Sounds... mildly promising. But I've been down the mildly promising road before.

he Bush administration plans to use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.

Invoking the two legal waivers — which Congress authorized — would cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of the Homeland Security Department building 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, according to officials familiar with the plan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the waivers had not yet been announced.

The move would be the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence, and it would cover a total of 470 miles along the Southwest border. Previously, the department has used its waiver authority for two portions of fence in Arizona and one portion in San Diego.

As of March 17, there were 309 miles of fencing in place, leaving 361 to be completed by the end of the year to meet the department's goal. Of those, 267 miles are being held up by federal, state and local laws and regulations, the officials said.

I'm 99% sure that "308 miles of fencing in place" is pure bullshit, as the Bush Administration counts anti-vehicle barriers as "fencing." As if you can't just get out of a frickin' car, cross the border on foot, and get picked up by another coyote waiting just beyond it.

This is somewhat infuriating -- a Peruvian woman of Japanese descent shows off how to breach a border fence on a television show. She doesn't quite make it through, but pretty darn close. Only a gross physical anomaly seems to prevent her.

Thanks to Duane.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

And cancel that putrid abomination that currently exists in that time slot.

By which I mean Greta Van "There has to be a missing blonde high-school student somewhere in the world that I can talk aimlessly about for 3 years" Susteren.

Seriously, is there a worse hour of television anywhere in the 24-Hour news world that doesnt feature a MSNBC host? I don't think so.

Why should FOX make this move?

Well..two reasons.

1) Did I mention how bad "On The Record with Greta Van Suxalot" actually is?

2) They are getting beat in the prime time ratings by...CNN.

Prime time seems to be CNN's time again. The Atlanta-based network has beaten Fox News Channel in average number of viewers for the first quarter of 2008, taking the No. 1 cable news spot from Fox News for the first time since 2001, the company said today.

CNN averaged 444,000 viewers during the prime-time slot — 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. — soaring 87 percent over the 238,000 viewers it averaged during the first quarter a year ago.

Clearly, there is only one solution. Fox News should move the best show on television "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" to the 10:00 time slot, and should exile Greta Van "Nancy Grace without the unintentional comedy to make her bearable" Susceptabletobadratings to the TV wasteland of 3:00 AM EST.

Think of it: who would you morons rather watch for an hour? Julie Banderas or Greta Van Susteren? Alison Rosen or Greta van Susteran? Courtney Friel or Greta van Susteren? My beloved, future wife and mother of my children Suzanne Sena or.......well, that's not even a question, is it?

And for you ladies (and Gabriel) there is always the eye candy of Andy Levy and, to a much more creepily androgynous and revoltingly "probably reproduces by budding" extent, Bill Schulz, to keep you warm at night.

So let's get this ball rolling! What do we want? Red Eye? When do we want it? 10:00 PM EST.

We're here! We're queer for Red Eye (which, as a double entendre joke seems to work in this slogan uncomfortably well)! Get used to it FOX.

Here is the link to e-mail FOX. Lobby hard for the move, my fakey internet friends!

Let's make Greta the next blonde to go missing (from the prime time lineup anyway). I'd actually enjoy watching her cover that story.

Posted by: Jack M. at 10:36 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

This is a silly little story that gets some chuckles -- Obama bowling a 37.

But what makes it truly hilarious is Media Matters' making a major issue out of Joe Scarborough commenting that this didn't show off Obama's "human side" so much as his "prissy side," and then playing Internet Detective Par Excellence to demonstrate the "Big Lie" of this story being put forward by the "Right Wing Noise Machine."

To wit:

Obama did not bowl a full ten frames to post that awesome score of 37, but rather only bowled SEVEN frames.

Ah. I see.

Perhaps this is their idea of an April Fools Day prank? Pretending that this is such an outrage, and then "fact-checking" the media to show that Obama only bowled a mere 70% of a complete game to put up that rockin' number?

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

They recognize him as one of their own and so offer him their own deal.

Sadr got his ass kicked, sued for peace, capitulated... and therefore he won.

Too many more such victories and we will be undone, he must be thinking.

From Instapundit's rich and savory link dump, which includes a bit about a former Saddam officer now on the New York Times' payroll -- but also a defense of him by Damien Cave.

Cave writes, in a lengthy defense:

Just to give you an idea of how ludicrous the criticism sounds to those of us know who Qais, let me offer an anecdote. At one point last year, Prime Minister Maliki appeared before Congress. Qais and I were watching it on TV and while I saw little of interest in the exchange, he stood up and seemed to swell with hope, not a common emotion at the time. Seeing American lawmakers standing and clapping for Maliki, Qais said he felt like maybe his country had reached a turning point; maybe it was getting the respect and support it needed; maybe peace and prosperity would begin to grow, and maybe his children could once again feel safe.

I didnÂ’t have the heart to tell him that it was a common courtesy to stand and applaud, but my point is that no lover of Saddam, watching Maliki in Congress, would ever have had such a reaction. The accusations of bias in this case are entirely baseless and insulting.

Eh. I am not entirely convinced by the defense but then neither am I really that outraged by the charge.

To be honest, I'm not sure how, were it truly the case, having a Saddam loyalist reporting for the NYT would substantially change their coverage anyway.

If anything, it might actually tilt it back towards objective.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Recalling a famous scene on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the 1976 Oscar-winning film "Rocky," Clinton said that ending her presidential campaign now would be as if "Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough.'"

"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people," Clinton said in excerpts of prepared remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.

Ain't no quitter. She's gonna eat lightning, she's gonna crap thunder.

Bonus (you knew he would): Is Slublog actually working today? more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:17 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

The Battle of Okinawa, April 1 1945.

Called the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War, over 12,000 Americans killed and 38,000 wounded. Significant in that it caused us to rethink our battle strategy as we tightened the noose around Japan.

Thanks for the tip from commenter Thomas, who also notes that New Orleans Saints QB Drew Brees has a grandfather who served with the 1st Marine Division, and went ashore this day, 63 years ago.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:08 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Rezko and an associate split a fraudulent finder's fee of $500,000.

The associate promptly wrote Obama a $10,000 check.

In case you don't click on the link, don't take that as meaning Obama was specifically paid off for assisting in the fraud or anything.

But corrupt money from Obama's corrupt pals kept finding its way into Obama's pockets.

Change, hope, graft.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 09:02 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

It's seriously a must-watch. It starts off a bit been-there done-that, but then it takes a turn towards the genuinely inspiring.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Or some apologies, at least.

I've been putting this off for a few days.

I want to apologize for the hot tone and unfair surprise of my flare-up over the weekend. I say "unfair surprise" because I've never really cautioned anyone against the naming Muslims generally as enemies, and I myself write like that from time to time. Hypocrisy, thy name is Ace.

So it was a douchebag move to storm out there and basically denigrate anyone posting there without giving much of a warning.

And I apologize for that. I really am sorry. Docweasel was giving me crap about that last night, and I told him, truthfully, yes, I've been meaning to apologize but am trying to think of how to say it, and figure out precisely what I'm apologizing for.

What I'm apologizing for is:

1) A hot, preening morally-superior tone

2) Lumping everyone together without specifically stating which comments drew my ire

3) The unfair surprise of throwing the red flag at this late date on this particular subject

4) Getting overly personal and seeming to call people out even if not by name

5) General hypocrisy, because I've been there

I'm sorry about that.

The only thing I can say in my defense is that I went into that thread and first offered a less out-of-my-skull comment. I wrote something like, "This thread is getting ugly and I'd like everyone to to ratchet it down at least three good turns."

The second post after that, somebody wrote (under a fake name) "Fuck Mohammad and the camel he road in on."

And that pissed me off. I was trying to more gently get people to have a little more care in what they were writing -- specifically, how they were writing it; a very tough-on-all-Muslims attitude combined with a very hot and angry tone really helps no cause except personal catharsis -- and then some jerkoff basically says "fuck you" to me with that comment.

Maybe he didn't see my caution. I know not everyone reads every comment. I sure don't. Looking back I should have played with the fonts to make it big-font red so that people would be sure to see it.

But my intent was just to calm people down, initially, and without making a big ass stink about it.

I know Fitna arouses passions and one watches again this unending torrent of murders coming out of the Islamic world, with what often seems like majority-support for the murders, and I certainly am not above getting pissed off about that, or drawing some very cruel conclusions on occasion. I can't play holier-than-thou on that, though I guess that's exactly what I did in my "Thread Closed" post.

However, seriously, while one might have truly angry reactions, it's not always a good thing to vent them publicly, at least not without serious thoughtfulness about what one means and does not mean to say. Calling for genocide may be a bit of angry hyperbole, but it does look pretty ugly, even if not very seriously meant.

Cathartic, angry venting has its place -- it's one of the main reasons I even started the blog -- but the personal value of it also has to be weighed against the drawbacks of it, namely, well, it's really sort of ugly to call for the extermination of a billion people. Yes, I know no one probably meant that very seriously, and it was more a bit of "Oh yeah, keep pushing it and you'll see what's what" bluster, but still. Pretty ugly.

And there is a cumulative effect here I've mentioned. It's not always just this post or that post which is over the line. In fact, this or that post may be just on the line, but otherwise nothing I'd get bothered by. But in cumulative effect, where a long series of close-to-the-line or over-the-line comments are made -- especially where people seem to be trying to top each other a bit -- it all looks very ugly.

Which is why my initial caution was just general, and not calling anyone out. I just didn't like the general, cumulative tone of the comments, and wanted everyone to take a breather and write a little less hot.

And then I got all pissy when I was ignored, way too pissy and angry I admit.

And my general caution of everyone, while meant to not call anyone out, didn't work. I should have been specific about precisely what I was objecting to. I'm sure that would have helped.

Point is: I'm sorry if anyone wrote in that thread and feels unjustly maligned. Or that I was preening hypocritically. (I was.) As is usually the case, when it gets personal, it gets irrational and nasty. And I did take it personally, and reacted angrily. I just got really pissed off that after what I thought was a gentle, friendly caution I was ignored, at least by a couple of people.

But overall I'm pretty chagrined by the whole thing and even an hour after it happened I was on the phone with someone saying, "I was a dick, I got too angry and too personally invested in the whole dispute."

Anyway, I am sorry.

But... and of course there's a but: Do try to watch it with the truly angry and hasty venting.

And when I come into a thread, as an impartial observer (at least as regards the substance of the debate), and offer a caution that the thread is getting ugly, please take that as serious. I wouldn't come in and offer a caution unless things really were getting ugly. It's not as if it's fun for me to criticize the people who read this site and keep it interesting (and sometimes too interesting) with comments.

Posted by: Ace at 08:28 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 971 words, total size 5 kb.

So, erg, who has a limitless supply of library Free-Range Hobo computers to use to get on the site, keeps coming back.

I've deputized a secret star chamber of morons to rewrite and redact troll posts and the like. They're all long time readers who are cool-headed, so I doubt very much they'll go drunk with power and begin deleting unobjectionable comments. Or deleting your comment just because you're beating them in an argument. (I've specifically asked them to never do this in a heated discussion in which they are participating.)

Also, the occasional super-long link that breaks the margins might be fixed more promptly.

This isn't some big push for censorship or anything; it's just for trolls who won't take a ban, and agent provocateurs coming in to write, as one wag quipped, his considered opinion that all members of a certain race should be hanged.

I really can't keep up with erg and the like, and neither can the cobloggers, though they do try, bless them. There are just too many comments.

If you ever think a comment of yours has been redacted or rewritten unfairly, drop me a line and let me know. I honestly do not expect much of that, if any, but if it does happen, I'll apologize, try to restore the basics of the comment (as you explain it to me from memory), and let the TrollBuster in question that he was a little too quick on the draw on that one.

BTW: If you're wondering why you weren't asked, there were three criteria:

1) You have to be a long, long time commenter and tipster, so that I sort of "know you" as much as the internet permits.

2) You have to run cool.

3) I have to have your email. This was a big one, as a couple of people I would have asked have emails that don't match their screenname.

and

4) You have to comment a lot.

I'm also keeping these guys secret for now out of cheekiness and fun, because I want it to be like The Lords of Discipline, where if you go up against "The Ten" you'll be destroyed. And they're all secret.

But that's pretty much just a gag-conceit that amuses me. There's no real reason for it except I'm a gaywad who likes the idea of having a secret cabal of minions executing my will from the shadows.

If people think (as I imagine some might) that those with this power should be named, I'll do so.

And if you weren't asked, but really want to do this, drop me an email, as long as he criteria are met. There are several people I considered asking, but they just haven't been on the site very long, for example. They seem reasonable and level headed, but who knows, they could be maniacs out to get me.

PS: It just occurred to me that certain soft-headed liberal dopewads like Seattle and Beloved Weaver might be worried about this. No, I've specifically told the guys to lay off you, that you're water-brained jackasses but not trolls.

This really applies to identified trolls and agent provocateurs, not to people who are just occasionally annoying, like all of us are. Especially me.

Posted by: Ace at 08:10 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.