Army recruiting over 100% of goals in June.

Charlie Rangel will have to talk about something else for the next month. Might I suggest he talk about Dancing With the Stars? It's just awesome to see people who we pretend are celebrities, get this, ballroom dancing on television, and I really think ABC should pick this up as a full series.

Please, Charlie-- use your megaphone to achieve a real and lasting good.

Thanks to Slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 07:41 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Says so right there in the preamble of the resolution for war they voted for.

This is outrageous. We all know Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. How can they use this sacred and horrific part of our history for political purposes?

I demand an investigation into articles of impeachment for all Democratic Congressmen who voted for this lie. And I don't care that you can't impeach a Congressmen. I want articles drawn up anyway. The Constitution is, after all, a "living document," which playful little minx of a charter that sexifully changes to adapt to modern needs.

How dare they sell us this war on a lie.

This is going to make the Downing Street Memos look like, well... the Downing Street Memos, I guess.

Thanks to Lorie.

Update: Powerline notices, too.

This was mentioned on Brit Hume's report yesterday, and I doubt anywhere else in the big media.

And Steven Hayes Too: In the Weekly Standard:

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.

But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or "fictive" links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the "myth" of such links. "Sixty Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: "There was no connection."

Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.

Posted by: Ace at 07:37 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

...half-baked bullshit gets called fast.

I guess that "we will fact-check your ass" applies to idiots like me, too.

Damnit.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the thing. Well, two things.

Kelly Preston is f'n' hot. Not just hot, but cute-hot, the best kind of hot.

Tom Cruise (and John Travolta, etc.) really believe in this newish sci-fi based religion of theirs.

So.

Yes, it's all sort of weird. And yes, weirdness makes for good humor. But... I just see a lot of people taking shots at Scientology. Is it a goofy and strange religion? Yes, but to outsiders, most religions are goofy and strange, aren't they? There are few religions that don't have some "Oh, you can't be possibly be serious" aspects to them.

Noah's Ark, anyone?

Christians and devout Jews get knocked around a lot for their beliefs. I'm just not sure it's proper for people of faith -- and faithless people who sympathize with people of fatih, like me -- to do too much bashing of a religion, even if, and let's be honest, the religion in question is goofier than most.

I'm not nearly the fan of Tom Cruise that, say, Rosie O'Donnell, um, is. But the guy has some strong beliefs; he's pretty honest about them; the rest of the world thinks he's a kook, and isn't shy about saying so.

I know a lot of religious people resent being thought of as "kooks" just because they believe in some implausible stuff.

Anyway, parodies like this and
snarks like this are fun and all, but I just wonder if we shouldn't give Scientologists a bit of a break.

Let's say one thing: They really aren't hurting anyone. No one has ever, to my knowledge, killed or bombed in the name of L. Ron Hubbard.

The anti-psychiatry and anti-psychiatric-medication thing? Sort of a useful critique, if obviously extremist. (Tom, I need klonopin, and I assure you that vitamins will not cure me of chronic panic attacks... I've tried that.) But still-- essentially a harmless religion.

I guess part of the reason this bothers me is that the politically-correct liberal establishment has deemed it proper and safe to bash believing Christians, which is annoying and smugly superior and hostile to people of faith.

Scientologists seem to have been similarly deemed by almost everyone to be fair targets for derision.

I just don't like that sort of herd-mentality. It's a bit too fourth-grade, where kids figure out whom the fourth-grade collective has deemed it proper to pick on and bully.

And Yes... I know it's really, really weird. I strongly suspect L. Ron Hubbard created it as a very large (and amazingly successful) ironic point about religion, a grand practical joke to demonstrate that any set of somewhat-irrational and implausible premises, combined with a bit of psychic reassurance about one's place in the cosmos, could become a "religion."

And he did it with a bit Lovecraftian flair. Lovecraft introduced (or popularized, I guess) the odd twentieth-century cosmos and science-fiction tropes into the horror genre, with Fungi from Yuggoth (better known as Pluto) taking the place of werewolves and such. And it was weird at first -- shouldn't something supernatural be, well, ancient and having to do with castles and scrolls and such rather than interdimensional space-mead? -- and Hubbard similarly introduced "cutting edge" techonogy (well, cutting edge nineteen fiftees technology, like a modified polygraph called an "e-meter") and sci-fi tropes into his invented religion.

Very odd. I'll give you that. "Thetans" and such-- weird stuff. Weirder than ghosts and angels, because at least we're accustomed (even if irreligious) to the idea of ghosts and agnels.

But still. Whether it was a scam or collosal joke at first, it's a genuine religion now, it seems, at least to its believers. Maybe we ought to be more forgiving of daffy, though harmless, beliefs.

I Sit Corrected: Apparently it's not true they're not harming anyone.

Thanks to Master of None.

And Allah reminds me of the nasty attempts to silence critics of Scientology.

There may be some, um, light brainwashing going on.

I guess I'm now not really sure of my point. Except perhaps to say that even if one believes this "church" is corrupt and a gigantic scam, the church itself should be the object of derision, not its (assumedly duped) adherents.

Okay... A bit off-the-cuff, I guess. Hey, it happens. I shot my mouth off a little too quickly, forgetting the stuff I'd previously heard about and not bothering to do a google search.

But Tom Cruise and John Travolta seem, to me, to be basically good people. They don't seem to get into trouble.

And, let me repeat something we can all agree on: Kelly Preston is f'n' hhhhot.

If they're dupes, they're dupes, and therefore innocent. I assume they're not part of the conspiracy, at least not in a conscious way.

How Many Ways Can I Say "I Erred"?: Yes, cult, and not harmless.

Kind of off the subject but... Mormonism is still considered a cult by many as well. And-- I just think this is interesting -- it seems to include science-fiction tropes too. Retro-sci-fi, you understand; the "sci-fi" of the 1870's or whenever. Kind of Ambrose Bierce-ish retro sci-fi.

Although I've got to say I know nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (kid's voice: The Mormons!) except what I know from that vicious South Park episode.

It Gets Worse And Worse: Lots of interesting, and alarming, stuff in the comments.

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.

When it comes to the current fashion in childish leftist political name-calling, serial killers are the new black.

Coming Soon: Andy Rooney asks, "Didja ever notice Dick Cheney reminds you of Richard Speck? I mean, without the silicone-implant man-titties. But still, I'm sure he's slashed a few nursing students in his day. It's just that 'vibe' I get."

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

This faux-intellectual preening ponce calls himself a "uniter." The implication is that Hillary! is a divider.

That implication is true. But the only thing Joe Biden can unite us on is that he is a smug self-deluded prick who wears dandyish white collars on his striped shirts.

I don't know if he wears spats, but I know damn well he'd like to.

Joe "Spats" Biden For President

Isn't it time to vote for someone who has no chance of ever being president? Seriously. Just for shits and giggles.

Posted by: Ace at 10:33 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

A few weeks ago he got into a little spat with James Taranto about his "quotes" being taken "out of context" to demonstrate inconsistency.

Well, Taranto caught him making Rove-like comments about liberals (umm, I did first, but Sullivan won't acknowledge me), and Excitable Andy is still not responding.

When someone has the goods on you, I guess, it's best to ignore it.

How about forcing Andy to confront the quotes? It's a petty victory, but a fun one. He reads The Corner, so why doesn't someone from The Corner highlight his ludicrous inconsistency on this issue?

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

With photos and everything!

Eh. Not too surprising coming from Iran.

Or even Europe, actually. Germany's Joschka Fischer helped out members of the terrorist Baader-Meinhof gang.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

As usual. It's usually better than first estimated; it's been much better than first estimated most of the past twenty quarters (or something; I'm not big on "math").

And yet the MSM keeps fretting over the lower initial figures and never really gives prominent mention to the higher official figures.

The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, marked an improvement from the 3.5 percent annual rate estimated for the quarter just a month ago and matched the showing registered in the final quarter of 2004.

GDP, the broadest gauge of the economy's health, measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Stronger spending on housing projects, more investment by business in equipment and software, and a trade deficit that was less of a drag on economic growth all played a role in the higher first quarter GDP estimate.

The first-quarter's showing was slightly better than the 3.7 percent growth rate that economists were forecasting before the report was released.

"It was a solid quarter, particularly in the face of high and rising energy prices," said Mark Zandi, chief analyst at Economy.com. "It illustrates the resilience of the economy and the durability of the current economic expansion."

Oh, and job-creation numbers are always initially low-ball, too. Doesn't stop the MSM from seizing on those first numbers, though, while always studiously avoiding the upward revisions that come later:

Although economic activity is solid, job creation is choppy. Employers boosted payrolls by just 78,000 after a hiring spurt of 274,000 in April. May's job gain was the weakest in almost two years. Economists offered various reasons for May's slower job growth, including the toll of high energy prices.

They'll be adjusted up to 150,000+. But then we'll have no economists offering reasons for the "brisker than originally reported job growth." It will be buried, as usual.

Thanks to the FatKid.

Because You Demanded It... Kim Richards cheesecake-cowbell after the jump.

For the Ladies Update: Just added some beefcake to the post, for those who want a pic of a sexy man to go along with Kim Richards. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:50 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

Okay, so, the other day Rick Santorum made some controversial remarks blaming the priest pedophilia scandal on the general libertine nature of our culture, and thought it no suprise that the locus of the American side of the scandal was in Boston, a capital for liberal thought.

A bit over-the-top, a bit Limbaugh-when-he's-trying-to-fill-time-ish, but whatever. Argue against him and all that if you like.

But how does one get from that statement -- which, admittedly, might be criticized for being somewhat irresponsible and kneejerkedly partisan -- to claiming Santorum is blaming the Jews?

Well, you have to check out the Huffington Post for answers.

Oh, wait, no you don't; I can just post the salient bits here.

Rick Santorum believes that the scandal of child molestation by priests isn't actually the priests' fault, but the culture's. And when he talks about "the culture," it sure sounds like he's blaming the Jews.

In his article for the website Catholic Online, Santorum writes:

"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

So priests aren't really responsible for their own aberrant behavior; they're victims too.

But look more closely at the environment Santorum is blaming: liberals, the media, and academics. Hmm. Starts to sound like code for something else, doesn't it?

...

So we return to the media and the non-Catholic universities, both chock full of the people ostensibly behind all this moral relativity: Jews. Because I'm sure it's not all those other churchgoing types that Santorum blames for Boston's "sick" culture.

What Santorum is really saying then—using all-too-familiar code words— is that the Catholic Church child molestation scandal is really the Jews' fault.

Uhhhh, okay.

Liberals should keep this sort of irresponsibility in mind the next time they complain about Rove making the quite-defensible statement that liberals' commitment to the war on terror (not the "response" to terror) was tepid and half-hearted at best.

Was Santorum wrong to blame the priest scandal on "the culture"? Well, maybe, a bit; conservatives are pretty keen on blaming the actual perpetrators of crimes rather than "society" or "culture," and the deviation from that basic belief does seem a bit politically convenient.

But to read into that an indictment of the Jews? Give me a break.

There's an awful lot of monkey-see, monkey-do on the left. We say the media is biased to the left; they begin claiming it's biased to the right.

We criticize Durbin for his plainly anti-military rhetoric; they decide that Karl Rove's remarks about liberals not being quite enthusiastic about terror deserves equal condemnation.

And now-- we point out that the "progressive" left is now infected with an awful lot of nasty anti-semitism; they have to respond by finding some Super Secret Double-Plus-Good Encrypted anti-semitic "code words" in Santorum's remarks.

PS, there really aren't too many Jews in Boston. Of course there are plenty, but it's just not the case that Boston has that strong Jewish influence to its city culture that, say, New York so plainly does.

No one ever said they were happy to be in Boston so they could finally get a good bagel with lox. No one.

Thanks to the Mighty Allah, who calls you all to jihad through biting photoshopping.

Posted by: Ace at 09:43 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 627 words, total size 4 kb.