We get asked a lot of questions here at Ace of Spades.
We get asked about our marital status.
For the record: We officially define ourselves as being "swingles." But don't tell the wives.
We get asked about our previous military experience.
For the record: We served two tours in Vietnam, although we were technically too young to join the army at the time; so we lied about our age. January 1971, Khe Sahn: We earned our first Silver Stars.
We were six years old at the time.
We get asked about our favorite science-fiction or fantasy movie.
For the record: We claim
the answer is Blade Runner
, Ridley Scott's gorgeously melancholy meditation on the nature of humanity.
But the real
answer, of course, is Krull
. Peter Yates' meditation on an ultrasonic, heat-seeking, magical flying blade-disk. And his centaur buddy Rell.
And so on, and so on.
But the question we get asked the most is: Do you, Ace of Spades, do any on-line impersonations of famous celebrities in highly unusual and very comical situations?
For the record: The answer is yes. We do, in fact, do one
on-line impersonation of a famous celebrity in a highly unusual and very comical situation.
And, finally, for the record: We're about to do it for you.
[Content Warning: What follows contains profane material and language, though it's all done in a sixth-grade silly-style. But you've now been warned.]
We do this one
impression, see. We do an impression of right-leaning comedian Dennis Miller being sodomized by 1600 pound Kodiak bear while doing his nightclub act.
Now, you are probably objecting: But why put Dennis Miller in that situation? Surely he's one of the good guys? Why not do an on-line impression of, say, vile midget Bill Maher being sodomized by a 1600 pound Kodiak bear while doing his nightclub act?
Good question. The answer is, Because we only can do Dennis Miller
. We tried
to do Bill Maher, but he's just not funny, so an accurate impression would likewise be not-funny, and therefore painful to read.
Plus, we haven't watched Bill Maher since he guest-starred as Hipster #3 on a 1976 episode of Chico and the Man
So we don't know what his schtick is, really. We imagine it involves a lot of whining about his diminutive height. This guy looks at Paul Krugman and thinks, "Oh, sure, anyone could be a big-time Princeton economist at that
height. If I
were a towering five-foot-one like Paul Krugman, I'd probably already have my own sitcom."
Oh, and we're guessing he probably brags a bunch about how much pussy he gets. (Shocker: Rich celebrity is able to score in Hollywood. Alert the press.)
Dennis Miller. Always have. We even loved him when we sort of hated him, if you know what we mean. He's probably one of the top three or four guys in the universe that shaped our own comic sensibilities. And because of that, we can sort of imitate him.
So it's got to be Dennis Miller. That's just the way it is, and there's no point arguing about it.
That preamble out of the way, we now commence with our on-line impersonation of Dennis Miller being sodomized by a 1600-pound Kodiak bear while doing his nightclub act.
We now turn away from the audience and muss with our hair.
When we turn back, we look almost nothing like Dennis Miller -- no impressionists ever look like the guy they're doing when they do that hack turn-away-then-turn-back move -- but you can at least see what we're going for with the hair-mussing thing.
And we've got a 1600-pound Kodiak bear behind us, massive claws locked around our slender hips.
(Turns to audience; impression begins:)
Bush-Boosting Funnyman Dennis Miller
Well. What can I tell you. You look like a lovely crowd.
You might notice. I've got a 1600 pound Kodiak bear directly behind me. That bear is about to ride me harder than John Kerry rides his Purple Hearts. I don't know how this booking came to be, to be honest here. They just told me, Go on out there, knock them dead, don't be afraid to be politically incorrect.
And by the way, you're about to have an eighteen-inch injection of furry bear-hog up your ass while you're doing your jokes.
I'm starting to think it was a mistake to leave Saturday Night Live. Lovitz never left, right? I don't see him doing bear-sodomy acts.
But anyway. I go where they tell me.
So. Everyone's screaming about the war. The entire left has gone positively batshit crazy over this whole war thing.
The New York Times, now, I know the New York Times has always been liberal, but at least they used to
strive for a certain level of respectability. The last Paul Krugman column I remember mentioning Bush was called, if I remember correctly, Suck My Fucking Cock, You Lying Rat-Bastard Sonofabitch.
And that piece was about the IMF.
I don't want to say the New York Times staff has collectively suffered left-slanting paranoid lunacy or anything, but my recent forays into the front page of the New York Times have made me long for nuances and subtle, velvet-light touches of your typical Oliver Stone vehicle.
Last I saw, the New York Times was reviewing Saddam Hussein's romance novels. And I think -- I think it was Brett Easton Ellis -- reviewed his books and deemed Hussein "a unique literary voice, an impressive debut effort too compelling to be ignored. Or to be bombed."
And I don't want to say that--
Okay. Now, as you can see, the bear seems to be getting, well, a little antsy
. He's stripping off the back of my pants with his claws. He seems to be settling into the batter's box, waiting for the pitcher to take his stance.
This would seem as good a time as any for a balk.
Anyway. Speaking of the French. What can you say about a country that makes cop-killer Abu Jamal Mumia an honorary citizen of Paris, or is still bitching about the fact that they didn't cast Jerry Lewis in Taxi Driver
The French hate us. They hate that we booted their buddy Saddam Hussein out of power. They can't accept that America has that sort of power, and they have no say over us.
I don't want to say that the French have a hair up their ass about America, but the last time they went in for their regularly-scheduled rectal exam, they found the collective French colon obstructed by an adult bull sasquatch.
...... A bear.
Whoa. The bear seems to like the dirty talk. Those mentions of "colon" and "sasquatch" seem to have put a new sense of urgency into him. Suddenly he's got pep-- Howard Dean level pep. And now he's starting to--
Oh God. Oh my God.
Oh God Oh God Oh God.
Oh my sweet God.
Ooof. Ooof. Urrgghkkkhh.
(sweating, pale, panting; out of breath)
Well. That was a little nightmare, wasn't it? I don't know if the bear is finished yet or if he's just taking lessons on Tantric lovemaking from Sting. We definitely seem to have entered a state of operational pause, though.
This bear-- let me tell you something. Don't kid yourselves here, folks. This bear could give Lexington Steele a run for his money.
Back to the war.
And it's not just the French. The liberals -- American liberals -- are all up in arms about us invading Iraq, too. I haven't seen liberals this pissed off about the end of an evil regime since they cancelled St. Elsewhere.
I haven't seen anyone so stubbornly insistent on excusing viscous behavior since... well, I'm gonna have to go back here to Angela Basset's tender portrayal of a young Tina Turner in What's Love Got to Do With It?
No matter how many times Ike stuffs the Left's legs into the plastic shredder, they find a way to convince themselves that "it's just the way he loves
Maybe it's just me, but I think that if these vicious, murderous bastards ever get their hands on the bomb, they'll use it the next day. And in this sense my political philosophy is perhaps shaped to a great degree by Beneath the Planet of the Apes.
Because, the way I see it, when the murdering, enslaving gorillas come to take possession of the Alpha and Omega nuke, you don't pussy out like James Franciscus. No, you pick up a goddamned assault rifle and you shoot Dr. Zaius to little tiny bloody orang-utan chunks.
And then, if they're still coming, you go Charleton Heston on their asses, and you push the fucking button yourself. And --
Oh, no. Here we go again. I shouldn't have said "ass..."
Unmfff. Urgurkhhhggg. Nnnnnnnnnn.
Heh. Heh. No, don't, please. Arrhghghhghckghghg.
Well. I guess Ben's not as Gentle as advertised, huh?
I don't know how much more of this fucking bear I can take. He's going off on my ass like it was Moe Greene trying to push him out of the Tropicana. He's hitting notes in my rectum I didn't even know existed.
I was expecting this to be tough on my ass. I didn't know it would involve my duodenum.
Anyway. As some of you might know, I've drifted more to the right in the past four or five years. I've always been worried about the impact of that on my career. Two years from now, the best gig I might be able to get is doing the warm-up act for Dick Cheney's next scheduled angioplasty.
Hollywood is a pretty liberal place. You say the wrong thing about the wrong guy and they just might Silkwood your career. The last guy in Hollywood who voted Republican was James Dean and hey, you saw what they did to him.
You call yourself a conservative in this town and they give you a one-way limousine-ticket out of town, and Ted Kennedy is your chauffer.
And Ted Kennedy liked
Mary Jo Kopechne. Think about that. I don't know if I'll get the same... delicate handling.
Then again, I'm standing up here with a cubic foot of bear-joint stuffed up my crapper, so maybe it won't be so bad.
And this whole thing with John Kerry. John Kerry is--
Oh, no. This is it.
This is the big one.
No. No. Nnnnnnnnnooooo.
Oh, God. Take me, Baby Jesus. I'm ready now.
I see... I can see the Aperture of Heaven opening. I can see inside of it. It's... it's...
It's full of stars!
Phew. No response on that one? I guess I shouldn't have attempted that 5.4 difficulty factor Kubrick-slash-Keir Dullea sub-reference while being shagged by a bear.
You done back there now, Yogi? Yeah? Good. No, that's all right. I'm not in a "cuddly" sort of mood either. You run off now, and find a nice hole to hibernate in. Apart from me
, I mean.
I haven't felt this humiliated since I had share a trailer with Corey Feldmann on the set of Bordello of Blood
Well, folks. That's the end of my act. Tune into my show on CNBC, weeknights 9pm and 12am, 12 and 3 am on the West Coast.
Tonight's Politically Correct Midnight Double Feature
First, our opening feature. Via the big-league distributor Instapundit,
a heartwarming tale of censorship titled You Can't Say That on the BBC
Today, Dr Sean Gabb, Director of Communications for the Libertarian Alliance, was invited to take part in a discussion of multiculturalism on the BBC World Service. Also taking part was Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a regular columnist for The Independent. Dr Gabb was taken off air just half-way into the discussion and told he was no longer required.
[Gabb commented:] "I do not necessarily object if people want to come to this country to look for a new life. I do object if they want this at my expense - at my expense as a tax payer, and at the expense of the constitutional rights which are my birthright."
"Every so often, someone stands up and tells us what benefits we have had from diversity. Such may be, but we must also consider that part of the price has been a police state. In this country, we have severe restrictions on freedom of speech, on freedom of association and on freedom of contract - all in the name of good race relations."
When Yasmin Alibhai-Brown objected that this would remove all controls on racial attacks and on discrimination, Dr Gabb replied:
"Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?"
Her answer was yes, though she seemed to think better of this answer immediately after. But she did not take the invitation to deny that the white population was only kept in line by criminal laws to restrain them from attacking ethnic minorities. When Dr Gabb asked if she seriously believed he wanted to murder her, his microphone was turned off and he was "released" from his engagement with 20 minutes of discussion still to run.
Next, from independent producer Tim Blair Studios
, released through regional distributor Florida Cracker Entertainment
, our showcase feature, Well, So Long as It Was Merely an Innocent Little Home-Invasion
An alleged blackface incident took place over the weekend, but those involved say it could all be a misunderstanding.
Just after midnight on Saturday morning, the Department of Public Safety received a report that a student was wandering around Watson Residence Hall with his face painted a dark color, according to a Public Safety report.
"We were unable to find him at first," said Marlene Hall, director of Public Safety. She said that DPS officers received a second report and were then able to located the student and speak to him.
The student told officers that the face paint was camouflage - not blackface - and that he was actually on his way to rob a house, Hall said.
"As far as we know, this was all a misunderstanding," Sheaffer said.
Even though the student claimed that he was going to attempt a burglary instead of dressing in blackface, DPS officers will continue to research both scenarios, Hall said.
Did you catch that? It might all be just a "misunderstanding." Besides the home-invasion burglary, that is. But apart from that, maybe no really serious crime
This is perverse on so many levels. Liberals, who have the unhealthy tendency to turn concrete evil into unthreatening abstraction, and turn rather mundane bad behavior into crimes against the state through similar abstracticizing contortions, now deem that invading a home with the intent to commit theft or robbery as a rather minor transgression, at least as compared to the capital crime of wearing blackface
As Tim Blair points out in his press package for his film, it seems awfully ass-backwards that someone is now pleading guilty to burglary, as loud as he can, in order to avoid being charged with wearing blackface."
In the First Degree, of course.
Or, as Bill Buckley remarked about liberals' obsession with "hate crimes" and blase attitude towards non-hate crimes (known, in a simpler time, merely as "actual crime"): "Oh, if only liberals hated crime as much as they hate hate."
Every once in a while we here at Ace of Spades are tempted to just fricking give in on some of these "hate speech"/"hate crime" laws.
After all, we think to ourselves, the value of truly
racist speach is almost nil, and therefore well outweighed by the harm it does; and if a burglar is to be locked up for a couple of extra years simply because he chose a politically-incorrect method of camouflaging his face for night-creeping, who cares? Glad to lock the burglar away for as long as our liberal masters will allow us.
But these examples should steel our resolve-- and yours too. Never give in to the paliative that liberals will just use these laws against truly vile speech if you allow them their precious hate laws.
Because it's not vile speech that liberals fear-- truly vile and reprehensible hate speech (and true hate crimes) cannot influence the public debate, except, perhaps, to the liberals' own benefit. (See Byrd, James.) A guy using racial slurs is not going to sway a lot of voters in this rather tolerant day and age.
The speech they actually want to shut down is the non-objectionable political speech which they fear might actually be persuasive in the public arena-- also known as "non-liberal speech," which is, to many minds, a crime in and of itself.
Give in on these obnoxious, fascist laws, and within ten years only state-approved, liberal-vetted, bureaucrat-sactioned politically correct speech will be allowed on the public airwaves, or even in the public square.
Think that's a bit overstated? Hysterical? Paranoid?
Do you think maybe someone in Britain said the same thing ten years ago?
The surest guide to the future is the past. We can already see for precisely
what purposes these laws have been used in the UK, France, Germany, all of Europe. That's not slippery-slope speculation; that's the historical record.
After all the guarantees and warranties that these laws would only be used against truly, inarguably race-hatred-type speech, within a few years people were being fired and investigated by the police for having the racist notion that, for example, perhaps Arab societies are in a great need of reforming. And often thrown in jail.
Daschle: "Satisfied" with Progress of Iraq War
"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."
He said he is not upset about the debate over pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, an issue that has dogged President Bush as Democratic presidential contenders have slogged through the primary season.
"We can argue about the WMD and what we should have known," Daschle, the Senate minority leader, said.
Jeepers! You'd think he was running for re-election in a Republcian leaning state this year or somethin'!
And that's part of our problem with Democrats. It's not just that they're anti-war.
It's that they're willing to claim to be pro-war or anti-war as political circumstances dictate. They don't have a position on the war; they have, rather, positionings
, designed solely for electoral gain.
We know where a Ralph Nader really stands on the war. We don't know what Kerry, Daschle, Edwards & most of the rest of the liberal crew really thinks. If they even know their real thoughts and opinions on these critical matters, they sure aren't sharing with the rest of us.
A Small Favor from Ralph Nader
says that this assclown is about to enter the presidential race as an independent.
Don't expect that to have much effect on the election. Liberals were very skittish about wasting their votes on Nader last time around; after the Florida fiasco, that skittishness will be raised to the fourth power. Nader will only draw a small fraction (much less than one half) of the votes he did last time, especially in swing states.
Furthermore, this is just one more voice the media will cover which will be forever railing against Bush.
It's hard to say this is actually even a very slight net positive for Bush. Still, it's something
It would be more helpful were Pat Buchanan to enter the race again, given how well he did last time with Palm Beach Jewish liberals.
Mort Kondracke: Bush Ain't Doing So Bad... Considering
It's a point we've been making for a while.
Given the lingering aftereffects of the Clinton recession, the surprising thing is that Bush has maintained 50+% approval throughout almost all of his term. Given the tough times, then, Bush isn't doing so badly, poll-wise.
It's nice to see someone in the major media finally pick up on this.
The trouble is, they're picking up on it, alas, perhaps too late. We've been saying the same thing for three years... expecting the economy to start producing jobs like gangbusters any moment now.
That could still happen. Surprising new events happen all the time, and few predict them. That's why they're "surprising," after all.
But we are getting near the end of the string, here. Unless Bush's economy starts producing 150-200,000 jobs per month, consistently, and soon
, he's in big, big trouble.
For three years we've been saying, "Oh, sure, he's 'controversial' in a bad economy; wait 'till he has a good economy. Then check to see how 'controversial' he is with the majority of the American public."
But we've been waiting for the good economy, along with everyone else. The economy will
surge soon, including in job creation-- but if it does so only very too close to the election, it will likely be too late to help reelect Bush.
Iran: Hard-Liners May Sweep Elections
That's sort of to be expected when you disqualify 2,400 reformist candidates from running and thereby provoke a nation-wide boycott of the polls.
Note to liberals, once again: This
is what fascism looks like.
"Fascism" is not just losing an election.
Will They Make a Correction in the Form of a Major Motion Picture?
It's not terribly surprising, but it is, as usual, disheartening:
February 20, 2004 -- Remember "Missing," the 1982 movie by left-wing director Costa-Gavras, which starred Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek?
The hit film accused the U.S. government of complicity in the disappearance and murder of a young New Yorker in the days following the 1973 military coup that toppled Chile's Marxist president, Salvador Allende, from power.
Suggestions of U.S. involvement in Charles Horman's death stem from an accusation first leveled in 1976: A longtime Chilean spy told CBS News and The Washington Post that he'd personally seen a CIA agent present at Horman's interrogation by junta agents.
But that spy, Rafael Gonzalez Verdugo, now admits that he made the whole thing up - in order to protect himself from the government of Augosto Pinochet, with which he'd fallen out of favor.
Gonzalez' accusations had a profound impact. They led to a congressional investigation and a probe by The New York Times - neither of which could substantiate the charge.
But most people made their judgment based on "Missing" - which unambiguously portrayed U.S. officials as deeply involved in Horman's death.
No one involved with the film will apologize, of course. They will say they were making "art," after all, and art apologizes to no one.
Kerry Lobbied on Behalf of Defense Contractor Who Funneled Him Big Illegal Conributions
28 letters written on behalf of a contractor who gave Kerry $25,000 during the same period.
And most of it illegal.
What were the letters in service of? In service of freeing up money so that this guy could equip our warplanes with his
Were these the best missiles money could buy?
Or was Kerry the best candidate the missile-maker could buy?
Our Current Little Bugaboo
Here's something that's been annoying us for a year. It might annoy you as well.
It frequently occurs in debate that one side will accuse the other of inconsistency on a principle. The implication, or express charge, is that an opponent is not taking a position due to some consistent, generally-applied principle, but rather simply because of pure partisanship.
The accused will frequently offer an affirmative defense. "But I always thought such and such a way," they will say, "even when it cut against my partisan interests. Hence, I'm not inconsistent, but rather thoughtful and even-handed in matters of principle."
Liberals are of course now decrying any inquiry into John Kerry's affair(s). "It's purely personal behavior," they claim, "and furthermore, there's not even a witness on the record. The woman involved denies it, as does Kerry! Therefore, there's no story."
When it's pointed out that many liberals eagerly pursued the alleged affair of George Bush the Elder -- despite the fact that it was, again, "purely personal" behavior if true, and there was no witness on the record, with both parties denying it -- they will quickly claim, "But I was against that too!"
Jeneane Garofalo claimed that she was always against the Kosovo War. She wasn't just against a Republican-led war due to partisan venom; oh no, she asserts, she was against Clinton acting without a UN mandate in Kosovo as well. As she infamously added, she just never really got around to expressing her opinions on Kosovo publically, because it "wasn't too cool" to protest that war.
And in the matter of Texas redistricting, liberals are quite outraged by Republican gerrymandering. When you mention that the Republican gerrymander is no different than previous Democratic gerrymanders, they rebut, "Well, I was against the Democratic gerrymandering too!" So, they're claiming, they're not being simply partisan hacks, but principled advocates for democracy.
Do any of these claims of consistency actually hold up?
First, let us mention the obvious: In all of these cases, the person or persons claiming to have had consistent positions throughout their lives might simply be lying. They might simply be claiming to have had a position in a previous year in order to defuse the charge of partisanship.
Or they may just be deluding themselves. They just be incapable of addressing the possibility that they are being partisan and blatantly inconsistent, so they convince themselves that a fleeting reservation about some previous liberal action actually rose to the level of full and considered opposition to that action.
In 75% of all cases, we suspect that either intentional deceit, or defensive self-delusion, is going on.
But it's relatively easy to call someone a liar, as liberals are proving this election season.
Let us take the harder question-- what about the last 25%? What about those people who actually did have an intellectual opposition to a previous liberal action? Are they actually being consistent on the point?
In some cases, perhaps they are being consistent. But in most cases, they're not.
Because it strikes us that actual "consistency" cannot be defined solely in reference to a purely intellectual position. Consistency on an issue is not only where you come down on an issue-- it's how consistent you've been about expressing that opinion,
how consistent you've been in terms of passion about that opinion,
how consistent you've been in acting on that opinion,
in terms of actually attempting to shape public debate and in terms of timing
, i.e., did you actually act to shape opinion when the issue was actually live and current?
Or have you only now gotten around to denouncing a previous bit of bad behavior, now that your denunciation has been conveniently mooted by the passage of years?
Let's address each one by one.
Consistency of Expression.
This is a simple one. We're just thrilled that Janeane Garofalo was opposed to the Kosovo War in her own little potato-shaped head, but she admits she never actually got around to publicly expressing her opposition to the Kosovo War. Even if we take her at her word that she did possess such a purely-cerebral reservation, she was not consistent in her willingness or eagerness to actually express this opinion publicly.
A thought confined to one's own head is utterly immaterial in the real world. A thought only counts in the real world if it's actually acted upon, or at least disseminated into the public arena.
By her own admission, this acne-scarred bottom-heavy Weeble of a comedienne was blatantly inconsistent in her willingness to express her alleged opposition to the Kosovo War. The charge of partisan inconsistency remains on the table: even if we think she's honest abut her secret, private reservations about Kosovo (and, for the record, we don't think she's honest at all), she's still inconsistent regarding expressing that opinion. And we think it's very likely that partisanship has something to do with that.
Consistency of Passion.
Let's face it, we all are guilty of inconsistency regarding the passion with which we oppose our own side's bad behavior as compared to the passion we show when we oppose the other side's bad behavior. We are humans, after all; some allowance for human weakness must be made regarding passion. You can't easily make yourself passionate about a cause which isn't your own, even if you try to.
Conservatives are willing to admit this. We, for example, just did.
Liberals never make such an admission. Liberals will never, never make the slightest gesture towards an admission that they are being less than Perfect Little Angels in any debate or with regard to any issue.
Despite the allowances we might make for human weakness, there are some cases where someone's outrage
about alleged Republican bad behavior must be compared to his or her lack of such outrage
when it comes to perfectly analogous Democratic bad behavior.
Yes yes, it's hard to get oneself emotionally lathered up about the bad behavior of one's own allies. But even if that actual emotion can't be channeled, one can at least use the same sort of strong language to denounce the bad behavior one one's own side. Even if a liberal was obviously not actually passionate about denouncing the bad behavior of liberals, we'd credit him for being as consistent in terms of passion if he actually used strong language to denounce liberal bad behavior and thereby tried
to gin up a bit of passion.
But they almost never do. They use only the weakest, most acquiescent language to "denounce" their own team.
(Note how they similarly "denounce" Saddam Hussein in intentionally weak terms. How many times have you heard Hussein -- a mass murderer, a war criminal, a mass rapist, a genocidal tyrant -- "denounced" by liberals as being a quote bad guy unquote? "Bad guy?" A bad guy is someone who cuts me off in traffic. A bad guy is someone who behaves caddishly towards women. Saddam Hussein is not a "bad guy," liberals.)
People who are outraged
about the Texas redistricting are not being consistent on the point unless they denounced the previous Democratic gerrymanders in strong language as well. Again, the purely intellectual "I was against that too, I guess" cannot rebut the charge of inconsistency of passion.
Consistency of Action and Timing.
Look, if you marched against the Iraq War, but never marched against the Kosovo War, you have not been consistent. Even if you honestly held similar purely-intellectual reservations about the Kosovo War, you certainly can't claim you're being consistent in terms of your willingness to actually act
to further your beliefs in both cases.
Closely related is the issue of timing
. This one especially bugs us. Liberals seem to be forever suddenly discovering their previous deeply-held reservations about issues that are now dead, conveniently now only part of the historical record, utterly mooted by the passage of months and years
We're very happy that Ellis Hennican, for example, might be "just as outraged" by the press' scrutiny into Bush the Elder's alleged affair as he his by the press scrutiny into Kerry's night moves.
But we can't help pointing out-- his timing is a little different in the two cases.
With regard to Bush the Elder, his sudden "outrage" is entirely ineffectual, incapable of shaping public opinion during the critical period when the Bush "affair" was actually a live issue
. That's more than twelve years ago now-- and unless Ellis Hennican has access to Wesely "TimeRanger" Clark's ultratech prototype Temporal Displacement Machinery, his denouncing of the liberal rumor-mongering a decade gone by is, conveniently enough for him, utterly incapable of actually helping Bush the Elder.
Whatever damage that story did to Bush the Elder is already done; whatever advantage the liberals gained by the rumor-mongering is safely in the bank-vault that is the unchangeable past historical record.
Ellis might also have opinions about whether Tommy the T-Rex was behaving ethically when he ate all the eggs of Velma Velociraptor's brood; but it would seem that any criticism of Tommy the T-Rex is purely a matter of historical analysis. It certainly cannot be considered political advocacy.
And so we'd like to point out to the meticulous metrosexual Ellis -- your claimed position on Bush the Elder's right to privacy is nice and all, but it seems to come safely at a time when it cannot actually aid him or discourage other liberals from further dmaging him.
We're sure, sure,
that that is purely an oversight on Ellis' part. We're just positive that he didn't remain silent on the issue when it was not, in fact, mooted by the passage of a full decade, in order to allow liberals to gain whatever advantage they could from the rumor-mongering.
So there you go. We're just sick and tired of these claims of "consistency" that fly in the face of simple commonsense. To actually be "consistent" on a point requires more than one's claim of simply holding a purely personal, secret position in the conveniently-distant past, about a conveniently-mooted issue.
True consistency requires that you express and act upon your opinion with something approaching a consistent level of passion without regard to partisan advantage, and that you do all this at the time your opinion could actually have a chance of influencing the outcome of a dispute.
And that's that.
Are we always so consistent?
No. We frequently are inconsistent due to partisanship. We try to be consistent, but we often fail.
But we're willing to admit that.
Try to get your liberal friends to make a similar admission on any currently-important topic.
Our First Genuine Hate Mail!
Re: Your weblog is a total waste of bandwidth
From: [NAME WITHHELD]
Not funny, not interesting, hopefully you'll pack it in when Commander in Thief AWOL loses this November.
Sniff. We've been wondering-- where the hell is all the damned hatemail? Is anyone even reading us?
Now we know. This is confirmation. We're in the big-time, now.
[NAME WITHHELD], you've made our collective day.
Iranian Politicians Dare to Tear Khamenei
Almost unprecedented public repudiation of "Supreme Leader."
Once again: the fuse is wet and soggy, but it is lit.
Factory Activity Rises Yet Again
The fuse is wet and soggy, but it is lit.
Bremer Hints He Might Bar Iraqi Islamic Law
Possible trouble brewing.
This is an issue we've always had a great deal of trouble with. This issue has been on the table for two and a half years; the Bush Administration has never firmly stated that an Islamic Iraq would be permitted or not.
To some extent, that's an understandable dodge-- sometimes, you've got to put off resolving thorny issues in the interests of action.
But the time bomb is still ticking, and pro-war advocates are partly responsible for the bad that comes from this (just as we're also partly responsible for all the good).
If a civil war erupts-- well then, that's that. We bail. And quite frankly at this point, we at Ace of Spades HQ wouldn't particularly mind if these rotten bastards suffered with a long, bloody civil war. Except for the Kurds, who whose independence we'd like to see guaranteed.
And then we go back to Clinton's policy of "maintainence bombing." Which had its flaws, of course. But one plus of it is that it's fairly easy and without great cost for us. The targeted enemy, of course, pays a higher price.
What many liberals and Muslims have never understood is that Big Bad Bush has actually been navigating the most humane
possible response to the Arab/Muslim Problem.
Just so everyone understands -- if the humane solution doesn't work, it doesn't mean we let the Islamists and terrorists win. It just means we go to plan B, which is strategic bombing of any intransigent state until its cities are burning and it is effectively de-industrialized. This will plunge countries into horrible famines and economic depressions -- even worse than they're experiencing now -- but that's life.
Every day another few Americans get killed over there. We're becoming less convinced of the need to deal with these bastards humanely.
Breaking News: Joe Conason is a Vile Hack
Check out Kausfiles' comparison of Low Joe's pushing of the Bush (the elder) alleged affair, and his shocked, shocked reaction the outing of Kerry's affair(s).
In other breaking news: Men landed on the moon; scientists have determined that dogs go barking mad happy at the sight of a ratty tennis ball, leash, or open car-door; Carthage was destroyed; and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still valiantly fighting in his struggle to remain dead.
|design by may|