Personally I don't think it's a trend, or indicative of Democratic sexual habits, either. Some people are wired wrong, and it really doesn't matter what philosophy such people embrace -- if they get off on child porn, they're going to get off on child porn.

But I do happen to know for a fact that had these been Republicans, the media would be greatly interested in the "trend."

When the media bothers to explain such obvious bias at all, they always claim that there is an objective reason to publicize Republican sexual scandals and downplay Democratic ones -- "hypocrisy," of course. Those Puritanical scolds the Republicans are always nattering on about sexual morality, so of course the media gives such stories more play.

This "hypocrisy" excuse doesn't work in most cases, and it certainly doesn't work here. For these Democrats to be free of the taint of hypocrisy, it would have to be true that the Democratic Party's ideology was latitudinarian on child porn-- which, to my understanding, it is not.

Is the media claiming the Democratic Party isn't as opposed to child porn as Republicans? If so, let us have a report on that -- I'm sure the public would love to know that one party isn't quite on board with this whole anti-child-porn program.

But of course that's not really the case. The Democratic Party is fairly united against child porn.

So why does the hypocrisy rationale not demand these Democrats be pilloried not just for their disgusting crimes, but for their political hypocrisy to boot?

I see this all the time -- Well, of course we in the media publicize Republican extramarital affairs because Republicans are against such affairs and are therefore hypocrites.

Again, point me to any Democrat claiming it's the party's position to be in favor of marital infidelity, or at that it's no big deal, and I'll concede the "hypocrisy" argument.

But as far as I know the Democrats are down on extramarital affairs, too.

So, either both parties are "hypocrites" on this score, or else I want the media to inform me that the Democratic Party takes a chill attitude towards sexual infidelity.

Either/or.

The media can't have it both ways -- they cannot insist that Democrats are just as moral and concerned about values when it's convenient (usually at election time) and then suddenly claim that only Republican sexual scandals are fit for reportage because only Republicans believe in such things as shutting down child porn and remaining faithful in marriage.

To try to claim otherwise would be... hypocritical, no?

Similar Hypocrisy: Hot Air wants to know what the media's reaction would have been to the popularization of Fascist idolatory of George Bush.

Probably not quite the same sort of loving tribute they give to Obama's tryptych maker.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (49)
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's a bit of censorship/political McCarthyism I don't think the MSM will likely be reporting on.

The mainstream media have so far failed to get across the intensity of the ordeal that supporters of Prop 8 may now be subject to--something I realized on coming across this extraordinary blog account of a meeting at the legendary restaurant El Coyote in Hollywood, not far from where I grew up in Laurel Canyon. The meeting was between the elderly Mormon owner, who donated $100 to support Prop 8, and Prop 8 opponents, who are threatening a boycott, and it is as soul- grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history. Peacelovelunges.com--billed as "the blog of ex-Mormon, reformed porn star and Hollywood fitness trainer Sam Page"--reports:

In a dramatic, closed door meeting, the owner of a renowned Mexican eatery in Hollywood expressed regret in her decision to donate $100 to the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign, but her remarks before a group of about 60 members of Los AngelesÂ’ LGBT community fell short of an outright personal apology.

Just the spectacle of an American citizen expressing regret for her political conviction to avert economic harm is gruesome already. But it goes on:

....

El Coyote has become the latest casualty in the local outburst against the passage of Proposition 8, an anti-marriage amendment [sic] to the California State Constitution. Dozens of e-mails and websites, including the popular online local guide, Yelp.com, have urged boycotting the legendary cafe in recent days.

Perhaps we should start boycotting anyone who supported No on 8.

No, wait-- that would be intolerant.

As West notes, they're going after Mormon and Catholic churches... but not black churches. It's almost as if these Paragons of Courageous Love get a little cowardly when choosing whom they should try intimidating.

LA Conservatives and Liberal Free Speech Enthusiasts... maybe time to start eating at El Coyote in Hollywood, huh? Maybe twice a week if you can swing it.

Doing so would prevent this from spreading -- if a boycott is met by a, um, buycott, they'll see their tactics are backfiring and stop.

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

Wow! That "Sudden Fame Exception" to privacy wasn't known by many, but it sure seems to have been known by partisan Democratic Ohio bureaucrats!

Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles said his office is now looking at a half-dozen agencies that accessed state records on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher.

The Beacon Journal has learned that, in addition to the Department of Job and Family Services, two other state offices — the Ohio Department of Taxation and Ohio Attorney General Nancy Rogers — conducted database searches of Joe the Plumber.

..

The [day after the third presidential debate], the taxation department conducted two separate searches of a database of liens for unpaid taxes that were certified to the Ohio Attorney General's Office for collection.

John Kohlstrand, a taxation department spokesman, said he is prohibited from talking about individual taxpayers, but he confirmed that the databases were checked.

...

Kohlstrand said that the AG's office wanted access to the records so they could turn over to the national media lien information that was a public record in Lucas County. He said the national media did not have reporters in Toledo, so the attorney general's office was helping them out with public records.

On the day following the two searches, the taxation department conducted a search of another in-house database that tracks cases and correspondence between taxpayers and the department before the liens being certified and turned over to the attorney general for collection.

Check out this spin: The claim is they wanted to ensure the media wasn't misreporting information about JtP's infamous thousand-dollar tax lien:

Anthony said the database searches on both days were conducted to ensure that the information in Lucas County was being properly reported by the media.

''Wouldn't that have been a disaster if the lien had been paid,'' Kohlstrand said. ''The responsible thing for us to do would be to take prompt steps to make it right.''

God Bless You for your service.

''We are not aware of any inappropriate browsing of information by anyone in our department pertaining to Mr. Wurzelbacher,'' Kohlstrand said.

Of course not. Thus the criminals abandon the "Sudden Fame Exception" to privacy laws, and offer a new rational: the "Searching Through Someone's Records to Make Sure He's Not Being Libeled by the Media Exception."

Um, couldn't Joe have requested such a service himself? And doesn't the law specify he's required to actually request that, before government snoops go digging through his files and sending them to the media?

They were protecting Joe from the media, you see. By passing them the fruits of illegal private-records searches.

To ensure he wasn't being maligned.

By confirming their previous smears on him.

Big Brother

...is watching you watching out for you.

Are you not comforted?

Thanks to TopSecretK9.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (84)
Post contains 513 words, total size 4 kb.

The before and after is simply remarkable.

Call it the Unbroken Windows theory of political pacification: Intact floor-to-ceiling glass windows simply cannot exist in a warzone.

More at Hot Air, including Michael Yon's assessment that the War is Over.

And Yon hit the panic button pre-surge stating that we were losing the war, and were doomed to lose it if nothing changed. So he's not a relentless cheerleader sort.

It was an astonishment to me that John McCain only said "the surge worked, you were wrong" to Barack Obama during the debates. He should have said: "The surge worked, and thanks to the strategy I advocated and you opposed, we'll most likely have the bulk of our fighting forces out of Iraq well ahead of your timetable -- and in noble victory, rather than catastrophic defeat. So for those of you who want this war to end, I have only two words: You're welcome."

Okay, not the last part. That's kind of a David Spade thing.

But the part before that, certainly.

More Yon: at Confederate Yankee.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 187 words, total size 2 kb.

MattB. writes:

I still ask - aside from Abortion and Gay Marriage, what social issues do these people have in mind?

guns? Amnesty? Sex education? condom handouts? needle handouts? What? And, where do things like entitlement programs fall? People who are socially liberal would probably support entitlement programs to "help those less fortunate" but then what about their supposed economic conservatism? these issues don't exist in a vacuum.

I personally am not a social issues voter, but I find that I trust socially conservative politicians to remain conservative much more than I do the opposite. I can't recall, for instance, a socially conservative politician or jurist who "grew" in office to a leftward tilt. I can, however, name a slew of socially liberal GOPers who "grew" once in office to embrace ever more leftist positions.

I would bet that in the base there are a lot more conservative voters like me, who do not have a lot of intensity for abortion / gay marriage issues in their voting, but who trust socially conservative politicians much more than the opposite. If social conservatism is removed from the GOP, it will drift further and further left. It is unlikely that I (or most of the base) will ever get excited or passionate about a politician who is "socially liberal" and "economically conservative" because I would never really trust such politician not to move to the left on every issue. Indeed, wasn't Paul Tsongas the epitome of such a politician? How does one get excited about Paul Tsongas?

One need only look at libertarian to see this as true. Libertarians are allegedly "socially liberal" and "economically conservative". However, in the last 8 years the main Libertarian magazines, writers, etc., have moved ever further left, finding new rationales to embrace liberal politicians and positions. And, if there was a truly a huge bloc of "socially liberal" and "economically conservative" voters, wouldn't the libertarians do better electorally? Wouldn't dems race to embrace economic conservatism? The fact that neither is true demonstrates that this is not a winning strategy.

I completely forgot about this -- one of the reasons I'm much more supportive of social con politicians than I might otherwise be.

It's true: Once you've crossed the Rubicon and declared yourself pro-life, by and large you're stuck being a conservative. The New York Times hates you and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to curry favor with them. There is little chance of "evolution" in office once you've already declared yourself a hopelessly devolved troglodyte.

The pro-life position is not for me a position I favor in and of itself -- but a proxy for other positions I care more about. Judicial restraint, for example: Look, if I were playing the Wishing Game, I might suggest that conservative judges give a pass to Roe v. Wade (just to not upset the political applecart) while ruling conservatively on every other issue. But I'm not playing the Wishing Game. In reality, judges who favor Roe v. Wade favor just about every other example of liberal judicial legislating, and judges who are against Roe v. Wade are against every other example of liberal judicial legislating.

As a general matter (with many exceptions, of course), I'm more comfortable voting for pro-lifers than pro-choicers because pro-choice Republicans seem to be eager to find lots of other shared values with Democrats.

There are, again, exceptions. Most most pro-choice readers of this site, for example. (Reading this site is also crossing the Rubicon.)

Rudy Giuliani, as an example of a leader who was pro-choice but otherwise un-evolvable: I knew he was so despised by the liberals (and enjoyed being so despised) that he would never "evolve" into a liberal in office; there was no point to doing so, and he knew it, too.

But as for most pro-choice Republican politicians... well, Bill Weld enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama, for example. I used to like Bill Weld. In some ways I guess I still do. But here was an example of a liberal Republican, whom we were told was the template for a nonjudgmental, socially liberal style of Republicanism that constituted the Future of the Party... endorsing socialist Barack Obama.

To the extent I bought into the idea that Bill Weld was the "Future of the Party" (PS: I didn't, really, though I liked him well enough as the Future of the Northeastern Liberal Caucus of the Party), it seems I was wrong.

Culture and class is overwhelmingly important in this, and most refuse to acknowledge it. The Christie Todd Whitmans of the party love Bill Weld and hate Sarah Palin. Of course they love Bill Weld-- a liberal Northeastern establishment patrician country-club Republican.

But Sarah Palin? Not quite our class, dear.

I do think Sarah Palin gets too much support for culture/class identification issues -- but, as I think she's a terrific politician, I can't fault people too much for perhaps making the right choice for the wrong reasons. But I do assign some fault; I really wish the base of the party were not so high on supporting people "just like me." Perhaps there's something to said for the "just like me" voting bloc; it's easier to trust someone "just like me" to make decisions that, um, me supports. But "just like me" is merely a proxy for that, and shouldn't tell the tale all by itself. Mitt Romney, for example, was just about as not "just like me" as a politician can get, but I think he would have been a pretty strong conservative president. And Huckabee, with a high "just like me" quotient, would have been a weakly conservative president.

On the other side of the ledger, though: I wish the party's Ivy Axis would stop despising Sarah Palin for having been born blue-collar and daring to be proud of that.*

And that is a major component of their hatred. They're just not comfortable with her class and culture in the way they're comfortable with, say, Barack Obama's class and culture. He may not be of their party, but he's of their class, and class will out, Old Man.

* Or despising Mitt Romney for "selling out his class and cultural cohort."

Pretty Much: lmg writes--

There were enough unusual aspects to this election - a black candidate, a female candidate, the MSM openly campaigning for one side, massive vote fraud, massive contribution fraud, and a massive financial meltdown - that it is probably useless to draw any conclusions from the outcome as to what policy direction to take next time.

'Zactly.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (371)
Post contains 1103 words, total size 7 kb.

A good cause:

Every cent raised for Project Valour-IT goes directly to the purchase and shipment of laptops and other technology for severely wounded service members. As of November 2008, Valour-IT has distributed over 2700 laptops to severely wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines across the country, and is now expanding its mission to include other technology that supports physical and psychological recovery.

Valour-IT accepts donations in any amount to support our mission, but also offers a sponsorship option for laptops. An individual or organization may sponsor a wounded soldier by completely funding the cost of a laptop and continuing to provide that soldier with personal support and encouragement throughout recovery. This has proved to be an excellent project for churches, groups of coworkers or friends, and members of community organizations such Boy Scouts.

Vinnie asked me to join the Navy team. I didn't respond because, well, I already knew I wanted to join the Army team. Partly because they're such an unglamorous branch. They're also behind the most on fundraising, it looks like.

Posted by: Ace at 09:32 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 180 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess I mean this just to be a chat-thread about the game, which I know is ridiculously popular. Pretty amazing CGI movie trailer for it here.

I just deleted the whole program for it and canceled my subscription. I was a 54th level warrior and hadn't played in... well, a year.

Now I find out that if I just buy this stupid game, I can convert to a "Death Knight" next level. And maybe play a character who doesn't suck.

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

As I was saying:

While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a nine-percentage-point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) -- and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.

Again, we ran a moderate much beloved by the Christie Todd Whitman set this time around. We were promised that if we did, the moderates would come flocking.

So, um, what happened?

Yet another fundamentally dishonest piece that seeks to establish on "neutral," non-substantive, wholly electoral grounds that social conservatism must be ditched in favor of social liberalism. But once again the facts do not support this.

Whitman and Bostock really wish to persuade conservatives on substantive grounds that gay marriage should be embraced, the few minor restrictions on abortion completely abandoned, and etc., etc. They should make their case forthrightly and attempt to persuade conservatives on policy, moral, and ethical grounds, rather than once again resorting to the dishonest use of exit poll data to suggest it's in our best electoral interest to do so.

The evidence for the latter point is always, at best, vague and debatable, and often simply demonstrably untrue.

Perhaps Christine Todd Whitman can explain why a born-again Christian and declared social conservative won easily in 2004 and yet McCain -- with his Northeastern reserve about talking about faith, and moderate reluctance to push the social con agenda except by half-heartedly stating his record -- lost so badly.

As NRO argued somewhat persuasively, most "centrists" are simply not terribly well-informed voters who vote almost exclusively upon the perceived "goodness" or "badness" of the ccurrent State of the Union.

Not to push my pet cause, but McCain lost because he allowed the Democrats to paint the Republicans as responsible for the subprime crisis, rather than affixing blame where it was actually deserved. Centrists with no firm positions on social issues either way simply do not vote on abortion or gay marriage in any electoral cycle, let alone during an economic crisis often described as the equal of the Great Depression.

Anyone with strong feelings on social issues is not a centrist -- they will either become conservative or liberal, as they case may be, according to their beliefs about issues. The Rockefeller Republicans are forever telling us we must become more liberal to attract such centrists -- um, why? They are either conflicted about such issues and can go either way on them, or they simply do not care about them all that much.

Why is it we need to adopt a liberal social agenda to attract people who are not animated by anyone's social agenda either way?

Again I say: Make your real argument -- the argument you wish to begin, but refuse to actually initiate or join yourselves, about the substance of these policies. Stop this lazy, dishonest bullshit manner of attempting to begin a debate on the substance of these policies while refusing to address the substance.

It's chickenshit.

There are, in fact, a lot of social moderates in the GOP who agree that the social conservative agenda should be modified. I don't object to their arguments -- I am objecting to this stupid chickenshit manner of arguing their position without actually arguing their position.

In the interests of disclosure: Were I free to construct my own fantasy GOP, it would probably look less like Huckabee's party and more like McCain's or Whitman's on social issues. Mostly. Or, at least, it would have a better balance.

But constructing one's fantasy GOP is a silly and useless timewaster. These people pose as a brave truth-tellers telling us "honesty" what must be done, but they're dishonest as hell. If they want conservatives to embrace a more moderate social agenda, they can only do so by changing conservatives' minds about these issues. This endless parade of false proofs of the electoral superiority of the liberal social agenda doesn't change anyone's minds.

What's the Matter With Kansas? Liberals believe that our bitter, clingy voters vote against their own economic interests (their economic interests aligning with European socialism, it seems) in favor of our Gods, Guns, and Gays agenda.

I don't believe that much -- I think that social cons are largely also fiscal cons and defense hawks -- but surely there is some contingent of social cons who vote Republican on values issues, but who prefer the Democrats' E-Z money economic platform.

If we ditch the social agenda, we lose these voters. Indeed, Obama got a greater share of the evangelical vote than previous Democratic candidates, suggesting, possibly, that in this cycle, with the financial crisis on everyone's mind, the economy rather than values-issues became the main driver at least some fiscally liberal, socially conservative voters.

I don't know how numerous they are. But if Ryan Sager, David Brooks, David Frum, and Christie Todd Whitman want to make the electoral case, they'd better get cracking seriously on that polling data to prove to everyone's satisfaction that we could gain more votes by a shift to the left on social issues than we'd lose.

More at Hot Air.

No More RINOs: A reader objects to the term RINOs, which, to be honest, has always struck me as unfair and overly hostile, too. I have changed the headline to "Liberal Republicans."

The term "RINOs" isn't really a useful one. For one thing, people may be Republicans for many reasons. They may also be very weak Republicans... but so what? I'll take a weak Republican over a weak Democrat any day of the week.

The term seems to set up an Us vs. Them paradigm and seems exclusionary. Given we're pretty low on chips, we can't afford that, really. So I'll try to avoid the term.

Posted by: Ace at 08:38 AM | Comments (177)
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.

Don't even pretend to us that you're actually working today.

Nobody believes you. Because we're all screwing off too.

Here. Try this recipe over the weekend and tell us how it went.

Timewasters [ace]: Assembler, a game which is disappointingly easy.

Hint: Don't always go looking for elegant mathematical/geometrical solutions. Often "blodging" it -- trial and error, just sticking things here and there -- works just fine. I suppose you should look for elegant solutions -- but if none seem to occur to you, and you want to move on, just blodge it, man.

Silversphere is really old by this point but gets nicely difficult towards the end. Plus, if you can't figure something out, there are sites with YouTube videos showing you the solutions.

Posted by: LauraW at 07:46 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:17 AM | Comments (80)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.