Anyone can "fisk" an annoying biased article written by a diehard leftist.

But what about fisking a perfectly-unobjectionable story about an utterly-benign archeological find?

This is a blog first, people. I'm a real innovator.

F'n yawn:

Tehran, July 6, 2005, (CHN) -- All historians and experts in Iran, believe that the Persian Cuneiform was invented during Darius reign.

Oh, eat me.

It is widely believed that the invention of this script was due to the order of Darius the great, the third king in line from the beginning of the Dynasty. Most of Achaemenid historical texts support the same hypothesis as well but just recently, Dr. Badr-ol-zaman Gharib, delivering her speech, titled Emergence and Changes in Ancient Persian Script in a forum on Achaemanid tablets, claimed that the Persian cuneiform predates Darius.

Dr. Ghraib, huh? Sounds like a nasty little whore to me.

She said, “I believe that this script predates Darius and improved in his reign. Persian cuneiform consists of 36 signs for three vowels and syllables which are consisted of a single consonant and a vowel, 8 ideograms for 4 concepts regarding king, land, country, and Ahoora Mazda (the great god of ancient Persians), 1 divider (a diagonal wedged-shape sign to separate words), and 22 figures for numbers. All of these items and especially the divider and the construction of syllable script prove that this script was much more ancient.”

Fuck you, you saucy trollop.

Whoooooooooore.

She also indicated...

Indicate this.

...“On the other hand, the ancient Persian cuneiform led to decoding other cuneiforms namely Elamite and Assyrian ones, therefore is especially important."

Important to you, maybe, Dr. Ghraib. Or should I say-- Dr. Strumpetstockings.

"This script because of the word separator and having fewer alphabets was deciphered earlier than the other scripts and as it was frequently inscribed along with the same text in three other languages and therefore scripts, it helped decoding other cuneiforms as well.”

Blow me. And then pull my finger. Stupid whore bitch.

Archaeology and linguistics contributed a lot to the decipherment of this script. When archaeologists proved that the inscriptions belong to Achaemenid era, linguists took Avestan and Sanskrit grammar for a model to decipher the code and actually they were not wrong as these languages are really similar linguistically.

Like they say: You don't pay whores for sex. You pay them to shut up and leave.

Leave, you dirty bit of rancid gutter-meat.

She concluded that, “If it wasn’t for the word separator, its decoding would be impossible.”

You know what else is impossible? Hating you any more than I do right now. You smart-ass little lab-coated crunge-monkey.

....

Hmmmm... I don't know. I don't know if that was technically "fisking" or just calling someone a "whore" repeatedly.

Eh. Close enough.

Posted by: Ace at 07:03 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

By George Galloway, George Soros, Michael Moore, Scott Ritter, and the entire Managing Board of the BBC. All Rights Reserved.

INT. M'S OFFICE -- DAY

An intercom buzzes, and JAMES BOND ENTERS through the rich leather-padded door.

M
Good morning, 007.

BOND
Good morning, ma'am.

M
I'm quite sure I don't need to brief you on the day's events.

BOND
I got my fill on the radio over from my flat. Dreadful business.

M
Indeed. The Empire has been attacked. We need your... singular talents.
(snaps a button; a picture slides up revealing a COMPUTER MONITOR, upon which is displayed SURVEILLANCE SNAPSHOTS of Al Qaeda terrorists)
They call themselves "The Secret Al Qaeda Organization of Europe." They are dedicated to killing as many British civilians as possible. Tanner has been liasing with MI-5; he can provide you with a full breifing.
(beat)
I want you to find them, 007. I want you to pick up their scent, hunt them down, infiltrate them.... Your mission, 007, is to find out--

BOND
If SPECTRE's behind them?

M
-- "Why do they hate us?"

BOND
(blinks silently)
What?

M
It's of the most vital urgency that we understand why they hate us.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:32 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 1552 words, total size 9 kb.

Okay, didn't post it earlier today, with that "fantasy threat" (according to the BBC) unfolding in London, but I suppose you've heard:

Rehnquist is planning on announcing his retirement. He may have intended to do so today, but delayed due to the "fictitious war" of terrorists against the civilized.

Unbelievably, now comes rumors that Rehnquist and that liberal alte kacher Stevens are both announcing their retirements tomorrow.

If true, this adds some strange geometries to the nomination process.

One conservative, one arch-liberal, one woman who just could never seem to be able to actually, you know, judge a case -- does Bush take two and give back one, or nominate a liberal, a conservative, and a moderate, or -- crikey! -- go for the brass ring and try for three conservatives?

Thanks to Allah.

Suggestion: Gonzalez for O'Connor. The first Hispanic justice. Whoop-de-doo. I don't think this is going to get us any Hispanic votes, and, more importantly, I don't think Hispanics think this will get us Hispanic votes.

But Bush seems very keen on him. They're "friends."

(One thing that does in fact make me question Bush's intellect is his childish faith in his "friends." For God's sake. I gave up on believing so absolutely in "friends" after high school when I discovered that "Best Friends Forever" meant no such thing in practice. Imagine my chagrin when I discovered people were "just being nice" with all that "K.I.T." stuff.)

A real conservative, like Brown or Owens, for Rehnquist. Hell, make her CJ, the first female CJ in history. Doesn't matter much. It's prestigious but the CJ gets no extra votes; it's mostly an administrative thing. (Although the CJ does get to assign who writes the opinion when voting with the majority.)

A real conservative as CJ, and a woman at that. I don't care, and neither will liberals, actually, but we'll all have to pretend we care.

And then-- to replace the archliberal crank Stevens -- appoint some libertarian.

Here's the thing-- a libertarian will be acceptable to Chuckie Schumer on the Roe issue -- the one issue liberals care about, it seems -- but will vote with us on 80% of the other issues. Except maybe on some law and order sorts of issues, but hell, we even lose Scalia a lot of time on those. (Because, you know, he actually seems to think the Constitution means what it says it means.)

I don't know if that will result in Roe v. Wade be overturned (full disclosure: as an intellectual matter I'd like to see it overturned, but as a policy and political matter I'm in no great hurry), but the court would be solidly conservative on most issues.

Even on affirmative action... because the libertarian will almost certainly not follow liberal dogma on racial quotas and preferences. Meaning we'd replace two pro-quota justices and one anti-quota justice with two anti-quota justices and one pro-quota justice.

And maybe that would appease in-your-face libertarians, and bring them closer into the political fold.

I grant you, not an ideal solution, particularly for social conservatives who put overturning Roe v. Wade as top priority.

Anyway, the politics of it are beautiful. One Hispanic, one woman, one guy who thinks you should be able to ass-rape a retarded monkey while injecting distilled cobra venom directly into your wife-slash-sister's nipple.

All the political bases covered. And Instapundit won't have to say "There's a war on" the next time the Feds raid and underground monkey sodomy-slavery ring.

And of course none of that will mean a damn thing in terms of future elections, but I'll pretend it will. Just like politicians and the media insist on doing.

Posted by: Ace at 02:23 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

There's been maybe-maybe-not stuff about this all day, but now ABCNews says Yes, they've got two bombs that never detonated and perhaps two more that were prevented from properly detonating by close proximity to other bombs exploding.

The little cogs and wires in bombs can tell an awful lot about where the maker shopped.

Posted by: Ace at 07:32 PM | Comments (7)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

But I doubt they mean a word of it.

Like most leftists, they stubbornly hew to the idea that one man's terrorist is another man's "freedom fighter" -- it just depands on your perspective.

They ignore the rather big objective criterion -- terrorists deliberately attack civilian targets. Soldiers -- even guerilla soldiers -- don't.

And freedom fighters usually fight for, you know, freedom, rather than totalitarian psychopathic medeival theofascism.

They're only using the word "terrorist" because, as they say, the public would have their guts for garters if they trotted out that "militants" shit.

Which just reinforces, to them, their own idiocy... it's only "terrorism" when it's directed against you.

But Normblog reminds the BBC of the OBJECTIVE, not subjective, evidence that these are in fact "terrorists," and not merely swarthy "freedom fighters" conjuring up romantic visions of T.E. Lawrence and Saladin.

Next week, when similar murderers blow up bombs in Iraq, Israel, Indonesia, or Indiana, they'll be "militants" or "bearded scimitar-wielding warrior-poets" again. Trust that.

Posted by: Ace at 07:18 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Let me sum up: an unnamed editor made up quotes and falsely attributed them to the writer of an op-ed.

Got that? Just f'n' made language up and put that language into the mouth of a writer, as a quote. Not to clarify; not to simply; not to correct.

She (hey, there's that use of the feminine pronoun as the neutral pronoun; fun, huh?) just made up the following, attributing it to the Army reserve officer writing the article:

Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday

And furthermore claimed he called his call-up to duty as the beginning of a "surprise tour of Iraq."

Okay? Got that? Just made it up, put those words ("imagine my suprise," "a surprise tour of Iraq") into the first-person account of the officer.

Now, for the explanation:

That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

I should say it does!

The language was added... with the intention of subsequently removing it? What? Who the hell puts fake quotes into an article with the idea that, just before the print run, they'll take them out?

Do they think we're stupid? Are they claiming the editor/editrix just wanted to see how the false quotes looked in the article, the same as she'd try on a pair of shoes she had no real intention of buying?

They inserted language intended to make the article more poignantly anti-Bush and their mistake was getting called on it by an angry writer.

Note that you can juice up the language of a piece, but you cannot falsely attribute false emotions and false thoughts to a first-person narrative. That's the same as making up quotes and putting them into the mouth of the subject of a story-- here, the "subject" is the writer himself, and his feelings, thoughts, and words are his own "quotes."

Did this New York Times editor not comprehend the difference?

At any rate, over at Traffic Non-Santa, Michael Barone emails to ask if that editor is still employed.

If so-- then we have to assume there's a good reason for that... like that this is a common Times practice.

Complicated, which is why I didn't bother with it when it first broke, but now I must say... gob-smackingly vile.

PS: Don't trust the Shadow Media. We don't have the benefit of J-school graduate editors making up our own quotes for us.

Possible Alternative Explanation: The editrix added the language as a possible addition to the piece, intending to ask the author himself to add the language, if it were close to true, in order to juice it up a bit.

But the Times doesn't want to admit to that, either. They don't want to admit that they make "helpful suggestions" to writers of first-person accounts as to how to change their real-life, actual-world experiences to make them just a touch more "fit to print."

Posted by: Ace at 05:58 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 537 words, total size 3 kb.

Volokh, today, July 7:

But why not try them, then, some people ask? Well, as to enemy soldiers who were fighting in uniform as part of a disciplined force, there's nothing to try them for: Fighting as a soldier who complies with the laws of war is not a crime. (If one weren't fighting in a war, one would surely be committing the crime of attempted murder, but being a soldier who fights according to the laws of war is actually a good defense against that charge, subject to various caveats.) They aren't being locked up to punish them for a crime; they are being locked up to prevent their engaging in lawful but deadly attacks on us.

Enemy terrorists, spies, saboteurs, and others who were fighting out of uniform, attacking civilians, or otherwise violating the law of wars could be tried for those violations, and imprisoned (perhaps for life) or executed. But we have no obligation to do so: Given that we can hold lawful enemy combatants until the end of the war (which indeed may take a long time), we can at least do the same for unlawful enemy combatants, which are in no better moral or legal position than the lawful combatants are.

Now there may sometimes be pragmatic reasons to release prisoners even before the end of the war. Prisoner exchanges are a classic example. Likewise, prisoners who are very sick or disabled might be released as a humanitarian measure ....

But as a matter of law and of morality, it's perfectly proper to keep an enemy soldier detained (again, I set aside the separate questions related to conditions of detention, and related to confirming that the person is indeed an enemy soldier) until he is no longer dangerous to us, even if that means he'll be locked up for the rest of his life. It's that; killing them on the battlefield; or letting them go so they can kill us.

Ace of Spades, June 16th:

A lot of liberals ask the following questions:

1) Why are their no trials for these fuckers?

2) When will they be released?

Here are the answers, which have been patiently explained to you a THOUSAND TIMES, but maybe one more time will be helpful to your comprehension.

1) ... one does not typically "try" soldiers caught during wartime. Soldiers are imprisoned without trial during wartime -- see, that's what happens when you get captured but not killed by the enemy. You are imprisoned. Hence the term, "Prisoner of War."

Most soldiers are never tried as criminals, because most soldiers are NOT criminals. And yet they remain in military prisons throughout the duration of the war.

The thing is, we COULD try many of these plainly unlawful combatants as criminals -- if we chose to do so. Or, we can simply continuing holding them as enemies captured on the battlefield, as has been done since time immemorial.

The fact that we COULD try them as criminals does not OBLIGATE us to do so. And the fact that we largely pass on trying them as criminals does not obligate us to simply release them-- the same as we didn't just release Nazi soldiers during WWII who had committed no crime until the war was actually over.

2, which leads us to when we will release them. We will release them when the war is over, or until we decide to do so, if we want to release them sooner for some reason. Again, the rules of war say you can hold enemy prisioners until the cessation of hostilities. Hostilities have not ceased; ergo, we will hold them until they do.

Liberals will whine that this could be a very long period of imprisonment. So fucking what? Our POW's were tortured in Hanoi for eight or more years in some cases. It sucks, but not all wars are short affairs, and to some extent captured enemy combatants are at the mercy of their leadership, who can arrange for their release, the moment they surrender and sign an armistice.

Liberals seem to have a curious position here.

Were these lawful combatants -- good soldiers, legal soldiers, honorable soldiers who'd just been captured as part of war -- they could of course not object to holding them for the duration of the war, as that would just be ridiculous. They know damn well we didn't just release good, honorable Nazi and Japanese soldiers until the war was over. (And neither did those countries release our boys, except for hardship cases and in prisoner exchanges.)

So... the weird thing is:

They are insisting we treat unlawful combatants and actual terrorists BETTER than we'd treat lawful soldiers.

Lawful soldiers stay imprisoned until an armistice. Illegal combatants and mass-murderers get trials, and if you can't convict them of an actual crime, they go free.

Why shouldn't we extend that same benefit to lawful soldiers? We could NEVER convict them of a crime (having not committed one, or even having been alleged to have committed one) and thus they would go free two or three months after capture.

To join their former army, of course. And kill Americans.

Not saying it's a swipe. It's the same subject matter so the analysis is bound to be similar.

Still, despite the putative democratic, egalitarian nature of the blogosphere, it seems that the same basic sort of thing is link worthy when written by one but not by another.

Posted by: Ace at 05:21 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.

One of those things I shouldn't post, but I will, with a big fat MAY BE TOTAL BULLSHIT caveat.

Scan down to the second or third headline: One of the suspected London bombers may have been recently released... from Gitmo.

If true, cuts a lot of ways, badly. The British government made a stink about us holding their citizens; Bush obliged Blair and released some. Dumb of Blair; dumb of Bush.

And dumb of the entirety of the left that is contantly demanding we let even more of these poor innocent-as-lambs casualties-of-circumstances go.

I haven't heard a blessed thing about any actual individual suspects in this slaughter thusfar, so I'm pretty skeptical. I don't mean names; I mean I haven't even heard Scotland Yard or MI-5 has their eyes on any particular person.

Still. There it is. Do with it what you will.

Thanks to JoeG.

Posted by: Ace at 04:20 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Heir to the Cos Cob Liquor company, vanished into thin air or cold water.

Thanks to the now-defunct Fat Kid.

Well, I mean his blog is defunct. Apparently the actual guy is still quite funct.

Posted by: Ace at 04:08 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

...over at Are You Conservative?

I'd link it, but then, you wouldn't have a reason to click on the link.

By the way... I'm worried about the post below. I don't intend it to be an attack on the British; that's why I specifically noted it had been written by Galloway, Soros, Moore, Ritter, and the BBC. It's not intended to suggest that the British will be cowed by terrorism, or that they have been thusfar.

I realize it's a bit early for humor, though, and I hope it doesn't offend anyone.

Then again, it's not really "humor" per se. It's a rant against the "let's appease those who would murder us" crowd written in vignette.

Posted by: Ace at 03:23 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.