This is a good question. When will insurers ever say enough's enough? As it stands, I have little sympathy towards insurers. They willingly got in bed with this administration on this.

How can anyone run a business this way? This is worse than being a federal agency. No federal agency would be expected to stop and start on a personal whim like this. These arenÂ’t rules, they arenÂ’t regulations, they are dictates based on nothing more than Kathleen SebeliusÂ’ momentary feelings.

These are only the “glitches” that have been made public. God knows what orders and threats are being issued in closed-door meetings.

How long will the insurance industry abide being treated like shoe shine boys?

Posted by: CDR M at 06:01 PM | Comments (584)
Post contains 463 words, total size 5 kb.

Originally Published April 1, 2005.

If you've forgotten this bit, Pat O'Brien left a series of sexually explicit voicemails on the phone of a woman he was trying to arrange a tryst with. Among his various suggestions for a fun night out were getting coke, getting whores, and having a menage à trois with his girlfriend Betsy.

Frequently he advised his would-be paramour: "You have to pretend to be into Betsy." Because, Gentleman.

The voicemails can be heard on YouTube -- but note the Content Warning.

This all led to a lot of fun on the site, including commenters' doing Pat O'Brien haikus. (How come we don't do haikus anymore? Hm, we need to start doing haikus again.)

I'd like that stuff but it's very very dirty and I try not to swear so much anymore. If you go searching for Pat O'Brien stuff, don't comment on those years-old threads, because the system will deem that to be spam and ban you.

The one thing I'll link, because no dirty words will wind up appearing in this post, is AllahPundit's mash-up of Lionel Ritchie's sappy Hello with Pat O'Brien's more forward-leaning greetings. Again, Content Warning.

There's actually an ending to this tale that I forgot-- Pat O'Brien pretended to be into Betsy by proposing to her. I guess they're married now.

At the time, I guessed that O'Brien's wedding vows would be:

I, Pat O'Brien, take thee, Betsy,
as my lawfully wedded wife;
to have and to hold;
to just go craaaaazy on you;
to love and to cherish;
to get some hookers and some coke;
to honor and obey;
we can have any of these whores;
I don't know why I'm acting like this;
I'm so into you, let's do it,
let's have some sex.

Posted by: Ace at 02:42 PM | Comments (92)
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Originally published November 5th, 2004. This was just three days after the November 2nd, 2004 Bush victory over John Kerry, John Edwards, Michael Moore's "documentary" Farenheit 911, and of course Dan Rather's attempt to foist forged TANG documents on the public. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 AM | Comments (156)
Post contains 2102 words, total size 12 kb.

Originally Published December 07, 2004. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:35 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 2789 words, total size 16 kb.

Happy last-Saturday-of-2013!

It's astonishing how this year has flown by.

Now, a personal letter to Jeep from this guest blogger:

To the folks at Jeep,

I wish I were writing to you under happier circumstances but such is not the case as, just this week, I laid eyes upon the travesty that is the 2014 Grand Cherokee.

Presently, I own a 2008 Grand Cherokee, purchased new in 2008. And, I don't think I would be overstating it to say that I love my truck. I love the looks, the ride, the dependability.... I love my Jeep. That being said, I had thought that I might trade up to a newer version this coming year. I can now assure you that such is no longer the case.

What the hell were you thinking?

Jeeps have long appealed to a certain type of auto buyer; those seeking rugged good looks with the ability to handle conditions which leaves competitors in the dust.

My affection for Jeeps goes back decades and I even wrote a post at Ace.mu.nu about the thrill of purchasing my first in 2008.

Now, I am left befuddled and, frankly, hoping that my current Jeep (and my patience) hold out long enough for the NEXT generation of Grand Cherokee to arrive because, frankly, there is simply no way I am going to spend one red cent on the 2014 model.

The 2014 Grand Cherokee could provide a ride so thrilling that only a rocket on rails could compete and I still would not purchase it.

It could possess the ability to pull a Hummer out of waist-deep mud and I still would not purchase it.

Why?

Because you have stripped any evidence of its rugged nature from its appearance. Worse, not only have you feminized it beyond belief, you have done so such a way as to create a devastatingly unattractive vehicle.

It is, put plainly, ugly.

Really, really ugly.

No matter how well it drives/pulls/feels the first thing one must desire about a personal vehicle is its aesthetics and the 2014 version leaves me more than cold. In fact, it leaves me boiling at the notion that Jeep would compromise the integrity of the brand in attempt to, what...appeal more to female-buyers rather than "Jeep" buyers? Well, this female buyer isn't biting.

As my sister remarked upon seeing it, "Well wouldn't that be just precious with some false lashes and a little bit of mascara?"

Indeed.

Here's to hoping that the folks at Jeep will remember their heritage, and their loyal fans, when designing the NEXT generation Grand Cherokee.

Just. Wow!

Sincerely,

A Jeep Owner in Jacksonville

Now, a look back...

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 12:48 PM | Comments (245)
Post contains 843 words, total size 6 kb.

It's the tenth anniversary of Ace of Spades HQ. Ace's first post consisted of two words, "First post." It was on December 30, 2003. Very soon after that, he came up with the Dowd-O-Matic (which still works) and The Definitive D&D Guide to the Democratic Presidential Candidates, which, if I recall correctly, was his first post to be linked by some bigger sites. So, within the first few weeks he was already gaining notoriety.

Ace was looking for ideas about best posts. Part of the problem with that is there are so many. Just pick a random week over the last ten years, and one can find several outstanding posts. The archives are in the right sidebar, way down near the bottom. Scroll down, pick a date, and take a look. A lot of good stuff there.

From December 30, 2003:

more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 05:40 AM | Comments (469)
Post contains 1339 words, total size 8 kb.

Not me. Not. Me.

Four games today

Rutgers vs. Notre Dame in the New.. era.. pinstripe bowl. (WTF?). Noon.

Cincinnati vs. North Carolina in the Belk Bowl. 3 somethin

Miami (FL) and Louisville in the Russell Athletic Amazeballs Bowl. 6-ish

Meeechigan and Kansas St. in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, after 10 when we're all asleep.

Happy New Year you goofballs.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:30 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the moonbat left's counters to Rush Limbaugh, Air America, briefly fizzled, and is now gone. And now, happily, other lib talkers are also going the way of the dodo. According to this:

2014 will mark the beginning of a massive change for liberal talk radio across the country. In New York, WWRL 1600 AM will flip to Spanish-language music and talk, throwing Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, and Alan Colmes off the air. In Los Angeles, KTLK 1150 will be dumping Stephanie Miller, Rhodes, Bill Press and David Cruz off the air in favor of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. In San Francisco, KNEW 960 will leave Miller, Hartmann, and Mike Malloy without a radio home in the market.

No doubt the progressives will complain that they're the victims of a conspiracy hatched by eeeeeevil corporations to silence their courageous dissenting voices. My response is to point out that in a sane and just world, most of the lib talk guys would be handing out towels in men's restrooms. Also, that if the mainstream media had been doing its job, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have one. They don't seem to understand this.

I have always wondered why liberals thought they could succeed in talk radio. It seems to me obvious that the main problem they would have to face is one of market saturation. Conservative talk radio has successfully branded itself as 'the other voice'. I remember the early days of Rush Limbaugh where he'd get callers thanking him profusely just for airing views that they long held but never heard voiced on any of the big media outlets. Some restaurants even set up 'Rush rooms' were they would pipe in Rush's show to customers who wanted to hear it.

But with liberal talk radio, none of this is necessary. If you want to hear liberal and progressive views, all you have to do is turn on your TV or pick up a newspaper. The problem is not hearing liberal views, the problem is, where can you go to hear something else? Even Fox News. Liberals don't understand when you try to explain to them that Fox News isn't really "conservative", it's just a mainstream media outlet that allows some conservatives to talk on it. It only sounds conservative because you get to hear, however briefly, something other than the all-pervasive kultursmog of the liberal left.

But getting back to market saturation, I had to laugh when Air America announced they were going to set up an outlet in the San Francisco market. I thought, did they even research this?. Not only does SF have the alphabet networks and NPR, there's also KPFA, a radio station across the Bay in Berkeley that has been the voice of the progressive left for over 60 years. KPFA shows are professionally produced and presented, while over on Air America, it was pretty much amateur hour all the way. So what exactly was Air America going to be providing that Bay Area radio listeners can't get in the other progressive outlets?

Another problem was that some of those Air America guys sounded like spittle-flecked rage monkeys. This couldn't have helped.

So lib talk radio is a miserable failure. It failed in San Francisco. It failed all over the place. Even the Air America station in my college-town-liberal home of Eugene, Oregon gave it up after only a year or two. I listened to it a couple of times, but the local NPR affiliate did a much better job of broadcasting progressive-left news and opinions.

It boils down to this: if I'm a lefty, what does lib radio have to offer that I can't already get on MSNBC? Other than no Chris Matthews, I mean.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:51 AM | Comments (242)
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.

Mornin', all.

Posted by: andy at 02:23 AM | Comments (337)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Our long national nightmare is only warming up, I'm afraid.

Robertson only gets to speak his mind without punishment because he has millions of fans.

The rest of us are not so fortunate.

The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series -- and since he didn't miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

Maet liked this mention of a special contractual rider:

The entire Robertson family has been on hiatus for duck hunting season, a contractual stipulation, which continues through Jan. 26 in their native Louisiana.

Here's A&E's statement:

As a global media content company, A+E NetworksÂ’ core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into peopleÂ’s home and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principals.

That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson.

Wait, because you're a media company you have a special obligation to squelch speech you disagree with? Shouldn't your obligation run in precisely the opposite direction?

While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

Isn't this enough? If these statements do not reflect A&E's views -- and I'm quite certain they don't -- why is it not enough to simply say "These statements do not reflect our views"?

We have reached a curious pass in the conception of free speech. First it was widely pushed by the Left that any comment it didn't like had to be "denounced" by every single person aligned with the right.

But simple denunciation turned out to be an appetizer; now it is further demanded that every person and every entity use all of its power to actively discourage, punish, and arrest disapproved thoughts.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about familyÂ… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

How about we all behave like grown-ups and accept the fact that other people are going to occasionally say things we find "offensive" and that there should not be any sanction expected in such cases?

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

"Advocacy groups."

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.

They always could have done this if they felt it was necessary to rebut Robertson. Why did they not simply avail themselves of such a simple (and non-coercive) means of fighting speech with, get this, other speech?

Our current social understanding of free speech is this: You can speak your mind freely if you have a large enough army of supporters to pressure a company into resisting pressure from a large army of Speech Police.

This is not free speech. This is free speech as an exceptional thing -- only for those with a wide, passionate following -- not as a routine thing.

A&E is a cowardly organization. First it puts Robertson on "indefinite hiatus" under pressure from one group of people, then it puts him back on the air because they've been pressured by a somewhat larger group of people.

At no point did they trip over anything resembling a general principle of speech free from "consequences" of broad application.

Posted by: Ace at 01:31 PM | Comments (361)
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.