Hot Air's headlines has another one, of the Falcon buzzing Mexico City.

It's just too cool that people can knock these things together for the price of a decent computer and some off-the-shelf special effects software.

Posted by: Ace at 09:48 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

There's some story attached to it if you care.

I'd hit it.

Thanks to someone.

Posted by: Ace at 09:45 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

None of those personalities, alas, were that of Professional Footballer Living Up to His Heismann Hype.

Okay that was uncalled for, but then, I had to fucking watch the New Jersey Generals, so I'm owed.

Anyway:

In a "Nightline" interview that will air Monday on ABC, the 46-year-old Walker said he has been in treatment for eight years and believes the disorder is under control, adding that writing the book was therapeutic for him.ot clear at what point in his life Walker believes he had the disorder.

...

After his retirement from football in 1997, Walker said the disorder began to overwhelm him. At one point, while sitting in his kitchen, he said he played Russian roulette with a loaded pistol.

"To challenge death like I was doing, you start saying, there's a problem here," Walker told Woodruff.

...

Walker and his ex-wife, Cindy Grossman, were married for 16 years before she knew about his illness, she said.

"Well, now it makes perfect sense, because each personality has a different interest," Grossman told "Nightline". "This one has an interest in ballet, this one has an interest in the Marines, this one had an interest [in the] FBI, this one had an interest in sports.

"There was also a very sweet, lovable [personality]. That's the one he told me I married. He told me I didn't marry Herschel," said Grossman, who later in the interview recalled a conversation with Walker, "and the next thing I knew, he just kind of raged and he got a gun and put it to my temple."

That was the personality with an interest in Sandwich and Shut-Up.

Thanks to blacksheep.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Silence best evidenced, I guess, by the fact she writes almost two thousand words in a high-profile newspaper. One can almost feel the cold sweat of fear dripping off her fingers with each and every hysterically repetitive claim.

Women feel silenced by the assertiveness and cockiness of men? Shyah, right. I wish. Were it so I wouldn't have to explain to every girlfriend the importance of "Shut-Up Time."

Solnit mewls on for 1,863 words about how women are patronized and silenced by men.

But, wait. Let me check. (Peering down into pants and then panties) Yup, thereÂ’s a vagina in my pants, which suggests IÂ’m either a woman or thereÂ’s a matched, escaped set of labia taken up hiding in my underwear. Most mysteriously, I donÂ’t seem to suffer the myriad conversational injustices from men that Solnit and so many other women apparently do.

Solnit opens her piece by describing how she was conversationally pummeled by a guy about Eadweard Muybridge, when she’d actually written the very book the guy was holding forth on. “Men explain things to me,” complains Solnit, “and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean.”

We do? I think somebody forgot to send me the memo. Yet, Solnit claims this terrible injustice is something “nearly every woman faces every day,” which “makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field,” and “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare.” (“When they dare”? The woman writes like Mr. Darcy is going to pop up from behind the copier at any moment.) Solnit goes on and on about how this “syndrome” (yes, everything must be pathologized) “crushes young women into silence” and “trains” women “in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

So let me get this straight:

1) A woman asserts something as true.

2) A man, taking her as his intellectual equal, disagrees with her sharply, without fretting too much about how the "Softer Sex" might take his angry and harsh "Man-Words."

3) The woman properly considers herself oppressed and intimidated into silence.

It may (or may not) be true that many women speak differently than many men; as the claim goes, women are more interested in seeking common ground and finding points of agreement and men are more interested in the competitive aspects of points-scoring. (Though this rule goes out the window entirely when men and women discuss dissatisfying aspects of their relationship; there, the roles reverse entirely.)

But even if that's the case, then it's simply a case of men and women favoring different styles of discourse. I can't say for certain the "feminine style" is necessarily wrong, but the "chilled into silence" writer here sure seems to have qualms about informing me the "male style" is entirely wrong, and not just wrong, but painful, oppressive, intimidating, demeaning, and threatening.

For a woman frightened into abject timidity, she sure seems capable of making stridently self-serving assertions when she puts her (quivering) mind to it.

From Hot Air again.

Meanwhile, the cowering and quaking RightWingSparkle somehow gathers up the courage to email me -- despite not having secured a Temporary Restraining Order beforehand -- and sends me this video, three and a half minutes of abject white-knuckled terror.

She has the temerity to ask which of you commenters is the guy in the clip.

Hmm. I'm going to have to have a word with her husband about keeping her in line. We can't have women making such impudent remarks. The next thing you know, they'll dare to look into our eyes as if they are our equals.

Posted by: Ace at 09:23 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 644 words, total size 5 kb.

It's an improvement. The four pounds of warts seem to have come mostly off his face. His hands and feet have been trimmed back, but obviously a lot of wartage remains.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:39 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed, though I think he'll be somewhat hesitant to point this out.

It's very odd that Obama talks so disparagingly of downtrodden Pennsylvanians "clinging" to religion and hatred of those who don't look like him.

Why, one could almost make the case that downtrodden natives of Obama's Chicago district "cling" to a church headed by a demagogue who routinely stokes hatred and suspicions of "those who don't look like them," such as Whites and Jews.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

Long rumored. Dare I dream?

An illicit copy of the steamy, still-FBI-classified reel - 15 minutes of 16mm film footage in which the original blond bombshell performs oral sex on an unidentified man - was just sold to a New York businessman for $1.5 million, said Keya Morgan, the well-known memorabilia collector who discovered the film and brokered its purchase.

The footage appears to have been shot in the 1950s. When it came to light in the mid-'60s, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had his agents spend two weeks futilely trying to prove that Monroe's sex partner was either John F. Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy, according to declassified agency documents and interviews, Morgan said.

The silent black-and-white flick shows Monroe on her knees in front of a man whose face is just out of the shot.

Damn. All this time I could have been filing FOIA requests and made some really crazy blog money.

Adding some credibility to this is the fact (I assume it's a fact) that Joe DiMaggio attempted to purchase the film, presumably to protect the image of his onetime wife.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 07:50 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Cool.

But I want Indiana and North Carolina, too.

The trouble is, those stupid Bible-thumpin', shotgun-pumpin', outhouse-dumpin', sibling-humpin' morons don't realize yet that Obama was talking about them too, and I'm not sure how to inform these degenerate inbred racist cannibals of that.

I don't speak their language of grunts, backwoods mumble, genital-itching, and racist spree-killings.

How do I reach them?

If only they could read English, or any language, apart from the crude pictographs of elk-hunting and gang-raping they inscribe on the walls of their bone-littered and Bedazzler-studded caves.

Thanks to kempermanx.

Scoreboard: Obama and His MSM Spirit Squad Vs. Alt-Media: Who's winning? Well a recent poll shows that pluralities of moderates and even Democrats disagree with Obama's Redneck Rampage statements.

The gatekeepers don't have the power they used to, and they look frankly ridiculous attempting to use their diminished power and influence to shut down debate and essentially lie about the facts of the matter to do so.

Posted by: Ace at 06:54 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

I had wondered when this obvious point, much discussed in the blogosphere, would break into the more respectable press.

And in the Paper of Record Retard, no less.

My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I donÂ’t believe the claim is true, but itÂ’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

I don't think it's particularly odd at all, Mr. Kristol. I agree with NRO's Lisa Schiffrin:

I now feel fully vindicated in my suspicion that Obama's attendance at Wright's church was entirely political and expedient. No one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ — or even moderate respect for other people's religious views — thinks in these terms about why working class people might believe in God,

Incidentally, Excitable Andy gave Lisa Schriffin a "Malkin Award" for that statement, and no, that's not a good award. The "Malkin Award" is, if I recall this douchebag's award system properly, for particularly egregious statements belying a hyperpartisan viciousness.

If so, Excitable Andy ought to give himself a few. Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the Conservative Soul (now a featured book in remainder bins) much concerned with the claim that Republican elites cynically and disingenuously exploit religious beliefs for political gain?

I'm sorry, is Sullivan claiming that one can write an entire book questioning Republican politicians' true beliefs in God and values but Lisa Schiffrin can't write a fucking 400 word blog-post about Obama's cynicism and exploitation in this regard?

Then again, intellectual consistency is hardly a hallmark of Sullivan's hysterical form of discourse.

Oh! Missed Sullivan's response to Kristol:

A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already.

Heh. Sullivan just called Kristol a Jew manipulating gullible Christians for his own personal agenda (which happens to be much-concerned with Israel, of course).

I feel so liberated now that we're having this "open, candid" discussion on race and religion that Obama Christ began for us.

Why, just a few days ago I didn't know it was acceptable to respond to a political opponent by simply calling him a dirty, scheming kike.

The fun we're going to have! And, as Sullivan points out, It's only April!

I wonder why he didn't note that Lisa Schrieffrin was also a "non-Christian..." I guess maybe because he wasn't sure she was a Yid. It's one of those names that could go either way, you know.

You know-- one of those sneaky stealth Jew-names that almost sound like good Christian names.

Posted by: Ace at 06:27 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.

He's enabled by the MSM in insisting on this. Even FoxNews, introducing his speech, claimed it was all about the bitter.

I've hit these points myself, but Mickey Kaus finds Obama's explanation for the statement nonsensical.

It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it's logically possible to say 'these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,." but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him). Yesterday at the CNN "Compassion Forum" Obama said he wasn't disparaging religion because he meant people "cling" to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they "cling" to "antipathy to people who aren't like them"--the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those "traditions that are passed on from generation to generation" that "sustains us"? Obama's unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians' excess religiosity.

Even if you buy the first part of Obama's claim -- that "cling to religion" merely meant people turn to institutions that "work" -- he still calls Pennsylvanians racists for being hesitant to vote for him.

Which is absurd. Few are refraining from voting for Obama because he's (half) black. Most people are voting for him precisely because he is (half) black.

What other reason is there? He is not, despite the insistence of Chris "Thrill up my leg" Matthews, a particularly good speaker-- he speaks in a monotone and in gauzy platitudes. He has almost no experience whatsoever. He is a doctrinaire liberal with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

So his branding of Pennsylvanian small-town Democrat-leaning voters as racist for not openly embracing him is doubly insulting. First for calling them racist at all, second for not even having the gratitude to say "Hey, thanks for actually considering me almost solely based on the color of my skin."

His remarks were indefensible and unspinnable, which is why the media is in such a rush to 1) claim that the only dispute is over "bitter" and 2) end discussion on the flare-up entirely.

Even his liberal defenders cannot agree on an actual defense -- they alternate (sometimes in the same sentence) between claiming that of course Obama could not have intended to say such an offensive and condescending thing, and also that he was 100% right to say such an offensive and condescending thing -- hey, it's just a fact that hicks vote on guns, God, and racism because they don't have enough money to rise above their petty resentments and childish faiths!

I Wish It Were So: Abe Greenwald writes "It's All Gone" regarding Obama:

The radiant charm; the verbal agility; the promise of change; the post-racial unity; the deferential press; and most importantly, the vagueness of character and intent that sustained the whole façade. These were the hallmarks of Barack Obama’s run for the Democratic nomination, and bit-by-bit, associate-by-associate, gaffe-by-gaffe, the junior senator from Illinois has given all of it back. The extraordinary bounty that had made his campaign a nearly unstoppable force of nature is gone.

With last Sunday’s revelation—that he looks at smalltown America and finds armed, hate-filled, irredentist religious zealots—the last piece of the Obama puzzle fell into place. He is not, it turns out, an agent of change; he is a walking checklist of modern liberal inanities.

Interesting fight here as the MSM attempts to bury the story and insist it's just about bitterness, while the more honest online/alt media community discusses what it's really about.

Memo to Hillary: Stop saying it's about bitterness! Every time you say that, the media seizes on that soundbite and that soundbite alone, because it's in their political interest (being Obama partisans) to limit the controversy to that.

So stop doing it. State unambiguously it's not about bitterness, and that "bitterness" is the least of it, and only talk up the suggestion that religion and traditional values are borne of ignorance, desperation, and xenophobia.

The Hillary campaign is maladroit in all things but they cannot afford to keep getting this wrong and playing on the field Obama and his media protectors wish to play on.

Posted by: Ace at 05:34 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 771 words, total size 5 kb.