November 29, 2007
— Ace The full recap isn't up yet but I assume it will be on this page.
Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre left Thursday night's NFC showdown against the Dallas Cowboys with a right elbow injury after being hit hard while throwing a pass that was intercepted. He did not return in the Packers' 37-27 loss.
Favre was injured with 10:11 left in the second quarter when he was hit by cornerback Nate Jones. Terence Newman made a diving interception of the fluttering pass.
Favre grabbed his arm and flexed it while walking slowly to the sideline. Aaron Rodgers took over at quarterback on Green Bay's next possession.
Not to be a dick to all the Dallas fans out there, who I'm sure are all very nice people when you get past the fact they are cultists for Pure Evil, but doesn't that mean that Dallas... kinda sorta didn't really win against the Packers per se?
Can anyone tell me why Time-Warner and Comcast are being hardasses about carrying the NFL network, and yet I'm paying for fucking E!, MTV, and Lifetime?
— Ace Another old one by now. If I were a stronger Rudy partisan I might argue it's not a big deal. I think it's rather not a big deal, actually, but I'm not so invested in him as to feel the need to argue it.
I find this more scandalous, actually. Pinkerton here riffs on jokes we've been making for a while, but they're still good:
Here's Giuliani, quoted in an Associated Press story from last week, headlined, "Giuliani promotes virtual fence." Explains the former mayor, "Frankly, the virtual fence is more valuable because it alerts you to people approaching the border, it alerts you to people coming over the border."
That sounds like a good plan, doesn't it? After all, you use a virtual lock on your front door, right? That way, when intruders approach your house, you can spot them. And when they walk in, well, a police SWAT team is on the way. The key to this enforcement strategy, to be sure, is to respond after the crime has occurred. So it's strange, therefore, that Giuliani insists that he wants to build at least some physical wall.
Because virtuality works better, Giuliani assures us. After all, that's why we have virtual prison walls and jail cells, right? You see, when the bad guys escape, an alarm goes off, satellites up in space look down, and helicopters fly over and scoop them up. And if the inmates try it again, well, we just repeat the apprehending process till they cry uncle.
So that's the plan for fending off terrorists from around the world - not to mention any of the 500 million South and Central Americans who might wish to come to this country illegally. We'll spot 'em and nab 'em before they get to Des Moines.
His column finishes with the shocking news that that exciting new technological means of long-range border-crossing detection just don't work.
"Mr. Kittrick, after careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that your new system sucks."
— Ace Really late on this but I just can no longer even pretend to be outraged when the Clintons lie. It's like getting pissed off at dog crap for smelling like dog crap.
A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.
Clinton's comments in Iowa on Tuesday went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003. But the disclosure of his presence in briefings by Rice -- and his private expressions of support -- may add to the headaches that the former president has given his wife's campaign in recent weeks.
Hillary Mann Leverett, at the time the White House director of Persian Gulf affairs, said that Rice and Elliott Abrams, then National Security Council senior director for Near East and North African affairs, met with Clinton several times in the months before the March 2003 invasion to answer any questions he might have. She said she was "shocked" and "astonished" by Clinton's remarks this week, made to voters in Iowa, because she has distinct memories of Abrams "coming back from those meetings literally glowing and boasting that 'we have Clinton's support.' "
Leverett, a former career foreign service officer who said she is not involved in any presidential campaign, said the incident affected her because of her own doubts about the wisdom of an attack. "To hear President Clinton was supportive really silenced whatever questions I had," she recalled. Leverett, who worked in the same office as Abrams at the time, said Rice and Abrams "made it a high priority" to get Clinton's support, meeting with him at least twice. Abrams was tasked to answer Clinton's questions and "took the responsibility very seriously," Leverett said. "Elliott was then very focused on making sure that we followed up on Clinton's questions to keep Clinton happy and on board."
One of the specific questions Clinton asked, Leverett recalled hearing, is what the United States would do if Iraq's "military used chemical weapons against our Gulf allies."
She recalled being told that Clinton made it clear to Rice and Abrams that they could count on his public support for the war if it was necessary.
In an interview last night, Sen. Clinton said of her husband's comments, "There was nothing new in what he said."
— Gabriel Malor President Bush keeps telling Congress to get its act together and support our troops:
"The missions of this department are essential to saving Americans' lives, and they are too important to be disrupted or delayed or put at risk," Bush said at the Pentagon after he received more than two hours of briefings [on Thursday]. "Pentagon officials have warned Congress that the continued delay in funding our troops will soon begin to have a damaging impact on the operations of this department."
Senate Majority Leader Reid still refuses to budge on his demand that the president sign a retreat bill. He keeps insisting that the DoD doesn't mean it when it says it's going to have to start suspending programs and laying folks off.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of Defense Gates announced that 200,000 contractors and civilian employees may receive notices to start looking for new jobs as early as Christmas. What a special Christmas gift for our military and support infrastructure from congressional Democrats!
Bleg? Okay, I tried to put together a pic of a an axe bearing a Christmas tag (that reads "Happy Holidays", of course) and the words "To: the DoD From: Harry Reid." But I suck. It would have been a heckuva lot easier if I, uh, owned an axe...or a Christmas tag. Any takers?
— Gabriel Malor Heretical meteorologists are charging the National Hurricane Center with inaccurately labeling depressions or non-tropical systems as tropical storms which are then named. Why is it important?
The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.
Of course, the NHC denies it, but it sounds to me from the article that this shouldn't be all that difficult to prove with numbers. The criteria for declaring that a weather system is a tropical storm are pretty specific.
Any meteorologists among the morons?
— Gabriel Malor I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet (did I miss it in the Headlines?). A Chilean prostitute named Maria Carolina is raising money for poor, disabled children by auctioning her services.
"I've already auctioned off the 27 hours of love," Maria Carolina told Reuters on Wednesday, saying she had raised about $4,000. "One of my clients already paid. It seemed like a good deed to him."
Adult prostitution is legal in Chile. Chile's two-day Teleton fundraiser is endorsed by television stars and aims to raise funds for poor, disabled children.
Speaking about Maria Carolina's unusual donation, campaign organizer Mario Kreutzberger said he would not encourage "immoral" activities, but said he would accept her pledge.
Since this probably falls into the "where's the picture?" category:
A heart of gold...
No Offense... [Ace] A heart of gold, maybe, but a face of Wulfram.
Also known as Tungsten.
— Ace Shocker.
Meanwhile, two other questioners were revealed as plants.
Bringing the total number of questioners with undisclosed affiliations to anti-Republican parties and organizations to NINE.
[UPDATE - PA]
I think we need to start a pool on the final shill count for this debate. I'm going to go with a somewhat conservative number -- one dozen.
— Dave In Texas
I'm on the edge of my seat.
To all my cheesehead friends..
Oh, and do not suffer my ire. Post ya threads and jack.
— Purple Avenger I live in Robert Wexler's(D-FL) district. Wexler has been distributing an online newsletter with a poll in it recently asking if Cheney should be impeached.
There doesn't appear to be any way to reliably hyperlink the results, but after voting, the following results were displayed:
Which one of these four statements do you agree with about Vice President Cheney:Interesting stuff - ~60% of the respondents from Wexler's district are foaming at the mouth moonbats.
The Vice President has abused his powers in office which rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the Constitution and he should be impeached and removed from office. 59.97%
The Vice President has abused his powers in office, committing impeachable offenses under the Constitution, but he should not be impeached. 6.47%
The Vice President has abused his powers, but the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment under the Constitution. 7.16%
The Vice President has not abused his powers. 26.41%
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, do you think the Judiciary Committee should begin hearings to look at the evidence of possible impeachable offenses?
Yes, I think the Judiciary Committee should begin impeachment hearings. 60.41%
No, I think impeachment hearings would be a waste of time and a distraction from more important issues Congress should address. 39.59%
— DrewM. Jack In Cold Blood Murtha says the surge is working.
Hot Air has the details on this sign of the Apocalypse.
What's the over/under on how many heads explode over at the nutroot sites?
— Jack M. Yeah, I read your post. You missed my point. I'll let Ace and Malkin respond for themselves.
My criticism was twofold, and you left out an important part of my analysis. Did I complain about the questions CNN selected? Yes. Maybe you are comfortable having conservatives intentionally portrayed as a sort of Frankenstein's Monster made up of scary end-time evangelicals, trigger happy survivalists, segregation happy racists and John Birch Society members, but I'm not. It is neither a fair depiction, nor an accurate one.
Flip the image. If Fox News had held this debate and portrayed the Dem Candidates as Gaia-Worshipping, Tree Spiking, One-Child Policy Forced Abortionist, NAMBLA members it would have been just as wrong, regardless of what questions they asked. If convicted child-porn enthusiast Gary Glitter pops up showing interest in a Democrat during his YouTube question, the damage has been done regardless of how profound his question on Tax Credits for Renewable energy might be.
Under your "assumptions", you just let a professed Richardson supporter off the hook for pretending to encourage a Ron Paul run. You fail to see the problem with that?
That is beside the point, though. What you failed to mention was the other aspect I raised. As bothered as I was by the questions (which as they come under even more scrutiny appear to have been specifically designed by Democrats to influence the public perception of who Republicans are and what we stand for), I was just as outraged by the Republican candidates failure to call "bullshit" on the proceedings.
To the extent that there were "victims" on that stage, they were "victims" by choice. While Democrats may be comfortable assuming that role, it was disgusting to watch Republicans pliantly accept it.
I wanted someone in the GOP to produce what I called a "Coverdell Moment." It didn't happen.
In fact, Romney made the matter worse. By declaring the Rebel Flag to be so racially divisive it ought not even be seen (with no apparent qualifications), not only did he basically slander a large segment of the South as irredeemable racists, but he did so in a way that validated the little punk who asked the irrelevant question. That punk has since admitted that he wanted to create a wedge issue. Mission Accomplished!
Fred!'s answer was better, but still fell short of what should have been said.
Quite simply, CNN rigged a debate in order to divide and smear Republicans, and to create wedge issues where none existed before. And the GOP candidates stood there and took it. For you to excuse this on the grounds that "well, hey, the questions were good" is ridiculous. Or, charitably, naive.
Come on, man. You're going to be a lawyer. Are you telling me that if an Opposing Attorney pulled the same kind of tricks, you wouldn't object to the questions? You wouldn't be looking in your Rules of Civil Procedure or your Rules of Evidence for a way to remedy the intentional prejudicing of a jury?
I'm fairly sure you would.
Unless, of course, you limit your practice to "International Law". I don't think the UN picks their Secretary general thru YouTube debates.
— Pixy Misa Sorry about that, folks!
We'll have a permanent fix for New Comments Thingy very soon.
— Gabriel Malor I continue to disagree with many, if not most, Republican commentators about last nights CNN/YouTube debate. The questions were almost all good and appropriate to a Republican debate. I also think the format went a long way toward freeing the event from the stoic, scripted events we usually see and turned it into something that better resembled a real debate between the candidates.
More than that, as commentators like Michelle Malkin, our own Moron-in-Chief, and even Glenn Reynolds, try to outdo each other on the outrage-o-meter while they work themselves and their readers into a scorn-lathered orgiastic spasm of victimhood, we are largely missing the real stories that came out of last nights debate. Today, the legacy media did better than us at reporting on the content of the candidates answers and the debates impact on viewers. With a very few notable exceptions (thank you, Slublog), were wasting our energy on a silly process story. more...
— Slublog Honestly, I'm not trying to turn into the anti-Mike Huckabee blogger. However, his answer on the question of tuition breaks and scholarships for children who are in this country illegally seems a bit nuanced.
Ashley, first of all, let me just express that you're a little misinformed. We never passed a bill that gave special privileges to the children of illegals to go to college.As he describes it, the program sounds fine. But according to Arkansas Journal, he's not being entirely forthcoming about the provisions of that bill. Here's their earlier post on this issue, with links to the original news stories and the bill itself. (pdf)
Now, let me tell you what I did do. I supported the bill that would've allowed those children who had been in our schools their entire school life the opportunity to have the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms.
They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out of state tuition. It was an academic, meritorious scholarship called the Academic Challenge Scholarship.
Now, let me tell you a couple of provisions of it. And, by the way, it didn't pass. It passed the House but got in the Senate and got caught up in the same kind of controversy that this country is caught up in.
And here's what happened. This bill would've said that if you came here, not because you made the choice but because your parents did, that we're not going to punish a child because the parent committed a crime.
That's not what we typically do in this country.
It said that if you'd sat in our schools from the time you're five or six-years old and you had become an A-plus student, you'd completed the core curriculum, you were an exceptional student, and you also had to be drug and alcohol-free -- and the other provision, you had to be applying for citizenship.
Now, Huckabee may have been describing another bill entirely, but this seems to be the only bill that would have provided any sort of educational benefits to illegal immigrants. And this bill - House Bill 1525 - suffered the fate described by Huckabee during the debate - it died in the Senate. It seems to be the same bill - read the news links at Arkansas Journal.
Here's what it took for students to qualify for tuition breaks and scholarships under the actual bill:
(b) A student without documented immigration status shall be exempt from paying the nonresident portion of total tuition for attendance at a state-supported institution of higher education, if the student:Nothing about being in the school system since age 5, nothing about being drug-free, nothing about being an A+ student. Those are provisions of the existing Academic Challenge Scholarship Program, which HB 1525 would have given illegals access to.
(1) Attended high school in Arkansas for no fewer than three (3) school years;
(2) Graduated from a high school in Arkansas or received a General Education Development diploma in the state; and
(3) Is or has been admitted at an institution of higher education.
And it doesn't matter which version of the bill you examine. None of the stringent requirements that Huckabee talked about in the debate are part of HB 1525, the bill that actually would have opened in-state tuition and scholarships to illegal immigrants.
The debate over whether states should provide such a benefit is not the issue here. The issue, to me, is whether Huckabee is being entirely forthcoming about the program he's using as evidence of his 'compassionate conservatism.' I'm open to a different view on this, so fire away in the comments. (um...when they work again that is...)
Creamy Nuance? - Okay, after an email conversation with another blogger, I re-read Huckabee's statement again. It seems what he's doing is focusing entirely on one scholarship that illegals would have had access to if this bill had passed. So he's right in saying he supported a bill that would have done those things. There's no misdirection there.
However, there still is a problem with this statement - "They couldn't just move in in their senior year and go to college. It wasn't about out of state tuition." Well, actually, it was governor. Again, from the bill: "A student without documented immigration status shall be exempt from paying the nonresident portion of total tuition for attendance at a state-supported institution of higher education..." It seems pretty clearly about in-state versus out-of-state tuition rates, actually.
Which was, incidentally, the focus of the question. The questioner asked nothing about the scholarships.
Ashley: Governor Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, you gave a illegal aliens a discount for college in Arkansas by allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates. However, we have thousands of military members currently serving our country in Iraq with children at home. If these children chose to move to Arkansas to attend college, they would have to pay three times the tuition rate that illegal aliens pay.In his statement, Huckabee also ignores the fact that all state-sponsored scholarships would have been open to these students, not just the one with very stringent standards.
Would you support a federal law which would require any state that gives these tuition rates to illegal aliens to give the same rates to the children of our military members?
So in the end, Huckabee fudged, but he didn't mislead.
Update - Take care of our own first? - MamaAJ points me to this bill, on the federal level - "The Military Child College Affordability Act." It would "require states to charge in-State tuition rates to active-duty members of the Armed Forces domiciled or stationed on active duty in that State and to the dependents of such members."
AJ points out that military families move quite often, something I know from personal experience. My family moved every three years, which made it difficult for me to get in-state tuition when I started college. I'd like to see what the candidates say about this bill and whether they're willing to go on the record on it. Personally, I wouldn't want to see it mandated for private institutions, but I believe state institutions that take federal dollars should perhaps rethink their policies toward military dependents.
— Ace His entire family was murdered, probably by US mercenaries. The world press reported it, and thus it must be so.
So just to sicken us further, they actually prop the dead family members up and put clockwork gears in their limbs to make them appear to stand, smile, and wave at television cameras!
Why isn't the press sinking its teeth into this latest outrage? What sort of monsters has our Army of Beauchamps finally produced?
— Ace Not really news to just have Joe Scarborough calling bullshit, but what the hell.
The fact is that simply clicking on the user profiles for the plants would have revealed all this.
Allah thinks the debate was "solid" and that it's a good argument for letting Republicans ask questions of Democrats. Right -- in theory, sure. Let's see if they'll allow that.
Tell me: Did CNN allow obviously Republican plants to participate in the Democratic debate? Do they have plans of allowing us to participate in the next one?
I think the debate was awful. In an attempt to get as many wannabe supahstahs as possible on TV, CNN only let one or two candidates respond to each question before moving on to the next one. On the waterboarding question, only McCain and Romney got to respond. All of the Republican candidates should have gotten the chance to respond. As it was, John McCain got to preen and the hapless Romney got to sit there and just take it, with CNN focusing on his reaction as McCain ripped in to him. It was unfair to Romney and unfair to the question, because Romney didn't give a particularly convincing one, so the only responses were McCain's emotionalism and Romney's evasions.
And then Anderson Cooper moved on to the next question.
This happened time and time again -- CNN and You Tube apparently forgot who's opinions and thinking people were turning in to see, deciding it was more important to give "equal time" to as large a number of You Tube idiots as possible than to let each and every Republican candidate answer each question.
What does Duncan Hunter, another combat vet, think about waterboarding? How about devoted Baptist minister Huckabee? Or tough-guy prosecutor Giuliani? We don't know -- at least from this debate -- and apparently CNN didn't think his response was as important as the next camera-hungry You Tube douchebag's supahstah moment.
— Dave In Texas Minor wounds from shotgun blast, while riding his bike.
[Rialto Police Sgt. Don] Lewis said King told police the shooting took place while he was riding his bicycle in neighboring San Bernardino. King rode his bicycle home after the incident and it was not immediately clear who fired the shot, Lewis said.
"(King) and the whole house were very intoxicated and very uncooperative," Lewis said.
Probably not very nervous though.
— Ace Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Actual patriotism is apparently rather lower on the list.
A retired police officer is seeking a court order to force the state Department of Motor Vehicles to drop its demand that he return vanity license plates calling for the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.
Arno Herwerth, a 21-year veteran of the New York Police Department, said he requested the GETOSAMA plates earlier this month to send a political message. He said he was surprised to hear, after receiving the plates, that the DMV wanted them back.
In a Nov. 15 letter to Herwerth, the agency cited a regulation prohibiting plates that could be considered obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic group or patently offensive. It returned his previous generic license plates and asked that he send the GETOSAMA plates, which were issued Nov. 2, back to its Albany headquarters.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
Herwerth, 42, said in a phone interview that it was important to him that the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which bin Laden is accused of orchestrating, be remembered.
I got the plates because of 9/11, he said. I want to keep the message alive that this man needs to be killed or captured. Its been a long time, but we havent forgotten.
Herwerths attorney, Vincent Amicizia, said he would seek a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court that would prevent the DMV from revoking the GETOSAMA plates. He maintains the plates are patriotic because the sentiment supports the U.S. war against terrorism.
Thats the oddity of this case, Amicizia said. Ive never heard of a First Amendment case that seeks to suppress patriotic speech.
What is unique is that this message does reflect the policies of the present administration, she said. When offensive is applied to political views, it encroaches on free speech."
I don't find it odd at all. The First Amendment now apparently only protects speech approved by the liberal/anti-American establishment.
Thanks to Alice H.
— Ace I think in light of this the question posed by the Muslim woman/likely Democratic plant about what the US can do to improve its image in the Muslim world becomes even more pressing.
New Mohammad Themed Toys! From The Nose On Your Face.
— Ace Does CNN actually have a difficult time finding Republicans to ask questions at a Republican debate?
The latest plants? The Social Security question asked by an activist who quit his job to work with Dick Durbin on Social Security; the guy begging Ron Paul to run as an Independent and guarantee a Democratic victory is a Bill Richardson supporter.
Thanks to CJ.
I am getting physically angry now.
43 queries taking 0.0264 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.