Damn, this would have been a great point to make during today's show.

I wish Karol would start showing up for f'n' rehearsals from time to time.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, so he hates the 52.5% of the public that voted Republican last election. Not too smart; he's going to need at least 3% of those Republicans he "hates" to win an election.

More asinine by far is his contemptuous dismissal of white Christians. White Christians make up 66% of the country (and a plurality in the Democratic party as well), so it's probably not a good idea to kiss them off.

PS, Howard Dean is a white Christian. Moron.

It's not just that Howard Dean's comments are counter-productive. He's an egotistical and angry and arrogant and stupid son of a bitch, always a bad combination, and that turns people off.

But this jackass is addicted to the spotlight more than John McCain. Say what you want about McCain, but McCain is actually involved in substantive policy-making. Howard Dean grabs the camera almost as much as McCain, but unlike McCain, he offers no legislative proposals, only venom and spleen.

As has been repeatedly noted, there's only so much media oxygen in the national room. This jackass is taking up an awful lot of it, and taking away that oxygen from those who might wish to run for president in 2008 as well as those who are simply trying to be good (as liberals define it) legislators and policy-makers and hence define the Democratic Party as idea-driven and results-driven.

Will Dean's Don Rickles act play? I doubt it. The man has proven his ability to positively electrify the American public... or at least 13% or so it. If he's so f'n' smart, one would think he's capable or realizing 13% is less than 51%. (Remember, Dr. Dean, the alligator goes after the bigger number, 'cuzzin' it's hungry.)

A few weeks ago I spoke to a very liberal girl at a very liberal bar in NYC. (Well, it was a NYU student/local gay bar, so that's pretty liberal. Hey-- they had cheap beer.) She was praising Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech at the RNC in 2004, and how that speech made her almost think she was a Republican after all. That speech emphasized the broad goals of the Republican Party-- its positive agenda.

Dean seems incapable of announcing such an agenda, contenting himself to deliver nasty red meat to true believers (half of whom are voting for Nader anyhow!).

If Dean is smart, he'll start emulating Arnold Schwarzenegger more than Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Yeah, it's kind of funny to say that George Bush is a great president -- for me to poop on! -- but I just don't see any stone-cold conservatives sitting outside a bar smoking cigarettes and talking about how persuasive such a speech might be.

The man is an idiot, and a disaster for the party. I'm quite happy about that. The Democrats are hedged in by what they can actually offer their constituents -- they have their hands on fewer and fewer of the levers of power -- and it's only natural to give the faithful what they want, i.e., bile and hatred.

But you've got to reach some of those who voted against you last time, too, unless you're satisfied with garnering 46-48% of the vote every two years.

I can live with that. Can the Democrats?

And do they mind that Howard Dean seems perfectly content with keeping that 46-48%, so long as he's admired as a hero by a large fraction of that minority?

Posted by: Ace at 03:17 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 579 words, total size 3 kb.

It's fun to take off a few days from blogging -- and news of all kind -- but man, does it leave one out of the loop and scrambling to catch up for a radio show.

So, I guess I'm caught up now and back to blogging.

I'd like to thank all the guest bloggers who made my playing hooky possible. Although, hey, if you still feel like posting through the night, knock yourself out.

Thanks especially to Jen for tipping me to the fact that Batman Begins starts playing tonight at 12:00 midnight. I'm going to see it. Unless I'm too exhausted, you'll have a review by 3:00 am or so.

My expectations are sky-high and I'm not going to lower them. There's not a damn thing I've seen I don't like. (Well, except for the insistence on making Batman fly like Superman or Iron Man, but I'll just pretend that doesn't happen.) So a positive review means that the movie matches very high expectations.

Posted by: Ace at 01:38 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

At Rightalk.com, look for "Now Playing-- Channel One" at 4 Eastern.

Our guest today will be Jay Nordlinger of NRO, who writes the popular "Impromptus" column.

We'll be trying something new today... or maybe not. For the last fifteen minutes, Karol and I will attempt to take off the training wheels and carry the show without a guest, just riffing on important stories of the week/day and, I hope, taking phone calls. (Please call with something interesting to say.)

The number is 866-884-TALK. That's toll-free, you cheapskates.

We'll almost certainly be taking three calls (or more) today. So do try to call in. Let our producers know what you want to ask/rant about so we have an idea what's coming when you get on the line.

Maybe not? I'm not sure I want to try this week, so I have feelers out to a special guest who may or may not grace us in the last fifteen minutes of the show. We shall see.

Posted by: Ace at 09:26 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Her blog turns one year old.

Michelle is one of my favorite bloggers, of course, not just because she fills her blog with substantive and important postings, but because she's the closest thing to a celebrity fake-friend I have. Whenever people ask me what the hell my blog is, I'll explain (they're baffled), and then add, "Well, you know, FoxNews contributor and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin links me a lot."

People who don't know what blogs are tend not to know who the hell Michelle Malkin is either, but they seem semi-impressed by the name-drop.

Anyway, it's great that she's fighting the good fight and keeping at blogging.

Posted by: Ace at 09:18 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

This here New York Times op-ed is garnering notice today for its insightful discussion and illuminating wisdom on the role of madrassas in Islamic terrorism.

Oops, sorry, I got confused there for a moment-- this editorial is crap:

While madrassas may breed fundamentalists who have learned to recite the Koran in Arabic by rote, such schools do not teach the technical or linguistic skills necessary to be an effective terrorist. Indeed, there is little or no evidence that madrassas produce terrorists capable of attacking the West. And as a matter of national security, the United States doesn't need to worry about Muslim fundamentalists with whom we may disagree, but about terrorists who want to attack us.

. . .

Like the view that poverty drives terrorism - a notion that countless studies have debunked - the idea that madrassas are incubating the next generation of terrorists offers the soothing illusion that desperate, ignorant automatons are attacking us rather than college graduates, as is often the case. In fact, two of the terrorists in our study had doctorates from Western universities, and two others were working toward their Ph.D.

Hmmm. . . because the 9/11 terrorists were somewhat educated, we shouldn't worry about any schools teaching stupid terrorists?

Anyone know how long madrassas have been in business? I've always understood them to be a relatively recent phenomenon (last 15-20 years), thus terrorists above a certain age by definition would never have been exposed to a madrassa education.

Even so, simply because the current generation of terrorist leaders never passed through a madrassa is meaningless to the *next* generation of terrorists that receive their years of education in hatred. Regardless of whether madrassa students go on to become a terrorist or a teamster, how can there be any good in rote learning that Jews are dogs, women are chattel, and Americans the great Satan?

Excuse me, but I'd rather have our enemy illiterate and friendly than angry with a 6th-grade education in evil.

But you see, the authors argue that madrassas don't teach skills directly applicable to skills like bombmaking and head-hacking. Gee, since you guys didn't learn how to build an IED in shop class, well then, you get a pass.

Of course, the madrassa's steady diet of hate merely motivates the students to later take Terrorism 201 at the Jihadi Technical Institute, where they can go on to earn their degree in Hawala accounting, gun repair, or scalp(ing) care. Or, even if the madrassa graduate never signs up for a terrorist cell, they're less likely to see any problems with the neighbors doing so. You're fashioning an enabling culture of hate.

Not all of our enemies in this war will be an educated mastermind like Mohammed Atta or Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. There are and will continue to be foot soldiers. And some of them-- perhaps many of them-- will receive their education and training in madrassas that teach hatred. Not necessarily how to fight, but they will definitely teach them why they fight.

Yet, the authors of this editorial would have us believe that we need only worry about the Hitlers and Himmlers, and that it is the height of folly to worry about the Hitler Youth. C'mon, all the real Nazis attended university during the Second Reich, or in the years of Weimar, so why worry about Nazi schools?

Inescapable logic, that.

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

I only caught a few minutes of the Jackson jurors' press conference yesterday:

Juror #11
I just can't understand what's wrong with that mother. What kind of parent would let their kids sleep with a child molester? She should be charged with child endangerment.

Juror #5
You know, I was on her side, then she got all bitchy and started copping a 'tude on the stand, and I was all, "You can kiss your guilty verdict goodbye, lady."

Juror #7
Exactly! You know, she was looking right at me while she was talking. It's like, "Excuse me - have we been introduced?"

Juror #9
I just didn't like that DA. What's his name, Sneedon?

Juror #11
Sneddon.

Juror #9
Right, Sneddon. The very first day of the trial he was standing right there in the courtroom talking about sex. And not just regular sex, mind you, he was talking about people having sex with little boys! It was disgusting. I just started tuning him out.

Juror #4
Yeah, and he was all old and wrinkly. He looks like that Hans Moleman dude from The Simpsons. He creeped me out. I mean, you know, Sneddon, not Hans Moleman.

Reporter
Were all of you completely convinced from the beginning that Jackson was innocent?

Juror #6
No, I think he might have done it, but I think that kid's mother was lying, and I was raised to believe that you don't reward people for doing the wrong thing.

I had to change the channel at this point.

[Posted by John from WuzzaDem.com]

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

1. Script Review for X-Men 3 at AICN is loaded with spoilers and juicy morsels. That was the good news. The bad news... I think it is going to suck hind teet. You have to scroll down a ways to get to the X-Men stuff.

Spoilers after the jump...sorry about before more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:35 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Runors in and around Hollywood say Tom Cruise's roving eye could have him reaching out for embryonic company while away from his stated love, Katie Holmes. Both Cruise and Holmes dispute the veracity of "such trash." Most believe anything earlier than a second-trimester relationship "absurd."

Los Angeles—Radiating in the rapturous glow of new love, actress Katie Holmes told interviewers this week that she has “absolutely no worries” about existing in the third trimester of existence.

Some have intimated that the comparatively older boyfriend, Tom Cruise, could become restless yet again, and seek the company of a younger woman.

“You just can’t listen to the tabloids,” she said. "They’re constantly digging through your garbage, and placing you in situations you were never in. Believe it or not, they’ve got Tom over there in Europe looking at ultrasound data right now. He’s doing business, people. Get a life!”

Holmes continued to answer question regarding her reported conversion to Scientology—the fervent belief system to which Cruise has been an adherent for many years.

“I like it,” she said.” Especially when I get to look at gametes under the microscope. In fact, that’s what he’s doing over there in Europe, meeting with some friend of his named, I think Duvall Helix, or something like that.”

Holme's youthful confidence is glaringly apparent.

"It's like he knew me before I even knew who he was," she said. "But Tom still; had to look past the petrie dish and see me for who I really am. And that's why I love him so much."

[Cross-posted at The Therapist]

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Shepard Smith
Welcome to Fox News, Shepard Smith here with you in Studio B, and today, my friends, is the day. After three and one-half months of testimony and more than thirty hours of deliberation, the jurors in the Michael Jackson case have reached a verdict. Any moment now, the court clerk will inform Jackson, and indeed the world, of his fate.

Joining me here in the studio is Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. Judge, what is your prediction? Jackson is facing ten counts - guilty or not guilty?

Andrew Napolitano
Shep, you never know how these things are going to turn out, but if I had to make a prediction I would say there's a good chance that we're going to see multiple guilty verdicts, possibly some not guilty verdicts, or vice versa. It could go either way...Unless we see guilty or not guilty verdicts across the board...Hard to say.

Shepard Smith
Let's bring in Fox News legal correspondent Stan Goldman - Stan, you've spent many a day in the courtroom during this trial, you've seen the expressions on the faces of these jurors...

Andrew Napolitano
Shep, I hate to interrupt, but I want to correct something I said earlier in the show.

Shepard Smith
What is it judge?

Andrew Napolitano
Well, I said earlier that I thought there might be multiple guilty verdicts and maybe some not guilty verdicts. I meant to say that the other way around.

Stan Goldman
Yes, but you did throw in that "vice-versa" at the end, so I think you're covered there.

Andrew Napolitano
The salient point here is that we really don't know. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 1120 words, total size 7 kb.