3:05 Eastern Time at Rightalk.

Too much damn show today. (As always!)

First up, Jim Pinkerton of FoxNewsWatch and, of course, a nationally syndicated columnist. You might know him as the "Guy Who Makes Sense" on that show. Here's a recent TCS Column of his, on the link between AIDS and increasing conservatism

Then, Jim Geraghty, author of Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched A New Era of Republican Leadership and the blogger over at NRO's TKS as well as the group blog On Tap.

Now, I was expecting a very uncomfortable interview with him about that book, along the lines of, "Can you remember the moment, precisely, when your life and career went so horribly wrong?" But now that the public understands anew that terror is real and not "fictitious" as Michael Moore would have it, the midterms are currently deadlocked, and it seems a fortuitous time to talk with him.

And finally, Mary Katherine Ham of the Townhall blog and also Hugh Hewitt's blog. She'll be on in the latter part of the show with Jim Geraghty, to discuss Allah's crush on her.

I Hope Jim Pinkerton Doesn't Mind... but my email exchange with him was kind of funny. Bear in mind, he really has no idea who I am. It's perfectly understandable that he began to worry I was, in fact, a lunatic.

Jim,

I have an internet talk show on rightalk. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving us 15 - 25 minutes of your time to tell us about how psyched you get when it's Shark Week on TBS. Or anything else you might be charged up about.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ace aka Sharkey

He responded that that he'd be willing to appear. So I upped the ante:

We're going to "break format" and also discuss mantas, skates and rays. I don't know if you're up on the sharks' lesser (but still deadly) cousins, but you can just go to the library for three or four hours and bone up.

Did I say bone up? How embarrassing. Sharks have no bones, only cartilege.

Now, at this point, he wasn't quite sure if he was dealing with a mental patient, and sought clarification:

Hmm. I can't quite tell where the kidding starts and ends here, but I am not sure that I have much to say about sea life in general.

Pretty funny, I think. That "Hmm" says a great deal. That "Hmm" told me I'd better say I'm kidding pretty quick and assure him that sharks would not be the main topic of conversation and that my "talk show" was not recorded in front of an audience of dead hitchikers in my basement.

However, I am still hoping to ask him about Tiger sharks at some point. Like, what would win in a fight-- a Tiger shark or an actual tiger? Assuming they fought in water, of course, but I think that's only obvious.

Then again, I want to ask every guest this. No one seems to discuss it, but, to me, it's always the elephant in the room no one is willing to acknowlege.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm still waiting for confirmation this boy from a "slum in Northern Paris" is actually a "brown person" before I go onesies or twosies in my Garanimals.

Update/Correction: It wasn't a fake gun, it was a compressed air pistol.

My Cheeks Are Burning Correction: I meant he was terrorizing tourists, not "terrorists."

God. What the hell is wrong with me? I think I'm smart, but there's a strong case to be made I'm merely a "trainable."

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

You be the judge:

Now, look, it wouldn't be altogether surprising that they're giving this woman money, given that the poor dear has had her home flattened by the Israelis eight or nine times by now (and counting!).

Still, it's amusing to see Hezbollywood so determined to vault this woman above Cindy Margolis as "The Most Downloaded Woman on the Internet."

Did they spring for a Flat Fatima?

I'm just "airing" a theory here.

Thanks to NonDating Life, who has a whole section devoted to this "high-quality woman," currently rating a 73% Hot rating on Hot or Not.

He also suggests checking out the second photo at Sticky Notes. Do I spy with my little eye the famous cheek scar?

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, goddamnit, he said that. Or words quite similar to that.

Fox has deliberately set itself apart from other news media. Starting at the top with Roger Ailes, the Fox sales pitch has been to deride other media, to declare itself the one source of the real truth, the sole source of 'fair and accurate' news reporting. As a result, there's not a reservoir of kinship or good will with Fox on the part of the rest of the news media. You can't keep insulting people and then expect friendship when you need it.

They've made it a policy to keep a distance between themselves and the rest of the media, far beyond the usual competitive spirit, so that's where they are: at a distance.

They're not asking for "friendship," you vicious, vile asshole. They're asking for a modicum of concern for two human beings' lives.

We'll even take feigned concern at this point.

There is no distinction anymore between the MSM and Democratic Underground. DU openly prays for Steve Centanni's beheading; the MSM simply says the same thing in slightly more "nuanced" language.

Michelle wants a blogburst for Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.

I've asked this before, and will ask Jim Pinkerton about it today, in between pestering him about whether Jaws really could have bitten through Richard Dreyfuss' cage.

If you have to make an Eason Jordan Iraq Bureau type deal -- getting the "news," but only a censored and thus dishonest version of it -- is it really news at all?

Strange that a media which poops its pants (to borrow the left's unrelenting talking point) at Bush's "chilling" of the press has nothing at all to say about this issue.

The Boston Herald says silence is better than a lie.

H/t, Michelle, who I'm just about to link for something else.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

This story is wooshing through the tubes, and has been for a while, but I stayed away because I don't think it's been really proven.

I think Hezbollah (or rather, its patron, Iran) is counterfeiting bills, probably through cooperation with the world's best forgers, the North Korean lunatic government.

But these pictures, alas, don't seem to prove that.

Sticky Notes caught it first, I believe.

Commoner Sense notes the seal over the denomination seems to be off, as compared to genuine bills.

Allah checks his own $100 bills and so do readers, however, and they find the seal actually varies in position on (assumedly) real bills.

One good question remains-- why are bills from five years ago (according to the Treasury Secretary's signature which appears on them) so crisp?

It's a good question, but not necessarily a damning one; governments hoard US currency, and many only leak it out for emergency situations, like the need to murder Jews and stage pictures of Hezbollah acting as Robin Hood for the poor people of Lebanon.

I don't expect that looking at the signatures is going to amount to much. Counterfeiters just Xerox (or whatever) the signature; they ain't drawing it freehand. So I imagine the signatures will turn out to be perfect, and any pictures suggesting differently are just catching them at bad angles or whatnot.

I'd imagine that any proof of counterfeiting would come via checking out the more difficult-to-fake anti-counterfeiting measures, like the watermark or little plastic thread running through the bills (and, actually, the North Koreans are so good at this they probably can do a decent job of faking those, too).

I really don't think that a look at the face of a bill will show anything other than a perfect copy of a $100 bill. US criminals can get this much right; I expect foreign governments to do much better.

Posted by: Ace at 08:09 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

A war for oil the left will ignore.

And why do they refuse to acknowledge, let alone condemn, Iran's government-sponsored, government-funded Al Qaedism and its drive to nuke Tel Aviv?

Because that might help Bush. And they actually admit it.

know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administrationÂ’s determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it canÂ’t be trusted to act wisely.

So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart [a liberal arguing for the need of liberal hawkishness on terror] is right: there’s a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he’s also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush’s distinctly illiberal ends. And I’m simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration’s latest marketing campaign.

JunkyardBlog writes:

[H]eÂ’d rather let Iran stand unrebuked than give W an excuse to do something about it. If I accused the Left of thinking like this, even though I suspected it, IÂ’d feel kind of sheepish and get written off as a nut; but hereÂ’s black and white confirmation of some of my worst suspicions. Some of them.

Exactly.

My Pet Jawa has more.

More on Iran's (first?) provocative August 22 manuever at Dan's.

Allah, meanwhile, has Iran's response to the world's demands it stop seeking a nuke -- it has, shockingly enough, offered to continue "serious negotiations" until it actually tests a nuke.

Kevin Drum is mulling his three options for dealing with this story:

1) State again that he is unwilling to even mention the most serious military threat this country is currently facing.

2) Just pretend it's not happening at all, and declare today "Who's the Boss? Appreciation Day," featuring lots of cheesecake shots of Judith Light.

3) Fake a stroke.

Who's pissing themselves? The guys who actually report this news (which even Drum admits is gravely serious) or the guys who simply embargo it and retreat further into the Liberal HappyPlace Echo Chamber Coccoon?

Related-- And Dirty: Agent Bedhead informs me that "Who's the Boss?" is now a wildy-popular sexual maneuver (Content Warning-- it's Urban Dictionary, but it describes something fairly risque. And hot.

Posted by: Ace at 06:19 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

The long predicted (dreaded) terror effect finally goes bump in the night:

The arrest of terror suspects in London has helped buoy President Bush to his highest approval rating in six months and dampen Democratic congressional prospects to their lowest in a year.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, support for an unnamed Democratic congressional candidate over a Republican one narrowed to 2 percentage points, 47%-45%, among registered voters. Over the past year, Democrats have led by wider margins that ranged up to 16 points.

Two points? Two points? I wasn't going to flaming skull it, until this sunk in.

Two points.

Democrats ahead in polls by two points means Republicans win by three.

Now 42% of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, up 5 points since early this month. His approval rating on handling terrorism is 55%, the highest in more than a year.

The boost may prove to be temporary, but it was evidence of the continuing political power of terrorism.

I'm so happy I'm pissing my pants.

Note this was a weekend poll, too, generally considered to skew Democratic.

Looks like the American publis isn't quite so blase and blithe about the prospect of megaterrorism as our tough, brave Timing Questioners on the left.

The left's attempt to denigrate, dismiss, and trivialize a thwarted terror attack that might have killed 2000 people or more seems to have failed. Spectacularly.

Because, perhaps, as Allah says: Normal people just don't read blogs.

PS: While this is front-page, above-the-fold news on USAToday's print edition, it's not on the front page of the web edition.

There are more moderate tech people that can be hired to do these paper's online editions. From the NYT's web guys giving that misleading caption of the bombed-building suddenly-"dead"-dude pieta to this... well, as Kaus says, two incidents make a trend. And the trend seems to be that the MSM's online staffers are even more liberal than the staff at the print editions.

UPDATE! mrp looks into the full poll results and finds:

If one checks out the "complete results" of the poll, then you'll find that "regular voters" (those that claim that they always vote) are perfectly divided 48-48 on Question #2. (+/-5 pct. MoE.)

(mrp's post corrected from 42-42 to 48-48, as the chart indicates.)

Posted by: Ace at 05:50 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

(updated:
click the pic to find description and link to news story)

You should be comforted to know, that even with the threat of terrorism, your wife's chances of being killed on a plane are infinitesimally small.
Much smaller than her risk of dying on the drive home.

Just because her plane was diverted in response to a crazy person, and escorted to its landing spot by fighter jets, is no reason to freak out. Don't be sucked in by the fearmongerers.

(I don't know about this message of yours, Progressives. I don't think he's listening to me.)

T. lands a direct hit in the comments:

First they keep hammering the point about how terrorism is a remote occurrence that is exaggerated by fear-mongers. Then when 9/11 funding is cut to NY, they cry about how Bush is abandoning them to the terrorists....wait, I thought terrorism was an exaggeration by fear mongers? Why do you care if money is scaled back. Now, months later, they're back to their "there is no terrorist threat" mantra. How brain-dead do you have to be to follow the progressive talking points?

Posted by: LauraW. at 05:22 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

An old Onion article that's fresh again thanks to Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey: Woman At Farscape Convention Has Dangerously Inflated Self-Image.

Thanks to Henry.

An illustrated, and well-nigh exhaustive, history of the Batmobile. I don't know if it's so much that the Batmobile has really "evolved" as it is that no two artists can agree on what the hell it looks like.

Thanks to Christopher Taylor.

Osama ♥ Whitney Houston.

Thanks to many, including Phin, Craig, JSU, and Brett.

Posted by: Ace at 05:23 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.