BUMPED V.2.0: Some folks have been on vacation and missed the original posts.

Acepalooza discussion thread, which has already gone off the rails, HERE.

BUMPED BY LAURAW: September 15th confirmed, but not the venue.
Can we get an idea how many of you will be attending?
Tell us in the comments or email me: laurawtipsAT gmail DOTcom.

Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------

We're looking at September 15th, a Saturday (we think).

Pencil it in.

It'll be in or around Boston. That's all we know now.

I'm saying "we" because I'm coordinating with Slublog and someone who may or may not be there under a name you'd recognize. Bashful, you know.

Update: No, not allah as someone has asked. He doesn't come to these things, eveh.

Update: The weekend in question has a three-game visit by the Yankees, Mark tells me.

Anyone think this makes it a bad weekend? The traffic in the Fenway area will be horrendous, and of course there will be no parking. But other parts of the city should be okay, and some out-of-towners might actually want to see at Yanks-Sox game at Fenway.

Posted by: Ace at 11:15 AM | Comments (277)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Speaking during his first ever visit to Afghanistan, the Iranian president forcefully denied any Iranian involvement in supplying weapons to insurgents.

"The same allegation are made in Iraq. They are saying that they discover some weapons," Ahmedinejad said at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "What is the reason why they are saying such things? Iran is a big country. I have serious doubts about this issue".

He looked to an aide. "Have you heard anything about this? Not me. I seriously doubt that we are doing that. Do you not seriously doubt it as well? I mean, I'm the President of Iran, I think I would know... that is a big deal is it not"?

He then asked another aide "Does that sound like something you think we would do? You are shaking your head no, that is no, right? Ok".

Looking back at the reporter, he finished with "I do not think so, but I will check and get back to you".

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 11:13 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who apparently breached confidentiality to tell the media Hatfill was a "person of interest" are now themselves apparently persons of interest.

I realize that noting this makes me a tinfoil-beanie'd rightwing wackadoo, but I do hope the everyone realizes

1) The anthrax mailings, which supposedly came from a crazy (rightwing!) lone nut in America, remain an unsolved crime.

2) The anthrax mailings, which definitely did not come from the 9/11 hijackers, seem to have stopped as soon as (or shortly after) the 9/11 hijackers were dead. How the rightwing crazy who sent them just happened to have the anthrax conveniently on hand for the 9/11 attacks is also an unsolved mystery.

3) The super-sophisticated basement WMD lab which apparently exists in America has not yet been located despite six years of FBI efforts and, one would imagine, a fairly restricted number of Americans capable of brewing the toxin like so much personal-label garage-brewery beer.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Ace at 11:06 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

In the interests of disclosure, I think Sam Brownback is a pandering little imbecile who deserves to be President like Elvis deserved his black belt. (Dennis Miller's joke.) So I'm not inclined to view him charitably.

Here's the video of his "All for Jesus" line which has the blogosphere in a tizzy:

Ryan Sager quoted this as if Brownback were saying "All for Jesus, All for Jesus, All for Jesus, All for Jesus" as his campaign slogan, when in fact he was quoting Mother Teresa. He now admits that he should have mentioned that fact.

That said, I have to say I'm pretty put-off by this myself. Look, quote or not, Brownback is using the line to mean "Vote for me, I believe in Jesus. In fact, I believe it's all for Jesus." Yes, the line is about faith carrying one through difficult times and decisions. But of course he means it about himself; he's not simply telling a cute story about Mother Theresa because he likes telling cute stories about Mother Theresa.

This sort of thing is what gives independents and non-religious-cons (such as myself) the shivering douche-chills about aggressively religion-pimping candidates. I'm sorry, but even if I acknowledge that someone's religion does indeed tell you something about "whether he shares the same values as" a voter, as that oft-asked poll question has it, it is at best still a proxy for that question. It doesn't answer the question outright; it offers some circumstantial evidence about it.

But it does suggest to me that someone is not a serious candidate for president if their major qualification for the job is a strong belief in Christ, an attribute shared by, I don't know, 50 million or so Americans who are also entirely unqualified to be President.

And it is alienating for non-Christians: If Brownback is saying, basically, "Vote for me because I'm all about the Jesus," well, shouldn't someone less fervent in his faith vote against him for just that reason?

Dan Reihl quotes shrieking ninny Andrew Sullivan on this:

I suppose it is worth noting that Sam Brownback's recitation of the "All for Jesus" line is a quote from Mother Teresa that he apparently deploys in his stump speech regularly. It isn't his original formulation but he uses it to describe his political motivation. It is the core of his political message. In a religious context, it is a vulgar but completely legitimate expression of faith. In a political context in a secular society, it is a toxin that will eventually corrode civil discourse into sectarian warfare. Which is, of course, what the Christianists want. They have the biggest sect, after all.

Heh. Sullivan's all about the nuance and politics of doubt, you know. Just read his book. You can find lots of them in the 2 for a buck remainder bins, at least before they all get pulped for more useful purposes, such as toilet paper.

I quote that because it's silly. But I also quote it because it does indicate, however drama-queenishly, the squeamishness non-charismatic/non-evangelical Christians or non-Christians, period, have about these eruptions of fervor by political candidates.

It's a cliche but it's true: We're electing a president, not a pope and not a deacon.

Christians have, many believe, a public duty to testify on behalf of Jesus. I do not begrudge them that; my ears aren't going to fall off if I hear the dreaded J-word.

But I don't know of any duty by Christians to put Christ's name down as a reference during a job interview. In fact, I'm kind of guessing that's sort of the opposite of the way it's supposed to work. Believers are supposed to testify on behalf of Christ; but Christ isn't supposed to be used to testify on behalf of a believer, is He?

And I'm sorry, but that's what Brownback was doing, not just here, but in his more-Christian-than-Huckabee-or-Romney Savior-baiting in Iowa.

It's ugly, it's pandering, it's alienating, it's cheap, and it's not even acceptable metaphysics.

And it's a tacit admission of one's lack of qualifications for the job. If this is one of the big bullet-points on Brownback's resume, well, he's got about sixty million other potential applicants he's competing with for the job. I'd sort of like to know what makes him a better Jesus-believing presidential candidate than anyone else.

This is a fairly crude form of identity politicking, and forgive me for not thinking the distinction between "Vote for me, I'm a woman!" or "Vote for me, I'm black!" and "Vote for me, I'm Christian!" is all that meaningful. True, sex and race and immutable whereas religious belief is chosen; but then, metrosexuality is a choice, too. And I'm sure most concede that John Edwards' campaign slogan -- "Vote for me, my hair smells like strawberries mixed with hope!" -- is an identity-politics pander as well.

Sullivan's wrong, as usual. This won't hurt America because America gets offended by people who essentially say "Jesus says you should vote for me." It does hurt the GOP, though, as other candidates might feel the need to match little weasel in the Jesus Race stride-for-stride, hurting them in the general election.

And even if they resist trying to fill the Jesus Gap, it just makes the party look bad with the majority of Americans who do not share Sam Brownback's comfort with naming Jesus as a character witness.

Comes A Dark Horse: Emperor of Icecream--

All for Jesus! All for Jesus! All for Jesus! All for Jesus! All for Jesus!

There. I said it five times. That backslider Brownback only said it four. Washington, D.C., here I come!

Hmmm... he does seem to share my values around 25% more than Brownback...

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 958 words, total size 6 kb.

Q rating is, I'm pretty sure, an entertainment industry measure of a star's likability and bankability.

JD Johannes notes that the surging support for the surge seems based mostly on increased positive press for the struggling would-be star.

I suppose this is sort of obvious and not surprising. Of course relentless media drum-beating for withdrawal and defeat has an effect. And of course a less bombastic drum-beat will tend to have the opposite effect.

Still, it's sort of dispiriting to see public desire for victory swinging so much on what Johannes characterizes -- not unfairly -- as ratings points of a sort.

The media wasn't lying, nor the public wrong, when they thought the war was going badly. It was going badly. (Though probably not as badly as the media claimed or the public believed, but badly nonetheless.)

But should that have such an impact upon the public's estimation of how important a victory in Iraq is? Some impact, sure, but a pronounced impact? Do the American people really say "This is too hard, so let's go home"?

Unfortunately, we do. Which was Osama bin Ladin's operating theory (as well as Saddam Hussein's) all along.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (7)
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess I just can't managed to be outraged or even mildly surprised.

Or to even care that much.

Look, Wikipedia is fine for comic-book and sci-fi lore. It's fun to get lost in the hyperlinks. But anyone who trusts it is, I submit, a Goof of the First Order.

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

It's not just in Baghdad they fall for false reporting. It's global, baby.

Before getting to this fresh idiocy, check out Mark Steyn's column on "warm-mongers," which also takes a shot at TNR for its fake Beauchamp reporting. I note TNR doesn't mention that part of the article.

On to the stupidity.

But how big an error was it? Well, 1998 went from being listed as 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 to being listed as 0.02 degrees cooler. That means 1934 is back to being the "official" hottest U.S. year on record, although it's still a statistical tie.

Nothing's really changed....

The two years were, as he admitted, in a statistical tie back in 2001, and they're still in a tie today.

As I think McIntyre himself pointed out, large arguments occur over changes in temperature of only .1 degree C; indeed, the entire case for global warming is predicated on a mere .6 degree C rise over the last century. When a yearly temperature average is claimed to have "shattered records" by a mere .1 degree C, the warm-mongers trumpet this as quite significant indeed, and a threat to our very existence. So it's all a bit too much for this TNR crank to now begin claiming that teeny-tiny adjustment in a year well before the earth's atmosphere was poisoned by a doubling of the Invisible Killer CO2 is completely meaningless.

I don't remember hearing anything about this "statistical tie" business when 1998 was being trumpeted as the undisputed, unchallenged warmest year in human history. Boy, you guys suuuuuure seemed to keep a lid on the "statistical tie" thing back then, huh? It's only now -- when 1934 becomes the warmest year -- we're hearing about "statistical ties."

(He does quote Hansen himself noting it was a statistical tie, sometime. Once. Obviously the global warming cultists must have missed that, or else I'm sure they would have modified their cant to say "1998 is the warmest year on record, but you should note, in fairness, it's statistically tied with 1934 for that honor.)

And I find it odd that this nitwit is continuing to pimp the claim that seven (whatever) of the last ten years are among the warmest on record.

Really? Let me ask... I'm just guessing here... would it be the case that many of these years are in fact in "statistical ties" with years in the 20s, 30s, and 40s for that honor? Why is it that once again you seem to forget all about "statistical ties" when it suits you? more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:25 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 1926 words, total size 13 kb.

An abrupt about-face from last year's cover story called "Might and Lies: George W. Bush and the Lost War in Iraq.

I guess the neocon conspirators gulled another sucker.

"A few months ago, you couldn't have taken a single step here without getting shot at," says Lauer, a fair-skinned 30-year-old who still seems oddly pale under his suntan "We couldn't leave our fucking camp without being fucking shot at," he says. "Now it's peaceful and it's fucking great."

Fucking A.

...

Since June, Ramadi residents have only known the war from televison. Indeed, US military officials at the Baghdad headquarters of Operation Iraqi Freedom often have trouble believing their eyes when they read the reports coming in from their units in Ramadi these days. Exploded car bombs: zero. Detonated roadside bombs: zero. Rocket fire: zero. Grenade fire: zero. Shots from rifles and pistols: zero. Weapons caches discovered: dozens. Terrorists arrested: many.

An Irritating Contraction

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.

Worth reading in full.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

What a surprise from the WSJ. A program they admit might indeed be effective in controlling illegal hiring, and so, of course, a program they oppose.

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

Scientific American, baby.

It's worse than that, really. If you read it, they explain this to you s-l-o-w-l-y as if it hasn't occurred to you that if most men claim (say) 15 sex partners, and most men claim (say) six, then one if not both of these groups must be lying.

In related news, Scientific American reports it's a true pleasure to touch a woman's breasts, how they feel like bags of sand, how they so pleasingly as they clatter as they heave backwards and forwards.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 PM | Comments (52)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.