They claim that their agreement of 14 "bipartisan" supposed moderates -- including the Hitler-invoking extremist Robert Byrd -- will stave off a confrontation.

The details are sketchy.

Three of Bush's nominees -- Owens, Brown, and Pryor -- will get cloture tomorrow, and then an up-or-down vote.

Two more -- Saad and Myers -- will not. Or rather, there's no agreement to vote for cloture, ergo they won't get cloture.

The Democrats claim they will not filibuster again under any except "extraodinary circumnstances" -- but judging from the left-wing advocacy groups' ability to convince Charles Schumer et al. that a mainstream conservative is a threat to the very foundations of the Republic, I have a feeling that any conservative nominated to the Supreme Court will be deemed an "extraodinary" circumstance justifying a filibuster.

John McCain is in full peacock mode.

Others speak of "trust" ensuring the compromise holds. There is no trust. Democrats will not honor the agreement. It's that simple.

The filibusters will continue, with the connivance of McCain, Warner, Snowe, etc.

Other Reactions... John from Powerline thinks it's a heinous deal, and I don't disagree.

He channels Andrew Sullivan by noting he feels "sick" to see that alte kacher Byrd preening about saving democracy, and I can't say I feel too much differently.

Though I don't know if I'm "sick" per se. It's sort of what I expected.

I just want a drink and a reason to vote for any Republicans in 2006.

Michelle Malkin has a few more quotes. She hasn't weighed in yet on the merits of the compromise. I have a feeling she soon will.

Captain Ed:

If the Republicans have foresworn the Byrd option without an ironclad guarantee that the filibuster will not be used on nominees with majority support, then they have traded their hard-won majority for de facto minority status -- and the leadership will have to answer for this result. Let's see what the exact wording of the agreement will be.

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru:

This may have been a choice by 14 senators for comity, but its unintended consequence will be to raise the stakes on the next Supreme Court confirmation--which will decide what rules the Senate is really going to follow. A decision has been delayed, not made.

Exactly. Mike DeWine says that if the Democrats start this up again, we can once again invoke the "constitutional option," as he's nice enough to call it. Nice theory, but just give the liberal media time to work on this little pussy some more.

FoxNews' Major Garrett notes that three judges, whom Democrats have for "months and months and months" branded judicial extremists are now, apparently, deemed not so extremist after all. He claims this to be a win for the White House on what constitutes "extremist."

Protein Wisdom deems this "unacceptable." Preach it, brother.

But... Jim Angle reports it's not clear that Saad or Myers would have received a majority vote anyway, so the fact that they continue to be filibustered may be a face-saving sop to the Democrats.

No link for Daily "Screw 'em" Kos, but he's doing little dances, saying it's not a "good day to be Bill Frist." He gets -- unlike John McCain -- that it's less important than Janice Brown gets to an appeal court than a nominee with majority support actually gets to the Supreme Court, whether a "conservative extremist" (read: mainstream conservative jurist) or not.

On the other hand, fellow-traveller Atrios "doesn't like the sound of it."

Worse Than You Thought Update! The Devil, the say, is in the details, and a very nasty little devil lurks in these:

Here's what the Democrats commit to in the future: "Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist." Here's what the Republicans commit to: "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress. . ."

Ahhh... they commit to "following their consciences," we commit to opposing the constitutional option whether our conscience dictates we do so or not.

Again from Ramesh Ponnuru of NRO.

No Light At The End of the Tunnel: Someone cheerfully notes:

Ace, you do realize that said Supreme Court nominee will be Janice Rogers Brown herself?

That's the only upside here.

A commenter on Fox made a similar point, that it would be difficult to deem Brown "extremist" after having just allowed her through.

Allow me to piss in your cereal.

They will claim that Brown can be trusted, kinda, on the Appeals Court, where she is required to follow the precedent of a higher court.

They will claim she is too "extremist" to be put onto the top court.

And that their filibuster is therefore under those "extraodinary circumstances" we'll be hearing so much, and so frequently, about.

Posted by: Ace at 03:51 PM | Comments (171)
Post contains 830 words, total size 6 kb.

There may or may not be a filibuster fight.

For one thing, there are GOP wobblers like Mike DeWine (also of Ohio... geeze!) and Lindsay Graham, in addition to the wobblers we already figured on.

Hit that link to find the link for contacting these dummies.

Kausfiles engages in one of his specialties-- making a point that no one else is making largely because it seems kinda goofy and dumb.

He suggests that Democrats don't want to have this fight now, as the public isn't really paying attention -- who cares about the Appeals Courts? -- and should have the fight later when the public is focused on the issue (i.e., for a Supreme Court nominee). Therefore, he suggests, there will be no GOP victory, because if the GOP has the votes, the Democrats will stop filibustering, denying the GOP the opportunity to end the filibuster. (And if the GOP doesn't have the votes, they won't call for a vote, of course.)

He thinks the GOP has its best chance of winning this fight now, and the Dems have the best chance of winning it later. Ergo, the Dems will avoid having the actual confrontation, at least if they're going to lose.

I think the odds of the Democrats simply stopping filibusters in order to keep the possibility of filibusters open in the future is unlikely... sure, some centrists may jump ship for this reason, I suppose, but then, the Democratic Party has been claiming for years these judges are right wing ideological extremists who will destroy this country. It's sort of hard to back away from that kind of vitriol and say, "Well, maybe they're not so bad after all."

A lot of Democratic fund-raising is based on keeping these Konservative Kabalist Krazies off the bench.

The other thing he mentions -- that the GOP won't call for a vote if they don't have the votes -- is pretty obvious, and is, alas, as I fear it will actually unfold. I think the GOP leadership is bluffing-- they don't have the votes, they probably only have 48 or even 47, and they're hoping to extract a decent compromise by pretending they have 50.

But hope springs eternal, obviously.

Kaus Right, Me Wrong? Update: Apparently it's a very live possibility that some Democrats may break ranks to vote for cloture in order to stave off a confrontation on the nuclear option. It even has a name-- the "Nelson Option," after Democratic Senator Nelson of Florida.

Further, Mort Kondracke and Charles Krauthammer say Frist has the votes, either 50 or 51. Some chick from NPR, I think, only cautions "that may not be a done deal."

This from Brit Hume, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 02:02 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Our guests tomorrow will be Scott Johnson, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum.

What will be talking about with these influential opinion-leaders?

Why, what else? Star Wars III.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Sigh. And they wonder why we think they're fundamentally -- and at times, deliberately -- dishonest.

Thanks to Instapundit.

Plus: Same post-- the Washington Post chooses an, errr, odd headline for George Galloway's shameful Senate testimony.

Hint: Guess who the bad guy is, according to the headline.

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

He disagrees with me, basically, and liked the film.

He does point out this nitpicky flaw, which occurred to me a while ago (like, when they first announced what these were going to be about, and that they'd star the twenty-something Ewan McGregor), but which seems churlish to bring up, given how the rest of the films suck so badly:

Finally, the last logical flaw in the films is exposed in the final scene. Apparently, although there are only twenty years between Episode III and Episode IV, everyone above a certain age gets older twice as fast as Luke & Leia-- no one more so than Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru. Hard living, that Tatooine moisture farm living.

Yeahp. And it's not even 20 years. It's seventeen or eighteen years, if we assume Luke and Leia were that age, which seems to be how old they were in the movie (as well as in real life).

One question for everyone:

Who is the main character in any of the three prequels?

That's a pretty tough one, isn't it? In Star Wars, it's Luke. And don't say it's Han, or Han is ALSO the main character; Han is an important secondary character, but obviously it's Luke's dramatic arc which is primary. It's his arc that is the most important arc in each of the three movies individually, and of course in the trilogy overall.

So... do any of the prequels have a similar main character?

I don't think they do. I suppose in this last one it's Anakin, but in the other two, it might have been Qui-Jonn or Obi-Wan.

This is just one of those important structural things a good script needs. If a script is shitty, it may not be because any particular scene is bad. It may be because the writer hasn't really made the key decision as to what the movie -- and therefore WHO the movie -- is really about.

Hey! Nice Ensemble! Of course there's a type of movie that doesn't feature a traditional main character, and we call those "ensemble pieces."

So, yeah, strictly speaking, it isn't necessary you have a main character for every film.

But... what may work for Parenthood or some chickflick doesn't necessarily work for this sort of movie.

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

You can complain about the so-called "Geneva Conventions" (whatever they are), but the only thing that really matters is the magic of a child's smile as he sees Saddam in his jockey shorts.

It's a photo of Iraqi kids giggling at Saddam's beefcake photo.

"Magic of a child's smile"? Eh, what the hell. Liberals talk that sort of nonsense all the f'n' time; why do I have to sweat to come up with new shit all the time?

Posted by: Ace at 11:52 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

I continue to be conflicted about bears.

1) Totally cute.

2) Overgrown weasels.

3) "Nature's little Wookies."

4) Kill-crazy murder-machines who will hunt you down and rend you into pieces just because you gave them a "funny look."

But awwww...

It's virtually a sitcom already. She looks like she's waiting for someone to rub PDF 15 on her back.

A 140-pound bear wandered into a suburban neighborhood and took a dip in a swimming pool before being tranquilized and returned to the wild.

The female bear ambled into the San Fernando Valley's Porter Ranch area shortly after 6 p.m. Sunday, bumping into doors and windows before taking a few splashes in a backyard pool, fire spokesman Brian Humphrey said.

...

"It looks like it's possibly in heat," [an animal control officer] said. "She probably just made a wrong turn and ended up in a neighborhood. She belongs up in the hills and that's where she lives."

In heat. So she decided to throw an impromptu pool party, and was disappointed when no one else showed up.

Sounds like me in seventh grade.

Thanks to Chickpea.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

For several days I've gotten tips about this "lions killing midgets in Cambodian gladitorial games" story. I didn't link it, because I knew it was ass. For one thing, though it was supposedly a BBC story, the URL was not a BBC URL at all, but something like "newturf.com," which, last time I checked, was not the BBC domain.

For another thing-- it was just freaking retarded.

So here's the story-- now admitted to be a total fake -- as well as the pranksters' explanation as to how/why they did it.

But the NY Post seems to have fallen for it, and carries it (scan down) in a "Weird But True" column.

Weird, but also fake.

Sucky that the conservative-tilting NY Post fell for it, but hey. Lot of dopey liberals work there, same as at every other media organization.

Thanks to Ogre Gunner for the tip as to the long-suspected fraudulence of the story; thanks to TB for the NY Post tip.

Ahhhhh... the mainstream media. So much smarter and so much more reliable than bloggers, with all that "rigorous fact-checking."

PS: The page was apparently created to "settle" a rather stupid-but-fun dispute over whether 40 weaponless midgets could take a lion.

I don't need to tell you-- sometimes I can't fall asleep for my mind racing at this very question.

Confession: After the NY Post tip, I almost linked it, now thinking hey, maybe it was real.

Thank goodness I'm lazy and never got around to it.

Related Re-Link: A reader just asked me to re-post this, but I couldn't find it. But Dave From Garfield Ridge did find it,and suggests this would be as good a time as any to re-link "How Many Five Year Olds Could You Take In a Fight?

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin warns you not to wear Star Wars get-ups in public.

I'm afraid to say that at least as far as this get-up goes, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Let's just say my S-foils just locked into attack position.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Kind of like metrosexual Yuppie Jedi, I suppose. Plus, prone to fucking up, big-time.

From the Corner:

MRC's Brent Baker was one of the few, the proud who watched Dan Rather being interviewed by Tina Brown in a session aired Sunday night on CNBC.

...

rown wanted to know: "What are the realistic chances that you're going to be able to do a story that really shakes and rattles the Bush administration?"

Rather maintained they are "excellent" since "CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it's very real -- that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights."

At least Rather was aware enough to add: "And I know I can mentally hear people rolling their eyes. That's the way we feel."

Did you mentally hear me raking my face with fish-hooks?

Isn't it funny how lately the liberals in the media have just been confirming everything we've said about them for years? It seems like they're collectively deciding that truth is the only remaining defense.

Thankfully. 30 years too late, but whatever.

I've long maintained the media considers themselves the Keeper of the Eternal Flame, better than you (they went to j-school! They work in the media!) and having more important opinions on... well, everything, really.

Dan Rather just confirmed it. They consider themselves a sort of priesthood of knights errant, roaming the despoiled countryside, looking for dragons to slay to protect (who else?) "the little people."

Thanks to Slublog.

Top Ten on the way.

But That's Not All! Order Now And You'll Also Get a Self-Aggrandizing Quote From BBC C***S***ers!

Get the fuck over yourselves, guys:

Thousands of British Broadcasting Corp. journalists and technicians staged a 24-hour strike over proposed job cuts Monday, severely disrupting radio and TV programs.

The stoppage, one of the biggest in the BBC's recent history, prevented flagship morning news program "Today" from broadcasting on Radio 4. The show was replaced by prerecorded programs with only brief news bulletins.

...

"The savage cuts proposed will damage programming as well as the organization and will unravel British broadcasting traditions," said Mike Smallwood, national officer of the Amicus union.

"The BBC is a unifying British institution which acts as the nation's conscience, but these redundancies will damage the U.K. at its core."

They think they all dat, but they ain'.

You know who's a unifying institution which acts as the nation's conscience?

Me.

That's who.

Thanks to Irwin.

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.