So says a guy on Free Republic, so I listened. Hey, it's just one song. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (78)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Outrage, as is the Daily Mail suggests, and JWF agrees?

I don't think so. The moment I saw these, I wondered, "But are they the bad guys?"

The company's founder says so:

Last night the business's founder Will Chapman said: 'It's not my intention to glorify terrorism or Nazis - but kids love the bad guys.

'Many Arab fighters wear scarves, not just al-Qaeda fighters. The German figures are historical because I focus on War World Two characters.'

Obviously jihadi-type kids can buy these and pretend the murderers are heroes.

But what about every other kid? What's the point of playing with war toys with no decent villains?

The British left, and the press (but I repeat myself), hates "war toys." I don't know. I always liked them. I always kinda hated PC villain organizations with no clear real-world connection like (forgive me for saying this) COBRA. James Bond's PC villains at SPECTRE kinda annoyed me too as I got older.

Posted by: Ace at 11:55 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Question: Now that their president is prosecuting an illegal war of choice, will the chickenhawks on the left sign up to fight en masse?

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. ObamaÂ’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

It's astonishing to me that a political party and the entire media could so dishonestly and recklessly campaign against winning a vital war. I'm not shocked by their current position; I'm dumbfounded by their old one.

How does the media begin to walk back its insistent demands we deliberately lose the war just to humiliate George Bush and the Republican Party?

How does Keith Olbermann (and his ilk) begin to spin this?

Do they dare admit they were wrong all along?

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 444 words, total size 3 kb.

First, how stupid could Plaxico be? This stupid:

It appears that he put the unholstered gun in the waistband of his sweatpants, and when it slipped, he grabbed for it, accidentally hitting the trigger. To make matters worse, according to press accounts, he was seen drinking and may have been consuming alcohol -- which all firearms safety training (including the class he would have been required to take for his Florida permit) absolutely forbids for people handling guns.

The writer thinks NYC's laws may be challenged under Heller:

he Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

And then there is the issue of the permitting process for residents. In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.

The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including sheer arbitrariness.

Posted by: Ace at 10:38 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't really get his math. I'm not sure anyone does.

He's claiming that the initial judges' rulings on the disputed ballots, which haven't been counted yet, have a big enough margin in his favor to overcome Coleman's 303 vote lead among the counted votes.

But if that's the case, the media doesn't seem to have heard of it. And Coleman claims he's ahead, too.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Associated Press headline: "Poll: Calif gay marriage ban driven by religion."

Reality: Pretty much every other demographic group in the poll voted yes on Prop. 8 as well.

Differences in support for Proposition 8 are evident across party lines, with three in four Republicans (77%) voting yes and two in three Democrats (65%) voting no, while independents were more divided (52% yes, 48% no). The measure was supported by a majority of those without a college education (62%), while a majority of those with a college degree voted no (57%). Evangelical or born-again Christians (85%) are far more likely than others (42%) to have voted yes. Whites (50%) are less likely than Latinos (61%) to have voted yes; 57 percent of Latinos, Asians and blacks combined voted yes (sample sizes are too small to report Asians and blacks separately). Voters who supported Obama (30%) were far less likely than those who supported McCain (85%) to vote yes. Support for Proposition 8 increases with age (43%) for ages 18–34; 50% for ages 35–54, yes; 56% for ages 55 and older) and declines with income.

Misleading headline aside, the AP story at least mentions the other demographics who voted in favor of the measure. If you only read the LA Times' blog entry on this poll, you'd come away thinking the proposition passed solely on the strength of Christian and Republican votes.

Posted by: Slublog at 09:20 AM | Comments (61)
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

For comments on the items in the Top Headlines sidebar. A link to these comments is stickied at the top of the Top Headline column.

Also: You guys really went to town about the requirement that the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security perform a pro-forma ritual invoking God's name on every annual report. Sorry I missed it; I was working.

I had asked "anyone want to argue that this is not an Establishment Clause violation?" to which the common reply was (paraphrasing) that it's not a violation of the Establishment Clause because states are not bound to follow forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence with which they disagree.

Well, fair enough.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:48 AM | Comments (107)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Is it just me or is television pretty much all for women now? I was talking about this with Anwyn, but she doesn't seem to believe me. There are like six shows on that swing either way sex-wise. Otherwise, it's all for girls.

Hockey, football, CSI. That's pretty much it.

Posted by: Ace at 07:43 PM | Comments (308)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Could somebody argue me into the "this is a good idea" position?

I've heard the "they can't secure DIP (debtor in possession) financing", but only from talking heads who talk for a living. What's the evidence of this, and more than that, if they can't, should they?

In Capitol Hill meetings, industry officials said the collapse of one or more of the Big Three carmakers could greatly worsen the nation's recession and undermine the companies' ability to survive.

Yes. And yes.

The latest talking point is that this is a situation that isn't of their own making, it's the economic downturn. I disagree. They are suffering the result of a situation of their own making worsened by the economic downturn.

I say this as an owner of a GMC truck (a 2000 Sierra, damn I loved that truck, youngest's now), a damned fine Camry (mom's), a little Ford sedan (groan, eldest's), and a 2004 Chevy Silverado. Manufactured in Canada.

How does bailing out this flawed business proposition help the economy?

That's my question.

...

If on the other hand you'd rather argue about music, here's a spot where you can stab people.

Twist when the knife is in. Makes a lethal wound.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:55 PM | Comments (151)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

I find it odd that her qualifications are so numerous that they can't actually be named. Just, you know, how she fits into the Rainbow Connection.

If actually nominated, she will have to take a hiatus from her top-rated CW sitcom, Me 'n My Straight Black Son.

Meanwhile, Andrea Mitchell lauds Obama's "effortless" creation of a PC cabinet.

When it comes to building a quota Cabinet that fulfills liberal demands for “diversity,” Barack Obama is far smoother than the “artless” and “calculating” Clintons were back in 1992, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell argued Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. In contrast to the Clintons, Obama’s approach is “effortless. They’re creating a mosaic, but they’re not doing it by self-consciously creating that mosaic,” Mitchell enthused.

Effortless, huh? Well, liberal reporters are exerting the effort on his behalf.

In related news, Andrea Mitchell began spontaneously lactating while delivering that report.

Posted by: Ace at 04:10 PM | Comments (62)
Post contains 182 words, total size 2 kb.