Posted by: Open Blog at 06:47 PM | Comments (78)
Post contains 114 words, total size 4 kb.

Just snagged this off Mr. Excitable's site. Certainly odd for those among us who don't believe very much in demons or literal possession by devils.

In the essay (purchase required), Jindal describes an emotional friendship with a classmate, "Susan," recently diagnosed with skin cancer and reeling after the suicide of a close friend. Susan's behavior becomes stranger, and she is surrounded by "sulfuric" smells. Finally, one night at a prayer meeting, she collapses in a seizure -- and the exorcism begins:

The students, led by Susan's sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, "Satan, I command you to leave this woman." Others exhorted all "demons to leave in the name of Christ." It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults.

...

After what sounds like a number of hours, and a failed attempt at getting help from a preacher (he refused to assist), the exorcism finally concludes in dramatic fashion:

It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.

While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."

With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.

Jindal writes proudly about the experiment's conclusion: "When the operation occurred, the surgeons found no traces of cancerous cells. Susan claimed she had felt healed after the group prayer and can remember the sensation of being 'purified.'"

Jindal wrote the experience "reaffirmed" his faith.

Ha-ha for the left, I guess, and for secularists, but Catholic Church doctrine recognizes exorcism as a genuine rite for the appropriate circumstances.

I think it's nonsense. But then, people believe in nonsense. It gives them meaning in their lives.

Unscientific, irrational balderdash like drilling on 0.01% of the most godforsaken barren wasteland on the planet is somehow going to destroy the world, or that caribou will commit mass-suicide if an oil-pipe drifts into their field of view.

Posted by: Ace at 06:15 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh it starts out harmless enough, with spray-on hair and a chest-toupee for those who want to show a little hair in their man-cleavage.

But then it gets to the radioactive codpiece, the "rectorooter" for, um, unclogging blockage in your butt-plumbing, and the spikey-things to wear around your penis in order to prevent self-abuse. Or erections, period.

And then, for some reason, it just lists "Thomas Newton." Not really sure what that's all about.

Posted by: Ace at 06:05 PM | Comments (17)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Patterico just tipped me this.

The porn collection features naked women painted as cows, apparently. Something Patterico just added as an update. Plus masturbation and other fun stuff.

I actually skipped this story when I saw the headline hours ago, and also when I saw it on Hot Air, because I thought (wrongly) this was just an exhibit meant for a case, or evidence in an obscenity trial, which the public had managed to access.

Nope. It's his personal porn stash. Online, so he can share with selected friends.

Which circuit?

The Ninth Circus, of course.

Of Course, of Course... Buzz writes--

Before people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about start railing about Kozinski, he is a well known conservative judge whose name has been bandied about as a Supreme Court nominee. The 9th Circuit is terrible but it would be a lot worse without him.

Wonderful. How did I not manage to see that coming.

Guess we're not going to have to play Guess That Party on this one, huh?

The Judge Responds: He says it was a family site for family type pics, but his son uploaded some raunchy stuff.

I don't know. Sounds plausible, but I can't help thinking it's kind of convenient.

DrewM points out that he's currently benching an obscenity trial. Should he recuse himself? Of course he should. Under the circumstances no matter which way he rules on any point there will be plausible complaints of him being compromised -- either he's giving the defendant an easy time to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, or he's giving the defendant too hard a time to prove he's no porn-lover.

Posted by: Ace at 04:52 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Well it's mostly her dweeby Eurobad male friends who say it, but she introduces them, and who can argue with her?

The whole rumor has something to do with "Net Neutrality" (which, by the way, I still do not really understand, even at this late date), and ISP's supposed plan to turn the Internet into a pay-per-click subscription model with only some access to big corporate sites and no access at all for most other sites.

I'm not going to bother putting up the link, but you can read about it on noted paranoid maniac and Truther Alex Jones' "infowars" site.

Gold standard, baby.

On the other hand... Her cleavage is like the hyperspace montage at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's... it's full of stars...!

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 04:39 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

They... did vow to reduce gas prices before 2006, right? Back when they were at the discount price of $2.55 per gallon, right?

Fifty miles off coast. Over the horizon. Invisible.

But we can't drill there.

Just because.

Accountability. It's for the Little People.

A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.

Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.

But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.

...

Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.

For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."

"I'm disappointed. I did not expect a partisan vote today. I felt we had a chance of winning this. A lot of Democrats have been talking favorably about my amendment. They know we have to do something. But today was an absolute show of Pelosi power, it was dealt from the top down," Peterson said later, speaking with FOX News, adding he was open to other energy solutions, including wind and solar power.

According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.

...

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."

Question that seems over-the-top but is actually seriously posed:

Are the Democrats actively trying to drive the country into recession to increase their control of government?

Consider that current oil prices are high due mostly supply and demand, but also due to speculation/fear. There is ever increasing demand and yet no additional supply coming on line in the near future. Most oil-rich countries are pumping as much as they realistically can, or have decided to to not pump so much in order to drive up prices. And the US, meanwhile, flatly refuses to increase its own production.

So there is no downward pressure on future oil prices. All the indicators point up.

It could be that a tweak here and there -- a show that the US will react to soaring oil prices by expanding production -- would pop the speculative balloon that's responsible for, oh, who knows, maybe $25-50 of the cost per barrel of oil. Sensing downside pressure on the prices, the speculators would be more cautious about always bidding up the cost of oil.

But the Democrats seem pretty united on the principle that nothing shall be done to lower the cost of oil.

So far, the US has managed to weather the huge increase in energy prices without slipping into recession. There is a limit, however, to how much such a basic cost of industry and business can rise before the economy reacts violently by reducing output and shedding jobs.

And the Democrats are pushing us right to that point.

They don't have to worry that they'll be blamed for their actions. They have their Liberal Media Spirit Squad to make sure the public believes that oil company profits are solely responsible for the doubling of oil prices over two years.

Posted by: Ace at 04:27 PM | Comments (71)
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.

It turns out it comes from baedling, an effeminate, womanly fellow, and maybe a pederast.

I only now understand the Old Bailey transcript calling Thomas Newton "a Bad Ass of the First Order" and a "Bad Ass who made even the other Bad Asses of the Molly-House tremble and quake with Trepidation most dire."

He Was Just Trying to Warn Us:

If only more California parents had been fluent in Old English.

Thanks to JackM. for that connection.

Posted by: Ace at 03:44 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Must read.

All public comment on this rule -- which demands "diversity" for each radio station based on "localism," that is, based on the racial/cultural make-up of each market -- ends the day after tomorrow, the 11th. Correction: Duh, whoops, today is the 11th. Comment has already ended, I guess.

It's obviously designed to end national syndication of Evil White Radio Hosts who actually have an audience.

If, say, WABC in NYC is required to have near-perfect racial/cultural balance... well, obviously it can't have most of the programming day featuring Rush, Hannity, and Imus. It will have to jettison three or four or five hosts to achieve "diversity" by the "localism" standard.

Furthermore, these new shows will of course not attract an audience (there's a reason WABC dominates the ratings), and thus WABC might not be able to even carry just Limbaugh (along with a sufficiently "diverse" cast), because a radio station can't survive on a single profitable three-hour slot.

Even though (again to use WABC as an example) the station could try to fill its diversity slots with interesting conservative hosts from the appropriate groups, the fact is, as of yet there just aren't a whole bunch of compelling black conservative radio hosts -- some, but not nearly enough if every single individual radio station is required to make quota hires or else forfeit its license.

Posted by: Ace at 03:27 PM | Comments (35)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

And yet precisely that call for a definite, immediate withdrawal is currently up on his website. But see correction below.

What? Did Obama just actually throw his central campaign pledge under the bus, too?

Is Obama's policy on the central war and peace issue of our time now officially a "distraction" to "what really matters" now?

At what point do people realize this isn't nuance so much as incoherence, stupidity, laziness, "intellectual incuriosity," and simple deception?

The guy pushed the whole Democrat Party to the hard left on immediate unconditional withdrawals (and triumphed partly due to that hardline stupidity) and now he's claiming (as of April 5 of this year) that he's actually in favor of victory first? Correction; see below.

The Lord talks in mysterious ways.

Correction: The YouTube clip actually says this interview is from April 5th, 2004, not this current year as Captain Ed at Hot Air says.

I'm not sure if that's a simple mistake by the Captain or he knows better. For the moment, it seems like an error, and I'm correcting it.

Thanks to Benson.

More Definitive This Time: It was an error. I'm sorry for it. Should have checked before posting. Thanks for straightening out my loose shit.

I'd love to salvage this and say it still says something about Obama's honesty and all that but I don't think I can. This is from four years ago, before the insurgency got a real head of steam behind it.

Obama's current judgment is still woeful. He still wants us to bug out immediately, damn the consequences, though we could pretty much as easily bug out after actually winning the war, completely, finally, irrevocably.

But a clip from 2004 doesn't really say much about that.

Except that his vaunted "judgment" was far better in 2004, and he only began "leading" the Surrender Immediately movement once public opinion was sufficiently far enough ahead of him that he could safely "lead" from the rear.

Snark: from the comments --

This is not the me that I knew.

-- Barack Obama

Heh.

Posted by: Ace at 01:04 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.

If I'd just added as an update, no one would have seen it.

Again, Slublog.

He actually likes this version better:

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:51 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.