Kinda cute. Sam Jackson reprises his Pulp Fiction role, but as Chris Chelios' hockey coach.

Thanks to RDBrewer.

Posted by: Ace at 07:08 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The official tally:

730 cars torched.
592 "people" (youths of magically indeterminate ethnic origin perhaps?) arrested.
28 Police Officers injured.

But at least Sarkozy hasn't surrendered.

Which, for France, is saying something.

Posted by: Jack M. at 01:12 PM | Comments (158)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I think the AICN guys are pretty juvenile when it comes to sex and graphic violence in movies. They often seem to judge fims solely on those criteria -- for example, one review of an early screening of Rollerball gushed with unrestrained enthusiasm for this, one of the worst films every made, largely due to its gore and Rebecca Romeijn's nudey scenes.

Sorry, no link. I apologize if my memory is faulty, but I remember this review pretty clearly, but it no longer seems to be on the site. The reviews on the site are strongly negative, as they should be -- but I do remember this particularly juvenile review -- it's got tits, it's got graphic violence, ergo, it's GREAT -- of this godawful film. Perhaps it's so embarassing it's been deleted.

If I'm wrong, I apologize for attributing the review to AICN.

With that background, I turn to AICN contributor "Vern's" screed against the "pansified" PG-13 cut of Live Free or Die Hard. It should be noted this very minor controversy was started by Bruce Willis' own criticism of the studio for cutting it into PG-13 shape:

"In June's VANITY FAIR, it states that Bruce Willis was initially
disappointed that his fourth DIE HARD film will likely be cut to get a PG-13
rating rather than an R. 'I really wanted this one to live up to the promise
of the first one, which I always thought was the only really good one.' And
he's not happy about it. 'That's a studio decision that is becoming more and
more common, because they're trying to reach a broader audience. It seems
almost a courageous move to give a picture an R rating these days. But we
still made a pretty hardcore, smashmouth film.'"

Dearest 19th Century Fox:

Howdy. Name's Vern, nice to meet you. I am writing to ask you one question. WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU JOKERS TRYING TO PULL?

Before you blow me off to go bathe in that champagne/money/panda blood mixture you have in your hot tub, please be aware that I am not speaking as a member of the internet community, or associate of the nerd community. I think ALL communites agree with me on this, except maybe the Amish, who don't watch movies and are therefore neutral. I am speaking as an American, and as a citizen of the world. You can't fucking do that to DIE HARD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the movie was called LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. But from what Vanity Fair is saying here, it sounds more like LIVE FREE OR DIE-- WELL, LET'S NOT DIE TOO HARD, THERE ARE CHILDREN PRESENT. Which, in my opinion, is not as good of a title.

He goes on to make the point -- not entirely wrong -- that blood and some small amount of gore are trademarks of the Die Hard series, known for their realistic depiction of violence... except for the rather unrealistic conceit that John McClain has the Constitution and hit points of Wile E. Coyote and can pretty much take any wound short of blowing out the back of his head and keep on fighting at nearly full efficacy.

Which is, you know, not really realistic at all. Not that I mind that -- the rules are different in action-adventure movies than they are in grittier, more realistic police procedurals -- but let's shy away from terming this sort of film "realistic" in its depiction of violence.

So Bruce Willis called Harry Knowles to defend the movie as it will be released:

And yes, the PG-13 Peter Biskind VANITY FAIR piece did come up. Bruce felt his comments had been taken out of place and that Biskind focused on that more than he felt was justified, especially since at the point in which he talked to Peter about DIE HARD 4, he hadn't actually seen it yet.

According to Bruce, he feels this Die Hard is right there with the original - and that if you didn't know it was PG-13, you couldn't tell, because it got him to the edge of his seat at least 6 times. Now, it might not have as many "fucks" as in the past, but the action and intensity - he swears is there.

For one thing, it's interesting that major celebrities are now calling up bloggers to help sell movies/spin stories.

This prompted me to think about the current ratings system. Does a movie really even need to be R-rated anymore to be fairly graphically violent? more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (63)
Post contains 2395 words, total size 14 kb.

From nemo, though it's been around for a while:

Two boys in Boston were playing baseball when one of them was attacked by a vicious Rottweiler. The dog had already locked his jaws on the Boy's' legs.

Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off of a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck.

A newspaper reporter from the Boston Globe witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy. The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline, "Brave Boston Red Sox Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal."

"But I'm not a Boston Red Sox fan," the little hero interjected.

"Sorry" replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston, I just assumed you were."

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began again, "John Kerry Fan Rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack."

"But I'm not a John Kerry fan either," the boy protested.

The reporter replied, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for The Red Sox, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy. What team or person do you Like?''

"Well, I'm a Texas Ranger fan, and I really like President Bush," the Boy answered.

Hitting the delete key, the reporter began yet again: "Arrogant Little Republican Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet."

Posted by: Ace at 11:01 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

The New Editor catches Bill Maher making the claim that the Democratic Party is the one with almost no "nuts" in it. (It should be noted that his definition of "nuts" is largely concerned with whether or not someone believes in a real, tangible God or not.)

TNE contrasts this with the Rasmussen poll the media has entirely embargoed, finding that 61% of self-identifying Democrats either believe George Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance or are not sure if he did or not.

The media is very, very big on highlighting the misconceptions -- or alleged misconceptions -- of conservative-leaning Americans. They never tire of telling us that x percentage of conservatives (or FoxNews viewers, or whatever) mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

It should be noted that even that "misconception" is misconceivedly categorized as such. After all, the media has never adequately explained this -- indeed, they've done their level-best to not even mention it:

Of course, we may yet find that Saddam was a participant in the specific 9/11 plot. In that regard, the commission staff's report is perplexing, and, again, raises — or flat omits — many more questions than it resolves.

For one thing, the staff [of the 9/11 commission] has now addressed the crucial January 2000 Malaysia planning session in a few of its statements. As I have previously recounted, this was the three-day meeting at which Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hazmi, eventual hijackers of Flight 77 (the one that hit the Pentagon), met with other key 9/11 planners. The staff's latest report, Statement Number 16 ("Outline of the 9/11 Plot"), even takes time to describe how the conspirators were hosted in Kuala Lampur by members of a Qaeda-affiliated terror group, Jemaah Islamiah. But the staff does not mention, let alone explain, let alone explain away, that al Midhar was escorted to the meeting by Ahmed Hikmat Shakir.

Shakir is the Iraqi who got his job as an airport greeter through the Iraqi embassy, which controlled his work schedule. He is the man who left that job right after the Malaysia meeting; who was found in Qatar six days after 9/11 with contact information for al Qaeda heavyweights — including bin Laden's aforementioned friend, Salim — and who was later detained in Jordan but released only after special pleading from Saddam's regime, and only after intelligence agents concluded that he seemed to have sophisticated counter-interrogation training. Shakir is also the Iraqi who now appears, based on records seized since the regime's fall, to have been all along an officer in Saddam's Fedayeen.

Does all this amount to proof of participation in the 9/11 plot? Well, in any prosecutor's office it would be a pretty good start. And if the commission staff was going to get into this area of Iraqi connections to al Qaeda at all, what conceivable good reason is there for avoiding any discussion whatsoever of Shakir? At least tell us why he is not worth mentioning.

In addition, the Prague meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence officer has never actually been debunked -- Czech intelligence stands by the story, and previous media claims of a retraction were, in fact, erroneous (and yet still cited to this day). The "proof" that Atta could not have been in Prague at that time seems to rest entirely on the facts that his cellphone was used and various receipts were signed for by "him" in America at this time -- "proof" of his location that would never be considered a strong alibi in a run-of-the-mill criminal case, given how easy it is to use someone else's cellphone or use someone else's credit card.

Add to that the Clinton Administration's indictment of Osama bin Ladin noting his cooperation with Iraq in the Sudanese chem-weapon factor, etc. The media's putative "debunking" of such evidence has itself been throroughy debunked -- indeed, it was bunk from the start.

None of this establishes more than a friendly relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam, and certainly it doesn't prove Saddam was the author of 9/11, or actually even knew the attack was coming. However, it certainly raises questions about what he may have considered small-bore courtesies extended to Al Qaeda which ultimately, unbeknownst to him, assisted Al Qaeda in carrying out its attacks.

But that's a bit of a side-trek from the road I wanted to be on. Compare the media's relentless "debunking" of the "myth" that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Not only is the media constantly asserting facts not in evidence (the 0/11 Commissions carefully negotiated statement regarding "no operational ties" between Saddam and Al Qaeada is consistently mistated as "no ties whatsoever"), but the MSM also is fond of implying that conservatives are either crazy or ignornant to even have questions about such links.

On the other hand, when 61% of Democrats state they believe that George Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, or may have known of them -- thus making George Bush a co-conspirator in the attacks -- the media not only does no debunking whatseover, but fails to point out the left is engaging in some fairly serious myth-making itself.

Long story short:

The media considers it crazy to believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, and fights this insanity with every tool at its disposal, including outright deception.

On the other hand, the media does not apparently consider it particularly hard to believe that George Bush, President of the United States, had something to do with 9/11. If they did consider such a notion beyond the pale, one would imagine they'd publicize (and implicity mock) those crazed liberals believing that our own President aided and abetted Osama bin Ladin.

But of course they don't. Because it's simply not possible for a reasonble person to believe a sworn enemy of the US, known to have at least some ties with Al Qaeda, could have had a hand in the attacks, but a reasonable person could, according to the MSM, believe that a US President with no ties to Al Qaeda helped facillitate and perhaps even carry out the attacks.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 1045 words, total size 7 kb.

The article labels this guy an "eco-extremist." That may be true, but it's misleading: Talk to any lefty environmental bleeding heart and they will, eventually, express the same desire for massive deaths of humans on an unprecedented scale. They actively root for epidemics and natural disasters.

Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

The commentary reminded readers that Watson had called humans a disease before and he wasn’t sorry. “I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the ‘AIDS of the Earth.’ I make no apologies for that statement,” the column continued.

Watson was invoking the worst of Robert Malthus, an English political economist who claimed that mankind was overpopulating the earth. That claimed first appeared in the late 1700s. Watson urged some solutions for mankind as part of a process to “need to re-wild the planet”:

· “No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.

...

· “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.

...

Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”

The whole column is here. It's a doozy. While he grieves over the extinction of the big animals that used to roam the earth not so terribly long ago -- mastodons, mammoths, etc. -- one can almost hear his pants strain to hold down his erection at the thought of one fairly large hominid -- humans -- becoming extinct or nearly so.

And of course there is that terrible, awful carbon footprint caused by having children.

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their familyÂ’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

In his latest comments the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.

Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The worldÂ’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the population growth will take place in developing countries. The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. In some countries, such as France, the government is so concerned it has introduced financial incentives for women to have more than two children.

Despite this, Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

Convenient, isn't it, that the class of people most hypocritical on the issue of global warming -- the yuppie coastal jetsetters -- can now claim massive "carbon offsets" for their (usually selfishly motivated) decision to have no children or one fashion-accessory kid?

Mark Steyn here lays out Laurie David's rather massive carbon footprint (perhaps it's more fitting to refer to it as her "massive carbon artificially-expanded bra-size"), which is hardly "offset" at all by her bringing her own garment bags to the dry-cleaners.

However, she almost can claim massive offsets in the form of children not produced beyond the Ministry of Love approved two.

Any beyond that is a sexcrime and therefore treason.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 879 words, total size 6 kb.

And more are coming, including centipede-like crawlers that weave their way through minefields detonating one mine per leg.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have become an unprecedented field study in human relationships with intelligent machines. These conflicts are the first in history to see widespread deployment of thousands of battle bots. Flying bots range in size from Learjets to eagles. Some ground bots are like small tanks. Others are the size of two-pound dumbbells, designed to be thrown through a window to scope out the inside of a room. Bots search caves for bad guys, clear roads of improvised explosive devices, scoot under cars to look for bombs, spy on the enemy and, sometimes, kill humans.

Even more startling than these machines' capabilities, however, are the effects they have on their friendly keepers who, for example, award their bots "battlefield promotions" and "purple hearts." "Ours was called Sgt. Talon," says Sgt. Michael Maxson of the 737th Ordnance Company (EOD). "We always wanted him as our main robot. Every time he was working, nothing bad ever happened. He always got the job done. He took a couple of detonations in front of his face and didn't stop working. One time, he actually did break down in a mission, and we sent another robot in and it got blown to pieces. It's like he shut down because he knew something bad would happen." The troops promoted the robot to staff sergeant -- a high honor, since that usually means a squad leader. They also awarded it three "purple hearts."

...

Ted Bogosh recalls one day in Camp Victory, near Baghdad, when he was a Marine master sergeant running the robot repair shop.

That day, an explosive ordnance disposal technician walked through his door. The EODs, as they are known, are the people who -- with their robots -- are charged with disabling Iraq's most virulent scourge, the roadside improvised explosive device. In this fellow's hands was a small box. It contained the remains of his robot. He had named it Scooby-Doo.

Staff Sgt. James Craven (background) and Sgt. Domonic Amaral run tests on two Talon 3Bs at a base in Tikrit, Iraq. The Talon 3B is one of several robots used by explosive ordnance disposal units in search of improvised explosive devices.

"There wasn't a whole lot left of Scooby," Bogosh says. The biggest piece was its 3-by-3-by-4-inch head, containing its video camera. On the side had been painted "its battle list, its track record. This had been a really great robot."

The veteran explosives technician looming over Bogosh was visibly upset. He insisted he did not want a new robot. He wanted Scooby-Doo back.

"Sometimes they get a little emotional over it," Bogosh says. "Like having a pet dog. It attacks the IEDs, comes back, and attacks again. It becomes part of the team, gets a name. They get upset when anything happens to one of the team. They identify with the little robot quickly. They count on it a lot in a mission."

The bots even show elements of "personality," Bogosh says. "Every robot has its own little quirks. You sort of get used to them. Sometimes you get a robot that comes in and it does a little dance, or a karate chop, instead of doing what it's supposed to do." The operators "talk about them a lot, about the robot doing its mission and getting everything accomplished." He remembers the time "one of the robots happened to get its tracks destroyed while doing a mission." The operators "duct-taped them back on, finished the mission and then brought the robot back" to a hero's welcome.

Near the Tigris River, operators even have been known to take their bot fishing. They put a fishing rod in its claw and retire back to the shade, leaving the robot in the sun.

Of the fish, Bogosh says, "Not sure if we ever caught one or not."

Thanks to Michelle.

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

Unbelievable.

She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, making sure schoolwork was done. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with Dad.

A year and a half later, her assignment up, Crouch pulled into her driveway with one thing in mind — bringing home the little girl who shared her smile and blue eyes. She dialed her ex and said she’d be there the next day to pick Sara up, but his response sent her reeling.

“Not without a court order you won’t.”

Within a month, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. It was, he said, in “the best interests of the child.”

What happened? Crouch was the legal residential caretaker; this was only supposed to be temporary. What had changed? She wasnÂ’t a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an abusive mother.

Her only misstep, it seems, was answering the call to serve her country.

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

Life imitates urban legend.

...

Jesse Courtney said it felt like the tiny spiders were "walking on my eardrums."

His mother, Diane Courtney, said her son insisted he kept hearing a faint popping in his ear -- "like Rice Krispies" -- before the earache sent them to the doctor.

The doctor flushed Jesse's left ear, and the first spider came out, dead. The other spider took a second dousing before it emerged, still alive. Both were about the size of a pencil eraser.

Jesse was given the spiders -- now both dead -- as a souvenir. He's already taken them to school to show his classmates.

Apparently Jesse lives on a different planet than the one I grew up on. On planet earth, showing your classmates the spiders that had built a nest in your ear would be worse than them hatching eggs in your brain.

Video at the link.

Thanks to the mysterious dri.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

LauraW posted this last week, but I think maybe few saw it. There were only four comments.

It's hilarious though. NSFW language.

Posted by: Ace at 03:29 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.