Mother told me, yes she told me

I'd meet girls like you

She also told me stay away

You'll never know what you'll catch

Well just the other day I heard of an Al Qaeda bomb blowing off

some Iranian EFP that's going round

Hillary!'s alright, Byrd's alright, they just seem a little weird

Surrender, surrender, or else give the election away

Old Political Math: Hillary! needed to support a war she plainly didn't believe -- condemning thousands of GI's to death for a cause she considered unnecessary and unjust -- in to convince the general electorate she was "strong, tough" enough to be President

New Political Math: Hillary! now needs to pull the plug on a war that can't afford to be lost in order to convince luantic leftwing hyperparitsans she's "strong, tough" enough to fight the real enemy-- Republicans

Surrender, surrender.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said in the Senate Thursday she and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., will introduce legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq.

The bill will propose Oct. 11, 2007, as the expiration date for the congressional resolution that authorized President George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. That resolution was approved Oct. 11, 2002.

Posted by: Ace at 10:32 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

An ill wind chilling dissent blows across the American political landscape.

I guess all 50 of the Senate Democrats (did Tim Johnson actually sign this?) are supporters of Ari Fleisher's oft-quoted-out-of-context statement that in these troubling times, public figures must "watch what they say."

Veteran political columnist David Broder set off a firestorm recently when he called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an "embarrassment'' for declaring the Iraq War "lost.''

From the assault subsequently directed at Broder -- from other journalists, political operatives, left-wing bloggers and even the entire 50-member Senate Democratic Caucus -- you'd have thought Broder had had an intimate encounter with an intern.

...

In a letter to The Washington Post that had the unmistakable whiff of a powder room manifesto, otherwise known as a hissy fit -- as opposed to a "bed-wetting tantrum,'' as Paul Begala described Broder's column -- the senators asserted that their leader is a "good listener,'' who has an "amazing ability to synthesize views and bring people together,'' and who also demonstrates a "mastery of procedure.''

It is perhaps admirable, and certainly reassuring to Reid, that his fellow senators came to his defense. But this kind of overreaction to a columnist is rare, if not unprecedented, and betrays a disturbing hostility to legitimate criticism.

...

Outrage has become such a predictable response to any difference of opinion that it's lost its heat. When everything is outrageous, nothing is.

...

Part of this devolution in discourse has been brought about, no doubt, by the volcanic explosion of the blogosphere, which has democratized free speech in a way that is not always positive or pretty. Everybody can type, but not everyone can write. Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone comes equipped with the same skills and experience.

The disinhibiting effect of anonymity, meanwhile, has unleashed something dark in the human spirit that seems to have infected the broader culture. It isn't enough to say that Broder is all wet; instead he's "foaming at the mouth,'' a "gasbag" and a "venomous'' bloviator, borrowing again from Begala.

The absence of fairness and respectful dissension -- and the decline of civility wrought by our nation's unhinged narcissism -- now there's something worthy of outrage.

Via the New Editor, which notes the vagina-fearing Iranian Foreign Minister walked out of a meeting with Condi Rice because a female violinist there was dressed "too revealingly."

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

I've got no love of MTV's supposedly gravitas-dripping gasbag, but his review tracks with my worries about this sequel. When it comes to action movies -- especially superhero movies -- I'm a big fan of the Keep It Simple, Stupid principle.

You have a hero. You have a villain. They torment and frustrate each other for an hour in Act II. Then they have a decisive showdown in Act III and the hero kisses the girl.

Superhero movies keep deviating from this winning structure in a misguided effort, I think, to "escape" the simplistic sort of storytelling in comic books. They get overly plotty -- X-Men 2 and then X Men 3 were big offenders in this regard, with machination and counter-machination we just didn't care about -- as were most of the Batman films, overstuffed with Special Guest Villians with different goals.

Batman Returns, for example, had two main villains -- Max Schreck and the Penguin -- as well as a third semi-villainous love interest in Catwoman. If you're throwing a lot of shit at the wall in hopes it will stick, well, maybe you should revisit the basics of your story to make sure it's not shit that needs to be cast about in such scattershot excess to keep the audience from twigging on to the fact that no single story element is strong enough on its own to sustain the movie.

Batman Begins was also overly busy, but it was also an origins tale, something that tends to get busy due to the need to connect up the origin with the major conflict in the move. Still, I would have preferred simpler there, too. I'm just more forgiving of the complexity in that case, seeing it as a hard-to-avoid problem in origins tales.

Anyway, Spider-Man 3 has three villains, a fourth "villain" for much of its running length in the form of an alien symbiote. And on top of that, it introduces a new love interest.*

There's too much story, is the problem. (The movie is a good 15 minutes longer than the preceding films, and it feels longer still.) And as cool as they may be individually, there are also too many villains.... (In a flourish worthy of a script that's willing to wheel in dying daughters, Harry's menace is conveniently neutralized, for a bit, by a bout of short-term amnesia.) And as if all of this weren't jeopardy enough, Harry's dad (Willem Dafoe) is actually still around as well, stirring up trouble from beyond the grave. ("Make him suffer!")

Exacerbating this overload of villainy is a small black ball of tar-like outer-space gloop called a symbiote... Soon this malevolent goo has taken over Peter's body, forcing him to sexy-up his hairstyle and turning him into an obnoxious disco stud who vamps around town with a demented leer for every passing babe. (Watching the straight-arrow Peter go to the dark side is funny at first; but the caricature gets pretty broad, and the routine goes on too long.)

...

In a way, it may be good that there are so many bad guys. Otherwise, we'd have to endure even more of the gas-passing colloquies that litter the script (written by director Raimi and his brother Ivan, along with "Spider-Man 2" screenwriter Alvin Sargent). The scenes with Aunt May are particularly bromidic this time around ("Learn to forgive yourself," she sagely advises)...

"Particularly bromidic this time around"? Good Lord, I had managed to tie the noose and throw it over a light fixture on the theater's ceiling by the time Aunt May got done with her repetitive, wisdom-of-the-elderely "What A Hero Means To Me" speech in Spidere-Man 2. And you're telling me the old gasbag toes on for even longer this time, saying even more cliched crap?

That speech went on for -- guestimating here; I didn't have a stop-watch -- about forty-three hours and twenty-five minutes. Just to say "heroes are good," "bravery is good," and "heroes who act with bravery are good."

Can't wait to hear her new pontifications. "Water is wet, Peter. The sky is blue. Night is dark, and puppies are cute."

"How do you come by such wisdom, Aunt May?"

"It's a mystery of the aged... much like the mystery a strangely-British accent in an old broad from Queens, NY."

...Most tiresome, though, is Mary Jane, who is given little more to do than whine and shriek throughout the movie. M.J. is now an actress, and as the film opens, she's won the lead role in a Broadway musical — a part from which she's fired after opening night. (We're supposed to sympathize with her, and we do; but we also sympathize with the show's director, who, like us, has heard her sing — Dunst isn't a bad vocalist, exactly, but she's not Broadway.) From this point on, Mary Jane becomes very needy, and there's little relief from her po-faced pouting until Venom gets his hands on her, at which point the shrieking kicks in.

MJ is problematic -- she's supposed to be this gorgeous stunner of an actress (well, model/actress), a sassy extrovert with head-turningly good looks -- and yet she's really more like Gwen Stacey, the awkwardly-cute and shy girl. Every time these movies focus on MJ's career, it just seems... unconvincing.

I'm not really sure how Kirsten Dunst has a career as a big sexpot-ish starlet, so it's kinda hard to see how a chracter she's portryaying does. (She's cute, just not a sexpot.)

Anyway, I know I'll see this, but I do have a feeling a lot of the movie is going to fall into the "I Just Don't Care About This Crap" file, and big other chucks into "Why Are You Showing Me This Lame Shit?" file, and other parts into the "Aunt May's Are Best Seen Not Heard" file.

Hero. Villain. MacGuffin. Torment. Confrontation. That's really all you need. Why do they keep gilding the lily and getting it wrong?

* Actually, Gwen Stacey is an older love interest -- the more-cute-and-sweet-than-beautiful girl Parker dated after he couldn't land Mary Jane, and the girl who was killed by Green Goblin before the Green Goblin was killed by Spider-Man (sort of). But they've bolloxed-up that plotline, and so now Gwen Stacey appears after Parker's basically engaged to MJ and after the man who killed her, Norman Osborne, is himself dead. Why they're introducing this complicating plot element now, with so much else going on in what seems to already be an overly-busy plot, is beyond me, but whatever.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 1105 words, total size 7 kb.

Andrew's Dad tips me to this request for help in getting an Iraqi who's helped our troops through the long war get a US visa.

FoxNews talk radio host Brian Suits worked with him in Iraq, and offers this plea on Alaa's behalf:

The translator depicted in these images is an like us all: Hopeful, idealistic and ambitious. He's never been to America, but he's the most "american" Iraqi I met.

He shared the day to day risks of life in a rifle company, but with one big difference: he could've quit anytime. It's been four years now and he's assisted hundreds of U.S. Army soldiers in accomplishing their missions. Whether it's gaining the trust of locals to ask about IEDs or using his local knowledge to reveal the deceit of foreign fighters determined to derail democracy, he never faltered.

In the year I worked with him we were attacked, ambushed and blown up several times. Every time I or one of my men were wounded, he was there. Always.

Now, I need your help. Please view this quick movie or the longer Discovery Channel version on My War Diary and decide whether this young man deserves to have a chance to become an American. Ask yourself "Has he earned the chance?" If you answer yes, please write his visa packet sponsor kenneth.miller@us.army.mil and tell him that you support Alaa's dream to come to America.

Posted by: Ace at 09:15 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

I might say that such an advertisement is not only despicable, but corrupting, as newspapers tend to avoid angering advertisers.

But I doubt there's any corruption here. After all, the NYT's advertising standards seem to be following its submit-to-Iran editorial line, rather than vice versa.

The International Herald Tribune newspaper has defended its acceptance of an advertisement seeking bids for two large scale nuclear reactors in Iran. The ad appeared on April 20, including in the edition of the IHT distributed with the English version of the Haaretz daily.

Inviting bidders to help in the construction of two pressurized light water reactors in the Bushehr province, the ad also ran in the Financial Times on April 25.

This despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear proliferation program, particularly in the light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated threats of destruction against Israel.

"The Nuclear Power Production and Development Company of Iran (NPPD), an affiliate of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, invites sealed bids for contractors/companies for the Design, Supply of Equipment, Construction and Commissioning of two large-scale units (1000-16000 MWe each) with third generation nuclear power, pressurized Light Water Reactor in the Bushehr Province of Iran," the ad says.

...

David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said in response that bidding on light water reactors "violates the spirit" of Security Council Resolution 1737, which prohibits all states from the supply, sale or transfer of goods and technologies which could contribute to Iran's enrichment related processing or heavy water related activities of nuclear weapons delivery systems.

...

An IHT spokesman, asked whether accepting such an ad was appropriate, wrote: "We believe that advertising should be as free and open as the dictates of honesty and decency allow. In our view, advertising is an essential ingredient in the broad concept of a free press."

Which is perfect nonsense. Newspapers always have exerted control over what ads they run -- I don't notice any escort service advertisements, for example, in the NYT's classified section.

The media always interposes this nonsense rule of strict nonjudmentalism and nondiscrimination in all manners of speech -- but only so long as it's speech they like, or at least do not strongly disapprove of. They claim an absolutist stance on "free speech," claiming, whenever they get caught disseminating anti-American or otherwise controversial statements, that they simply have no power whatsoever to patrol their very own pages for content.

And the rest of the time, of course, they're dilligently scrubbing the first pages, and crucial first few paragraphs of an article, of any information that might undermine their editorial line.

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

Slows, but hardly stops. Not every jobs report can be a gem. Considering the dramatic slowdown in housing, the rest of the economy is weathering the storm as well as could be expected.

The nation's unemployment rate edged up to 4.5 percent in April as cautious employers added the fewest new jobs in more than two years, signaling that the labor market is starting to feel some of the strain of the sluggish economy.

The fresh employment picture provided by the Labor Department on Friday showed that payrolls grew by just 88,000 last month as job losses spread beyond manufacturing and construction and into retailing and financial services. Workers' paycheck also grew more slowly.

The new tally of jobs added to the economy was the fewest since 65,000 jobs in November 2004. The rise in the unemployment rate, however, was slight compared with March's 4.4 percent rate -- which had matched a five-year low. Taken together the figures suggest the labor market may be cooling -- but not collapsing -- as the national economy makes its way through a soft patch.

...

Still, from the overall economic perspective, the slight slowing in hiring isn't worrisome, she said. "The numbers suggest some of the slowing in the economy is spilling over into the labor market but not in a major way," Reaser said.

...

Economists were predicting the unemployment rate would nudge up to 4.5 percent. However, they expected job growth to be a bit stronger, with employers adding around 100,000 new jobs to their ranks. Even with the fractional rise in the overall rate, joblessness in the 4 percent to 5 percent is relatively low by historical standards.

The new report also showed that job gains in February and March turned out to be a bit weaker than previously reported.

Employers added 90,000 positions in February, versus the 113,000 reported last month. Payrolls grew by 177,000 in March, slightly less than the 180,000 previously reported.

Workers' wages grew more slowly.

Average hourly earnings rose to $17.25 in April, a 0.2 percent increase from March. Economists were expecting a modest 0.3 percent rise. Over the past 12 months, wages grew by 3.7 percent, the slowest annual increase in a year.

Wage growth is important for worker and supports consumer spending, a vital ingredient to the economy's good health. But a rapid pickup -- if not blunted by other economic forces -- can fan fears about inflation. The slower growth in wages could ease Federal Reserve fears that inflation might not recede as they have predicted.

One positive, it seems to me, is that companies have been hiring and expanding conservatively throughout this expansion -- we have not seen, at least not yet, the overoptimistic hiring and spending binges that produce big numbers towards the end of a business cycle, followed, of course, by a major crash and a recession. The year 2000 bust seems to be freshly remembered by most, restraining the economic bad behavior that preceeds a recession, so perhaps this cycle's "recession," if there is to be one, won't be a true recession at all -- just a sluggish period rather than an actual contraction.

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Number of ejaculations: 0. +1 for the giant, +1 for the robotic, -2 for the spider, which is scary as a brown person.

From Pistol Wimp, thanks to Matt.

Also: Incredible beer-pongcrobatics. Another video at "Billy's Balls 2," which should be next on the list.

Posted by: Ace at 07:39 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're watching.

The 30 second limit on answers pretty much guarantees the most scripted of soundbite campaign slogans.

Interesting moments: Giuliani offers a "nuanced" position on abortion, as Chris Matthews puts it (supporting NY state's decision to use taxpayer money to fund abortions, but supporting other states' rights to make a different decision; saying he hates abortions, but must respect a woman's right to "choose another path"); McCain stating, as if it's a good thing, that he knows how to walk across the aisle to deal with Democrats as he's been doing it "his entire career."

Yes, we know that, Senator. That's the problem.

Jim Geraghty's Live-Blog, Plus Wrap-Up Reaction: Read it here. Scroll down, then start reading up for fresher posts as the debate wore on.

First thought: Who the hell thought Chris Matthews would make a good moderator? I thought he interrupted the candidates too much, got into this bizarre tussle with Huckabee over a comment he gave to George Stephanopolous, basically brought his whole hyper, over-caffeinated Hardball persona, and it just wasnÂ’t the right tone for the debate that introduces so many of the candidates to the public for the first time. The questions from the Politico were a joke, including asking [Tommy] Thompson to name the exact number of casualties in Iraq. Absolute sandbagging; if the Democrats wonÂ’t go on Fox, the GOP should tell MSNBC and the Politico to go to hell.

He thought McCain did very well. My boy, not so much:

Giuliani is going to get whacked around a lot for his performance tonight. Clearly the format didnÂ’t help him. I said watching him try to explain the difference between Shia and Sunni was as painful as watching Joe Theismann have his leg broken by Lawrence Taylor back in the 1980s. RudyÂ’s better than this performance; the question will be whether this really hurt him.

Although honest to God, if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama had been given the same question on differences between Shia and Sunni, I'd bet either of them would have/could have fumbled as badly. Really unfair that he got hit with that one.

Oh, then there's this:

Good God, Democrats, quit whining about how Fox News isn't fair to you... the Republicans have Keith Olbermann doing the pregame show...

This is the same finger I disdainfully shake at Republicans.

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 PM | Comments (81)
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.

Yes, this is what I imagined he'd say.

A while back Sullivan similarly published a link to an obviously satirical piece without offering any indication he realized he was being punked. I didn't post on it at the time because I figured it was close enough to Aprils Fools Day that I should give him the benefit of the doubt.

But he seems to have a history of doing this, doesn't he?

And the man has never demonstrated a functioning sense of humor. He's a big fan of South Park, but he tends to applaud those episodes as "brilliant" which have a political message he approves of -- i.e., he's a "clapper." He's a good little liberal who claps at good little liberal messages (here, liberal/libertarian messages mixed in with occasional conservative messages).

I don't think he's ever pointed an episode as being "brilliant" that was actually top drawer stuff as far as comedy value. The main point of the show -- comedy -- seems to elude him completely.

So, I dunno. It's almost too hard to believe Sullivan was taken in by the 24 parody. And yet it was similarly almost too hard to believe he was taken in by the previous fake-news piece. And yet... he keeps seeming to link to these pieces, with all the trappings and ornamentations of a seriously-intended post ("Money quote," etc.)

It could just be he's skimming these things and not really bothering to read them.

He's a lazy writer, and has always preferred the laziest method of analysis -- screechy, hectoring, emotionalism and peacock-preening moralism (a "moralism of doubt," I wonder?).

So it would hardly be a surprise to learn he barely looks at the stuff he links.

Thanks to Dan Riehl, who catches Sullivan, as usual, misleading his readership in yet another screechy post dripping with emotionalism-- now Sullivan bashes Bush by recounting his own friend's experience with gay-bashing.

He doesn't mention that gay-bashing was at the hands of Islamists and furthermore happened in the Netherlands, which already has every hate-crime law you can imagine on the books.

Posted by: Ace at 04:31 PM | Comments (10)
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.