America's Next Top Model features themed photographs every week. They ran out of ideas a while ago (um, yeah, I've seen it, I've dated women).

Until recently. They did something I don't think has ever been done before, because I'd've heard of it. Or if it was done before, it wasn't done very often, and not very prominently.

The theme of last week's pictures? The models posing as corpses, victims of violent crime.

Some of these pictures are pretty graphic; all of them are macabre.

I'm not going to scream about this too much because, of course, I fear the vagina. No, but really, it's definitely a new (or new-ish) idea, even if it's creepy and lends itself to charges of misogynism or sexualized, aesthetized images of violence against women.

I'm just saying it's better than another goofy "Science Fiction" theme.

Although I'm not sure how one is supposed to judge these pictures. "Death becomes you!" one judge apparently exclaimed, but how can it? The big thing they're always blabbering about is "projecting" and making one's eyes "pop" out of the picture, coming "alive" in the frozen moment, and all that; obviously that's impossible here, at least if you're doing a halfway decent job of pretending to be dead.

And of course you really can't be sexy, either. That would, um, create a lot of tnesions that Tyra & Co. aren't quite daring enough to dare.

I guess I'm supposed to be outraged over this, but I'm really not. It's the sort of audacious (or audaciously stupid) idea that fashionistas get all excited about.

Eh. A lot of the pictures are actually pretty crappy, but what can you do with this concept, really?

Twiggy made a rather unfortunate remark:

"I was rather distressed by what Dionne was wearing today. She doesn't stand out of line for me. She's got no oomph."

Um, yeah. She's got no "oomph" because she's supposed to be dead.

In related news, the judges agreed that Anna Nicole Smith has "just been phoning it in lately."

Via a guy who never hat-tips anyone, so screw 'em.

Posted by: Ace at 03:28 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

I want my...
I want my...
I want my Death TV...

By all means, let's negotiate with them. They certainly seem peaceful at heart.

Charming. A music video featuring an actress playing the daughter of the suicide-bombing mom:

Although she misses her mother, she vows to follow in her footsteps. The video ends as she opens her mother's drawer and picks up the sticks of explosives her mother had left there.

The girl being played in this Death TV music video is four years old.

I'd like to see more of these monsters get a "long distance dedication" in the form of rocket.

PS, good work, Palestinians. I will never shed a tear for a Palestinian child killed as collateral damage ever again. If you see your children merely as pawns of warfare, then surely I, so far removed from them, can hardly be expected to see them as more human or more deserving of protection than you see them.

You see them merely as murderers in waiting. Is there any reason the world should not take your view as authoritative and see them the same way?

Corrected: I misread the article to believe this was the actual four-year-old daughter of the suicide bomber. It's not; it's an actress playing her.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Another one from dri. It's a 47 minute address, but dri says watch the first five minutes and you'll watnt to watch it all, which, so far, has turned out to be right in my case.

Evan Sayet is apparently a humorist but he's quite serious here. (PS, he seems to have formerly been a writer for Bill Maher.)

Hot Stuff: If you haven't watched it, you should know that the readers who have call it "riveting," inter alia. So it's not just the guy who liked The Wicker Man telling you to give it a chance.

Couple of thoughts. I like his whole idea of the childish utopian mindset. It reminds me of a remark by Harlan Ellison (who usually annoys me). He noted the childishness of some 1950's utopian science fiction, but also noted that later 1960's and 1970's dystopian fantasies were equally childish, and indeed impelled by the same juvenile mindset. The dystopian writers were basically juvenile-minded former utopians who'd become upset that utopia didn't seem possible, and hence ranted, in novel-length temper tantrums, against the reality that had so disappointed and emotionally wounded them. If utopia isn't possible, then everything is horrible and to be denigrated; they just don't have the more mature mindset that great courage and virtue and wisdom can exist in a world which also contains great cowardice, great evil, and great ignorance.

He really oughtn't have roped the sitcom Rules of Engagement in with the various anti-marriage shows he's targeting. I've only seen it once, but the married character, played by Patrick Warburton, seems satisfied enough by his marriage. They even have sex, which puts them well ahead of most married couples as Hollywood depicts them. Sure, he bitches and moans about the compromises of marriage and about the almost alien mindset of the female of the species (and vice versa, from the female point of view, but the show focuses more on the male characters), but that's not so much "anti-marriage" as pro-humor and, indeed, pro-reality.

The single character (played by David Spade) talks a good game about the supposed Endless Orgy of singlehood, but he's portrayed as a somewhat pathetic Quagmire-ish character. Overall the show seems relatively pro-marriage to me -- at least as pro-marriage as the concept, and the basics of comedy, will permit. (Perfect marriages -- or anything perfect, really -- doesn't make for good comedy. Or drama, for that matter).

Doesn't hurt that the wife and the fiancee on the show are pretty hot, which is itself a subliminal endorsement of the institution.

Really good stuff, though. I'm enjoying it all.

Posted by: Ace at 01:00 PM | Comments (405)
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.

She defended Chistendom against the Huns or something, right?

A LIFE-SIZE marble statue of the former glamour model Samantha Fox is to be erected in Serbia after she agreed to sing at a pop festival.

Locals in the southern Serb town of Cacak raised the money to show the 1980s model turned pop star how delighted they are about her visit. Obrad Banovic, a fan, said: "We love her. She is an authentic sex symbol of the 1980s, so why shouldn't we have a monument to her. Other towns have their heroes in parks, so why can't we?

"We are also aware that her most famous attributes may require special treatment, so we are planning on using the best quality marble only."

I guess we'll finally be able to take Samantha Fox up on her offer:

She won't be the first celebrity so honored:

t won't be the only celebrity statue in the area. The northern Serbian village of Zitiste is putting up a statue of the Hollywood film character Rocky, as played by Sylvester Stallone.

The Bosnian town of Mostar, which is divided along ethnic lines, erected a statue of the late martial arts film star Bruce Lee in 2005 as a symbol of unity between Muslims and Croats.

Truly there's not a more powerful symbol of ethnic reconcilliation than Bruce Lee. He stands as a shining tribute to the equality of blacks and whites in terms of succeptibility to kung-fu kicks.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, they're not rats, they're mice (though they look like rats, they're identified as mice), but they do have to die -- the taint human contact and all that.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

The "mental problems" she suffers from this ordeal should have been a tip-off to the Times to give the Navy more time to investigate her claims. They asked the Navy about the incident three days before they printed the harrowing account.

They've now corrected a few minor errors. Beginnning with the fact she's never been anywhere near Iraq, unless one considers Guam "near" Iraq, perhaps as an alternate to Okinawa for Murtha's over-the-horizon redeployment.

Nicely done, NYT.

Here's part of their correction:

On March 12, three days after the article had gone to press, the Navy called The Times to say that it had found that Ms. Randall had never received imminent-danger pay or a combat-zone tax exemption, indicating that she was never in Iraq. Only part of her unit was sent there; Ms. Randall served with another part of it in Guam. The Navy also said that Ms. Randall was given the medal with the insignia because of a clerical error.

Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq, but may have become convinced she did. Since the article appeared, Ms. Randall herself has questioned another member of her unit, who told Ms. Randall that she was not deployed to Iraq. If The Times had learned these facts before publication, it would not have included Ms. Randall in the article.

True enough, the Navy did not promptly dispute the story, as it was still investigating. But note how quickly the Times gives it up that the woman is a lunatic who "may have become convinced" she served in Iraq, after proof is offered she was never anywhere near that country.

Are they seriously telling us they had no suspicions she might be an unstable schizophrenic confabulist before this evidence came to light? Now she's a nutbag who so deluded herself that she seemed convincing in telling her story; before, she was a credible source.

Isn't it more likely she was never very credible and that the New York Times shouldn't have put her story forth in the first place? Are New York Times reporters so clueless as to not recognize the symptoms of florid schizophrenia?

Or do they just routinely set aside such doubts in the interests of "storytelling"?

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

I love NASCAR (the sport, not the governing body).

I hate the "Car of Tomorrow."

Sadly, the NASCAR developed "CoT" debuts in about, oh...10 minutes, at Bristol.

How can I condemn something without having seen it in action?

Easy...I'm a blogger. Sort of. Under the loosest definition of the term.

But in addition to that, I remember the advent of "restrictor plate" racing, and the resulting emphasis on handicapping good cars to let lesser cars and crews be more competitive.

Restrictor plate racing = welfare for losers.

And the CoT? It's essentially a full body restrictor plate, as NASCAR once again decides to emphasize homogeneity over innovation, and parity over horsepower.

Which is a damn shame. Because part of the fun of NASCAR was arguing over whether Ford or Chevy had the better cars. And laughing at the idiots (that's right, Kyle Petty, I'm looking at you) who drove Pontiacs. And part of this fun was digging into the specifics of what made each car different, and speculating as to how certain models favored certain tracks.

But that's being phased out now. And I can't help but think that NASCAR is going to be the poorer for it.

I hope I'm proven wrong here.

But I still hate restrictor plate racing.

So, I'm prepared for the worst.

Pic Added By Ace. I just read how ugly the car was, and wanted to see for myself.

Posted by: Jack M. at 10:10 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Still Day 3 at Pajamas Media, which runs down the news.

Especially interesting is Debka's report that Iran plans a whole series of "reprisals" following the UN vote on fresh sanctions, and the Belmont Club's analysis of the situation: another Pueblo incident or a new Cuban Missile Crisis?

And the Great Big Story is that, as we expected, they planned this, and have been looking opportunistically for the chance to take some hostages for a week:

A senior Iranian military official said Saturday that the decision to capture the soldiers was made during a March 18 emergency meeting of the High Council for Security following a report by the Al-Quds contingent commander, Kassem Suleimani, to the Iranian chief of the armed forces, Maj.Gen. Hassan Firouz Abadi. In the report, according to Asharq al-Awsat, Suleimani warned Abadi that Al Quds and Revolutionary GuardsÂ’ operations had become transparent to US and British intelligence following the arrest of a senior Al Quds officer and four of his deputies in Irbil.

That's from the JPost.

Why did Iran feel so threatened? Because of 300. Not the movie, but the number of Iranian spies, saboteurs, and terrorists now being held by the west:

American forces in Iraq now hold some 300 prisoners tied to IranÂ’s intelligence agencies, Pajamas Media learned from both diplomatic and military sources.

This is believed, by both sources, to be a record number of prisoners tied to Iran. Virtually all were captured in the past two months.

This week’s seizure of 15 British sailors by Iran in the contested waters of the Shattab al-Arab, the ship channel that divides Iraq and Iran, may have been payback for the capture of record number of Iranian operatives inside Iraq. “It may be a bargaining chip,” one diplomatic source said.

The intelligence community is still debating whether the unlawful detainment of British sailors was ordered by IranÂ’s government or was presented to it as a fait accompli by relatively low-level Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers.

The roughly 300 prisoners held in Iraq—the number grows frequently—are either Iranian nationals or Shiites recruited from neighboring countries that are employed one of its almost two dozen intelligence or paramilitary services.

The record haul of Iran-linked prisoners may not be a sign of IranÂ’s increasing involvement in Iraq. The Islamic RepublicÂ’s participation in the Iraq war, which includes funding, arming and training both Shiite and Sunni militias, has been known to be significant for some time.

More likely, the large number of Iran-linked prisoners reflects a change in tactics following the arrival of Multinational Force Iraq commander Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. Previously, Iranians and other foreigners could not be picked up without a provable connection to terrorism. Now, American and allied forces are encouraged to seize militants based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in insurgent attacks. This is consistent with Iraqi law.

I do enjoy how the "intelligence" community is forever debating absurdities among themselves in order to shill for our enemies. Anyone really buying that a group of Iranian ships just decided, on their own authority, to go hunting on the seas for western hostages, just coincidentally after Iran warned of the government's intention to do just that?

"someone" argued that my claim of the need for American response was incorrect, as it was British sailors who were seized. I don't agree. While we may not be willing to retaliate against Iran for its act of war against a third country, we are nevertheless compelled to take prophylactic action against them to prevent them from doing the same to our sailors (or any other sailors in the region). As Iran was quite willing to move beyond the three mile territorial-water limit to kidnap their new hostages, it seems we can't permit them to come anywhere near that three mile line again. Certainly we can't permit them to venture beyond it; we see now what their plan is.

I'm probably wrong that we can or will force their ships to retreat behind a US-imposed one or two mile limit. It's just too well-accepted that nations have three miles of territorial waters; Bush would take too much heat for announcing such a new "unilateral" rule. But certainly we will, as we must, begin harassing any ships beyond that limit, including firing shots across the bow until they tuck tail and move closer to Iran's waters. We can't permit them to continue conducting hostage-fishing expeditions.

They still can back down and release the hostages, and just make whatever "point" they thought they were making. They obviously beat or even tortured these sailors to get their absurd confession to espionage charges; but no one will go to war over that.

But if they continue holding them, there's going to be real trouble.

Iran really should bear in mind: America doesn't mind air wars or naval wars so much. Actually, we seem to like them.

Posted by: Ace at 09:24 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

From Pajama Media's "We No Longer Question Their Patriotism" File:

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion...

...The anti-war demonstrators who behaved responsibly this past weekend have an obligation to denounce — and distance themselves from — those protesters who purposefully offend others and consequently destroy the intended message of peace.

Michelle Malkin notes we're still waiting for that denouncing. Liberals will, as usual, claim that these are just "a few fringe actors" and that they have the "right" to do this.

Which isn't the question asked. They have the right to do this; no one is seriously contesting that. We're asking if liberals can rouse themselves to denounce this. They can't -- and are therefore supporters of this.

Malkin's post, at end, includes a Hot Air link of all the other "fringe actors" trashing Republican offices, etc. "Fringe actors" is the new "broad strata of society."

The beginning of that post is about a NY couple (go figure) who chose to live a "no environmental impact" lifestyle, and have thus gone a year without... toilet paper. They also compost their own waste on premises.

They've got a toddler, by the way. I'm sure there's no environmental impact on the kid from living in an enclosed, poorly ventilated and cold (they use no heat!) urban compost heap.

Though they do use the laundry in the building's basement, few can doubt they're walking Al Gore's talk. If they can do this, why can't Al Gore?

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't like basketball much, but this was amazing.

Ball security. It's all ball security these days. Maybe you guys need a refresher course. (touches hot airplane engine) Heeeee!

Posted by: Ace at 05:52 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.