Somewhat good news. If we can get a bare majority, say 51%-46%, liberals can go back to calling themselves "brave dissenters" without the inconvenience of actually "dissenting" with a majoritarian opinion.

The poll finds that 54% still want to bring the troops home -- but that seems to be a dog's breakfast of a question, because it's not clear what that means nor how respondents took it to mean. As Jules Crittenden says, "I want the troops home too. After we win." For many who support victory, bringing home the troops represents the final recognition that victory has been achieved.

So I don't think that question means what Pew wants it to mean. I rather doubt that 48% of Americans believe the war is going well but want to surrender anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

A judge blocked DoJ subpoenas of a book-seller charged with tax evasion. The subpoenas were apparently issued so that investigators could determine if books really were sold or if the transaction was some sort of sham.

From the order:

In this era of public apprehension about the scope of the USAPATRIOT Act, the FBIÂ’s (now-retired) "Carnivore" Internet search program, and more recent highly-publicized admissions about political litmus tests at the Department of Justice, rational book buyers would have a non-speculative basis to fear that federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents have a secondary political agenda that could come into play when an opportunity presented itself. Undoubtedly a measurable percentage of people who draw such conclusions would abandon online book purchases in order to avoid the possibility of ending up on some sort of perceived "enemies list."

[FOOTNOTE: I am not finding that such fears are well-founded, but neither can I find them completely speculative or irrational. Quite apart from any book buyer's personal fear of federal apparatchiks or black helicopters is the more commonly shared notion that living in the land of the free means that it's none of the governmentÂ’s business what books people are reading.]

Taken a step further, if word were to spread over the Net — and it would — that the FBI and the IRS had demanded and received Amazon’s list of customers and their personal purchases, the chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America. Fiery rhetoric quickly would follow and the nuances of the subpoena (as actually written and served) would be lost as the cyberdebate roiled itself to a furious boil. One might ask whether this court should concern itself with blogger outrage disproportionate to the government’s actual demand of Amazon. The logical answer is yes, it should: well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon’s customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases, now and perhaps forever.

Orin Kerr at Volokh explains why this is, to use a legal term of art, fucking retarded, at the link.

Speaking of books and BDS, Steven King has a bad case of it. The man who gives America nightmares wakes up in cold sweats due to thoughts of... Albert Gonzalez.

And waterboarding, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

OK, peeps, here is the deal.

I want to buy a place on the beach. Which beach? I dunno.

Take out your maps. It's geography time. Starting at the North Carolina/Virginia border, move south thru South Carolina and Georgia, go around the Florida coast and continue until you reach the Alabama/Mississippi border.

That's my target area. Southern, Red State Beaches.

Now, there is more to this story, so I'm putting it in the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Jack M. at 06:49 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

Huh. Didn't see that coming.

Secret message to Jerry Jones: I didn't cancel cable and I didn't sign up for satellite so fuck you very much.

Reminder to get your picks in, with the Thursday night game coming up. Should be a little more interesting than the Steelers - Dolphins thing, or at least it would be if I could actually WATCH THE GODDAMN THING.

Ahem. 16 games this week, AoSHQI standings here updated later so take a screen cap of my name cause it won't be there for long.

UPDATED with AoSHQII

1 PHenry 101
2 Slublog 97
3 Bart 96
3 anotheranon 96
3 Stashiu3 96
3 Drew Bledsoe for HoF 96
3 Mr_Wide_Stance 96
8 Drew W. 92
9 HebrewToYou 91
9 Dr Zin 91
9 AZResident 91

HebrewToYou, cinderella story, came outta nowhere. Went 10 for 16 this past week after a couple of 6/16 and 5/14 weeks. Truly, it's anybody's to win at this point.

Well, except for wiserbud.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 05:59 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is poised to be come the next greatest threat to American democracy. No, really: "not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights."

I looked for a generally unbiased article to link for you, but everything out there about the bill opposes it. It doesn't look like legacy media have picked up the story yet. If you like, you can look through the legislative text.

The bill passed the House in October by a vote of 404 to 6. A Senate committee is considering it now. If it becomes law, the bill will establish a congressional commission to look at the causes of "violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States." It also directs the creation of a "university-based Center of Excellence" which would work with the commission and also "study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States."

The language that really scares the Left is that which gives the commission the power to call hearings and take oaths and that directing the university center to discover "methods that can be utilized" by state and federal governments to combat radicalization and terrorism. They claim that the former will make the commission members "little McCarthys" and that the latter will lead to thought police.

All the right people are in a tizzy over this one: Indymedia, numerous op-ed writers, and, of course, Lefty blogs, who have issued so many "Action Alerts" about it that even I noticed. Amusingly, the John Birch Society also opposes it, as do the PaulBots.

My patriotic fervor was particularly stirred by this Action Alert from the National Lawyers Guild (the same folks who brought you terrorist supporter Lynne Stewart). It is embarrassingly farfetched:

This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The NLG's objection is like protesting the invention of the internal combustion engine because it might one day lead to tank warfare. Unfortunately, there are just a few intervening steps in there that they might be overlooking. Despite it's characterization as a "thought crimes law", there are no criminal penalties in bill. In fact, it would take wholly new legislative action to criminalize "ideas or beliefs" and, of course, such a law would never pass constitutional muster.

The real question is why the Left (and fringe Right) is so frantic to prevent examination of "ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." It's like that hits too close to the mark or something.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:26 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 474 words, total size 4 kb.

Remember how I said yesterday it was a bad idea to lie to a judge? It's bad to make them angry, too.

Restaino, who became a full-time judge in 2002 after serving part-time since 1996, was hearing domestic violence cases when a phone rang.

"Everyone is going to jail," the judge said. "Every single person is gong [sic] to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."

When no one came forward, the judge ordered the group [of 46 people] into custody and they were taken by police to the city jail, where they were searched and packed into crowded cells. Fourteen people who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the Niagara County Jail in Lockport, a 30-minute drive away.

Okay, okay. This happened two years ago; he was removed from the bench this morning. Still, those folks did end up in jail, however briefly, at the whim of a judge. A disciplinary panel was required to remind the judiciary once again that "judge" is related to "judgment."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:17 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

Like gentlemen.

Kanye and Evel.

The "don't know if I'll be back again" line added extreme lameness to this vid (below the fold).

I'm talking supreme, "whoever the fuck directed this thing" extraordinary lameness.

Because it reveals your age.

Anyway, amicable settlement, which means somebody got some money.

Oh, and ignore the vid if you're not a history fan. And even if you are, God it sucks. more...

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 06:44 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Nasty. The last incident shown is real gross. The housekeeper washes out the toilet, then wears the same gloves she swabbed the shitter out with to wipe out the drinking glasses.

H/T Duane more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:29 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Funny. I only even understand like five of them but it's silly enough I was giggling at most of them anyway.

If you click on each graph at the site, the video it's based on will pop up.

Via Karol at Alarming News.

Posted by: Ace at 05:31 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

...and not considering the costs of snorting on West Africa, which has a new scourge, as if it needed another:

At times I am perplexed and frustrated. Europeans now understand that they should not buy blood diamonds, or clothes made by slaves working in sweatshops. Extractive industries from around the world publish what they pay to local exporters as a way of preventing corruption. Major initiatives are in place to curb illicit trade in ivory, endangered species - even precious wood from illegal logging. The corporate world, reflecting public opinion, is showing a greater sense of social responsibility.

And yet with cocaine, the opposite occurs. Nobody makes movies about blood coke. Worse than that: models and socialites who wouldn't dare to wear a tiger fur coat, show no qualms about flaunting their cocaine use in public.

As a non-enthusiast of drug use, it's a cost-free thing for me to oppose drug use. I gain no utility from the stuff, apart from the hospital grade ether I sprinkle on my Sleepyrags. So I realize it's rather easy for me to scold drug users for the unintended consequences of their actions.

Still, points like this demonstrate a truth: When you buy drugs, unsavory people are getting the money, aren't they? And they're not building public libraries with that money.

Of course, all of us impose bad externalities on the world at large through our decisions, and drug users may argue, perhaps plausibly, that buying drugs from a local warlord causes lesser bad effects than driving an SUV and putting money into the hands of Our Allies The House of Saud (TM), but all the chortling over the basic notion seems out of place.

Ehhhhh... I hate posts like this. They start so many arguments. And I'm all about the love.

Seemed too interesting, and too Euro-bashing, not to post, though.

Let's Focus on Eurowanks... and just note the hypocrisy. Europeans, it seems, are willing to give up everything they don't particularly want -- diamonds, economic productivity, children, a future presence on Earth -- and scold others for not doing otherwise to save the planet they soon won't inhabit.

But when it comes to stuff they do want, suddenly they just say, "That's not my problem, Old Man. Let the Africans figure their own shit out."

It's really not much of a moral gesture to abstain from actions you don't derive pleasure from, such as, for Europeans, vaginal sex.

Anyway. I'm aware that when I post stuff like this I really don't have any particular personal right to strut righteously, as I just don't like drugs. So it's pretty fucking easy for me to avoid inflicting all drug-related negative externalities on the world. I wouldn't do them anyway. Quite frankly, if drug purchases helped support orphanages and kennels for stray dogs, I still wouldn't buy them.

But for the Religion of the Perpetually Self-Righteous -- the hippies, the Eurowanks -- they're always browbeating and showing their pretty peacock feathers over their "moral stances" they've taken, almost all of which are cost-free or nearly so for them.

But when the rubber hits the road, and they're asked to refrain from drug use for all the same reasons they refrain from, say, "conflict grapes" or whatever the fuck they're on about this week, they balk. When there's a cost associated with their piousness, they're unwilling pay it.

When their hobby is threatened, suddenly it's not quite so imperative to "think globally, act locally" after al.

Posted by: Ace at 03:01 PM | Comments (89)
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.