Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« "Moderate" British Imam: Let's Keep An Open Mind; How Do We Know Four Dead Muslim Suspects Were Bombers Rather Than Victims? | Main | Air America Update: Theft From Children Going Swimmingly; Ratings, Not So Much »
July 27, 2005

Quote of the Day

From The New Criterion's blog. A British simp criticizes Blair for not seeking to "understand" the reasons for terror, but rather "merely" condemning it. David Clark continues:

No one doubts that the bombers are in the grip of an evil ideology. The question, unanswered in the acres of newsprint devoted to rubbishing the suggestion that terrorism is a political phenomenon, is why this ideology has grown in its appeal to young Muslims. To put it in the simplistic Manichean terms favoured by some, why is there more evil around than there used to be? On this there is nothing but silence.

The New Criterion answers:

Why is there more evil around, Mr. Clark? Maybe because evil has finally figured out that it doesn't need to hide in the shadows--it can walk around in broad daylight and still we'll find a way not to see it.

Remember when "defining deviancy down" only meant calling out-of-wedlock births fine and dandy?

Ah, the good old days.


posted by Ace at 10:01 PM
Comments



Respect is due, Don Goomba. Excellent post.

Posted by: DiscerningTexan on July 28, 2005 12:18 AM

Sorry Ace, forgot where I was posting my comment--I was over at Nickie's before I clicked here: nevertheless, all mistaken identity aside, thanks for the great post.

Posted by: DiscerningTexan on July 28, 2005 12:20 AM

There's not "more evil" today, its just that modern transportation technology has given it more mobility than was possible before.

Posted by: tony on July 28, 2005 12:39 AM

" is why this ideology has grown in its appeal to young Muslims. "

The very fact that we don't see too many 60 year old suicide bombers leads me to believe that the naivety that is abundant in the young through a lack of worldly experience is being exploited when combined with brainwashing.

Tell a horny young man who can't get laid he can get 72 virgins and be a 'somebody' and they'll be lining up around the block. This is especially the case when they do nothing but implant the idea that their life is going to be crap thanks to the Great Satan.

Which reminds me, why is nobody asking about the increase in gang violence, and how it has grown in appeal to young people?

Rebelliousness? In the 80's we all grew long hair, now they either get involved in gang violence or strap a bomb on their back.

Tsch, kids nowaday..
/old man

Posted by: Ring on July 28, 2005 03:13 AM

Ring,

Could it be that nobody is asking about the increase in youth violence because youth violence has actually decreased?


Here is my take in the context of video game censorship by Sen. Clinton.

Posted by: Sinner on July 28, 2005 08:27 AM

Leftism = Slave Morality

Posted by: on July 28, 2005 08:40 AM

In re: terrorism, we can worry about the "why" some other day; right now it's more important to focus on the "who" and the "where".

Posted by: DWC on July 28, 2005 10:20 AM

Why is there more evil around, Mr. Clark? Maybe because evil has finally figured out that it doesn't need to hide in the shadows--it can walk around in broad daylight and still we'll find a way not to see it.

We've had so many repugnant laws and so many bad policies shoved down our throats by Liberals and been so frustated for so long about it all that we've become passive and apathetic. Liberals have taught us to be quiet in the face of grave injustice, even when it gets right in our face. They've taught us to fear the powerful and the rich and not speak out about it. Their arrogance, their condesencion and their continual dishonesty no longer insult us anymore. They've taught us that instead of ourselves they are our primary caregivers and we're better off turning our will and our lives over to the care of the Nanny state. They have forcibly intruded into our lives in all sorts of ways, and we no longer fight back anymore. It was at this critical point, when we all stopped fighting back that Atlas Shrugged and the Liberal Poison really took effect. The roots of apathy and cynisicm run deep now, tended by decades of Liberal rule. If all the Liberals just put their heads in the sand and were chewed up by the rabid dog of Islam that would be fine, but they're taking too many with them. Hopefully, those who are still left with strength and courage will prevail.

Posted by: 72 VIRGINS on July 28, 2005 10:29 AM

This damn evil has been running around since at least 1948 and romanticized and embraced by appeasors since 1972. It is not a new phenomonen.

Posted by: Dman on July 28, 2005 10:45 AM

Trying to understand the reasons for terror before doing something about it is like being a passenger on the Titanic and saying, "I'm not getting in the lifeboat until I understand why the ship is sinking."

Posted by: Jim on July 28, 2005 10:56 AM

Brought to you by the same people who can't confirm global warming is happening, or if it is, if we can do anything about it, yet still insist we must destroy the world economy RIGHT NOW to combat it. Somehow. We think.

Posted by: lauraw on July 28, 2005 11:06 AM

One of the sad losses of our times is the loss of the ability to shame, or to be ashamed. The bad guys have always been with us. Now, they can be with us and be "understood".

Whether one likes it or not, black is still black, white is still white, bad is still bad and good is still good, no matter how relativist apologists try to tell us otherwise.

Posted by: Carlos on July 28, 2005 12:09 PM

Carlos

One of the sad losses of our times is the loss of the ability to shame, or to be ashamed. The bad guys have always been with us. Now, they can be with us and be "understood"... Whether one likes it or not, bad is still bad and good is still good ...

Pope John Paul II used to describe it as "the death of conscience" and its quite true. We've been so lulled (or rather bullied) into "tolerance" by so many years of Liberal demonizing against anyone who disagrees with them that we instinctively shrug, instead of raising hell when we should, like people used to do. If I had to point to one figure in the US who is more responsible than anyone else for it, it is Bill Clinton. His continual race and gender baiting, his demonizing of everyone who disagreed with him, his treasonus actions in giving the W-88 warhead, missle technology and fabrication equipment to the Chicoms for bribes, his starting that idiotic war in Kosvo (when the Christians had ejected 90% of the trouble making Moslems, he brought them all back and created a permanent siege between them) to draw attention from the above, and his "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy to confuse the world about it, were just a few of the many, many things he did to kill our consience. Watergate had the catharitic effect of showing us that even the most powerful man in the country was not above the law. Bill showed us the opposite: that the rich and powerful really are above the law now and we can't fight them, so just lay down and try not to think about it all. We shall be paying for his crimes, his cowardice and his treachery for a long time to come.

Posted by: 72 VIRGINS on July 28, 2005 12:40 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.
Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win

Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.
You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!
In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.
In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.
Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.
What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*
Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.
A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.
The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.
Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]
Recent Comments
Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! [/s] [/i] [/u] [/b]: "Lustful sumbitch! Patriots coach spotted holdin ..."

Heroq: "Last I saw the Cali high speed train is set to ope ..."

It's me donna: "Killer Clowns from Outer Space... ..."

Krebs 'v' Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM) Imprison! Imprison! Imprison! : "[i] Clowns are murder hobos. Its not like they ca ..."

you want fries with that?: "How's about I deep fry a sugary apple concoction? ..."

RedMindBlueState[/i][/b][/s][/u]: "[i]Oh, they are being taught plenty. Important thi ..."

Ian S.: "[i]Here's a thought, what if the point of the "neg ..."

Talk about creepy : "And they live in sewer drains. ..."

Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! [/s] [/i] [/u] [/b]: "Maybe we could send them some pagers? Posted by: ..."

you want fries with that?: "Clowns are murder hobos. Its not like they can h ..."

Penguin Anti-Discrimination League: "The anti-Penguinic propaganda on this site is gett ..."

Boss Moss: "Maybe we could send them some pagers? ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives