Here, but football's on.

Doesn't anyone like doing open blog anymore? Were my suggestions about it too restrictive and critical?

The Ravens/Titans game will be good. The Carolina/Cardinals game... I don't know. The Cardinals really don't seem like they should be in the playoffs. Nice upset last week, but... win one, lose one.

More below the fold [DrewM.] more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:05 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Gee, that's never come through in her fair and balanced reportage.

Posted by: Ace at 11:03 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

Shuster's big point? It's wrong of Ziegler to toss a candidate he likes softball questions and not "test her credibility."

Really?

Really, dude?

That's a pretty bold card for the Thrill Up My Leg network to play.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

They called the cops. She was arrested.

Why?

Well, look at the picture. (NSFL -- Not Safe for Lunch.)

She's currently writing a post on OKCupid calling policemen "big JERKS!"

Thanks to TMI3rd.

Posted by: Ace at 10:19 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Steven Moore of Club for Growth writes in the WSJ:

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

...

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

...

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Thanks to Arthur.

Posted by: Ace at 10:12 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Since its acquisition by News Corp., the Wall Street Journal opinion pages have been entertaining a wider set of views from the Left. Or, in this case a law professor so far left he's living in a different universe. Meet law professor George Bisharat.

Bisharat claims that Israel cannot currently be acting in self-defense because it did not suffered an "armed attack" immediately preceding its attack on Hamas. Consequently, according to Bisharat, Israel's war is a "war of aggression" and a "crime against peace." (Antisemitic Subtext: this is what the Nazis were prosecuted for at Nuremberg.)

He could not be more wrong. Hamas launched over seven thousand attacks on Israel in the past two years all with the aim of eventually destroying the Israeli state. Hamas' failure to follow through on its threats is irrelevant. Bisharat's lawyerly quibble that the attacks did not "immediately precede" Israeli self-defense is not found in international law. Hamas attacks were part of an ongoing quasi-military campaign against the state of Israel.

Under international humanitarian law (aka the law of international armed conflict), when a state of war exists between two parties, military action is justified. Bisharat would like to pretend that Israel is the aggressor and so makes this phony argument which assumes that hostilities did not exist between Hamas and Israel until December. He then comfortably blames Israel for starting the war. Paradoxically, though, he grudgingly admits that Hamas' thousands of rocket attacks, which preceded the Israeli attack, are "war crimes."

Well, which is it, Professor? Either a state of war existed or it didn't. Bisharat's disordered mental state appears to compel him to claim that a state of war did not exist for Israel, even as one did for Hamas. This is another lawyerly quibble not found in international humanitarian law---at least, not the laws on this planet.

Now, Bisharat purports to be a professor of law, but his specialties don't appear to include international humanitarian law. So perhaps he can be forgiven for not realizing that when weapons are cached, prepared, or fired from an otherwise non-military location, like a mosque, university, or school, that location becomes a permissible military target. Of course, this principle of international law is so well known that Bisharat's apparent ignorance is more likely attributed to bias and malice.

Similarly, he ignorantly claims that Gaza is an occupied territory because Israel controls Gazan airspace, coast and borders. Again, he simply has no clue about the subject on which he is speaking. Israel has control of its own border with Gaza, just as every sovereign power has control of its own borders. Israel has no obligation to open that border. Similarly, Egypt maintains control of Gaza's other land border. Bisharat's premise is, thus, faulty. As for the airspace and coastal control, both are justified by the state of war that exists between Israel and Hamas. (And, if you want to get technical about it, the PLO granted Israel airspace and coastal control in the Oslo Accords.)

In short, Professor Bisharat is ignorant or lying or both. But I appreciate that he chose to speak up, if only because he has now displayed his ignorance for all to see. We frequently hear that the U.S. Constitution is not a death pact. Neither is international humanitarian law. Do not let asshats like Professor Bisharat hijack either.

And while I'm thinking about it: This was the best they could come up with? Somebody gets the bright idea to present the Hamas side of things, but the best op ed they got was from Professor Laughingstock who had to make up his own facts and his own law? Sheesh. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts, Doc.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:06 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Above the post update: God bless your horny morons! The HQ has taken a lead but as we've learned countless times in places like Minnesota...no lead is safe. Remember, there are football games today, that means cheerleader picks. Now if the lead expands, Dave or I will pick them. If not, Gabe might have to do it. You make the call. (Just to be clear, Gabe has a history of posting Helen Thomas pictures)

Original post:
Last night we tried the stick (acid bath) tonight we try the carrot (breasts!).

After briefly taking the lead today, the HQ has slipped back into second place. So, assuming you morons don't shorty out your computers drooling over this greatest hit from the last year, please find your way over to the Best Conservative Blog category page and vote Ace of Spades HQ.

Did I mention the voting?

Below the fold, some friends of the HQ that are worth your consideration and support. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 08:02 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 356 words, total size 4 kb.

A week and a half ago Secretary of State Jesse White said not signing the certificate was a 'moral stand'. In the meantime, Harry Reid has backed down and said he would seat Burris if he had a signed certificate and the Illinois Supreme Court said it was a done deal with or without the signature. Now that the political winds have shifted, Secretary Whites' morality has become slightly more nuanced.

Following a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, has certified Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate, removing a major roadblock blocking Burris' ascension to the body.

According to his office, White has signed a certificate saying that Roland Burris' appointment document is "true and accurate."

...A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has refused to allow Burris to take a Senate seat with White's countersignature, said Senate lawyers and officials were reviewing White's action.

"The Senate Parliamentarian, the Secretary of the Senate and Senate Legal Counsel are advising Senate Leadership as we consider a way forward," said Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, on Friday evening.

This latest development gives Democrats a way out of a sticky situation. The Illinois Supreme Court said White does not need to sign the appointment papers even though the Senate requires him to get White's signature before he can assume office. White has refused to sign the document, but signed the Jan. 9 certificate and plans to send it to the Senate along with Burris' appointment papers.

Somewhere in Chicago newly impeached Governor Blagojevich must be enjoying a good laugh.

Possibly related...Popcorn and other snack food futures plunge.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:02 PM | Comments (46)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Supporters of the successful gay marriage ban argue that the First Amendment prohibits California from making their donation records public because it subjects them to attacks and reprisals based on their political opinion. They are seeking an exemption from the general disclosure laws.

"This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site. The groups announced the lawsuit Thursday.

It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

There is some support for this position. Generally, contribution disclosure requirements have been upheld by the courts on the theory that they give voters more information about candidates or campaigns, deter corruption, and aid enforcement of contribution limits. The Supreme Court has held that those interests outweigh the First Amendment right against against compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs.

However, the Court has also recognized an exemption from otherwise valid disclosure requirements on the part of someone who could show a "reasonable probability" that the compelled disclosure would result in "threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties."

The plaintiffs here will need to meet the "reasonable probability" standard. The other outstanding question is whether a majority group--that is, the winners in an election--can take advantage of the exemption. In the first case, Buckley v. Valeo, the Court suggested that the exemption is available for "minor" or "new" parties defined as those who receive less than 25% of votes at the last election. In the second case, Brown v. Socialist Workers Comm., the group suing for an exemption had no more than 60 members.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:16 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know. Seems kinda Beauchampian.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 04:49 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.