I had seven things I needed to do today, and I've now accomplished four. That leaves three, and I've got to get them all in by f'n' 7:30.

Which just isn't going to happen. I'm now in a triage situation.

Let me say: I hate holidays. I hate birthdays. They're so much bother.

I know other people can manage all this stuff, but I can't.

I need an f'n' intern. Anyone interested in the job? It would be much like the internship for Kramerica Incorporated, but without all the prestige and networking opportunities.

OTOH, I don't own a chicken, so now worries about salmonella.

Let me know. My life is really not all that difficult or complex, but I just can't seem to manage the damn thing at all.

And... Can anyone recommend a cheap digital camera? I mean, cheap.

Everyone's been so generous with donating that I figure I at least owe you some pics of Ann Coulter... or, for the ladies, maybe some Michael Barrone.

Or maybe even Jeff Gannon.

I'm not a photographer and I have no interest in the art at all. I just want to point and click and get a half-decent shot I can post.

Six Things Accomplished! Six out of seven ain't bad.

Now just four or five things to do tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 02:24 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

First of all, thanks for the link, Insty. Can't quibble with your calling me indecorous.

Kaus and Reynolds are having a bit of dispute about the relevance of certain personal revelations about Eason Jordan, briefly reported by, before being edited out of, Howard Kurtz' latest column on the contretemps.

I was tipped to this earlier but I never mentioned it because I didn't think it was relevant. But everyone knows by now, so here goes: Kurtz reported that one of the reasons CNN had soured on Jordan was due to his alleged affair with the widow of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl.

Kaus thinks this is relevant and should be reported. Instapundit doesn't.

I don't think it should be reported, either.

Kaus spins a list of reasons for the gossip's relevance. I find them unconvincing.

The trouble is that any half-smart guy can spin a claim as to why a possibly embarrassing personal tidbit -- gambling, porn, an affair, homosexuality, etc. -- is somehow "relevant" to one's work or public life.

If you're a conservative, any such failing is ostensibly relevant because it demonstrates hypocrisy. After all, you support the idea of objective moral values.

If you're a liberal, any such embarrassing information can be claimed as "relevant" because it demonstrates that liberals just don't support the idea of an objective morality.

Or that it somehow impacts your work. Or your agenda. Or your worldview. Or whatever.

Kaus' argument, as they say, proves too much. By the low threshold of "relevance" he proposes, pretty much any dirty laundry on anyone at all is fair game for reportage.

I don't think so. Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested (in dicta, I think) that pornography was to be evaluated on a sliding scale -- the more artistic and technical merit a work might have, he reasoned, the more likely that work should be found to be non-obscene.

The liberals on the court proposed a more Kaus-like standard-- any artistic or technical merit, no matter how trivial, should be enough to save porn from being branded obscene.

I agreed with Burger then as an intellectual matter (though I guess I'm happy the liberals seem to have won), and I agree with that general analysis when it comes to stuff like this.

The standard ought not to be whether a tidbit has any arguable relevance to a story or to public policy or whatnot. The standard really should be more of a sliding scale-- the more personal and embarrassing the information, the greater the actual and direct relevance should be if you're going to report it.

Nasty gossip that just hurts people may be "news" in the sense that it is interesting and informative, but it's not "news" in the more restrictive sense that it actually has relevance to an important event or public debate.

Kaus argues that as this embarrassing information may have had something to do with Eason Jordan's firing, we really all have a right to know about it, and bloggers (and straight reporters) have an obligation to tell us about it.

I think that's just silly. These claims of "relevance" are just a pretext for justifying the reportage of juicy, sexy, somewhat-interesting dirt.

Back when Andrew Sullivan was an ideological ally (of sorts), I thought it was just vicious that details of his sexual inclinations were published by left-wing smear merchants just because... well, just because they didn't like him, I guess, and that they could claim "relevance" by comparing his actual behavior to his writings about the need for a reduction in male homosexual promiscuity.

The fact that he's now an ideological foe doesn't really change my opinion on that. I still think it was rotten and vicious to embarass him by revealing that sort of information on the flimsiest pretext of "hypocrisy." (Disclosure: A couple of times, early in this blog's life and in a pique of nastiness I'm not proud of, I referenced this same sort of stuff. I shouldn't have.)

The same crap is going on right now with Jeff Gannon, or as I call him, the real-life Batman, as some leftist douchebag bloggers are promising some sort of juicy disclosures about his personal life.

Well-- so what? If Jeff Gannon is a hack who shouldn't have been given press credentials, that can be proven by quoting his questions and questioning his qualifications. What the hell does his personal life have to do with the issue?

Mickey Kaus could probably spin us all a theory as to how it's all (marginally) relevant.

But we're not just gossips and commenters and reporters; we're also, supposedly, human beings. And as a human being, I just can't justifying trashing someone so thoroughly, and personally, on such slender reeds of "relevance."

Eason Jordan made viciously anti-military and anti-American slanders at a panel discussion before a foreign audience, including many Arabs and Muslims all to willing to believe such nonsense. That's the story.

Not that he may be guilty of a sin that, let's face, probably half of the people in the media (if not America) have indulged in at one time or another.

Our Hero Is Gravely Wounded Update: Celluloid Wisdom reports what the lefties are claiming about the man who once donated a kidney to save my life (not his own kidney, mind you, but some kidney he carved out of a sleeping homeless man-- he's just that cool of a guy, and a master of the stealthy scalpel).

Bill from InDC comments too.

Make sure you just read their sites, and not the nasty leftoids they link too. They really ought not get traffic for this sort of crap.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 955 words, total size 6 kb.

Captain's Quarters digests some of the reaction from the, ahem, legitimate media to Eason Jordan's blog-induced resignation.

Bloggers saw it one way:

For some bloggers - people who publish the sites known as Web logs - it was a declaration that this was just the beginning. Edward Morrissey, a call center manager who lives near Minneapolis and has written extensively about the Jordan controversy, wrote on his blog, Captain's Quarters (captainsquartersblog.com): "The moral of the story: the media can't just cover up the truth and expect to get away with it - and journalists can't just toss around allegations without substantiation and expect people to believe them anymore."

On the other hand, the writer for the Columbia Journalism Review website -- remember, CJR is the venue for Chris Pein's moronic defense of Dan Rather, and criticism of bloggers for daring to publish the truth about the "dodgy documents" supplied by partisan crank Bill Burkett -- has a different take:

Steve Lovelady, a former editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Wall Street Journal and now managing editor of CJR Daily, the Web site of The Columbia Journalism Review, has been among the most outspoken.

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail," he lamented online after Mr. Jordan's resignation. He said that Mr. Jordan cared deeply about the reporters he had sent into battle and was "haunted by the fact that not all of them came back."

Of course, this reaction was presaged by the ever-prescient Ace of Spades in a weekend news parody:

[Eason Jordan] says he plans to spend "more time with his family." He also says he's considering co-authoring a book with former NYT Editor-in-Chief Howell Raines and departing CBS News achorman Dan Rather. The book is tentatively titled, Bloggers: Why Do They Hate Us?, and will explore the "root causes" of the blogosphere's disatisfaction with, and rage against, the Western media.

"Hopefully, our book will be a sensitive exploration of the differences that separate bloggers and the legtimate professional media," Mr. Jordan said. "We intend to explore these issues with the characteristic objectivity we're famous for. Our take is that bloggers don't like us because they're all stupid and jealous right-wing mouth-breathers and troglodytic wack-a-doos, but that's just a working premise at this point. We're open to other theories, like that they're simply all mid-functional retards."

Mouth-breathers? Mid-functional retards? Compare to "salivating morons." Close enough for non-government non-work.

Meanwhile, the WSJ's conservative editorialists stand with the MSM:

As for Mr. Jordan, he initially claimed that U.S. forces in Iraq had targeted and killed 12 journalists. Perhaps he intended to offer no further specifics in order to leave an impression of American malfeasance in the minds of his audience, but there is no way of knowing for sure. What we do know is that when fellow panelist Representative Barney Frank pressed Mr. Jordan to be specific, the CNN executive said he did not believe it was deliberate U.S. government policy to target journalists. Pressed further, Mr. Jordan could only offer that "there are people who believe there are people in the military who have it out" for journalists, and cite two examples of non-lethal abuse of journalists by ordinary GIs.

None of this does Mr. Jordan credit. Yet the worst that can reasonably be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting. This may have been dumb but it wasn't a journalistic felony.

...

More troubling to us is that Mr. Jordan seems to have "resigned," if in fact he wasn't forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense. It is true that Mr. Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense. But CNN stood by Mr. Jordan back then--in part, one suspects, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing Mr. Jordan overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service through his entire adult career.

That may be old-fashioned damage control. But it does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.

A few points:

[Updated Below.] more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 1939 words, total size 12 kb.

This is of course ridiculous. Women and effeminate heterosexual men watch the Oscars, too.

A tempest in a teapot, of course, but I guess we'll soon be forced to discuss...

...the fact that the sometimes-ludicrous rules of "sensitivity" and "tolerance" don't really seem to apply to blacks. Damn, how I envy them that.

...and how silly it is that a lot of people are going to get all crazy over the fact that a comic said something, well, comical.

...and that, seriously, if you're watching the Oscars, and you're male, you're probably gay. Or at least "curious" and "open to possibilities." You're not definitely gay, of course, but, in legal terms, the burden of evidence has shifted to you.

At least Chris Rock has given me some reason to talk about the Oscars. Do I really care if Million Dollar Baby beats the Aviator, or if there's a Sideways sweep?

No, I don't. Maybe I'm just a phillistine, but I'm tired of hearing which films I haven't seen are going to win what award I don't care about.

PS: Don't ever say to me "Oscar loves a comeback story" or "Oscar loves Hollywood royalty," or I'll go all Jeff Gannon on your ass.

Top Ten Headlines Which Are Slightly Less Shocking Than "Only Gays Watch the Oscars"

10. Harvard Study: Men "Really Dig" Oral Sex

9. Groundbreaking "Garfield" Cartoon to Mention Fondness for Lasagna, Distaste for Mondays

8. Nigerian Doctor Needs Your Kind Assistance in Freeing 40 (Forty) Million US Dollars in Gold From Ivory Coast Bank

7. Sex Shock: Your Girlfriend Is Lowballing You About the Number of Men She's Slept With

6. Maureen Dowd Admits She's Had "No Fucking Clue What She's Talking About" For Past Six Years

5. As Howard Dean Delivers Fiery Speech, Head Explodes, Just Like in "Scanners"

4. Thirty-Five Year Old Man Futilely Attempts to Listen to Top 40 Radio; Says, "What the hell is this crap?," Then Puts In an Old Queensryche Tape

3. Controversial Film-Maker Michael Moore Decides That Yes, He Will Have That Second Bearclaw After All

2. Witnesses Near Area 51 Report "Brightly-Colored Jeff Gannons" Hovering in the Skies

...and the Number One Headline Slightly Less Shocking Than "Only Gays Watch the Oscars"...

1. Andrew Sullivan Endorses John Kerry, Takes Your "Bandwidth Donations," and Flees to Europe

Posted by: Ace at 06:27 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

Jeff Goldstein isn't taking this sitting down.

Well, he probably is sitting, actually. But he's slapping up Filet-O-Fish while doing so.

For every one of our boys they put in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue. That's the Chicago way-- and that's how you get Kospone.

Thanks to DavidG for the head's up.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week's guest blogger The Urban Grind sees a bit of tension between declarations of equality and the need for special rules about menses.

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

And speaks, in a lengthy interview with E&P.

I haven't been this psyched since the sequel to Eddie and the Cruisers.

Bullet-points:

On the Plame probe: Guckert said that contrary to many press reports, he was never subpoenaed by the special prosecutor and has never testified before a grand jury in the case. But he said he was interviewed by two FBI agents in his home for about 90 minutes last year.

"I answered their questions truthfully and honestly, but I would prefer not to say more,” he said. “I assume the information was routed back and that is why I was not called to testify."

Connections to White House staff: "When asked if anyone in the White House staff or leadership planted, offered, or suggested questions to ask, Guckert said "absolutely not." He said, "I only met Karl Rove once, at the media Christmas party at the White House in 2003. I was waiting in line for my 'grip and grin' [photo] with the president and he passed by. I introduced myself to him, he said hello, and he moved on.”

...

Asked if he had any other social connection to Rove or Press Secretary Scott McClellan, he said, "absolutely not. ... The only connection I had with Scott McClellan was when he got married and I sent him a card and left it at the press office for him." He said he gave no gift to McClellan.

On his name change: "I was projecting out into the future at that time that I was going to be a journalist," he said. "I wanted to have a better name that is not difficult to spell or pronounce. For a little while, it protected my family from people who disagreed with me going after my family, but that was just a side consideration. I really wanted an easier name because people have gotten it wrong all of my life."

On setting up sex sites: "They were done through a private company I was involved with doing Web site development about five years ago," Guckert said. He said the company was Bedrock Corporation of Delaware. He would not identify the clients who asked him to create the sites. "The sites were never hosted, and nothing was ever posted to the sites," he said.

Nice work, Oliver and "Kos" and "Atrios." You'll forever be known as the posse that finally brought down the famous desperado Jeff Gannon-- a man so mean he once shot a man just for snorin'.

Thanks to Senator Phil A. Buster.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

God, I hate doing this, but I'm going to spending prime coin going down to DC for the CPAC convention -- and it's going to be very expensive drinking and chatting with all sorts of swank people -- so I'm starting the Winter 2005 Ace of Spades HQ pledge drive.

What do you get for your donation? Well, when Ken Burns finishes his PBS documentary, Slicin' Like a Hammer: The Rise and Rise of Ace of Spades, you'll get the full 18-DVD set documenting my near-Andrew-Sullivan-like rise to power.

Also, 50% of all donations will be put into the Jeff Gannon Memorial Fund. Not a scholarship-- no, that's not what Jeff Gannon would have wanted. The Fund will be put exclusively towards buying alcohol, for me or whoever I'm attempting to get a job or assignment from at the time, but when I take that drink, I will say to myself, "For Jeff, that magnificent son-of-a-bitch."

I would do the old "One for me, one for Jeff Gannon" thing where I pour one drink out, but frankly that seems counterproductive to me. I think Jeff Gannon would want me pour the drink right into my gullet. It's going to end up in the earth, anyway. That's just a simple biological fact.

At any rate, to the extent you're feeling flush, expecting a big bonus and/or Bush tax refund, or just feel like pissing some of your hard earned money into a second-rate blog, hit the tip jar. And hit it hard.

Because that's what Jeff Gannon would want.

Thanks For the Sweet Crazy Blog Money! I've been trying to arrange a hotel, and just checked to see the crazy blog-money rolling in. Thank you so much, guys. I'll thank each of you personally, but for the moment, I'll just thank you generally. It's appreciated.

It takes a lot of grifting to support the Ace of Spades Lifestyle (TM).
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:40 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

We can't bring him back, but we can grieve together.

Through elegiac poetry.

Contest closes at, let's say, Monday at 11:59 PM EST. That should give me a good 48 hours to pick a winner.

Loose shit? Integrity? Who cares. Make it look approximately like a haiku and that's good enough.

Because that's how Jeff Gannon would have wanted it.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:06 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

They demand "evidence" that a brutally-repressive theocracy in which thousands of reformist candidates are stricken from the ballots is somehow less than fully democratic.

Meanwhile, Frenchmen continued to question the efficacy of soap, calling the theory that regular washing can reduce body odor "yet another Anglo-Saxon hegemonic lie."

One cool bit: They're calling Rice "Madame Hawk."

They mean it as an insult.

I think it sounds pretty f'n' cool, myself. Sort of like a superhero.

Sort of like -- dare I say it? -- Jeff Gannon...?

Another Condi Rice Nickname? Word on the blog-street is that George Bush calls Condi Rice "44." Read into that what you will.

I think I may start calling Jeff Gannon "45."

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.