Before I begin banning people, for real and not by error, I will once again state the caution that a lot of people ignore:

If you have a racial axe to grind, if you are kind of pissed off about minorities, stop posting on the subject. You are embarrassing yourselves, you are embarrassing me, you are embarrassing everyone else here.

If you think that I am secretly winking at you telling you I just hit the Racism Button and it's okay to start with the racial jibes, you are wrong.

If you think I am your secret racist buddy, who speaks in "code" but you "get" what I'm really saying, you are wrong. I hate you. I despise you.

I am tired of the people who whoop it up saying "Yeah, Ace, go get 'em! Tell those liberals that racism is a myth perpetrated by the liberal establishment media!" right before deciding it's the perfect time to compose a post in stupid ebonics, or to denigrate black people's looks, or the rest of it.

I am tired of people joining my tirade against Eugene Robinson for seeing everything through the prism of race right before themselves posting completely through the prism of race.

I'm tired of it. I won't be having it.

The banhammer is coming out, because I am tired of a few nasty racists making life unpleasant for everyone else.

Just another note of when the banhammer is coming: Knock it off on the gay "jokes" that contain no joke except for laughing at people for being gay. What I mean is: When any post goes up about, say, Andrew Sulllivan, "jokes" begin that aren't really jokes at all; it's just speaking nastily and in a demeaning way about gays.

There are gay jokes I don't mind. But they are, in fact, jokes, and not merely resentments and anger vented in a supposedly "amusing" fashion.

This fashion is never actually amusing; people just say nasty things and say "But I was joking!"

Well, no you weren't, you were perfectly serious, you were expressing your actual feelings with perfect accuracy. Your intent wasn't really to spread mirth, except for the lowest kind.

I know I've allowed a lot of this, and actually, let's be fair, encouraged it, so on this one, I take a lot of the blame, myself, and I can't really point fingers. But while I am to blame, I still want it cleaned up.

A "joke" is a joke when it's intent is to actually amuse. A safe joke about either homosexuality or race is safe when the object of the joke is not the age-old stereotypical resentments about such people, but some other target.

For example, when I am always saying I'm afraid of brown people, and I'm afraid of vaginas, I'm not actually making jokes about either target; I'm spoofing those who assert I have those fears. See? The target of the joke is not, in fact, the same old dreary targets from old racists and gay haters.

Now I alway carve out an exception for either. You can't fight the funny, I always say, and I do mean that: A "forbidden" joke I might let slide because even though it's forbidden, it's a damn fine joke.

All I can say about this last category is this: If no one is routinely complimenting you on your wit and humor, I can guarantee you with well-night 100% confidence that you are not, in fact, capable of crafting a joke so surprising and funny that is is acceptable despite being offensive and borderline edgy and homophobic.

You are almost certainly just trotting out the same old dreary, unfunny, insulting, hateful, unnecessarily offensive crap we've all heard a billion times before, the same ignorant crap that was funny in second grade because we didn't know any better.

As I have said before; Categorize yourself appropriately. If you are a genuine wit, okay, maybe you can afford to take some chances.

On the other hand, if you are just trotting out the same crap about gays having sex with other men (snicker, snicker!) and black people being this or that, you know what? Please save your "jokes." We have some funny people here and you are not counted in your number. Your "jokes" aren't jokes, they are angry and offensive statements you are smuggling in through the disguise of supposed levity, and they are not provoking grins and smiles, but grimaces.

For you guys, I will remind you: There are gays and blacks "on our side." They are your allies. They are, in a fake-pretend internet way, even your friends.

I am tired of seeing stuff that makes my friends cringe. I like my friends. I would like them not to cringe.

Stop it.

You're not funny, and you're not fooling anyone. And if this doesn't stop, you're also not posting here.

Here's a Test: Evaluate the two following statements in terms of humorousness.

1) Obama is the first president to turn the Rose Garden into the Watermelon Patch.

2) Andrew Sullivan probably can't think straight because his head is filled with semen.

Which one was funny?

Here's the answer: Neither was. If you found that either one had a certain humorous je ne sai qua, you are pitching extraordinarily low into the comedy strike zone; you are going into the dirt.

Now, save your "jokes" for some other sites, or some other friends who "get" your sense of humor, and leave the comedy to people with better appreciation of the strike zone and better control over their pitches.

Furthermore, if you really want to say this sort of thing, I really would appreciate it more if you stated it as a serious proposition. If you do this, it has two advantages:

1) You yourself will be confronted with what you're really saying, and may choose that perhaps it does not accurately reflect your thinking on the subject.

2) It spares me from having to go through this ridiculous "It was just a joke" crap.

I will not ban people -- promise -- for stating their anti-black and anti-gay resentments in a *serious* fashion. So long as they at least make the most basic efforts not to be utterly offensive in how they express it. Rather, I will take that as the opportunity for serious argument and discussion.

But I'm not going to put up with unfunny nastiness being smuggled in dishonestly in the form of alleged jokes.

If you want to peddle your grievances, then collect your thoughts, compose them, and express them in a serious fashion, so that you are aware of precisely what you are saying, and everyone else gets that you are quite serious.

Enough of this cowardly, chickenshit hiding behind "jokes." If you have something to say, say it proudly. And say it seriously.

Not to Embarass Anyone... Not to bring up anyone by name, but I have black in real life friends posting here.

I have gay real in life friends posting here.

Please compose your posts on these matters realizing that my friends include blacks and include gays. Ask "How would they react to this particular post? Would they be legitimately offended?"

If they would: Do not post it.

I do not want a site where I have to worry constantly about my real in life friends being disgusted or insulted by the comments.

Posted by: Ace at 12:32 PM | Comments (6006)
Post contains 1239 words, total size 7 kb.

Progress. We've gone from fact-checks of SNL parodies of Obama speeches to fact-checks of genuine Obama speeches.

Hey, it's something.

In President Barack Obama's hands, the $700 billion financial rescue fund offers a bit of bookkeeping magic: an opportunity to pay down the deficit while also spending more—thereby adding to it.

Under law, any paybacks to the bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program must be used to reduce the deficit. But in an economic speech on Tuesday, the president sought to have it both ways. Increased repayments from banks to the Treasury will reduce the deficit all right, but it will give Congress the budgetary room to spend more—and the president encouraged just that.

"There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other," Obama said. "But this is a false choice."

To be sure, governments spend money during recessions to prime the economy, and they must be wary not to pull back too soon or to spend too long. But TARP returns are required by law to be used for deficit reduction. Yet if banks can help lower the deficit through one program, Congress can bump it up elsewhere.

What's more, even under Obama's rosier expectations the $700 billion TARP would still add $141 billion to the deficit.

It wasn't the president's only attempt at having his cake and eating it, too, in his speech.

Slublog, I think, posted that on Twitter; Mary Katharine Ham remarked, "Is he still doing that 'some say' thing?"

Oh yes. Oh yes oh yes oh yes.

AHFF Geoff sends this recap:

[Obama] takes aim at his opposition party, blasting Bush-era deficits created by "many of the same people who are now waxing political about fiscal responsibility while opposing our efforts to reduce deficits by getting health care costs under control." (11:48 a.m.)

Uh huh. Right, right. The, uh, health care bill will, er, save us money. Still putting the eggs in that basket, I see.

The last year's economic failure, Obama says in closing, has also been a political failure, brought about by succumbing to "the bitterness of partisanship, to the prosaic concerns of politics, to ever-quickening news cycles, and to endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges." (11:49 a.m.)

Indeed, it has brought about succumbing to all that, as Obama should well know. He is Patient Zero.

So, to recap:

1. Obama has some budgetary magic beans. These can be spent multiple times, in multiple fashions. First, to pay down the deficit, then, to increase spending.

2. He also has some health-care magic beans. Once again, these beans can be used to increase spending on health care, and also magically reduce spending on health care.

3. "Some say" there is no such thing as magic beans and such people present to us the "false choice" of choosing between real beans and no beans at all.

4. There is some political partisanship afoot, and to reduce that political partisanship, Obama will blame his political opponents for the partisanship and not, say, his attempt to ram unpopular programs down the nation's throats, even at 55%+ levels of opposition.

5. Blame Bush.

That about cover it, President Einstein McDataSpock?

Thanks to Slublog and AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 AM | Comments (170)
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

The actual article is in some Scandi gutter-speak so I can't vouch for the translation.

Definitely does have "Terromistanke" right in the headline, though.

Maybe these guys are really just fans of Al Gore and wanted to reduce the planet's carbon footprint by blowing up jet-setting limo-cruising "Carbon Terrorists."

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (85)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Blood. Boiling.

Vid and full transcript at the Newsbusters link; here's the money.

SULLIVAN: That Harper Collins, a major publication has put out without any fact checking what so ever in order to make money. I find the whole thing just bizarre. I find the whole thing of a governor quitting in her first term when she wants to have a career, bizarre. There are so many bizarre questions including this extraordinary story of the birth of Trig, which is, on a basis, extraordinarily hard to believe the way she`s told it. Maybe there is some truth there that we don`t know fully know. Or she`s confusing --

BEHAR: What do you mean the way she`s told it? She gave birth to the baby --

SULLIVAN: You just don`t behave that way? No one behave that way.

BEHAR: Which way.

SULLIVAN: No one is eight months pregnant, thousands of miles away from home, as she says, in a hotel room in Dallas.

BEHAR: Oh, yes.

SULLIVAN: With a special needs child. Wakes up, bolt right up in bed, has a strange sensation low in her belly and tells the "Anchorage Daily News" that her water broke and doesn`t go to the hospital. No one does that.

BEHAR: Oh that`s a very interesting point.

SULLIVAN: Let alone, then give a speech, in her own book she says she gives a speech while she`s having contractions. She tells a joke in the speech.

BEHAR: I see.

SULLIVAN: She says, big laughs, more contractions.

BEHAR: Is no one investigating this? She`s getting a pass on a lot of things.

You know what's crazy? That whole Obama birth certificate thing.

This, on the other hand? Perfectly acceptable to vent on cable tv.

Thanks to Jim Treacher's Twitter.

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (162)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

With lots of bonus footage previously unseen. Link Problem: For some reason this link leads to a sketch about Tetris. Skp that and click on the next clip, the one about Tiger Woods.

Really, really damn funny.

Via AllahPundit's Twitter feed.

Where Are The Minority Women At? It's come to this.

As Ed says, you knew it was coming, but you expected it to come from an unhinged blogger with not a damn thing to do all day but contrive outrage.

Not from the Washington Post.

HereÂ’s my real question, though: WhatÂ’s with the whole Barbie thing?

No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women whoÂ’ve been linked to Woods resemble one another. IÂ’m talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.

This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story — and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn’t variety but some kind of validation.

I’m making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there’s no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods’s self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after — the “Playmate of the Month” type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard.

But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes — some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an “official” standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.

Oppressive to whom? The perfectly-qualified minority Denny's-Parking-Lot quick-slams that Tiger overlooked to have unsafe condom-free sex with?

Oppressive to them? Do they have a spokesman and a lobby? Have careers been cut short due to this failure of Tiger to broaden his strumpet candidate search?

Is ten minutes of sex with Tiger Woods a career? Well, you get paid; we know that. But is it a career?

His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious — a control freak even when he’s committing “transgressions.”

Why does Eugene Robinson hate white women?

Gee, a guy has a type he's attracted to. I'm just curious -- how many professional athletes are married to ugly women? Like, um, zero?

How come they don't sample the rich diversity in differing standards of female beauty?

I'm not saying black women are unattractive. I'm saying if a guy likes a type, he likes a type.

I can't believe this nonsense. It's now come to the point where there's a quota system for your skankwhores and pincushions. It's not that you violated your marital vows with so many women, Tiger: It's that you failed to implement a trained Diversity Outreach manager to select your nightcrawling guttertrollops and ensure you were drawing from a racially-conscious pool of talent.

One knock on bloggers -- and it's a valid one -- is that we sit around all day contriving nonsense to talk about, and aren't sufficiently "serious" about stuff, choosing to avoid the serious in favor of the quick, easy, and provocative.

Again: A knock on bloggers which is valid. A knock on myself which is valid.

But, darnit, that professional credentialed media is so, so much smarter and more serious. They exhibit such better judgment.

Don't they?

Don't they?

Am I, Too, Oppressed? How come all these women were willing to have semi-anonymous unprotected "frantic" and "desperate" sex with the same type of dude -- young, fairly handsome, professional athlete with a billion dollars?

Aren't I oppressed, too?

Why aren't these sorts of conventionally-attractive women more dedicated to the principles of diversity? When do they broaden their search criteria to include Ewok-looking bloggers with three cents in their bank accounts?

Four Words: Skankcrumpet. Diversity. Beer summit.

Alternate Headline: A commenter suggests the following:

WaPo: Tiger Woods Exposed as Serial Philanderer; Women, Minorities Least-Hardest Hit

Posted by: Ace at 09:19 AM | Comments (239)
Post contains 772 words, total size 5 kb.

Maybe they can get NPR to pressure Mara Liasson from mentioning Gallup.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs slammed Gallup's daily tracking poll on Tuesday after it showed President Obama's approval rating had fallen to 47 percent, the lowest approval rating for any president at this stage of his presidency dating back to President Harry S Truman.

"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in the morning, off-camera briefing with reporters. "Five days ago there was an eleven-point spread. Now there is a one-point spread. I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that."

...

Gibbs reference to an "eleven-point spread" between Obama's approval and disapproval rating "five days ago" cannot be found in Gallup's data. In a Nov 30-Dec. 2 survey, Gallup found Obama's approval at 51 percent and his disapproval at 42 percent. A Nov. 27-29 survey found the ratio to be 51 percent approval to 41 percent disapproval.

Gallup has tracked the president's approval throughout the year.

Despite the scope of Gallup's data and its reputation for professional political polling, Gibbs dismissed its survey.

"I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."

I pay so little attention to it I'm going whine about it for five minutes, and then I'm going to cite his "spread" from five days back and compare it to the current spread.

But understand, I pay no mind to this poll. None at all. I'll also note that Obama is still at 66% support among Latino women between the ages of 18 and 44 in the Gallup poll, and that his cross-tabs for white unmarried high-school educated women are still at a respectable 56%, which is something you ought to notice yourself, even though I was so busy ignoring this poll I didn't notice it myself at all. What am I talking about? I have no idea.

What is "Gallup"? Why are we talking about horses? Ahem, a little rimshot there. But seriously, I have never heard of this "Gallup poll" of which you speak. And it also has a 3.8% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval so what does it really mean?

Nothing, that's what.

Next question.

Posted by: Ace at 09:11 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Nick Popaditch, the 'Cigar Marine', is running to represent CA District 51, a very very blue part of a blue state.

Good lookin' guy. I'm just sayin'. Don't really care, just noting it out loud.
He looks good.

Video below the fold. more...

Posted by: LauraW at 08:00 AM | Comments (107)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Daaaang my numbers continue to look bad. So I ain't posting them. Here's the update from Ben.

buzzion 113
superfly TNT 110
Michael in MI 108
Red State NY 108
Peoples Republic of Baltimore 108
Svenster61 107
Nam Grunt 106
Truman the Greek 106
Aewl 105
Paranoid Polly 104
Carthago Delenda Est 104
Jay in Ames 104
Moneky Sleeping 104

Speaking of bad numbers near the end of your first season...Obama job approval rating at 47%, lowest since they started with Truman.

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:31 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Now more nuts than Planters!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:19 AM | Comments (246)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

As I eventually updated (and should have said so from jump street), Captain Savage's account, in which he's picking up cliched allies (the burly Texan who just wants to fix things straight, ma'am) and generally acting every inch the action hero as Muslim malefactors spit B-movie epithets at him ("infidel dog") and behave in manners he realizes are indicators of jihadism because "he's studied" turns out to have been dubious: This blog says that particular passenger missed that leg of his flight.

And if that's true, then he also missed out on putting his "studying" and preparing for just this moment into action. Something he maybe was determined to later cure through an email to a blog.

So, the skepticism on that particular account seems justified. There really was a strong whiff of Mack Bolan action-fantasy wish-fulfillment to that particular account.

On the other hand... Seems the entire flight crew got off the plane and declined the assignment, requiring a replacement crew.

It should also be noted that there are other accounts and other witnesses besides Phil "Fisticuffs" Murphy and his trusty right-hand Dr. Creighton "Tex" Slaughter.

Thanks to Drew for that update.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 PM | Comments (67)
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.