Roger Simon breaks the embargo and makes an open call for bloggers to join his (and Instapundit's, and Tim Blair's, and Belmont Club's, and etc.'s) "Pajamas Media" project.

The idea seems to be some sort of collective bargaining to secure more advertising, and higher rates for advertising, on blogs.

There is also something called the Blog News Service, which I'm not sure I really understand.

Posted by: Ace at 07:25 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Shockingly enough, Democrats attacked his plans, and yet offered no clear alternatives.

Basically, Bush wants to cut the rate of growth in benefits for the top 70% of wage earners, while allowing the bottom 30%'s benefits to grow faster.

Democrats have been clamoring for months for Bush to address the fundamental problem of the system's solvency... well, he did address it, and it turns out they weren't quite so enthused about "making hard choices" as they had previously suggested.

On Matthews' recap of the show, Democrats vaguely referred to their own plans to address the solvency issue, but refused to actually offer their details-- details, you will be shocked to learn, which include large increases in the payroll taxes.

Howard Fineman's take, I think, will be paradigmatic. Rather than praise Bush for having the guts to propose controversial solutions that we all know are necessary to fix a problem that gets worse by the day, he chose to only speak in terms of how unpopular all of this would be -- the "horserace" aspect of it, rather than the substantive policy aspect -- and chided Bush for offering America a chance to "eat their vegetables" (i.e., do something financially healthful but distasteful).

I had one hope for Clinton during his final term... I thought that, unshackled by the need to run for office again, he might actually grow a pair of balls and do the thing he'd been promising since he began campaigning for President (and do the thing that actually made me vote for him): frankly deal with the Social Security crisis, and fix the damn thing, once and for all.

He didn't, of course. As his term was running out, I remember arguing with a liberal (perhaps VonKreedon, actually), about whether Clinton would actually expend some political capital and address this growing financial crisis. The liberal maintained that in the final months of his lame-duck Presidency he would finally get around to it; I, having gotten a better idea of Clinton's priorities, said he wouldn't. I turned out to be right.

Of course.

The goo-goos ("good goverment" types) and the media generally have been whining about the need for some politician to make a brave stand and address this problem -- whatever the political fallout -- for, like, going on 20 years now.

Bush did.

And he'll get no credit for it whatsoever.

Yes... I know you're all terribly surprised about that.

On Gas Prices: The aptly nicknamed Richard "Dick" Durbin, a real partisan hack and .45 caliber pezzanovante as they might say in The Godfather, insists that Bush can lower gas prices simply by "jawboning" the Saudis, and explaining to them that it's really in their interest to make less money and exert less leverage on the West.

When Matthews suggested that Bush really can't do anything about gas prices, Durbin just asserted: "He can't only because he won't."

The Democrats are big on claiming that "diplomacy" can solve every dispute between nations. They seem to forget that there's a perfect defense to diplomacy and "jawboning": that perfect defense is the word "No," or Non, as the French say.

And that's all you have to do: say No.

But the Democrats insist that on this issue, as they insisted all through the buildup to the Iraq War, that all a President needs to do to get people on our side is "talk to them."

Have any of these guys ever been in a relationship, ever? Or are they all virgins and/or frequenters of brothels? Oprah can talk about "communication" all the live-long day, but if a girl doesn't want to do something, she ain't doin' it. And there's no sense in even arguing about it.

More on Social Security... From Meep. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:05 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 957 words, total size 6 kb.

The website which first floated the rumor that Bin Ladin had joined the bleedin' choir invisible now says he's not dead at all.

The entry on www.islam-minbar.net Web site began by saying there was news bin Laden had died but went on to say he was alive but, as a human being, could die any time and that Muslims should be prepared for that when it happens.

The unidentified author seemed to be trying to draw readers to his posting with a headline that bin Laden was dead.

London-based Islamist activist Yasser al-Serri, who monitors Web sites, said bin Laden “is alive” and was believed to have recently recorded a new video tape which may be on its way for broadcasting.

“The headline of the posting did create confusion, but I believe the person who posted it wanted to urge Muslim youths to continue jihad (holy war) even if bin Laden died,” Serri told Reuters by telephone from London.

I'm shaken. If you can't trust Islamofascist websites and/or Reuters, who can you trust anymore?

Correction: "Choir" invisible, not "crowd" invisible, I'm instructed by geeks who probably should know.

This is the problem with running a geek-friendly moronblog. These sonsabitches know everything about everything nerdy.

No matter how nerdy you think you are, there's always someone nerdier lookin' to take your ass out. It's like the Wild West, only with very pale guys who couldn't score in a monkey whorehouse with a wheelbarrow full of bananas.

Posted by: Ace at 06:50 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

I seem to have forgotten about this, and it's almost over. But you can post your reactions here.

I'll watch it later and provide my own scary-important analysis.

Posted by: Ace at 04:51 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

There are some who still hunt monsters:

Sitting in front of two computers in a blue suit and gold tie, Det. Constable Paul Krawczyk starts the day as a 13-year-old girl. Within minutes of his entering a chat room on education, and without asking for them, men are e-mailing nude pictures. "It's always the same," he says. "After two minutes, here come the body parts."

Sometimes, he can set up a meeting with a likely offender within half an hour; others take months to be drawn out.

By lunchtime, he is a pedophile conversing with a fellow "pedo" on the other side of the world about their shared interest. "R u active?" he asks, meaning do you abuse kids. "Yea," the message comes back. "Seven [years old] and 2."

The pedo describes his exploits in unprintable detail and eventually asks to exchange pictures. They negotiate for a while, and the other guy sends a dozen photos that seem to be culled from other websites.

That guy, they determined, probably wasn't a hands-on abuser, but "merely" a child-porn collector.

This is weird:

On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. But even that alludes to a dark fact of their work: All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.

Det. Constable Warren Bulmer slips on a Klingon sash and shield they confiscated in a recent raid. "It has something to do with a fantasy world where mutants and monsters have power and where the usual rules don't apply," Bulmer reflects. "But beyond that, I can't really explain it."

Thanks to Dennis.

And Please... I know that last bit is so weird it suggests some jokes... but I've already thought of a couple of them, and they're all in horrible taste, so let's just say there are obvious jokes there but they're not worth making and leave it at that.

Update... Kaus, linking a guy named Corrante, claims the LAT oversold the Trekkie-Pedophile connection, though there is some connection there.

Corrante actually picked up a phone and checked up on the MSM:

He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times' reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?

Nevertheless, Detective Lamond does claim that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest."

The MSM blew it again. Still, a "majority" of pedophiles having at least a passing interest in Star Trek... I don't know. Perhaps it could be said that the general population of America has "at least a passing interest" in Star Trek, too.

Doesn't matter to me. I've always been a Star Wars guy.

Yeah, I know: Jeffrey Dahmer. But that's just one dude.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

This isn't just about gays, although we've felt the sting of the movement more acutely than most. It's about science, stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, free access to medical prescriptions, the legality of living wills, abortion rights, censorship of cable and network television, and so on. The Schiavo case woke a lot of people up. I was already an insomniac on these issues.

It's not just about gays/gay "marriage"?

Oh, it's about stem cell research, too?

Funny, before Sullivan "evolved" and felt the scales fall from his eyes regarding the perfidity of "theoconservatism" -- coincidentally, over the same period his dream of gay "marriage" was thwarted by a majority of the American public -- he was against stem-cell research on moral grounds:

Consider these analogies. Federal law makes it a crime to kill or injure a bald eagle. It is also a crime to kill or injure a bald eagle's egg. We recognize that to kill one is the same as to kill the other. Similarly, I cannot remember the last time an apple farmer responded to an early frost by saying, "Never mind, we lost the fertilized blossom, but the apples will be fine." Of course, the apples won't be fine. Once the blossom is dead, the apples will never arrive. And once a blastocyst is killed, the human being coiled inexorably inside is no more. If that isn't killing, what is? And why are we more coherent when it comes to eagles than when it comes to humans?

...

Such evil cannot be morally counterbalanced by any good that medical breakthroughs might bring. This is especially true when it's possible to cultivate stem cells from other sources. Perhaps those sources are not as fecund as embryos--but that means we are confronted not by a trade-off between any research into stem cells and preserving human life, but between better, faster stem-cell research and human life. Under those conditions, it's not that close a call. After all, are we currently beset by the problem of scientific breakthroughs that aren't fast enough? Surely the opposite is true (or at least also true): We are beset by scientific breakthroughs that are occurring far faster than we have the moral language or the experience to deal with. Is a slight deceleration in that research too high a price to pay for removing even the chance that we may be taking human life?

It seems Sullivan is reversing a lot of previously-held positions lately... and all since that little decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Question for Nasty Andy:

Back when you were against stem-cell research, were you, too, a proponent of "theocracy"? When did you realize theocracy was "bad"?

Thanks to Slublog, who really ought to stop casting these pearls before swine and blog them on his own blog, rather than in my comments.

Give him a hit, anyway. He's got interesting stuff there, too.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

It's hardly even fair, is it?

This time this silly little bitch is on about civility, and Ms. Coulter's lack thereof:

Even if you agreed with her political views -- and she has an absolute right to express them -- her manner of speech was so inflammatory and her derogatory ripostes so intimidating that both campuses she plucked last week (a total take of $50,000 or more) are still reverberating.

....

This is just what she wants: shouts, insults, angry venting, food fights.

Ahhh, civility.

Last time we were forced to deal with this nasty little shit he was thoughtfully suggesting the Powerline bloggers had small dicks.

Now that's what I call reasoned discourse.

Sounds like he subscribes to HWWNBN's school of civility-- it's okay for me to make nasty ad hominem attacks, but not for you. Because I'm special.

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

And that's about as sharp a rebuke as Instapundit gives out, so it should hopefully have some impact:

I do think, though, that Andrew's constant complaints about theocracy aren't helping and indeed make even his valid points less persuasive. Andrew did a wonderful job of convincing undecideds -- and even some decided-againsts -- to think positively of gay rights and gay marriage, but lately his tone has been such that I doubt it's winning many converts.

He goes on to note that, while he himself supports gay marriage, it's a minority position in the country as of yet.

He does not, however, chide Sullivan that "there's a war on."

Retiring the Acronym Update: "HWWNBN" is too confusing and it's annoying to write out.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

And I'm not complaining about it.

In exchange for giving up filibustering judicial nominees, the Republicans would offer...

a) Guaranteed up-or-down votes on nominations for Circuit Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court nominees.

b) Guaranteed debate time of up to 100 hours for those nominees.

c) Guaranteed reporting of nominees from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor.

d) Guaranteed protection of the legislative filibuster.

A-hem.

No comment.

NRO also prints the whole Frist speech laying out the, um, compromise.

NRO speculates that the Democrats will only consider this, errrm, compromise if the GOP agrees to withdraw some/most of its current nominees (i.e., allow the previous filibusters to succeed, forever), but Frist claims he will not budge on them.

It seems to me that with a couple of exceptions -- Janice Brown first among them -- that might not actually be a bad trade. Yes, the previous nominees are qualified and should be allowed to serve, but... if we really could end filibusters on all future nominees, that might not be a half-bad deal at all.

"There's a war on" Update: Jason reminds me that none of this is important. Why? Well, read the slugline of the update, dope. There's a war on. Or had you forgotten?

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

I think this is kinda of jackass (read: I'm not any good at it, and it bothers me), but Fat Kid sends Guess-the-Google, a game where sixteen images obtained by a Google keyword search are displayed and you have to guess which keyword prompted them.

Stop Playing Now Update: Jason reminds me "There's a war on." Sorry to have posted this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.