He just wanted his dad to always be with him. At least, I guess, until he was expelled from his lungs in elegiatic snot.

- Keith Richards has acknowledged consuming a raft of illegal substances in his time, but this may top them all.

In comments published Tuesday, the 63-year-old Rolling Stones guitarist said he had snorted his father's ashes mixed with cocaine.

"The strangest thing I've tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father," Richards was quoted as saying by British music magazine NME.

"He was cremated and I couldn't resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn't have cared," he said. "... It went down pretty well, and I'm still alive."

My theory is that celebrities are usually not terribly entertaining in their actual jobs, but perform a vital public service by acting as jesters for the global court. They wield their power in a Zaphod Beelbroxian fashion, not to actually accomplish anything but to distract away from the real power (i.e., Jews).

So I can't get too outraged about this. Having made barely-listenable music since the late seventies, this is Richards' selfless effort to do his job of distracting us from the monotony and misery of life. I think we can all agree that he doesn't have another Little T&A in him, so he soldiers on and does what he can.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

A true Republican in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

And oh yeah -- in the mold of John F'n' Kerry, too.

Allah... in the interests of fairness points out the update, which suggests, though not dispositively, that Kerry approached McCain.

I'm not sure I really care who approached whom. Point is, the guy was toying with the idea of joining a very liberal Democratic ticket.

Next.

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

He's hoping to get Charlie Sheen to narrate the theatrical version. Or, at least Emilio Estevez, though of course Estevez doesn't have that "Sheen Power" that lights the screen up.

Welcome to the Unfastened Coins website. This site is dedicated to exposing the truth about the government's involvement in the sinking of the Titanic. Specifically, that they did it (and by "they" I mean Jews).

More Truth:

An iceberg was blamed for sinking the Titanic. Yeah right. Do they expect us to believe that ice--which is frozen water--is stronger than metal--the stuff they make swords out of? If icebergs are really that tough, then why don't people make boats out of icebergs instead?

You gotta admit, Maddox makes a lot of sense.

Metal is much, much stronger than ice. All I know that this is the first time in history metal has ever been "torn" by ice.

Google it!

Thanks to Del.

Posted by: Ace at 11:11 AM | Comments (31)
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

First, they came the dry rubs, and I did nothing, because I prefer to marinade. Then, they came for the propane gas, but still I did nothing, because I have a flame pit. And then...

The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia,

hojogioehhhbnlkjjndk.

Sorry, that was my jaw hitting the keyboard.

... which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

It's a good thing that Belgium's entire helicopter fleet is now fueled by starshine and sugar-plums, or else this anti-carbon initiative might be somewhat counterproductive.

Thanks to CAD Daddy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Police immediately put out an APB on Geraldo Rivera, until they were informed he worked for FoxNews.

A SWAT captain was quoted as saying, "FoxNews? That guy? Are you sure?"

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

The second wave of reporting on this seemed to indicate that Michael Ware got a bum rap, and was not in fact heckling, giggling, or othewise treating Sen. McCain disrespectuflly.

But now it looks like there was a reporter giggling at McCain as he spoke, and that reporter was sitting approximately where Ware was.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

300 continues hacking and slashing the competition.

On the other hand, there's the Mark Wahlberg liberal Cheney-assassination fantasy Shooter.

When Debbie Schlussel claimed that this movie was a liberal assassination fantasy, in which a Cheney analogue starts illegal wars for oil and assassinates nice brown people who stand in his way, I thought maybe she was being, well, a little excitable.

Mark Wahlberg delivers several monologues against the country that made this accused attempted-murderer and drug dealer into a multi-millionaire and Academy Award Nominee, including dialogue like this:

This is a country where the Secretary of Defense can tell the entire country on TV that it's about freedom, not oil. Because it's all a big lie.

And this:

Abu Ghraib--We knew their [the few U.S. soldiers who participated)bosses knew.

And this:

We killed raped, tortured, and killed people for oil in Ethiopia.

Since he has a lot of lines against America's presence in Iraq and the lack of WMDs, it's clear Ethiopia is a proxy for Iraq in this movie.

And Wahlberg goes on and on and on and on about how America is a criminal country (and that's beside the utterances of other characters about the conspiracy on the Grassy Knoll in the JFK assassination).

So I checked for confirmation by seeing if Dana Stevens of the amateur leftist webzine Slate liked it. After all, she views movies almost exclusively through the prism of whether or not they flatter her leftist politics.

Surprise! She loves it! And if you listen to the audio commentary, she's giggling like a schoolgirl over the Cheney-figure (actually a corrupt Senator from Montana, who looks like Cheney and hunts) getting killed in the end.

She soft-sells the movie's politics in her headline ("The Political Revenge Fantasy," no particular politics specified) and in this opening paragraph:

The hero of Shooter, Antoine Fuqua's libertarian action thriller, is the marvelously named Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg).

Libertarian? Really?

But she gives the game away in the audio commentary, gushing (when she doesn't have time to consider her remarks and edit them) that this is in fact a hard left-liberal assassination fantasy.

Why is she dishonest in her written review? Why does someone have to endure her giggling at the thought of the Vice President being assassinated in the audio commentary to get a real take on this film's politics?

The movie's final, bloody coda hammers home its strangely powerful and absolutely nihilistic political message: Everything sucks as much as it possibly can, and even if you're named something as awesome as Bob Lee Swagger, there's not much you can do about it. Swagger's one-man attempt to clean up the streets of Washington is presented as a futile, almost symbolic gesture. The most he (and we) can expect is to satisfy our basest anti-establishment fantasy: to track down the bastards who got us into this mess and blow them the fuck away (to be replaced, presumably, by other bastards).

There's no apparatus of justice in place at the end of this movie, no public stockade in which to shame the perpetrators of all the war crimes, cover-ups, and lies. There's just a lone dude with his girl in a getaway car, leaving behind a pile of bodies. Swagger may be our hero, but he's no savior. Challenged with the rhetorical question, "Do we allow America to be ruled by thugs?" he can only shrug: "Sure, some years we do."

Note that she's not at all displeased by the message of this movie -- sometimes political justice can only come via a sniper's bullet to the head -- but was much exercised indeed about the "war propaganda" in a movie about a battle that occurred over 2000 years ago.

Would Dana Stevens enjoy a film in which a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton analogue was plugged in the face in the interest of true political justice? I doubt it -- in that case, she'd understand the pro-assassination message of the movie was profoundly dangerous. (And undemocratic -- do we all have a vote in who our president is, or does a sniper get a one-bullet-one-vote veto over our elections?) If such a film was released, stating, flat-out, that the only way to get this country back on track was to kill Barack Obama, she'd excortiate it.

The left hates The Turner Diaries. They understand that bad books can give bad people bad ideas. And yet when the leftist equivalent of The Turner Diaries is relased, they get positively gushy. It's all part and parcel of the left's highly nuanced take on political violence: It's either disgusting or it's an, um, interesting idea. It all depends on whether the right people are being assassinated.

Of course, luckilly for Dana Stevens, Hollywood would never put out a movie that could even be twisted into an endorsement of killing a liberal politician. They know that to do so would be deeply irresponsible. But when it comes to a Republican... well, they knew what they were getting into, right?

Has Dana Stevens ever given an action movie such a strong review? (Again, check the audio commentary, where she's much less reserved about recommending the film to her leftist friends who want the sick thrill of seeing Cheney lose the better half of his skull to a bullet.) Why is she suddenly such a big fan of the genre, I wonder?

I wanted to see the film last weekend to review it myself, but I couldn't find time. Rob from Say Anything saw it, though, and confirms is just as vile as you think:

The Liberal Assassination Wet Dream Movie I Attended Last Night

...

Wahlberg’s character even turns out to be a 9/11 truther, at one point sitting down at his desk in his home, uttering the line “I wonder what lies they’re telling us today” and then picking up and perusing a published copy of the 9/11 commission report.

... at the end of the movie, WahlbergÂ’s character wipes out all the nasty Republican scum and then rides off into the sunset in a muscle car with the clear indication that heÂ’s now some sort of vigilante out looking to murder other Republican scum.

You could almost hear the liberal Hollywood elite sighing with delight and satisfaction at that.

Am I doing what Stevens does, simply judging a movie on its politics? I don't think so -- because I'm quite used to "evil Republican corporate tools" as the bad guys, so much so that it doesn't faze me anymore. I know the bad guys, to the extent their party affiliation is revealed, will inevitably be on the conservative side of the aisle. At this point I just take that as a standard convention.

No, what bothers me is that we have here yet another encouragement to any unhinged lefties out there with a rifle to take justice -- or rather public policy -- into their own hands.

So it's a bit satisfying that Shooter is doing disappointing box office, still behind 300, and only slightly ahead out of Wild Hogs, which has been out for weeks.

Still, the film will make a small profit, and will be enough for the movie's producers. They didn't make this movie to make money; they made it to encourage someone to kill the president or vice president. Making a little bit of money on top of that is just a bonus.

Posted by: Ace at 10:16 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 1249 words, total size 8 kb.

They can, theoretically, cause light to bend completely around an object. Drawbacks: Only one wavelength of light (red) can be made invisible.

Still. They're ahead of all of my work in this field, which is focused chiefly on trying to convince potential enemies to stick turkey forks in their eyes.

Researchers using nanotechnology have taken a step toward creating an "optical cloaking" device that could render objects invisible by guiding light around anything placed inside this "cloak."

The Purdue University engineers, following mathematical guidelines devised in 2006 by physicists in the United Kingdom, have created a theoretical design that uses an array of tiny needles radiating outward from a central spoke. The design, which resembles a round hairbrush, would bend light around the object being cloaked. Background objects would be visible but not the object surrounded by the cylindrical array of nano-needles, said Vladimir Shalaev, Purdue's Robert and Anne Burnett Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

The design does, however, have a major limitation: It works only for any single wavelength, and not for the entire frequency range of the visible spectrum, Shalaev said.

"But this is a first design step toward creating an optical cloaking device that might work for all wavelengths of visible light," he said.

...

Calculations indicate the device would make an object invisible in a wavelength of 632.8 nanometers, which corresponds to the color red. The same design, however, could be used to create a cloak for any other single wavelength in the visible spectrum, Shalaev said.

"How to create a design that works for all colors of visible light at the same time will be a big technical challenge, but we believe it's possible," he said. "It is clearly doable. In principle, this cloak could be arbitrarily large, as large as a person or an aircraft."

...

Other researchers have developed concepts for cloaking objects smaller than the wavelengths of visible light and for objects detected in the microwave range of the spectrum, which are much larger than the wavelengths of visible light. But the new design is the first for cloaking an arbitrary object in the range of light visible to humans.

"What we propose is the cloaking of objects of any shape and size," Shalaev said.

Nanotech plays a role. It's all nanotech these days. Maybe you boys need a refresher course.

...

Natural materials typically have refractive indices greater than 1. The new design reduces a refractive index to values gradually varying from zero at the inner surface of the cloak, to 1 at the outer surface of the cloak, which is required to guide light around the cloaked object.

Creating the tiny needles would require the same sort of equipment already used to fabricate nanotech devices. The needles in the theoretical design are about as wide as 10 nanometers, or billionths of a meter, and as long as hundreds of nanometers. They would be arranged in layers emanating from a central spoke in a cylindrical shape. A single nanometer is roughly the size of 20 hydrogen atoms strung together.

Thanks to CraigC.

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Beautiful:

Thanks to dri. Nope, dri says "not I." Checking the mailbox, it was a cat named DaveS.

Thanks. Who knew Alanis Morissette could take time from cutting on her thighs to make a funny?

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

$26 million isn't particularly impressive when one considers her rival, newcomer from Nowheresville Obama, raised $21 or $22 million, and trailing semi-newcomer Mitt Romney raised $23 million.

InEVITAble? Nope.

Without that done-deal Resistance is Futile mojo going, Hillary! has to fall back on the popular appeal of her cynical vote for the Iraq War as well as her highly-praised natural charisma.

She's golden, baby.

Posted by: Ace at 12:55 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.