Three men detained, allegedly trying to sell enriched uranium powder.

The suspects had just under 500g (17.6 ounces) of uranium in powder, senior police official Michal Kopcik said.

Slovakian investigators believe the enriched uranium came from somewhere in the former Soviet Union.

The identity of the intended buyer for the uranium has not been released.

Posted by: LauraW. at 12:04 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Jackstraw posted a link to the transcript here of a CNN interview with him regarding the topic of gays in the military.

As he says, their pretending to feign ignorance is a joke.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 11:58 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

A scientist set out to find what events and trends had been attributed to global waming lately.

With over 600 links so far -- and he's not done yet -- it's easier to ask "What doesn't global warming cause?"

Among the victims of CO2 (The Invisible Killer): Fashion.

Yes, fashion.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Now they're reduced to actually fucking polling themselves.

[Reuters:] Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a (Pew Research Center) poll released on Wednesday said.

I'd say they were beyond parody, but they beyond parody a long time ago. Now they're beyond the crudest of farce.

As Newsbusters notes, if they're now breaking the rule that they should not (overtly) offer their opinions, praytell, will they finally share with us their general political beliefs and partisan sympathies?

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, Dave, it's old (from May), but funny.

Samples:

6. Baby, you overclock my processor.

...

12. You must be auxin, cause you are causing me to have rapid stem elongation.

..

15. Baby I’ll treat you like my homework — I’ll slam you on the table and do you all night long

...

22. By looking at you I can tell youÂ’re 36-25-36, which by the way are all perfect squares.

...

25. What do you say we go back to my room and do some math: Add a bed, subtract our clothes, divide your legs, and multiply

...

29. WhatÂ’s your sine? It must be pi/2 because youÂ’re the 1

...

36. You know.. itÂ’s not the length of the vector that countsÂ… itÂ’s how you apply the force

...

39. If I was an endoplasmic reticulum, how would you want me: smooth or rough?

...

42. Our love is like dividing by zeroÂ…. you cannot define it

..

44. Baby let me be your integral so I can be the area under your curves

And those are just the ones I sort of understand.

I was joking a while ago about Serial Killer Pick-Up lines, like, I don't know, "If I told you you had a lovely torso, would you hold it against me? Just the torso I mean. The limbs I find distateful" or "If I asked you to breakfast tomorrow, should I call you on the phone or just open up my sack and ask your head?"

Seemed like something riffable for you dark-humored weirdos. Alas, the comments problem.

Via Instapundit, thanks to Little Miss Atilla, who's offering Meryl Yourish advice on choosing her first (girl) gun.

Even Awesomer: 100 Bad Pick-Up Lines, sent by JB.

I'm giggling already. "They call Gonnorhea the 'Lover's Disease.'"

That's hot.

Posted by: Ace at 11:22 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

He admitted he knew Kerr was an "activist of some sort," while denying he specifically knew he was a member of Hillary's LGBT steering committee.

Well, then Anderson: Why did you not disclose even that in presenting him as an "ordinary American"?

And, knowing he was an "activist of some sort," why did you not do the simplest of background checks -- a mere Google search! -- to determine the extent of his "activism of some sort"?

Because he didn't want to fucking know. Implausible Deniability.

Thanks again to CJ, who seems even more pissed off about this than me.

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, yet again... I'm sorry about this. I've sent an email to Pixy about it. Not sure when he can get around to fixing it, as he's on Australia time.

Comments Will Eventually Load, It Seems... but it takes a while. If you try to post, especially something long and thoughtful, copy it before you hit post. Paging back should bring back your comment if the site bogs down (at least it almost always does so for me), but some say the comments feature sometimes eats their comments.

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 92 words, total size 1 kb.

So why are you complaining? The MSM applies its rule fairly to both parties!

A few weeks ago, during the most recent Democratic debate, it was uncovered that a lot of the questioners CNN picked had were Democratic party officials and apparatchiks. The justification at the time was "oops -- we didn't know!" and "well, it's for the Democratic primary, so of course it's going to be a lot of Democrats asking the questions."

Now that lightning has struck twice at CNN and we have a new slate of Democratic appartchiks and activists asking questions of Republicans, the new narrative seems to be "well, they were valid questions, so it really doesn't matter who asked them."

This raises the interesting question: if who asked the questions is irrelevant, then why didn't the gay general ask about lead in toys, while the mom with her kids ask about gays in the military? The honest answer is, of course, that this is a case of "identity politics" -- in many cases, who is saying something is just as important -- if not more important -- than the actual statement.

The irony here is that the argument is correct. Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy.

Indeed, in both cases, CNN and the media choose questioners that make it difficult to disagree with the liberal position and difficult to agree with the conservative position. And they do this at Democratic debates, and then the same at Republican debates.

Thanks to CJ.

More... At least four plants so far and counting.

And it was easy to discover the Democratic plants-- but CNN was either too lazy to do so or, more likely, didn't want to do so. Whether it's a Democratic or Republican debate, CNN and the MSM know that liberal Democratic operatives are the only persons, other than themselves, qualified to ask questions of candidates.

If any of the candidates had bothered to have staffers watch the videos, they would have seen what seemed like a bias of Democratic supporters over true Republicans who had submitted videos. It looks like YouTube has pulled the 5000 or so submissions down (at least my search skills aren't good enough to find them), but from what I remember when I was watching the videos from time to time, it was pretty easy to ferret out the Dems. All you had to do was click on the username of the person submitting the video and you'd see any other video they posted. CNN was lazy, no doubt about it.

If You Tube has pulled the questions, that's outrageous. Because we are all entitled to see the questions CNN didn't pick -- like, perhaps, a homeowner who defended his family from an intruder with a gun making a sympathetic and powerful case for gun rights.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

Video of CNN pulling out all the stops for Hillary.

People are arguing on NRO, and here, over whether this debate was unfair and stacked against the actual Republican candidates. I say "unfair," myself. The clear winner of the Republican debate was Gen. Keith Kerr, a member of Hillary's LGBT steering committee, given approximately half as much time to voice his opinions as Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson.

The media cuteness on this is insufferable. They know they're not supposed to give partisan speeches at debates, so instead they merely invite hardcore partisans and give them the mic for five minutes. Hillary's plant, as well as the liberal activists and union representatives and Democratic hacks chosen to grill the candidates dominated the debate:

I'm going to be traveling for the rest of the day and won't be able to follow it, but if the reports of Edwards supporters, Obama supporters, and union activists, along with Gen. Kerr, asking questions last night are accurate, then the YouTube debate might well shape up as something between a fiasco and a disgrace for CNN. Democrats would not even appear for a debate on Fox News, where they would have been questioned by experienced and respected journalists like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. But Republicans went ahead with the CNN/YouTube show, where they were questioned byÂ…well, some questionable characters.

Was Keith Kerr's question fair? Well, sure, the question was fair. The staging of a sympathetic Hillary plant to ask it live, and seemingly without end, was not. CNN will argue they didn't know he was a Hillary plant (despite the fact it was easy enough to find out; he was found on Google to be a plant within minutes of the debate's end). But so what if they didn't know his partisan affiliation? What the hell were they doing handing the show over to him for a solid five or seven minutes anyway?

It made for sharp questioning and good drama. But if that's the name of the game, let me suggest to CNN that they allow a paralyzed veteran with limbs missing due to an IED attack similarly grill the Democratic candidates on whether they support the Democratic Congress' determination to choke off all monies needed for the military's anti-IED program. Give him the mic, live, and let him harangue the Democrats on the viciousness of IEDs, and the viciousness of them putting soldiers' lives, and limbs, in jeopardy to appease their netroots base.

Would CNN ever do such a thing? Of course not. There would be no vetting of whether he was affiliated with any campaign because there would never even be a thought of letting him grill the Democrats at all.

So CNN can fuck itself sideways with their claims of "just allowing ordinary Americans to voice their concerns." They choose which "ordinary Americans" get to ask questions; they're nothing but sock-puppets for the political agenda of CNN. The moment they begin allowing sympathetic figures to embarrass Democrats, I'll call them fair. But they won't -- the Democrats get protected, the Republicans get embarrassed.

Even the right-wing (or supposedly right-wing) questioners in these debates are chosen for their scare value. I remember at the last CNN You Tube debate -- the Democratic one -- when their question about gun rights was posed by a frankly frightening character who demonstrated a nearly sexual fascination with his weapons, calling them his "babies" (presumably, the babies he molests at night). They could have chosen, I'm sure, a dozen gun-rights questions from a dozen more reputable and more reasonable folks... instead, they put the gun-rights question in the mouth of just the sort of character that gives gun rights a bad name.

Given that a guy you wouldn't trust with a butter knife was asking if he could have all the M-16s he could possibly want for his regularly-scheduled schoolyard killing spree, it was rather easy for Joe Biden to call this nutjob what he was and say something along the lines of "You're exactly the moron I'm thinking of when I'm voting for gun control laws." And of course most of America agreed; hell, even I agreed.

They could have featured, say, Glenn Reynolds or Eugene Volokh making a smart constitutional and policy argument on behalf of gun rights; instead, they select the mad sniper from The Jerk.

Same deal in this debate: Yes, many of the questions addressed right-wing concerns, but in almost every case those posing the questions discredited the right-wing position through their buffoonery and strangeness. This time we get a fucking survivalist asking the gun rights question.

As for religion, we get a moon-eyed zealot asking whether the candidates believe "this particular book" -- that is, the King James Version of the Bible, believed by Protestants but not by Catholics and, presumably, Mormons to be the true revelation of God -- attempting, it seems, to remind everyone that Giuliani and (guessing) Tancredo are Catholics and Romney is a Mormon, and basically attempting to turn a 2007 Republican debate into a bitter rehash of Martin Luther's indictment of the Catholic Church. (The candidates ignored the intent of the question, but CNN put it out there just the same.)

So no, I'm not buying that CNN was an honest broker here. The questioners they featured were either Democratic plants or true-believing right-wingers, but precisely the sort of right-wingers that give the rest of us right-wingers the shivering douchechills. We, frankly, attempt to hide them most of the time, as the Democratic Party attempts to hide its own nuts and fruitcakes; but the media helps the Democratic Party hide theirs, while it gives our unsavory maniacs center stage. They allow people in the hospital to make a heart-tugging and pro-Democrat case for universal health care, while the Republicans get questions about de-regulating the leatherworking industry from Jame Gumb of Silence of the Lambs.

Hey, I'm Not Looking For a Religious Fight Either! Wardrobe Door writes:

Whoa, Ace! Don't pin this whole King James Version only thing on all of us Protestants/evangelicals. As a conservative evangelical, who is not a loon fundamentalists, I've had my own personal run-ins with them.

Just as that guy is a mischaracterization of conservatives, he is also a mischaracterization of Christian conservatives.

You miss my intent. I'm not "pinning" this on evangelicals. Anyone can believe in whatever book they want (and most believe other versions are at least partly in error).

My point is that this was a divisive question chosen for 1) the guy's self-discrediting demeanor and 2) to turn a political debate into a rather irrelevant argument over whether the KJV, or some other version of the Bible, is the true word of God.

Ever seen CNN express interest in, say, questioning Hillary's (supposed) Protestantism/Methodism and whether or not she believes her millions and millions of Catholic voters are in fact in metaphysical error?

CNN was basically seeking to make Catholicsm vs. Protestantism or Mormonism vs. Protestantism a wedge issue. If CNN thinks that's a smart, tough line of questioning, I invite them to ask if Barack Obama specifically repudiates his early Muslim upbringing and will renounce Islam as a false religion (as all Christians must believe) and whether, say, Hillary Clinton believes that millions of Catholics are in error as regards the value of works in salvation and hence are in real jeopardy of going to Hell.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 1238 words, total size 8 kb.

"OK guys, let's wrap up the press conference and get back to painting the Wilsons' den."

Posted by: LauraW. at 09:46 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.