I mentioned this pretty prominent, with boldfacing and all, earlier today. But only four people bothered to comment on the news.

Yesterday's news that consumer confidence was at a four-year high was similarly greeted with the yawns usually expected from Aaron Brown, or whoever Aaron Brown might be having sex with.

Meanwhile, of course, the Dow hit a six year high.

Why was this, I wondered? Then I remembered. You're all a bunch of drooling morons. If I don't include cute graphics and cowbell-themes, you just don't "get" basic economic news.

Pardon my oversight. Here, for the first time, the Golden Cowbell image with the Ace of Spades Cowbell Theme attached (click on it for song). [Song courtesy of Blaster's Blog.]

But maybe even that isn't sinking in to your thick, Cro-magnon moronskulls. So additional audio-visual cues of a slightly risque nature are provided after the jump.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 357 words, total size 4 kb.

Whitewash from the LAT.

They have their story and they're sticking to it -- she was a pure-as-snow Warrior of Conscience who acted only to uphold the Constitution. And any facts that might undermine this storyline must be embargoed from the public.

The public can't be allowed to be "confused" about the correct interpretation of the facts... and if that means withholding certain facts, well, that's necessary, because the public isn't qualified to interpret facts without media hand-holding.

Meanwhile, the WaPo's Dafna Lizner was asked in an on-line chat why the WaPo has completely embargoed McCarthy's Democratic donations and connections. Her answer is jaw-dropping:

. I disagree with Howie [Kurtz] on this one. I think in his chat he said her campaign contributions go to motive but I don't know yet what she's done so I'm not sure how to assign motive here. Intelligence officers do not check their citizenship at the gates of Langley and like all government employees they are free to vote and make contributions - all of which is very much apart from their commitment to government service and to fulfilling the policies of any president.

But we are living in partisan times and people want a partisan, political motive and explanation for everything. I don't think that's reasonable. Should we publish the campaign contributions of every person who testifies before Congress, every person who briefs a president, every person who writes a policy paper or plays any role in government whatsoever or who is ever quoted in a story? We could, the information is public. But I don't want to confuse readers or issues by throwing that into the mix unless I understand its relevance. We have reported that she worked in Clinton's NSC and whom she has worked with and will continue to write about it.

She.

Doesn't.

Want.

To.

"Confuse."

Readers.

With.

Facts.

Presumably that they're not able to "correctly interpret."

Facts used to be kind of important to reporters, didn't they? Now, not so much. They're subordinate to "narrative."

The Media Blog has itself a nice little giggle over the Washington Post's lack of any aversion to note the political connections of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

They were pretty sure those connections and donations were relevant as to motive, weren't they?

I find this disgustingly arrogant. The bias is now really shocking, and I don't mean that in an ironic way. I am absolutely shocked that they WITHHOLD FACTS from the public until they are sure of the "relevance" of those facts, at least when it comes to people/causes they favor.

It's one thing for the Post to mention the facts, and then argue against the relevance of those facts. They could, for example, mention McCarthy's donations, and then get her good friend, always-ready-to-defend-her-with-a-quote Rand Beers to say those donations don't mean anything at all.

That's the sort of bias we've come to expect -- the grudging admission of a fact that undermines their storyline, but with the liberal go-to-quote-provider getting the last word and dismissing the relevance of that fact.

They're now going quite beyond that. No longer will facts be grudgingly admitted and then dismissed by a liberal (usually unidentified as such, of course).

Now the facts will simply be omitted entirely, obviating the need for the "but this really doesn't matter anyway" quote. Just cutting out the middle-man, I guess they figure.

Most of the American public thinks this is relevant, or possibly relevant. (Or they would, if any MSM organization lowered itself to actually inform them.)

But the Keepers of the Sacred Journalistic "Storytelling" Narrative disagree, and they simply have decided they will not let mere facts undermine their chosen "frame" for the story.

"Narrative" and "context" first, last, and always; facts are permitted only to the extent they advance the agreed upon "narrative" and "context."

More... Great bit from the WSJ:

The press is also inventing a preposterous double standard that is supposed to help us all distinguish between bad leaks (the Plame name) and virtuous leaks (whatever Ms. McCarthy might have done). Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie has put himself on record as saying Ms. McCarthy should not "come to harm" for helping citizens hold their government accountable. Of the Plame affair, by contrast, the Post's editorial page said her exposure may have been an "egregious abuse of the public trust."

It would appear that the only relevant difference here is whose political ox is being gored, and whether a liberal or conservative journalist was the beneficiary of the leak. That the press sought to hound Robert Novak out of polite society for the Plame disclosure and then rewards Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen with Pulitzers proves the worst that any critic has ever said about media bias.

The deepest damage from these leak frenzies may yet be to the press itself, both in credibility and its ability to do its job. It was the press that unleashed anti-leak search missions aimed at the White House that have seen Judith Miller jailed and may find Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen facing subpoenas. ....

We've been clear all along that we don't like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job. But then that's part of the reason we didn't join Joe Wilson and the New York Times in demanding Karl Rove's head over the Plame disclosure. As for some of our media colleagues, when they stop being honest chroniclers of events and start getting into bed with bureaucrats looking to take down elected political leaders, they shouldn't be surprised if those leaders treat them like the partisans they have become.

Yup.

Thanks to Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 974 words, total size 6 kb.

It officially never existed, and now maybe it officially really, honestly, I-shit-you-not doesn't exist.

Too bad. A two-stage plane capable of reaching orbit, for use in deploying weather balloons, communications satellites, experimental orbital pods to determine how spiders make webs in zero gravity, singers from 'N Sync into spacewalks, and maybe -- possibly, if they have room in the cargo bay -- totally wicked-ass space-based weapons.

This isn't the America I grew up in. I suddenly feel so, so... French.

Thanks to Nanman.

Update: Dave at Garfield-Ridge says there really never was such a plane at all; it was wishful thinking/cover-whoring from Aviation Weekly geeks.

Okay, I'll accept that. The plane never really existed at all.

But the question then becomes:

Why the eff didn't ever really exist?

What the hell are we paying taxes for, if not to create technological-overkill methods of wiping out swarthy foreign folk?

I feel worse than French right now. I feel... Swedish.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

They're fermented with some bacteria that reduces the gas-producing feature of beans.

Then what the hell good are they?

It recalls Bactine's attempt to create a non-stinging form of the topical antiseptic. People didn't buy it-- because they associated the sting with killin' bacteria.

Same deal with the beans. If I'm not laying stank-eggs an hour after I eat beans, have they really "worked" at all?

I mean-- are such beans actually "good for your heart"?

Thanks to Roy.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm guilty of a lot of them.

I mean, right away:

Coin his own nickname.

Front and center; first entry on the list. Not a good sign.

As for the velcro-wallet-- no, I don't carry one, but I sure wish I were permitted to. Those things were dope! They went so well with a really nice OP long-sleeve t-shirt of some homo windsurfing across a sunset. And, of course, Vans.

Link fixed.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Serious content warning. I mean, really. Don't read this.

Suggested by Russell, or Mean Mr. Mustard. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:10 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 937 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm not going to link this woman's actual Yahoo personal ad, so as to not make life difficult for her. But trust me, it's real, I just copied and pasted from it.

Check out what she wants in a man:

I'm looking for a side-kick, a Sun-Dance, a man who can read my smile from across the room and know what I'm thinking. A best friend, really -- someone who'll try to make me giggle in somber places.

When I nap, he'll cover me with a soft blanket, and he'd break the sound barrier to get to me if I ever call him in distress.

We'd show all of our faces to each other, without fear, craving the magic that happens every time we're in each other's presence. Our conversations outlast any candle, our companionship a source of envy.

Together, we'd be like school children, team-mates, lab partners, lovers of mystery and exploration.

He'll love to be read to and will help me pick out wallpaper. He'll try very hard to remember the important days in my year and prefer unmarked paths to pavement, and a good hike over fame.

He'll be equally at home in a nature preserve, a nightclub, a dingy diner or a ballpark. My ideal man is one who roots out what doesn't belong in him and sees life in the details. He needs solitude from time to time and doesn't desire advantage over others. Wind does funny things to him and he'll know how to teach kindness.

Of course, he'll have "a past", but won't compare me or any other woman to the Ex that was left behind (or the one who broke his heart multiple times!)

He believes in creating miracles. He'll like to share thoughts, desserts, leaves. He strains for good words the way astronomers strain for new stars. He'll giggle intermittently and won't mind if I sometimes leave the dishes until morning. He'll have much to teach me; our chemistry will be palpable; and the good in him will see the good in me...

I think she forgot the most important attribute she wants in her man: a vagina.

She's very long-winded about what she wants in a man, isn't she? I think I can make some judicious cuts and edits to shorten up what she's really trying to say.

This is the short version of her personal ad:

I WANT TO DIE ALONE.

I think women have to reduce their expectations. Isn't it enough that we have the common courtesy to apologize for farting while we watch football?

Well, not apologize, really, but simply inform/warn, as in, "Ahhhhh... yeah, that's gonna leave a mark in the morning. You might want to take a few minutes to leave the room. Maybe make a sandwich for me while you're up."

Seriously, ladies, grow up. Stop looking for "love;" start looking for "benign indifference." You'll be happy you did.

Thanks to The Shadow.

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

Ever notice how the media is very insistent on "correcting" the public's "mistaken belief" that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with 9/11, or Al Qaeda, or terrorism at all, or even giving America the stink eye?

Well, there's another enormous misimpression out there -- that the economy is doing poorly. In fact, the economy is in the best shape since at least Clinton's two-year bubble economy, and, as regards soundness and sustainability, it's better than that, too.

And yet the media has very little interest in correcting a widespread misimpression by the public on this score. Indeed, they seem to be intent on sustaining that misimpression.

Why is that, do you wonder? This is a big day of head-scratching for me, because, once again, I just have no good theory as to this strangely inconsistent behavior by the media.

Anyway:

The U.S. economy powered ahead in March as manufacturing orders surged and home sales jumped by the most in more than a decade.

Orders for durable goods rose 6.1 percent, the Commerce Department said in Washington today, more than three times the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. New home sales increased 13.8 percent, the most since April 1993, to an annual rate of 1.213 million.

Yields on 10-year Treasury notes climbed to the highest since 2002 and traders increased bets the Federal Reserve will lift interest rates twice more before the end of June. Improving business demand and little slowdown in housing run counter to the Fed's forecast that growth will moderate after the first quarter.

``The numbers we're getting all indicate that the economy has maintained a large amount of momentum and that's obviously a concern to the Fed and will likely force their hand,'' said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania.

The durable goods report is one of the final pieces of information feeding into economists' forecasts for economic growth in the first quarter, which will be reported on April 28. Excluding transportation equipment, bookings for items made to last at least several years rose 2.8 percent.

The world's biggest economy probably expanded at a 4.9 percent pace in the first quarter, the fastest since the third quarter of 2003, according to economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

Thanks to Phil.

Posted by: Ace at 08:08 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

Seasons in the Sun ranks at number five, though. Which is about right.

What about Signs?

The songs on the list are too easy. No one really likes Muskrat Love. And it can't be played that much, I don't think.

A better list would consist of songs that actually still get airplay, and yet are unspeakably awful.

Thanks to Cake or Death, who notes Kiefer Sutherland's extreme-duality style of acting.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Popular Mechanics examines each possibility. No solar or that silly shit-- stuff you can actually put in your tank.

While it seems, superficially, to be a sober analysis, it doesn't mention the costs associated with creating each type of fuel, or compare the energy-cost of creating the fuel to the cost of producing petroleum feul. I mean, if it takes 200 BTU's of electricity to produce 100 BTU's worth of ethanol, umm, we still have to produce that electricity in the first place, right?

It mentions the energy investment for some "fuels," like electricity, which is a fuel but not a source of energy; it's just a form of energy created by consuming some other source. But it doesn't detail the energy investment associated with all of them. At least not in a detailed or rigorous way.

Still, it is interesting. I'm not sure if I buy the great potential of ethanol -- politicians usually hailed as "truth-tellers" (like McCain) have called ethanol a boondoggle, at least before running for president and needing Iowa voters. But this article suggests it's actually a real possibility for easing our reliance on petroleum.

Posted by: Ace at 07:46 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.