jaceonline

My Thoughts Exactly

2007-07-12T19:09:00.000-06:00

An article in the Guardian explains exactly why I'm not optimistic about the new Simpsons movie (my Springfieldian doppelganger below notwithstanding):

Once, it was the greatest show on TV. Every episode was brimming with imagination, excitement and some of the sharpest one-liners to come out of America for decades. But above all it was smart: The Simpsons knew how to parry crudity with intelligence blow for blow. Bart's big-haired nemesis Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake nine times would be followed up with a surreal two-minute performance of HMS Pinafore.

...

Then it all changed. A new guard took over and ripped up the rules. Veterans of the show with pedigrees on venerated US comedy institutions like Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show - Jon Vitti, George Meyer, John Schwartzwelder - either departed or went part-time. In came writers who had cut their teeth on sappy teen comedies like Blossom and unsophisticated knockabouts like Beavis and Butt-Head. A looser, lazier sensibility took hold, given free rein by new executive producer Mike Scully. And the show became stupid.

...

The show went on to jettison all interest in pretending to have earthy, avuncular roots: the warm, good-natured centre that, when you scraped away the multi-layered jokes and cerebral grandstanding, had been there from day one was obliterated. No longer did we see the family bonding, caring for each other, showing emotion. Instead, it was anything goes.

Springfield Style

2007-07-07T20:49:00.000-06:00

Hey, look! It's me if I was a character on The Simpsons!

Bush Commutes Convict's Sentence without Getting Some Kind of Payment in Return; Clinton Outraged

2007-07-05T21:33:00.000-06:00

"He's unfairly driving down prices!" the randy former president was heard to say. "How will Hillary raise any money with this administration setting this as a precedent? Now all our scumbag friends will expect the same treatment. Why, it took three Columbian drug lord pardons just to keep my private jet supplied with microwaveable popcorn for a year." Clinton then crammed an entire piece of peanut butter cheesecake in his mouth and started humping the leg of a nearby grand piano.

Dennis Miller Pulls No Punches

2007-06-11T17:25:00.000-06:00

In case you haven't seen it, see it.

Memorial Day Video

2007-05-27T17:25:00.000-06:00

In celebration of Memorial Day, here's your minimum daily requirement of Patton:

One of Us

2007-05-21T19:11:00.000-06:00

James Lileks has his first experience with Chick-fil-A:

I’ve never quite had this experience before. On one side of the brain, total pleasure. On the other side of the brain, a simultaneous desire to become a franchisee. It was the most delicious piece of fast-food I’d ever had, and I say that knowing well that 67% of my email headers tomorrow will read "Chick-Fil-A" and everyone will agree. No, I didn’t have the waffle fries. A man has to have something to live for.

Welcome to the club, James. But what's amazing to me is that a worldly, well-traveled newspaper guy like him could only just now be having his first Chick-fil-A. As much as you may know, there are still worlds beyond you.

No Mercy

2007-04-29T21:51:00.000-06:00

When the military learns that taking prisoners only leads to hassle, bad publicity, and lawsuits, how do they respond? Well, like this, for starters:

Caught in the middle of the Helmand river, the fleeing Taliban were paddling their boat back to shore for dear life.

...

As the boat reached the shore, Captain Larry Staley tilted the nose of the lead Apache gunship downwards into a dive. One of the men turned to face the helicopter and sank to his knees. Capt Staley's gunner pressed the trigger and the man disappeared in a cloud of smoke and dust.

By the time the gunships had finished, 21 minutes later, military officials say 14 Taliban were confirmed dead, including one of their key commanders in Helmand.

The mission is typical of a new, aggressive, approach adopted by American forces in southern Afghanistan...

Aircrews say they have been told to show no mercy, but to press home their advantage until all their targets have been destroyed.

It's hard to file habeus corpus when the corpus is just a cloud of dust.

Midnight Cowboy Talks Sense

2007-04-27T07:56:00.000-06:00

It's sad that we have reached the point where it's shocking just to hear someone talking common sense. But that's what happened to me when I saw Jon Voight talking about the war on terror. I've never thought he was exceptionally crazy (except maybe when he took that role in Baby Geniuses 2), but still, as a Hollywood type, you don't expect his thoughts to bear any relation to reality. I was pleasantly surprised, and I need all of that I can get.

Please note, I don't think this means Jon Voight is anywhere close to being conservative, even by Hollywood standards. But like I always say, I don't need you to be conservative, I just need you to be reasonable.

The Template

2007-04-18T22:10:00.000-06:00

In the wake of the attack at Virginia Tech, conservative commentaters are commentating about how the mainstream press is covering events using it's standard template. But what is that template, exactly? Through hard work and derring-do, jaceonline spies have managed to obtain The Mainstream Media Tragic Event Template(tm), which we share with you below.

Steps to Take In Case of Tragic Event (i.e., someone is dead where they aren't supposed to be dead)

Question: Who is the victim?

-- If victim is a criminal who was shot by a law-abiding gun owner, ignore story completely. Run feature story about Jennifer Anniston's boobs.
-- If victim is from an approved minority group, begin preparations for Movie of the Week. If victim is woman, call Mary Louise Parker; if gay, call Rob Lowe.
-- If unsure, send every available reporter for wall-to-wall coverage; hope to turn up somebody who is part Mexican on his mother's side. Also gay.

Question: What is the cause of the tragedy?

-- Natural disaster: Blame Bush.
-- Terrorist attack: Blame Bush.
-- Lone wacko: Send every available reporter for wall-to-wall coverage; hope to find something you can blame on Bush. Also gun nuts.

Question: Who is the perpetrator?

-- If name sounds foreign, suppress it for as long as possible, especially if "Mohammed" is anywhere in there.
-- If perpetrator looks ethnic in any way, take no pictures of him. Publish no pictures that already exist, unless they show him handing out flowers in a nursing home on Mother's Day.
-- If perpetrator is definitely a white male, try to reposition a satelite so you can take pictures of him from orbit 24 hours a day.

Question: What weapon did the perpetrator use?

-- If a gun, JACKPOT! We have so much anti-gun stuff we can't wait to print!
-- If a bomb, print the anti-gun stuff anyway.
-- If a knife, rock, or ax handle, move story to "Wacky News" section.

Question: What was the perpetrator's motivation?

-- If a Republican is in the White House, explore the possibility that the attack was an understandable response to the corrosive social environment created by racist, oppressive govenment policies that further enrich the wealthiest one percent and leave the rest of us wallowing in fear and despair.
-- If a Democrat is in the White House, just say that Rush Limbaugh probably told him to do it.

Judges Matter

2007-04-18T11:33:00.000-06:00

The Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. There's going to be a lot of commentary, but there's only one thing I'm dying to know: What does Harriet Myers think about the decision?

Someone Else! Someone Else!

2007-04-14T16:05:00.000-06:00

The Weekly Standard has an interesting profile of Fred Thompson.

According to an adviser to one of the leading candidates, the rationale for a Thompson run is best illustrated--as so many things are--by The Simpsons. In one episode, Homer Simpson's civic-minded neighbor Ned Flanders tells a large crowd of fellow Springfield citizens that they must choose someone to lead an anticrime campaign in the town.

"Who should lead the group?"

"You," shouts a man from the crowd. The entire mob begins to chant.

"Flanders! Flanders! Flanders!"

When Flanders humbly begins to explain that he doesn't have much experience in such matters, Moe the Bartender cuts him off.

"Someone else!"

The crowd joins in.

"Someone else! Someone else! Someone else!"

One obvious advantage Fred Thompson has is that he's someone else.

To be honest with you, I'm a little tingly about the prospect of a Thompson candidacy. But I'm concerned that my tingles are caused by the fact that he is just someone else. Thompson is famous, but we don't really know that much about him. When that happens, we tend to fill in the blanks with what we hope is true. But I haven't seen anything that's scared me off yet, and that's more than I can say about any of the other Republican candidates. We'll see.

The Real Battleground

2007-04-12T14:43:00.000-06:00

Jason Whitlock comments on the Imus hoo-ha and hits the nail on the head:

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

"WMDs Found"

2007-04-09T09:07:00.000-06:00

Stanley Kurtz makes an excellent point about the threat coming from Iran:

In the debate to come over Iran’s nuclear capacity, there will be constant references to our intelligence failure in Iraq. The dispute will be about exactly how close Iran is to a bomb. But let no one forget that Iran is already at a point that would easily have justified the overthrow of Saddam.

Who Wants to Drive Through the Cactus Patch?

2007-04-09T07:48:00.000-06:00

I stumbled across the the Wikipedia entry for the Simpsons episode "Cape Feare," which explains, among other things, the legendary rake sequence. Thank you, Internet!

Lovely, Angry Lady Lumps

2007-04-04T22:04:00.000-06:00

Here's Alanis Morissette's version of "My Humps." Never before have I been so haunted by the question, "What you gonna do with all that junk?"

Baby Steps

2007-03-30T08:42:00.000-06:00

It's been a discouraging time for conservatives lately, what with Western civilization collapsing around our ears and all. But if you look closely enough, you can always find a reason for hope. And Jonah Goldberg has found one, in a recent court decision supporting Second Amendment rights:

No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, "perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing." Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

Lilekism of the Day

2007-03-29T07:04:00.000-06:00

Coincidentally enough, from James Lileks, commenting on the possibility of Condi Rice running for vice president:

I no longer think it’ll be Rice, since there’s so much disenchantment over her State performance; she sank up to her waist in Peace Process quicksand, and the only reason she hasn’t sunk to her neck is because she’s standing on the shoulders of those who have been swallowed whole before. Besides, people are just sick of the Bush team in general. Then again, I’m starting to think that you could put Godzilla in charge of State, and in two months he’d be four feet tall, breathing perfume, and proposing a Tokyo-reconstruction loan program and a six-point program for getting Mothra to sit down with Gamera.

300

2007-03-14T22:23:00.000-06:00

Is the success of the sword-and-sandal action flick 300 a sign that America is regaining it's martial spirit? David Kahane thinks so:

...the dirty little secret is, we used to write these movies all the time. Impossible odds. Quixotic causes. Death before surrender. Real all-American stuff, in which our heroes stood up for God and country and defending Princess Leia and getting back home to see their wives and children, with their shields or on them.

...

But then came psychiatrists and psychologists and Ritalin and global warming and racism and sexism and homophobia and the enlightened among us said the hell with John Wayne and Gary Cooper. Hollywood became one big Agatha Christie novel in the last chapter — you know, the one where the survivors of the homicidal maniac gather in the drawing room and realize: The killer must be one of us!

And then came September 11th and that was that. But now, I’m beginning to wonder.

Beginning to wonder if a $70-million opening weekend for a picture that was tracking at $40 million will get somebody’s attention. Beginning to wonder if a movie that has no stars, the look and feel of a video game, and the moral code of the U.S.M.C. might have something to say, even to audiences in New York and L.A.

As much as anything, the release of Star Wars in 1977 helped to usher in the Reagan Era, and put the dark, doomed malaise of the Nixon/Carter years behind us. It showed us a world with clear lines between good and evil where good was triumphant, and we all said, "Hey, I'd like to see that in this world."

Since Star Wars was a once-in-a-lifetime cultural phenomenon and I'm still on the same lifetime, I doubt that we'll see the same kind of thing from 300 (and I really doubt it'll be followed by another Reagan). But if people are going to see it, I hope that at least means we're still comfortable with good guys beating bad guys.

Richard Jeni

2007-03-12T22:02:00.000-06:00

Holy crap, Richard Jeni shot himself:

Police found Jeni inside a West Hollywood home Saturday, after responding to a 9:50 a.m. emergency call. The caller, a woman whom officials did not identify, told the operator, "My boyfriend shot himself in the face," Los Angeles police said.

Jeni, whose real name was Richard John Colangelo, died less than an hour later at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The Los Angeles coroner's office said an autopsy is pending. Jeni's website lists his age as 45, four years younger than coroner's documents show.

That's a shame; he was a funny, funny guy.

And this made me think of Dennis Wolfberg, another great comedian we lost too soon (though in his case it was due to natural causes). Let's enjoy some of his YouTube immortality too.

News Flash - Gov't Provides Poor Service. Also, Water Wet, Ice Cold

2007-03-08T22:30:00.000-06:00

Reason Magazine points out the lesson that we should -- but won't -- learn from the Walter Reed Army Hospital mess: If you let the government run the health care system, that's what it will look like.

Don'tVote.org

2007-03-08T22:24:00.000-06:00

There are a lot of important decisions to be made on election day. It's a big responsibility. But if you're lucky, maybe you're not smart enough to bother with it. Take the test and find out.

Coulter and Rhetoric

2007-03-06T23:48:00.000-06:00

Finally, a reaction to the Ann Coulter hoo-hah that's not an overreaction. Jeff Goldstein uses lots of big words that I may not understand, but I think we're basically on the same page:

Let me put this bluntly: having now seen the comments in context (including Coulter’s earlier commments in the same speech that staked a claim, from a conservative legal perspective, as pro-gay), I not only don't feel the need NOT to condemn Coulter, but I support what she said in principle.

I just think her execution was sub par. There were less loaded terms she might have chosen, but that doesn’t make her remark homophobic—nor is there any need, given the context, to distance oneself from them (unless, of course, one wishes to see certain words completely stricken from the lexicon—a gambit that never works, as the intent behind them is, like oil, fungible).

In the past, I've criticized this kind of policing of words on any number of occasions, from efforts to demonize "illegal alien" to "oriental" to the PC nonsense that is working its way through textbooks.

There is, not to put too fine a point on it, something remarkably arrogant about homosexual advocates (and their active and tacit defenders) thinking it is their "right" to take ownership of a word that has, with usage, taken on different valences.

And the answer to them should be, "no, you can't have it 'back,' because it was never really 'yours' to begin with."

A lot of people on the right felt the need to strongly denounce Coulter because they were afraid her words would be used as a bludgeon against the rest of us. They're right, of course, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to give her the whole torch-and-pitchfork treatment.

Nowadays, Politician X can't say "I like sunshine" without his opponents blast-faxing a press release that says, "Politician X doesn't care about the millions of hard-working Americans on the night shift!" So, the political landscape is lousy with people who avoid saying anything that might possibly be construed as offensive, by anyone, in this or any conceivable parallel universe.

Ann Coulter (quite intentionally) flies in the face of that mindset. I don't care how offensive people think she is; she is some welcome seasoning in a bland political gruel.

Comming Soon: Hamsters That Look Like Himmler

2007-03-05T21:49:00.000-06:00

Proving once again that everything is on the internet, here's Cats That Look Like Hitler. Even the ones that don't look like Hitler still kind of remind me of him.

Fun Read of The Day (Besides The Rest of jaceonline, I Mean)

2007-03-05T09:06:00.000-06:00

James Lileks goes off on a design professor with a bad case of utopian liberalitis. Enjoy!

This Just In: Sun Causes Warming

2007-03-04T22:20:00.000-06:00

A scientist theorizes that maybe--just maybe--warming of the earth is caused by the sun. And National Geographic takes this fruitcake seriously.

Uncomfortable Questions

2007-03-04T21:05:00.000-06:00

Was the destruction of the Death Star an inside job? Has an Imperial government cover-up pulled the Bantha pelt over our eyes? One website has the guts to ask the tough questions:

6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to "bullseye womprats" on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be "impossible, even for a computer." Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

What Would We Do Without Ann Coulter?

2007-03-04T15:13:00.000-06:00

Does any of this sound familiar?: Ann Coulter makes a speech, says something inflammatory, and ignites a round of indignant outrage from the left and tsk-tsking from the right. Why, it's almost like Ann has this very sequence of events in mind when she speaks, hmmm?

Well, she did it again, and the responses were predictably schoolmarmish. In case you missed it, here's the offending line:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

You can guess how the liberal pundits responded, but they'd say the same things if Coulter didn't leave in her leave-in conditioner. On the other hand (or maybe the other side of the same hand), here are the non-liberal responses:

Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I agree Ann's unfunny joke speaks to and feeds into a hurtful bigotry and helps to caricature proponents of traditional marriage."

Peter Suderman: "Ann Coulter's CPAC remark about Edwards was despicable—completely out of bounds for civil political discourse. Like Kathryn said, it's not surprising coming from Coulter, but that doesn't make it any more tolerable."

Rudy Giuliani: "The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."

Dean Barnett: "Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic."

Captain Ed: "Bottom line: Coulter's remark was indefensible."

Oh, shenanigans. If we didn't have our collective butt cheeks in such a clinch, we'd recognize this as a joke. And a finely crafted joke, at that. Notice how she never actually called anybody a "faggot," and only used the word in reference to the Isaiah Washington incident. Brilliant phrasing. Plus, she skewered both Edwards and the therapy culture with a single one-liner.

Now, was it below the belt? You betcha. But Coulter doesn't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules; she's a cage fighter. And she's a sharp self-promoter. She knew exactly how this would play and how much publicity she'd get out of it. Just look at that satisfied little head bob she gives at the end of her speech. That's a lady who just got her way.

What bothers me most about this is conservatives' pusillanimous mimicry of oft-offended liberals, huffing about how this or that is beyond the pale. In a more civilized time, anyone who was insulted by Coulter would insult her right back and get on with his life. Now we have to spend a week denouncing her and saying she shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. Aren't we supposed to be the ones against speech codes? But the victim mentality playbook has become the standard, and conservatives just accept it and play along. They should be thankful for Ann Coulter. What would they do if they didn't have her to distance themselves from?

Update: Sister Toldjah, no Coulter fan, makes an excellent point when she compares liberal outrage over this to their ho-hum response to much more poisonous attacks from the left.

Another update: And a big, ol' "Lighten Up" to The American Mind, which has published an open letter to CPAC denouncing Coulter and asking that she be banned from future conventions:

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

Egads. Would I rather be associated with reckless bomb-throwers like Coulter or whiny prigs like this? Hmmm... thinking, thinking...

Yet another update: Two wrongs don't make a right, but for liberals who are all in a twist about this, Patterico has a catalog of plenty--and I mean plenty--of examples of liberal hate speech.

Indulgences! Get 'Em While They're Hot!

2007-02-28T21:06:00.000-06:00

If you want to do something to prove you love the earth, but your publicist couldn't get you into Vanity Fair's "green" issue and you'd rather hang yourself than watch "An Inconvenient Truth" again, iowahawk has an easy and reasonably priced solution for you:

This unique new system lets you, the average Joe planet rapist, cleanse your tortured psyche of the stain of enviro-guilt for as little as $9.95 per year! If enough of you follow this simple three step program, we can save the world for our children -- who will soon be frolicking with healthy polar bears atop Earth's reforested glaciers.

And to let the world know about your mad crush on Gaia, he also offers the form of emotional expression most favored by environmentalists: bumper stickers.

Wimbledon Extends Women's Dominance

2007-02-24T15:35:00.000-06:00

Let me first say that I completely support Wimbledon's decision to pay female players the same amount of money as male players. The women's game is more competitive now, and it's become more fun to watch for more reasons than just the increasing skimpiness of the outfits. Women tend to have extended points, where they actually run around and hit the ball back and forth. The men's game has become a boring, repetitive ace-a-thon; they might as well just change the format to a fastest serve competition.

However, I do have a quibble with the wording on this ESPN.com headline:

Women players to earn equal pay at Wimbledon

Unless there's been some other change that nobody told me about, women are still going to play three-set matches while men still play five-set matches. So, if women are receiving the same money for less work, then their rate of pay is actually greater than the men. If we really want equal pay for equal work, let's see the ladies start playing five-setters. I know this sounds nit-picky, but hey, equality is equality, right?

Why Europe is Doomed, Reason # 453,985

2007-02-21T22:38:00.000-06:00

Egad. I think they're serious. It's Captain Euro, the European Superhero.

Captain Euro has taken a difficult vow: "To use, wherever possible, intellect, culture and logic - not violence - to take control of difficult criminal situations." Captain Euro is a diplomatic hero - the symbol of European unity and values.

I think I'm going to be sick. Can we send Luke Cage or the Thing to go kick this guy's ass?

Organic Farming No Better for the Environment

2007-02-19T22:06:00.000-06:00

That's right: all those lemmings who empty their wallets at Whole Foods Market are no better for the environment than me and my Wal-Mart brand 12 pound bag of frozen assorted chicken parts. Bwaa-ha-ha!! From The Independent:

Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report.

The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was "insufficient evidence" to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods.

Dirty Harry, Meet Jack Bauer

2007-02-17T00:22:00.000-06:00

Jonah Goldberg made a great point recently when he compared the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies with the series "24." He was talking about the way torture is accepted as standard operating procedure on "24" and pointing out the fact that it's not the first time our hreoes have used (ahem) aggressive tactics in pursuit of the bad guys. But I think there's more of a connection than that.

People say that art reflects life, and sometimes that's true. But sometimes, art reflects what we want life to be. In the 70's, people had completely given up on the ability of government to maintain a civil society. Thanks to liberal incompetance and social engineering, urban crime was rampant and regular folks were barricading themselves inside their homes behind iron bars and six or seven deadbolt locks.

Into this festering wasteland stepped heroes like Charles Bronson in the "Death Wish" movies and Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry Callahan. They saw the problem, and they took matters into their own hands, without a lot of hand-wringing over civil rights or root causes.

Now the problem is terrorism, and people see that their leaders are either incapable or uninterested in dealing with it. Enter Jack Bauer and his buddies at CTU, who take care of business without regard for public opinion polls.

People may go on and on about how they're worried about human rights violations or how tourture costs the torturer his soul or all that blah blah. But deep down, even the most enlightened liberal hopes that somebody will do what is necessary to stop the bad guys and save our enlightened skins. If we don't see somebody doing it in the real world, it's gratifying to at least watch it on TV.

I Love Tim Hardaway, But Not in a Gay Way

2007-02-15T08:37:00.000-06:00

Former NBA star and the first person to have "skillz" with a "z" Tim Hardaway was asked how he would deal with a gay teammate:

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

..."First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team.

"And second of all, if he was on my team, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, uh, I don't think that's right. And you know I don't think he should be in the locker room while we're in the locker room. I wouldn't even be a part of that," he said.

Okay, probably a mistake to say "I hate gay people." I don't see Tim Hardaway as somebody who cruises around town trying to run down gay people with his car, but still, that's not a quote you want to be saddled with. But wow, how refreshing to hear someone give an actual opinion that hasn't been sanitized by the relentless politically correct inquisition in this country.

Self-outed former NBA player John Amaechi agrees with me:

"Finally, someone who is honest. It is ridiculous, absurb [sic, or maybe he just has a cold], petty, bigoted and shows a lack of empathy that is gargantuan and unfathomable. But it is honest. And it illustrates the problem better than any of the fuzzy language other people have used so far."

Hey, somebody got a Word-A-Day calendar for Christmas. Way to go, Thoreau.

Somebody explain this to me: If it's natural to be homosexual, as all the tolerant talking heads claim, why is it not just as natural for heterosexuals to be repelled by the thought of homosexuality? It seems like that would be part of the natural evolutionary process, doesn't it? We need reproductive sex for the species to survive. Those most likely to reproduce would be the ones with a strong attraction to reproductive sex (and thereby willing to go through all the trouble, pain, flower buying, and poem writing required to get it) and a strong aversion to non-reproductive sex (so as not to waste valuable time and energy that could be used making babies). So, a heterosexual's instinctive response to homosexuality would naturally be, "Yuck." And if you say that natural response can be "educated" out of a person, well, can natural homosexuality be educated out too?

My own opinions about sexuality have a lot to do with far-out concepts like "God" and "holiness," so we won't get into all that here. My point right now is: if you think that John Amaechi is how God made him, then so is Tim Hardaway.

Update: This is such common sense I can't believe someone has to write it, but thank goodness Michael Medved has taken up the mantle as well:

Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.

Undermining

2007-02-14T22:29:00.000-06:00

Promotional material for Congressman Jack Murtha's strategy meeting is surprisingly candid:

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president's $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its power-of-the-purse over the Iraq war.

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president's foreign and national security policy. [Emphasis added - j]

A sitting congressman talking about how he plans to undermine the lawfully elected president of the United States. Ladies and gentlemen, that is sedition.

In a healthy society, there might be consequenses for talking like that. As it is, Rep. Murtha just guaranteed himself some big honking contributions to his re-election fund. Is it any wonder that Osama bin Laden described us as the "weak horse?"

That Sneaky Sun

2007-02-12T22:47:00.000-06:00

Yeah, we're pretty sure that man is the cause of all global climate change. Pretty sure. But is there anything we've overlooked? Any subtle, elusive factors that might be influencing the earth's weather? Like, oh, I don't know... the sun?

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Jimmy and The Chicks Tour '07

2007-02-12T21:48:00.000-06:00

The brutal suppression of the Dixie Chicks continued at the Grammys, where The Two Thin Ones and the Pudgy One only received five trophies. After the ceremony, the Chicks were immediately hustled into a van by Secret Service agents and whisked back to the top-secret political dissenter prison, to contine their program of torture and brainwashing. Oh no, wait, I mean they did a lot of magazine interviews over prime rib and champaigne.

The Pudgy One commented, "I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message." Yes we do. And that message is: the Grammys are more about politics than music and therefore have no credibility whatsoever.

But just in case you didn't get the message, they also threw an award for best spoken-word album to Jimmy Carter. Early favorites for the 2008 award are Hugo Chavez for "Bush is the Devil, and Other Love Poems," and The Hamas Boys Choir for "Let's Get This Party Started...And Kill Some Jews!"

Tragedy Without End

2007-02-11T22:30:00.000-06:00

Is it possible for someone's life to get MORE screwed up AFTER she dies? If so, Anna Nicole Smith is going to pull it off:

The waterfront Bahamas mansion where the late Anna Nicole Smith lived with her newborn daughter and her companion has become their home again after the locks were changed twice at the disputed estate.

...

Not only is the paternity of the former Playboy Playmate's baby — who could inherit a fortune from Smith's late husband — in question, but so is the ownership of the mansion.

Although Stern is listed on a birth certificate as Dannielynn's father, two other men have challenged his paternity.

A former boyfriend, Larry Birkhead, has filed a lawsuit claiming he is the father. On Friday, Prince Frederic von Anhalt, the husband of actress Zsa Zsa Gabor, announced that he had a decade-long affair with Smith and may be the girl's father.

Ahoy! Do we have a Zsa Zsa sighting? That can't be good.

So begins the donnybrook for custody of Smith's daughter--who may or may not have a nine-figure inheritance coming--and the marketing of her tumultuous life and sad end.

I completely misread the significance of this event when it happened. I thought it would be: Anna Nicole dead, autopsy finds drugs, we all saw it coming, make a couple of Trim Spa jokes and move on to the next carnival attraction. Not so. Looks like this is going to be one of those events we wallow in for some time.

So I'm thinking, "Why are we getting a public response like this?" Part of it is just that she died so young. Part of it is the tragedy that she had every opportunity that the world could offer and never found peace in this life. And I think a lot of it is sympathy for someone who's life was, largely, out of her control.

I happened to see The Queen the same week that Anna Nicole died. It reminded me of the outpouring of grief for Princess Diana when she died. A lot of that was driven by the typical gaudy celebrity worship, but I think a lot was motivated by vitriol for the Unseen Hand that controlled Diana in life and drove her to her death, be it the Royals or the press.

There's a measure of that in the sympathy surrounding Anna Nicole too. She had every advantage and caught every break, but still her life was not her own. She used other people--took advantage of her ... intangible qualities--just as much as she was used herself. But she was used, and used badly. In a society where more and more people would sell their souls to be famous (or eat bugs, or sit in a room with Donald Trump for more than a minute), the consequences of that sale still scare the crap out of them.

Mmmm...Test Tube Steak

2007-02-06T20:46:00.000-06:00

Someday soon you may be able to enjoy hog farming without the chance of becoming emotionally attached to one that learns how to herd sheep or something. According to Popular Mechanics, scientists are getting good at growing pork from little piggy stem cells, thereby cutting out one more step in the process and speeding the delivery of ham to my mouth.

American farmers are already so great at producing food that even our giant American blubber guts can't consume it all. This could add a huge leap in productivity on top of that. Plus all the pasture land that's now used for livestock could be used for something even better, like golf courses or go-cart tracks. I haven't been this excited about bacon since...well, I'm always excited about bacon, but this is still pretty cool. You can even get free range cloned pork:

One technical challenge: Muscle tissue that has never been flexed is a gooey mass, unlike the grained texture of meat from an animal that once lived. The solution is to stretch the tissue mechanically, growing cells on a scaffold that expands and contracts. This would allow factories to tone the flaccid flesh with a controlled workout.

Yes, I love technology.

Index of Economic Freedom

2007-02-05T23:29:00.000-06:00

Behold! The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, or "Places I Might Move after Hillary Gets Elected and the Whole Country Goes in the Crapper."

The Visible State of the Union

2007-02-03T23:17:00.000-06:00

For the history buffs in the audience (and I know I've got some), here's a really cool tool that lets you use a slick graphical interface to search all the state of the union addresses by every president. It gives you the full text of the speech, as well as the frequency of the most-used words in each address. Notice how the word "throbbing" jumps to the top of the list during the Clinton years.

Is Mitt Romney Bad for Christians?

2007-02-03T22:37:00.000-06:00

It's early yet, but Mitt Romney is clearly going to be getting a lot of ink as he contends for the presidency in 2008. Much of that publicity is going to focus on the fact that Mitt is a Mormon, and I think that the Christian community had better start preparing itself for this.

Because reporters don't know much about anything, they try to define everything in terms of big, sweeping categories: Businessmen and guns are bad; environmentalists and anything that sounds European are good. It helps them to get their heads around complicated issues without all the pesky research that cuts into happy hour. As they look into Mormonism for stories on Romney, they're going to discover--if you don't mind me saying--some weird-ass crap. Since, inside their tiny reporter brains, they've already determined that all religious people are the same, they're going to assume that the aforementioned weird-ass crap applies to Christians too, and they'll write their stories without looking into it any more than that.

(By the way, if you think I'm implying that Mormons aren't Christians, you're exactly right.)

Already there are commentators who are actively trying to equate evangelical Christians with Islamic fanatics. Christians haven't been nearly aggressive enough in slapping that line down, and the longer stuff like that goes unchallenged, the more it seeps into the collective consciousness as truth. If we're not vigilant, those same commentators will blur the line between Conservative Christian/Devout Mormon so that the average guy on the street thinks they're one and the same.

This is not an official jaceonline anti-endorsement of Mitt Romney. The Republican field right now is so weak that he may be the best available option come 2008. But his Mormonism combined with the ignorance of the press (willful or otherwise) will lead to distortions that Christians must be prepared to refute.

"God Does Not Need Religion; Man Does"

2007-02-03T22:29:00.000-06:00

Don Surber points out the real danger from global warming:

We have reached a creepy time in our civilization. Socialism has led to secularism and the absence of a religion is driving people nuts. The dark secret is that God does not need religion, Man does. Without God, there is no controlling moral authority. Atheism’s pretensions toward logic overlook the disturbing conclusion that if we are just clumps of chemicals haphazardly assembled through trial and error over time through evolution, then we are not our brother’s keeper. Kill. Rape. Steal. Lie. Cheat. For there is no God under that system, and no reason not to.

Societies need religion. But because all the past religions, like every other endeavor of mankind, were imperfect, the pseudo-intellectuals reject them all. They see salvation only through a new religion. Jane Fonda once embraced Jonestown. Oops.

Call it Gaia, but it is the same caveman reading the entrails of some animal to predict tomorrow. There is the same loony sacrifice to try to sway the gods to spare us. Offered up are SUVs (never pickups) and incandescent lamps and turning off the Eiffel Tower for a few moments. Divinity School dropout Gore makes a perfect leader.

You can't argue against environmentalism with facts, because environmentalists don't care if it really does any good or not. The purpose of environmentalism is not to change the environment, but to demonstrate and perfect the righteousness of its followers. It's the new, more perfect religion, endorsed by the elite, and it creates an excuse to do all kinds of crazy crap. That would be fine if it was any other fad like CB radios or the Equal Rights Amendment. Unfortunately, politicians have caught on:

I saw Barbara Boxer on the "Larry King Show." She said the debate is over. That statement of finality is more harmful than all the emissions from all the SUVs ever built. The politicians are using this to expand their power. This is the Patriot Act on steroids.

Cars ARE Public Transportation

2007-01-31T22:45:00.000-06:00

Hard to believe, but The Washington Post attacks some of the myths propagated by the people who try to cram public transportation down our throats, including:

4.We're paving over America.

How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent? That's the Census Bureau's figure. And even much of that is not exactly crowded: The bureau says that an area is "developed" when it has 30 or more people per square mile.

The Problem with Sports

2007-01-30T23:01:00.000-06:00

I love reading ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons. He makes me laugh out loud more consistently than any other writer working today. But,lordy, no one can annoy us like the ones we love. Bill is a hugeantic New England Patriots fan--the kind of fan who is oblivious to how irritating his fandom can be to those who don't share it. As New England prepared to play Indianapolis for a spot in the Super Bowl, Bill wondered why more people weren't rooting for his Pats. He came to the only possible
logical conclusion... there's something wrong with sports itself!

Bear in mind, this is a guy who is a life-long sports fan, who has been a sports journalist for 10 years plus, and who writes enough words on sports every week to give Stephen King a case of sympathetic carpel tunnel syndrome. He's seen drug scandals, strikes, and lock-outs. He's seen players attack players, players attack coaches, fans attack coaches, and owners attack whole cities. But this...THIS is the moment that he decides that hate has taken over sports: when other people don't like his favorite team as much as he does.

And I get the part where the outside world is ready for another team, because that's the way our society works now: We embrace something new, digest it, beat it into the ground and move on to something else....[Ellipsis, because he writes a LOT. Did I mention that? - j] It's the Everything Sucks Era. We spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about everyone else.Nobody's good, nobody's worthwhile and everybody needs to go away. That's the prevailing theme. And after their third Super Bowl victory, the Patriots entered the "all right, you guys can go away now,
you've ceased to be interesting" stage of their run, where we've been stuck for the past two seasons. I'm sure the players and coaches don't care, but for the fans, it's been bittersweet and even a little discouraging. If you can't appreciate THIS team, even as an impartial observer, what does that say about the future of
sports?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the statement of a jackass: "People don't like my favorite movie / politician / team, therefore there's something wrong with culture / politics / sports!" I've got no problem with people being so completely sold out for a team that they see past all the annoyances; that's what makes good marriages. But if you're a grown-up, you've at least got to know, in the back of your mind, that not everybody will like your team as much as you do.

I'm just speculating here, but here are some reasons people might dislike the Patriots: 1) America loves underdogs, and I don't care if you have the most inspiring, heart-warming, up-from-the-gutter story in the world; I don't care if your life story makes Will Smith's character in "The Pursuit ofHappyness " look like Paris Hilton with brains and a scratch golf game--once you win 3 out of 4 Super Bowls, you are no longer the underdog. You are The Man. And America hates The Man. 2) Male sports fans can only put up with the pretty boy quarterback for so long. 3) I follow pro football only casually, but I have ESPN on in the background all the time. I am sick to death of hearing round table discussions on how the Patriots may be the greatest pro sports team of all time. Let's move on to something else, folks. I'd rather hear that Sean Paul song another million times. (Wait, scratch that. Tell me more about that dreamy Tom Brady.) 4) The Pats' coach is an unrepentant a-hole who apparently can't dress himself and has no interest in learning how. And hey, coach, thanks for that classy post-game interview.

Hate is a healthy, time-honored tradition in sports fandom, no more common now than it ever has been. If you want to know what's wrong with sports nowadays, let this Patriot hater tell you.

Athletes discovered the word "respect."
Respect is another time-honored sports tradition. Athletes have been playing for respect since there have been athletes. The thing is, they never talked about it. It was always just understood.

Now every third-string, minor league yahoo has got to go on and on about how he doesn't get his respect. Even more annoying, they keep going on about it even after they win. This was a particular problem with the Patriots, who would only be satisfied if Hollywood devoted the whole of its production capacity to soft-focus documentaries on the cleft in Brady's chin.

Reporters discovered the word "choke."
Sports reporting once had a dignified, majestic quality; it was about the victors and the vanquished. Now we just have "winners" and "chokers." Apparently it's no longer possible to play hard and well and still lose to a better opponent. Now every loss means somebody choked, and we have to find out who it is and pound him relentlessly until he bursts into tears or goes on a shooting spree. At which point he's no longer a choker, but a head case who couldn't handle the pressure.

Next to these problems, Patriot hate doesn't even register. I say, keep it coming (and Yankee hate too).

Hitchens on Steyn

2007-01-23T22:51:00.000-06:00

Two of my favorite smart-sounding English dudes collide as Christopher Hitchens reviews Mark Steyn's book America Alone.

Why a Pontiac Isn't a Lexus

2007-01-18T23:08:00.000-06:00

Mickey Kaus explains how unions are crippling American car makers:

GM pays $31.35 an hour [in labor costs per car]. Toyota pays $27 an hour. Not such a big difference. But--thanks in part to union work rules that prevent the thousands of little changes that boost productivity--it takes GM, on average, 34.3 hours to build a car, while it takes Toyota only 27.9 hours. ** Multiply those two numbers together and it comes out that GM spends 43% more on labor per car. And that's before health care costs (where GM has a $1,300/vehicle disadvantage).

If you're GM or Ford, how do you make up for a 43% disadvantage? Well, you concentrate on vehicle types where you don't have competition from Toyota--e.g. big SUVs in the 1980s and 1990s. Or you build cars that strike an iconic, patriotic chord--like pickup trucks, or the Mustang and Camaro. Or--and this is the most common technique--you skimp on the quality and expense of materials. Indeed, you have special teams that go over a design to "sweat" out the cost. Unfortunately, these cost-cutting measures (needed to make up for the UAW disadvantage) are all too apparent to buyers. Cost-cutting can even affect handling--does GM spend the extra money for this or that steel support to stabilize the steering, etc. As Robert Cumberford of Automobile magazine has noted, Detroit designers design great cars--but those aren't what gets built, after the cost-cutters are through with them.

Yeek

2007-01-17T10:01:00.000-06:00

In an editorial on Barak Obama, the editors of National Review make a frightening comparison:

These perilous times certainly call for a more experienced politician than Obama, and his utterly orthodox liberalism — whatever the seductions of its disarming presentation — is not the answer to the nation’s challenges. But voters have turned once before to a newcomer with thin experience in the midst of a dangerous international environment. His name was Jimmy Carter.

Tyranny of Bureaucrats

2007-01-11T21:18:00.000-06:00

Jonah Goldberg writes about all the ways we are at the mercy of government regulators:

The New York Post recently compiled a list of the things that the New York City Council tried to ban — not all successfully — just in 2006 alone: pit bulls; trans-fats; aluminum baseball bats; the purchase of tobacco by 18- to 20-year-olds; foie gras; pedicabs in parks; new fast-food restaurants (but only in poor neighborhoods); lobbyists from the floor of council chambers; lobbying city agencies after working at the same agency; vehicles in Central and Prospect parks; cell phones in upscale restaurants; the sale of pork products made in a processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., because of a unionization dispute; mail-order pharmaceutical plans; candy-flavored cigarettes; gas-station operators adjusting prices more than once daily; Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus; Wal-Mart.

...

The rule of thumb for a free society should be that it infringes liberties rarely, but when it does so it is for important reasons. Today, that thumb has been cast down, Caesar-like, pointing in the opposite direction. We have democratized the small assaults on freedom so that everyone must endure them, while we caterwaul about the tyranny of any real inconvenience that might fall "disproportionately" on the few. We ban using trans fats for millions but flinch at the idea that some kid might have to endure the Pledge of Allegiance or a moment of silence in school if it conflicts with his conscience.

Jonah calls the regulators "well-meaning," but I think that may be giving them too much credit. Of course, they think their actions will result in good things. But if people without government power behaved the same way--constantly telling us what we could and couldn't do because they know what's best, by golly--we'd call them "bossy" and "irritating," not "well-meaning."

"Even Islam Has Rednecks"

2007-01-11T20:35:00.000-06:00

And they have rocket propelled grenedes. What do you think rednecks would do with an RPG? Exactly.

Modern Atheists

2007-01-10T22:43:00.000-06:00

I listen to waaaaaay too much talk radio, and some of the shows I listen to, Michael Medved in particular, will frequently have guests with an opposing viewpoint to the host so as to generate some lively debate and get me screaming at my radio.

When the subject is religion, the opposition guest will often be a representative of some anti-religious organization like Americans United to Replace All Crucifixes with Toothpick Dispensers. These self-proclaimed atheists always seem like they arrived from central casting: they are uniformly arrogant, smarmy, and condescending to anybody who takes religion seriously. They don't make arguments for their side; they just snidely dismiss Christians as ignorant kooks. Sam Schulman, writing for OpinionJournal, noticed the same thing:

They want to make belief itself not simply an object of intellectual derision but a cause for personal embarrassment. A new generation of publicists for atheism has emerged to tell Americans in particular that we should be ashamed to retain a majority of religious believers, that in this way we resemble the benighted, primitive peoples of the Middle East, Africa and South America instead of the enlightened citizens of Western Europe.

...

What is new about the new atheists? It's not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won't encounter a single point you didn't hear in your freshman dormitory. It's their tone that is novel. Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote--both of which, the new atheists assure us, they do in lockstep with the pope and Jerry Falwell.

...

The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite.

There are two reasons that people argue about something: a) To try to persuade those who disagree, or b) to make themselves feel superior to those who disagree.

Sheep Need Hairdressers Too

2007-01-06T10:10:00.000-06:00

The eccentricities of human nature never cease to amaze me. And I don't mean the nature of individual humans; I mean the nature of humanity in general. I can't believe the stuff that we get all worked up about.

From the London Times:

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

Did you catch that? Critics fear it could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans. Oh no! Not that! This could signal the dawn of a dark age of poorly choreographed musicals and unprovocative Calvin Klein ads!

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at
the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the "right" of sheep to be gay. She said: "How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?" She said gay men and lesbians would be "deeply offended" by the social implications of the tests.

...

Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said: "I don’t believe the motives of the study are homophobic, but their work brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example."

Hey Udo, here's something even easier: imagine this technology in the hands of parents who hope to one day have grandchildren.

The first time I heard a homosexual defend homosexuality on the grounds that it was biologically preordained, I thought, "You better hope not. Because if it is, eventually we're going to figure out how to prevent it, and then it's going to be a lot harder for you to get dates."

It's funny that protesters are arguing against this on moral grounds, when the whole purpose of their "people are born gay" argument was to take morality out of the equation. Now that science can tinker with the biology, they want to talk morals again.

Fine, fine. I know I can make the moral case, even though I may have to use the word "sin." (Gasp! Oh, no you di'n't!) But you can also argue for research like this without bringing morality into it at all. Sheep farmers want their herds to be more productive, and this provides that possibility . In the same way, in order for the human race to survive, we have to reproduce. The more people who are interested in the reproductive kind of sex, the better our chances. ("Hey doofus," you may say, "There are six billion people in the world. We're not in danger of becoming extinct or anything." Tell that to the good people of Russia or Spain, whose populations are getting cut in half every generation.) Plus the fact that parents, who are typically going to be heterosexual, are going to want children like themselves (it's hard enough for parents to get along with their kids in the first place). Plus, reducing the percentage of homosexuals in a population reduces all kinds of public health problems. Plus, controlling homosexual tendencies could reduce instances of prison rape. Etc., etc...

So, is this research on sheep going to lead reductions in the human homosexual population? Of course not. Biology is at most only partly responsible for human sexuality. We are much more complex than that. Maybe there is a substance the presence or absence of which in my brain leads me to be attracted to women more than men. But is there another substance which makes me seek out women with loud laughs and sarcastic senses of humor? And another that repels me from women who own more than two cats? Or is there something other--some unquantifiable combination of life experience and heart's desire that accumulates into a soul and makes me the person I am?

I know it's not popular in scientific circles to imply that humans might be more than bundles of chemical impulses, but I'm afraid that's the case. Tell Ms. Navratilova not to get in a twist.

Lame Super Heroes

2007-01-04T20:55:00.000-06:00

Not every super hero can be cool, and to prove it, here's a pretty convincing list of the 10 lamest super heroes of all time. It includes this peek into what Aqualad's life must've really been like:

I take you now to a meeting of the Teen Titans...

Robin: Okay everybody - how was your week this week? This week Batman and I stopped the Joker from causing mass genocide! What did you do this week Speedy?

Speedy: This week Green Arrow and I shook down some crooked politicians, joined a peace rally, stopped some racist cops and fed the homeless some of Green Arrow's famous chili - how about you Donna?

Wonder Girl: Wow - me and Wonder Woman flew to Mount Olympus in her invisible jet and had a special meeting with Zeus and the other gods of Mount Olympus... how about you Aqualad?

Aqualad: Ummmm... me and Aquaman stopped some dolphins from going into a hydro dam!

Kid Flash: Wow - you suck Aqualad.

Sabanmania!

2007-01-04T20:30:00.000-06:00

Who is this throng breathlessly waiting to catch a glimpse of? The President? The Pope? Somebody who knows a guy who once broke a $20 for Barak Obama?

Nope, this guy.

I think more people showed up at the Tuscaloosa airport to welcome Coach Nick Saban than voted in the last gubernatorial election. Who is the governor of Alabama, anyway? Who cares?! We've got Sabanmania!!

After Saban and his family arrived to chants of "Roll Tide!" at the Tuscaloosa Regional Airport, he brushed off questions from reporters to shake
hands with fans, setting off a frenzy.

When Saban walked up to a Crimson-clad woman, she yelled: "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Nick Saban!"

Parents held up a sign in front of a newborn baby, proclaiming: "Coach Saban, your future QB!"

That's right, "Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Nick Saban!" At least she put them in the right order.

A Simple Request

2007-01-03T22:30:00.000-06:00

Dear Mr. Saban,

Please stay out of the strip clubs.

Luv,
Jason

Things I Hate

2007-01-03T22:16:00.000-06:00

I was half paying attention to the Sugar Bowl halftime show, and I could swear I saw the Notre Dame marching band playing a Jimmy Buffett song. Was I hallucinating? Can somebody confirm that for me? Just when I thought I couldn't hate Notre Dame any more...

Same Old Sic

2007-01-02T10:09:00.000-06:00

It's a new year, but the players are the same, as we can see in this NewsBusters report that shows Good Morning America treating a reference to heaven like a grammatical error. Happy 2007, Mainstream Media! Sorry you couldn't make the New Year's Eve candlelight service.

2006 Year in Review

2007-01-02T09:50:00.000-06:00

I haven't had a chance to do my own "year in review" post, but luckily Dave Barry took care of it for me:

This was the year in which the members of the United States Congress, who do not bother to read the actual bills they pass, spent weeks poring over instant messages sent by a pervert. This was the year in which the vice president of the United States shot a lawyer, which turned out to be totally legal in Texas.

Also there were many pesky problems left over from 2005 that refused to go away in 2006, including Iraq, immigration, high gas prices, terrorism, global warming, avian flu, Iran, North Korea and Paris Hilton. Future generations are going to look back at this era and ask us how we could have allowed Paris Hilton to happen, and we are not going to have a good answer.

Harsh words, but true.

Scene from Any Government Office

2006-10-26T19:31:00.000-06:00

I know I haven't posted in a while, and for that I deeply and sincerely apologize. But I found a video on YouTube that demanded my, and your, attention. Take as long as you want to download it, watch it a thousand times; you still will not be as perfect a master of time-wasting as the guys who made it.

Honey Trap

2006-10-08T18:28:00.000-06:00

I didn't feel like writing anything about the Foley scandal, because, geez, do I really have to explain why? And luckily, I don't have to, because Mark Steyn is on the case:

This was a honey trap (as they used to say in the Cold War) designed to leverage one peripheral figure's squalid fantasies into political opportunity. It's as predictable as the leaves falling from the trees, except that it only occurs every other autumn. Still, I take my hat off to the media and Democratic Party. Indeed, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, I take my pants off to them. It is a remarkable achievement to have transformed, in little more than a week, the GOP into the Catholic Diocese of Boston with Speaker Hastert as Cardinal Law and the page program as the massed ranks of 7-year-old altar boys. What an awesome force the Dems would be if only the ruthless skill and cunning that went into this operation could be applied to, say, national security.

Prepare for the Great Bobblehead Riots of '06

2006-10-02T19:50:00.000-06:00

Just in time for Christmas (ooops, I mean, winter holiday) shopping season, an enterprising fella is marketing a bobblehead version of one of those Mohammed cartoons that all the Muslims were so amused by a few months back.

Will there be outrage over this? Is the pope an infidel? Heck, yeah. But as Wuzzadem reminds us, outrage is the Jell-O of Islam -- there's always room for it.

How to Not Win Re-Election

2006-10-02T18:15:00.000-06:00

If Republicans lose control of Congress this year, it'll be their own fault. OpinionJournal recounts their legacy of legislative inadequacy:

...the list of flops is extensive, starting with making the tax cuts permanent, repealing the estate tax and immigration reform. Senate Democrats did their part to kill the first two, but House Republicans get credit for fanning public worry about immigration and then pretending that a 700-mile fence will solve the problem.

Social Security reform was never going to be easy, and Mr. Bush's war-driven decline in job approval meant he couldn't move any Democrats. But that still doesn't excuse such prominent Republicans as Tom Davis (Virginia) and Roy Blunt (Missouri) for resisting their President's reform effort behind the scenes. So frightened were they that they never even brought the subject up for a vote.

...too many Republicans now believe their purpose in Washington is keeping power for its own sake. The reform impulse that won the House in 1994 has given way to incumbent protection.

Tags: Republican, idiots

John Hughes is a Conservative, and Slate Hates Him

2006-09-27T22:41:00.000-06:00

An article in Slate examines the political leanings of movie maker John Hughes in that gratingly snooty, over-educated way that you can only get from Slate or Alex Trebek. Some samples:

Hughes was also the first Balzac of homeroom, arguing that what stratified public education as much as looks, popularity, or natural herd instincts was net worth. Even those dismayed by the cheap sentimentality and wafer-thin plotlines of his films could at least appreciate seeing class presented as not something you skipped but were defined by. Hughes, though, was never quite the antagonist of the status quo he made himself out to be. He was actually a political conservative, and his portrayals of down-and-out youth rebellion had more to do with celebrating the moral victory of the underdog than with championing the underprivileged. In Hughes' hormonal vale of tears, snobs and elitists were the ones who ruined wealth for everybody else.

Whu-huh? Here we have a textbook example of "over-analysis." Can you clarify the difference between "celebrating the moral victory of the underdog" and "championing the underprivileged"? Which one was Anthony Michael Hall?

I may be reading too much into this, but it seems like the writer is angry at Hughes. It sounds like he was a big fan until he put two and two together and realized that this teen icon may actually be (gasp!) a grown-up. More examples:

It's true that Hughes remained mute on his partisanship just as he was being hailed as the reigning auteur of angst, but a 1988 Premiere profile brushed up against his convictions by calling him the "sort of guy Norman Rockwell might have been if he'd lived in Hollywood."

Yeah, he's just like that bastard Rockwell... All those paintings and not one of them shows an image of Jesus in a Bo-Peep outfit covered in camel dung. You call that talent?

It should have come as no surprise, then, that a faint smirk of family-values-friendly subversion stamped itself on all of late Hughes, which is to say his even more establishment period as a filmmaker. From The Great Outdoors (in-laws sure are difficult) to Home Alone (towheaded McMansion latchkey kid foils robbery, saves Christmas) to Dennis the Menace (overall-wearing scamp of the manicured lawns sling-shoots his way straight into your heart)Â?these were comedies for the Dan Quayle in all of us.

Ah, reaching back to Dan Quayle for a punch line, are we? No, that's cute, and only about 15 years stale too.

Any semi-conscious viewer could tell that Hughes was a very pro-family movie maker from the beginning. One constant theme of his stories are the problems that stem from fractured or broken families. His whole career was spent demonstrating the difference between Ferris and Cameron. The kid with loving (but gullible) parents was well-adjusted and successful; the kid with distant, distracted parents was a loser.

And by the way, it is unconscionable that any analysis of Hughes' work go on this long without mentioning his opus, Uncle Buck. The salvation of every character in that movie grew from the realization, by Buck and his teenaged niece Tia, that family was more important than rebellion.

Now, to Slate's Michael Weiss, here's a quarter. Why don't you go downtown and have a rat gnaw that esoteric film school claptrap off your face?

Return of the Saints

2006-09-25T21:13:00.000-06:00

I'm watching the much-hyped Monday Night Football game where the Saints are playing the Falcons in the first game in the Superdome since Katrina. I know that journalists love an emotional, heartstring-pulling story, and sports reporters even moreso than news reporters. But the way that ESPN's broadcast team is openly rooting for the Saints is almost kind of sickening. I think Mike Tirico is actually throwing things at the Falcons players. New Orleans has become the city equivilent to the mentally disabled kid who everyone hopes will get a hit in the little league game.

Our French Betters

2006-09-19T10:44:00.000-06:00

Holy crap, is this a parody? For comedy's sake, I hope not. But for the sake of the the future of mankind, I really, really hope it is.

A contestant on the French version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" can't decide if it's the moon or the sun that orbits the Earth. He asks the audience for help and they don't know either. Watch it and tremble. Or laugh. Either one.

Muslim Rage, Presbyterian Jokes

2006-09-18T22:21:00.000-06:00

Those nutty Muslims are kicking up dust again, this time over the recent statement from Pope Benedict the Exvee. The Pope decried the concepts of jihad and religious conversion by violence. Naturally, Muslims reacted to statements implying they are unthinking and violent by rioting in the streets.

I would ask if the global Muslim community realizes how funny this is, but it's obvious they don't. Have you ever seen such a bunch of touchy, humorless people who weren't waiting in line to get into a Tori Amos concert? This brings to mind something Jonah Goldberg wrote a while back, speaking of an article on Islamic fascism from the Wall Street Journal:

What I like about Scruton's piece is that it raises the humorlessness of Islamism. Whether that makes it fascist seems debatable, but it's supremely relevant. Ideologies usually don't have a sense of humor, but ideologues who don't should be distrusted.

I love watching kids at that age when they start to develop a real sense of humor. It's a great sign of growth and maturity when you can say something that is intentionally funny; even moreso when you can say something funny about yourself. Nobody says anything funny about Islam. What would it look like to even attempt it?

Muslim #1: Why did Mohammed cross the road?
Muslim #2: The Prophet (peace be upon him) would never cross a road! The other side of the road would come to him! Infidel! You must die!
Muslim #1: Well, I didn't mean any...What are you doing with that sword?
Muslim #2: [Schwing!]
Muslim #1: [Sound of severed head plopping to the ground.]

Or maybe something like this:

Muslim #1: Knock, knock.
Muslim #2: Who's there? Not some Jewish son of a pig and a whore, I hope.
Muslim #1: Mohammed.
Muslim #2: How dare you imply that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would bruise his knuckles on a common door! Infidel! You must die! Where's my suicide belt?!
Muslim #1: Did I say "Mohammed"? I meant..."Chester."
Muslim #2: [KA-BOOM!]

Not too long ago, my Southern Baptist church had guest pastor from the Presbyterian church down the street. (Kind of like when Carson would go on vacation and Gary Shandling would host the Tonight Show. Except different.) In his opening remarks, he thanked the congregation for letting "one of those frozen, chosen Presbyterians" preach to them. And of course he got a big laugh, because we all know the reputations of our assorted denominations, and we joke about ourselves, and we joke about each other, and we get along.

And I thought, that's when we'll be able to tell that the Middle East is ready to join the rest of us in the 21st century: when they're mature enough to joke about themselves, and not fly into a screaming rage at every perceived slight. Nobody who is this prone to tantrums deserves to be taken seriously.

Tags: Islam, humorless

For No Particular Reason

2006-09-17T13:50:00.000-06:00

Man, this picture makes me laugh. I can't explain why, but the same can be said about much that makes me laugh. I'm sure you've seen it around the web, but I'm posting the super-deluxe animated version here just because...well, it really makes me laugh.

More Economics, Jason?

2006-09-12T21:44:00.000-06:00

Yes, I'm afraid so. But trust me; it'll be good for you.

You may be shocked to learn that sometimes the press distorts economic statistics to favor a particular political agenda. You might say that their misreporting comes from ignorance, and it is true that press ignorance on many subjects is abundant. But it's funny how their "mistakes" always manage to make the free market system look like a pitiless machine that chews up the bones of the poor and spits out silk throw pillows to cushion the delicate bottoms of the rich. It's almost like reporters are predisposed to see the world that way. Hmmmm...

Anyway, over at Asymmetrical Information, Megan McArdle found a shocking report in the Detroit Free Press that said median household income has been plummeting. Truly shocking and appalling news; an indictment of the entire capitalist system. However, it turns out that the story was based on two different surveys that collected their data in different ways, something that the reporters failed to mention. Says Megan:

...when I use two sources, I make a note of the fact, as well as which way the disparities seem to run. Or I use figures that are truly comparable, even if it means I can't make exactly the comparisons I want.

Given that there was huge divergence between the 1999 income figures from the Census, and the 2000 figures from the ACS--a rather obvious spot check--I personally would never have dared make such a comparison in print, even with footnotes. All their graph really tells us is that the new ACS produces lower estimates of median income than the Census long form. The ACS may well be more accurate. But it doesn't matter; you can't compare apples to oranges just because the apples are prettier.

A good point indeed. Would the reporters have been this free and easy with the details if their research showed that median incomes were going up?

But here's an even better question: How valuable is a measure of median household income in the first place? The Only Republican in San Francisco takes a look at that very issue, and breaks it down by the numbers, showing as an example a hypothetical economy with five workers and a median wage of $75,000:

Tom $25K

Tanya $50K

Dick $75K

Jane $100K

Harriet $150K

Now Harriet's business is doing really well. She needs some project managers. Starting wage: $50K. Wow! She needs three of them, right away.

Tom $25K

Tanya $50K

Sandy $50K

Roger $50K

Jim $50K

Dick $75K

Jane $100K

Harriet $150K

Sounds like Sandy, Roger and Jim's economic outlooks have improved considerably. That's $150K of new wealth every year that they keep working. Great for them and for the economy, no doubt.

But what's the new median wage? $50K. That's a drop of 33% from the median wage before these people got new jobs. Is it fair to conclude that things are getting worse?

Remember: one statistic doesn't necessarily give you the whole picture of the economy, especially when it's filtered through our buddies in the mainstream media. Torture numbers and they will tell you anything.

Tags: economics, ignorance

The Lego Minigun

2006-09-12T20:01:00.000-06:00

Noah Webster created the word "awesome" just for things like this: a motorized Gatling rubber band gun made of Legos, capable of firing eleven shots a second. Awesome.

I'm kind of ashamed of myself. When I goof off, the only by-product is a layer of Doritos cheese dust on my chest. When this guy goofs off, he revolutionizes rubber band warfare.

Tags: lego, minigun

C. S. Lewis

2006-09-06T21:17:00.000-06:00

Do you have any idea how much C.S. Lewis stuff there is on the internet? Well, these goys do: Into the Wardrobe :: a C. S. Lewis web site. Head on over there and get to know Mr. Lewis. Thank me later.

Fighting McCain-Feingold

2006-09-05T22:41:00.000-06:00

The McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act goes into effect for this election cycle on Thursday. That means that, by order of your United States federal government, no one may broadcast an advertisement that is critical of a sitting congressman. Hear that sound? It's Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave like an electric turbine.

But (and here's something I say almost every day), luckily, we still have the internet. Blogger Bill Hobbs does his part to combat the surpression of free speech thusly:

...here's another suggestion for groups wishing to continue running commercials criticizing candidates by name: Make the ads, then upload them to YouTube, and spread them via blogs. BillHobbs.com will be happy to carry commercials criticizing incumbent Democrats. Just contact our ad sales department at bill-at-billhobbs.com!

Here at jaceonline, we'd like to join Hobbs in encouraging the widespread ridicule of elected officials. If you have a video, sound clip, photograph, oil painting, poem, pithy one-liner ... whatever method you choose to stick it to The Man -- send me a copy or a link and I'll be glad to post it.

Let's Talk Economics

2006-09-04T13:36:00.000-06:00

Warning: This post will be almost entirely about economics. If you think this might cause your head to explode, please feel free to skip it and re-read this post about polar bear genitals. Thank you.

I've noticed several interesting articles about the economy recently. Unfortunately some of them were notable for their extreme stupidity. Unless you're up to your elbows in news and commentary on the web every day, you've probably never heard of Kevin Drum, but this writer for the liberal Washington Monthly magazine is frequently quoted around the blogosphere. I'm not sure why that is, though, or how he manages to hold a job as a writer, as he appears to be so dumb that it's only through sheer luck that he ever manages to hold a pencil pointy side down.

The first post that got me thinking about the twin subjects of economics and idiocy was this one from Cafe Hayek, where they examine Drum's article on (begin scary music here) the Secret Mechanism that rich people use to keep you poor! Look it in the face, if you dare!

First, Drum quotes Ezra Klein:

The concern [is] that, through mechanisms we're not entirely sure of, the very richest are siphoning off the economic growth before it flows through the middle and lower classes.

Then he does some elaboration of his own:

I'm not sure this gets the mechanism quite right, though. There are two basic ways that unequal growth can happen:

The rich suck up vast amounts of income growth, and this leaves very little money for the middle class. Thus, wages for the middle class are stagnant or, at best, rising slowly.

Middle class wages are kept stagnant, and this frees up vast amounts of money from economic growth. The money has to go somewhere, and it goes to the rich.

Cafe Hayek's Russell Roberts then approaches the fish-filled barrel:

So Drum suspects that there is an unspecified mechanism that somehow keeps the wages of millions stagnant freeing up all that growth for the rich to nab. The metaphor is a buffet table where the middle class is cordoned off from the food, leaving the rich to feast at their leisure.

It's a nice metaphor, but what does it have to do with the economic world you and I live live in, where people go to school, grow up, enter the job market and find work among millions of employers in competition with each other for our services? Yes, you can make the case that some sectors are less competitive than others. But what model or vision or theory of economic reality presumes a mystical mechanism that keeps millions of workers in thrall while somehow creating great wealth for others?

Roberts pays Drum the great and undeserved compliment of taking his argument seriously, smacking down each of Drum's points in turn. But the real problem is not this particular argument, but a fundamental failure to understand how markets work to build wealth. Sadly, it's not just the failure of one writer, but of millions of people--many of whom vote and write laws and teach economics to college students.

The problem is, not everybody is as rich as they think they deserve to be. Some people are keenly aware that they are smarter and more talented then most, but because they are talented in areas like philosophy or journalism, the market does not provide them with the rewards that it provides to people who are talented in, say, football or pornography or even (shudder!) business. Because of this inequity, smart people believe that there must be some hidden force at work against them. They can't explain it, but they know it's there, because how else could you explain that people as smart as they are are still driving a five year old Saab with a sticky clutch, dammit!?!

So, we have all this talk of "secret mechanisms" and a near-maniacal obsession with income inequality. We're warned of the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Even though everyone is doing better (and they are; if you need convincing, see this statistic-packed article from TCS Daily), the rich are doing better faster than the poor, and that's horribly bad news for some reason that no one has ever really explained.

However, one thing nobody mentions when they talk about "the poor" is that they're never talking about the same people twice. Dr. Tony explains:

What is unrecognized is that today's poor aren't yesterday's poor, nor will they be tomorrow's poor. If you read Thomas Sowell, you will see that entry level wages may be flat, but people don't stay in entry level jobs. ... people move to new jobs for better wages. The MSM likes to report that income for "the poorest 10%" has not increased, but a sample of today's poorest 10% will show income growth over the next year. The problem with the MSM logic is that they aren't sampling the same people.

You could argue that the youngest 10% of babies are eating the same foods they were 10 years ago. This means that babies eat baby food. So what? It certainly doesn't mean that people who were eating baby food 10 years ago are still eating baby food.

Beautiful example. By definition, the income of "the poor" will never match the income of "the rich." Income inequality statistics are a political activist's shell game. Poor people make less money than rich people, and they are going to keep making less money than rich people, until they don't, at which time they'll become "the rich," and somebody else will be "the poor," because they make less money than "the rich." And so on, and so on, doo-dah, doo-dah.

Unfortunately, this simple truth is worthless in this particular argument. For the people who cry about income inequality, I'm afraid the real motivating factor is just good, old-fashioned jealousy. We must use taxation and regulation to take away from people who have a lot, because, well, they have more than me, and I don't feel like taking a second job. Megan McArdle explains:

Beauty, like wealth, is relative--it benefits its possessor only insofar as they are lovelier than the women, or handsomer than the men, around them. Presumably, if we disfigured all the good looking actors in Hollywood, and the models in New York, and . . . well, heck, let's slash the faces of everyone who's better looking than I am.

...why is this so much more horrifying than the idea of taking the fruits of people's labours--most of which were gotten fairly honesty, by dint of hard work and delayed gratification (even if those efforts got a big boost from education etc.) Is it that beauty is somehow more worthy than wealth? The pursuit of wealth has allowed the masses to escape, as Robert Fogel noted, "From hunger and premature death". The pursuit of beauty has brought us jogging . . . and Slim-fast and six-inch-heels and toupees and expensively educated surgeons who spend their days sucking fat out of their clients' thighs.

Or is it that the body is more sacred than the wallet? Do not most of today's wealthy make their money by presenting their body at work for many hours a day, and labouring with their minds, which are far more sacred to any rational person than their limbs or cheeks?

Ah-ha! The key word there is "rational," something that is in short supply in mainstream economic journalism.

P.S. - See another dumb economic comment from Drum lacerated by Megan McArdle here. I didn't feel like going into it myself, but geez, man! Do us all a favor and stop writing about the economy.

Tags: economics, income inequality

A World without the Crocodile Hunter

2006-09-04T10:56:00.000-06:00

What do you do when you wake up to find that you live in a world without the Crocodile Hunter? Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray yesterday, but it's hard to believe you haven't heard already, because it's being covered like the death of a head of state. I keep expecting Ted Koppel to break into regular network programming.

It's one of those things that's shocking to hear, and yet we all saw it coming. It kind of reminds me of the early demise of Chris Farley in that way. It's funny how, even though some people will exhibit the most insane behavior possible, we still go on believing that they, and we, will live forever anyway.

I've already read some blog posts speculating that Irwin had a death wish. Quite frankly, he doesn't seem like a death wish kind of guy to me. Crazy, yes; reckless, yes. But he seemed to have great love for his family, his job, and even all the creepy, stingy, bitey things that he hung around with all the time. Unlike Chris Farley, he wasn't using his wild public behavior to salve some inner wound. Heck, it wasn't just in public; he was like that all the time. He wasn't self-destructive; he was just a guy whose attitude was, "Hey, none of this has killed me yet, so why worry?"

As soon as babies learn to walk, they immediately start to run. Toddlers don't spend the first years of their lives walking slowly and cautiously, concentrating on their balance, gripping every handrail. They figure out the one-foot-in-front-of-the-other part, then they just take off. They're exhilarated by the motion, and they haven't yet internalized the dangers. They don't think about running into things or tripping and falling because it hasn't happened that much yet. And sure, it's more mature to be aware of stuff like that, and to moderate your behavior accordingly. But, ah, to heedlessly run...

P.S. - See a good post on what the Croc Hunter meant to some people at the Ace of Spades HQ.

Tags: Steve Irwin Crocodile Hunter

What We Knew about Saddam

2006-08-26T23:02:00.000-06:00

I hate, I hate, I hate having to make the same argument over and over again, but certain members of the Brainless-American community keep saying that Bush lied us into war in Iraq, so we have to keep pointing out the facts. To that end, Austin Bay publishes a useful essay from Tom Nichols describing what we knew about Saddam and when we knew it. Some highlights:

For what it’s worth, John Kerry (among others) called for Iraq to be "disarmed" right into 2003–if there were no WMD there, what exactly would we be "disarming?"–and there are plenty of statements from Democrats and others who could hardly be counted either as Bush supporters or part of some neo-con cabal that indicate a belief in active WMD programs in Iraq right through 2002.

That’s because, regardless of party affiliation, there are a lot of reasonable people in politics, and a reasonable person would not assume, without hard proof, that someone acting like they had something to hide did not in fact have something to hide. Why Saddam chose a path that ensured his downfall–pride? stupidity? arrogance?–is a question for psychologists, not policy analysts.

The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent–and just plain dumb–to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.

Tags: Tom Nichols, WMD

My Favorite Socialist

2006-08-26T23:01:00.000-06:00

How can you not like Christopher Hitchens? Sure, he's an old school socialist, borderline communist, and full-on paranoid atheist, but he meets all the requirements of the jaceonline Friendship Motto: "I don't need you to be conservative; I just need you to be reasonable."

Because of his impeccable reasonableness, and his British surliness, he gives us great entertainment when he brushes up against the unreasonable. Like when he gives the finger to the moronic studio audience of the moronic Bill Maher, for instance. Be sure to check out the video. I could watch it over and over. Hitchens hits it on the head by calling them all "frivolous," and coming from him it sounds like much more of an insult than you would think.

Tags: Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, mismatch

It Never Hurts to Read a Little Mark Steyn

2006-08-25T21:50:00.000-06:00

So here you go:

Multiculturalism, I believe, was conceived by Western elites not to celebrate all cultures, but to deny their own and in that sense it's the real suicide bomb. Islam and terrorism would not be a threat to the Western world if the Western world weren't so enervated that it gives the impression that it's basically just dying to keel over and to surrender to somebody.

...

At the heart of multiculturalism is a lie: that all cultures are equally valid. And to accept that proposition means denying reality; the reality of any objective measure of human freedom, societal health, global population movement.

...

What's wrong with playing make-believe if it helps us all feel warm and fuzzy about each other. Because it's never helpful to put reality up for grabs; there may come a day where you need it. And today is the day that we do need a shot of reality. We need to understand what it is that is important and vital and rare about our society, because if we don't, then in a thousand, silly, itsy-bitsy, little ways, like removing pork from Australian hospital cafeteria menus, we're giving the very clear message that we lack the will to defend our civilisation.

Science Knows All!

2006-08-24T21:25:00.000-06:00

Science is the source of all absolute truth! Once science has determined the answer, the matter is settled! Oh, and Pluto is no longer a planet:

Leading astronomers declared Thursday that Pluto is no longer a planet under historic new guidelines that downsize the solar system from nine planets to eight.

After a tumultuous week of clashing over the essence of the cosmos, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of the planetary status it has held since its discovery in 1930.

...

For now, membership will be restricted to the eight "classical" planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus [insert Uranus joke here - j] and Neptune.

(We're going back to the "classical" solar system? Does that make Pluto the "New Coke" of planets? Tragic.)

Obviously, I am not anti-science. No one who spends as much time wandering around Best Buy as I do could be. But I do like to point out that science is not the be-all, end-all that some try to make it.

Too often, you hear people say something like, "Well, scientists say blah blah blah," and then they look at you like they think the argument is over. This is especially true among your environmental wacko types. Scientists say lots of things, and tomorrow they'll say lots more things, some of them contradicting the things they said today.

Again, I'm not saying this to rip scientists or science. I hope they give us many more Playstations and variations on microwave pasta. What I am saying is that a lot of the people who revere science don't appreciate what a thin slice of the universe we truly understand. We're still arguing about what a planet is, for crying out loud. Odds are still in favor of tomorrow's discoveries rewriting today's facts.

Tags: Pluto, Uranus

For Everyone Who Cares About Polar Bear Genitals

2006-08-24T20:21:00.000-06:00

You'd better sit down for this one: scientists have determined that polar bear genitals are shrinking.

The icecap may not be the only thing shrinking in the Arctic. The genitals of polar bears in east Greenland are apparently dwindling in size due to industrial pollutants.

Scientists report this shrinkage could, in the worst case scenario, endanger polar bears there and elsewhere by spoiling their love lives and causing their numbers to peter out. [HA! Get it? - j]

Not sure how to react to this one because I think my comedy gland just shut down from overstimulation.

Today on "World's Worst Jobs":

Boss: Dave, we just got your new assignment.
Dave: Great!
Boss: You're going to the Arctic.
Dave: Well, I don't mind the cold.
Boss: You're going to be working with man-eating polar bears.
Dave: Oh...kay.
Boss: You're going to be measuring their genitals.
Dave: (Stabs himself in the temple with a fountain pen.)

Just let me take a moment to remind you, dear reader, of what a wonderful world we live in where we can afford to spend our resources on stuff like this. Can Al Qaeda afford to send a guy to measure polar bear nuts? I think not!

Tags: polar bear, genitals

Most Predictable Revelation Ever

2006-08-23T20:14:00.000-06:00

Hey, remember that judge in that NSA eavesdropping case? The one who ruled the terrorist surveillance program was illegal in a decision so clueless and dimwitted that even liberals who agree with it are afraid to try to defend it? Guess what Tom Maguire discovered about her. Go on, guess. You'll never guess.

Gee, the judge is a trustee for an organization that is a big contributer to the ACLU, in whose favor she ruled? [Watch out with that feather! You may knock me over! - j]

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”

My respect for the judicial process is teetering in the balance. Or should that be "tittering"?

This pattern of events -- shocking development, dancing/jeering from the left, skepticism/curiosity from the right, probing, revelation of conflict of interest/ulterior motives -- has become so commonplace that it's almost expected now. The only way this judge could have been more predictable was if she'd concluded her opinion by saying she was going skinny dipping with some of the kids from Camp Crystal Lake.

Politics in this country might start to get better if liberals ever figure out that we're on to them, so they have to back up crap like this with an actual, well-reasoned argument. That might cause them to actually, y'know, think about things. Don't see that happening in the near future, though.

Tags: NSA, judge, idiot

Osama Luvs Whitney

2006-08-22T21:04:00.000-06:00

This is one of those stories that you hope is true, just because it would make life that much more weird:

Whitney Houston has a new fan - America's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden.

Kola Boof , the terrorist's former sex slave [say what? - j], claims in her new book that he was obsessed with the troubled singer.

Apparently he told her that Whitney was the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen and although he claimed music was evil, he spoke of someday spending vast amounts of money to go to America and try to arrange a meeting.

I guess that time when he shut down the country's air travel system for a week kind of put the kibosh on the whole "fly to America to meet Whitney" idea. The Whitney obsession is interesting and all, but don't they kind of brush past the whole "sex slave" part? Seems like that would be quite a story too. Plus there's this:

He remarked on how truly Islamic she is but that she is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband Bobby Brown, whom Osama talked about having killed, "as if it were normal to have women's husbands killed".

Well, we are talking about Bobby Brown, so it wouldn't be that odd. But it also wouldn't be necessary; Bobby would probably trade her for a couple of crack rocks and one of Osama's good turbans.

Debbie Schlussel also finds this interesting tidbit:

Fred Savage and Don Johnson watch out. Boof says Bin Laden's favorite shows were "The Wonder Years," "Miami Vice," and "MacGyver."

"Miami Vice" and "MacGyver" I can see, but "The Wonder Years"? Hard to imagine Osama getting all misty watching another poignant, coming-of-age moment between Kevin and his dad. All I know is, he better keep his dirty, cave-weasel hands off of Winnie! (And now, let us take this opportunity to gratuitously link to hot pictures of Danica McKellar.)

Tags: Osama, Whitney

jaceonline Unsolicited Testimonial: Cleaning Wipes (All Kinds)

2006-08-22T20:37:00.000-06:00

For this installment in the continuing jaceonline unsolicited testimonial series, allow me to sing the praises of all household cleaners that come in wipe form. I did a little cleaning around the house this weekend (I don't know what got into me; I was probably just putting off doing something else), and I was reminded how much better my life is because of these things. If you are a manufacturer of household cleaning products and you don't offer a disposable wipe, get yourself to a hospital immediately, because I think you may have recently suffered a massive brain injury.

Along with Swiffer and his more talented but less famous sibling Swiffer Wet, in my arsenal I have Clorox, Windex, and Easy-Off. Now, you may ask, "Does it really make that much of a difference? Is it so hard to combine a liquid cleaner with paper towels that you have to buy them pre-combined? And isn't it more expensive?" Apparently it does make that much of a difference, because providing the paper towel pre-impregnated with cleaner makes me about ten times more likely to use it. And before the advent of Swiffer wipes, the dust on my coffee table would get so thick it would be hard for me to see the television. As far as expense, it would have to be hella more expensive before that started to become a concern -- like, more expensive than just buying a new toilet.

So thank you, cleaning product makers, for helping to make my life easier and cleaner. If only this stuff had been around when I was in college, we might not have had that unfortunate biohazard scare in my dorm.

Tags: lazy, slob, cleaning products

The New Republic Defends Ann Coulter; Hell Starts Hoarding Bread and Milk

2006-08-16T21:47:00.000-06:00

We haven't looked in on our pals over at The New Republic ("liberals who can be reasoned with") in a while, but today I heard about an article so shocking it demanded my attention.

Elspeth Reeve (whom, after judicious research, I have determined is a female; sorry, don't know a lot of Elspeths) has used New Republic pixels to defend that most hated of all liberal boogeypersons -- Ann Coulter:

On the BBC show "Newsnight," Jeremy Paxman asked Coulter if she'd like to withdraw her infamous statements about the September 11 widows. (If you've been living in a spiderhole, she called the more politically inclined among them "broads".) "No, I think you can save all the would-you-like-to-withdraw questions, but you could quote me accurately. I didn't write about the 9/11 widows. I wrote about four widows cutting campaign commercials for John Kerry and using the fact that their husbands died on 9/11 to prevent anyone from responding," she said. The thing is ... it's kind of true. A little. It is a little absurd to hold up a person as an expert judge of the 9/11 Commission Report, for example, just because she lost a loved one. Liberals do tend to do that kind of thing, and it makes us look like weenies.

Yikes. Elspeth (the name is growing on me) might have a hard time surviving in liberal -- or mainstream -- journalism if she goes around noticing things like losing a loved one to terrorists doesn't qualify a person to determine US foreign policy.

Looking for a War Leader

2006-08-13T22:02:00.000-06:00

Daily Pundit is one angry pundit, and thoroughly disappointed with George W's lack of follow-through in the War on Terror:

Bush turned out to be singularly ill-equipped for this task, both by skill and by temperament. His public relations management was curiously hesitant and badly timed, and, of course, his inabilty to speak effectively in public was a gigantic handicap. His temperament, it eventually became clear, was hesitant, overly calculating, timid, and "compassionate." Compassion has its place, but not in warfighting. The Bush we know would not have pulled the trigger on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He abdicated the hard decisions in favor of political maneuvering and meaningless gestures.

Looking back, it becomes obvious that Bush never intended, or, perhaps, never intended with any conviction to actually do what he said he would do. His own brave promises reveal their hollowness with the passage of time. The world is a far more dangerous place for the United States, thanks to Bush's failures. Today, we stand threatened "by the world's most dangerous regimes with the world's most destructive weapons." And the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia continue to fund a global terror support machine the likes of which we have not seen since the Soviet regime financed and trained every two-bit communist terror organization it could find.

That is unlikely to change under the Bush administration and, indeed, I expect it to grow worse, as I don't believe Bush has any intention of keeping an effective US military force in the region capable of giving pause to Iran, or to Saudi Arabia.

Bush the Younger may top his father as president to squander the most political capital. After September 11th, he had a mandate to transform the Middle East -- to transform the living crap out of it -- and any other crackpot regime that threatened us. Instead, we're making a colossal effort to appear friendly to people who don't want us as friends. As nice as it is to make allies out of people who were your enemies, you have to win the war first.

Embrace the Madness

2006-08-13T21:19:00.000-06:00

It is vitally important for America to have two reasonable, responsible political parties. We work through conflicts with debate and competition, and you've got to have two valid options for that to work. Plus, it keeps any one group from feeling like it has such a firm grip on power that they don't have to pay attention to the people anymore.

Well, we don't have two parties like that in America anymore. The adjectives "reasonable" and "responsible" can no longer be applied to the Democrats by anyone who knows what those words mean. By rejecting Joe Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont, the Democratic base has said that there's no place for reasonableness in the party anymore. Sure, they got rid of Cynthia McKinney too, but the message that sends to Democratic politicians is that you can be as crazy as you want, as long as you can restrain yourself from punching cops in front of several dozen witness and a bunch of video surveillance cameras.

This is a dire situation. If the Democrats, along with Hollywood and the news media, can convince the country to hand the reins of government back to these paranoid kooks one more time, it will be like putting Dr. Bunsen Honeydew in charge of the country's nuclear power plants. On the other hand, even if people notice that the Democrats have become the political equivalent of the Flat Earth Society and they never win an election again, the absence of a viable alternative gives the Republicans no incentive to be responsive to their base. As much fun as it is to watch the Dems self-immolate, I'm afraid we are not on the road to better governance.

Tags: Lieberman, Democrats, insane

Mental Conditions

2006-08-13T19:08:00.000-06:00

The People's Cube examines the distinctive brain structures of the liberal and the conservative.

Bullseye

2006-08-10T21:04:00.000-06:00

Instapundit hits the nail on the head:

Bush certainly seems to have hit the sweet spot -- prosecuting the war vigorously enough to anger the antiwar left, but not vigorously enough to please the prowar right.

The Happiest Refugee Camp on Earth!

2006-08-08T20:17:00.000-06:00

Those mean, nasty Israelis shelled some of those poor, harmless Palestinians in a Lebanese refugee camp today. Let's look at the report, shall we?

Lebanese and Palestinian officials said an Israeli gunship shelled the Ein el-Hilweh camp, but Israel's military called the attack an airstrike that targeted a house used by Hezbollah guerrillas.

Palestinian and Lebanese officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said Israeli gunboats fired two shells, one landing in the camp on Sidon's outskirts and the other hitting the city's amusement park. [emphasis mine - j]

The officials said the casualties in the camp came when the shell crashed into location manned by the Fatah militia, which used to train guerillas there.

Aren't we being a little loose with the language here? Shouldn't there be a point at which you have to stop referring to a place as a "refugee camp?" Like, when it has its own amusement park, for instance.

And notice how the article remains deliberately vague about where exactly that Fatah location is. Surely they would never endanger children by putting a potential military target near that amusement park, would they? Or does Fatah also control the Lebanese Gymboree franchise?

Tell me more about Six Flags Over Pathos:

The camp is home to about 75,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants who were displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Some 350,000 Palestinians live in refugee camps in Lebanon that have developed over the years into shanty towns.

A sixty-year-old "shanty town" with a multi-generational population of better than 75,000. For comparison, Camden, New Jersey has a population of 80,000. Tuscaloosa, Alabama just has 78,000, and they have two malls, a regional hospital, and a reeeally big football stadium.

Can we please stop with this "refugee camp" nonsense? It's just a charade to drum up sympathy for those trodden-upon Palestinians and animus against those mean, mean Jews. The cities that are called refugee camps are either a) not what you think of when you think "refugee camp," or b) populated by people who are stupid enough to live for decades -- and raise their children -- in a refugee camp, and therefore don't deserve your sympathy.

Tags: refugee camp, amusement park

Dog Pile on Mel Gibson

2006-08-01T21:54:00.000-06:00

I'm not going to get into the business of defending Mel Gibson. He's a big boy, and an extraordinarily wealthy one at that. If his career really is over now, I'm sure he can retire to one of his sixteen homes and be just fine. But this incident has raised many important issues that I think deserve comment.

First of all, I'd like to point out that, if you enjoyed what Mel said about Jews and want to hear more stuff like that, your best bet is to go to the comments section of any liberal-lefty blog. There you will find all kinds of charming comments about how the Jews control American foreign policy, how they were the ones that blew up the World Trade Center, how they're worse then Nazis for the way they treat Palestinians, etc., etc. The political left is lousy with people who think -- and say out loud, though usually with more delicate and euphemistic language -- that the Jews are responsible for the world's problems. The way those same people can turn on a dime to self-righteously condemn Gibson's anti-semitism makes me doubt Newtonian laws of motion.

So, we know that Mel's an alcoholic. Now the question is, is he really an a**hole? The answer, sad to say, is "probably." All the carefully hidden stories are breaking now: Mel Gibson's arrogant, Mel Gibson's a phony, Mel Gibson's self-destructive. No one has sufficiently explained how this makes him worse than anybody else in Hollywood, though. The level of outrage over this seems kind of high for a town that's still nominating Woody Allen and Roman Polanski for awards.

But of course Mel is worse than anybody else, and the reason is that, once upon a time, Mel made a movie called The Passion of the Christ, a movie that made people think more about religion. As we all know, movies are only supposed to make you think about two things: 1) boobs, and 2) buying the DVD. A lot of people don't like to think about religion, because it gives them an irritating, itchy, tingly sensation in that place where their soul should be. These people need desperately to discredit movies like The Passion, so they don't have to hear any more about religion and can get back to thinking about boobs.

Gibson's wacked-out tirade has given the boob-thinkers another weapon with which to attack The Passion, and they are using it with relish. (Including some who I wouldn't normally characterize as a boob-thinkers, like Christopher Hitchens. He's usually a perceptive guy, but religion has the same effect on him as the white whale had on Ahab.) But they're not making any arguments they haven't made a jillion times already; remember, the anti-Semitic complaint about The Passion was absolutely pounded into the ground during its release. So, I'm not going to run through all that silliness yet again. Let the record show as a well-established fact that The Passion is a very important film to Christians (especially evangelicals and Catholics), and nothing is going to change that. It is also a well-established fact that all the waves of Jew-hatred that the movie was supposed to inspire failed to materialize. So whether or not Gibson intended it to be anti-Semitic, in practical application it was not. I hereby dismiss all statements to the contrary as lunkheaded foolishness, forever and ever, amen.

The fact that people are trying to discredit The Passion because of the behavior of its director just demonstrates that they don't understand the meaning of the story it tells. Mel is clearly a messed up dude -- maybe he's full of hate, maybe he's a drunk, maybe he's nuts, maybe some combination of all of that. And Jesus died for him.

Everybody who professes the gospel is an imperfect messenger. Talking about Jesus' sacrifice doesn't mean that you needed it any less, and you don't have to reach some level of perfection before you can tell the story. If I had to take a stab at long-distance psychoanalysis, I might say that part of Mel's problem is that he's keenly aware of how imperfect he is. The moral of this story is that God can even use people like him.

Tags: Mel Gibson

The Management of Savagery

2006-07-31T19:34:00.000-06:00

In the New York Daily News, a translator talks about the Al Qaeda instruction manual titled "The Management of Savagery."

Unlike typical jihadi tracts, this genre eschews religious propaganda in favor of scientific analysis, drawing on close readings of Western political theories.

...

The plan, according to Naji, is to conduct small- to medium-scale attacks on crucial infrastructure (like oil or tourism), which will cause the government to draw in its security forces. Chaos or "savagery" will erupt in the unpoliced areas.

Then, the jihadis will move into these security vacuums and provide basic services to people, who will welcome an end to the instability. The final goal is to establish a single global state ruled by a pious Muslim dictator, the caliph, who will implement a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Drawing on the experience of jihadis in Egypt and Algeria, Naji cautions his readers that no plan will succeed unless the jihadis learn how to respond to public opinion and manipulate the media.

These guys aren't playing. Things like this just make it that much more frustrating to see opposition to the War on Terror. It's not like our enemies are even trying to hide what they are. They publish it; they broadcast it; they write it on the sides of buildings. Any failure to understand them is just willful ignorance.

Don't Tease Me, Charles

2006-07-29T17:20:00.000-06:00

Charles Barkley is making noise again about running for governor of Alabama:

Basketball Hall of Famer Charles Barkley has changed his political uniform from red to blue and is talking again about running for governor of Alabama, possibly in 2010.

"Alabama, that's my home. I'm thinking about running for governor; they need the help," Barkley said.

His decision was received warmly by Joe Turnham, Alabama's Democratic Party chairman, but with skepticism by a political observer.

"I say welcome Charles Barkley. Charles Barkley has been a Horatio Alger story for many people, not only in sports but in business and broadcasting [And hot dog consumption! - j]," Turnham said Wednesday.

Let me reiterate: If Charles Barkley ran for governor, I would vote for him as many times as I could get away with. He may have no idea what he's doing, he may be brash and impetuous, he may make a hash of the whole thing, but at least he's not afraid to say stuff like this:

"If it wasn't for Arkansas and Mississippi, we'd be dead last in everything. I think we can do better," he said.

And this:

"There are too many black kids and their parents who do not value a good education," he said. "There are places where a black kid who is a good student and tries to speak correctly, you hear stuff like, 'He's trying to be white.' Well, I say, if that's true, we need more kids trying to be white."

Politics in Alabama is an ossified, good-ol'-boy spoils system. If an inexperienced hothead like Charles was governor, I don't think he could make things that much worse, and he might shake up the system enough so that somebody, somewhere down the road, might make some genuine progress.

Also, there's this:

Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh, chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, said Barkley was never involved with the state party when he identified himself as a Republican, and she has no idea whether he's serious when talking about a future race for governor as a Democrat.

I just quoted that to point out that the head of Alabama's Republican party is named "Twinkle."

Tags: Charles+Barkley, politics

People Who Will Never, Ever, Ever Be President of the United States

2006-07-29T12:25:00.000-06:00

As I've said before, I am terrible at predictions. Even for someone who's good at it, making political predictions so far from election time is a dicey proposition at best. However, some of the names that are being tossed out as if they have a legitimate chance to win the presidency seem so obviously ridiculous to me that I have to step out on the record to say that it will never, ever happen. No chance in H-E-double-hockey-sticks.

-- Rudy Giuliani - Obviously, he's a capable guy and a good leader. A senate seat from New York is his for the taking. Literally. I mean, he wouldn't even have to run. He could just walk into Hillary Clinton's office, say, "What are you doing in my seat, beyotch?" and throw her out into the street. And the people of New York would cheer him for it. He could serve in the Senate for as long as he wanted.

But look, his record as a moderate (i.e., liberal) on social issues is too long and well-known for him to dance around it now. Democrats will never vote for a liberal Republican when they could just vote for a Democrat. Republicans will never vote for a liberal Republican, period. Rudy, please, for your own good and the good of the country, just go whip Hillary's ass and do some good in the Senate.

-- Al Gore - Now, I'm not saying he won't be the nominee. I'm just saying he'll never be president. And it's odd to say that, considering how close he got the first time. But in the intervening years, he has been less than statesmanlike. He thinks global warming is his ticket back to prominence, but he's beaten that issue into the ground worse than Joe Pesci at the end of Casino, and still nobody cares. For people like me, who dislike self-righteous jackasses who get lots of free publicity (I know there must be some people who dig on that, because the E! channel continues to exist), he will continue to be a nuisance, but nothing more.

-- John McCain - Half the Republican base thinks he's a sell-out, the other half thinks he's a wacko. Since he was essentially the runner-up in the last contested Republican primary, he probably thinks it's his turn. And he probably would do well early in the primary season, in Iowa and New Hampshire. But cover your eyes on Super Tuesday, because this guy will absolutely get his clock cleaned in the Deep South.

-- Newt Gingrich - Another guy who would serve the country well as something other than president. Smart guy, outstanding strategist, but does not play well with others. But I have to say, if the crap really hits the fan in the Middle East, I rescind this prediction for both Newt and McCain. During tough times, meanies and wackos become much more valuable.

Update: John Hawkins on Right Wing News backs up my opinion on Rudy, with lots of relevant history on the mayor's lightweight conservative credentials. He calls Rudy "a more charismatic version of Arlen Specter," and I cannot think of a more damning put-down for a Republican.

Aren't Those Hezbolla's Nice Young Fellows?

2006-07-26T21:42:00.000-06:00

Um, no. Although you couldn't tell from the news coverage, Hezbolla is not, in fact, a glee club that is being unfairly picked on by those mean Israeli bullies. They are vicious killers have been lobbing missiles intho Israeli cities for quite some time.

This graphic gives a good picture of the scope of the Hezbolla missile attack. Yet another easy news item that is apparantly not easy enough for the big time media.

Are We Too Nice to Win?

2006-07-26T21:09:00.000-06:00

John Podhoretz asks the $64,000 question about the current conflict in the Middle East and the War on Terror generally:

What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy - the idea that all people are created equal - has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries?

...

And as for the United States, what if we have every tool at our disposal to win a war - every weapons system we could want manned by the most superbly trained military in history - except the ability to match or exceed our antagonists in ruthlessness?

The advantage of our strong, prosperous civilization is that we can surround ourselves with air conditioning and free wi-fi and 31 flavors of ice cream. The disadvantage is that, after a few generations of this luxury, we forget about all the toil and tears it took to get where we are. We live in a hard, brutal world; much harder than any episode of Survivor, even that one where the dude set himself on fire while he was trying to cook dinner.

Tex Avery: Great American

2006-07-18T20:25:00.000-06:00

I'm late to the YouTube party, but that site absolutely owns me now. I've seen a lot of great stuff there already, and now, lo and behold, I've found a passel of Tex Avery cartoons.

For the uncultured among my readers, Tex Avery was an animator for the Warner Brothers and MGM animation studios. Check that -- he wasn't an animator; he was the animator. His style basically gave us the animated short as we know it. When you see a wolf whose jaw clangs to the floor and eyes bug way out when a hot dame walks buy, and then an anvil falls on his head, thank Tex Avery.

One cartoon in particular made me admire Tex even more. It's a propaganda cartoon from WWII featuring the three little pigs and Adolph Wolf. See how it ridicules the first two pigs for thinking they can placate the wolf with a treaty. The smart pig is the one who arms up and fights back. It's almost like it was torn from today's headlines. Except nobody would make a cartoon like this today.

In Trying Times Like These...

2006-07-17T22:13:00.000-06:00

You need a link to Homestar Runner. Thank me later.

FrAUdacity!

2006-07-14T20:46:00.000-06:00

The New York Times reports that that other school, otherwise known as Auburn University, has been giving out course credit and high grades to athletes who haven't actually been doing any of the schoolwork that's usually required to earn them:

So Professor Gundlach looked at the player's academic files, which led him to the discovery that many Auburn athletes were receiving high grades from the same professor for sociology and criminology courses that required no attendance and little work.

...

The sociology department became "a dumping ground for athletes," according to one sociology professor, Paul Starr. That did not bother Professor Gundlach as much as what he viewed as the university administration's apathy toward Professor Petee's academic approach.

Professor Gundlach took the case to John Heilman, a university administrator who would soon become Auburn's provost. He included paperwork showing that Professor Petee taught more than 250 students individually during the 2004-5 academic year. He also provided Mr. Heilman with examples of how prominent athletes had cut academic corners.

"It was at that point that I figured the corruption runs the full gantlet of the administration," Professor Gundlach said. "We were getting sociology majors graduating without taking sociology classes. I'm a director of a program putting out people who I know more than likely don't deserve a degree."

...

The 18 football players received an average G.P.A. of 3.31 in the classes, according to statistics compiled by Professor Gundlach. In all of their other credit hours at Auburn, their average was 2.14.

My initial reaction upon first hearing the story was, "It's not Alabama! Halle-freaking-lujah!!" After I finished weeping for joy and giving my rabbit's foot a thorough rubbing, I tried to consider the merits of the story. As an Alabama fan, I confess that the temptation to give a Nelson laugh whenever anything bad happens to Auburn is always there. But as an Alabama fan, after being through the wringer of scandal and investigation, I'm pretty much sick of the whole mess and wishing we could get back to just playing football. Just consider my biases when reading my analysis.

Since the story comes from the Times, Auburn supporters can always cling to the hope that it's completely fabricated. At this point, I trust the Times about as much as the Weekly World News. The main source is a professor who fits the mold of the disgruntled whistleblower tattling on his boss. The professor who facilitated the non-course courses may just be an avuncular, easygoing, and not-too-bright supporter of Auburn sports. The Outside the Beltway blog backs this theory, and notes that "except in incredibly egregious cases, professors in non-core-curriculum classes have virtual carte blanche at most institutions to teach and grade as they see fit." It could all come to nothing.

However, it does look really bad. Cadillac Williams' description of his advanced sociology class: "You're just studying different kinds of math. It's one of those things where you write a report about the different theories and things like that." (Hey, slow down there, Poindexter. I just want you to describe the class, not teach it.) The academic advisors from the athletic department knowing to steer players to this particular professor. The bizarre way that Auburn ended up between Boston College and Duke in the scholar-athlete rankings. (One of these things is not like the others. Which one is it? Do you know?) I don't think there was an orchestrated conspiricy to commit academic fraud, but based on what the Times says, it's not out of the question.

It would seem to me that allegations like these are just the kinds of things that demand an NCAA look-see. However, Birmingham News columnist Kevin Scarbinsky says they "most likely do not rise to the level of NCAA violations." If taking the "collegiate" out of collegiate athletics doesn't violate NCAA rules, I don't know what does. On the other hand, I'm okay with it if the NCAA investigators stay out of the neighborhood. They might swing at Auburn and hit Alabama.

But aside from the fact that this popped up in a big-time national paper, anyone familiar with college sports has to think, "Is this really news?" A football powerhouse gives athletes high grades in classes that don't require much work. Whoa! Stop the presses! Also, I hear that the Washington Post is investigating a rumor that some underage students use fake IDs to buy beer. PoliBlog goes so far as to say, "One sometimes wonders why schools don't just design majors in football and be done with it."

The really sad thing is that we've become so indifferent to acedemic integrity. I still like to think that college sports teams could actually be filled with college students. Schools don't need to design football majors; the NBA and NFL need create real minor leagues so they can stop using colleges as their de facto farm system and making a joke out of academic standards in the process. I'm not stupid enough to think this will ever actually happen (I almost am, but not quite). There's too much coin at stake for anyone to want to shake up the status quo that much. But you never hear about scandals like this in college baseball programs. Why? Because guys who want to play baseball don't have to spend years faking an interest in sociology before they're allowed to go pro.

It's So ... Beautiful!

2006-07-11T20:38:00.000-06:00

Just when you thought it couldn't get any better... It's the Bacon of the Month Club. Oh, yes. Ooohhh, yes.

The Bacon of the Month Club is the greatest of all gifts. I’m not making that up. I get calls from customers all the time that tell me this. In my humble opinion no other club in the universe gives you as much pleasure and sheer delight as The Bacon of the Month Club.

Not only do you get twelve kinds of "artisan bacon" (what, is there scrimshaw carved in it?), you also get informative notes on all bacon selections and discounts on future bacon purchases.

("Future bacon purchases?" you ask. "Wouldn't a new delivery every month be enough?" Um, you obviously don't know me very well. I'm Jason, and these are my arterial blockages.)

I can't quite bring myself to spend $140 plus shipping at one pop for processed pork products, but by golly, I'm a lucky man to be alive in times like this.

More Good News You'll Never Hear

2006-07-08T09:11:00.000-06:00

Larry Kudlow has some more economic good news that The New York Times wasn't able to squeeze in between pictures of undercover agents in North Korea and the code to Don Rumsfeld's alarm system:

Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium.

And:

Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

And:

The dirty little secret here is that record low tax rates on capital are leading to continued job and income gains as businesses continue to expand.

And:

...average hourly compensation has risen to 3.9 percent over the past year, while average weekly earnings have grown to 4.5 percent. In early 2004 these wage measures were only 1.5 percent.

So, GNP booming, deficit down, more jobs, better wages. Any news there? Nah. But did a prisoner at Gitmo get too much salt on his falafel? Hold page 1!

Ann Coulter is a Very Smart Lady

2006-07-06T20:23:00.000-06:00

She says volumes with just a single question:

When is The New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al-Qaida secret program?

He Was in Alaska All Summer, Hunting Wolverines

2006-07-06T20:20:00.000-06:00

This is supposed to be a commercial for a new, recoilless (?) Beretta Shotgun, but nevermind that. Just look at the guy doing the demo. That mofo knows how to shoot. Clay pigeons beware!

The Easter Bunny Hates You

2006-07-05T21:23:00.000-06:00

So watch your ass.