Archive for ‘Ace of Spades’

July 18, 2009

‘Integrity’? Like Paul F***ing Anka, Baby

Ace of Spades mentions “integrity” in discussing his services last year “as an apologist for the horrible candidate John McCain.” I traveled a good distance down that particular road myself — I’d link some of it, if only it weren’t so traumatically embarrassing — but I knew when to pull the ripcord:

John McCain lost the election Sept. 24 and Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. Nothing that is likely to happen between now and Nov. 4 can change this outcome. . . .
Democrats are already rushing to promote Obama’s coming victory as a mandate for their “progressive” agenda. Conservatives need to begin telling the true story of McCain’s defeat, which must be admitted before it can be explained.

That was published Oct. 7 by The American Spectator, nearly a full month before the election. In fact, my spontaneous reaction Sept. 24 to McCain’s stunt (“insane . . . I can’t see the benefit, either in terms of policy or politics”) was almost a perfect bull’s-eye. And let the record show that, once everything was said and done, all informed analysts agreed with me that Crazy Cousin John’s support for the bailout was the decisive turning point in his well-deserved defeat. (See also Doug Mataconis: “The McCain Campaign: What Went Wrong.”)

The question has since been asked, by friends, whether I have any regrets. Short answer: None at all. I didn’t vote for Obama and I didn’t vote for Crazy Cousin John. Let other people apologize for their choices, but I have nothing to regret. (Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Bob Barr.) So I felt obligated to make this point in my reply to Ace:

If the Republican Party could nominate as its presidential candidate a man whose only apparent political principle has been the advancement of his own ambition and still win, what kind of cynic would call that a good outcome? When the GOP nominates the wrong man, the electoral debacle that inevitably follows cannot be interpreted as evidence that the party should nominate more scoundrels like that.

Which is to say, What Would Paul F***ing Anka Do?

Lots of people disagree with me, and I have no problem with that. They have the right to be wrong. I understand that my habit of being 100% right all the time is annoying to people who are wrong. Yeah, it might be kind of boring if every other blog on the planet was nothing but a series of links like this:

Stacy McCain Is Right!
Once Again, Stacy McCain Is Exactly Right!
How Much More Nail-On-The-Head Accurate Could Stacy McCain Possibly Be?
Holy Freaking Crap! That Guy Could Split Atoms With His Infallible Logic!

Boring, yes. But accurate. What’s the point of being a know-it-all if you don’t actually know it all? Isn’t that why people read Hot Air, because Allah knows everything?

So when I’m right, right, right, right all the time, and other people are reliably wrong like clockwork (e.g., David Brooks), then maybe a good political strategy for the Republican Party would be to listen to me: Do the exact opposite of whatever David Brooks says to do. Cf. “How to Think About Liberalism (If You Must).”

There was a time — perhaps as recently as yesterday — when my prophetic omniscience may have been incomplete. As of today, however, just call me Mr. Authoritative Truth. So believe me when I tell you that, even though Ace is wrong about this one thing, he isn’t a total whore, no matter what David Frum says.

(Yeah, I did steal that Photoshop. Sue me.)

UPDATE: Linked by Paul Anka Instapundit, and please also see my sentimental tribute to Ace of Spades at the Green Room. And while I have no regrets about my political choices in 2008, that’s not the same as having no regrets.

(Regrets? I’ve had a few, but then again . . .)

UPDATE II: Dan Collins is a genius, and also has some interesting arguments on ObamaCare. Everyone who cares about the future of the Republican Party the conservative cause America the world the universe should commit to memory every priceless word that Dan Collins writes.

UPDATE III: Dr. Melissa Clouthier:

Well, we’re not being screwed, these days. We’re being freaking gang-raped. . . . Does anyone really believe that a John McCain presidency would have sold out the country to the Unions? Does anyone really believe we’d have to be beating back the biggest power grab by the federal government ever?

Yes, and how did this happen? Because I voted for Bob Barr in Maryland? I think not. The GOP nominated as its presidential candidate the only candidate in the primary field for whom I could not vote. (S. 2611.) The most electable candidate in the Republican field, Mitt Romney, quit two days after Super Tuesday.

When the Republican Party nominates a guaranteed loser who — surprise! — loses, how is this result to be blamed on those who opposed the nomination, who specifically, accurately and concisely predicted what events would happen? I predicted it on Super Tuesday, and you may read “Bill Kristol & the Idiocy of Hope” — from Monday, Nov. 3 — and be assured that I have no regrets about that post, either.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? If you volunteer to be a doormat, don’t complain about the footprints on your back.

If the Republican Party can nominate Bozo the Clown with the calm certainty that, on the day before the election, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity will be lecturing conservatives about how important it is that they vote for Bozo — “That clown is a Great American! He’s pulled to within the margin of error in Idaho!” — whose fault is it that the GOP gets its ass kicked and nobody takes the conservative movement seriously?

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are running roughshod over the Constitution, and this is to be blamed on me?

Fine. It’s all my fault. Blame me. Or Sarah Palin. Or Rush Limbaugh. Take your pick. Since it seems absolutely essential to some people that the clueless GOP hacks who orchestrated this disaster never be held accountable for their errors, please don’t let me me disturb the search for a convenient scapegoat.

But why keep searching? It was me. Mea culpa.

Whatever you do, don’t blame John McCain, or any of the idiots at GOP-HQ who squandered $792 million on the 2008 Republican campaign — hey, let’s hire the Dynamic Duck Duo! — because if you blame them, somebody might accuse you of trying to be “morally superior.”

UPDATE IV: OK, excuse the outburst. I’m just tired, is all. Everybody knows exactly what needs to be done. Except me. I’m the only person in the entire conservative blogosphere who doesn’t know anything about politics, or media, or campaigns.

So whatever you do, ignore me — until it’s time to blame me.

July 15, 2009

Frum Treats Ace Like a Dirty Whore

OK, all I did was attend a cocktail party, but now — as Justin Hawkins observesDavid Frum is imposing himself on Ace, an act of ideological date-rape, as it were.

The question is whether Ace was askin’ for it, struttin’ around in lipstick and tight jeans like a whore.

Oh, yeah. We know the story: Frum was just chillin’ in his center-right Republican dorm room with a bit of herb, some cold malt liquor, watching ESPN with his moderate posse.

Knock, knock, knock — “It’s me, Ace.” The sultry little minx wants to hang out with the homies, drinking a few of Frum’s 40s. Starts doing the tease routine, talking sexy about “electability” and “pragmatism.” Yadda yadda. Ba-da-bing. Et cetera.

So what if Conor got sloppy seconds after Ace passed out? Whose fault was that, huh?

Next morning, Ace runs off crying to the campus medical center claiming he said “no” (ah, but his eyes said “yes”), and before you can say “presumed innocent,” there’s a Take Back the Night candelight vigil with chants and posters and . . .

What? Too lurid, Ace? Am I “blaming the victim”? Is the trauma induced by your ordeal still a raw wound? Perhaps you’d prefer soothing poetry:

Ace and David,
Sittin’ in a tree,

I could roll that way. (Outlaw!) But once I whip out my big thick analogy like this, I gotta go all the way.

I don’t blame Frum for taking what he wants, seeing as how Ace was obviously so willing to give it up. The problem is this I’m-not-that-kind-of-girl victim act on Ace’s part.

Like I said, I’ve got no problem with cocktail parties. That’s just coalition politics, an obligatory ritual like the high school prom. Laura Ingraham and Mark Krikorian were there as chaperones, just in case things got out of hand. (Some conservatives have one too many glasses of that reserve pinot and start stumbling around, badmouthing NRA and Club For Growth like a whore.)

Oh, we all saw it coming. Signing that Coulter petition was like showing up for your date in a tube top and a mini-skirt, an unmistakable advertisement that you were ready for some action. Ace, you were like that stupid tramp in Colorado who thought she could just “fool around a little” with an NBA superstar and that Kobe Bryant would stop exactly where she said stop. A lesson learned the hard way, so to speak.

Now, Friedersdorf is accusing conservatives of trying to “purge” you, Ace. If that’s what Hawkins or anyone else is up to, count me out.

I’ve had my bad moments, too, so I have empathy, like Sotomayor.

Ace, what I’m saying is that you made an error of judgment for which you are responsible, like that chubby freshman girl who arrives early at the Teke open-house party, starts right in on the tequila and doesn’t stop until the pledges are lined up down the hall waiting to take their turns.

But why bring Meghan McCain into this?

My point is that if Ace is a dirty slut, he’s our dirty slut. We don’t blame Frum and Friedersdorf for wanting to do a three-way and then hand him off to David Brooks, David Letterman, David Gergen, David Brock, David Hasselhof, David Copperfield . . . but again, why bring Meghan McCain into this?

Ace knows what he is, and we respect what he is, insofar as he is at least honest enough to admit that he has these unfortunate tendencies to be “center-right,” a weakness for “pragmatic” arguments about “electability.”

Like a whore.

UPDATE: Speaking of which, who is this “Mindy” who shares her correspondence with Friedersdorf? The analysis Ace gives Mindy — “The last ‘good year’ was the election of 2004” — is solid, so far as it goes.

What it ignores is the original folly of making Philadelphia-on-the-Tigris the focal point of Republican electoral strategy. You can get away with that kind of blunder for a while, especially when the Democrats are content to nominate a guaranteed loser like John Kerry and rely on the strategic advice of Bob Shrum.

Karl Rove got his winning reputation too easily. The fundamental flaws in the policy/politics formula of Bushism were exposed just as soon as the Democrat grassroots used the Internet to organize a coup against their clueless leaders, installing Howard Dean at the DNC and putting Rahm Emanuel in charge of their congressional campaign.

However, the flaws of Bushism were there all along: The GOP cannot build an enduring majoritarian coalition on the basis of overseas adventures, nebulous domestic “triangulation” and a rhetoric of symbolic appeals to patriotism. If Bushism appeared to work for a while, that was mainly because Democratic leaders were out of touch with, and therefore incapable of effectively organizing, the grassroots resentment that the Kos/MoveOn axis saw as the natural fulcrum upon which to leverage a strategy of direct opposition (as opposed to an absurd DLC “Me-Too-ism”) to the Bush agenda.

Never mind. t I don’t want to discuss that now. What I want to do is to ask a question: Surely the “Mindy” who writes this is not Mindy Finn?

Clarify, Conor.

UPDATE II: Ace just e-mailed to say that “Mindy” is not Mindy Finn, so excuse my throwing that name out there. She just happened to be the only Republican named Mindy who came to mind. I’ll await further information. This poison-pen stuff — trashing an entire political movement in an e-mail exchange and then allowing the exchange to be published with only “Mindy” as identifying one half of the exchange — is bad business.

July 7, 2009

The Parable of the Doubting Ace

Ace, that sentence from my column . . .

Other media types joined the rush to write Palin’s political obituary, with a Greek chorus of “conservative” commentators transparently eager to agree that her resignation represented proof that Palin is both unelectable to and unfit for higher office.

. . . was a reference to an entire cottage industry of David Gergen types — The Republicans Who Really Matter — who specialize in going on TV to parrot the conventional wisdom of the liberal establishment, in order to foster the appearance of bipartisan agreement. That was written on Sunday, and it wasn’t until Monday afternoon that I extended the reference in a blog post:

Of course, not all the commentators rushing to write finis on Palin’s career were of the Ed Rollins/David Schuster variety. Both Ace and Allahpundit hastened to endorse the pundit consensus.

Which is true. No accusation of mala fides is involved in saying that you “hastened to endorse the pundit consensus” — and that consensus may, after all, be accurate.

It was evidently God’s will that the Internet service provided by my cable company was on the fritz most of Monday, and despite my paying those jackals $90 a month, I couldn’t even get through on the customer-service phones, which beeped a busy signal all day. So it wasn’t until this morning that I was able to catch up with your post about “heretic hunting in the GOP.”

If anyone is hunting heretics or planning an Inquisition, Ace, it’s not me. (I’m not the type who signs petitions.) The problem is that there have been such purges in the past, for which you are not to blame, and the associations of old memories are stirred when we behold this bandwagon rush to declare an end to The Palin Epoch. If even Robert Novak can be tagged an “unpatriotic conservative” for having criticized the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, the conservative movement has problems far more fundamental than a squabble among bloggers.

Are the Palinistas guilty of intolerant “heretic hunting”? Where did they learn that? It is the conservative elite — the National Review crowd — who have developed the “urge to purge” into a cultic religion. If Rich Lowry wasn’t fired after he banned Ann Coulter from NR, he should have been fired after he published Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives.”

This isn’t just about Coulter or Buchanan or any of the other victims of the exclusive cliquishness practiced by Lowry & Co. Rather, it is about elitism, and a certain type of Republican who craves a conservatism that is respectable within elite circles. This manifests a defensive mentality on the part of the GOP elite that one never encounters on the Democratic side of the aisle, where Democrats routinely associate with shady organizations and individuals (ACORN, Bill Ayers, etc.) without fear that such associations will put them beyond the pale of respectability.

Why this fearful insecurity on the part of Republicans? Why are Republicans embarrassed by Sarah Palin in a way that Democrats are not embarrassed by Joe Biden? It is a mystery worth contemplation, but not one I feel like unraveling this morning (having been deprived, by the will of God and my cable TV company, of reliable Internet service for 24 hours).

Nonetheless, I’m grateful for the Ace-o-lanche, however merited. I didn’t mean to attack you. You’re my hero. You are the wind beneath my wings.

To apply some de-fisking, however, you took strong exception to this paragraph:

First, Palin is a Christian who, in the past, has made straightforward reference to the will of God. What she believes — what she must believe — is that if it is God’s will that she become president, she will.

Yes, Ace, she must believe that. This understanding of God’s will is best expressed by Romans 8:28 and Palin is obviously one of these Bible-thumping hayseed holy rollers who take such things seriously. To quote the apostle Paul from another passage, “we see through a glass, darkly” (I Cor. 13:12) and thus our perception of God’s will is imperfect. Yet we may either seek to know God’s will, and to do it, or else go our own way at our peril, in a state of rebellion.

Shortly after Sarah Palin was announced as Crazy Cousin John’s running mate, there erupted a minor furor over a video of Palin’s June 2008 address at Wasilla Assembly of God in which she spoke of God’s will in reference to the war in Iraq. “Lunacy!” screamed the liberals.

Well, what Palin said might seem insane to those who haven’t spent much time in Bible-believing churches, or who didn’t listen closely to what she actually said:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

And let all the congregation say, “Amen!” Pray for your country, pray for its leaders, pray that when they send our troops into war, it is in accordance with the aims of the Almighty. To say this is not to confuse God’s will with George W. Bush’s will, but rather to hope that the latter is conformed to the former, and that . . . well, God bless America . . . God mend thy every flaw.

It might be that the state of our politics in June 2008 was a flaw that the Almighty wished to mend, and that Barack Obama was the instrument by which He chose to mend it. This is not to imply a divine endorsement of Obama’s political agenda, any more than the Babylonian captivity of Israel was an endorsement of Nebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless, the Bible-believer understands that the pagan Babylonians were an instrument by which God chastised the Chosen People, in accordance with His purpose.

To believe like Sarah Palin believes is to conceive oneself an actor in a play of divine authorship, and the conclusion of that drama is foreknown, because it has been foretold. (Aside: Hunter S. Thompson was a huge fan of the Book of Revelation.) If we are living in the End Times — and I am reasonably confident that Sarah Palin also must believe this — then it was surely no fluke that her name was drawn out of the hat as Crazy Cousin John’s running mate.

Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?
Esther 4:14

Evidently, it was not in God’s plan that Crazy Cousin John become president, for which mercy we are grateful. But if you believe like Sarah believes, then her selection as his running mate was no accident. Some purpose was intended, in these prophesied times, if only as a sign to the faithful that we are indeed living in such times.

What troubles me most, right now, is the fear that some idiot will do something nutty out of the belief that his insanity is divine. While I was in Alabama this past weekend — I’ll upload the video of my fireworks show later today, God and the cable company willing — my friend’s father said to me, “Stacy, do you think Obama will be assassinated?”

“God, I certainly hope not,” I answered, profanely. (I believe well enough, I just don’t obey so good.)

Since December, I have said that the Democratic economic agenda will be Obama’s undoing — It Won’t Work because The Fundamentals Still Suck — and any kook terrorist who thinks he needs to intercede in that process will be preventing the revelation of a truth as durable as the gospel: In economic matters, markets work, governments don’t.

This goes back to my dispute with Ryan Sager, who asserted an eternal conflict between libertarians and Bible-thumpers, a conflict I consider false:

Some years ago, I was asked to speak to a Christian homeschooling conference — my wife and I have homeschooled our six children — and during the question-and-answer session after the speech, I faced a question for which I was unprepared.
“How has your Christian faith influenced your political beliefs?”
This stunned me into silence for a second. Then I answered: “Well, I guess it comes down to that part about ‘Thou shalt not steal.'”
From there I proceeded to discuss the basic immorality of the welfare state, how it is wrong for government to take money that one man has worked for and give it to someone who hasn’t earned it. . . .
Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral — indeed, it is sinful, as I told the Christian homeschoolers — and by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of its citizens.

You can read the whole thing, but the point is that those who view Christian belief as incompatible with proper principles of government are mistaken. Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have done their part to discredit born-again belief as a guiding force in politics, but God is not to blame for the fact that fools claim to be divinely inspired.

Nor should you, Ace, blame God for any of my foolishness. I am not your enemy, at least not by my own choosing. Right now, the TV in my office — God has granted me cable! –is tuned to MSNBC, which is airing Andrea Mitchell’s ambush interview with Sarah Palin.

There are no accidents. Amen.

UPDATE: Did I say there are no accidents? Andrew Sullivan, Radley Balko and Ross Douthat cage match! If only Conor Friedersdorf would jump in . . .

UPDATE II: On Sully’s assertion of an “absurdly soft” media treatment of Palin, here’s Dan Riehl:

[I]t really does suggest serious emotional issues of some sort. Whatever Sullivan may have been at one point, people who still believe he’s even a semi-honest broker in touch with objective reality are just fooling themselves.
No one in their right mind could possibly conclude the above about the media coverage of Sarah Palin and claim to have a genuine appreciation for an objective political reality. And what’s even more sad is that the web editors of a once prestigious brand like The Atlantic allow it to go on.

I don’t know, Dan. As a matter of New Media “branding,” bugfuck crazy hasn’t hurt me any.

Note the ironic signification of self-awareness. Outlaw!

May 9, 2009

Traffic surges from anti-Obama backlash and Carrie Prejean nude . . .

. . . but mostly from Carrie Prejean nude. Should I be ashamed to be the Google-bomb prophet? Would it have been better to let Perez Hilton, hateful lefties and trashy gossip blogs monopolize all that “Carrie Prejean nude” traffic?

Did I mention I flat-out stole the headline shtick from Ace of Spades HQ?

If loving traffic is wrong, I don’t wanna be right. Because whatever you write ain’t nothing until somebody reads it and, out here in the ‘sphere, ain’t nobody going to read it until somebody gives you the linky-love.

Rule 2. Just the facts, Jack.

But if you take the linky-love, you gotta give the linky-love. The whole point of having more traffic is to shower the hits on the blogs you love. Which is why I so much enjoyed turning Jules Crittenden into Marie Osmond’s lesbian daughter.

Because I’m a giver. Even if Allah hates me. And you want gold 30% off retail.

April 24, 2009

Not Awesome, Ace

by Smitty

AoS has the title “Awesome: Crowd Cheers as GE Shareholder Rips MSNBC”. A questioner inquires if the Janine Garofalo clip is “hate speech”, and the crowd cheers and the suit waffles, and the crowd boos.
Pay attention class: why was Napoleon successful, until Wellington picked up the same baton and flogged Napoleon therewith? Among other reasons, both generals understood the ground.
In noticing JG, in bothering to attach “hate speech” to her pitiful remarks, you’re conceding the ground to the minions of Cthulhu. The Great Old One doesn’t care about JG or Sean Penn or the contents of their blather. All the minions want of you is to support the perversion of the First Amendment, and the need/capacity for government to regulate this new legislative product.
There is a place in the bowels of Cthulhu for JG when, to her sanity-shredding horror, her reign of useful idiocy is at an end. The means of avoiding joining her there is to not concede the ground to artful liars peddling nebulous goods: “fairness”, “hate speech”, and “spreading the wealth” are all markers on bad ground for battle.
Rather than engage the enemy head on, simply ask questions. Let the lack of any foundation in thought, fact, and history make the tower of babble collapse on Old Cthulhu.
Ace may think the MSNBC situation funny, and some sort of win. It was, but not for those concerned with freedom, truth, and the future. Do not concede the ground to the foe.

Update:This cover from the Economist makes the point graphically. The lure is the symbol “hate speech”, the school on the port side is anyone buying into its existence, with Cthulhu “smiling” to starboard.

April 11, 2009

Helpless against the hobo menace!

When Dan Riehl first told me about this, I couldn’t believe it:

Many more Marylanders would be eligible for hate crime protections under a bill gaining speed in the General Assembly.
The House of Delegates approved adding extra penalties Friday night for violent crimes against victims singled out because of age, gender, disability or because the person is homeless.
The statute already covers victims attacked because of race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. (Emphasis added.)

Unilateral disarmament against vicious criminal hobos? Madness! Only one man can save us . . .


March 11, 2009

Mourning the Death of Feminism

Feministing’s Jessica Valenti submits to patriarchal heteronormative oppression.

The date of the wedding ceremony Death of Feminism has not yet been announced, but the lucky guy misogynistic exploiter is Andrew Golis, deputy publisher of Talking Points Memo.

We learned of the news via Ace of Spades, whose feminist street-cred is legendary. Ace has admired Ms. Valenti’s impressive rack ideological commitment to gender-neutrality ever since Ann Althouse published a photo of Ms.Valenti displaying her awesome tatas devotion to social justice at a Soros-funded droolfest policy discussion between Bill Clinton and BDS-afflicted moonbats the Progressive Netroots Community.

Given Ace’s firm ideological commitment to the women’s movement mantra, “Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice; video is the art,” the revelation of Ms. Valenti’s conquest by an agent of the imperialist phallocracy was a crushing blow.

“I’ve always believed myself to be a lesbian trapped in an Ewok’s body,” the blogger was heard to say, as he ordered another round of champagne in the chic five-star Manhattan restaurant where he and his comrades gathered to mourn the Death of Feminism.

Raising aloft a chilled flute of the finest Dom Perignon, Ace was visibly moved as he gasped his heartfelt cri de coeur, “Here’s to Andrew Golis! Better you than me, pal!”
February 24, 2009

Will ACORN help me . . .

. . . if I don’t make my car payment? See, the finance company keeps calling me, saying I’m way behind on the note, and every time I hear a truck on my street, I look outside to make sure it’s not the repo man coming to tow my car.

Anyway, since ACORN’s all about civil disobedience on behalf of people whose homes getting foreclosed, I’m wondering if they will come do a picket line around my car to protect me from those predatory lenders who expect me to make my payments.

Because I have a right to a 2004 Kia Optima. It’s for the children! No justice, no peace!

I am a victim. And please hit the tip jar, because maybe I’m not joking. And even if I am joking, this is some funny sh*t, right?

(H/T: Ace of Spades and Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Welcome, Jawas! Just throw $20 in the tip jar to fund my next crusade: Your right to premium cable. Let’s face it, why should you be treated like a second-class citizen — riding the back of the cable bus — while these predatory cable providers oppress you by denying you access to HBO, Showtime and those PPV porn channels? Hope! Change! Equality!

By the way, have you heard about the government program to give free cell-phone service to the poor? That’s NOT a joke!

UPDATE II: Smitty suggests Keb Mo’s “Soon As I Get Paid” for the theme song:

February 23, 2009

Ace now uses ‘rather’

A few days hanging around Hitch in Beirut, and suddenly he’s all Old School Tie and I’d-fancy-a-pint-mate.

Lord Ace of Spades, Viscount Ewok?

February 20, 2009

Ace rates the babes of Beirut

Yeah, he also talks about the geopolitical/military situation, but anyone can do that:

Beirut isn’t just a loose city by Middle East standards; it’s a loose city by American standards. In fact, it’s a loose city by Vegas standards. Pretty much nothing is against the law and the sh*t that isn’t against the law isn’t terribly against the law.
So I guess I still don’t have a real answer to the question.
Oh, let me mention the women dressing sexily. I joked during the Feb 14 rally that the eighties didn’t die, they just came to Beirut and mutated.
There’s a curiously standard fashion among young girls and women here — very tight jeans and leather or suede boots coming up to the knee. Sometimes, in a flair I approve of, they roll up their jeans to reveal one or two inches of stockings or tights beneath, before the tights disappear into the boots.
What they dress like, in other words, is all the “bad girls” I was so h*rny for in middle school and high school. If only the feather ear-ring came into style here, it would be perfect.

If you’re wondering why I slightly censored you, Ace — yesterday I found out that Jesse Malkin’s got me on his RSS feed. So I’m trying to be a little more “family values” and all that. Don’t want to get Jesse in trouble with the Missus. She ain’t been linking me all that much lately, but if she finds out I’m a bad influence on the hubby, it’s gonna be a long slog to 2 million visits, eh?

UPDATE: Just in case anybody thinks this post represents the lowest possible depths of shameless blogwhoring, think again.

UPDATE II: Some of you have complained that this post doesn’t include any photos of hot Lebanese babes. Well the problem is that this is the best photo I could find of Miss Lebanon 2008, Rosarita Tawil, unless you count the embarrassing “topless photo scandal,” and we wouldn’t want to get anybody in trouble by linking that, would we?