Over at her blog.

Scan down for the "Parsons" entry, a slam on O'Reilly in, um, poetical form, which alludes to the Parsons character from 1984, a book which Rosie did not read when it was assigned to her in eighth grade and has not of course read since, but which is easy to quote from due to the magic of internet searches.

sitting on my sofa
thinking of u and ur mind control

so many questions fill my head
what really happened at WTC
how did bush get iran to take hostages
what is that smell

o its just my mung cheese
it smells like a cocktail of gorditas
feet
and death

peace all 2 u and ur cats.

Posted by: Ace at 12:43 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't shoot the cookies.

Thanks to DavidH.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

A society is judged by how well it treats those who attempt mass murders upon it, I guess. And the Democrats are determined to be judged A double-plus.

Despite the [veto] threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."

It should be noted the Democrats are only emboldened in their pro-terrorist agenda due to Bush's success at anti-terrorism. You think they'd be pushing this crap if another airplane crashed into another skyscraper?

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (58)
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

"Your mother sucks cocks in Hell, Karras, you faithless slime."

So the candidates want to push election season up a whole year. Eh, fine. More opportunities to catch them making retard-faces. Hillary! is bound to be a goldmine.

Remember Allapundit's comic photo mashups during the '04 primaries?
Good times.

Posted by: LauraW. at 07:17 AM | Comments (198)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

No, not that chocolate Jesus, which was just yet another example of artists willing to courageously insult any religion whose adherents won't cut their heads off.

I'm talking about the real Chocloate Jesus, the ones the Black Israelites have been prophesizing would return... Obamessiah!

Video report on Obama-as-Jesus here.

I'm glad that our lucid, sage artists have taken what the rest of us have been using as a snarky joke and finally given it the artistic gravity it deserves.

Posted by: Ace at 04:54 PM | Comments (64)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Link to Right Wing Nuthouse, digesting the especially nutty bits, though it's all pretty crazy.

Next up on FDL: What If Norman Osborne Had Been Bitten By the Radioactive Spider, And Peter Parker Had Developed The Green Goblin Arsenal?

I notice FDL doesn't speculate on what would have happened had a Democrat been president during the 1993 WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and the planning and training for the 9/11 attacks.

Because we don't need to indulge in science fiction to find out the answer to that question.

Phoenix Woman, the author of this piece, was one of the most unhinged creatures I've ever had the misfortune of stumbling across on-line. Anyone who's ever been on Table Talk knows her to be moonbat of the first order who seems to live almost entirely on line.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 04:11 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Ah, Heaven. 7200 virgins (NYT link):

ON Thursday night, as a D.J. played the 1986 Beastie Boys hit “Girls” at a divey downtown gay bar here, a handful of women, in knee socks and miniskirts, tattoos and fedoras, jumped up on the stage to dance. On the floor, dozens of women in tank tops, jeans, boots and body jewelry followed suit, grinding up against one another in threesomes and pairs, singing along: “Girls! Girls! Girls! Girls! Girls!”

In the next room, on a platform, a bikini-and-fishnet clad go-go dancer did a push-up while balanced on one foot, then jumped up to wiggle her behind at an appreciative crowd of women waving cameras and $20 bills.

Welcome to Dinah Shore Weekend, or, as itÂ’s better known, lesbian spring break, which concludes today. An annual pilgrimage for more than three decades, it has attracted thousands of adult women to this mountain-ringed Southern California desert town, which becomes a destination for lesbians looking to party, socialize and hook up.

...

Among the biggest changes of the post “L Word” era, said Sivan Schlecter, a marketing consultant who has helped companies like Showtime and Logo, a gay and lesbian television network, promote events here, is that “corporations pay a lot more attention to it.”

She added: “With the increase of lesbian visibility, brands now realize that women are a part of the gay market, not just men.”

Yeah. Lesbianism has been kept such a secret from the advertising world for so, so long.

Yet market research on the size and scope of lesbian spending power is not readily available, said Joie Pompilio, a brand manager for Finlandia vodka, Girl BarÂ’s largest sponsor. Nonetheless, she said, her company is excited about working with the gay and lesbian audience.

“They’re loyal consumers and they’re really open to trying new and creative cocktails,” she said. And since Finlandia also sponsors the men’s White party, a gay circuit event that takes place in Palm Springs in April, Ms. Pompilio is able to do some armchair market research. Her conclusion? “The women drink 40 percent more than the guys.”

...

“I’m newly out to my parents, so I decided to come to the most extravagantly lesbian thing I could,” said Keely Thomas, 23, a freelance writer who had driven from Austin, Tex., with a friend in the hope of finding a hook-up.

At the first meet-and-greet on Wednesday, dozens of women drank margaritas, posed for photos and flirted voraciously around the curvy pool at the Wyndham resort. All wore nametags bearing colored dots: green meant available, yellow meant approachable and red was for don’t even try — though many tags were plastered with a rainbow of dots.

By the Thursday night opening parties, the mood was even more unrestrained.

...

“This is the best women’s week on the planet,” she said, keeping her gaze focused on the go-go dancer’s platform. “Lots of eye candy.” She nodded in the direction of the dancer, who was busy doing splits, gyrating and taking money out of people’s mouths with her own.

“She’s very talented,” Ms. Schamanek said. She pulled a wad of bills out of her bra, folded a $5 bill and moved closer to the platform.

Number of ejaculations: I'll let you know when I'm finished.

Thanks to dri.

I've Got The Perfect Plan...

Who's with me?

BTW, a lot of people are questioning what Dinah Shore, exactly, has to do with lesbianism. Well, not much, except by happenstance. This party began being held to coincide with the Dinah Shore Ladies Golf Tournament. It turned into a sapphic baccanal sort of on its own -- it turns out that many fans of women's sports are themselves lesbians, if you can believe such a thing.

Also -- how is it possbile that Holland Taylor looked 50 when she was 35, and yet still looks 50 when she's 75?

Posted by: Ace at 04:02 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 666 words, total size 5 kb.

Allah is down on the plan for a "non-apology apology" to allow the British seamen to go free, but it's pretty much what I expected, and I'm not sure it's a bad thing:

Ministers are preparing a compromise deal to allow Iran to save face and release its 15 British military captives by promising that the Royal Navy will never knowingly enter Iranian waters without permission.

...without saying they'd done so in this instance.

Mrs Beckett revealed that Britain has replied to a letter from the Iranian Embassy in London, sent on Thursday, which called on the Government to acknowledge that the sailors had trespassed into Iranian waters and confirm that it would not happen again.

She said: "Everyone regrets that this position has arisen. What we want is a way out of it. We want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible."

Defence officials emphasised that they were not preparing to concede that the two British boats detained nine days ago were at fault. But one said: "We are quite prepared to give the Iranians a guarantee that we would never knowingly enter their waters without their permission, now or in the future.

We are not apologising, nor are we saying that we entered their waters in the first place. But it may offer a route out of the crisis."

That's the way lunatic, irresponsible regimes are usually handled. They must be permitted some meaningless, transparent "face saving" in exchange for them doing the right thing (and also acting in their own best interest, because they are, after all, irresponsible lunatics).

I expect the Iranians to accept this, because I do think they realize they're giving Bush (and even Blair) precisely the pretext to bomb the hell out of them they need to overcome all the resistance to fresh military action that their agents in Iraq have created.

But they are lunatics, after all, so who knows:

The move, which was discussed at a meeting of Whitehall's Cobra crisis committee yesterday, came as Downing Street officials explicitly cautioned against hopes of a speedy outcome and said that families of the hostages should prepare for the "long haul".

The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, have been warned that the impasse may develop into a long-term stand-off. Privately, officials are speculating that the crisis could continue for months.

The renewed search for a solution was given greater urgency when a senior Iranian official said that moves had begun to put the 15 British captives on trial.

Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, announced: "Legal moves to determine the guilt of the British sailors have been launched." In an interview with a Russian television channel, he said: "The legal process is going on and has to be completed and if they are found guilty they will face punishment."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to make a formal statement on the crisis on Tuesday. Last night, he denounced Britain's failure to apologise and decision to go to the United Nations: "This is not the legal and logical way."

Allah reports something I didn't know: that there is no clear demarcation between Iraqi and Iranian waters in this region, so perhaps the waters are muddier than I thought.

I don't think some face-saving bullshit statement is a win for Iran or a defeat for Britain. It's just how these things are usually handled. I think the whole incident is a net loss for Iran, no matter how it turns out, because we just moved a small step closer to bombing, which may not solve all of our problems with Iran, but it certainly will give Iran itself a host of new problems that need rapid solving.

Also read down for Allah's mention of a Revolutionary Guards commander worryng the situation has gotten "out of control" and urging the seamen be freed immediately.

But we see this all the time from Iran. The government always seems to be able to trot out "voices of reason" at difficult moments to give the West empty hope the regime will ever begin behaving peacably.

Allah Emailed To Ask... that if Iran really is looking to escape from this via a face-saving evasion, why are they seemingly inventing new causi belli?

Now, today, Iranian TV is claiming another violation of its territory — this time by the U.S., when two of our jets supposedly entered Iranian airspace briefly while flying over Iraq. The military denies it. I can’t believe they’d use that as a pretext to seize any of our guys, but it does help ratchet up nationalist sentiment and feed the fantasy that they’re the aggrieved party in all this. Which may be useful right now: the IDF’s head of intel told the Israeli cabinet a few hours ago that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah are preparing — defensively, he stressed — for an expected U.S. attack, so this could be part of those preparations. Either that or they’re planning to launch an attack of their own somewhere and want to be sure the public reads it as retaliation instead of aggression, particularly given the consequences that will follow.

He links Captain Ed, who speculates about the reasons maniacs have been permitted to surround the British Embassy in Teheran and demand execution for the hostages. Because they're going to let "indpendent, uncontrollable, not-associated-with-the-government-at-all radical students" storm into the embassy and take even more hostages. Just like in 1979.

The British say that the police presence has kept the compound secure, but that supposedly was the case in November 1979, too. As then, Iranian clerics fuel the violent protest and have attracted Iranian youths to demonstrate. This fellow [in a photograph in Captain Ed's post] with the rock is an Iranian imam.

Given the rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it doesn't appear as if the mullahcracy wants to de-escalate the crisis on the ground. It will not take long before the police allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the anger of the mob -- and then the Iranians will find themselves in possession of yet another Western embassy. They have seen no reason not to allow its "students" to capture the British compound, certainly not by the EU's embarrassing show of moral cowardice last night. All of this "reasonable" talk has encouraged Ahmadinejad to bolster his own domestic position by turning Britain -- Iran's trading partner and interlocutor with America -- as its new Great Satan.

Perhaps I'm just too damn optimistic, but I see that a a short-term bad and long-term good. Clarification is good.

It will be their next-to-last mistake.

Posted by: Ace at 03:52 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 1108 words, total size 7 kb.

Dogstar sends this account of the story, which contains a detail I didn't notice in the other one. The detail seems to support the grand jury's refusal to indict the husband:

When he arrived, Roberson saw his wife, clad in a robe and underwear, with a man in a Chevrolet Silverado pickup, police have said. After Tracy Roberson claimed that the man was trying to rape her, her husband fired four shots at the vehicle as the man tried to drive away with his wife, police have said.

So, from his perspective, his wife was being raped and also abducted by her rapist. He believed he was stopping a serious crime (or several of them, actually) in progress. What else could he have done?

Sure, he could have fired warning shots or shouted for the man to stop driving and all that stuff, but that frankly strikes me as fantasy.

Given those facts, lawyers believe the grand jury's finding was perfectly reasonable and logical.

Legal experts said they have never heard of a case quite like this before but that the legal theory behind it seems sound.

"It certainly is different," said George E. Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. "But the theory sounds perfectly acceptable to me. That is interesting."

Jason Gillmer, an associate professor at Texas Wesleyan School of Law in downtown Fort Worth, agreed.

"I've never heard of a case like this, but if you think about the theory behind it, it makes sense," Gillmer said. "He is entitled to defend his wife and his family against aggravated assault. If he believes that is what is happening, he is entitled to use force. She didn't intend for her husband to kill her lover, but she recklessly caused it.

"Whether or not a jury will be convinced remains to be seen."

It's basic law that a crime requires both an "bad act" and a "bad thought." Lacking either, you don't have a crime. We definitel have a bad outcome here -- an innocent (well, legally so) man was shot dead; that's definitely a "bad act" -- but we have no bad thought that caused it. From the husband's perspective, he was acting legally, justifiably, and, well, somewhat heroically in attempting to save his wife from her "rapist/kidnapper."

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

Government for the litigants, by the judges, of the lawsuit:

SAN FRANCISCO --

The least surprising byline of the year. Ninth Circus. Whatev's.

A federal judge has advanced a lawsuit against the government over its funding of overseas projects that environmental groups claim contribute to climate change.

The lawsuit, filed by environmental groups and four U.S. cities, claims that the overseas projects will harm the U.S. environment because the effects of global warming will be felt at home, and seeks to require the same environmental reviews that are required for domestic projects.

The Bush administration had argued last year that the "alleged impacts of global climate change are too remote and speculative" to require the reviews.

But in allowing the lawsuit to proceed, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White on Friday cast doubt on the administration's assertion that disagreements remain about the connection between human activity and climate change. He also cited increased attention on the issue in the news and entertainment media, including Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"It would be difficult for the court to conclude that defendants have created a genuine dispute that (greenhouse gases) do not contribute to global warming," White wrote in his ruling.

The lawsuit names two agencies -- the Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States -- that insure billions of dollars of U.S. investors' money for foreign projects, including power plants that emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

The judge didn't merely rely upon the agitprop of "Inconvenient Truth." He also cited The Day After Tomorrow as well as the leading case from the Fifth Circuit, Godzilla Vs. The Smog Monster.

By all means we must protect judicial independence. Otherwise our government might devolve into an actual democracy.

Thanks to PetiteDov.

Posted by: Ace at 11:32 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.