I've been studiously avoiding this non-scandal for weeks. It just went nuclear.

Great.

At the heart of this "scandal"? The new premise, created by liberals who refuse to acknowlege that Bush is the President and superior officer to every single employee in the federal bureaucracy, and hence has the power to make policy as he chooses and even force that policy upon recalcitrant underlings.

Liberals are now claiming a strange new theory of executive power -- that it's the bureaucrats, the "experts," the permanent government in DC, that have almost all of the actual power in the executive branch, and the President is acting criminally when he presumes that he is the boss of them.

Funny, I don't imagine this novel theory of unelected-bureaucrats-being-the-true-decisionmakers-in-the-executive-branch will hold much sway when there's a (D) in the Oval Office.

But for now-- apparently we're to believe that for 200+ years, the Constitution has actually empowered President's thousands of unelected inferiors to set policy, and the President acts in an unconstitutional, illegal, and unamerican fashion when he sets out to disturb their selfless, apolotical, expert decisionmaking.

Bush fired US attorneys, it is alleged, for political reasons? Funny, US Attorneys seem to be defined as "political appointees." So they can be hired for political reasons, but not fired for the same?

It's time to go to war with these people. The Democrats, the media, all of them . "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" should be the operating premise of the administration from this point on, and Bush should begin engaging in the most ruthless of political tit-for-tats, ordering his inferiors to not spend a dime of money for earmarked projects in Democratic districts, etc.

It's called politics, assholes. But apparently it's now criminal for a politician to engage in politics, at least if he's from the wrong party.

Posted by: Ace at 03:02 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

Smell the glove:

In the wake of a public outcry against Los Angeles billboards and New York taxicab tops advertising the upcoming movie "Captivity" with images of the abduction, torture and death of a young woman, the film's producer said it will take down the offending ads Tuesday.

After Dark Films, its theatrical distribution partner Lionsgate Films and the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) received a barrage of phone calls objecting to the gratuitous depiction of the film's star Elisha Cuthbert being tortured and killed.

The billboards, first posted March 13, feature four frames with captions above each one. "Abduction" shows Cuthbert with a gloved hand over her face; "Confinement" features the actress behind a chain-link fence with a bloody finger poking through; "Torture" depicts Cuthbert's face, covered in white gauze, with tubes shoved up her nose; and "Termination" shows her with her head thrown back, seemingly dead.

One of the withdrawn posters:

Wait, no, that's from my private collection. Here's one of them:

Which I find a little creepy, especially because just last night I was reading about the vile murder of a Japanese schoolgirl, culminating in dumping her body in concrete. (I got there looking up Grindhouse, the movie, which led to Grindhouse, the term/exploitation movie, which then led to "video nasties" (banned videos in Britain), and then to that horror.)

Anyway, the idea of this movie does seem inspired by that Japanese crime, as well as J-horror films which are really quite sadistic fake snuff-films.

I know it's hard to make it as an actress, even if a very fetching actress, but is this really the best Elisha Cuthbert can do? She seems to be in nothing but exploitation movies of one kind or another.

Maybe she should angle to become Chloe's assistant again on 24. I dunno -- are her looks actually keeping her from getting better projects?

Posted by: Ace at 01:54 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

There maybe should be a question mark after that, but it looks pretty likely she's out.

Her incompetence cost human lives, but the media couldn't be bothered with assigning blame. Well, of course it was quite bothered with assigning blame, but only to Republicans, who were inconveniently the furthest from the tragedy, but no problem.

Like Janet Reno, she was just a gal in a tough situation. Can't expect too much from a gal, you know.

Posted by: Ace at 01:00 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Now it's getting bad:

A much bigger political influence problem is the governmental bias towards a specific type of climate research that supports specific political or policy outcomes. This research is almost always biased toward the finding of climate destabilizing mechanisms, rather than climate stabilizing mechanisms. Because it takes a higher level of complexity in any physical system to produce self-regulation and stabilization, such findings do not naturally flow out of the existing research. An active effort, analogous to the Department of Defense “Red Team” approach, could be utilized to alleviate this inequity. Given the immense cost (especially to the poor) of proposed carbon control policies that most economists foresee, it is not helpful for tax dollars to be funneled in a research direction that unfairly favors certain political or policy outcomes.

This is the last time you'll read his remarks, so enjoy. Into the media black hole, where only certain points of view are worthy of reportage.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Several people on the right think the school did not have the power to suspend a student for unfurling a 14 foot banner on school property reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as TV cameras rolled.

Maybe I'm a cranky authoritarian, but I'm having trouble seeing why the student shouldn't suffer a penalty for advocating drug use on school grounds (and deliberately offending Christians, to boot). School wasn't in session, but he was a student there, acting on school grounds. He has a "right" to make whatever statements he likes? I don't think he does.

In reviewing the Court's transcript and the multitude of reader comments from yesterday, there were two arguments that struck me as fundamental to this case broadly. First, since the Court's decision may set a precedent for the extent to which students can dissent with their schools, will a decision favoring student Frederick create a situation in which teachers are unable to keep order for fear they will be sued? Second, will a decision favoring Principal Morse create a situation in which schools can punish any student who openly disagrees with their "mission," no matter how oppressive that "mission" is?

I doubt the need for such absolutes. It's plainly inappropriate speech for school, and high schools are filled with minors who don't have the panoply of free speech rights as adults, at least not when they're at school.

Wouldn't it be strange if the Supreme Court found the kid had a "right" to this speech, while legal adults in college have far more restrictive rules of "free speech" imposed on them?

By the Way: Christian groups have joined the case, on the ACLU's side, on the theory -- quite plausible -- that any additional power over the restriction of speech on school campuses will be used largely against Christians distributing pamphlets and proselytizing and so forth.

I go the idea the kid was on school grounds from Bryan, who in turn seems to have gotten it from the above article-- which doesn't actually say that, as it turns out. BumperStickerist says he wasn't on school grounds at all, but across the street from the school, which does seem to knock out a big fat leg of my argument.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

1, Iraqis have had enough; 2, they believe we intend to stay until the situation is tabilized; and 3,more permissive ROE:

'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

...

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."

In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."

...

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."

...

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."

Other tactics include protecting markets and mosques and other big gathering places with concrete barriers and soldiers; obvious, perhaps, but sometimes jsut doing the obvious is the key to success.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (183)
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

Pleople power!

I hate to say this, but she misspelled "Implants." I do agree, they'd be a good idea. They'd give her, I don't know, more gravitas.

Via HotAir, with even more stupidity, including SF Chronicle readers once begging forgiveness from Iraq.

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

That was Sen. Mitch McConnell, not generally considered a RINO. The reality of this is, as I've written, that Bush has 4-6 months to show significant progress in Iraq. Thusfar, Petraeus and of course his troops are making a solid showing. America won't walk away from a war they're winning, and will give troops more time, if needed; but first they have to be convinced we're winning, and the war can be won.

Still, I suppose this is the reason the media is generally hostile to reporting on the progress that is being made -- e.g., the New York Times spinning a decline in American deaths as bad news. Victory for them -- which is defeat for America -- is so close at hand they can taste it, and they won't let our troops win in the public imagining if they have anything to say about it. Which they do, unfortunately.

Four years into the Iraq war, all sides in the bitter debate agree that President Bush’s “troop surge” plan represents the final drop of American patience for the war. If Iraqis fail to control the violence, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, “The American taxpayer has a reasonable expectation that we will bring our people home.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has steadfastly supported the mission, said RepublicansÂ’ patience is nearly exhausted, too.

“This is the last chance for the Iraqis,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with The Examiner. “The last chance for them to step up and demonstrate that they can do their part to save their country.”

ItÂ’s a rare point of agreement between the Democrats who long ago turned adamantly against the war and the Republicans who say they remain opposed to withdrawing troops before the job is done.

Failed efforts by Congress in recent weeks to condemn Bush’s proposal to send reinforcements to Iraq have been a political diversion, McConnell said. The “real bill,” he said, is the one the House takes up this week to continue funding the war. If it passes the House, the Senate will begin debating it as early as next week.

Republicans oppose provisions in that $124 billion spending bill that set timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces, even if benchmarks for success are met. Timetables, Republicans say, signal to the enemy how much longer to continue their mayhem before seizing victory.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott said he has “no confidence in Congress to set time limits and start mandating that a certain number of troops be withdrawn based on conditions we determine.”

That said, the Mississippi Republican added that Republican patience — and thus Congress’ patience — for Bush’s troop increase will last “months, not years.”

“At some point, you got to say to them, ‘Congratulations, Saddam is dead,’ ” Lott said. “We brought Baghdad under control. You folks got to decide whether you just want to kill each other forever or have a real government and peace and freedom and democracy.”

In theory, it may be better policy to fight until we win. But even the GOP is determined that this war be more or less over for the 2008 elections, whether we've won it or whether we've "redeployed" in defeat.

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.

Imagine what a Chatty Kathy he'd've been had someone not blown an ill wind chilling dissent at him:

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.

But Republicans told him the hundreds of other interviews he did belie his broad claim he was being silenced.

"We have over 1,400 opportunities that you've availed yourself to, and yet you call it, you know, being stifled," said Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican.

Mr. Hansen responded: "For the sake of the taxpayers, they should be availed of my expertise. I shouldn't be required to parrot some company line."

Oh get over yourself.

In related news, Lindsey Lohan's, Paris Hilton's, and Britney Spears' pooters all held a joint press conference declaring they had been "made all but invisible'" by Bush Administration thugs.

Posted by: Ace at 08:57 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Not sure if I find this idea refreshing and brazen and fun, or just another cutesy exercise in More Meta Than Thou gimmickry from Tarantino. The guy's a huckster like William Castle, and maybe not all that much more talented either.

This trailer's a bit longer and more explanatory than the ones running on TV.

But with Willis and Kurt Russell (and is that Rose McGowan?), I guess I pretty much have to see it.

But using the crappiest filmstock available, and then artificially aging it/scuffing it/fading it to boot? Not cool, dudes. Not cool at all.

The Hobo With A Shotgun trailer I posted a while ago comes from this movie. Apparently in between the "features" they play trailers for other "movies" that will be playing soon.

PS: You know Rodriguez is going to smoke Tarantino, just like he did in Four Rooms. Why does Rodriguez have to continue playing warm-up act for Tarantino? People still like Rodriguez. He's improving, rather than regressing, as a director.

Amusing: The 12 Days of Bruce Willis.

Posted by: Ace at 05:42 PM | Comments (181)
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.