After first publishing an article stating that conservatives were busy little bees promoting Ed Klein's anti-Hillary book -- despite the fact that, you know, we weren't, and even super-liberal hack Joe Conason noticed this (approvingly) -- the Times writes a follow-up story which partly corrects the original without acknowledging the original story was in error.

Now the Times tells us that the Klein book has "unexpected" critics, like Bill O'Reilly, Peggy Noonan, and the New York Post's John Podhoertz.

That this criticism is deemed "unexpected" says volumes about the Times. Apparently the Times is surprised that conservatives don't uncritically accept any anti-Clinton smear that floats by our collective transoms. Shockingly enough, we seem to discriminate between attacks on the Clintons which are plausible and supported by evidence and those which are implausible and supported only by annonymous single-sourcing.

It also says that the New York Times still doesn't bother reading what conservatives write. Had the author of the original piece read any conservative blogs, he would have seen what Joe Conason did, that reaction to the Drudge-hyped rape smear was almost uniformly negative among conservatives.

The Times spent a lot of ink trying to "understand" actual enemies of America and "why they hate us." Perhaps they can devote a tiny fraction of those reportial resources to the fringe extremists they call "conservatives" (better known as 43% of the American voting public), and perhaps form a fuller understanding of our strange mindsets and historical grievances.

Perhaps by treating us as full-fledged enemies of America -- explicitly; they already seem to treat us so implicitly -- their coverage of conservatives will become a bit more fair and accurate.

Posted by: Ace at 07:21 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Stunning:

A BBC interviewee, Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, put it thusly:

The war in Iraq has minimized the threat to Europe because everyone who's Jihad-inclined wants to go fight over there. So even though some of theseÂ… the guys suspected of involvement in the train bombings have reportedly gone over to lodge themselves in Iraq. So there are these radicals sort of coming out of Europe and actually going to a different theater altogether.

The whole thing is worth reading. The left jeers at the "flypaper" theory, but the fact is, the world's terrorists are flocking to Iraq -- rather than Israel, Bali, or Los Angeles -- because they understand, better than the left does, how crucially important Iraq is to their cause. If Iraq "falls" -- that is, if Iraq succeeds in becoming a peaceful, democratic pluralist semi-secularist decent regime -- the jihadist cause suffers a powerful defeat.

As a side benefit, of course, these rotten bastards are going up against well-trained and well-equipped soldiers and Marines rather than 103-lb. flight attendants. Which is not their forte.

Okay, it's official: You're now reading the NickS. HQ blog.

Posted by: Ace at 12:51 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

He's a bit skeptical about Live 8:

He says, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but are they hoping that one of these guys from the G8 is on a quick 15 minute break at Gleneagles (in Scotland) and sees ANNIE LENNOX singing SWEET DREAMS and thinks, 'F**k me, she might have a point there, you know?'

"KEANE doing SOMEWHERE ONLY WE KNOW and some Japanese businessman going, 'Aw, look at him... we should really f**king drop that debt, you know.'

"It's not going to happen, is it?"

What a prick. But sometimes you need a prick to pop a balloon of fantasy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

Only Tony Blankley seems to like it. Chances are, he's a friend of Klein's. Hey-- people say nice things about books written by people they know.

John From Wuzzadem has a real scoop on his hands-- the cover to Klein's follow-up, this one all about crazy flag-burnin' Hillary!

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm just glad Darth Vader wasn't around to stop him from killing Oprah.

Thanks to LauraW.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I forgot to H/t Slublog earlier, so I'll try to make amends by linking his agreement with Jerry Nadler on the flag-burning amendment.

This is an emotional issue. Certainly I'm sympathetic to those who serve in the military, and who feel the flag is something very close to being secular-sacred.

But...

As much as I hate the attention-starved trust-fund rebels who burn the flag because Mommy didn't breastfeed them, I do in fact like the fact they have the right to burn the flag.

The very fact that they are allowed to burn the flag contradicts and refutes the central point (such as it is) they're trying to make by burning the flag.

So, we live in a fascist country? Is that right? And you're burning the flag to demonstrate that sad fact?

Odd, isn't it, that the fascist bulls didn't come to collect you, your friends, and your family up for political "re-education" when you set match to cloth.

Everybody has the right to be wrong. Everybody has the right to be an asshole. The right should jealousy guard these rights, because the minority-but-very-influential PC Vanguard would love to strip away our rights to be wrong, or to just be what they consider assholes.

Slippery slope arguments are usually dumb, but I don't like establishing the precedent that some forms of speech are so outrageous that they can be punished by jail time or big fines. This week, a Republican controlled House passes an anti-flag-burning amendment.

Four years from now, a Democratic-controlled House passes a bill outlawing FoxNews, and stripping away my right to call Keith Olbermann a self-satisfied unfunny retard-twat.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Forbes does some back-of-the-envelope scratchwork to figure out exactly how expensive it would be to lead the Batman lifestyle.

Sort of. They're not calculating how much it would cost to be the actual Batman-- his armor alone, the film tells us, costs $300,000 a pop -- but to be a kinda-sorta almost wannabe. You're not going to buy the real $300,000 Bat-armor, but Forbes suggests...

Real-world superhero wanna-bes will have to go with a much more prosaic solution. We recommend a lightweight ProMAX OTV bulletproof jacket, which will cover your arms and torso for only $1,085. A decent Kevlar helmet will run about $500.

Of course, if you don't want to lug around all that stuff, you could forgo the armor and just buy yourself a collectors-grade Batman movie costume for about $430. It won't provide any protection, but at least you'll look cool.

Sounds sorta possible! I can do this, I'm thinking right now.

Okay, even something resembling the Batmobile will run you $200,000. So maybe that's out-- for now. It may not be cool, but I guess I'll have to take the subways.

No problem. There are a lot of evil-doers on the subways. Anyone who asks me to donate to "The United Negro Pizza Fund" is going to have to get some rough Ace of Spades justice. You can't just use that kind of hack line, even if you're a panhandler.

Update your act, guys.

Thanks to Dave from Garfield-Ridge, who casts some degree of doubt on Tina Brown's theory that conservatives are obsessed by Hillary! due to suspicions of "hot girl-on-girl action" in her past.

Dave's not very polite about dismissing this theory. Let's just say his central point is that Hillary! isn't quite Asia Carrera, and no one (except for maybe Al Franken) is fantasizing about a tryst between Hillary! and, say, Madeleine Albright.

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

A somewhat-surprising editorial, a little less surprising because 1) the Washington Post is quite liberal, but not completely in the bag for the Democrats like the New York Times is, and 2) this is the ultimate goo-goo (good-government) issue, and they (again unlike the New York Times) actually elevate their goo-goo-ism over partisan politics.

THE DEMOCRATS are positively giddy over their success in foiling President Bush's Social Security plan. As a political matter, perhaps they have reason to cheer: Polls show Americans dubious about his proposed changes, and the president appears suddenly open to solutions that do not include his signature personal accounts.

...But after the confetti settles, Democrats need to ask themselves: Now what? Having beaten back private accounts, as it appears they have, is it enough to keep sticking their fingers in their ears while saying "no"?

...

The only Democratic proposal on the table, from Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, is a lopsided measure that would address Social Security solvency solely by raising taxes. Responsible proposals from Democratic economists that would blend benefit cuts and tax increases have gotten nowhere with Democratic lawmakers.

Mr. Bush, by contrast, has deviated from no-new-taxes orthodoxy to the extent of signaling a willingness to increase the payroll tax ceiling. And he took the political risk -- a risk Democrats gleefully exploited -- of endorsing a progressive indexing proposal with benefit cuts. That's a route that, in a less partisan climate, many Democrats would have endorsed, at least in part, because it protects the poor. It's also the route Mr. Bennett wants to go, along with indexing benefits to growing life expectancy, but the flaw in his plan is the mirror image of the problem with the Wexler proposal: He wants to solve the problem entirely by cutting benefits.

No doubt Democrats' political instincts will be against engaging at this point: Why bail out Mr. Bush now, the strategists will argue, and let him claim that he led the way to putting Social Security on the path to solvency? Why endorse spinach when it's so much more fun -- and politically useful -- to point out the spinach in the other side's plan? ...

But there is also the little matter of what's right for the country. Failing to act now will make the problem harder to fix down the road; cuts or tax increases will have to be steeper the longer the problem goes unaddressed.

Full editorial here, though the rest of it is Republican bashing. It's a pox on both houses sort of piece, which is still nice to get from the likes of the Washington Post editorial board.

And it's terrific that it seems some influential voices in the MSM actually will attempt to press the Democrats on their (thusfar nonexistant) plan for Social Security.

Because honestly-- whoever gets the credit, the system has to be fixed.

Via The New Editor.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.

Obviously these people aren't busy enough:

An EU directive that could force bosses to make daily risk assessments about the strength of the sun is being debated this week in the European Parliament.

If it is passed, all employers with staff working outdoors would need to look every day at the levels of radiation to which their employees could be exposed and devise an action plan to minimise health risks.

The directive, which applies to all forms of optical radiation, is designed to control workers' exposure to ultraviolet light, visible and infrared radiation, and lasers. The Forum of Private Business said yesterday that the proposed directive was 'unworkable and absurd,' especially for smaller employers.

I guess it was only a matter of time before the EU smarties got around to addressing "the Big Yellow Murderer In the Sky."

Is it just me, or have people worked outside for, oh, let's say around 100,000 years (depending on when actual "people" evolved) while managing to protect themselves, more or less, by using a little prudence?

Next on the agenda: The precise specifications for EU-approved Big Floppy Wide-Brimmed Hats To Keep The Sun Off Your Face And Shoulders. The brim should be no shorter than 20cm and no longer than 30cm, because with brims longer than 30cm, you run the risk of the wind blowing the hat off your head and sending it flying like a big shuriken made of straw.

And the EU can't have that.

What would be fun is to have a small committee of EU bureaucrats making these sorts of annoying rules for other EU bureaucrats only. That would learn 'em the fundamental idiocy of their never-ending quest to get up everyone's nostrils and piss the living bejesus out of them.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Whoops:

The number of Americans seeking new claims for jobless benefits fell by a larger-than-expected 20,000 last week to the lowest level in two months, the government said Thursday.

...

The drop exceeded Wall Street forecasts for a dip to 330,000 from the original reading of 333,000 in the week ended June 11. The decline brought the claims to their lowest level since 299,000 in week ended April 16.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors behind the drop.

That last bit is notable, as there are frequently techinical (i.e., illusory) reasons for sudden spikes or drops in the jobless rate, and apparently they're not applicable here.

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.