Inconceivably, fire seems to have again melted steel:

Fire swept through a furniture warehouse, collapsing its roof and killing nine firefighters inside - the nation's deadliest single disaster for firefighters since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

...

He later told CNN the roof collapsed too quickly for anyone to escape.

"It came from nowhere," he said. "It was a standing structure and five seconds later it was on the ground."

As the Truthers really did in the case of the California fire-caused freeway collapse, they're going to once again begin claiming that someone must have caused a controlled demolition here in order to delude the public into thinking fire is capable of collapsing steel.

Pardon any seeming disrespect to the fallen dead in this post. It's hard to write this while both being respectful to the firefighters and their families and also noting it refutes the fantasies of lunatic losers.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Funny ad.

I'm a little annoyed because they won't allow bloggers to embed it -- don't you want free exposure? It's not like your URL isn't plastered all over the thing. And it's not like the bloggers posting it wouldn't give you a link to your contribution page.

But it's worth a click. Very funny.

Meanwhile last year's class of vulnerable freshmen reddish-state Democratic Congressmen might just jump off the Pelosi/Kennedy/Bush/McCain Amensty Express:

House Democrats say they may break the immigration issue up into a series of smaller bills that would put off the tougher parts and allow others to pass, such as border security, and high-tech and agriculture worker programs that have clear support.

That could buy Democrats more time to work out the tougher aspects of immigration, such as what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now here, but it would go against the SenateÂ’s massive catchall approach and contradicts President BushÂ’s call for a broad bill to pass.

More whipped cream and hot Bosco at the Hot Air link.

Kaus has long postulated that this is an issue about which "comprehensive" piece of shit compromise may not be possible -- you can't appease the right without scaring off too many lefties to get passage, and you can't appease the lefties without pissing off too many on the right.

Question: Will George Bush and Michael Chertoff and Lindsay Graham start suggesting that Democratic enforcement-first Congressmen are "bigots" "who don't want what's best for America" and who wish to execute illegal aliens, or is that privilege reserved for Republicans only?

Posted by: Ace at 12:45 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

...between herself and Rosie O'Donnell due to their View dust-up.

"Truthfully, I think a friend is someone who you have positive communications with, so I don't know if I would define us as friends right now," the 30-year-old co-host tells syndicated TV show "Access Hollywood" in an interview scheduled to air Tuesday.

...

"We had so many conversations and a true friendship," says Hasselbeck, the more conservative of the pair. "If you looked at the big picture, I always looked at us on the same team, even though our politics were so different."

Artist's Conception: The deepening chasm between
Elizabeth and Rosie seemed to be a growing separation of
left and right, a widening rift that can only be filled with, say,
whipped cream and hot Bosco.

Thanks to Blacksheep.

Ace of Spades HQ

Because there is no "I" in "shame." Or "tastefulness." Or even "subtlety."

There's definitely a whole bunch of I's in "gratuitously pandering hit-whore," though.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Not only the Senate...but for the Senate seat in South Carolina.

You see, my friends, I was thinking about the South Carolina Senate Race last night when it hit me.

We don't need to find a primary challenger to Lindsey "You All Are Bigots" Graham. Primary challeges are incredibly difficult to pull off, and as a result are seldom successful, and waste resources that could be better spent in other races. Further, they often result in emboldening a prevailing incumbent to take even worse policy stands from a partisan perspective. Has Arlen Specter become any more conservative since narrowly defeating Pat Toomey? Did Joe Lieberman become any more liberal after losing his primary to Ned LaMont? I rest my case.

And we don't need to send money or lend support to a Democratic candidate in the general election. First off, who wants to get added to all the Democratic mailing lists and get constantly bugged for money? Not me. Further, even if the Democrat were to beat Senator Graham, the cause for the victory would quickly be spun away. Remember how the Democrats said the 2006 election was a referendum on the "culture of corruption" before election day and then claimed their victory really represented a "referendum on Iraq" after the votes had been counted. Same deal would happen here, and your "amnesty uprising" would soon be lost down the memory hole.

What we ought to do is stage a write in campaign instead. For Rep. Tancredo.

You see, South Carolina has a history of actually electing folks to the Senate via the write in ballot. Strom Thurmond won his Senate seat by winning as a write in candidate in 1954. So we have precedent.

Do I think the Tanc could win?

No.

But every ballot with his name on it would send a message that would be clear and irrefutable: Graham's role as Ted Kennedy's Amnesty Cabana Boy was the reason for the Tancredo vote. There really is no other way to spin a write in vote for a single issue candidate in a state in which he doesn't even live.

Further, Graham could be defeated relatively easily via a write in campaign. I looked up his 2002 election results. The Senator beat a relatively obscure South Carolina Democrat named Alex Sanders by 10% points (54-44). Graham got approximately 600,000 votes in his win, while his opponent got about 490,000, making the margin of victory in Graham's race about 110,000 votes.

So, lets say that Graham faces an identical replay of the 2002 campaign in 2008. How many of his voters does he have to lose to a Tancredo write in campaign to lose?

Roughly 110,000.

And that's probably a maximum total. If the Democratic nominee in South Carolina is smart, he will attempt to move to Graham's right on immigration, meaning that that 110,000 vote total will practically ALL come from Graham's total, rather than being split between the two camps.

Further if Graham faces a stronger challenger (and the results would other wise be say 52-4 , even fewer Tancredo write in votes out of Graham's column would be needed to knock Senator Graham from his perch.

Wouldn't you love to see the look on the Senator's face when he sees the election results the following day and notices that he lost his re-election by 1% due to 12,000 or so write in votes for Tom Tancredo?

I sure would.

Let's find a way to make this happen.

UPDATE:Commenters are asking if Tancredo has to be a resident. The answer is "NO". For example, nothing stops you from writing in the name "Clark Kent" (an illegal alien, by the way, which is why I always root for Lex Luthor) in any race on the ballot despite his being a fictional, non-resident candidate. My understanding is that these votes would be counted as "undervotes" in which no one on the ballot in the race selected received a vote.

However a tally of undervotes must be kept, including for whom each undervote was cast. As you saw in Florida, in a close election these write in votes would be subject to examination to determine voter intent.

So there would be a log kept, and votes for "Clark Kent" or "Tom Tancredo" or other non-ballot candidates would be tallied.

The question of residency only applies if Tancredo were to actually face the prospect of winning outright in South Carolina. Which he won't. The point is to give people who want an outlet to vote against Graham a viable means to send a protest message without having to vote for a Democrat.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:47 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 776 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, let's face it, Farhenheit 9/11 was basically a Truther movie. But he mostly dropped hints about it being an inside job.

Here, a Truther asks him straight-up about the "inside job" and he shows his Truther stripes. Shockingly, the Truther in question supports Ron Paul and wants to know if Moore does too.

Skip to 6:10 for the beginning of "The Truth."

Thanks to Jack Straw.

Transcript: For those of you who can't look at Moore's big fat cud-chewing maw without retching.

Thanks to Joe for that.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't see anything there, though, saying he will vote against cloture, either.

This is obviously a critical point in this non-debate -- a non-debate, because the people have spoken, the establishment doesn't listen, and doesn't even bother to respond beyond name-calling -- but there isn't a great deal of news-hook stuff about it.

Accounts say that Harry Reid is prepared to use the unprecedeted "clay pigeon" maneurver to snake his comprehensive piece-of-shit past the cloture vote. I'm still a little baffled as to how this manuever takes away the right to filibuster, despite JackM's game attempts to explain it.

Seems to me what happens is that first a vote is taken that cloture will automatically happen after a number of amendments are voted on and/or a certain amount of debate has taken place (30 hours, I think). Then, Harry Reid uses this manuever to actually block the proposal of all the Republican amendments anti-Comprehensive Piece of Shit Senators want.

But here's the question -- knowing in advance this is Harry Reid's shabby plan, why would you give that initial vote for cloture after "debate" has occurred?

I don't think I'm getting a straight answer on this -- while some Senators are guenuinely against this Comprehensive Piece of Shit, others seem to just want to pose as being against it, and so will vote, essentially, to allow Harry Reid to pull his bullshit maneuver and then claim, "Goshdarnit, that Harry Reid outfoxed me! I wanted to have a full debate and votes on all different sorts of amendments, but he just plum fooled me and pulled a dirty trick!"

This cuts no ice with we conservatives. We know that you've been warned in advance about this. Sources have already confirmed Reid is contemplating this ("contemplating this" = "determined to do this"). So if some pro-Comprehensive Piece of Shit Senators think they can get some political relief by claiming that they were somehow bamboozled into letting this go through -- no, sorry, if you cast a vote which permits this to happen you are voting for the Comprehensive Piece of Shit, and we are not ignorant of that and we will not forget that.

Don't Lott Up Now: As Harry Reid is promising he'll actually require Senators to work a weekend for a change in order to force through the Comprhensive Piece of Shit, it may be a good time to start baraging Senators with phone calls and faxes again (contact information at bottom of page).

Key points: We're hip to the dodge of voting for cloture and then, meaninglessly, voting against the bill; and we're also hip to the coming dodge of claiming to have been "fooled" by Harry Reid's unprecedented maneuver. Everyone's on notice it's coming; any vote that permits it to work is a vote for the Comprehensive Piece of Shit, too.

Posted by: Ace at 11:26 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

My kind of liberal!

The whole thing is worth reading, just for very red meat served up by an unlikely chef. I'll just selectively quote a little, the stuff about how much liberals suck and not the stuff about how liberals can de-suckify themselves (which is all kind of vague anyway -- hey, the writer is a liberal; he can critique but he doesn't know much about actually doing shit.)

At a time when someone should be organizing forcefully against the war in Iraq and engaging middle America on the alarming issue of big-business occupation of the Washington power process, the American left has turned into a skittish, hysterical old lady, one who defiantly insists on living in the past, is easily mesmerized by half-baked pseudo-intellectual nonsense, and quick to run from anything like real conflict or responsibility.

It shies away from hardcore economic issues but howls endlessly about anything that sounds like a free-speech controversy, shrieking about the notorious bugbears of the post-9/11 “police state” (the Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, CARNIVORE, etc.) in a way that reveals unmistakably, to those who are paying close attention, a not-so-secret desire to be relevant and threatening enough to warrant the extralegal attention of the FBI. [Emphasis mine; I'm glad someone on the left has also noticed his fellow-travellers' not-so-secret psychosexual craving for COINTELPRO Daddy-Time!] It sells scads of Che t-shirts ($20 at the International ANSWER online store) and has a perfected a high-handed tone of moralistic finger-wagging, but its organizational capacity is almost nil. It says a lot, but does very little.

The sad truth is that if the FBI really is following anyone on the American left, it is engaging in a huge waste of time and personnel. No matter what it claims for a self-image, in reality it’s the saddest collection of cowering, ineffectual ninnies ever assembled under one banner on God’s green earth. And its ugly little secret is that it really doesn’t mind being in the position it’s in – politically irrelevant and permanently relegated to the sidelines, tucked into its cozy little cottage industry of polysyllabic, ivory tower criticism. When you get right down to it, the American left is basically just a noisy Upper West side cocktail party for the college-graduate class.

And we all know it. The question is, when will we finally admit it?

...

What makes the American left silly? Things that in a vacuum should be logical impossibilities are frighteningly common in lefty political scenes. The word “oppression” escaping, for any reason, the mouths of kids whose parents are paying 20 grand for them to go to private colleges. Academics in Priuses using the word “Amerika.” Ebonics, Fanetiks, and other such insane institutional manifestations of white guilt. Combat berets. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees consumed at leisure in between conversational comparisons of America to Nazi Germany.

We all know where this stuff comes from. Anyone who’s ever been to a lefty political meeting knows the deal – the problem is the “spirit of inclusiveness” stretched to the limits of absurdity. The post-sixties dogma that everyone’s viewpoint is legitimate, everyone‘s choice about anything (lifestyle, gender, ethnicity, even class) is valid, that’s now so totally ingrained that at every single meeting, every time some yutz gets up and starts rambling about anything, no matter how ridiculous, no one ever tells him to shut the fuck up. Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home.

Also noted: The fact that the supposedly pro-workin'-man left takes huge money from business interests and then, suprisingly!, votes for pro-business measures like the bankruptcy bill. On this score, I don't comprehend the lack of scandal: True, Republicans voted for it -- but then Republicans are ideologically (and, alas, often reflexively) pro-business and even pro-business-subsidy. What, exactly, is Chuck Schumer's excuse?

And related to that: The leaders of the liberal movement care not a whit about tangible economic progress for the lower classes, at least not beyond the level of shallow rhetoric. The issues they focus on are almost exclusively the concerns of the comfortable class, largely symbolic and/or fantasy-ideology stuff like gay marriage or liberating vaginas from The Oppressive Patriarchy.

The strange thing here is that even among liberalism's sworn enemies -- conservatives -- it's the forgotten blue-collar component of the coalition that gets the most respect, or at least provokes the least anger. I'm not pro-union in the sense that I think the government should pass a bunch of laws to give them an artificial advantage in labor negotiations, Lord knows, but I do respect a union's right to bargain (without artificial legislated advantages) for higher wages. I wish they wouldn't be quite so corrupt, thuggish, mob-friendly, or suicidal (they often seem to think workers' interests are not in sustainably rising wages, but in bankrupting their employers and reducing their wages to zero), but at least I comprehend the basic goal of unionism is at least something tanglible. They want more money; no posturing or hidden agendas there. As a Republican, at least I can understand that: I want more money too.

But the Friend of the Workin' Man Liberal Coalition will continue focusing laser-like on the very crititical problems of the workin' man, like preserving the delicate ecoystem of the snail-darter, seeking marital rights for 2% of the population which historically has not shown a great deal of interest in permanent monagamy, with or without state sanction, campaigning tirelessly for the poor and downtrodden Hamas terrorists, parental leave and collective-bargaining rights for closet and basement hydroponic pot farmers, and, of course, walking around on stilts wearing full-body Vagina Warrior costumes capped by a revoutionary-chic Che beret (or Cheret) while attepting so simulate the intricate mating dances of the Elaine Benes tribe of Guadalupe and banging (antirhythmically) on authentic replica African tribal drums bought from Crate & Barrel on an Amex Platinum card while trying to cover margin-calls over a deluxe beta-version iPhone with Fight The Power and Imagine ring-tones.

Thanks to several readers, but most recentlyPetiteDov.

Spoke Too Soon! Liberal Democrats work hard on behalf of unions... by denying actual workers' rights to vote on unionizing by secret ballot.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to hold a vote this Wednesday on perhaps the most unpopular element of the Democratic agenda. The Employee Free Choice Act has already passed the House, but now it faces real hurdles in the Senate because, contrary to the name, it undermines workplace democracy.

Under the so-called card-check bill, a company would no longer have the right to demand a secret-ballot election to certify a union, thus stripping 140 million American workers of the right to decide in private whether to organize.

Republican senators, except possibly Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, are uniformly opposed to the idea. "We went to the secret ballot in the early 1800s in this country for a darn good reason: If somebody's looking over your shoulder, your ballot doesn't mean much," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says, noting fears of intimidation by unions should the bill pass.

But conservatives aren't the only ones concerned. A February survey of 1,000 likely voters by McLaughlin Associates found that 79% of respondents oppose the bill, with only 14% in favor. Even Democrats opposed the idea, 78% to 16%.

So why is Mr. Reid taking the risk of putting the bill on the floor, since even if it passed it would face a certain presidential veto? Simply put, the card check law is the No. 1 priority of union lobbyists in the new Democratic Congress.

Makes sense -- after all, it removes a right from actual workers, but gives power to those actually signing over those big union-contribution checks!

46 Democrats and Democratically-aligned Socialist Bernie Sanders are all co-sponsors of the anti-worker-rights bill. I'm sure this enthusiastic support for a wildly-unpopular measure is simply due to the dictates of each Senator's individual conscience; certainly donations from Big Labor has nothing at all to do with this.

Senator Total Labor Contributions/Labor Contributions Since 2007

Landrieu $919,300.00/$46,000.00

Pryor $436,000.00/$50,500.00

Baucus $1,062,402.00/$30,500.00

Harkin $1,680,086.00/$36,500.00

Biden $479,677.00 /$5,000.00

Durbin $882,225.00/$63,500.00

Kerry $51,556.00/$42,000.00

Lautenberg $1,253,764.00/$33,500.00

Levin $1,257,276.00/$51,500.00

Reed $718,900.00/$44,100.00

Rockefeller $983,728.00/$55,000.00

Cash-money "progressivism" -- Catch the Fever!

Ted Kennedy -- "Increase Workers' Wages? Who Are You Trying To Fool?!" The Liberal Lion defends the wage-depressing effects of amnesty-without-security by citing the great progressive leader, Judge Elihu Snails: "You'll get nothing and like it!"

Well, the unions get something -- a creepy Stalinist control over the workers who are, theoretically, supposedly empowered to vote (or not vote) for them.

The American workers get... well, dicked on both ends.

Oh: Also at that Kaus link, John Edwards kinda-sorta seems to come out against comprehensive immigration reform. No big deal, really; he's running as the most radically left candidate anyway, desperately needs to make news about something other than his haircuts and mani-pedi schedule, and besides, Obama isn't big on the Comprehensive Piece of Shit either...

Why, it's almost as if a solid majority of Americans on both sides of the political aisle oppose this bill, and yet our nonresponsive political class has their own agenda or something.

Posted by: Ace at 10:29 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 1573 words, total size 11 kb.

After the Saab Socialist claimed he didn't mind if people downloaded his movie for free, we learn this:

"I hired Kroll Securities, and we started flooding the zone," [SiCKO producer Harvey] Weinstein crowed to us. "We created lots of phony sites, and people had to input their private information to gain access to 'SiCKO.' We are turning over all the information to the police and prosecutors and are stopping Internet piracy."

Will "Friend of the Common Man" Michael Moore, who explicitly authorized fans to download the movie, intervene?

Doubtful.

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

A statistically insignificant 28-27 lead, but everyone can see the trend line.

Giuliani remains the most well-liked candidate in either party. He is viewed favorably by 82% of Republicans nationwide and unfavorably by 15%. Thompson, not as well known, is the only other candidate with so few Republicans holding an unfavorable opinion of him. The actor turned Senator turned actor again is viewed favorably by 59% of Republicans and unfavorably by 14%.

Among Republicans, Romney and McCain both have lower favorables and higher unfavorables than the frontrunners. For Romney, those GOP numbers are 56% favorable and 28% unfavorable. McCain, among the nationÂ’s best known political figures, is viewed favorably by 55% of Republicans and unfavorably by 40%.

While Giuliani is well liked, only 21% of Republicans view him as politically conservative. Twice as many, 42%, believe that Thompson is politically conservative.

I guess we have a fight on our hands.

ISG MIA: Giuliani blew off meetings with the Iraq Study Group due to conflicts with his speaking/fundraising schedule.

Seems to me like a smart move, considering what the ISG brain trust came up with. (And I hardly think one guy could have moved the group away from its strange "Iran will help us" position.)

Via Hot Air.

Video: Thompson's London Speech. Including the part about Iran, stating that the military option is on the table. Which is kind of no big deal, given that even most Democrats make that claim, but it's still nice to hear.

Here's a transcript.

Posted by: Ace at 09:05 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

You shouldn't wear so much make-up...
It makes you look cheap.*

Supposedly there's a festival called "Fiesta del Burro" in coastal rural Colombia which celebrates the local practice of boys losing their virginity to donkeys. I haven't found a 'nets confirmation of that, but the three-part video (content warning) hosted here (at "Prose before Hos") leaves little doubt the practice is both common and regarded as utterly natural, festival or no.

Little warning? The first two parts have vulgar language and vulgar subject matter but it's all just talk about the practice. The third part is for those of you still saying, "No, this isn't real, they're all having me on" and gets the BIG BOLD FACED CAP CONTENT WARNING. If you think your imagination is sufficiently vivid to conjure the image of a scraggly dirtbag dorking a donkey doggy-style, don't bother with Part 3.

Local tradition claims having sex with a donkey makes you a better lover and gives you a bigger penis. Seems to me you could sell pretty much anything to men if your promise them that.

In related news, Trent Lott just said that "bringing people out of the shadows" helps increase the size of "a certain part of the male anatomy."

Thanks to Del. Ask him how he found it.

* This line (more or less) is from either the sadly underrated Armed & Dangerous or the justifiably forgotten Fletch II. I think it's the latter.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.