Really, probably better if you read this when you get home. Pretty funny, and, maybe, even true of many women.

Who knows. I'll try to duck some of the unhinged feminist blog-fire by pretending I don't know any women like this at all.

I'll quote some of it after the jump. The rest of it is even dirtier than the stuff I'm quoting here.

I'd like to see this chick debate Amanda Marcotte. Unlike Ms. Marcotte, this woman has actual, empirical, real-world experience in the bedroom. She speaks about more than airy, untested theory. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:24 PM | Comments (115)
Post contains 729 words, total size 4 kb.

Or Rough The Little Red Goalie Month, if you're a chick.

May is National Masturbation Month and San Francisco is taking things into their own hands.

There's a shock.

They have created an event called the masturbate-a-thon. The Masturbate-a-thon is being hosted by the Center for Sex and Culture to raise money the center needs for its sex educational programs.

Thank goodness the left keeps a laser-like focus on the big issues, rather that fucking about with trivial shock-the-straights summer-of-love sex-stunts.

And I don't even think they're right that May is national masturbation month. When I was a kid, I learned that every month was masturbation month, except those months without an "r" in them.

Or maybe that had to do with not eating bad clams. Eh, it's all pretty much all the same in the dark.

Thanks to Darwin's Moustache.

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, if our national security satellites are to be re-tasked to spy on extremist penguins and subversive ice-floes, why not take money from Darpa's weapons and defense projects in an "over the horizon redeployment" towards buying Encyclopedia Brown books ?

Smart, tough.

The Democrats love "military spending," because the public supports "military spending," and then they can use the money appropriated for "military spending" to buy yoga mats for those too poor to afford them and friendship bracelets for Islamic Brotherhood.

Why not just go whole hog with this and simply rebrand welfare checks as "hazard pay for service in an economic warzone"?

Posted by: Ace at 12:58 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been meaning to link Bizzy Blog on this for a while. Old news by now, but worth reading if you haven't gotten to it.

Hug a liberal economist. He needs it-- plus, he's probably all soft and squishy like a plush toy.

* Collections — Up 11.3% for the year. Taylor failed to note the number ($385 billion) and the status (all-time record) of April’s collections. Thanks to those record collections, receipts in this fiscal year thus far are up by a lot more than the 9% I was using. It would be nice to think that the 11%-plus increase will hold for the rest of the year, but even 10% would be impressive.

* The Deficit — Down 55% compared to this time last year. The numbers through seven months would seem to point to a full-year deficit that will probably be lower than even the CBO’s revised number of $150 billion. Replicating last year’s $64 billion deficit during the final five months of last year would lead to a full-year deficit of $147 billion, and the trends heading into this year’s final five months appear to be much more favorable.

Now to the timing: LetÂ’s just say that itÂ’s mighty convenient that the CBO released its report on a Friday, when the House was not in session and the Senate convened for all of 51 minutes. ItÂ’s also quite convenient that CBO didnÂ’t mention that AprilÂ’s collections were an alltime record in its report.

If the “nonpartisan” CBO’s goal was to get minimal news coverage, it succeeded nicely...

Indeed, it succeeded beyond all expectations.

Bizz y Blog also takes an AP "reporter" to task for deliberately failing to report, or only reporting in the usually-unread tail-end of an article, the fact that April's collections were an all-time record, and the April surplus was second-best only to the still-getting-the-benefit-of-the-Clinton-tech-bubble April 2001 numbers.

And Bizzy's also noticed the MSM's reluctance to cover the greatest bull run in the markets since.... Herbert Hoover.

Ah, well. There are only two certainties in life: death and the "Republican tax."

[W]e've got to accept we will always, as a country, have to pay a "tax" on having a Republican president in office, because the media, through relentlessly negative coverage of Republcian economies, will sabotage consumer confidence and thus reduce the actual strength of the economy (not just the perception thereof) a fraction of a percent or so.

After the jump, a re-post, back from the days when I was funny. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 960 words, total size 6 kb.

Remember this guy?

Looks like he might stick around after all.

The attorney for University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill said Tuesday that the committee reviewing his academic misconduct case has recommended a one-year suspension rather than dismissal.

"We feel any discipline is not warranted, but at least (the committee members are) moving in the right direction," said Churchill attorney David Lane. "This will make it more difficult for Hank Brown and the regents to fire him."

The Privilege and Tenure Committee on May 8 gave its report to CU president Hank Brown, who has 15 business days to consider the case record. He could advise firing Churchill, closing the case, or another punishment short of termination.

The chairman of the committee, CU-Denver math professor Weldon Lodwick, said he could not comment.

The report on Churchill alleges that he engaged in plagiarism, misuse of others' work, falsification and fabrication of authority. Any one of these is grounds for dismissal, and yet this committee is recommending a slap on the wrist.

This is more about protecting tenure and a misguided notion of "academic freedom" than it is about ensuring the integrity of their university. They are too short-sighted to see the end result - that eventually, the abuses of faculty members like Churchill will lead to a deterioration of trust in higher education and in the long-term, more calls to end the practice of tenure.

And when that happens, academia will have no one but themselves to blame. The lesson here - police yourselves, or others will get fed up enough to do it for you.

Posted by: Slublog at 11:58 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

With not-so-great power comes not-so-great dating opportunities.

I'll quote this:

One female staffer admitted that she wasnÂ’t interested in Democratic guys, even though they are in the majority and she shares the same political views.

“I am sooooo not into Dem guys even though I am a Dem,” the aide wrote in an e-mail. “Republican boys are generally more attractive, sharper dressers and throw better parties.”

The subtext there is that "Democratic 'men' are often only barely men."

It's true. They're wussies, if I can use an Andrew Sullivan approved homophobic slur.

If I can use a Schwarzeneggerian homophobic slur (also tacitly approved by Sullivan, as he's a big fan of the pro-gay, pro-deltoid governor), they're girlymen.

I can't think I'm the only one who's heard the following from a girl he's starting to date:

"I'm not conservative, and I don't like the Republicans very much. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage and pro-environment and all that other gay shit. But for some reason I keep finding myself in relationships with conservative-leaning men..."

That's not entirely unexpected, given the fact that (among whites at least, my sample pool for this survey) men skew much more conservative than women.

And I guess it's also a self-selecting sample: I mean, duh, who else are conservative guys going to date apart from women who tend to date conservative guys?

But even though my sample is pitiably insufficient and there are lots of reasons to suspect it's bunk even beyond that, I'm still going to universalize from my experience and conclude that liberal men are simply too pussy to get chicks.

Posted by: Ace at 11:19 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Not a story, according to the MSM.

Maybe we should start banging some pots. I hear that gets attention.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

...on Red State.

I have spent the early morning scanning the major political blogs, and news sites. It's unanimous. Ron Paul got slammed by Rudy Giuliani last night for suggesting that we - the United States of America - are to blame for the attacks on 9/11. He even had the audacity to cite Osama bin Laden.

While everyone is hailing this as a "Great moment" for Rudy Giuliani, I think just as importantly, it was a horrible moment for Ron Paul. My former boss looked like a complete nutcase. He looked frail. His hands shaked. He showed his age. He was completely unprepared for Giuliani's romping response.

He's calling on three or four other Republicans to challenge Paul but, in absence of such a challenge, he'll run.

Ron Paul's Biggest Fans: ...seem to be our own rho, Andrew Sullivan (who writes that only two candidates are acceptable to him, McCain and Ron Paul, and then (scroll up) dedicates his entire day to defending/boosting Paul), and of course the very-reasonable, very-conservative "Alternate News Sources:"

Fox News Rigs Entire Debate To Savagely Attack Ron Paul

Posted on May 16th, 2007 (3 hours ago) by blogger

Texas Congressman targeted by Giuliani, Hannity & Colmes as pre-screened audience applause torture and warmongering, Fox limits post-election polls to three hours and no Internet voting yet Paul still successful.

In a sickening display of cronyism and as a consequence of the sheer terror elicited amongst the establishment after his previous success, Fox News rigged last nightÂ’s entire presidential debate in a crass effort to smear Ron Paul - yet the Texas Congressman still beat Rudy Giuliani in FoxÂ’s own poll.

If you thought the MSNBC debate was somewhat unfair towards Ron Paul, then this was an absolute debacle.

The audience for the debate was clearly pre-screened and pre-selected to include only mainly geriatric 75 year old plus Fox News viewers who are scared of their own shadow. How else can the bizarre applause for warmongering and torture, which polls show are both clearly opposed by the majority of American people, be explained?

...

Are these audience members robots or did Fox News dub the audio to include the applause?

Giuliani clearly endorses torture and the mindless drones in attendance rapaciously lap it up!

Ron Paul seems to excite the excitable. Count the exclamation points in that bit -- must have been a fire sale on 'em.

More Debate Round-Up: From Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett.

Hewitt criticizes the Fox panel for not allow the candidates to debate Ron Paul's absurd claims about the motivations of Al Qaeda. I'm of two minds on that. The FoxNews team did a good job of pushing hard questions on the candidates and provoking them to separate from each other on the issues, not merely pledge devotion to the spirit of Ronald Regan. (Chris Matthews and the Politico's guy couldn't do this, as they are so dyed-in-the-wool liberal they have no idea what to ask a conservative, the same way they have no idea of what would be an intelligent question to ask of a monitor lizard.) If the Fox team had permitted that particular debate to go on, the responses from nine of the candidates would have been predictable and similar (and correct, of course, but nine guys merely stating the obvious in different ways doesn't really allow voters to differentiate between them).

On the other hand, some times the obvious needs to be said, and small differences to make an, um, difference. Plus it really wasn't entirely fair to let Rudy Giuliani, and only Rudy Giuliani, take a big swing as this high hanging curveball that never curved.

Then again, the candidates were more than willing to avoid the questions posed to them and answer questions they wished they'd been asked, or revisit questions posed to someone else that they'd like a crack at. So everyone on stage could have, if they wished, taken the time to ask Ron Paul if he believed the bombing of Iraq was the cause of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, or if the Khobar Towers bombing, etc.

On the third Beebroxian hand, allowing that to go on would have elevated the crank crackpot simpleton Ron Paul more, and given him additional time to expound on the philosophies of 40s and 50s legislator Robert Taft, and basically diverted the debate away from those who deserve to be on stage and are qualified to be President to a doctrinaire fool who doesn't and isn't.

Subcontracting Our Foreign Policy To Al Qaeda: In a long, thoughtful, well-cited rebuttal, Allah notes that Ron Paul's foreign policy basically boils down to submitting our goals to an Al Qaeda review board and acceding to their veto.

Which is strange in and of itself-- after all, Ron Paul insists, along with every other left-wing ninny, that Osama bin Ladin wants us in Iraq. If Al Qaeda wants us in Iraq, why are they always propagandizing for us to depart? Shouldn't they be trying to keep us there, since they want us there and all?

And also, if our foreign policy is, as Ron Paul asserts, exactly what al Qaeda wants, what sense does it make to, as he suggests, craft a foreign policy more amenable to Al Qaeda, less likely to anger them?

His fundamental starting premise is that we already have just about the optimum foreign policy from Al Qaeda's perspective; what additional measures is he thinking of when he calls for us to try to please Al Qaeda more in our foreign policy decisionmaking?

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 952 words, total size 6 kb.

With video comparing the sophomoric Matthews'/Politico's/Firedoglake readers' questions with FoxNews'.

It was a damn good debate, especially considering the huge number of people on the stage.

Posted by: Ace at 10:11 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm conflicted about this.

The job posting was puzzling: "We seek a newspaper journalist based in India to report on the city government and political scene of Pasadena, California, USA."

On one hand, there's a downside to outsourcing more and more American jobs to India.
On the other hand, journalists are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, and sending their jobs to a distant dusty land makes me break out in silly giggles.

"Nobody in their right mind would trust the reporting of people who not only don't know the institutions but aren't even there to witness the events and nuances," said Bryce Nelson, a University of Southern California journalism professor and Pasadena resident.

"This is a truly sad picture of what American journalism could become."

Oh geez, put away the violin.
If they had a little humility about how fucking basic and easy their job is, maybe I wouldn't feel this way. But these people actually think it takes a highly skilled local artisan to report on the last meeting of the Zoning Board.

Local reporters are frickin' famous for misattributing quotes, mispelling the names of interviewees, and being utterly unable to accurately convey any technical knowledge more complicated than poaching an egg.

It takes a J-school graduate with a degree in Women's Studies to earn that kind of reputation.

Cute tangentially-related video.

Posted by: LauraW. at 09:17 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.