This is from someone:

Actually, I think this month's DC offensive [against the war] looks to be more kabuki than real, with the real fight to come, as before, in September. But when the decisive point is closer, why doesn't McCain really man up on this, put aside traditional media pushing and, say, call out the heads
of the surrender caucus (Jim Webb?) to a national televised debate on surge results and the war going forward? Not to "win" even, but to get facts past the media filter, energize our side, and get people focused on the real dimensions of our choice.

Maybe that particular stunt won't fly, but surely there's some serious out-of-the-box stuff he could pull now that he's an ultra-long-shot candidate. And heck, if he were thereby to become the guy who saved the war, *I'd* consider voting for him.

And someone hates McCain, so that's something.

It's a pretty good idea. Everyone says we're having a "national debate," but we're really having nothing of the sort.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (9)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Over in the sidebar was linked. via Instapundit, a Bill Hobbs piece suggesting that Norm Coleman's pushing to scrap the current DoD travel-arrangement system, DTS, in favor of going back to the system of using travel agents, was a political/pecuniary sop to in-state business Carson Wagonit Travel, which stands to gain a huge amount of money from such a change.

Chap, however, is in the military, and uses the current DTS system, and writes:

I'm traveling right now and can't write much, but the current DoD travel thing is an utter crock of steaming pain. It's called DTS (Defense Travel System), and in like five years it's cost a half BILLION dollars, forces everyone to deal with the worst web-based 1970s excuse for a system ever, and costs much more money per trip. Right now sunk cost is huge...just Google it--$33,000 *per trip*! It completely boggles the mind how bad this thing is. Check CdrSalamander's rant on DTS -- you'll have to search for it.

I dunno about Coleman but our current thing is evil incarnate and it's almost always impossible to kill a defense contract like this [i.e., the current defense contract to Northrup-Grumman for running the DTS system.]

DTS Must Die.

Here's one of those CdrSalamander rants. It includes a link to this article:

After eight years of development, the Defense Travel System will finally approach full deployment in 2006. But only a fraction of Defense Department travelers use the system, and its costs have risen. So the Senate is using its budget powers to force accountability and reward performance by switching from appropriated funding to a fee-for-service system. ...

The original contract anticipated full deployment by 2002.

...

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) [said] “most Pentagon employees would be better off to go to Travelocity or Orbitz.”

Per my previous disclaimer, I obviously have no idea about this issue either way, but it does seem that Hobbs' piece left out an important piece of information -- the current system is bad. Apparently really bad.

And even if it's supposed to get better sometime down the road and save the government money (and save military guys hassles) -- right now it's not doing so, and if 220 years of American government are any guide, it's unlikely to improve much in the near future.

Staus: Unclear. But leaning towards debunked.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

It's not me saying this. It's science.

The "Shut Your Cakeholes Already" part isn't technically part of this study, but I imagine it will be the title of the next monograph.

A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions.

...

The results counter past research.

“Most of the research literature in psychology has suggested that women have less power,” Vogel told LiveScience. “They have largely based that on the fact that traditionally men earn more money and so therefore would have the ability to make big decisions in the relationship.” That wasn’t the case in this study.

...

Trained volunteers coded the videotapes using a scale that rated couplesÂ’ interactions based on words and behaviors associated with blame (blames, accuses and criticizes the partner); demand (nags, pressures for change, requests); withdrawal and avoidance (avoids discussion the problem by hesitating, changing topics, diverting attention or looking away); and discussion.

Wives were more demanding—asking for changes in the relationship or in their partner—and were more likely to get their way than the husbands. This held regardless of who had chosen the issue.

The women were not just talking more than their husbands.

"It wasn't just that the women were bringing up issues that weren't being responded to, but that the men were actually going along with what they said,” Vogel explained. “[Women] were communicating more powerful messages, and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in.”

The fact that scientists are just getting hip to this now tends to reinforce the stereotype that most of them have never kissed a girl.

Flashback: Why men ignore their wives' nags.

sychologists have long known about "reactance," the tendency to do the exact opposite of what's requested by a loved one or boss. The new study aimed to find out whether the phenomenon might occur at a subconscious level.

...

"People with a tendency toward reactance may nonconsciously and quite unintentionally act in a counterproductive manner simply because they are trying to resist someone else's encroachment on their freedom," said Tanya Chartrand, also a professor of marketing and psychology at Duke.

You women believe in freedom, don't you?

Posted by: Ace at 07:31 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

This photo, she says, is of herself being silly in a limo, doing a "skit from SNL."

I haven't bothered watching SNL very much over the last five years, but I've never seen this "skit" even on YouTube. Anyone know which gynocologically-oriented "skit" she's talking about? Was Harry Caray in a "Hey, Norm, I call my camel-toe 'Whiskers'" sketch I missed?

The rest are the usual stuff we see from Facebook... some drinking (all over-age, she says) some boob-touching, some sexy Halloween costumes and provocative poses.

Not really all that shocking, but a little bit rowdier than she was making it seem. That old expectations game bites you in the ass sometimes.

I question the timing-- she's releasing these photos just as America finds itself unable to concentrate on anything else besides David "Becks" Beckham.

Thanks to Riehl World View.

The Skit? This dates me, but there was, in the first few seasons, a recurring sketch where frequent guest host Buck Henry played an, um, pedophile uncle coming over to babysit for Gilda Radner and Lorraine Neumann, and he'd have them pose like this as he snapped pictures.

That sketch is almost older than me. Could this barely-legal chick possibly know about it?

"I Love It I Love It I Love It:" SarahW ID's the sketch. It was the Molly Shannon "Joyologist" sketch, a really annoying one I completely blocked out of my mind. And yeah, she did things like that.

Posted by: Ace at 06:27 PM | Comments (40)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Good Lord. This gun is almost as furious as America's dose of Beckhamania.

Thanks to Theo Spark again. I feel bad swiping all the best stuff from his site, leaving nothing behind but stacked British birds in stockings and garters and stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 05:41 PM | Comments (88)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

A Brazillian referee with a colorful, far-ranging sex life, as I'm sure we'll soon find out.

For some reason I keep thinking, "That's Enrico Pallazzo!"

Thanks to tachonyshuggy.

Posted by: Ace at 05:25 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Video: Kid whines, cries, screams, kicks, tears up Dianne Sawyer's script. (She needed a script for this?)

Like any of you wouldn't have done the same if you were on Dianne Sawyer.

Thanks to Mr. Minority, who saw through this vicious little monster before most.

Posted by: Ace at 04:20 PM | Comments (74)
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

But, but, dude! It was in the newspaper!

Trimegitus just doesn't seem to be jumping on the Becks Bandwagon like I have:

As to "Beckhamania" -- that'll have to wait until Americans can give a crap about soccer. Which will be approximately 45 years after the heat death of the Universe. Americans don't like soccer because soccer is a pathetic excuse for a sport.

First of all, it's too low-scoring. Who the hell wants to go to a game where half the games are 1-0 or 2-1 at the end? Americans, who can count in double digits even when drunk, prefer games which challenge their numerical powers. We like football, which typically has scores in the teens and twenties, or basketball, with scores in the same range as the Federal deficit. Even baseball can generally crack the 5-point barrier.

Second, it's, how shall I put it, a game for pussies. Maybe that's why women's soccer is better regarded here. Looking at soccer uniforms it's obvious that this is a game in which injury is not even a theoretical possibility. The only protective gear is shin guards, and occasionally knee pads. Those are used to keep from getting chafed when you fall to the ground and roll around in agony pretending to be hurt until the ref awards a penalty. At which point you bounce right up and resume play. Even basketball players are more physically aggressive than soccer players.

Third, it is a game for children. That's what it was invented for: to give English schoolboys something to do between being flogged and sodomized at boarding school. That's why it's played in short pants.

Posted by: Ace at 04:05 PM | Comments (57)
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.

As a rule I hate the trend towards whimsical-fey urban art. And big stupid displays. Cristof is an idiot, and those painted cows in NYC (and in other cities, sadly -- sorry guys!) were a repulsive eyesore.

But that's the general rule. I kinda dig this.

That's a big duck:

The smile-provoking concoction that's responsible for this little shot of joy in a global-warming-heated summer [ed.: this is from SFGate, so of course they think it gets warm in summertime due to global warming], against a backdrop of war chaos and political cant, is a giant rubber duckie created by the Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman. After wrestling with some air-inflating problems, his 105-foot-tall, 85-foot-wide "Rubber Duck" finally took to the sea (that is, to the estuary) last weekend - and that's no canard.

Posted by: Ace at 03:57 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw this on Brit Hume this week, which means it must be ancient. But it's pretty good.

Thanks to tmi3rd for sending me the clip.

Slightly Funnier, If More Infuriating: How badly was this Canadian ponce of a weenie beaten as a child to have become this absurd a leftist shill?

How badly would he need to be beaten to be brought back halfway to normal? I'm just asking hypothetically. Just in the interests of science.

Posted by: Ace at 03:42 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.