Over in the sidebar is an item about the "Wasp" blade, which injects the victim (once stabbed, and once you hit a button) with freezing gas which freezes their internal organs.

Here's a video of that, as demonstrated on a watermelon. Pretty nasty, but I'm wondering why they don't show that the watermelon's "guts" are in fact frozen.

And I don't know -- if you plunge a knife six inches into someone's chest, do you really need to follow that up by freezing his heart? Hell, freezing his heart might count as "emergency medicine" at that point. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:34 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Tales of economic woe are always sad. Despite the fact that the 40 year old woman in the story never worked, ever, it's sad that she's in the state she's in.

I'm not heartless. True, she made bad choices, but it's sad that she's suffering from their consequences.

However. That bit about being unable to afford food? Well, maybe.

As a believer in Atkins, I don't find the irony quite as ridiculous as some of you might. Meat/protein costs more money than carbs, which are ultra cheap, and carbs, I think, lead to obesity. As someone who's (mostly) on Atkins, I pay a lot more for food than most. Even low-cost proteins like tuna are kind of expensive, compared to say, mac and cheese.

That caveat aside... I don't think I'm buying that that these women can't afford food.

Not really a knock on them, but rather on NPR, which is apparently too lazy to find people who can better model the season's fashion of politically-useful victimhood.

Thanks to Dave @ Garfield Ridge.

Incidentally, having mentioned Atkins, a big study, long-term and with lots of test subjects, just proved that not only is the diet very effective at controlling weight, it's also good at reducing cholesterol.

That's a big thing, that last part. Conventional nutritionists always warn away from the diet claiming that, despite its proven ability to drop pounds, it results (or should result, based on conventional theories) in skyrocketing cholesterol and thus cardio-vascular disease. Not so, apparently.

Thanks to Jenjhis for that.

Posted by: Ace at 02:26 PM | Comments (109)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

(Yes, there's no name attached to this. Like I want to tell YOU that I'm shopping for firearms.)

Given the nature of this blog's readership, I'm going to guess that a fair number of you not only own handguns, but are quite opinionated about which ones are the best to buy.

So help me pick a handgun, pretty please. more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 01:38 PM | Comments (232)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems to undercut John McCain -- and it will certainly play out that way -- but Allah explains why it doesn't, assuming you know what they're really talking about.

The trouble is, most people won't know that, or won't bother to learn.

The agreement, reached during a video conference Thursday between Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, marks a dramatic shift for the Bush administration, which for years has condemned any talk of timetables for withdrawalÂ…

“In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals,” the statement said. It said those goals include turning over more control to Iraqi security forces and “the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”

The statement continued: “The president and prime minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal.”

Here's Allah:

[T]he objection to a timetable has never been that it’s wrong under every circumstance; it’s that it’s wrong when there’s an enemy around capable of taking advantage of it. If security really has improved to the point where troops in Baghdad are complaining that they’re bored and people who know what they’re talking about are wondering if the war is over, then what exactly is the objection now to a hazy “time horizon” for withdrawing some people, particularly when both parties agree that Afghanistan needs help? If Obama’s plan was to crush the militias and then set a schedule for leaving, no one on the right would have a problem with it.

Yes, well, the right's position has never been "stay forever, no matter what." Our position has always been "stay until victory (or, for those wavering among us, stay at least until it is absolutely clear victory is impossible), and then get out."

Who the hell has ever argued otherwise? We've said a million times we do in fact have an exit strategy: Victory. And, it seems, that exit strategy will actually result in a quicker exit from Iraq, with far fewer casualties suffered by US troops, let alone Iraqis, than Obama's "plan."

If Obama's plan had been adopted, we'd still have a lot of troops in Iraq, withdrawing them brigade by brigade, but they would be suffering the casualty rate we saw in 2006-2007. And what would have in exchange for that higher number of US dead? A defeat in a major war.*

Again, though, the fact that we've effectively won (or at least 90% of the way towards an effective victory; we're no longer at the end of the beginning, nor even the beginning of the end, but are actually somewhat close to the end of the end) seems to play into Obama's hands. Obama, the dude whose vaunted "judgment" was to lose a major war that could be won. Obama, the dude who still wants to attempt to lose the war if it's at all possible, just to satisfy the hard-left's need for a chastened America and a defeated Bush.

It's kind of crazy that it does, but then, I guess liberals thought it was kinda crazy that Bush got mad support from the public despite not stopping 9/11.

* Actually, now that I think about it, that's kind of a huge point, and one McCain ought to begin hammering at every single campaign or media appearance.

Posted by: Ace at 12:19 PM | Comments (23)
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

Sorry for the having two comic-book movie posts so close together, but The Dark Knight is, in the estimation of most, not even a comic book movie per se -- it's an epic crime drama being compared, seriously, to The Godfather Part II or Scorcese's epics.

It's fairly rare that a movie gets this kind of universal and passionate acclaim, and it's unheard of that a superhero movie gets it. It's bewildering to me that a large number of critics are calling it a masterpiece, and they don't just mean a masterpiece in the superhero genre, they mean masterpiece period. The way the reviews read, there's a good chance that the film will be nominated for a host of awards, including Best Picture, and, who knows, in a weak year could sweep them the way Gladiator or Silence of the Lambs did (despite both being from the disfavored "genre" category of movies).

One big problem: The film not only uses Batman's best villain, The Joker, but stupidly makes great use of Batman's second-best villain, Two-Face, perhaps exhausting the possibilities of that character, just to gild a lily that was already pretty golden anyway. I'm guessing that they were thinking this would be their Empire Strikes Back, and that the ultimate showdown with The Joker would occur in the third movie.

But now that Heath Ledger's dead, what the hell do they do for that next movie? It is obvious that, given the praise Ledger is getting, they cannot replace him. They've now exhausted the possibilities of four of Batman's most interesting, more realistic foes (Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, The Joker, Two-Face), for some reason choosing to stick to the two villain formula that didn't work when Burton and Shumacher were in charge.

So what's next? Bring in King Tut? Calendar Man? Batman has a great rogue's gallery, but still, there are only so many tip-top villains, and the Nolan's have unwisely burned through most of them in just two films. All that's left are some joke villains (Riddler, Penguin), a love interest who's not even really a villain (Catwoman), a couple of villains who have some limited potential but are associated with the disastrous Batman and Robin (Mr. Freeze, Bane, maybe Poison Ivy), and then a host of also rans from the comics like Clayface and Killer Croc and The Mad Hatter and Man-Bat.

Oh, the Politics: Based on reading pretty much every review out there, the movie is strongly 9/11 and terrorism themed, and deliberately so. The Joker is explicitly called a terrorist, and, like bin Ladin, his terrorism seems without any motive except to, well, terrify and cause chaos. And he blows up a lot of buildings, including by suicide bomb.

The movie also includes a FISA/eavesdropping subplot -- Batman basically bugging the entire city -- and a torture or "torture" sequence -- Batman beating the living shit out of a confined and helpless Joker to get crucial information about his next victims.

In addition, there are almost no CGI additions to the Chicago cityscape; the movie clearly takes place in a real-world city that looks like a real-world city. So, they deliberately eschewed the hypergothic flourishes to make it clear that this wasn't taking place in a fantasy world, but in the real world.

However, it also seems the movie doesn't pontificate upon such practices so much as just "raise questions" and let the audience answer them. One reviewer noted the questions, for example, and was left wondering if the movie was criticizing such tactics or "cheerleading" for them. Another noted the movie doesn't push politics; it assumes you have your own coming in, and doesn't attempt to change them so much as explore the issues. The ambiguity here is not just a wise financial choice, but a wise dramatic one; questions are almost always more interesting than actual answers. From what I've read, the question is left hanging: Sure, all these things are bad in principle, but when you're up against a demonic evangelist of murder like The Joker, what other choice do you have?

I can't be sure, but the impression I get that is that Batman can easily be viewed as an analogue for any hardcore terrorist hunter, and while the movie may question the tactics, it's hard to make your actual hero the villain. Whether the movie comes down against Batman, ultimately, it seems difficult to imagine how the movie can make its hero clearly a villain; even if you don't agree with what Batman does, you at least understand why he feels the need to do them.

Hopefully that's the way the movie actually plays it, and it's not just liberal critics soft-pedaling the film's politics in order to 1) help a liberal movie get box office and 2) trick conservatives into seeing a comic-book movie in which they will "learn lessons" and come out as Obama voters.

Record-Breaking Midnight Sneak: $18 million made from midnight shows last night edges out Star Wars, Episode III, which made $17 million.

More on Politics: From people who've actually seen the movie.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 2114 words, total size 13 kb.

Let's make this perfectly crystal-fuckin' clear: You all suck.

I've never seen such a collection of monobrows, harelips, tiny heads, and mismatched eyes in all my life. And I've seen all of The Muppets movies.

FLAAAAAAME WAAAAAARRRR!!

PS: Your mom has had more sailors inside than the USS Abraham Lincoln.

PPS: Please leave your flames on the new site (ace.new.mu.nu) because the order of the comments- and the ability to see all of them- is kind of central to the whole flamewar concept.

Idiots.

Posted by: LauraW at 10:58 AM | Comments (267)
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm guessing he won't be throwing himself under the bus for this later.

He also said Obama had the “most extreme” record in the Senate.

Asked later if he thought Obama was an extremist, McCain said: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”

Does McCain think Obama is a socialist? “I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”

Has it dawned on McCain that he might just need some conservative votes after all and that drawing some pretty sharp contrasts between him and Obama on an issue other than Iraq might be helpful?

Of course my excitment at McCain's near use of the 's' word is tempered by my dislike for his cap and trade scheme. Yes, I know it's not a socialist policy per se but it's still a huge regulatory burden on the economy.

Still, firing up the economic wing of the coalition is a good thing. Will he keep at it or backtrack when the inevitable whining about name calling begins?

Posted by: DrewM at 09:55 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

Uber-columnist Charles Krauthammer asks "Who does Obama think he is?"

Our AOSHQ artistic director answers:

Heart of Obama, most worthy of all praise.
Heart of Obama, King and center of all hearts.
Heart of Obama, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Have mercy. Please.

Krauthammer focuses on the absence of noteworthy achievements in Obama's short careers as a law professor and politician and holds up Obama's book about himself as an example of vanity. Read the whole thing. But to be fair, if a sizeable chunk of America were hailing me as their long-awaited savior, I might get a little confused too. Sure, most of the problem lies with me. But you've got to wonder what the hell is wrong with them, right?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:15 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Let no stereotype go unmentioned.

Kinda cute. Especially Obambi on a unicorn.

Who saw that coming? Not me. Not me.

UPDATED: Called to task by PJM, and she's right, I did see it here first. My bad.

I think this one's a little better...some of you have seen it. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:44 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay, so I'm still interested in this movie, despite how boring and ponderous the trailer is.

The Smashing Pumpkins dickhead droning on and on doesn't help.

The comic is way overpraised (Rorshach is interesting enough, but of course he's just The Question with a different mask, and otherwise the comic is meh), but it's directed by Zack Snyder, who did 300 and Dawn of the Dead, and he hasn't made a less-than-good movie yet.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:50 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.