Quotes range from easy to pretty darn hard. They're all mainstream movies, stuff you've probably seen several times, but a lot of the quotes are fairly minor lines from the movies. Not big applause lines like "Get away from her you bitch!" or "Look at me" or "Use the Force, Luke."

That's pussy-shit. Anyone can get those.

Once again I've tried to skew a little to female oriented movies, but frankly, I've seen six chick movies in my life, and Pretty Woman was three of them.

Anyway, identify the movie and the speaker (character or actor) for full credit.

The Remaining Quotes (Updated): Most quotes have been identified. Here are some of the ones (I think) are left:

10. "I don't patronize bunny rabbits." (Hint: a dad says this.)

24. "Remember when we were in Puerto Rico and we picked up those... well I guess they were prostitutes but I don't remember paying them." (Hint: it's a movie that both guys and chicks seem to like.)

28. "This is all you know, isn't it? Pushing, hitting, and punching! Does it make you feel good or something? "
-- "Sometimes, yeah!" (Tough one. Hint: Atlanta.)

31. "First goddamn week of winter." (Come on! Doesn't anyone read this site? Which movie I always talk about hasn't been identified as the source of a quote?)

38. "What do I want...? THIS! I want THIS! THIS is what I want!" (Hint: wheelchair.)
more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 905 words, total size 5 kb.

If you're like me, you sometimes begin to wonder, "Wait-- which of these guys led Britain through the darkest days in its history, and which one of these guys claims to be an Indian on the basis of keeping Dances With Wolves nineteen days overdue from Blockbuster?"

It gets so darned confusing, and I hate being confused. As a wise man once said, "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

And so I lost weight.

But anyway, if you find yourself needing a scorecard to tell Winston Churchill from Ward Churchill, you just happen to be in luck, because Dummocrats.com has put one together.

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

That, of course, was the great Winston Churchill. Ward Churchill has a somewhat different take:

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Or did I get them confused again?

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

Geena Davis-- the President of the United States.

She isn't a bad actress, but I wouldn't say that she projects confidence or authority. Or, you know: gravitas.

And yet, hoping to cash in on The Left Wing's plunging ratings, ABC figures it's a good idea to explore a premise that jumped the shark three years ago with a gimmick that hasn't worked since... well, since never, really.

In a bold move, ABC has simultaneously announced both the date of the series' debut and its cancellation. It will premier in the Spring, and it will be cancelled after eight episodes after getting meager ratings and lukewarm reviews from critics.

"Look, we know the show's going to bomb," said a high-ranking ABC development executive. "Why not just cut out the middleman and start planning the 'haitus for a creative re-tooling' right now? That way, we can start working on the idiotic reality show that we'll stick in its time-slot as a last-minute replacement, without all the scrambling and hair-pulling. "

Geena Davis was said to be "thrilled" that someone in Hollywood still apparently has her phone number.

Ms. Davis is already developing clearly-inappropriate follow-up projects for after the pre-scheduled failure of Commander-in-Chief. These include Becky McCord: Teamster, in which she will portray a single mom trying to cope with her job as a paid union thug and leg-breaker, and Sister Sissy, about a sister forced to play parent to her younger siblings as juggles her responsibilities as a nymphomaniacal roadie for a Warrant cover band.

PS: The show is being produced by Rod Lurie, best known for his ham-handed and crude "political thriller" The Contender, about a female VP appointee accused of having sleazy group sex with an entire fraternity.

I described the movie at the time as "the feel-good gang-bang movie of the year!"

At least I think I wrote that. Either I said that, or someone within my immediate vicinity said that, or someone I read said that.

It sounds like something I'd say. If I'm stealing a line without giving credit, I apologize.

Lurie concluded his gang-bangs-have-nothing-to-do-with-job-performance agitprop with the rather inappropriate dedication, For Our Daughters.

Well, maybe your daughters, Rod. I'm sorta hoping mine will resist the temptation to nail an entire chapter of Sigma Mu.

There is no word yet on whether or not Geena Davis' character will "pull a train" with her cabinet for the spring sweeps.

Either way, it doesn't matter. This will be the third-to-last time you ever hear about this show. You'll see one commercial for it, and then you'll see one Geena Davis interview with Katie Couric in which Katie can barely contain her glee at the utterly amazing and controversial premise.

Duh... I was so fixated on the idiocy of this project I failed to see the political angle: preparing the American people for the thought of President Hillary Clinton.

Does. Not. Matter.

To the extent it makes anyone think of Hillary Clinton at all, it will make them think: Well, that didn't seem to work out very well at all. It was an amateurishly self-righteous and preachy mess that never should have gotten green-lit in the first place.

So, Rod Lurie:

Bring it on.

You know-- For Our Daughters.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

Jaw-dropping and/or gob-smackingly vile.

This was so egregious that even the frankly anti-Jew BBC had to "correct" itself:

'The programme editors and I agree it was inappropriate to begin the report with footage of the suicide bomber's family in mourning.It was also inappropriate to include this footage without coverage of the suffering of the victims' families. Using this picture sequence in this way was a mistake. However, the report's coverage of the political ramifications of the bombing and this week's London conference was balanced and fair - and we did, of course, report fully the events in Tel Aviv in our bulletins on Friday night and Saturday.'

Biased BBC find it a little bit more than "inappropriate."

Thanks to The Shadow. You know what? It turns out he does know, after all.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

BlogAds, which does my advertising, is running a survey about blog-readers.

They didn't ask me to post this, but I figured it can't hurt to kiss up to them.

It's 18 questions long, normal demographic/income stuff, followed by questions about your views on politics, the media, and your favorite blogs.

At the end they ask for the referring blog. Obviously, please say Ace of Spades, if you're referred from here.

I really want to win that new car!

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

The FEC is out ta git me.

Well, probably not me. But other bloggers. Bigger ones. The sorts of guys who get to appear on Paula Zahn.

A judge recently overturned the 2002 Internet exemption voted for by the FEC. The judge's ruling now makes, it seems, praise of a politican, or links to their websites, potentially in-kind campaign donations, subject to FEC scrutiny (and donation limits!).

However, this would seem restricted to cases of "coordination" with a party or a candidate.

Which would seem to limit the impact... I've never coordinated with anyone. In fact, I often don't coordinate with myself.

But what is "coordination"? I don't know, and until now I never had to worry about it.

Hypothetically, let's say that some PR person working for a political candidate shoots me an email pointing out such-and-such a story that I might find interesting. Is this "coordination"?

It's not "coordination" when the DNC sends opposition research to a liberal reporter and he dutifully reports it. (Or, in fact, when a longtime Democratic operative gives transparently-sham documents to a partisan producer at CBS and she and Dan Rather run with the story like it's the moon landing.)

Why on earth should I be subject to rules that don't apply to reporters?

Fact is, I'm not strictly a reporter; neither am I really a journalist. If you're going to categorize the dumb stuff I do, I'm an amateur analyst, an armchair, pajama-wearing pundit.

But so is Bill Press. Yes, he draws a paycheck, but he's still obviously an amateur.

On these points...

Q: What rules will apply to the Internet that did not before?

A: The commission has generally been hands-off on the Internet. We've said, "If you advertise on the Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like if you were advertising on television or the newspaper."

Do we give bloggers the press exemption? The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.

Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?

...

Q. If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?

A. We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.

Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?

Q. Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?

Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.

Q. So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble?

Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that reproducing a campaign's material is a reproduction for purpose of triggering the law. That'll count as an expenditure that counts against campaign finance law.

This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.

Bizarre? How about ridiculous?

Thanks, John McCain. Until now I took conservative complaints about McCain-Feingold limiting free speech as important but fairly theoretical.

Now it's not so theoretical. The New York Times can print up oppo research from the DNC and call it "news" all the live-long day, but if I link the Bush-Cheney website, I may be subject to a long and costly investigation by the FEC.

I'm not sure if I ever linked any political party's or any candidate's web-site; I don't think I have. Maybe I did once.

But, thanks to John McCain, now it seems I can't. Even if I find something interesting there.

I guess I have to thank the somewhat-craven-on-this-issue George W. Bush as well.

Thanks to Ogre Gunner.

A Way Out?: Non-internet periodicals are excepted, huh?

Well, I guess we bloggers are going to just have to collect up a small base of "subscribers," paying something like $5 a year, and then send them out a "newsletter" every few months or so.

The "newsletter" will be the periodical; the blog itself will just be, ahem, the free on-line content, like what most magazines and newspapers offer.

If that's the hoop we have to jump through, so be it.

My "newsletter" will consist chiefly of character sheets for my highest-level D&D heroes as well as reviews of porno sites I frequent.

I may also include my regimen for working on my lats.

All important stuff. The political content on this site will just be a little bonus.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

You should know that there seemed to be a misunderstanding about what sort of interview this would be. Jeff thought it would be a mostly humorous intereview. But I didn't go that way, as I thought I was already doing the humor okay on my own, and didn't want to pass up the chance to get actual first-hand information from a person in the center of a story (well, a sorta ginned-up phony-baloney story, but a story nonetheless).

Also, many of my questions presupposed certain facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say, and Jeff objected to many of these. Had this been a phone interview, I would have quickly realized there were certain areas he just wasn't getting into and dropped the point to avoid the tedium. But, as this was all done by email, all at once, all those questions were already out there.

Alternately, I guess I could have done a real-time question-by-answer email exchange, but I didn't think I should press for more of his time than he was offering. In a couple of cases, I think I missed the opportunity for a follow-up I would have liked to have asked.

Ah, well. Lessons learned.

So, this interview isn't as interesting or fun as you may have been hoping. Hopefully, though, there's still some interesting stuff for you here and there. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 2598 words, total size 15 kb.

Temple of Jennifer is pro-marriage enough to bother to care about this.

I don't know. This surprises me about as much as the time I found Robert Downey Junior asleep on my bumper pool table, stoned out of his mind on a mix of ludes and Gila Monster venom, wearing nothing at all except my prized Dungeon Masters Do It By the Book t-shirt (signed by Omega World designer James Ward).

And while you're there, check out the story of PETA's attempts to transport a seafood-restaurant lobster to a zoo.

The lobster died in transport. PETA is, I shit you not, seeking an examination of the lobster to determine the cause of death.

A lobster autopsy, as Jennifer says. Just wonderful.

I hope they can rule out foul play as soon as possible. That possibillity always wreaks such havoc on the families.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

"Syria'l"? Come on now. No non-demonspawn human being could have come up with that. How stupid do they think we are?

Thanks to GregS.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

What does it mean? Well, it starts off "hetero," so you know it can't be good.

Seems to mean "encouraging and validating heterosexual norms and lifestyle choices."

So, you know-- big bad.

Apparently Jada Pinkett Smith is being accused of "heteronormative" speech, and that's got the Harvard GLBT community all up in a lather.

You really gotta read what the woman actually said. Basically, just a you-go-girl bit of fluff, but she made the big mistake of suggesting that women could have, should they desire such, husbands and babies as well as a career.

And you know-- that's practically hate speech now.

Kaus snarks off this idiotic contretemps with as much sarcasm as is necessary, without putting too much work into dispensing of such nonsense.

Top Ten Subjects Accused By the Harvard GLBT of Being "Heteronormative"

10. Mr. Roper

9. Anyone uncomfortable with the gossip-column buzzword "cannoodling"

8. Less "heterocritical" publications of the mainstream magazine industry, esp. Modern Bride, House & Garden, and Juggs: Home of the D-Cups

7. Brett Fuckin' Favre

6. Beer commercials, esp. those that make prominent display of busty women or boorish male behavior or, for that matter, beer

5. Jake

4. The Fat Man

3. Whitesnake, esp. the outrageously "heteronormative" Tawny Kitaen grinding on Jaguars

2. That late-night show on QVC where they try to sell you a set of three hundred knives ("look at that... that's a sweet little tactical folder... and you've got over two hundred more of them if you call within the next thirty seconds") as well as replica swords from Lord of the Rings and Krull

...and the Number One Subject of Harvard GBLT Complaints About Being "Heteronormative"...

1. Three words: Bob Dole's cock

Posted by: Ace at 10:24 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.