Seems there's a bit of drama in the blogosphere. I'm still catching up myself, so the best I can do is link.

I'm not making any judgments. I wasn't there.

This lays out the background of the imbroglio. Seems to lay out the most about it, fact-wise, at least regarding the point of contention that caused all of this:

What happened is that since she had not joined several of us in the hospitality suite the previous night, she asked what we have been discussing until 2 am. Some of my tablemates at dinner told her that I had provoked a spirited debate (lasting perhaps and hour and a half) about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I had asserted that state-sanctioned racial segregation was so egregious a violation of the rights of black citizens that it was absolutely necessary for the federal government to intervene to smash it. The whole political point of libertarianism is to strictly limit the power of the state over individuals. Mandating racial segregation via state power (as was done in the Southern states) is precisely the kind of state tyranny that libertarians detest. In any case, I think she found my view of the Civil Rights Act agreeable. During the discussion in the hospitality suite, absolutely no one defended state-sanctioned segregation and all agreed that Federal intervention was necessary to outlaw state-enforced Jim Crow segregation.

...

Anyway next thing I know, Ann Althouse is shouting at two of our dinner companions demanding that they prove to her (Althouse) that they are not racists! She kept asking over and over, "How do I know that I'm not sitting at a table full of racists?" This was completely bizarre! It should go without saying, but I will say it: No one at the conference could even remotely be accused of being racist.

Apparently, the three of them had been discussing the constitutionality of the public accommodations sections of the Civil Rights Act that forbids private businesses to racially discriminate among customers. That is an interesting issue where people ask serious questions about how to balance state intervention and individual choice.

...

In trying to explain to Althouse why private discrimination might be OK, I later pieced together that my tablemates had posed the question of whether or not Althouse would want to have the right to refuse to serve KKK members if she owned a restaurant--say, the KKK members were planning to have a weekly luncheon meeting at her cafe? My interpretation of what happened is that because she didn't want to appear to be hypocrite, she refused to answer and kept asking more and more abstract questions about their example. When she was backed into a corner, she lashed out, suggesting that people who disagreed with her feelings were racists. Eventually, she was so upset that she began crying. Of course, at that point the possibility of civil intellectual discourse completely evaporated.

Okay, so there you go. I don't know if that's all correct, but that seems to be how all of this started.

Althouse's post on the conservative-libertarian debate she attended.

Which Jonah Goldberg then characterizes, gingerly it seems, as "odd."

Cathy Seipp wondering why Althouse began crying.

Virgnia Postrel (the Dynamist) calling Althouse a "diva" who has "hissy-fits."

Althouse's rebuttal to Postrel, calling her a "diva" as well. Perhaps first. I don't know.

Like I said, still catching up. I have no idea if this is even worth linking. I guess I'll know soon enough.

Thanks to PetiteDov.

Where's Allah on this? He usually digs these sorts of scraps.

All of this could have been avoided if the womenfolk (including Jonah Goldberg) had been were God intended them to be, makin' sandwiches, makin' babies, and makin' with the hush-face.

Posted by: Ace at 03:49 PM | Comments (127)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Funny, I thought idiocy was actually a prerequisite for voting in New Jersey.

Seriously, "idiot sufferage" is coming. Gib says the term was used, at the time, to refer to the mentally ill, but I think he's just being a cretin.

Eh, I guess if we're letting women vote, we might as well.

Thanks to yls.

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

A local CBS affiliate says it was a false positive, but Jawa's updates suggest it wasn't, or at least perhaps CBS ran with its all-clear story before people were really sure.

Not sure if this is the latest report, but Something and Half of Something is liveblogging the local coverage, and says:

The box/device was being loaded onto a cruise ship scheduled for four day cruise starting later. The sensor caught it as having C4. They tested it five more times with positive reactions each test.

According to Port of Miami spokeswoman, Andria Muniz-Amador, a cargo pallet has been discovered and may contain a large amount of C-4 explosives.

The pallet was discovered in an area located at Gate H, located right next to Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines “Majesty of the Sea”, which does have passengers on board who are preparing to embark later Monday afternoon.

The local CBS affiliate's report is here, apparently largely based on a report from the cruise line calling the detonation "routine."

I don't know if any bomb-squad detonation of a suspicious package is truly "routine." Precautionary, maybe. Routine? Not really.

SAHOS' post is at 2:46, and the cruise line statement was issued at 2:30.

Hot Air says: Nope. Sprinkler parts.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

...because he gets away with being a complete hamdouche week after week.

He has the stupidest lines in TV. He's remade the CSI franchise into a Heroic Cult of Personality centerered around him. He has four acting moves -- look down at the floor then suddenly look up to cow a malefactor with his powerful blue glare, don/doff his sunglasses, backpedal out of frame (the frame cannot contain David Caruso's electric presence!), and put his hands on his hips in a "look at my package" manner -- and yet this stupid show is the most popular TV show in the world.

Our enlightened European betters and all that.

I just had to post this, because I just saw the worst CSI: Miami ever, and I'm a connosieur of this particular crap.

Caruso heroically got a hate-crimes case against a man already on the hook for capital murder. The DA asks, "Isn't the hate crimes case overkill?"

Caruso looks down at his feet, sunglasses off. "Doesn't hate concern you?" he asks the DA, burning with quiet righteousness.

"Of course it does," she answers.

"Good," he says, and then inevitably puts on the sunglasses and looks up. "Because hate should concern us all."

He actually said that. Next week he's going to come out against Naziism.

Then the camera went to a heroic overhead shot, then craned down to look forward at him as he pages heroically through the evidence he's collected as a heroically-jangly U2-esque guitar plays.

This scene actually made me cover my mouth out of true, visceral embarassment and begin saying "Holy shit, holy shit" to myself.

I'm telling you -- it's the best show on television. It's so monstrously bad it's brilliant. The Office, even the BBC version, cannot even touch it in terms of cringe-inducing squirmy embarassment.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (94)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Just checking my trackbacks SiteMeter referrals, I'm finding, to my surprise, that the lefty blogs I assumed all this time were covering the news are not, in fact, covering the news.

They are, by and large, and to the near-exclusion of all else, covering right-leaning blogs covering the news.

Why?

Well, either we're now all Media Super Stars who need to be kept in check, or they're basically trivial-minded people who are quite comfortable within the tiny boxes of inconsequence they've built for themselves, or they really don't buy this "right wing media" bullshit they all spew from time to time, and see attacking the dextrosphere as the best way to support their MSM allies.

Or a bit of all three.

As far as the first goes -- thanks, guys. I'm flattered. I'd like to say something nasty about you, but I try not to write about lowly bloggers too much -- my time is too valuable for that, and my readers could give a rat's ass what "Retardo Montalban" might think about Dan Riehl -- and I'm just delighted to be held in such high regard.

Posted by: Ace at 12:23 PM | Comments (196)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

As Allah says, probably a false positive, as they usually are.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

The AP got at least one part of its story right -- there does exist a person named "Capt. Jamil Hussein.

But as Patterico demonstrates, there is considerable doubt about the rest of it.

I don't want to dismiss my own lack of caution in pronouncing, eventually, that Jamil Hussein probably did not exist. That was a mistake, and I made a false charge against AP. Crow does need to be eaten on that score.

But the leftist MSM apologists -- who fancy themselves MSM critics, so long as "MSM" is taken to mean Rush Limbaugh, rightwing bloggers, and Danny Bondaduce -- continue to assume facts not in evidence about "minor details" about Iraq, including, you know, whether or not reported facts are actually facts at all.

They continue sweeping questions aside about this, dismissing such questions as niggling pettifogging. But I thought it was the MSM's job to report the basic facts accurately, not to get the "overarching narrative" kinda-sorta right, as the leftist MSM apologists have redefined the MSM's role.

Do we need reporters to give us an "overarching narrative" which is in the ballpark of being right? I would imagine that most people can guess fairly accurately as to the "overarching narrative." I thought reporters -- our experts without portfolio -- were supposed to do more than guess at the big picture. I thought they were supposed to actually nail down the "minor details."

It's a much easier job just to get "the basic gist" right, or almsot right, at least. If that's what reporters are redefining their job as, they're not only disburdening themselves of the toughest part of their job, they're ceding the one area in which they claim "expertise" is no longer vital for their duties.

So-- what do we need them for? I can guess the basics of what's going on in Iraq as well as Kathleen Carroll.

Are the MSM now conceding the best they can do is no better than what any of us could do?

Posted by: Ace at 12:05 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

I was wondering -- really, I was -- if the basic melody of "Magic" was better than some might recognize, given the cheesey early-eighties arrangement, and if a less cheesey arrangement might make the song sound a lot cooler. You know, if all that ELO-ish synth and those disco embellishments were scrubbed out, maybe it wouldn't seem so, what's the word I'm looking for?, ghey.

I'm posting this because it seems to answer my question directly.

I don't know if it will win any converts, but I'm satisfied silly that the Internet provides answers to idle questions within minutes.

I dig this chick's voice.

Update: Tigger Smackdown Video.

Thanks to Phin of Agent Bedhead, as well as Apothegm Designs, for all your website-design needs.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 150 words, total size 4 kb.

WSJ: The shortest way home is a bold, heavier-footpring strategy now.

President Bush is set to announce his new strategy for Iraq this week, and the early signs are that it will include both more American and Iraqi troops to improve security, especially in Baghdad. We think the American people will support the effort, as long as Mr. Bush treats this like the all-in proposition it deserves to be.

If the stakes in Iraq are as great as Mr. Bush says--and we believe they are--then he should commit whatever forces are needed to achieve success. The public's support for the Iraq campaign is waning, in major part because the casualties and expense have been producing no visible progress. Even with Democrats running Congress, Mr. Bush has a political window to pursue a more robust security strategy. The paradox is that the fastest way home from Iraq is a bolder commitment now.

...

The final straw was the failure of Operation Forward Together to secure Baghdad last year. Although many neighborhoods did improve during the "clear" phase, there were too few troops deployed for the "hold" process to work.

...

The main objections to this new push in Iraq seem to be two: First, that military victory is no longer possible amid a "civil war" in Iraq; and second, that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is sectarian and thus will not compromise enough to achieve the political ends that must accompany improved security.

...

What is sure to radicalize the Shiites is an early U.S. departure. They would then have little choice but to call on Iran and Hezbollah and anyone else for the military aid to defeat the Sunni terrorists. The forces of Shiite democracy, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, would be swamped. Then there really could be a Shiite dictatorship in Iraq, along with ethnic cleansing on a scale unseen since the India-Pakistan diaspora.

Bill Kristol in Time:

The foreign policy cognoscenti and the political elites were happy to dismiss the fact that Saddam's trial was a real achievement of a struggling democracy fighting terror and sectarian strife. They were eager to deprecate the fact that Saddam was tried in court before courageous judges under the laws of his nation, with a chance to defend himself. They were willing to pretend it was no big deal to see a tyrant brought low, to see injustice punished and justice done.

Why? Because to dwell on the life and death of this mass murderer might remind Americans of the fundamental justice of the war. It might cause the American people to wonder why, having accomplished this, they should be so quick to give up on accomplishing more. It might cause them to hesitate before succumbing to despair when confronted by the challenges of continued violence and terrorism. It might cause them to wonder whether tyranny might not still be successfully replaced by liberty.

...

There has been some sniping at the Keane-Kagan plan. But what is striking is that so few of the critics actually go to the trouble of analyzing it--or proposing a substitute. Instead, Keane and Kagan are treated with annoyance and disdain. Don't they know that we're losing in Iraq and that it's time to leave? What's all this talk about staying and fighting and winning? Didn't anyone tell them that the Bush Administration's errors have been so grievous that success is hopeless?

The Keane-Kagan plan is available here in bullet-point form. Not to take it as a "fruit salad," but I'm not sure we need to invest billions more in reconstruction. I'm more of a mind to reduce reconstruction dollars, to right around zero, to any areas which provide haven to terrorists. "Hearts and minds" can be "won" by punitive measures too, especially when the positive, nothing-but-carrots-no-matter-how-many-terrorists-you-harbor model doesn't seem to be working.

I support a surge, and would continue to as long as some metrics begin pointing in the right direction. If they don't, then I guess I'd support pulling the troops back to more easily defended bases, ending patrols, etc., and basically hunkering down in Fortress Kurdistan to watch the Shias ethnically cleanse the Sunnis. Not that that's my preferred position, but if law cannot be restored through less-barbaric methods, then it will be restored, inevitably, through barbarous ones; people will not accept a life of perpetual terrorism, when the solution, albeit bloody and horrid, is within their means.

Poll: I know a surge is controversial even among pro-war conservatives. I made a quickie poll to see where the readership is on this.

The first two answers are binary -- I realize that many who support a surge may only do so if the numbers are big enough, and/or the rules of engagement are loosened up, and/or the strategy is changed, and/or etc. And similarly those who say no may support those other changes, and still wish to win the war -- just without a surge.

But still, all those caveats and preconditions aside, the basic question is still fairly binary.

Or trinary, really, so Observer5 and seattleslough can vote too.

Stupid Poll: Five times I have created a poll with three choices -- the last being "withdraw now." Five times the idiotic site has generated code giving me only "Yes" and "No" options. I give up.

Six Times Now: I don't get it. I continue typing in answer three, the WYSIWYG exemplar of my poll displays correctly, and then the code again spits out only a Yes/No format.

Idiotic. I suppose the software has some stupid bug in it that automatically makes a poll Yes/No only if you include those answers, but I'm no longer in the mood to fight the program.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (72)
Post contains 969 words, total size 7 kb.

They're still investigating, they say, which I guess prevents them from making a full retraction. The investigation is slated to continue until 2022.

Background on the story here.

Speaking of corrections, I have a couple of my own. As you probably know by now, no thanks to me, that photo of John Kerry sitting alone in Iraq doesn't show that the troops were necessarily avoiding him. According to Kerry and the man he was sitting with, he was giving an interview, and chose an empty table for that purpose.

The left is going bonkers demanding apologies and such, but as Allah notes, they have a rather selective memory, and a selective policy on corrections. Lefty bloggers alleged that the photo was doctored/photoshopped/faked, thus prompting Powerline, for example, to knock down such allegations. And then the lefty blog TPM has the gall to mock right-leaning blogs for spending a lot of time proving the picture to be real.

No apologies from the left for their conspiracy theorizing.

And, unfortunately, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is still valiantly fighting in his struggle to remain alive.

Damnit.

Lefty blogs are going nuts with that one, too. Why? Who knows.

The current dynamic seems to be that the right side of the internet exists to correct and rebuke the MSM, while the left side of the internet exists soley for the purpse of correcting and rebuking the right side of the internet and, inexorably, thusly defending the MSM.

The left's claims about MSM being biased to the right ring a little hollow when they endeavor solely to defend it.

The dextrosphere can use the policing, certainly. But the left really can't claim the MSM is its "enemy" when their actions prove they see them as ideological soul-mates.

It's amusing to see the left crow when they take down Powerline. Important voices in blog-dom, to be sure, but not exactly Dan Rather.

I'm beginning to realize that, for the left, we are their Dan Rather, their Reuters, their AP.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.