I keep seeing people mention it. It's on in eight minutes on FX. Older episodes can be watched here, but not all of them.

Best show on TV, I think, even though I don't watch a whole lot of it.

There have been a couple of very meh shows, but most episodes range from good to very good. But -- forget the entirety of the show. Every other episode, there's a brilliant five minutes or so, dialog so sharp and oddly funny, or a really good quick-draw. The rest of the show might be merely good, but for that five minutes, it's truly great.

Anyway -- check it out. Record it.

Below's the theme, which I frickin' love, a mix of bluegrass and gangsta rap by a group called, natch, gangstagrass.

Oh: Rayland hasn't plugged anyone for three weeks straight, which is a record for him. So the writers are "saving up" for a good shooting. (The show is semi-realistic about the consequences of officer-involved shooting, so they are somewhat more restrained about Rayland quick-drawing and killing people.)

They've got a quota -- he can only shoot every other episode, and only kill every fourth or fifth -- but they've been especially reserved lately.

So he's gonna kill someone.

Soon. I jus' know it.

But Seriously, Someone Should Get on Rayland About His Gunslinging: He's doing it wrong.

I'm not a cop and I don't have training, but I'd imagine that cops come at you all bad-ass and hard-core when they draw their guns because they're trying to intimidate you so that you don't even think about drawing on them-- by coming off as hardasses, they actually save lives. By going all steroids on you, they're discouraging actual violence.

Rayland does not do that. No no no. Quite the opposite.

Rayland just politely chit-chats, laconically touches his gun, talks up the Art of the Draw, and basically invites you to draw on him. He pretty much lets you know that he's the only thing standing between you and your continued freedom, so if you want to stay out of jail, you should probably take your chances and pull on him.

True, he warns you that he's really, really good at the draw, but, as he says in one of these soliliquys, a gun can always get hung up on the holster, or a shot could just glance off the breastbone, etc. Dozen things that could go wrong in a draw; so, maybe he's good, but you've got a chance.

So, basically, in the usual show, the idiot IA guy would be wrong about an officer-involved shooting being "bad." Here, those guys are right: Rayland pretty much is baiting people into Wild West shootouts.

But I'm not going to tell on him.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:55 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Sorry for the semi-paltry ONT tonight - I've been traveling all day and most of this was done on my iphone. Which is possible but very, very tedious.

Also don't forget about the job bank at the AoSHQ yahoo group.

The 80's Bully Montage
Because the 80's had the best bullies ever. McFly!! Nerds!!!

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:50 PM | Comments (1203)
Post contains 408 words, total size 5 kb.

That's how he reads it.

Everyone else reads it as a claim that Cheney attempted to recruit David Petraeus for the 2012 election.

Note that's not established at all; we only have Tickle Monster's word for it.

But even if it were true -- um, and? You know who else wants Petraeus running in 2012? (thumbs splayed to self) This guy!

And a lot of guys.

Check out how disgraced pseudopederast obese joyboy Massa characterizes this:

Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) tells Esquire that four retired generals had informed him that General David Petraeus "had met twice in secret with former vice president Dick Cheney. In those meetings, the generals said, Cheney had attempted to recruit Petraeus to run for president as a Republican in 2012."

"The generals had told him, and Massa had agreed, that if someone didn't act immediately to reveal this plot, American constitutional democracy itself was at risk."

Said Massa: "General David Petraeus, a commander with soldiers deployed in two theaters of war, has had multiple meetings with Dick Cheney, the former vice-president of the United States, to discuss Petraeus's candidacy for the Republican nomination for the presidency. And in fact, that's more than a constitutional crisis. That's treason."

You know what's also treason, according to Eric Massa? The fact that the cabana boy can wear a thong that tight! Massa's got a constitutional crisis in his pants, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Posted by: Ace at 05:35 PM | Comments (82)
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Kabuki.

WeÂ’ve seen this movie before and it was dismal enough that IÂ’m not real excited about the sequel. As with so many things, itÂ’s a case of The One following BushÂ’s lead, making a show of border security in hopes of softening opposition to a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. It almost certainly ainÂ’t happening this year, but half a bil for enforcement at least gives purple-district House Dems a talking point ahead of November.

I think Allah's right but wrong: This isn't a preamble to a new comprehensive POS effort. Or, well, it is, but... later.

This signals that Eric Holder has been given the go-ahead to take Arizona to court over its immigration enforcement law.

Put the needed political cover into place, first. Then claim "we're making real progress" and so we don't need Arizona's law. Then file suit.

Posted by: Ace at 05:28 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Readers think this is a bigger story than I do; I don't think he's going to jail. Or not for long. Hell, they let him out after 99 days on his last conviction.

Anyway, guess the party.

After a probation violation related to his conviction for lying under oath about an affair with his chief of staff, Kilpatrick was slapped with a prison sentence of up to 5 years in a Michigan courtroom on Tuesday.

KilpatrickÂ’s legacy as mayor has been riddled with corruption and scandals. His previous conviction landed him ten felony charges including obstruction of justice, perjury, and spending city finances illegally.

After pleading guilty to reduced charges and serving 99 days in jail, Kilpatrick was released early and ordered to pay $1 million to the city of Detroit. Judge Groner ruled last month that Kilpatrick failed to report all of his assets and did not meet the conditions of his probation.

"Frankly, your continued attempt to cast yourself as the victim, your lack of forthrightness, your lack of contriteness and your lack of humility serve to affirm that you have not learned your lesson," the judge said.

The case has created controversy in Detroit with supporters suggesting racial profiling swayed the judgeÂ’s decision. A representative for Kilpatrick also claimed that the sentencing was unjust and based on racial discrimination.

I just got an email from Will Folks stating, "Yeah, I banged him too."

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 PM | Comments (126)
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, Verum Serum found this (of course they found this; they find everything.)

This video, a mock interview of Haley by Folks, is disturbing for three reasons:

1. It sort of shows a hero-worship/romantic obsession with Haley. Which I would call "motive," should this turn out to be a big hoax.

2. It's kind of threatening... especially when you consider that Folks was arrested for domestic violence. And then he pled guilty to that.

Now, his claim now (after pleading guilty) is that it never happened, was all fake or whatever... Okay. Fine.

What's he doing smuggling in not one but several "jokes" about beating up Nikki Haley in this video?

If he's innocent, I guess I sort of understand that he doesn't think he should be branded as a woman-beater.. and yet... Does that extend to making jokes about giving Haley a taste of his knuckles?

I guess so.

And then he has a shot of "Nikki Haley" shuddering in fear.

WTF?

3. This just has a weird, nightmarish Rupert Pupkin vibe to it overall. It's not funny, it's talentless, and it reveals, accidentally, something unfavorable about him.

It's a weird indulgence in fantasy and self-promotion, dressed up as... Well I don't know that it's dressed up as anything. It's not really disguised at all.

Where I come from we hide our shame.

Will Folks pick-up line: Crazy in da head, crazy in da bed, crazy on the blog... just plain crazy, baby!

Or: Once you go retard, you'll be glad you gave up your key-card.

Compare... Deranged, spotlight-seeking, talentless crazy stalker Rupert Pupkin, "having lunch" with his idol Jerry Lewis (actually playing a hyrid of Jerry Lewis and Johnny Carson called "Jerry Langford").

Or, his "show," filled with the same cringey, awkwardly revelatory unfunny jokes that "Fits" trades in:

By the way, that is one of the five best movies I have ever, ever seen.

I can't think of a movie that affected me more. To this day, my brother and I will talk, and invariably something will come up that we'll both say, "It's like the King of Comedy."

Oh: Folks veers between unfunny jokes, inappropriately-excessive flattery, and threats.

This is stalker 101. Whatever is necessary to get the target into a compliant state.

Pupkin does this in the King of Comedy, too, shifting between modes at the drop of a hat. Even worse than him is Sandra Bernhardt (great in this one role), who really does insane menace well.

Those Emails Should Be Fun: This guy printed an Op-Ed by Will Folks for a local paper, in which Will Folks tried to explain away his domestic battery beef.

The editor cut a passage. Here's what, and here's why.

So he sent me the piece, and I ran it. But I didn't run ALL of it. I cut out a key passage. It went between "...I did not intentionally grab or shove her so as to cause her to fall," and "I never set out to deliberately hurt anyone..."

Here's what was cut:

Even my former fiancee herself, in an e-mail to my mother two days later, said “I do feel that Will did not intend to physically harm me” and further that “he never intended to hurt me.”

SheÂ’s right.

...

Before we decided to cut that passage, I had called Mr. Folks to tell him I had a problem with it. How was I to confirm that such an e-mail from his ex-intended actually existed? He offered to send me the e-mail itself, which he did.

What that e-mail contained differed significantly in its implications, as he had left out important context. Here's how the actual, full passage read:

While I do not agree with the statement that Will is totally innocent innocent (sic) of the charge, I do feel that he did not intend to physically harm me-- even though laying your hands on a woman in any regard is wrong. I know he just lost control of his anger and that he never intended to hurt me as he did.

As I say, I think it was a good idea to leave out Mr. Folks' truncated version of that. But I also thought it a good idea to share both versions with you here on my blog. I await your judgment as to whether I was right on either count.

Thanks to TopSecretK9.

Posted by: Ace at 03:30 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 762 words, total size 6 kb.

As I was reading this, I was thinking, "Cool experiment! I want to post this, but it really doesn't seem political at all -- not really partisan, can't make a point out of it."

I decided, halfway through -- who cares? Readers like interesting stuff, partisan or not. If I thought it was cool, probably a lot of people would.

Turns out, yeah, there's a partisan dig here after all.

Slate's experiment concerned the way memory could be shaped and refashioned through the use of doctored, false photographs. They would (I'm simplifying) show subjects (over 5000) a series of pictures, four real and one fake, and ask if people remembered the event depicted in the fake one.

Depending on the picture, up to 40% said they remembered the false reality presented.

Okay? Interesting on its own, right? Well, here's the partisan part. To set this up: One fake photograph had Bush in a pick up with pitching great Roger Clemens during Hurricane Katrina, goofing off instead of working. (He didn't see Clemens, and left his ranch to monitor Katrina from the White House.) Another picture had Obama shaking Ahmadinejad's hand. (They never shook hands, and apparently never even got close enough to get in a photo together.)

Okay, take it away:

Ideology influenced recollections, but not consistently. Thirty-four percent of progressives who were shown the Bush-Clemens photo (212 out of 616) remembered that incident, while only 14 percent of conservatives who saw the same photo (7 out of 49) remembered it. We expected that discrepancy to be reversed among subjects who were shown the Obama handshake, but it wasn't. Progressives were slightly more likely than conservatives to remember that the handshake happened: 49 percent (305 out of 61 to 45 percent (30 out of 66).

Conservatives, basically, admitted they didn't remember the event in question more often, even when it cut against their party affiliation.

It should be noted, though, that as Slate leans pretty hard left, any conservatives reading the magazine are going to be self-selecting and probably pretty sharp; they are deliberately choosing to read, basically, enemy propaganda.

Plus, progressives are more trustful of a leftwing outlet like Slate. And conservatives reading it are fundamentally mistrustful -- it's likely they sort of smelled a rat. (And do note how very different those progressive and conservative samples are; in the several hundreds versus 60-70.)(

That said, look: I have a feeling there's another factor. "Progressives" and liberals find it hard to ever confess they don't know something; a lot of their politics is actually a defense mechanism for intellectual insecurity. (Vote our way, and that proves you're a smartie!)

The worst crime, to a liberal, is ignorance.

So I think they are especially prey to any trick like this that asks them whether they know something or are ignorant of it -- they're going to have a strong bias towards claiming they "know" stuff, even stuff that's not actually true at all.

Correction: I misread their claim about Bush and Clemens; I've rewritten to explain the falsity of the picture. I think.

One thing they do, wrongly I think for these purposes, is base a false picture on something that is fuzzily true in some broader sense. They note this issue themselves -- like the fact that Lieberman didn't vote Clinton guilty during impeachment (the false picture), but did make a big deal of scolding him.

The problem isn't that some of these pictures are kinda-sorta based on something genuine, but that some are truer to some extent than others. It's an impossible thing to quantify, of course. But it makes it hard to pull conclusions out of the experiment.

Posted by: Ace at 02:25 PM | Comments (193)
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

They're discussing a segment about the "G-Shot," an injection of collagen to the mythical G-Spot which will make it more accessible and sensitive.

Great ad lib by this cat, huh?

From Mediaite, which has the full segment containing the story, too.

The anchor -- called by Deadspin the "Penis News Anchor" -- responded to them about the quip.

Hi David,

I have no delusions about ‘banter.' Why all the fuss about one word uttered after a segment rarely seen on any traditional station's late newscast! The topic invites discussion, debate and commentary. Nothing wrong with also ‘injecting' or ‘inserting' a little humor … even for the prudish to the prurient! J

Peace,

Michael

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 143 words, total size 2 kb.

Everybody is calling this poetic justice, but I'm not quite that bloodthirsty. I hope the Rep. is okay. The column doesn't say anything about injuries.

[Rep.] Michael Moran of Brighton is a staunch supporter of the “sanctuary” approach to illegal immigration we have here in Massachusetts. He voted against the Perry amendment that would require applicants for state benefits to prove they’re here legally. Moran voted for subsidized college tuition for illegals, too.

It’s safe to say that no Massachusetts politician has done more to make illegal immigrants feel welcome. Illegal immigrants like 27-year-old Isaias Naranjo, who (ahem) “met” Moran on the streets of Brighton last week.

Naranjo rear-ended the good Rep. at 60 MPH while inebriated.

...when police tried to explain the seriousness of his situation, he just laughed.

“Nothing is going to happen to me, man,” Naranjo told the cops. That’s because he was “going back to my home country, Mexico.”

We don't have to solve the whole illegal immigration problem all at once, guys. I think most people are a little more flexible than that.

But how about we remove the incentives for criminals, freeloaders, and assholes like this guy?

Could we start there?

Posted by: LauraW at 01:19 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

The "NY/NJ region," they say, but that means the Meadowlands, which is in NJ.

Chris Christie had nothing at all to do with this but it was DrewM.'s funny idea for a headline.

In 2014.

Oh: This is strange. The Super Bowl is always played at a warm-weather city or in a domed city. I can't think of any that weren't.

I knew the Giants/Jets had a new stadium being built; based on their getting the Superbowl, I assumed it was a dome, or retractable dome.

But...

The Giants and Jets, which were part of the bid along with the New Meadowlands Stadium Co., beat out Tampa, Fla., and South Florida despite concerns about cold weather—the game is played in early February, according to the NFL's current schedule.

The three bidders each made 15-minute presentations to the 32 NFL owners at the Omni Mandalay in Irving, outside of Dallas. The South Florida delegation was eliminated in the first round of voting.

"New York and New Jersey can handle anything that comes our way in terms of logistics, transportation and security. And the weather is not an issue. The weather would make the game even more interesting and more exciting," Giants' treasurer Jonathan Tisch, who was co-chairman of the bid committee, told reporters after making a presentation. "We are supremely confident that Super Bowl 2014 would be an amazing event and would get recognition around the world."

No dome.

So they're giving up on that rule?

Maybe Chris Christie did scare them.

Answer: Allah found an article stating this was a "one-time exception" to the Warm City Or Dome Rule.

Allah speculates that if the weather is either not an issue or adds to the game, it could open up other cold-weather cities for the Super Bowl... until the game gets ruined for these reasons, at which point the rule will be reinstated and never violated again.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. It's contrary to tradition. Cold-weather cities are just too damn brutal in February.

Posted by: Ace at 01:08 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.