Some "funny" guy named "Robert" (you know what full first names mean) is nice enough to direct me to a copy of one of the funniest Onion pieces ever. This is up there in the top three, along with Christopher Walken on eatin' hot dogs and Bill Gates awarding himself a 25 score in both Intelligence and Charisma.

But there is, of course, a CONTENT WARNING.

Posted by: Ace at 03:33 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

RCL again, but offering a different point than the one I'm interested in making.

This, I guess, is MSNBC's Richard "Rick" Kaplan opinining on the relative accuracy of blogs versus the media.

But Kaplan also told the crowd that there were downsides to the popularization of blogging. He said bloggers can act in a mob mentality and may not be accurate in their reports.

"The bloggers' accuracy rates are good for baseball, not for journalists," Kaplan said. "A baseball player can make seven out of 10 at bat and be highly respected. If journalists are only right seven out of 10 times, this would be terrible."

How's that for "fact-checking" and "accuracy"?

A baseball player batting fuckin' seven-hundred would, in Mr. Kaplan's estimation, have a "good" accuracy rate, and would furthmore be "highly respected."

Ummmm... yeah. And a quarterback who passes for, say, eight thousand yards per game would be considered to be "upper tier" and "highly productive."

"Bret Favre today passed for ninety-six touchdowns, and ran for thirty-three more. After the game, he said he felt 'pleased' by his performance."

The Men of the Mainstream Media

We're not actually all women in butch drag, but we're tryin' our damdest to convince you we are.

Jagoff.

"Fact-checking."

How about "common fucking sense checking," you effeminate metrosexual ninnies? Is that, you know, possible?

Posted by: Ace at 03:26 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, dear. You can now "hunt" by controlling a gun and "pulling the trigger" remotely, via Internet connection:

Sliding his computer mouse around until he locates a moving target, the hunter sets the animal in his sites and pulls the rifle's trigger with a click of his finger. Down goes a wild boar. Another trophy bagged.
Yet in this case it's not a video game. It's a new kind of hunting experience in which people anywhere in the world can sit at home and target real game by controlling a gun in a remote location.

To supporters, it's a way to allow the disabled, among others, to enjoy the thrill of hunting. But critics see it as a form of video slaughter.

"Disabled"? Is laziness a disability now? If so, where's my check?

I've gotta side with the PETA crowd on this one. If you're going to plug something, at least have the common courtesy of showing up for the kill.

Indeed, the concept of live-action hunting - done over the Internet - is raising the hackles of everyone from animal-rights activists to hunting groups to gun advocates. As a result, lawmakers in 14 states are now trying to ban the practice, including Texas, where the only such online hunting facility exists.

I don't see this as spreading like wildfire, so this legislation is probably unnecessary.

I'm just curious what "libertarians" have to say about this.

Under the system, a person can control a camera and a firearm, shooting at real targets in real time, from a computer anywhere. For an additional fee, the meat or head can be shipped to the hunter.

Here's an alternative version of "the system:" You get to scan around an already-shot video taken from an episode of Field & Stream Video Diary. You get to pull a "trigger," which then advances you to already-shot video of an animal being killed, or two lions humping each other, depending on whether or not your "shot" is anywhere near the target.

If you pay an additional fee of $150, they'll buy you some $3.59/lb buttsteak from the local A&P and send it to you labled "Here's that 'bear' you shot, jagoff."

Uggghhhhh. I'm personally offended that these resources aren't being devoted to finding some sort of digital-masking technology that will allow me to watch porn without being assaulted every three seconds by the sight of hairy man-ass (HMA).

Thanks to LauraW.

Important Nanotech News! Scientists have just developed a new nanotech "pet," the "Really Little Buddy," which responds to a wide variety of commands, including "1" and "0."

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (30)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Self-loathing? Just because he's a Republican?

There are a lot of responses to this.

First, I happen to know, in both real life and through INTERNET, a bunch of gay Republicans. Well, not a bunch, but given that it's a rare breed, I would guess I know about 75% of the entire Republican gay population of the United States.

They don't seem "self-loathing" to me-- they seem pretty damn self-assured and, well, kind of happy and centered. They're great guys. So great, in fact, that sometimes I go into a coat-room with them and let them do stuff to me.

Doesn't make ME gay, after all. I'm not the one squatting on a pile of hand-bags.

But seriously-- maybe it's just me, but gay Republicans seem like non-angry people. And you can say what you want about righteous anger and all the rest, but I don't think actual quaking, quivering angry is healthy -- and I stand by my belief that no one should feel that way about politics, at least until we are confronted with actual tyranny -- and I think that sort of stomach-churning anger is indicative of problems in one's life.

I was angry during impeachment-- about politics. I hope never to be that angry again, not over politics at least, and whether Bill really was "alone" with Monica in the Oval Office, and just stupidly obsessed with crap that, let's be honest, in the scheme of things doesn't have a thing to do with the people I love or the crazy blog-money I crave.

Next point: the implication here is that gay Republicans are self-loathing because the party, as a whole, objects to gay marriage.

Well, look, Bill, you did sign DOMA, didn't you? Not really a profile in courage if you really wanted to advance the cause of gay marriage. And Kerry, your wife, etc. -- just about anyone who doesn't have a cushy liberal Congressional district containing more Starbucks than hardware stores -- is against, at least on paper, gay marriage as well.

I hate this game the Democrats play. They want to claim they're really, really pro-gay-marriage or pro-minority-quotas, and they use that as a cudgel with which to beat Republicans, but, at the end of the day, damnit, if they don't usually end up voting pretty much the same way Republicans do.

I guess we all know they're lying, and that they reallly would like to advance these "progressive" causes, but can't due to political considerations, and so they claim to be all moderate 'n stuff and against these hot-button initiatives.

But honestly-- of what value is dishonesty and cravenness? And it's not like Republican office-holders don't face similar political considerations. If dishonesty and cravenness are virtues, then there an awful lot of Republicans, too, who deserve gay votes.

And finally: it is just repugnant to continually suggest that one's race or sexual orientation ought to dictate one's beliefs, values, and highest aspirations. That is, in fact, stereotyping gays and other minorities. It reduces the complexities of the human intellect and character to a crude check-box on a Tribal Identity Membership Card.

Do these humps not allow for the fact that some gays might have a touch of the ol' contrarian streak in them? I love contrarians. They're fun. I never was a conservative until I went to college and then blah-blah school and was thrown in with a bunch of liberal jackasses. And the more liberal jackassing I was exposed to, the more I felt like saying things what would make their hair singe.

Pretty much just to be a prick.

My entire political philosophy is informed by a strong urge to make strangers dislike me as quickly and as intensely as possible.

And I don't mind saying I've gotten pretty good at it. Of course, I was blessed with innate talents, too.

Click on the pic to call him a dick.

I'm so childish, I know.

All Quiet on the Shrill Shill Front Update: Andrew Sullivan, who usually just can't wait to opine on all matters gay or gay-ish, seems to have nothing much to say about this bit of reductionist stereotyping from his new pals in the Democratic Party.

Well, as he's said before, Lord knows he's not the easiest person to offend.

Maybe the third or fourth easiest. But top two? Definitely not.

Thanks to Slublog. I don't know why I bother with these hat-tips. It's not like a hat-tip on this stupid mornoblog wins you a new car or anything.

Obligatory Nanotech Update: In the future, no one will need to have sex of any sort at all, because we'll all be outfitted with little nanotech devices called "diddlebots" that will provide us with low-level, safe-to-drive sexual stimulation all day long.

Sort of like kinky-dirty little elves. In your pants.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 823 words, total size 5 kb.

It's certainly interesting, but is it Heather O'Donnell or is it Helen Thomas?

My current elevated level of propriety prevents me from quoting a lot of it. (Must atone for previous weeks of vileness.) But it's worth a read. A good, medium-sized chuckle.

Thanks to Steve.

Nanotech Update: Someone on Craiglist is selling old Hot Wheels "MicroMachines," which aren't really nanotech, but it sounds nanotech, and they're really kickass-cool.

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Someone else sent this to me yesterday, but it was LauraW who interested me in a typical run-of-the-mill my-eyes-glaze-over coprse-mutilation-and-theft-of-severed head story. Why, if I had a nickle...

She told me "Read until the end." I did, and I think you should too.

Off of Yahoo:

A 17-year-old Morrisville youth was being held on $100,000 bail after police said he raided a tomb in a cemetery and removed a head from a corpse.

...

Keith said police at first could not believe what they had heard. But when they went to Morrisville Cemetery and investigated, they found that someone had broken into a tomb, broken open the casket and removed a man's head.

...

Nickolas Buckalew, 17, later was arrested and charged with unauthorized removal of a dead body. He pleaded innocent to the crime.

Here it comes...

Authorities are not sure of the motive of the crime. Court documents said the suspect allegedly talked of using the man's head as a bong or a pipe for smoking marijuana.

Who can blame him?

Nanotech Update: In the future, you won't have to smoke pot out of a corpse's rotting brain. We'll all have tiny nanotech devices implanted in our heads called "brainbots" which will stimulate the production of various brain chemicals -- and synthesized recreational drugs -- according to our wishes.

The one drawback? You will bleed profusely from the ears, most likely until you exsanguinate and die. But hey-- weed on demand.

As the motto of the Libertarian Party says:

Weeeeeeed! Weeeeeeed! Weeeeeeeeeeeeed!

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

(Corrected/Retracted Kerry Reveals Name of CIA Operative

Right in an open Senate hearing on John Bolton's confirmation.

Anyone think the media will find this story as sexy as the Valerie Plame non-story?

Don't expect any charges or any official investigation. The Constitution says that no Congressmen can be held accountable by law for any statement made while in Congress.

But just because there won't be an official outside criminal investigation doesn't mean that Congress itself can't censure him.

This will be the first and last time you ever hear about this. If it can't be used against Bush, then revealing the name of a covert CIA agent just doesn't matter.

Unrelated But Really Cool Fact About Nanotechnology Update: Did you know the human body is itself comprised entirely of organic nanotech?

We call them "cells." They're "Nature's Little Nanotech Bots."

Tell your friends! You will amaze and delight them. Or maybe provoke them into beating your about the head and shoulders with a pool-cue.

Either way, you'll be the center of attention. And that's all that really matters.

Correction/Retraction: It appears another one slipped by the "multiple layers of fact-checking" about which our MSM is so justifiably proud.

The man's name has been mentioned in the media four previous times.

Posted by: Ace at 10:09 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

RockNClothing let me know they're going to take the ordering page down in the next couple of days. Not really sure when; like last time, they'll probably do so without announcing first, depending on when they think they need to get an order to the printer's.

The first batch of shirts has been sent out, by the way.

Posted by: Ace at 09:58 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Court-appointed experts-- is there anything they don't know?:

A neurologist hired by Michael Schiavo to confirm that his wife Terri was in a persistent vegetative state said he was "105 percent sure" of that diagnosis, but Dr. Ronald Cranford expressed similar certainty about a patient he examined in 1980 who later regained both consciousness and the ability to communicate.

Three days before Terri Schiavo's death, Cranford appeared on the MSNBC talk program, "Scarborough Country," to discuss her condition. Cranford was interviewed by reporter Lisa Daniels.

DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?

CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.

DANIELS: Why are you so sure, doctor?

CRANFORD: Because I examined her ...

Cranford - who is assistant chief in neurology at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, Minn., professor of neurology at the University of Minnesota Medical School and a faculty associate at the university's Center for Bioethics - went on to call another neurologist who disagreed with his diagnosis "a charlatan" and accused Daniels of being "stupid."

Now that's professionalism. I've seen similar statements in court.

"Your honor, I object to that statement being allowed into evidence."

[Judge:] "On what grounds?"

"Because it's retarded."

[Judge:] "Counsel, your response?"

"I don't think it's retarded at all."

"Well, you wouldn't, would you? You're a retard yourself. Your honor, can I introduce exhibits to demonstrate that opposite counsel is, in fact, a retard?"

[Judge:] "What kind of exhibits?"

"Some doodles my esteemed colleague-slash-retard drew up just yesterday."

[Judge:] "What is the probative value of these exhibits?"

"Well, they show Godzilla eating a building with airplanes attacking him. And not only is that retarded in itself, but it doesn't even look like Godzilla. It looks more like Meatloaf from the video I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That), except with some crude spines drawn down his back. And the capacity to spew radioactive-fire breath."

"It's a work in progress, you moron. Besides, it's abstract. I was making a statement."

"What possible statement did you hope to make?"

"Oh, how about this for a statement: You suck."

[Judge:] "I've heard enough. Chambers immediately. Let's resolve this whole 'retard' issue before getting into tangencies about who may or may not suck."

Host and former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough interrupted to defend Daniels, touching off a clash with Cranford, which included the doctor admonishing Scarborough with: "You've got to get your facts straight."

Cranford also certain, but wrong about 1980 diagnosis

Cranford expressed similar certainty about another patient he declared to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) in 1980, former Minneapolis Police Sgt. David Mack.

''Sergeant Mack will never regain cognitive, sapient functioning,'' Cranford said six months after Mack was shot while serving a search warrant on Dec. 13, 1979. ''He will never be aware of his condition nor resume any degree of meaningful voluntary conscious interaction with his family or friends.''

Based on Cranford's unequivocal diagnosis of Mack, the officer's relatives removed him from a respirator in August 1980 "because his family felt he should be allowed to die rather than exist in such a state," according to published reports.

But Mack did not die.

On Oct. 22, 1981, 18 months after Cranford declared Mack's case hopeless, doctors at the advanced care facility where Mack was being treated noticed that he was awake. The Associated Press described Mack's recovery.

"A policeman considered 'vegetative' after being shot in the head in 1979 has come out of his coma and, although doctors caution he may never recover fully, he is spelling out some of his desires: 'TALK. WALK. SKI. DOG,'" the news report stated, explaining that someone would point to letters displayed in alphabetical order on a board while Mack nodded "yes" or "no" until the correct letter was reached.

Asked how he felt about his recovery, Mack smiled and spelled out "SPEECHLESS!"

"Doctors say Mack has recovered about 95 percent of his intellectual capabilities," the news account continued, "and can understand everything said to him."

Emphasis added. Except for that sub-hed, morons.

The really cool thing about Dr. Cranford's line of work is that if you play your cards right, and get yourself a sympathetic judge and an ex-husband hellbent on pulling a feeding tube, most of your misdiagnoses will never come to light.

Pretty sweet, eh? Beats OB/GYN to hell and back and that score.

Thanks to Alicia.

Nanotech Update: Within ten years, all pads will be equipped with nanotech-pencil leads that will draw perfect doodles for you, with vanishing points and perspective lines and all that other crap I could never understand no matter how many times I read How To Draw the Marvel Comics Way.

Give me a break, guys. I just want to know how to draw She-Hulk with cleavage that is pronounced and yet at the same time tastefully subtle.

Posted by: Ace at 06:59 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

Next up: remote-controlled chiggers, remote-controlled deer-ticks, and remote-controlled Amazonian fish that swim up your penis and lodge somewhere in the northern end of your urethra.

Yale University researchers say their study that used lasers to create remote-controlled fruit flies could lead to a better understanding of overeating and violence in humans.

Uh-huh. I see how laser-lobotomized remote-controlled flies are perfectly analgous to humans.

Using the lasers to stimulate specific brain cells, researchers say they were able to make the flies jump, walk, flap their wings and fly.

Questions to be answered: What makes humans fly? And also, what makes humans buzz in a window for an hour or two without ever realizing, "Shit, there seems to be some sort of transparent, glass-like barrier preventing me from getting outside to feast on those lovely dog turds"?

Even headless flies took flight when researchers stimulated the correct neurons, according to the study, published in the April 7 issue of the journal Cell.

Further avenues of research: How f'n' scary would it be to have a headless humanoid robot greeting kids at the doorstep on Halloween? Oh, man, the fun. Those li'l bastards would be in psychotherapy for years over that.

Scientists say the study could ultimately help identify the cells associated with psychiatric disorders, overeating and aggressiveness.

Scientists say a lot of things when applying for grants. No one's going to give you money simply because you describe your research as "Wicked-sick and funny as shit."

...

"Ultimately, that could be important to understanding human psychiatric disorders," Miesenbock said. "That's really futuristic stuff."

Yeah. Really futuristic. Brundlefly-level futuristic. In the year 2253, this research could possibly lead to... well, some sort of novelty toy you buy at Spencer Gifts when you want to infest a buddy's home with mutant flies and make them do all sorts of crazy tricks, like fly around, bite people on the back, spread pandemic tropical diseases, etc.

You know. Pranks like that. Good stuff.

I'm not an anti-intellectual, at least not when it comes to science. I'm big on science, baby. But I gotta tell ya, this entire "experiment" seems less likely to advance understanding of human psychiatric disorders and more likely to be the consequence of a losing bar-bet.

Thanks to LauraW.

Nanotech Update! Instapundit, take note. This involves both technology and flies, which are quite small. It is therefore "nanotech," the miracle science of the future... and maybe the present.

Posted by: Ace at 06:42 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.