Assad is proposing pro-democratic reforms in order to co-opt internal opposition and save his wobbly tyranny.

Only a few tyrants have succeeded in preserving their power through such steps. Let's hope he's not one of the lucky ones.

The funny thing is... it turns out the much-maligned Domino Theory is quite right after all.

Posted by: Ace at 06:03 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

It turns out the Koran is rather easily desecrated... even being touched by an infidel desecrates it.

But remember: this is an "obscenity." Destroying a book holy to a monster who has perverted a religion into a license for mass murder in order to pry him into giving up the whereabouts of other similar monsters is an "obscenity."

Remember Andrew Sullivan's talk of Fifth Columnists?

As he broached the subject, way back in October 2001, and subsequently defended his writings on the notion of an internal adversary culture determined to see the US lose the war... well, I hardly think he has any right to complain if others begin to wonder if he is joining the Fifth Column he once railed against.

Posted by: Ace at 05:57 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeahp, let's keep this party groovin':

Yes, Sean, it is a tragedy. Andrew Sullivan used to be very interesting to read. I liked his whole Eagles (new type of hawk for the post-9/11 era, basically) concept, his awards were cute, he was a fiscal conservative, he effectively took on the NY Times, and, yes, I found his take on gay issues to be interesting. His writings on his struggles with Catholicism were also interesting. I liked reading him because he didn't fit in well anywhere on the political spectrum, so that seemed to give him a fresh, outsider point-of-view on many issues.

Then the whole gay marriage thing came up, and it was amazing how quickly he turned into a complete joke. Soon he viewed everything through that prism. Concerns about federalism were swept aside as he cheered on tyrannical judges. Anyone that objected was a "bigot" that wanted to "permanently deny" the "civil rights" of gays and make them "second-class citizens forever". When he started criticizing everything about the Bush administration, it was clear that it was primary due to the gay marriage issue, but he dishonestly and repeatedly claimed that was not the case, damaging his credibility.

Eventually nothing was left but screeds against Bush, screeds against the War on Terror, screeds against "bigots", screeds against the Catholic church, etc. He'd often fly into hysterics and jump to crazy conclusions. For example, a proposed bill would allow civil unions but not make them continguent on a sexual relationship, basically so any two people could give each other legal rights. Sullivan somehow twisted this into you could have a civil union but only if you proved there was no sex involved, and then he ranted at that strawman like there was no tomorrow. What a joke.

Eventually I realized that none of the original reasons I read him were valid anymore, so I stopped checking his site. Yes, maybe occasionally he makes some good points about overspending by the Bush administration, and he can apparently still sock it to the NYT, but sifting throught the hysteria to find the few good parts is just not worth it.

That was from Bob.

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

As John from Wuzzadem hysterically pointed out in his own Andy Freak-Out system, you know when Excitable Andy knows he's in trouble according to how many supportive emails he begins publishing.

Well, I get supportive emails too (comments, really, mostly, but same deal), and they're better than Exciteable Andy's. So let's fight fire with fire.

From SeanM.:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...While it's fun to pile on "Excitable Andy," this really is a tragedy.
The guy is a good writer, and he's one of the people who got me interested in reading blogs after 9/11. And I didn't even really mind when he started criticizing the way the WOT was being fought.

But then, somewhere along the line, he stopped criticizing and just started bitching about the Bush administration. And that pretty much coincided with the time where he started fixating on gay marriage as the be-all and end-all of issues. And on that specific issue, he could've made some more persuasive points (I'm open to some sort of civil unions that would give gays hospital, inheritance, etc. rights), but he seemed to view nearly everything through the prism of his own emotions.

Couple all of that with his bullshit bandwidth pledge drives and his dissembling about who he was going to endorse on his blog while he had already denounced Bush in the gay press, and you've got a lot of former fans like me. And this was way before he had any "heart-ache" about how Catholic the Pope was. I'm just glad that I've always been too poor to contribute to his European vacation fund. And didn't he promise to shut up for a while, too?

Let's be honest, Sullivan, like a lot of other guys, thinks with his dick. And that kind of thinking has turned an otherwise thoughtful commentator into a hack.

I don't really like the "thinks with his dick" part -- he is gay, after all, and can't be faulted for viewing issues through that prism; though I guess it works as a throw-away line -- but the parts about blatant dishonesty and hackery are spot-on.

Posted by: Ace at 05:08 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

I thought the multiple layers of painstaking editorial fact-checking of the MSM required two sources to confirm a story.

Did Al-Newsweek even have one?

Al-Newsweek's original anti-American incitment referred to "sources," but now, having had their asses fact-checked, they refer only to a single source.

And that single source, of course, didn't even actually confirm the story. His "confirmation" was based on his reading an account and not specificially objecting to the the Koran-flushing part.

This is now the MSM's idea of a "confirmation"? A lack of a specific denial by a single source?

And based on that, they run with this sort of incindiary story?

Is there anything, anything at all that can account for this willingness to bend the rules in the appropriate case other than a general and powerful anti-American animus?*

* Or at least anti-American when the wrong party is running the country.

I'm sure there were horror stories that could have been reported regarding Clinton's renditions of terrorists to torture-using states... but, oddly enough, Al-Newsweek, the New York Times, and the rest of the gang had no problem with the practice then, and certainly did not lower its journalistic standards to rush damaging stories about Clinton's renditions into print.

Posted by: Ace at 04:48 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

Will wonders never cease! CNN has finally discovered a bona fide, gen-u-ine terrorist. Not a "militant," not an "insurgent," not a "rebel." A terrorist! And it says so right there in the headline.

The catch, of course, is that this terrorist conducted his terrorism against a country CNN's editors actually love and admire -- Cuba.

He is alleged to have killed 73 people, most of whom his fellow countrymen, when he blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976.

But the Iraqi "insurgents" who blow up their fellow countrymen on a daily basis will, per the CNN stylebook, continue to be spared the tendentious label "terrorist," as that word could imply that CNN is taking sides.

Or, rather-- of course CNN is taking sides all the time; but labeling Iraqi murderers terrorist would mean that CNN is taking the wrong side, i.e., America's.

Thanks to Andy the Squirrel.

Note: The article uses the word "Terrorist" in the headline as of 8:11 am. But Andy says the homepage used the word "terrorist," too, before getting changed to "militant."

So if later on CNN edits "terrorist" into "militant." well, that may be loose shit, but not on the part of myself or Andy.

PS: Andy the Squirrel wants to know why I call him that. Well, because there's another Andrew here, and since he had that brilliant roses are red/violets are blue put-down, I figure he's entitled to just be called "Andrew."

"Andy the Squirrel" is just a character in the children's book written by Chevy Chase's wife in the funny and quite-underrated Funny Farm.

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

A deadly dig at Excitable Andy by Instapundit.

I guess there's something to this cool dismissal business that makes it more effective than my typical "Fuck you, asshole."

I'll look into that.

Nah.

But seriously, worth reading. The final nail in Excitable Andy's coffin. The "emoter-in-chief" dig is especially satisfying for those of us who have documented Delicate Andy's constant updates as regards his emotional state.

Plus... well, look, there's no more pretense of cordiality between them. This sets up the Ultimate Blog War, bigger than Godzilla vs. Megalon.

And that ought to be fun.

Excitable Andy Casts About For New Allies Update: Pace David Brock, Andy seems to have found a whole new group from whom to curry favor. Again he cites a Daily Kos contributor as authoritative.

Shocking? Not really. As I have said from virtually the first day of this blog: the man has always been a self-absorbed solipsistic narcisstic huckster.

So am I, of course. But I'm admitting it, you know?

PS, Andy: Welcome back to the prospect of big media money once again. Sure, you'll have to make some embarassing confessions about being "duped" or "blinded by the right" and all, but after a televised chat with, say, Dr. Phil, you will of course be welcomed back into the liberal fold wholeheartedly.

Hey-- sounds like a good premise for a tell-all book, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 06:18 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

at the RighTalk site. You probably won't see the logo until later, when the show is rerun.

Posted by: Ace at 11:37 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Basically it's mayhem here, like it is backstage at the Muppet Show. I've got Gonzo's chickens trying to rope me into some sort of knock-off Amway scheme.

Our guests are, once again, Brian Anderson, author of South Park Conservatives, which is a little disappointing, because I thought we were getting Brian Adams, and I had fifty questions prepared about Summer of 69.

And then we'll have Deroy Murdock. I'm going to definitely ask him about the Twin Towers II project, because it's a shared obsession, apparently. Well, another shared obsession. He confessed to me that, very much like myself, his sexual awakening occurred when imagining a wild three-way between Jeanie, Larry Hagman, and that other dolt who was always screwing things up.

(Not really.)

Go here to listen to the show... look for "Playing Now -- Listen Live -- Channel 1" (at four or after) and later for the cute South Park logo for the Hoist the Black Flag show.

The call-in number is 1-866-884-TALK (8255). If you've got a question, call in. We'll do what we can. But once again: Action-packed.

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Must credit Ace. Why? Why not?

Apparently a dubious Newsweek story on lutefisk sets off murderous riots in the American heartland.

ABC's Nightline was quick to suggest this is less a story about media recklessness than about "those crazy troglodytes inhabing the unfashionably non-coastal parts of our country... say one unkind word about Appleby's or the Cracker Barrel and they fly into full retard-berserker mode, gaining the strength of a dozen rutting orang-utans, coming at you like a whirlwind of slobber and crude weapons formed from sticks and rocks and animal feces."

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.