A serious thrashing on Celebrity Fit Club (language warning):

Punk'd: dri, dri... why have you betrayed me so?

I originally linked this "story" off "swellserver," announcing the death of Hollywood leged Dustin Diamond. It's fake. Apologies for that.

I should have realized it was fake when the article claimed he died "filming a movie," which is just absurd.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (52)
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

After the last GOP debate, many of us wanted to see Ron Paul excluded from future debates for his comments about the attacks of September 11. One GOP leader, Saul Anuzis, planned to circulate a petition to that end. He's since changed his mind.

After reading this blog entry from National Journal, I'm grateful that Anuzis has halted his 'ban Paul' campaign. Sure, many Ron Paul supporters on the web are irritating libtards with nothing better to do that spam any website, poll or discussion board that has the audacity to insult their Chosen One.

I have to admit, though - I've gone from being irritated by them to entertained. The Hotline entry linked above is pure snark, but the comments below? Comedy gold.

And as far as polling? Yeah, he ain't in the top tier, but he is tops of the second tier. Check out New Hampshire Zogby poll, where he has moved up to 3% in the polls, as opposed to other candidates who are mostly losing ground. Not to mention that only 5/32 polls mention him.
Seer | 05.22.07 07:23 PM

RO-Mentum, baby!

In a related story, Gallup has Paul at 0 percent support.

This one works best if you imagine it spoken by an outraged teenage girl:

You are a moron. You're lucky breathing is an involuntary reflex. Otherwise you'd have suffocated long ago. Tssk.
Ron Paul is the first real candidate ever.
Roger McKay | 05.23.07 12:32 AM

Then there's this one:

Andy is right. Until a full scale revolution is declared, fascist puppets of the CFR will continue to be installed under the illusion of "choice". The American people are so incredibly brainwashed into thinking we still live in a free society. I am personally voting for Paul. If he's elected he's going ot have to travel around in a bullet proof car like the Pope. He represents the people, and the owners of this country will kill anyone that stands in defense of the people.
eric merola | 05.23.07 07:20 AM

Ron Paul supporters always complain that they are unfairly portrayed in the media as a group of crazed, obsessive lunatics. There is a way to avoid that.

Stop acting like crazed, obsessive lunatics.

One of the most-used sentences I see from Paulbots is a variation on the complaint that we're "afraid to debate/examine/consider his ideas." A little advice - it would be much easier to do so if those ideas were communicated without the level of snark, condescension and pure vicious jackassery that many Paulbots bring to the table.

Then again, who am I to complain? Politics is rarely this entertaining.

Posted by: Slublog at 05:41 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

"Warrior...and sex god."

Mongolian warlord Genghis Khan was notorious for his sexual as well as his territorial conquests. But the extent to which he captured women's hearts has now been revealed with research suggesting that he has 16 million Asian descendants.

...

...scientists discovered a cluster of closely related lines of Y-chromosomes, which are handed down from father to son.

The cluster led back to Mongolia about a thousand years ago.

Don't call him a rapist. He was a "Non-Consensual Sexual Enthusiast".

Seriously though, the 16 million number shouldn't be considered a big deal, right? Isn't just about everyone distantly related to someone famous if you look back far enough?

When I was a kid, a sorta-low-class woman in the neighborhood had a family tree done, and I remember her being so thrilled that she was descended from all these famous kings.

And I was like, "Yeah, it's great that Pepin the Short found time to knock up your great-grandma when she came over to de-louse his jerkin, but you've still got a stepdaughter who feeds her baby cat food because the welfare check went toward a new cam shaft for Randy's Camaro and a carton of Viceroys."

And geneology's left me a bit cold ever since.

Posted by: AndrewR at 07:04 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

When you care enough to send something you got free off the internet.

Thanks to A. Weasel.

Posted by: Ace at 03:58 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

...due to this fellow Congressman daring to inquire about a particularly shady Murtha Special.

Old Democratic Promise: "The most ethical Congress in history"

New Democratic Promise: "The most ethical Congress in... the Capitol Building"

I'm not even sure they'll be able to manage that much.

House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.

The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion to reprimand Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Iraq war foe and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Two Democrats - Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee - voted against killing the motion. One Republican - Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania - voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand.

Murtha, known for his gruff manner and fondness of pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark - a targeted spending item - for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district.

In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, "you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha's threat violated congressional ethics rules.

AP doesn't seem to have many details about the exchange, despite the fact the dialogue was included in Rogers' complaint (shocker!). Allah noted it at the time:

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever,” Murtha told Rogers on the House floor, according to the draft transcript supplied to The Politico.

“This is not the way we do things here — and is that supposed to make me afraid of you?” Rogers replied.

“That’s the way I do it,” Murtha said.

Back to the current article:

In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules.

"It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.

...

When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. Members seeking earmarks would have to identify themselves and their intentions in time for staffers to review the items, leaders said.

Republicans said the vote showed Democrats' hypocrisy.

Smart, tough.

Older story:

A week ago Rogers offered a procedural motion to the fiscal 2008 intelligence bill that would have prevented funding for an earmark Murtha sponsored to authorize $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a government agency based in his district.

Rogers said Murtha approached him on the House floor Thursday and told him: “I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the defense appropriations bills because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.”

Rogers argues that the threat is a violation of House rules, which preclude members from conditioning earmarks on a members’ vote. House Rule XXIII, Clause 16 states that members “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit in any [legislation].”

RogersÂ’ resolution to reprimand Murtha does not seek an ethics committee investigation into the matter.

Murtha's office released the following statement: "The committee and staff give every Democrat and Republican the same consideration. We have extensive hearings and every request is carefully considered. We will continue to do just that."

Let me get this straight: The MSM went bananas over the "partisan corruption of the law" when Bush wanted to fire attorneys who were his at-will employees, but the MSM says not a fucking word when Abscam Murtha indulges in the "partisan corruption of the legislative process"?

I'm sure we'll be seeing nightly updates about this and full-court-press front-page coverage in all the papers.

God-damn them all to hell. I'm so sick of this shit.

Posted by: Ace at 03:27 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

I never bought the claim that he paid no attention to polls, but at this point, yeah, I believe it. At some point one must get tired of hearing about how bad one sucks.

He says what he means and he means what he says.

After three straight days at the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports, President BushÂ’s Job Approval ratings slipped another point to another new low on Tuesday.

Just 33% of American adults now Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his duties as President. Prior to this past week, the PresidentÂ’s ratings had never slipped below 35% and had only reached that level for a day or two at a time. Now, his Job Approval has been at the 35% level or below for six straight days. (see comments on comparing Approval Ratings from different polling firms). Rasmussen Reports updates the PresidentÂ’s Job Approval ratings every day by noon Eastern.

The President’s ratings tumble each time immigration reform dominates the news because he loses support among his base—just 66% of Republicans now give him their approval (that matches the lowest level of support he’s ever received from his base). Even as the stock markets set new records, just 36% of investors approve of the President’s performance.

He's not running again, so he doesn't care. And he probably doesn't have to.

Probably.

Not sure about you guys, but I'm not going to say a peep if the Congressional Democrats begin their long-dreamed of impeachment hearings.

You're on your own now, pal.

Thanks to "someone."

Beth says he can't be impeached, because he committed "no crime."

Well, the Democrats can claim he did this or that. Doesn't matter to them.

Not saying I'd join in the, um, lynching? Isn't that what they called the Clinton Impeachement? Or was it a "coup"? Yeah, they definitely said that.

So no, I wouldn't join in.

Just saying I'm not going to be a pill and ruin the party for anyone else, either.

I was talking with steve_in_hb about this. Steve, as you probably know, isn't really a conservative, and wasn't as much a supporter of Bush as most here, but he was inclined to support Bush, especially given 1) the war and 2) the relentless and usually unfair attacks from the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself).

But even he felt as if he'd been required to defend this guy and carry his water for six years, hoping to keep this punchdrunk, stumbling simpleton on his feet just long enough to beat the 10-count at the fight's end.

I've felt that so often during this presidency -- forced to constantly defend an incompetent, passive, lethargic administration much more than I would have liked, because they apparently couldn't be bothered with the minor presidential duty of public communications. So many times I've thought, "God, how long do I have to carry this guy? Is this idiot going to do, like, anything on his own behalf?"

I know I really wasn't "carrying" him and all. Duh. I'm talking of a feeling I've had. Not reality. It's just felt like the entire conservative movement has been doing far more work and exerting much more energy in pushing Bush along than Bush himself.

"How's it feel?" Steve asked after I posted I was done with Bush. "Pretty liberating, huh?"

Yeah. It is liberating. The hell with him, the hell with compassionate conservatism. I'm half-tempted to post one of those Bush Liberation Day clocks in the sidebar like the lefty blogs have.

And yeah, as Bart says below, "Free at last, free at last, Thank God All Mighty, I'm free at last."

Posted by: Ace at 03:18 PM | Comments (147)
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

Damn, those crazy Christianists tried to set off a bomb at their own funeral.

Is there no limit to their lunacy? When will they learn to tolerate their own correligionists?

I don't have details; Shep Smith just reported it on FoxNews. Thanks to dri.

My bad; it's already up. And the early reporting says it was a crazy Christianist, contrary to my sarcasm. He was looking to blow up funeral protestors, not attendees.

Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark Ewell of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No information was available on the third person.

Authorities were alerted to the potential bomb plot by a concerned relative of Ewell.

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush 's "Saudi connections" implies (with a wink) he was involved in 9/11.

Too much stupidity here even to explain. Let's start with Rosie's claim she was "taken out of context" by FoxNews for her statement that 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, so who are the real terrorists? FoxNews said that means that the US, and US troops, are the terrorists, according to her.

She denies she meant that. But when Elizabeth Hasselback asks her to answer her own rhetorical question -- well, if she doesn't mean Americans are the "real terrorists," who did she mean? -- she refuses to answer several times, constantly chaning the subject.

Bonus stupidity: Barbara Walters offers her professional scary-smart media opinion that not all jihadis are Muslim.

Not that not all terrorists are Muslim. She's claiming that not all jihadis (which she specifically contrasts with "terrorists") are Muslims.

She does not mention which other religion even mentions "jihad," let alone celebrates it.

Remember, though, her opinion matters, because she went to journalism school and has interviewed Burt Reynolds multiple times.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Is there any way we can maybe induce more illegal Muslim immigrants and then put them on a pathway to citizenship?

They're definitely willing to do the jobs Americans won't do -- like blowing up innocent civilians in the name of Allah.

Um, seriously? Can we have a moritorium on immigration until it's clear the plusess of immigration outweight the rather-substantial minuses?

Counterpoint: Insta-man links Stephen Schwartz arguing the MSM is not giving enough air-time to "counter-jihad" Muslims.

That may be true. And giving more attention to such Muslims may help.

But let's not sugar coat this: Even in America, where we're told Muslims have assimilated and are more law-abiding and less perpetually outraged than Muslims in most other country, over a quarter of terrorist-aged Muslim men believe that terorism is either sometimes or at least rarely justified.

And I'm supposed to take solace in the fact that many Muslims are active opponents of terrorism?

Let's say 50% of American Muslims are strongly counter-jihad. Hell, let's be generous-- let's say 70%

Is this a good number?

You know my idea of good number? 99.9% to 100%.

50%? 70% Not really floating my fuckin' boat, pardon my fuckin' French.

It's like taking a poll of a large group of people -- let's say white men between 25 and 40 -- and finding out that "50% oppose serial killing, rape, and sexual torture in most situations."

Is that supposed to be reassuring? Would anyone be praising adult white men for their tremendous support for basic norms of human decency if half of them had the courage to oppose psychopathic murder in most situations?

Hey, I oppose it all situations.

Maybe someone should give me a fuckin' medal, huh? I should be featured on all the cable news shows as a "Moderate White Male."

I'm out here on a limb, condemning serial killing the abduction and sexual torture of women, and not enough people are giving me credit for my brave moral stance.

Hypothetical: Let's say a poll found that 26% of non-Muslim American men between 25 and 40 believed that murdering innocent Muslims simply because they were angry about terrorism was "sometimes" or "rarely" justified.

70% condemned this practice of randomly murdering American Muslim civilians. 4% expressed "no opinion."

Question:

Would the media praise the forebearance of most non-Muslim American men in condemning this practice?

Or would they maybe have a bit of a problem with the 26% declaring an open mind about the propriety of randomly murdering Muslims as a method of expressing their political disatisfaction with that group?

In other words, would 70% agreement with a fucking common sense agreement with the primordial, basic human code against murder be considered satisfactory for any other group besides the Religion of Peace?

Maybe we should have a parade to praise most Muslims' condemnation of murder in most situations.

Support the Council on American-Islamic Relations

We support the moderate position that most of you will be permitted to live. Either meet us halfway, or we might just change our minds about that.

How CBS/AP Plays This: With great power comes great nuance.

Watch them mitigate the bad news with the "good news" that "most Muslims" are against the murder of their fellow Americans.

One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most American Muslims overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al Qaeda, a poll says.

Like I said: 70% are anti-murder. Whoopee!

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of U.S. Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society....

Except for a quarter of young Muslim men believing it's sometimes justified to murder those with whom they blend in so comfortably, of course.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

"Discontent" is one way to put it. "Support for murder" is another way.

Let's just chalk that up to a sytlistic disagreement.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

Nearly 80%. Again -- wow. What an astonishingly high number.

Except when you compare it to the norm. Which is 100%.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He admits that which CBS and AP attempt to obscure. So good on him.

My respect for him hardly diminishes, however, my contempt for, and last-straw get-the-fuck-out-of-my-country-attitude towards, that "hair-raising number" of his fellow Muslims who give the big thumbs-up to murder.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

Oh, well, that's okay. The Prophet Mohammad was pretty clear that Jews weren't really human, so no foul, I guess.

Of course, Christians aren't entirely human, either. But more human, so that's something.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."

They should also be susceptible to deportation and/or denial of visa/asylum requests, on the off-chance they've actually bothered to try to come here through our outdated and soon-to-be-mothballed immigration system.

...

"We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America, one of the largest mosques in the US.

Other faiths have them to the tune of 26% of all military-aged men, do they?

Really?

Here's the problem with the "few bad apples" defense so often invoked:

One quarter of a population is not "a few," and never, in all of human history, has been defined as such, at least until now, and only with regard to the very inaptly named Religion of Peace.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 1065 words, total size 7 kb.

Sorry for the confusing headline. It's a lot to swallow in one gulp.

In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers. It means the child could not marry the nursing womanÂ’s biological children.

Attiya - the head of Al-AzharÂ’s Department of Hadith, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad - insisted the same would apply with adults. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation.

Sucking the breast of a lactating female stranger, you see, eliminates any possibility of un-Islamic sexual excitement.

In related news, I'm told there are approximately 6,000 porn-sites which tend to undermine this thesis.

In other related news, I just converted to Islam.

You Zionist Jew-pigs will all die by the sword and the streets will flow red and, you know, whatever. Dog-monkey infidel devil-snakes.

So, uhhhh.... any recent mothers want to build a completely nonsexual working relationship with me?

After that, we can segue over to oral sex as a corporate team-building exercise. We can do "trust falls" into each other's genitals.

In fairness... The "scholar" issuing this fatwa has been disciplined by higher-ranking lunatics.

But, um, which way does that cut? Frankly this was the first friggin' idea coming out of Islam that made any sort of sense to me.

Thanks to Vilmar.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.