Time to feature Ann Coulter on its cover.

I hate to be a one-note Charlie, but this is, yes, proof of media bias. The woman should have had a big cover story on Time -- and all the rest of the glossies -- years ago.

Not simply because, love her or hate her or love her while wishing she'd eschew her more gratuitously-provocative remarks, but because she will sell magazines. This will be one of the highest-selling issues of Time in years, and they know that. And they've known such an issue would sell very well for a long, long time.

So why did they avoid doing this previously? Why did they avoid giving Coulter her richly deserved props while simultaneously selling a boatload of magazines -- which is, in case they've forgotten, sort of the business they're in?

Because, of course, they'd rather make less money doing cover stories on, say, "Barney Frank's Secret Pain" or whatever than lower themselves to giving a conservative exposure.

Coulter herself has complained about this mentality of the liberal-dominated print media. Which is, I think, more prone to use its power to advance liberal causes than even Hollywood-- on this point, liberal as it is, Hollywood is more mercenary and money-driven and will occasionally, despite its antipathy for conservatism, make conservative-themed movies just to make a buck.

Coulter's various books have been passed on by many (if not most or all) of the big New York publishing firms, before getting published by the smallish-but-growing conservative imprint Regnery. It was perfectly predictable that this lady would move books -- big time, as the man says -- and various editors who passed on her books knew that, the same as they know the sun will rise again tomorrow. But they deliberately chose to put their politics, or at least their sense of what doing "good work" means, over making a profit for their companies and their shareholders.

Economists have debated why, for example, one of the big three networks haven't decided to emulate Fox and attempt a conservative-centrist broadcast, rather than the liberal-centrist broadcasts all three currently offer. From a pure dollars and cents standpoint, it's a no-brainer-- why continue chasing a smaller audience, with two other competitors vying for that smaller audience, when one can simply decide to chase a slightly bigger audience without any major broadcast competetitors whatsoever?

According to pure economic wealth-maximizing analysis, this should have come to pass a decade ago. And yet it didn't.

So some economists adjusted their theory. Media companies are not, in fact, driven only by the profit motive, or the motive to capture as large an audience as possible, as their first analyses assumed. Those who work for the media have goods they desire as much as, or maybe more, than money. And one of those goods is the ability to shape the public discourse in the way they believe is "best" for society. They are willing to make less money in order to help the liberal cause because the liberal cause is personally important to them, and, in economic terms, represents an intangible value to them.

This isn't necessarily a horrible thing. It is nice to hear that anyone puts a value on principle and is willing to make less money in order to vindicate that principle.

But it is pretty strong evidence against their constant claims of being "neutral" and "objective" and "just going where the stories are, and where the stories may take" them.

Ann Coulter has been a story -- a big story, a compelling story, and important political story, and, yes, a sexy story that's pretty damn easy on the eyes -- for years. But it's only after years of studiously ignoring her that someone in the media finally realizes, "Hey, maybe I don't like this woman's politics, but millions of Americans do; perhaps it's time to actually, you know, acknowledge she in fact exists."

The way they... surround a story, as the NYT ad puts it. As always, the worse form of media bias isn't skewed and biased articles. It's their power -- and their inclination -- to simply not report on compelling news, to embargo it almost completely, if it does not advance their preferred political agenda.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone? Remember them? Our fair and balanced media is still trying to forget.

Caveat: This screed is based on the assumption that it was the media refusing to prominently expose Ms. Coulter, rather than Ms. Coulter refusing to grant any of the big glossies an interview or a cover-worthy picture.

I can't prove this assumption, but I will just say -- not to be insulting -- that Coulter hasn't exactly eschewed the spotlight or attempted to maintain a low profile. She's given loads of interviews, including to liberal-ish rags like the New York Observer and full-on leftist rags like the Guardian UK. And those papers are pretty small. Well, the Guardian UK may be huge in England for all I know, but it's not exactly a major rag here in the States.

So I really can't imagine that she has been, all these years, spurning Time's diligent pursuit of her.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I kinda doubt I am.

Adolf Hitler, the Ayatollah Kholmeini, Osama bin Ladin, and Ann Coulter Update: Time famously made Hitler and Kholmeini it's "Men of the Year" when those men were engaged in warfare (conventional or unconventional) with the United States. And they debated making OBL the Man of the Year, before getting chickenshit about it.

As they define "Man of the Year" (please, enough with the "Person of the Year" crap), those were defensible decisions (or, in OBL's case, a defensible notion that was scrapped). The Man of the Year, they say, isn't necessarily a good man, but the man who has made the most impact on the world that year, whether for good or for ill. And they knew that their decisions would be highly controversial -- but controversy, of course, isn't necessarily a bad thing when you're in the media.

Now of course I'm not suggesting that Ann Coulter should be "Woman of the Year" for any year. She's an important polemicist, but she's not actually shaping world events as other Men of the Year have done.

But I do think it's a bit telling that Time went with Hitler and Kholmeini and dallied with the idea of OBL as Men of the Year and yet they've resisted, until now, giving Ann Coulter a simple cover story.

Sort of puts into perspective the mindset of the editors of Time -- and Coulter's precise position, as they estimate it, in the Heirarchy of Devils.

Posted by: Ace at 07:22 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 1120 words, total size 7 kb.

Good Heavens, you're all a bunch of desperate horny bastards. You're all more shameless than former Poison frontman Bret Michaels overdosing on Spanish-fly infused oysters.

This offends me, not on moral grounds, but because every minute you hormone-charged idiots spend paying attention to each other is a minute you're not paying attention to me.

I realize it's Spring and all, but seriously, there are some things more important than love, romance, and the possibility of sleazy anonymous internet sex. And three of those things are me, my ego, and my ego's ego, which is itself desperate for the attenion its mother-ego could not, or rather would not, provide.

So, let's get it all out of your systems. Here's a thread. Knock yourselves out, sickies.

In the words of Pat O'Brien: Let's do it. Let's have some fun.

Posted by: Ace at 10:21 PM | Comments (38)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

First, something serious: According to a Reuters headline, Donald Rumsfield admits he has no exit strategy from Iraq. Well, he did say that. Guess what sort of strategy he said he had?

Funny that didn't make the Reuters headline.

And then something funny: Top 50 Ways To Get Fired From Your Job.

Son of Nixon especially liked this one:

42. The Ma Fratelli

Take whatever money you have in your pocket and make [black and white] copies of the bills on the office copy machine while laughing manically and repeating, “It’s too fucking easy…”

This one's a bit rude, but it should do the trick too:

40. The Sex Chair

Insist your coworkers smell your chair, repeatedly saying that it smells like sex. Constantly comment about how hard it is to concentrate with the sweet smell of sex in the air.

*Having an erection the whole time really sells this one.

Don't I know it. Don't. I. Know it.

Warning to Dave: If Dave comes in and tells me this crap he just linked yesterday is "all old stuff," I swear I will 1) delink him and 2) tear his arm off and beat him to death with his still-wriggling limb while he comically attempts to deflect my furious blows with his stump.

Posted by: Ace at 03:47 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

From Drudge:

Republican leaders count only two or three GOP senators who will vote against the efforts to end, by a straight majority vote, filibusters on confirmation of judicial nominations.

Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will not support this move, and they are likely to be joined by Sen. John McCain of Arizona. That would mean 52 senators would go along with the parliamentary maneuver attempting to end filibusters on judges. Only 50 are needed.

Could be a bluff, of course. They might be claiming they have the votes just to compell the Democrats into a compromise that will let more, though perhaps not all, of Bush's nominees through.

And even if they have the votes, it doesn't mean they have the balls.

Is the Stupid Party also the Sissy Party? I guess we'll soon see.

Posted by: Ace at 02:42 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

The media freaked over the crude political talking points drawn up by Mel Martinez's moronic aid. Think they'll be similarly offended by Dr. Howard "Genius" Dean's statement that he intends to use Terri as a political weapon?:

"'We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on,' Dean said of the brain-damaged Floridian who died last month after her feeding tube was removed amid a swarm of political controversy.

"Dean, who has called congressional intervention in the Schiavo case 'political grandstanding,' singled out House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) for his leading role in the matter.

"This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it's going to be an issue in 2008," Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group's breakfast in West Hollywood, "because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that
going to be up to your loved ones?'"

...

The former presidential candidate said he had purposely avoided emphasizing the Schiavo case in recent weeks because Democrats needed "message discipline."

Three quick points:

1) Hypocrisy.

2) Media double-standards and bias.

3) Howard Dean is an f'n' moron, and we're gonna have some fun the next several years.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (113)
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.

Bumped. Apparently you guys don't think this is as funny as I do. Oh, well. I'll give you knuckleheads one last chance to wise up.

This spambot thing has gotten out of control. They totally polluted the Antonin Scalia thread below with their chipper yet off-topic hucksterism.

I'm putting my foot down. Dirty spambots, post here and nowhere else.

Suggestion: Hey! Agree with everything you say completely! How about trying this!

In your email address line, tip off who you really are! So if you're, say, See-Dubya, just put in a fake email address like SeeDubya@yahoo.com! That way, I know how to make fun of you retards, too!

Sound like fun! Good! Let's try it!

And why don't you treat your lady-friend to some Pure Discount Viagro tonight!

Posted by: Ace at 06:13 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Bumped. Last time for these annoying announcements.

Some pics of the actual shirt from a Super-Secret Ace of Spades reader:

No, the "Ace of Spades HQ" title is not actually curved on the real shirt, morons. That's just something that, uh, happens when some people wear it.

And Before You Ask... I already told the Super Secret Model that I needed to see a shot with the shirt off, "just to make sure that some fire-retarding chemical in the cloth did not cause discoloration and painful welting to the bare skin."

It didn't work. Damn it all.

I will have to modify my theory a little bit.

Chicks are dumb, but, CAVEAT: They are not superdumb.

Note: All shirts, I'm told, will be received by no later than a week from tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 12:24 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, this idiot said it, not me. She claims to have been the victim of a "wilding" attack, which, for those of you who don't live in New York means...

Ah, what am I saying. It doesn't matter if you live in New York or not. The rest of you guys are our media bitches. A pidgeon doesn't sneeze here in NY without us cramming that breaking news down your flyover-country slack-jawed throats.

And I make no apologies for that. That's the one thing about media bias I like. You should know every damn thing that happens in New York, because, damnit, we're just that f'n' important.

Anyway. Where was I? Oh yeah. This "Mapes"... person.

The Anchoress says she obtained a bit of the treatment for Mapes' upcoming book (which, you know, is going to stiff worse than man dead from a Viagra overdose during rigor mortis), and she's more than eager to share:

Conservative bloggers are part of the story. They have vilified me, mounted a “wilding” attack against me…we were, it seemed the first victims of a new kind of digital McCarthyism, which uses the same techniques as the old McCarthyism–rumors, slurs, false charges and ugly attacks–but now employs the Internet, talk radio and cable TV echo chamber to ricochet information around the world…meanwhile, the mainstream media…were happy to stoke the firewood on a competitor’s funeral pyre, repeating the conservative blogs, mischaracterizing events and not doing any real reporting of their own. Honestly, it hurt. It all hurt terribly…

Conservative bloggers, you see, were part of the story. Even as she villifies us, she also can't hat-tip us and say we WERE the story.

Well, not me. But other guys.

There's more to this nonsense, including this idiot's comparison of her plight to Survivor, but I don't want to "slink" the Anchoress. Hit the link.

Thanks to Thoughts Online, who has thoughts on, well, line about this as well as another instance of media bias, the next story down. It turns out, get this, that the amateur leftist webzine Slate is upset about that the tax-deduction for mortgage interest "costs taxpayers billions."

Lower taxes cost the taxpayers that. That's beautiful.

Correction: I originally said the NYT published this nonsense. Well, you can hardly blame me for making that error. But it was in fact the amateur leftist webzine Slate, where all the writers have Michael Kinsely's snotty attitude but lack the talent or brains to pull it off gracefully.

Posted by: Ace at 11:50 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

They were wise-guys. They thought they were being "funny." Figured they were all too cool for school, all protestin' outside a KFC.

Until the manager turned the lawn-sprinklers on full-blast.

So, PETA? Now who's "funny"? Not makin' with the smart-lip all of a sudden, huh? Suddenly not all fast and quick with the japes and jib-jab, eh?

I would make a comment about the undesirability of seeing a PETA chick in a wet t-shirt, but, you know, I really can't. Some of these chicks are cute.

Infantile, yes. But, in a way, even that's cute.

Posted by: Ace at 11:28 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Conducted by Karol of Alarming News, who really has a pleasant speaking voice, and apparently a decent-sized rolodex.

Well, the guy at least knows how to kiss ass -- and, let's be honest, you want that in your politicians. Karol asked about the role of blogs in the upcoming election, and, boy, does Mr. Brecht think that blogs are peachy-keen.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.