Via Andy Levy's Twitter, some raves for the movie about the blue muppet creatures.

The movie is, obviously, an agent-gone-native-and-adopting-their-culture-and-fighting-against-his-onetime-allies story. The Last SIMurai or Dances With Smurfs.

That's a good story and all, and can be interesting and everything.

But I do have a joking question. This is snarky crap. I don't really intend this as serious nitpickery.

But... have the people who sent this guy on this mission ever seen The Last Samurai or Dances With Wolves? Because in the trailer, his superior officers are shocked he's gone native and joined the Indians.

Well, here's the thing: On earth, as a human, he was crippled. You gave him a new, blue alien body in which he regained the power to walk. And not just walk, but virtually fly.

You trained him to think just like those aliens.

So now here he is on an alien planet, with a fully functioning body, albeit a blue one, and now he can only mate with other blue-bodied creatures.

Creatures you are trying to eradicate, so you can build some kind of transplanetary strip-mall or something.

Excuse me, guys? What did you think he was going to do? People have switched teams for far less.

Posted by: Ace at 04:11 PM | Comments (214)
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, really, but it's not quite that bad. Under the headline:

The Recession's Sliver Lining

Ah. Yet another silver lining.

The headline is decidedly insensitive, but the article is slightly less so. I assume.

To be honest I don't know what the hell it's about; it's a typically confused feminist screed about something or other. I don't really know. Ask this guy, maybe he does. I assume the headline was just intended to be a catchy, provocative little "pun" or something, probably about how men can really help working moms in these tough economic times. (What does that have to do with unemployed families then, I wonder?)

But notice how aggressive and insensitive they were willing to be to the unemployed to sell their story.

The headline has since been changed, apparently -- now it's Families Need to Man Up.

Isn't it funny that Newsweek takes this position when the unemployed are not a club to be used against a president they disfavor, but instead a source of problems for a president they do favor.

Notice how quickly their view of such people shifts from sympathetic to hostile.

Again, I have no idea really what this article says. I did in fact attempt to read it and saw a great amount of whining by a woman about balancing job and family.

What is she talking about? Look, you guys pay me a salary, but you don't pay me enough to figure out what this addledpated harpy is going on about.

The key thing for me is the headline -- Man Up, Losers -- and of course that silver-lining subhed.

Posted by: Ace at 03:52 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

High-Value, but not Osama, and also not Al-Zawahiri.

Posted by: Ace at 03:28 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Get jiggy with blather.

Not Obama himself -- although that is clearly what the quote implies -- but the idea of him, whatever that means.

Incidentally, Braniac, the Living Computer (TM), just emailed me: "I'm startin' to feel like Susan Lucci here, guys."

No, but seriously: Why would I listen to a self-declared, proudly-admitted "Nazi" like Will Smith?*

* Technically, to be strictly accurate, he said he was "Grammar Nazi," meaning he is very persnickety and prescriptivist about grammar and usage and pronunciation, but the point stands.

Damnit, I'm not going to give credence to anyone who freely associates himself with scourge of humanity and the monster that was Adolf Hitler.

Oh, and now he's talking about the evolution of humanity?

We've heard this dark song before, Will. Or should I say: "Wilhelm"...?

More: The "Idea" of Barack Obama Attends a Nobel Ceremony in the Form of a Cardboard Cutout. The "idea" constituted a flash-point which sadly set the light-guy ablaze.

The pic of the cardboard cutout is here, at bottom; look past the girls to the far right of the picture, where you'll see Captain Wonderful with his arms crossed.

Posted by: Ace at 03:16 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Gore condescendingly dinged her. She dinged back.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that itÂ’s sort of like gravity: you simply canÂ’t deny it.

Incidentally, I don't know if Sarah Palin really believes in AGW to the extent she says. She seems to say she does believe man's activities may be affecting the environment, but then shoots down Copenhagen on cost/benefit principles.

Does she really believe in it as much as she says?

See, it doesn't matter. I kind of think she doesn't believe in it this much at all and is just saying she does. Which is the right thing to do. Belief in man-made global warming may be at an all-time low in the US, but it's still at 49% (IIRC). Forty-nine percent. Even with all this stuff being revealed, it's at 49%. And the opposition is only at something like 27%. "Not sure" makes up the rest.

We can comfort ourselves with the "not sure" but the "not sures" are in fact "not sure" and since they themselves don't know what the hell is going on or which way is up, they take comfort in politicians who present themselves as open-minded, or, actually, clueless, as they themselves are.

They don't know. They like their politicians not to know. Makes no sense, maybe -- wouldn't you rather have a politician who kind of had a well-informed opinion -- but obviously these "not sures" aren't ready to commit to the skeptic's side of things, or else they'd say so in polls.

So what I'm trying to say is: People beat up on conservative politicians for paying lip-service to this abject nonsense. Partisans get angry when politicians do not stake out ground closer to a true leadership position, out in front of the issue, making the points the partisans wish them to make.

But that's unrealistic and unwise. As I've said, politicians lead from the middle. If they're smart, they do. When they are on the losing side of an issue -- and yes, at this point, the skeptics are still on the losing side -- you can't really be out in front and swinging away as you can when you're on the winning, popular side.

So my point is: 1) Give Sarah Palin a break here. But I know that most people -- especially Palin fans -- are already doing that. So my real point is 2) Also give other conservative politicians a break here.

Don't focus endlessly on the "one one hand, on the other hand" nods in the direction of global-warming alarmism they might make. They are playing to the "not sures."

Separate rhetoric from concrete policy statements. And in the end, where philosophy meets the real world in the form of policy, they say something like, "This is such a cataclysmic risk to the Earth that we should immediately spend $3 billion to study it for five years and come up with recommendations about how to mitigate it," don't get mad that they just proposed wasting three billion dollars.

Take satisfaction in the fact that what they are really saying is that it is worth three billion dollars of wasted money to appease the "not sures" and convince them we're really doing something about this -- hey, we're "studying" it with an eye to "recommendations" -- in order to halt the true cataclysmic threat to earth, the takeover of the world economy by UN kleptocrats and the massive destruction of wealth necessary to, basically, cut industry in half. (And never you mind about agriculture...)

Just sayin': There are fights you can win and fights you can delay, until maybe you can win them. The military thinks in these terms when it contemplates multifront wars: Some are true "Fights," others will have to merely be "Holds."

I am obviously a true-blue skeptic and I'll match my hardcore purity on this particular issue against anyone's.

You think you're harder core than me? The only person I acknowledge is harder core is a commenter, who I respect, but who's pushing the idea that this is all a big conspiracy to impose world socialism, funded by the Club of Rome. I'm not even nearly ready to go there. As you know I flinch from conspiracy.

But, apart from that guy, who definitely is a slightly more hardcore than me, at least as regards intent and conspiracy, I'm not buying anyone who comes in and tells me I'm not firm enough on principle here.

I am firm on principle. I am slightly more firm on tangible, real, real-world results and outcomes.

What I definitely don't want is a candidate who is as Simon Pure as me who winds up losing due to the fact she's actually on the right side of the issue and thereby ushers in an apocalyptic destruction of world prosperity.

If it takes a bit of strategic horseshit and the wasting of a few billion (who counts in billions anymore, anyway?) to stop this calamity, hey: I am Simon Pure on the notion that we must not destroy the world economy just so that a bunch of worrywort eco-twits can vaguely feel like they're saving a tree or a polar bear.

BTW: This is why I always get angry in these philosphical purity type arguments.

I don't mind the contrary argument: That we can, in fact, get better real-world results if we say what we mean and mean what we say. I disagree with that -- like, I so totally disagree with that; I say, "Welcome to Planet Earth where lying gets you paid and honesty gets you fired" -- but I am more than willing to have a civil discussion about that, about tactics.

Where I get mad is when I start getting the imputation of bad faith, and the suggestion I'm a sell-out, and being told I want to lose on these issues because that will keep getting me invited to cocktail parties I have never in my entire life been invited to.

There it stops being about tactics -- an impersonal, interesting discussion -- and starts being a personal discussion about my integrity.

And I get mad, because really, I think while other people are discussing la-di-dah philosophy and crap that wins elections on, perhaps, Planet Venus, Where the Dinosaurs Are, I'm talking about how to win right here right now in reality, on earth.

It's not that I mind being told I'm wrong. But I do mind being told that I'm deliberately attempting to undermine the cause and lose because, hey, at heart I'm a blue-state liberal.

The hell with that. I want to win, and damnit, I am willing to lie to do so.

I could give a crap about lying to the "not sures." They're not sure. They're uninformed boobs. They have no firm opinions so if I have to trick them into supporting mine, what have they lost? Not a goddamned thing.

Anyway, sorry for that rant. If you think that saying what you mean and meaning what you say is always the way to win elections, that's fine, and I appreciate that you have a sort of... well, I would call it a sort of quixotic belief in the fundamental fairness of the world and the power of honesty and plain talk.

I don't. I think people are faddish and shallow and largely uninformed and apathetic and too soft to make hard decisions and like parroting a pile of nonsense they hear from Oprah and other swell celebrity types.

This is an argument about tactics, most of the time, and how to reach outcomes, not whether those outcomes are worthy ones.

The polls tell me the stupid "not sures" want a candidate who says she too is "not sure" about global warming, and would like reassurance that she is "taking it seriously, with an open mind," but would also like a candidate who ultimately says "but I don't want to destroy the economy over it."

And I say: Give them that candidate. As Obama said today, "I face the world as it is."

You guys may be right that firm persuasion on the honest case against this nonsense is the right tactic. You may be right. But don't question my motives if I don't disagree.

You can question my fidelity to honesty -- I just flat-out admitted I kind of want my dream candidate to lie her ass off -- and how jaded and cynical and corrupt I am.

I just admitted all that. I am all that.

But less of this "you want to sell us out" nonsense. No, I don't want to sell us out, I just think some of you are a bit overly fond of the conceit that good behavior and honesty are rewarded in politics.

Palin Leading From A Bit Closer to the Front Than the Middle: A commenter points out Palin says:

"I just donÂ’t think we can primarily blame manÂ’s activities for the earthÂ’s cyclical weather changes."

And that does, in fact, mean she is among the purest on this issue. She is closest to the truth out of most politicians. Only an Inhofe can really beat her.

So yeah, you're right, she is actually not just mouthing platitudes alone; she's actually kind of near the front on this, really leading. I guess maybe I'd prefer if she weren't so out in front on it; but kudos for her for being there.

But still my point is there: She is still "open-minded," she implies, that man may be affecting the environment (a smart enough answer, it being true; we can't disprove that either) and she says man can't be primarily blamed for the earth's natural cyclical changes.

That is a small nod to "not sures." She also denies being a "denier."

So, actually, maybe my point is overstated, at least as far as using Palin as an example of strategic twaddle; she uses less of it than I at first thought.

Still, I think some twaddle is useful -- look how much mileage the Democrats get out of weapons-grade twaddle -- and I would still advise people to not beat hell out of would-be candidates who sing pretty songs about the trees and polar bears. So long as, at the end of the day, their big policy initiative is to "appoint a blue-panel expert ad-hoc commission" to "study the problem" for "a decade or two."

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (291)
Post contains 1928 words, total size 11 kb.

DEVASTATING. ICE. CORE. EVIDENCE..

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 01:00 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Update: Okay, it appears there is a bad script in some ad that is in the rotation here (or was), and has appeared on other sites.

I can't confirm all this at the moment, but it seems legit.

One commenter writes:

Hasn't happened to me, but it sounds like one of those ads selling security or scanning software that pop up and do a fake scan of your machine and then tell you that they found a virus, but it's bullshit, there's no virus or trojan, they're just trying to get you to but their secrity/scanning crap. And it usually looks like like Microsoft stuff even though it's not.

Brother Bewapitis says do not just click the "X" to close the pop-up; it wants you to do that. He says:

use Task Manager, go to Applications, select all of the internet explorer applications and hit End Task for each one.

You may or may not have it at that point. You'll know because it'll bombard you with popups, block your real antivirus program from working, block antivirus update websites, and tell you that if you pay for the full version of their "program" you will be able to use the uninstall feature.

It will also try to launch your webbrowser and log onto porn and other sites that will further damage your computer so you can unplug your internet connection too till you know whats going on.

erik writes:

It's a pain to get rid of - and it starts opening random sites as well. When booting into windows, ctrl-alt-delete right when you login (before the spyware has a chance to load). Go to processes and kill it (it won't allow you to install spyware killers while it's running). Then install spybot search and destroy. Ace - I don't know which ad it is, but it's in the rotation. I got it over at HA.

Okay, the big thing here is that it's going to keep telling you you have a virus and asking you if you want to fix it.

At this point, do not interact with the program. Go into Task Manager, kill it, and shut down the computer, but be prepared to interrupt the startup and start in safe mode. Then, I guess (see, I don't know how this works) you have to load up Search and Destroy anti-spyware stuff.

Actually, can someone like really take me step by step through this and explain exactly what to do? I am guessing here. I want to post exactly what to do to defeat this. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:25 PM | Comments (221)
Post contains 584 words, total size 3 kb.

That's a quote from Ghostbusters 2. It applies so perfectly to so many situations.

He should have said that, and accepted the prize on behalf of the real peacemakers, the men and women of the United States armed forces.

But of course he didn't. He did say "I face the world as it is," which is hardly Churchillian, or even Venkmanian, in resolve. Rather than setting his chin against the enemy, Obama gives them a resigned shrug. Sounds like a 16 year old girl: "Yeahhh.... see, I sort of surged troops into Afghanistan. (exaggerated cringey face) Do you hate me?"

In related news, Obama homogenized his two wars with a cute story about a labrador retriever that "adopted" three adorable bunny-babies.

I find it impossible to pretend that Obama's words mean anything but Tom Maguire and AllahPundit do a good job of playing along.

Here's some meaninglessness for you:

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

I would say something about this being an example of socialist utopianism but I really think it's about as meaningful as a baby's burp.

Posted by: Ace at 11:26 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

But I'll put it up anyway, because it's pretty good.

The doctor informs the patient that the baby inside her is just a fetus "and not anything like a baby," at least after he homogenizes it with the stapler and hole-puncher on his desk.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (43)
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, it's kind of like homogenizin', in the sense we are "adjusting" numbers based on what feels right. In this poll, CBS/NYT got 7% more Democrats than Republicans, and that didn't seem right to them... so they weighted the two so that the Democrats had a nine point edge.

Result? They keep Obama at 50%, and only that.

resident ObamaÂ’s job approval rating sits at 50 percent in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, the lowest level it has reached in CBS News polling.

...

In April, Mr. ObamaÂ’s approval rating was 68 percent. By August, it was down to 56 percent. It dropped to 53 percent last month before falling another three points in the latest poll.

...

Americans cite the economy as the issue most important to them, and on that issue the presidentÂ’s approval rating has been in decline. It now sits at 47 percent, down two points from last month and down seven points from October.

I don't get the weighting. When Gallup says "We don't weight for party ID," I defend them, because their argument -- "Party ID is not fixed; it shifts frequently" -- seems sound.

When Rasmussen does weight, I also agree with that, because while party ID shifts, sometimes a poll just plainly gets too many of one party or the other, and some weighting seems in order.

What I don't get is when a poll shows a 7% party ID advantage for Democrats, which is actually higher than Gallup's last poll indicated (they found a 6% advantage), and CBS/NYT decides to "correct" it... up to 9% advantage.

Next revelation: The GHCN temperature history for Seattle has been "homgenized" with CBS/NTY's polling. In the homogenization process, where the two completely different data sets are "averaged," both temperature and Democrat Party ID went up, and now, in fact, threaten to destroy the earth.

CNN Generic Ballot? Democrats By a Single Point. Oooofaaa.

And: opposition to ObamaCare hits 60%.

More at the link.

Giggle: Poll finds Savior of Mankind preferred by narrow margin, 50%-44%, over the Prince of Lies George Bush.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.