Shrank from $69 B in July 2004 to $52.8 B in July 2005; Tax revenues up 13.7% so far this year

On the negative side, outlays are up 6.1%.

In related news, Paul Krugman's head just exploded.

I'm not shitting you here; I mean it literally exploded. Just like Michael Ironside in Scanners. All of a sudden there was this very low-range bass throbbing sound and the veins in his forehead started popping out and blood spurted out of his ears and then BANG! His head blew into a thousand pieces like a fuckin' watermellon at a Gallagher "comedy" concert.

A New York Times spokesman said they did not expect the quality of Mr. Krugman's work to suffer.

Thanks to DB, or, as I call him, "DB."

Gratuitous Mallory after the jump. more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't really care what this woman thinks, but everyone's talking about it, so...

A recap on Cindy Sheehan, noting what you all probably know, that she dramatically changed her story about Bush's demeanor and solemnity when he met her after she became radicalized by Interent "peace" activists.

She has a right to have strongly-felt opinions. She doesn't have the right to lie. Even if she lost her son in Iraq-- she does not have the right to lie.

Thanks to Compos.

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

Massachusetts law provides that parents must be notified when children are going to be taught about sex (which, it seems to me, would include homosexuality), so the parents may pull the kid out of that class if they choose. Seems reasonable.

Well, five year olds were given "Diversity Bookbags" which included a book showing some families having two mommies and two daddies. Parents were not informed.

The school takes the curious position that depicting same-sex coupling is not, in fact, any sort of mention of homosexuality that would trip the law. So they refused to notify parents.

One parent showed up to demand to know if he'd be informed of any future such non-mentions mentions of homosexuality for his kindergartener.

He wouldn't leave until he had that assurance, which they wouldn't give. They were nice enough, however, to have him arrested for criminal trespass, and thoughtfully arranged for him to spend the night in jail.

Of course it's all happening in Massachusetts.

Let's face it: Teachers know what's best for your kids better than you do. After all, they got very easy-peasy Education degrees from some of the finest fourth- and fifth-tier colleges in the country.

Thanks to Robert, or as I call him, "Robert."

Edit: I said the law specifically mentions homosexuality. I don't know if that's the case; I meant to say something along the lines of "and homosexuality would seem to count as sex."

A liberal poster called me on it and I edited to reflect that.

Posted by: Ace at 08:19 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

August 9, 2005 -- FANS of Paris Hilton's aunt, Kim Richards, responded by the dozens when we reported she didn't have any movie credits. Though mainly known for her work on sitcoms "Nanny and the Professor" (1970) with Juliet Mills and "Hello Larry" (1979) with McLean Stevenson, the younger sister of Kathy Hilton has appeared in several movies, including "Tuff Turf" (1985) with James Spader. One reader said, "I'll admit she wasn't exactly Nicole Kidman, but a lot of guys around my age [44] still remember Kim from that movie, gorgeous, dressed in red high heels, black stockings, and with blond hair down to her waist. As hot as it gets."

Preach it brother. And don't forget her awkward coquettishness in Escape From Witch Mountain.

Kidding! Well, kinda. Look, I had a crush on her at an appropriate age (you know, when I was like seven), and those early crushes never really go away.

Which isn't the same as saying that I want to have sex with a ten year old.

I mean, I still have that wistful, pounding-heart flushed feeling when I think about Tanner in the Bad News Bears. Ohhhhh... Tanner. A perfect blend of puckish insouciance and virulent racism, all wrapped up in one adorable little blonde tightbody package.

Thanks to Temple of Jennifer, who has lots of good nasty ranting as usual, including Howard Dean: Insightful Liberal Warrior or Highly Functioning Retard?

Which seems like a good question.

Obligatory Kim Richards Tuff Turf cheesecake after the jump.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:11 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

This guy thinks it's "morally bankrupt" of me to use proxy-issues to determine if I support a candidate or not.

Well, I don't know. There are some issues I don't care all that passionately about (abortion, gay rights) but which tell me how someone's going to vote on the issues I do care a great deal about.

Roberts was selected partly due to the lack of tangible evidence about his judicial philosophy, so we're forced to read tea-leaves to figure out how he might come down on various issues.

Varones links a Roberts dissent which reads the Commerce Clause narrowly, noting that this is fair indication that he's a conservative judge. In case you don't know, the Commerce Clause is typically read very broadly (even laughably so) by liberal judges to justify virtually any federal intrusion into state/local law- and policy-making.

So there's the other side.

Posted by: Ace at 07:57 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess it's time to stop using Harry Potter as an interrogation tool.

Damnit. It seemed such a promising tactic, too.

By the the third hour of Prisoner of Azkaban I was pretty much ready to tell all to any passing interrogator who happened to be in the Sony Loews.

Posted by: Ace at 07:47 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

This one from libertarian John Tierney at the NYT, debunking the meth panic.

Eh, I have no strong opinions on this. I agree strongly with Mr. Mackey -- "Ummm, drugs are baaaad, mmmkay?" -- and I don't buy the whole "make them legal and all the problems will go away" line.

Still, I think if you weighed all the plusses of our anti-drug efforts (reducing drug use, chiefly) and all of the minuses (too many to count-- invasions of privacy, cops being used for secondary-priority tasks, costs, jailing many people who are either just hurting themselves or providing the means for others to voluntary hurt themselves, etc.) the balance sheet would come out pretty close to zero at this point.

But as Kurt Vonnegut said, arguing against anti-drug laws is like arguing against glaciers. Pointless. There will always be glaciers.

But arguing against the use of drugs, and trying to enforce anti-drug laws, seems like a campaign against glaciers too.

Thanks to See-Dubya, guest posting on that slacker My Pet Jawa's site. He's a lot more riled up about Tierney's legalization stance than I can manage.

Posted by: Ace at 07:40 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Many Iraqis are disgusted by the practice.

How can they use these lovely pets for criminal and murderous acts?" asked Rasha Khairir, 25, an employee of a Baghdad stock brokerage. "A poor dog can't refuse what they are doing with him because he can't think and decide."

Despite a common prejudice in the Muslim world against dogs, which are considered unclean, even the most virulent clerical opponents of the U.S. presence in Iraq have decried the use of canines as proxies in the war.

Abdel Salam Kubaisi, a spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Assn., a hard-line Sunni Arab clerical organization sympathetic to insurgents, called the practice un-Islamic. "Our religion does not permit us to hurt animals," he said, "neither by using them as explosive devices nor in any other manner."

Meanwhile, our own wardogs are being used to save lives.

Thanks to LauraW.

Posted by: Ace at 07:27 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

They've similarly refused grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations for similar reasons.

Kind of unbelievable, but it's not quite as bad as it seems. The United Way requires that it assert it not be "involved" with anyone on the government's terrorist watch list, and, of course, that's half of the ACLU's business lately.

Really, they couldn't not be "involved with" anyone suspected of terrorism -- defending them, filing habeas petitions, etc. -- and continue doing their job of helping the terrorists win keeping a keen vigil over all our civil liberties.

Okay, that little bit of snark aside, that's what the ACLU does. It defends the indefensible. Terrorists, Nazis, what have you. So I guess this one I get.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

She said he was a Souter in wolf's clothing. The Powerline guys said maybe she was just flacking for him on the sly, trying to make him more palatable to liberals by suggesting he was a liberal.

But maybe he is a liberal after all.

I didn't get to say this on the show today. But what can we read from his pro bono efforts on behalf of "gay rights"?

I don't really know the merits of the case, so I can't comment. But I find this a little distressing, not because I don't like gays, but because gay "rights," like abortion, is a useful proxy issue. I'm not pro-life myself (well, I'm a moderate; I support abortion rights with restrictions), but I tend to support pro-life candidates, not because I support their positions on abortion, but because I know it's a useful proxy to determine how they stand on 90% of other issues. If they can stand up to the New York Times editorial page on the crucial issue of abortion, they're not likely to be shirking violets on taxes or terrorism.

Same with this gay rights issue. Again, I have no idea if Roberts was on the right side or not, but I do know he personally chose this issue and dedicated a fraction of his limited pro-bono hours to litigate the case.

Does that make him a liberal? Or just a conservative with some liberal-ish or libertarian leanings? I don't know, but I'm beginning to suspect Coulter is right-- no one actually knows for sure.

Conservatives were quick to rebut liberals' charges that Roberts was too conservative for the court; his brief against abortion under the Bush I administration, they said, was not indicative necessarily of his real political leanings, because he was just acting as an advocate for his client (in this case, the first Bush Administration).

Okay, so if we believe that, we can't take his Reagan and Bush era memos as a reflection of his politics, right?

But this pro bono case wasn't a case he had to take. He chose to. He may have been acting tactically (to appease liberals later, should he be nominated for a court); he may have simply thought the provision in question was unconstitutional or just plain unfair.

But... he did choose this case himself. And he chose which side to argue on. Again, I don't know if he was right or wrong; I'm just saying that on one of the few cases where he took a position out of his own free will, he was on the liberal side of things.

Kaus makes this point in a different way. Let's say, Kaus reasons, he just took this case because of the general pressure at big law firms to do good work for liberal causes. Geeze, it's not like there'll be similar pressures to advance liberal causes on the Supreme Court now, right?

I don't know. I just don't know. This whole nominating process has become a farce. No one is allowed to ask candidates what their political or jurisprudential leanings might be, resulting in decisions made without much information at all.

Maybe Charles Schumer should be allowed to grill Roberts on his theory of jurisprudence... because I really would like to know for sure we're putting a conservative, or at least a moderate/conservative, on the Court.

Posted by: Ace at 04:46 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 577 words, total size 3 kb.