Just a quick thread for those of you watching today. I'm on the road today and it's sunny and cool up here in the northeast, great day for football.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:57 AM | Comments (361)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

72 percent of the write-ins have now been counted. Murkowski is so confident of victory, she sent her top lawyer home. By the numbers, she's probably right.

The count stands at 98,565 write-ins and 87,517 votes for Miller after Friday's tally of absentee and questioned votes. That tally slightly widened the margin of write-ins over Miller to 11,048 votes.

To win, Miller needs 12.6% of those write-ins to be for someone other than Murkowski or to be thrown out for ballot marking errors. He's not going to make it. By 98%, the write-ins have been for Murkowski. Better than 90% of those are going unchallenged, which means that Murkowski will win without ever having to count the challenged ballots.

Miller's challenges actually dropped yesterday to only 8.4% after the flood of stories Thursday night (including here at the HQ) that he was making frivolous challenges to accurately spelled ballots. At that rate, his lawsuit will be moot and Murkowski will keep her Senate seat.

After the rest of the election day write-ins are counted, the Division of Elections will count the absentee and early vote write-ins. They are counting through the weekend and the whole thing is supposed to wrap up early next week.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:42 AM | Comments (379)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

He wants to know just who leaked the findings of the DOD 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' report to the Washington Post.

Gates is angry that two unnamed officials cited in the Post article have “selectively revealed aspects of the draft findings” of the Pentagon’s Working Group, according to a statement released late Friday afternoon by Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

“The secretary strongly condemns the unauthorized release of information related to this report and has directed an investigation to establish who communicated with The Washington Post or any other news organization without authorization and in violation of department policy and his specific instruction.”

He's got a point. Whoever is leaking is trying to alter military policy while bypassing Gates, the service chiefs, and the President. Not to mention, Gates told Congress he'd conduct the working group study in a professional, nonpartisan, and unbiased manner.

The major surprise finding of the report, based on the leak anyway, is that the troops are basically okay with repeal, with the Marines expressing the most opposition (40%). But I was struck by this weaselly paragraph in the original WaPo story:

The source declined to state his position on whether to lift the ban, insisting it did not matter. He said he felt compelled to share the information out of concern that groups opposed to ending the ban would mischaracterize the findings. The long, detailed and nuanced report will almost certainly be used by opponents and supporters of repeal legislation to bolster their positions in what is likely to be a heated and partisan congressional debate.

The final sentence of that excerpt makes me think that this fellow might also be "mischaracterizing" the findings. Obviously the conclusions in the report are more complicated than just a thumbs up or a thumbs down on repeal. The report is due December 1, but Congress will be just wrapping up then (and likely to have other more important things on its mind, like the ObamaCare 1099 issue, the tax cuts, and the budget). So the leakers moved first.

Gates doesn't exactly have clean hands, though: Should have mentioned this above, this protest by Sec. Gates could just be pro forma to cover his own ass with Congress. As I wrote, he told Congress he'd wait on the results of the working group study. And yet, just last week it wasn't unnamed sources suggesting to major media that DADT should be repealed in the lame duck session. It was Gates.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:12 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

Even though it's November and the days are getting shorter, colder and darker, there are still those days when you wake up and have to put a smile on your face, such as when things like this happen. (AP article via Yahoo)

"KNOXVILLE, Tenn. – A former University of Tennessee student who hacked into Sarah Palin's e-mail during the 2008 presidential campaign was sentenced Friday to a year and a day, with the judge recommending a halfway house instead of prison."

"U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Phillips also said David Kernell, 22, should get mental health treatment, based on defense comments Friday that he has had conditions including depression since he was 11."

Yeah, you stick with that story and you should be fine...

The prosecutors' pre-sentence filings said Kernell, a Democratic legislator's son, had posted online that he found "nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor ... And pictures of her family ... I read everything, every little Blackberry confirmation ... all the pictures, and there was nothing..."

Posted by: Genghis at 04:56 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Pardon the zero content tonight...connection problems all day. So, think of tonight as "The People's ONT." Though I'm not quite sure that the the term "people" actually applies to many of you. Suggested activities:

1. Re-hash or continue topics from threads below that've gone dark.

2. Think of it as a REALLY early Top Headlines Comments post (I'll try to add some more later on, God/Comcast willing)

3. I just know I'll regret this but: FRIDAY NIGHT FLAMEWAR!

It's been awhile and I figure that since most of the talk around here has been about politics lately, there's probably a lot of pent-up taunting waiting to be unleashed. So go for it. Just remember the usual rules apply: (no racial taunts, gay-baiting, c-word etc...anyone who's been here awhile knows those get deleted immediately) Feel free to heap abuse on Ace and the rest of the schmucks around here that provide you with worthless crap on a daily basis.

Except me, of course, as I am the very picture of awesomeness. Now get bizzy...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:32 PM | Comments (849)
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

By which he means that a bunch of fixes, none of them to the advantage of current or especially future seniors, are required to make Social Security solvent, and that's the easy one. Medicare is the killer, and will require tougher measures. (Although Paul Ryan's $11,000 per year voucher for private insurance seems like a pretty decent fix-- doesn't that buy a darned good policy?)

It's good people are talking about it, even if Conrad himself didn't volunteer for the suicide mission.

I sort of think that's what's required.

And on that... Allah's not sure how Pat Caddell's and Douglas Scheon's proposal that Obama agree to not run in 2012 could possibly result in solutions. I can see that -- if Obama promises not to run, and pushes hard for fiscal solvency, and a bunch of older Democrats and Republicans (hey, might as well retire) join him in a Grand But Very Unpopular Compromise, I could see all that happening. Sort of a big conspiracy, really, that a bunch of Republicans and Obama and a bunch of Democrats who have served long enough anyway will agree together to fall on their swords for their country.

And hey, I'd sort of really like Obama were that to happen. And John McCain.

So that's how it could happen. Will it happen? No, of course not.

On the other hand, when Pat Fuckin' Caddell tells you not to run, you better not fuckin' run.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (203)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

No subtitles but then none are really needed.

As one youtube commenter pointed out this video would go quite well with some yakety sax. And yes kancho does make an appearance.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 03:08 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

He quizzes fossilized spoor Ed Asner as to his beliefs on 9/11.

Ed Asner is a full blown Truther.

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (130)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Some interesting stuff. All from people in the military, who, as I've said, should be the voices that carry furthest here. more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (251)
Post contains 777 words, total size 5 kb.

At Hot Air, it's not a big surprise. Ed Morrissey explains why this was a good practical decision (and therefore not a major tip as to how the Court would rule on the merits themselves):

Service members who revealed their orientation might put themselves in position for expulsion if the Supreme Court eventually overturned the ruling. The military would have had a monumental headache in dealing with openly gay recruits who enlisted during that period of time if DADT was upheld — and without any action from Congress, the Pentagon would have been legally obligated to enforce those consequences.

There is a certain unseemliness in all this. Liberal-leaning people (socially liberal, even if otherwise conservative) campaign to get the the law changed to allow gays to serve openly.

But it is not, in the main, socially liberal people who actually sign up for the military. No, it is the socially conservative people who tend to fill our military.

So to some extent I feel that a lot of people are offering strong opinions about the conduct and entry requirements of an organization they refuse to join, basically overruling the opinions of those who keep the organization going.

There is a challenge to that line of argument, though: There are gay service members willing to join (eager, in some cases) and their voices should be heard on this, of course. They've earned that right.

Still, what's it like, 40% of Marines who object to changing the policy? That is not a majority (in fact, most in the military think a change would either be positive, or have mixed results, or have no effect, including, apparently, in the Marines). But that is a big minority.

I don't think there's any way to stop this train (and perhaps it shouldn't be stopped). But I am a worried about the pure numbers here -- if allowing gays to serve openly in the military means that many more who would otherwise volunteer to serve don't volunteer, well, our experiment in changing social norms will have a detrimental consequence on the military's mission.

Let's say the people who don't want gays to serve openly are, as their angrier left-wingier critics would have it, homophobic, backwards, bigoted, etc. Let's concede all that, for the sake of this point. Here's what they also are: Ready to lay down their lives in defense of their country.

There is no avoiding the connection between traditionalist values about homosexuality and traditionalist values about service in the armed forces. The Venn circles here have a lot of overlap. And it is hard to avoid seeing the Venn circle of latitudinarian/secularist/progressive views on homosexuality having little overlap with the circle of those willing to volunteer for armed service.

People can have opinions on the military, despite not serving in it; but I do think it's unseemly for many critics of this policy to not have an appropriate level of concern for the beliefs and values of those actually in uniform, and speak as if only their values should carry weight. If only their values carried weight, we'd have a draft, because we sure wouldn't have enough volunteers for military service.

And I don't think critics of the policy are giving sufficient thought to what may happen in many of the people inclined to military service decide it no longer represents their values.

Critics may say "But that puts the government behind a policy of discrimination!" Possibly, yeah; there is a strong argument that that's the case. And maybe the end of DADT will turn out to be a big nothingburger (as the desegregation of the military was, mostly, despite similar concerns being voiced at the time).

Still. The guys who make up the club should have most of the say about the rules of the club. I really doubt that many of the policy's critics are willing to sign up to make up for drops in recruitment, should that come to pass.

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.