Sunglasses, bad button, walking out of frame. The whole package.

Thanks to Allah.

Also from Allah: this video, which starts looking like your typical jagoffs drinking and talking tough, but then gets good.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

I wasn't as impressed with this Tim Blairism as Glenn Reynolds or the Pajamas Media editors were.

Sure, it's always fun to have a new word to play with, but it just didn't have the magic to me of, say, suddenly dusting off the word "jerkoff," which I haven't used since tenth grade, and marvelling at its sublime beauty. (Previous re-discoveries of passe curse words I've had fun with have been "hump," "tool," "chump," and, of course, the now passe again "douchebag.")

But maybe they're on to something -- because the execrable Tbogg seems to hate it:

The wingnuts have a new expression: beclowned. [Links omitted.]

Watch them work this to death over the next few days like a child who realizes he can get a reaction by repeating "poopy" over and over again. I guess this is the new "stuck on stupid" or "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!", which didn't quite pan out the way they thought it wuld.

Watch them work this to death over the next few days like a child who realizes he can get a reaction by repeating "poopy" over and over again.

This from the side of the aisle whose major contribution to invective has been six million variations on "Chimperor McHitlerburton" for the past six years.

Did I say that was their major contribution to invective? That understates it, doesn't it? That's been their primary contribution to political discourse, period.

I'd say "beclowned" is a damn-sight better than "Resident Chimpy McMonkeyMurderer" and its endless retarded variants.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny how the NYT will attribute the former to a "tough media environment" for which they should bear no blame, and also claim the latter is just dumb luck on the part of the Republican administration.

Or, alternately, the NYT will excuse its own ability to right its economic wrongs while they had comparatively little sympathy for Bush's inherited recession of 2000, not to mention the trillion dollar economic hit of 9/11.

Falling:

The New York Times Co., which owns newspapers, broadcast outlets and Web sites, said Wednesday that January sales slipped 0.4 percent on weakness at its New England and regional media groups.

Ad sales from continuing operations fell 2.1 percent to $182.6 million from $186.5 million in the prior-year period. Total revenue from continuing operations declined to $288 million from $289.1 million.

Rising:

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

Although it is a welcome change, the improvement does little to stave off the long-run challenges to the nation's financial health, many economists say. Baby boomers are starting to retire, placing new demands on government. Costs for healthcare programs like Medicare are still projected to rise faster than overall inflation.

"The picture is getting brighter," and if there's no recession over the next several years "there are going to continue to be some good strides made," says Mark McMullen, a senior economist at Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa. But "it's unlikely that we're going to see a balanced budget anytime in the near or long term."

Some experts say the budget could achieve balance in the short run of the next few years. In unveiling its proposed budget this month, the Bush administration forecast black ink on the federal ledger in 2012. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its recent annual outlook, also shows a surplus for that year.

A year ago, the CBO's forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.

"Right now, we're in some sense in a relatively good spot," says Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington. "We're in the sixth year of an economic expansion," a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.

The braintrust at the New York Times took only five minutes to... surround the story:

"Revenue Gap" Between US Government and NYT Company Proves Conclusively That Private Sector Is Inferior To Government

Not really, of course. But you know Paul Krugman is playing with the idea.

Posted by: Ace at 02:22 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.

He found their names on a Republican website, and decided that he would, Marion "Cobra" Cabretti-like, let them know that they were the disease, and he was the cure.

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

So she says herself, a London paper reports.

The 25-year-old singer shocked the public by shaving off her brown hair. She claimed it was because of a problem with 'lice'.

A source said: "She thought lice were eating her hair extensions, so decided to get rid of them as soon as possible."

This was her second attempt at rehab. Last week, she checked into Eric Clapton's Crossroads rehab clinic in Antigua - but again stayed only 24 hours.

Britney's erratic behaviour seemed to have started in 2004 when she married childhood friend Jason Alexander.

It was annulled after only 55 hours. Later that same year she married Kevin Federline, but filed for divorce last November and set off on a wild round of partying.

But it was the head-shaving incident that seemed to prove she was over the edge.

Britney reportedly sought rehab after a showdown with her mother, who was said to be at "breaking point".

A source said: "Her mother cries and begs Britney to calm down, but Britney just yells at her and tells her to mind her own business."

The good news? Well, everyone who ever thought "I'd like to tap that shit" will, probably, get their chance at one point or another.

The bad news? It will be like finally buying that Camaro in high school you always wanted -- yeah, it's a Camaro. It's also beat to shit, lacking an engine or steering wheel, and stinking faintly of Taco Bell and cat urine.

Plus, it suffers from automotive cooties.

Posted by: Ace at 01:06 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Did I say yesterday was my last word on this "for a while"? I guess 24 hours is a while, sort of.

Although one might say this is the show's high-water mark due to curiousity and promotion, and that it's all downhill from here, other shows debut poorly and then pick up ratings as they find their stride. I think the former is more likely, based upon the decidedly non-hilarious material in the show, but then, many decent shows start off pretty lame before finding their voice. Seinfeld, Just Shoot Me, Arrested Development, etc. All had very weak debuts before gaining comedic confidence.*

So, who knows? Maybe Joel Surnow is a genius after all.

* Not to suggest that this show is anywhere near the quality that those shows eventually reached. Just to say that they all went through a learning curve and growth process.

Posted by: Ace at 12:54 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

So, I'm reading the encouraging posts that Ace has up about Giuliani beating Hillary! and Obama, and I can't help but be depressed.

Why? Because these polls assume something that I don't think is going to happen. They assume a "traditional" election model in which there are two major nominees, and the "third party" candidates have no impact.

Sadly, I believe this election is shaping up to be like 1968 all over again.

What happened in 1968 you ask? LBJ, weakened by an unpopular war, decided against running again. The Democratic nominee was an unapologetic liberal. The Republican nominee was to the left of the party. And a populist third party candidate, appealing to disaffected law and order/anti-hippy conservatives in the South almost siphoned enough votes away to cost the GOP a certain victory.

Let's look at 2008. We have a supposedly "unpopular" war, and a President who can not run, and a VP who isn't going to do so. The Democratic nominee will be an unrepentant liberal (either Hillary! or Obamessiah). The GOP nominee will likely be to the left of a significant portion of his party (and I believe that, barring a significant series of mistakes or some bombshell "Giulianigate" story Giuliani will be the nominee).

So where's the problem? John McCain.

I think he is going to be the George Wallace of the 2008 election. And I think that, much like George Wallace did, he will siphon enough votes to either toss Red States to the Dems or to throw the election into the House of Representatives by winning a couple outright.

The stories of McCain's admiration for the 3rd Party candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt are legendary.

More troubling, though, are the rumors (and that's what they are, rumors) I'm hearing in the DC circles I run in that the McCain folks are already planning a third party "National Unity" run. Supposedly, they are following polls that show them steadily losing ground, and this contingency plan is being put into action.

Which isn't surprising to me in the least. I think McCain's ego is such that he would hand the election to the Democrats in a fit of pique, should Republican primary voters reject him.

In 1968, Nixon feared Wallace would throw the election to Humphrey.

In 2008, I fear a vengeful McCain will throw the election to the Democratic nominee.

Which is why I would like to see the bigwigs on the Right Side of the 'Sphere, and the Conservative Media outlets like National Review and The Weekly Standard (ya, I know Kristol is a McCain sycophant) grill him on this very question.

Don't accept answers from John Weaver (McCain's Top Political Strategist), or any of the other "representatives" of the McCain campaign.

Ask Mr. Straight Talk himself about whether he will support the GOP nominee regardless of who it may be. Ask him if he will categorically rule out running as a third party candidate.

At the very least, his answers today might be useful. Should he "flip flop" and run (after having disavowed it) that could help undercut his future support. Should he say he won't rule it out, or some other weak ass answer, that could help undercut his current support.

So press him.

I shouldn't have to do your jobs for ya.

Besides, he doesn't return my calls.

Update 1: Changed a mispelled word in the title.

Update 2: Nader will run, as some in the comments suggest. He will be a non factor, and I doubt his presence will contribute to determining the outcome as it arguably did in 2000. In my opinion, only McCain poses a viable 3rd party threat. I don't believe any of the other prominent GOP contenders would be tempted to do it.

Posted by: Jack M. at 12:24 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

...and currently has a 48 to 43 lead over her.

Of course, Clinton isn't getting the nomination. Obama is, and he's a lot more likable than the grating Hillary! (Likable, normal-seeming -- and very very liberal. But still, the gut counts for a lot.)

And Rudy will, I think, lose a good chunk of the base, and not get the nomination himself, if he continues running hard to the center-left on almost all social/values issues.

But still. Some more evidence of his basic strength, even if he's courting political disaster right now.

Then Again... California's early primaries (now less than a year away) might swing the primaries to both Hillary! and Rudy.

Rudy's Negatives: Deroy Murdock compiles Giuliani's huge negatives, and they're pretty damning impressive when all put together. Overall crime: negative 63% change; murders: negative 67% change; tax rate: negative 20% change; unemployment: negative 42% change; etc.

More Details About Poll... including various other possible head-to-head matchups.

Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 37 percent;

Giuliani beats Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 47 - 40 percent;

Giuliani tops 2004 vice presidential candidate John Edwards 48 - 40 percent;

McCain ties Obama 43 - 43 percent;

McCain gets 43 percent to Edward's 42 percent, a tie;

Obama tops Romney 49 - 29 percent;

Edwards beats Romney 48 - 32 percent.

I'm not sure those are poll results or a question from last year's LSAT's. I do know, however, that the Princeton Review says Al Gore is always "the Joe Bloggs answer."

Giuliani kills Hillary! in Red States, runs even with her in Blue states, but, weirdly, trails her by one percent in Purple states. That last bit would seem to be statistical noise.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

There are a lot of Americans who favor a defeat in Iraq simply to deal America a bloody "teachable moment" and repudiate a president they don't like.

Alas, for the Democrats, such people do not yet constitute an actual majority:

57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”

57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.

50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal

56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”

53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

The Democrats' and the media's (but I repeat myself) "Mission Accomplished" defeat lap seems premature. If only those baby-killing, raping, murderbot American soldiers would just do their duty and stop fighting, Bush -- and America -- would finally get the comeuppance so richly deserved.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not just that AP lied about his actual name.

It's that they then deliberately misreported an Iraqi Government "confirmation" that there was a Jamil Hussein working as a cop in Baghdad.

There was not, and the AP lied a second time when they claimed their first claim had been confirmed.

Posted by: Ace at 10:55 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.