Above The Fold Update:

I hope more will be available later. I'd like to see Gore's full fillibuster.

...

"The planet has a fever," Al Gore announced in his testimony on global warming.

The usual rule is that witnesses must submit their prepared remarks 48 hours before the hearing, so that the committee members may prepare questions. They suspended that rule for Gore, allowing him to submit his opening remarks 24 hours in advance.

Did he make that deadline?

Of course not. He submitted his remarks one entire minute before the hearings began.

Obviously this is an attempt to avoid being quizzed on his more ludicrous statements and challenged by factual rebuttal. The rebuttal will come later, but Gore won't have to sputter in front of the camera as he's caught in his various shoddy lies.

Is the media interested in that? Of course it's not.

Barton's "Questions:" Not really questions, but criticisms of Gore's outlandish claims, and good readin'.

"The first thing I want to address is the science of global warming as portrayed by the vice president's film, 'An Inconvenient Truth.' This is something that I think we absolutely have to get right. Even the mainstream media, Mr. Vice President, are now noticing that global warming science is uneven and evolving. We need to be deliberative and careful when we talk about so-called scientific facts," Barton, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said.

"In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different," Barton said.

Barton said a Science magazine article he was submitting for the record shows that historically, increases in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature changes by up to 1,000 years.

"The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you're not just off a little. You're totally wrong. And it's not just this one article; the president of the National Academy of Sciences agreed, under oath, last summer in an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on this very point," said Barton.

Barton also noted that "historically, and repeatedly," CO2 levels have far exceeded concentrations now being reported, which are in the range of 380 parts per million.

"Indeed, CO2 levels in the past have exceeded 1,000 ppm, and average earth temperatures have been much higher then than they are today. We know these things. Â… t remains a fact, and is clear from the data we do have, that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 levels followed temperature rise, not the other way around, as you preach," he said.

"You've also asserted that global warming will cause sea levels to rise by over 20 feet. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report indicates a rise of at most 23 inches.

"You state that there will be more and stronger hurricanes because of global warming. The IPCC report does not support this claim. You also state that malaria has been exacerbated in Nairobi because of global warming. The World Health Organization report does not support this allegation. In fact, malaria is not exclusively a warm weather disease – inhabitants of Siberia have long experienced malaria outbreaks," Barton noted.

Thanks to Alex.

Gore Refuses To Consume Less Energy: Energy use is going to destroy the world, but Al won't give up his heated pool for the cause:

t has been reported that many of these so-called carbon offset projects would have been done anyway. Also, carbon offset projects such as planting trees can take decades or even a century to sequester the carbon emitted today. So energy usage today results in greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere for decades, even with the purchase of so-called carbon offsets.

“There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do,” Senator Inhofe told Gore.

“Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” Senator Inhofe asked.

Senator Inhofe then presented Vice President Gore with the following "Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:

"As a believer:

· that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival;

· that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use;

· that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and

· that leaders on moral issues should lead by example;

I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Gore refused to take the pledge.

Reduce his actual, real "carbon footprint"? Please. Al Gore won't even try to reduce his meatloaf footprint.

"Good For Her!" A CNN reporter says "Good for her" under his breath in response to Barbara Boxer's defense of Gore.

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (102)
Post contains 893 words, total size 7 kb.

Goodies and pork for everyone willing to come on board the Cindy Sheehan Express.

As Gay Patriot asks, "I thought these guys had a mandate against the war." So why the need for bribes?

Just as a taste, Bobby Jindal has been offered millions in reconstruction aid for devastated New Orleans. He isn't saying which way he'll vote, because, obviously, voting against all that aid will doom his gubernatorial campaign.

Bush has stated he'll veto the anti-war bill -- setting deadlines and onerous "readiness" mandates designed to prevent troop deployments and reinforcements -- in any event, but the Democrats are determined to bribe their way to American defeat.

Posted by: Ace at 11:47 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not even going to link this guy because he's such a dope. The review is brief so there's not much worth going over there for, anyhow, besides these sentences.

Bear in mind: This jagoff (cited on Rotten Tomatoes!) is reviewing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is little more than an overtly violent elongation of a Saturday morning cartoon.

...

A throughline of organized violence permeates "TMNT" as a baby step toward preparing youngsters to become soldiers in America's never-ending war on humanity.

Overtly violent? As opposed to covertly violent?

Organized violence? Because, um, there are four of them fighting as a unit?

I'm surprised to see this guy looks like this:

Another 8.2. The world is lousy with 'em.

Thanks to coondawg.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

But really, do super-hot people really need a dating service? Wouldn't their super-hot looks tend to act as their own personal match-maker software?

Or are these people -- I know this theory sounds crazy, but hear me out -- merely imagining they're super-hot? It's been known to happen.

Anyway, if you're super-hot and yet just not able to get date offers from high-quality people such as yourself, you can join an online service that will somehow, by some cybernetic miracle, actually manage to hook up very attractive people with each other.

Jason Pellegrino (an 8.2 on the attractiveness scale) says the problem with Internet dating services is not enough really hot-looking people. So he and a business partner have created HotEnough.org, a sort of online version of Studio 54, the exclusive '70s disco where gaining admission was a pitiless Darwinian exercise.

8.2? Okay, let's check the evidence.

Number of ejaculations: 8.2.

So, you know, if you're interested in meeting other 8+'s, like Mr. Pelligrino, read on:

The site, HotEnough.org, is for "fit, good-looking" people.

Prospective members must submit pictures and must be rated an 8 or higher by people already in the club. Once they're in, they are permitted to e-mail other "hotties" for $9.95 a month.

"It's definitely hard to get through that rope, but once you're in, you're in and you're part of the party," Pellegrino said. "But you know there's going to be a lot of people outside waiting."

And who's in that hotness party? Hot people such as this:

It's like I just woke up in Sex Heaven.

The 33-year-old Nutley resident said he and his partner, Sean Cohen of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., created the site after concluding that Internet dating sites attract a lot of brave and desperate people, but not particularly attractive ones.

The steps to a successful business? 1, Identify a need. 2, Satisfy that need.

Here's your satisfaction:

A few months after its launch, membership is just under 1,000, Pellegrino said. In the beginning, only 8 percent of those who applied made the grade, but now about 25 percent of applicants do, he said.

Fancy that. A business that's taking as many sign-ups as it can.

Candidates must send in three pictures, including one full-body shot. Active members rate the pictures online without knowing anything else about the people in them.

"People can say that the site is shallow, they can say it's superficial, but I think we're all a bit superficial when it comes to dating," Pellegrino said...

Using HotEnough.org "saves time and it does the searching for you, narrows it down to the people that you are interested in meeting," he said.

Narrowing it down to that special, very hot someone:

Did anyone else just turn half-gay, or is it just me?

Okay, now I'm straight again. Whew. That was a close one.

Thanks to Dan Riehl, who's actually covering politics.

I can't believe he beat Allah to this one.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 504 words, total size 4 kb.

I expect the internet's "feminists" to be all over this.

A MAN who ripped out his wife's eyes in a fit of rage was sentenced by a French court to 30 years behind bars today.

Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari's eyes following a heated argument in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 after she refused to have sex with him.

Ms Bari, who had demanded a divorce before the attack, was permanently blinded.

The prosecutor asked that he serve at least 20 years of that 30 year term. Which still seems a light sentence, doesn't it?

And then comes his lawyer:

"This is the result of a marriage that was arranged, not chosen," he said, pointing to the gulf separating his client, who came from southern Morocco, and his young wife, who had grown up in France.

Mr Cabanes begged the jury for leniency, claiming his client's action "appeared to stem from a mental illness."

No comment.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

House panel okays subpoenas to Bush aids; Bush says previous offer of closed-door interviews is off the table.

Dean Barnett thinks this is what Bush wants, and needs.

The president understands that, political obsessives aside, no one really cares about this U.S. Attorney thing. Regardless of the reason for the firings, even if it was a low one like the president didn’t like who the terminees were or weren’t prosecuting, he was within his right to fire them. (Impeding a federal investigation is another matter, but even my rabid friends on the left haven’t accused him of that.) Just as my petulant cleaning lady who’s apparently allergic to dusting serves at my pleasure, they serve at his pleasure. Just like me, he may swing the axe any time he likes. In short, there’s no Constitutional crisis to see here – just move along.

But the president understands something about these Democrats who now sit on Capitol Hill. They were elected with a narrow agenda – Get Bush!!! And if you can’t get Bush, be damn sure to get Rove!

Partisan witch-hunts are to be the order of the day. The president also understands that the American public is predisposed to dislike Congress. WhatÂ’s more, this Congress, once its true colors show, will be uniquely unpopular. Already, Gallup has CongressÂ’ approval numbers sinking to the level the Republican Congress sat at before the November calamity.

SO WHY NOT PICK A FIGHT WITH CONGRESS? Drag the bloody affair out. Let the battle rage so long that it becomes apparent that the only thing this Congress cares about is partisan warfare. WhatÂ’s best about this little plan is it involves a freak side show in which the performers are Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. It doesnÂ’t involve matters of real consequence such as the war.

So how will it play out? I hate to say it, but Glenn Greenwald is right. The presidentÂ’s invocation of executive privilege given this set of circumstances is weak. When the matter goes to court, the administration will likely lose. But big deal. The more protracted the affair is, the more apparent it will become that the DemocratsÂ’ entire agenda has been reduced to pursuing Karl Rove.

Glenn Greenwald's analysis is supported by other constitutional scholars such as Rick Ellensberg, Thomas Ellison, and "Wilson."

Posted by: Ace at 10:39 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

From the set of I Heart Huckabees.
Not safe for work, bad language. Some directors just don't go in for the whole demanding diva thing, I guess.

UPDATE: Drew tips us to yet another video from the movie set.
Again, not safe for work.
Too bad they didn't play these outtakes while the credits scrolled at the end of the movie.

Also, Idaho Trophy Hunters pose with the kill.
That pic was from Man of Spudstance.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:31 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

I was as surprised as you. And yet in this column, titled "Stating the Obvious," he makes a good point. It's buried under all that gay-hatred, of course. But still there.

I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth.

Back in the day, that was the standard arrangement. Everyone had a yard, a garage, a female mom, a male dad, and a refrigerator with leftover boiled potatoes in plastic dishes with snap-on lids. This was before caller ID, before credit cards, before pizza, for crying out loud. You could put me in a glass case at the history center and schoolchildren could press a button and ask me questions.

Monogamy put the parents in the background where they belong and we children were able to hold center stage. We didn't have to contend with troubled, angry parents demanding that life be richer and more rewarding for them. We blossomed and agonized and fussed over our outfits and learned how to go on a date and order pizza and do the twist and neck in the front seat of a car back before bucket seats when you could slide close together, and we started down the path toward begetting children while Mom and Dad stood like smiling, helpless mannequins in the background.

Nature is about continuation of the species -- in other words, children. Nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people.

Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.

Which is what I keep saying. Andrew Sullivan and his ilk keep insisting that marriage is about "love," which demonstrates immediately they don't understand marriage, or rather are determined to redefine it.

It's not about love. The state has no special need to promote "love." Love being one of the greatest things in the world, it hardly needs state promotion. The product sells itself.

What the state -- and the species -- have an interest in is promoting the creation and maitenance of stable familes. Not love between adults, per se, but love between parent and children. And if the adults happen to love each other too, bonus -- because that's good for kids.

Andrew Sullivan doesn't really care about the true point of marriage. His conception of marriage is just Goin' Steady with a government certificate declaring that fact to the world.

For God's sake, he has a blog, if he needs to get the word out about his "fiance" (I'll believe that when I see it) he can just write about it every few days. Oh wait -- he does.

Posted by: Ace at 06:04 PM | Comments (367)
Post contains 674 words, total size 4 kb.

Thanks to Del.

Posted by: Ace at 05:11 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Back in college, a roommate and I would argue about drug legalization. He actually used once in a while, I didn't, but I took the libertarian position (legalize them, tax them, everthing will work out fine!) and he took the conservative position.

Why? Well, he said that as far as he was concerned, it was likely to certain that making drugs more freely available would result in him doing more of them -- much more. And, further, he played the "I've been to Europe" card. But this time to make a conservative point: "Dude, I've seen the needle parks. I've seen all the young heroin addicts on the dole. Without state control over drug use, it gets to be a bigger and bigger problem."

And actually, because of that, I changed my mind. I dropped my libertarian utopian position of "Let everyone do what they want and everything will just turn out jake!" and instead adopted the posture that a lot of people actually do need the nanny-state's bossing them around on drug-use issues, and that without it, they'll be right screwed up for a good part of their lives.

The libertarian position seems to be a winner for very responsible, very together sorts of people who have a great amount of control over themselves. But we don't make laws exclusively for those who have their shit together; we also have to consider all those whose shit is quite disordered.

Anyway, after campaigning vigorously to decriminalize the "harmless" drug marijuana, the UK Independent is now more concerned about the latter sort of people, who turn out to be greater in number than they'd expected:

More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.

A decade after this newspaper's stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London's Hyde Park - and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C - an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.

By the way, in blah-blah school, I happened to know a kid that was borderline retarded due to a serious pot habit.

My roommate told me that whenever he began to think he was doing too much pot, he'd think of this other kid (his friend), and that would put him off pot for a couple of weeks.

"Oh come on," I said. "The kid must always have been that way. Pot can't do that."

"Yes it can," my roommate told me. "Believe me: at one point, that kid was bright."

I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, and perhaps I shouldn't be taking so much drug-legalization punditry from potheads, but, well, from what little I know, there really is a problem. Oh, not for most people, maybe. But for some.

And it's well and good to talk of liberty, but when your liberty comes at the expense of someone else's happiness... well, the drug-abusers did it to themselves, of course, but any real and honest discussion of legalization must begin with the premise that, in granting the whole nation more liberty, a certain number of people are going to be consigned to lives of miserable addiction and borderline retardation (not to mention death -- maybe you can't kill yourself on pot, but you can OD on most other drugs).

Incidentally: I'm not saying that just because some people will suffer or even die under a decriminalization regime is reason enough to to keep drugs criminalized. I'm a realist; I know raising the speed limit 10 mph will result in x number of additional highway fatalities and y number of collision-caused spinal cord injuries and z number of maimings and disfigurements; that fact alone isn't enough to prove we shouldn't raise the speed limit.

It's an ugly fact, but human lives can be assigned a value when we do these utilitarian calculations; even those who claim that every human life is of incalculable worth are kinda lying: they have their own fuzzy estimate as to the value of a human life, too; they're just not upfront about admittting it. If they truly believed that human lives had almost infinite value, they would insist on reducing the speed limit on highways to 45 mph and mandating that every car include the most effective collision-mitigating equipment money can buy (raising the average cost of a car up 15 or 20 thousand dollars).

I'm just saying that if we're going discuss this, we have to figure out precisely how many net new human deaths we'll be causing. These pie-in-the-sky fantasias about virtually no bad consequences from legalization -- some even argue straightfacedly drug use will fall, now that the "outlaw chic" cache of drug use is removed! -- are the slogans of fairly stupid and dishonest advocates, not real thinkers interested in honest predictions and judgments.

Laboratory Alaska: Since Alaska has moved recently in de-criminalization direction, I think it would be the perfect test case to see the exact results of decriminalization. It's separated from the mainland, making it somewhat harder for one state to begin exporting its own individual drug policy the whole country.

If Alaska continues along this path, I'd support giving the state an exemption regarding federal drug laws. See what happens in five or ten years, and then make a decision. If the costs of the policy are outweighed by the benefits, fine, legalize across the country.

But I'd sort of like some empircal evidence for the proposition that legalizing drugs will be a net-positive policy.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (244)
Post contains 1010 words, total size 6 kb.