dog is terrified. Nothing soothes a scared child like the pictorial statement that Even your dog is going to be offed.

Suggestion for reducing children's nightmares about terrorism: Don't show them the horrifying cover of this book.

Oddly, only the cat is blase about the whole deal. Suggesting, probably accurately, that cats support terrorist murder.

Bareknuckle Politics has a link to the a cached version of this on-line book.

A sample:

Learn To Understand The Feelings Of Others

How do you know when someone else is having trouble with his or her feelings? How do you know when a parent is angry? How do youknow when a friend is sad?Sometimes they just tell you how they feel. That makes it easy.

But sometimes they don’t tell you how they feel. Sometimes they might not even know how they feelthemselves! Did you know that you can tell how people feel just by looking at their face and their“body language?”In the picture below, write what you think these people are feeling by looking at their expression and “body language."

Feelings Charade

Now, I want to teach you a game called “Feelings Charades.” Cut out the cards below and shufflethem in a deck. Give them to a parent or friend and ask them to pick the top card and act out thatfeeling. Then try to guess what feeling they are acting out.

My girlfriend and I play a version of "Feelings Charade." She knows that when I start loading a pillowcase full of doorknobs and glass ashtrays, I "feel" that her meatloaf was "disappointing" and that she needs to be "corrected."

Helping Others Takes Your Mind Off Your Own Problems

Some of the happiest people I know are always looking for ways to help others. Helping othersmakes you proud of yourself. Helping others is a good way to make friends. Helping others brings outthe best in you, the people that you help, and anyone who hears about or sees what you have done.

Every day is a good day to help others. Take a shoe box and write these words on the side: HELPING BOX. Cut out the cards on the next page. On each one write “A Helping Tip” and put it in the box. You can make up your own ideas or use the ones listed below. Every day pick a card from the box and do what is on the card. These things only take a few minutes of your time, but they will make you feel good about yourselffor the whole day.

Helping box? What kind of pinko metrosexual cryptosocialist pussy-shit are they teaching our kids these days?

When I have a kid, I'm going to have him make a WINNERS NEVER CRY BOX, and have him fill it with ideas of how to really kick ass and dominate all the other retards he's in school with. And he will, too, because we're going to take Tae Kwon Do together. We'll also wear matching Ninja outfits.

Not even for the dojo. Just for going to the supermarket and stuff. We'll be totally adorable, but in that menacing, don't-dare-make-eye-contact-with-me-or-my-Ninja-toddler kind of way.

Note: This is quite old; of course I'm just hearing about it for the first time. It seems written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, bearing a 2001 copyright. It states that we still don't know for sure who planned the attacks, which means it was probably written in the first several weeks after the murders.

The writer also doesn't seem to be a true moonbeam. His answers to kids and parents seem reasonable.

Still, however well-intentioned, it's a weird, sad, and darkly funny artifact. Again, maybe "Feelings Charades" and "Helping Boxes" are sound suggestions for young children. But they do invite satire. At least they invite satire from a heartless dick like me.

Related: Sample pages from "Little Democrats," which uses adorable squirrels to explain the Democratic platform.

The sample pages don't include anything about abortion or gay marriage, but maybe those are covered in the sequel, Mommy Squirrel's Big Book of Vaginas and Penises.

Thanks to Phinn.

More... Someting Awful parodizes that scary cover.

Best of the bunch? To further calm children, they've filled the Death-Plane with carnivorous serpents, and have retitled the book Will They Crash a Plane (Full of FUCKING SNAKES!) Into Our House?

Thanks to Kyle T.

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.