Moe Lane's blog

Posted at 1:34pm on Nov. 18, 2007 While I am *not* endorsing Huckabee for President...

By Moe Lane

...in fact, I am still making up my mind, given that I have three months in which to make a decision. Nonetheless, this was good stuff:


Via Mark Halperin via AoSHQ) - and the former claims that it's going to be on TV. Weird, yet cool.

Moe

PS: The principal export of Chuck Norris is pain.

Posted in Comments (25) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:44am on Nov. 16, 2007 "Greet the Strong Horse."

By Moe Lane

(Via Glenn)

Ask a favor?

If you're the sort who gets outraged at the idea of people signing the bombs we use to kill the murderous, women-oppressing, gay-killing, apostate fantasy ideologists we're fighting right now, can you start saying so, in as many forums (excepting this one, of course) that you can think of? Thanks in advance.

Another favor? When you do, be sure to mention which candidate you're supporting. We've got an election coming up, after all.

Posted in Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:51pm on Nov. 15, 2007 10Question Tizzy Tells Truckloads: Trick Too Troublesome?

By Moe Lane

...OK, I'll stop now.

Anyway, Patrick Ruffini - who would be RedState's Magnificent Bastard of the Day, if it were up to me - took the time to explain how he flash mobbed a seat on 10questions.com. To sum his strategy up, he came up with a simple question, waited for his shot, and managed to get inside the Left's decision cycle*. Excellent work, and well within the rules.

Posted in Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:19am on Nov. 13, 2007 Greatest Headline in Human History Open Blog.

By Moe Lane

While reading Roger Simon's piece on antiwar films and the populace that doesn't love them, I clicked on this Wiki article, which reminded me of this headline:

HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR

...which is a thing of beauty, and a tribute to the newspaperman's art (note that I do not say "journalist:" such a bloodless creature could never produce something like that title). That's my favorite headline: what's yours?

Posted in Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:47am on Nov. 13, 2007 John Podhoretz reviews Lions for Lambs...

By Moe Lane

...in a way that leaves Ace of Spades, Ross Douthat and myself quite in awe. Truly, my kung fu is weak compared to this man.

I do not dare excerpt: it deserves to be experienced in all its splendor. So by all means, read it all.

Posted in Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:45am on Nov. 9, 2007 Why Conspiracy Theories are bad for you.

By Moe Lane

Embrace them for too long, and you end up not being able to turn that part of your brain off. As these two guys could tell you. Well, they won't, because they're in the moment - but they could.

As always, comments Over There are the best part. You think that we're peeved about our candidate choice?

Posted in Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:23am on Nov. 7, 2007 Ultimatum in Pakistan?

By Moe Lane

Via Captain's Quarters we see this latest development in Pakistan:

Bhutto issues Pakistan ultimatum

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has issued what correspondents say is an ultimatum to President Pervez Musharraf to end emergency rule.

She repeated plans for a rally on Friday, despite an official ban, and called for a "long march" next week unless Gen Musharraf changed course.

...

The demands are: for the state of emergency to be called off; for General Musharraf to stand down as head of the army; and for elections to be held by mid-January.

Possibly the too much coffee and the not enough sleep are doing the writing for me, but there's something about all of this that seems... not quite spontaneous, somehow. I hesitate to call it "staged," but only because I don't want to sound paranoid. Of course, now that I've typed that out and so essentially admitted it, well...

Anyway, we'll see how this goes.

Posted in Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:24pm on Nov. 6, 2007 Now, why would a bunch of spammers want to bypass Yahoo's! CAPTCHA system?

By Moe Lane

And why would they want to do it using a phony game that's not even real porn (may be NSFW in some offices)? Actually, scratch that: if it wasn't vaguely lame, people wouldn't do it. Weird, but then, so is the Internet.

Via Ace.

Posted in Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:26am on Nov. 6, 2007 Fascinating bunch hanging out with the antiwar types.

By Moe Lane

I originally ended the title with "...these days," but I dropped it. Those two words implies that they were once better, which is of course untrue. They're just smaller now, which means that they don't have to be quite so coy about what they are.

Anyway, I went through Zombietime's coverage of the 10/27 San Francisco antiwar rally, and damned if they didn't have at least one sample attending from every group of organized scumbags that it's my profound pleasure to despise. There was even an overt white supremacist! Have the National Socialists finally broken through the glass ceiling?

Zombietime - who is, by the way, up for Best Photo Blog, not that he needs our help - has done his usual excellent work of viciously attacking the antiwar movement by taking undoctored photos of them. He's categorized this one, so just start at the top and marvel at the free-floating hate, fear, and stone-cold ignorance.

Posted in Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:27pm on Nov. 5, 2007 For forty long years have we known him...

By Moe Lane

It would seem that the British aren't quite ready to give up their hunting just quite yet (Via Brits at their Best, via Instapundit):

Popularity of hunting defies ban

...

Against expectations, hunting has been able to continue, legally for the most part, with little difference in style. As Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, puts it, "most people would find this season's sport quite difficult to differentiate from old-fashioned hunting". It is more popular than ever.

"It's a bit like prohibition," declares Seed. "If you want to make something popular, ban it." No hunt has closed since 2005; two have been started. "A lot of people came out at a time of controversy and decided they liked it," says Farquhar.

The threat of extinction through lack of subscriptions forced hunts to become more welcoming, and websites have given them a new means to promote their sport. Contrary to what some of the MPs who spent 700 hours debating the Hunting Act may have intended, the ban has made hunting more fun.

Funny how that works, huh? Although they're sufficiently worried about the long term consequences to their sport that they're plumping for a Tory victory (and a reversal of the ban). Possibly, so should the environmentalists:

Research by the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society Consensus has revealed a 20 per cent decrease in deer numbers in 2006 against a trend of steady rises over the previous decade.

This is the great irony of the Act: it has led to the shooting of more deer and foxes. Farmers and landowners no longer have a reason to tolerate animals that destroy crops, lambs or pheasant chicks. Stag hunting targets deer that are old, sick or weak, improving the quality of the herd. According to Farquhar, foxhunting before the Act would also "catch the sick, lame or lazy". Stag hunts are still called upon to kill wounded deer, on welfare grounds; but it is much more difficult to bring a wounded animal to bay using two hounds than a full pack.

Oh, look. The British have a Law of Unintended Consequences, too. Probably spelled differently, though.

Moe

Posted in Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:27pm on Nov. 4, 2007 I presume that this is a rhetorical question, Megan.

By Moe Lane

She's smart, which means that she knows the answer already to the question found at the end of a post on school vouchers:

What's even weirder--and Ezra is not the first person to bring this up--is that Medicaid works on my model, not theirs. Medicaid recipients meet the income barrier, and then they go to any doctor who will take their Medicaid card. No one forces them to go to the nearest doctor, or asks them to apply to the doctor lottery. That's what the NHS does, and almost everyone in the liberal health care policy establishment, including, IIRC, Ezra, agrees that it is a really bad system for providing health care. At least, I think that's what they believe, because every time the NHS comes up, they rush to assure me that when we have national health insurance, it won't be some crappy, government-run system like the NHS; it'll be like France where you get to (wait for it) choose your doctor and have the government pay. It's almost like the government was giving you a voucher or something.

What I want to know from Ezra, and other liberal policy wonks who support a France-type system is: why is education special? I have a model for what goods the government should buy versus what goods the government should actually provide directly; it has to do with geography, non-excludability, and transaction costs. But what is your model for saying that education is in a special class of goods that are rival and excludable, have ordinary levels of transaction costs, and yet nonetheless need to be provided directly by the government? Any of the problems that distinguish education from other goods, like inelastic demand, information asymmetries, and performance measurement difficulties, apply to health care as well, perhaps more so. So why do you want healthcare by la Sécurité sociale, but education by the NHS?

Because teacher's unions reliably support Democrats, while doctors do not.

Sheesh. Ask a hard one, next time.

Posted in Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:12pm on Nov. 1, 2007 There was a blog that went to submissions.

By Moe Lane

To the author: you're not in trouble for it, but at least one Director is uncomfortable giving credence to what was essentially scurrilous rumor on the original speculator's part. Frankly, so was I. And if it turns out to be false your excellent point about it all will be obscured by the faux outrage of others.

Moe

PS: And to the person who recommended it: I've noticed that there is a habit among some of our left-leaning regulars to recommend blog entries that might be considered embarrassing to the site.

Posted in Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:49pm on Oct. 31, 2007 This is a hard call to make about my banning policy.

By Moe Lane

Should I keep pretending towards being witty, or should I just use this image?

Image description here

I mean, clearly this one's unsuitable:

Image description here

Although this one might do:

Image description here

Posted in Comments (31) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:00am on Oct. 31, 2007 Ralph Nader: All you Democrats GET OFF MY LAWN!

By Moe Lane

They founds them on their birthday, yesss, they did. Their precccccioussssesss:

Ralph Nader Sues Democratic Party
Oct 30 04:38 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.

Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

[Via Glenn]

Thief! Kerryses! We hates it forever!

Posted in Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:08am on Oct. 29, 2007 Well, *there's* a puzzler for you [CO-BRAAA!!!!!]:

By Moe Lane

Who in the USA, exactly, was Hollywood expecting to go see this film? (Via BlogRunner, and Glenn needs to fix the link.)

G.I. Joe to Become Global Task Force in Movie
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

Say it ain't so, G.I. Joe.

The popular all-American comic-book military man and action figure dating back to the 1940s is undergoing a significant transformation for the Paramount Pictures-distributed "G.I. Joe" film, which begins production in February and is scheduled for release in summer 2009.

No longer will G.I. Joe be a U.S. Special Forces soldier, the "Real American Hero" who, in his glory days, single-handedly won World War II.

In the politically correct new millennium, G.I. Joe bears no resemblance to the original.

Paramount has confirmed that in the movie, the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" — an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.

Posted in Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Syndicate content
 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service