Moonlightin':

Ralph Mervine, executive director of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority, resigned Wednesday after a Tampa Tribune investigation found he is listed as the owner of a gay pornographic film production company.

The San Diego-based company, Coast Productions, operates at least two adult Web sites and has an adult Yahoo membership group. All three advertise and display young men, ages 18 to 21, offering photos and video clips of explicit sexual activities.

Coast Productions produces DVDs for sale at $39.95 apiece, as well as monthly Web site memberships to view shorter video clips of young men engaging in sex acts alone or with partners.

Mervine resigned hours after being approached by reporters about the company. He had worked for the authority since November 2004 as interim executive director. The board in July voted to make Mervine's position full time.

He offered his resignation to board Chairman Thomas Gibbs, authority spokesman Mathias Bergendahl said.

Officials became suspicious when toll-booth workers began offering motorists the chance to join them in the "Buddy Booth" for just an additional charge of $20.

Thanks to j.m.

Pic Down. As you requested.

PS, a liberal wants us to stop being puritanical about this and just get hip to the fact that gays exist:

Is porn wrong? what the hell the guys were legal, the companies legit I don't understand the whole issue. He worked on the expressway authority. Where is the crime or even impropriety in all of this?

If it was chicks would anyone care?

Get over your sanctimonious attitudes and grow up, gays exist and they like porn just as much as straight guys.

We did so badly we lost to this guy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

It ain't all that. Two and a half stars (out of four).

I started writing this review in my head before I went into the theater. It's my belief most reviewers don't have any appreciation of comedy. So they routinely pan very funny movies. But Borat got glowing reviews. Does this mean it's hellafunny?

Probably not, I figured. Critics still don't know jack about comedy; it's probably a bandwagon effect. As they can't evaluate comedy, but see other reviewers saying it's funny, they decide that it must be the Funniest Movie Ever and claim that in their reviews.

To let you know my bias: I appreciate the Ali G and Borat characters, but have never thought they were as funny as many people. Throw the Jews down the well? Ehhh... it's kinda funny to me, but I guess I'm in the minority because I don't understand what makes this The Funniest Shit Ever. I do laugh at Ali G and Borat, but I never really sought the show out. I had a bunch of episodes on HBO On Demand, but only tried to watch one, and gave up five minutes in.

It was funny, I guess. But I guess I didn't like it.

So take that bias into consideration. (On the other hand, I went in with fairly modest expectations, which were... met, but not exceeded.)

Is this movie, the movie critics have proclaimed possibly the funniest movie ever made, funny? Yes.

Is it screamingly funny? No.

I think it's about as funny as your typical comedy that's actually halfway funny. It's funnier than the dreadful funs, funnier than the mediocre ones. It's definitely in the class of movies that are actually funny, but it hardly leads the pack.

I had about five or six solid chuckles in the movie, and double that as far as amused smiles. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 1026 words, total size 6 kb.

Don't get all hopeful. The Democrats will certainly bow to his demands.

Still, it's kind of fun:

Sen. Joe Lieberman's press conference Wednes-day at the Goodwin Hotel had been billed as a chance for the senator to elaborate on what he'd proclaimed the night before — that his re-election as an independent would send him back to Washington shorn of his obligations to parties and political concerns.

But if the press conference was any indication, the nature of Lieberman's new role is a work in progress.

On the one hand, the senator, repeating a line from his victory speech Tuesday night, pronounced his win a “declaration of independence from partisanship.”

Moments later, however, he was assuring reporters that he was still a member in good standing of the Senate Democrats, still in line to retain the perks that partisan affiliation provide, such as his position as ranking member and potential chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

...

But on the morning after a decisive Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, with the potential for the party to seize the Senate, Lieberman was declaring a new “mandate” from independent and Republican Connecticut voters even as he continued to seem out of step with some in the GOP on whose fortunes he has depended.

...

And while he has said he will continue to caucus with Democrats, he did not offer a reason, other than retaining his seniority, for remaining aligned with the party.

Pressed on whether that was the only reason he will remain in the party, Lieberman replied, “Well, I've been a Democrat.” He later added, again, that his seniority was “an important factor” in the decision.

What Joe Lieberman wants, Joe Lieberman gets.

Which is, I guess, a good thing. He'll side with the liberals 90% of the time, but 10% of the time, he won't. And then Democrats will have to worry about just how much they can push Lieberman and his "new mandate."

Posted by: Ace at 10:46 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, Rob says three Senate seats, noting Rick Santorum had some donations to his charity from a guy subsequently awarded a federal contract, but I didn't hear about that so I don't know how big an issue it was.

But absent scandal, even with the War in Iraq going not terribly well, we would have won.

I hope Republicans remember that. Democrats can get away with a certain amount of scandal, having the media to cover for them. Sure, such stories will be news locally, but the MSM will dutifully keep it from becoming a national issue that taints the whole party.

Not so with Republicans.

Hopefully Republicans will remember:

-- spending more of the public's money cannot help you retain power.

-- taking shady money, or tolerating corrupt members, also cannot help you retain power. You'll lose power if you try. So maybe you shouldn't try.

They all knew that in 1994. They forgot it along the way. It may be a long time before they get the chance to forget it again.

BTW... Allen and Burns both concede. 51-49 minority.

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

From The New Age contest in the thread below.

Categories:

A. Famous People
B. Ace of Spades Inside Jokes
C. Everything Else

You can nominate by comment number (viewable on the new comments thingy screen), which will make things a little more manageable for judging.

Posted by: LauraW. at 07:08 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Well! One good thing is that now that Democrats can claim a piece of the good news, the MSM will actually report we're in a good economy. Bush will get one-tenth of the credit.

STOCKS RISE TO ALL TIME HIGHS ON DEMOCRATIC VICTORY!!!

Please pretend you forgot that stocks were hitting all time highs about every other day before the Democratic victory.

Thanks to Lorenzo.

Who sounds "brownish" to me, so I just soiled myself again.

Lorenzo's tips are welcome, but I'd really wish he'd post under a less frightening name, like "Chip" or "Fauntelroy."

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (93)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds like a bit of bullshit to me, but she did imply that, more or less.

Asked about this possiblity, she said she was against the war, but if you do go to war, you either go "full-force" or you don't go at all.

The implication then is that she would support more troops.

I rather doubt that. I think it's rhetoric. She's committed to bugging out.

She may make a nonsense offering of this sort -- a token number of fresh troops in exchange for a six-month timetable. Not a genuine offer. Not nearly enough new troops to have any realistic chance of getting the job done, so that all troops can come home.

But she'll have her little rhetorical dodge, her petty political posturing in a time of war. And that's what passes for leadership in the Democratic Party.

I am, however, willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Just thought I'd mention it, as it's interesting.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (29)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday we lost our last, best chance for a majority consitutionalist court.

It's possible that 2008 will bring both a conservative President and majority-Republican Senate. But unlikely.

We no longer have any chance of getting strong consitutionalists approved by the Senate. The Democrats now control the committees -- such judges won't even be voted out of committee.

The Democrats don't have to filibuster anymore.

They're the majority.

To the extent I'm evangelical bashing, it's because this golden moment, that both secular consitutionalists and social conservatives had so long desired, is now gone.

And I can't shake the feeling this was due to Foleygate. It was after Foleygate, after all, that the GOP's support among white religious conservatives cratered. From the high eighties to the low sixties, or thereabouts.

It's true the GOP brought this situation upon itself -- it could have gotten rid of Foley a long time ago. So the evangelicals disgusted by this can't be blamed for the situation itself; the GOP caused the situtation.

But if the chance for a constitutionalist court was lost over Foleygate, then evangelicals cut off their noses to spite their faces. To punish the GOP's lack of vigor in investigating Foley earlier, we've given the Democrats the ability to block any judge that's more conservative than, say, Sandra Day O'Connor.

Or David Souter. Chosen because he had no paper trail and was hoped to be a conservative.

We all know how that worked out.

This is the GOP's fault (with an assist from HRC, Democratic operatives, and the media, of course).

But the reaction to it was ultimately up to each individual voter. If some voters chose to punish the GOP by punishing themselves-- well, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I personally could have lived with the loss of the House, which seemed almsot inevitable.

It's the Senate that's the killer, because we also lost the courts.

Chuck Schumer got his dream -- he filibustered judges for six years, never accepting the fact he was in the minority, and tossed the worst smears at anyone he thought could be a popular, young, long-serving constituionalist judge. Look at what he did to Miguel Estrada.

And now he has the majority. He doesn't have to resort to anti-majoritarian trickery and obstructionism anymore. He can claim, credibly, to represent the majority of America when he insistst that only "mainstream" -- meaning liberal -- judges be appointed to the court.

It's Foley's fault, it's Hastert's fault. It's the GOP's fault.

All true.

But I can't help but think some spectactularly anti-strategic voting by outraged social conservatives has punished us all.

The Real Culprits: Actually, the hell with basing evangelicals. You know who really sucks? THE MOUNTAIN STATE VOTERS, who keep voting in one fucking Democrat after another despite being some of the reddest states in the world.

And then they wonder -- gee, how come the judges we prefer don't get through?

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming -- what the hell is your major damage?

Rob from SayAnything Blog told me why Democrats keep getting elected here -- egg subsidies. Chicken farmers want 'em, Democrats promise to collect up more dollars from New Jersey to pay chicken farmers in Montana.

So, really, the real reason we don't have consitutionalist judges is because Mountain State chicken-farming "conservatives" want their sweet, sweet crazy egg subsidies.

Egg subsidies in South Dakota.

Equal liberal judges for the entire country.

That's the way the world works.

It's really amazing how things of great import turn on things of great triviality and enomrous fucking stupidity.

More Splitters... Fairness compels me to note, as others have pointed out, that border-security advocates also deserted the party, as did smalll-government advocates, as did paleocons who want a Fortress America foreign policy, as did anyone who thinks the war isn't going as well as it should be.

A lot of people bailed on the GOP yesterday, and it's not fair to lay the blame at the feet of evangelicals.

However, to the extent evangelicals defected, they did in fact sabotage their biggest policy priority, and the only one the GOP was having any great success at: remaking the courts into a constiutionalist bastion.

I guess, for that reason, I find the defection of evangelicals more baffling than the defection of the others.

This is the one thing the GOP was doing right, and at (or very near) the top of the evangelical agenda. So the lower levels of support from that bloc are almost unbelievable (and perverse in its result).

I am gob-smacked by the God-fearing.

Border-Security Advocates... who stayed home were equally perverse in their calculation.

Bush, the guy not running, was in favor of the amnesty so hated.

The Congressional Republicans, who were running, were the only people in government blocking it.

Now GOP control of the House is gone -- and here comes amnesty!

"Punishing" politicians doesn't make sense when you wind up enacting the very policies that caused you to want to lash out in the first place.

Posted by: Ace at 02:42 PM | Comments (141)
Post contains 845 words, total size 5 kb.

If pork's so wonderful, if it can buy votes, how come so many vulnerable Republicans on the appropriations committees lost?

From "some random dude:"

A majority of vulnerable GOP appropriators in both the House and Senate lost (4/7 in the House and 2/2 in the Senate). That raises an interesting question for those who favor pork for its alleged ability to swing elections: If pork canÂ’t even deliver close elections, then whatÂ’s the point?

House:

-Sherwood, vice-chairman of Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee: (LOST)

-Taylor, chairman of Interior appropriations subcommittee: (LOST)

-Northrup: (LOST)

-Sweeney, vice-chairman of Treasury-Transportation-HUD appropriations subcommittee: (LOST)

-Doolittle: (WON)

-Kirk: (WON)

-Walsh: (WON)

Senate:

-Burns (LOST)

-DeWine (LOST)

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Female GOP candidates fared no better:

Rove definitely didn't stick the landing:

Thanks to Joe.

And thanks to Mesablue for the additional videos.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.