He actually tweeted today about watching Manning throw, in a practice in North Carolina, and this being the "next step" in the process. (Me? I would have made it the first step.)

He said the practice "went well" and that "He threw the ball great and looked very comfortable out there."

So they're drawing up papers.

The biggest question of the day: Will Manning fly back to Denver with Elway, Fox and the gang? The Broncos were hopeful that would be the case.
"We're still in it," said a Broncos source. "We don't know. We'll know more over the weekend."

An NFL source said Manning and his camp have narrowed their choices to the Broncos, Tennessee Titans and San Francisco 49ers.

Another NFL source indicated that all involved teams are comfortable working off Manning's previous contract with the Indianapolis Colts, which was five years for $90 million, or an average of $18 million per year.

Additionally, Manning was to receive $61.8 million through the first two years.

Tebow might end up going to several teams, but he'd be a homestate favorite at Jacksonville.

Via Dr. Spank... First picture of Manning working out in a throwback Broncos uniform.

Posted by: Ace at 02:55 PM | Comments (101)
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll answer for you: Yes, it's something. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:25 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Affordable light bulb.

Fifty smackers.

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.”...

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” said Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs. “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

What can you say.

By "Cadillac product," I assume they mean something like "achieves a type of illumination nearly as good as the 4-for-$1.50 light bulbs which have now been outlawed."

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (339)
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Hillbuzz.

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Someone is noticing that Cap'n Wunnerful is a giant phony d-bag. Or that his writers are not really working all that hard.

Thanks to Scott.

Posted by: LauraW at 11:15 AM | Comments (140)
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

Although Betsy's Page castigates him, I actually cheer him in one sense.

When someone is arguing dishonestly, there's no point to arguing. You can't challenge their assumptions because they steadfastly refuse to confess them.

If someone actually believes Proposition A, and bases all of his thinking on it, but falsely claims he's relying on Proposition B, you can argue all day about Proposition B but it's a fool's errand because absolutely no one in the conversation actually believes or relies upon Proposition B. It's simply a distraction.

Stanley Fish actually confesses the real Proposition A underlying liberal thinking, liberal hypocrisy, and liberal double-standards: They think they're better, period.

Good. Well, we already knew that, of course, but they wouldn't admit that they base all of their double-standards on that dubious proposition. Now that it's confessed, we can talk about the real dispute, rather than silly evasions like "Limbaugh has better ratings than Maher so, strangely, he is free to say less."

If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal — that is, non-formal — perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K. If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.

Now that this idiot has confessed his I Like What I Like "logic," we can discuss the fact that a neutral rule, intended to be binding on all, must be "fair" to all in the sense that conduct and not status are punished, because no one would ever agree, voluntarily, to a regime in which he was punished simply for lacking the "status" of Protected Liberal Angel.

Put aside morality and simple utility still demands a neutral rule. If you actually want "rules" like the one you would impose on Limbaugh (a dubious proposition already), then you must advance some kind of neutral, fair rule that applies equally to all based on specific conduct and not on status granted by a liberal rules-making committee.

Otherwise, we won't agree to the rule. Period. If we agreed to such an absurd thing we'd be just as stupid as you stupidly imagine us to be.

If you don't want a rule to protect women from "misogyny," then keep doing what you're doing. Because a lawless law is not a law, and no one will bow before an unfair, intentionally discriminatory law.

So, we'll keep doing what we're all doing.

And liberals can know that is their own determination to have privileged status and immunity from their own "rules" that keep such rules from being observed in the first place.

Corrected, Sort of: Commenters dispute that Stanley Fish is a "liberal," at least in context (English professor in the academy).

I've clipped out characterizing him as a liberal.

Thanks to Maetenloch for the link.

Posted by: Ace at 10:56 AM | Comments (109)
Post contains 673 words, total size 4 kb.

Goin' nowhere.

Asked on CBS’s This Morning “under what circumstances” he would end his campaign before the convention, Gingrich responded: “Probably none.” He told host Charlie Rose, “I’ll be with you in Tampa, Charlie," adding, "I have 176,000 donors at Newt.org. They want me to stay in the race.”

In a different interview, he suggested the press and much of the party has difficulty understanding the breadth of his vision.

“The thing I find most disheartening of this campaign is the difficulty of talking about large ideas on a large scale, because the news media can’t cover it and, candidly, my opponents can’t comprehend it,” Gingrich said, while also vowing to continue his campaign to the convention in Tampa this summer.

He called himself the only candidate of the four still in the contest “focused on ideas and … solutions and not just the usual politics,” and the only one advocating wholesale change to a political system that is “methodically and deliberately stupid.”

Other parts of his speech covered topics ranging from President Lincoln promoting the transcontinental railroad to the antifraud system of the American Express company. Gingrich spoke of the need for a “technological revolution” in government, but he lamented that no one but him seemed to understand that.

“Let me just talk for a second about technology and grand opportunities,” he said. “Other than Ronald Reagan, I know of no Republican in my lifetime who’s been able to talk about this. That’s why I’m still running.”

Although Gingrich is a bright man, this disconnect makes me not appreciate him. I do not think the things he is talking about are "big ideas."

I consider the biggest idea of all the idea that government should be doing far less. I don't want new laundry lists of sectors the government can improve by getting involved in.

Some of what Gingrich says is unobjectionable -- his idea to "revolutionize" or whatever the federal bureaucracy by making them adopt efficiency standards and better technology -- but that's not really a "big idea."

Yes, of course, to the extent I have a bureaucracy, I'd like it to run effectively and efficiently and cheaply. So I'm in favor of that.

But who isn't?

But that's not the big question of this cycle. The big question this cycle is about the proper ambition of government, and while no candidate adequately addresses that question, I find Gingrich to be addressing it in the wrong direction.

He seems to have too much government ambition in mind.

None of these guys understand the Big Idea of America: That citizens are wise enough and smart enough to manage their own affairs, and that maximum possible sovereignty should be trusted to them.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (285)
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

Unanimous.

EgyptÂ’s Islamist-dominated parliament unanimously voted on Monday in support of expelling IsraelÂ’s ambassador in Cairo and halting gas exports to the Jewish state.

The motion is largely symbolic, because only the ruling military council can make such decisions, and it is not likely to impact EgyptÂ’s relations with Israel. But it signals the seismic change in Egypt after the ouster of longtime leader and Israel ally Hosni Mubarak a year ago in a popular uprising that ended his 29 years in power.

The vote was taken by a show of hands on a report by the chamber’s Arab affairs committee that declared Egypt will “never” be a friend, partner or ally of Israel. The report described Israel as the nation’s “number one enemy” and endorsed what it called Palestinian resistance “in all its kinds and forms” against Israel’s “aggressive policies.”

So, of course:

The Obama administration intends to resume funding for EgyptÂ’s military, despite congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.

For months, the money for Egypt — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military — has been withheld amid that country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties in Washington.

A law passed by Congress in December forbids funding unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress in basic freedoms and human rights.

But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is close to announcing plans to bypass those restrictions on national security grounds for fear of worsening already fraying ties with Egyptian leaders...

Wait, you're bypassing the law based on your own authority?

Yeah, I guess we're moving in Egypt's direction in more than one way.

Now if you click on Allah's link and read his analysis (first link), you'll see that maybe this funding is a way to push back against the Islamists: The Islamists in parliament are attempting to undermine the ruling military junta by declaring their cold peace with Israel essentially treason, by declaring Israel an enemy; hence, we're kind of throwing money at a non-democratic junta which nevertheless is more aligned with our interests than the psychopathic democratic arm of government.

But if that's the case -- uh, why did we force out Mubarak again? Our support of Mubarak was based on just this calculation: He's no democrat, but he'll keep the peace, and keep the maniacs from real power.

So we made a big show of deposing him, of standing up for "freedom" and "democracy," and did not accept sensible transitional measures like a one-year period to assemble democratic parties.

But now we're just throwing money at the anti-democratic (and yet not insane) military junta thwarting the democratic (yet insane) Islamists.

What have we gained?

The whole episode underscored Obama's chief personal/psychological flaws: a grandiose vision of self as a charismatic messiah combined with laziness and an aversion to deep and/or tough thinking.

It felt good. It was fun to preen on camera. It was a movie-like moment. So he strutted and vamped.

He likes doing the fun stuff. He is incapable of the hard stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 09:39 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Some wars are worth winning.

The 89th Airlift Wing activated the 305th and 306th Expeditionary Airlift Squadrons here, Dec. 1. The squadrons will play an integral role supporting presidential airlift in the coming months.

"This mission provides dedicated assets to our highest priority airlift - presidential support. Air Mobility Command accomplishes this during election years by standing up two squadrons, C-17s based here at Andrews, and C-130s based in Wilmington, Del.," said Col Allan Hess, 89th Operations Group commander.

Aircraft and personnel are prepositioned to support an expected surge in airlift so the Air Force is postured to more efficiently and effectively meet the needs of the commander in chief while remaining good stewards of taxpayer funds.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: Ace at 08:57 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Gatekeepin'.

Newsbusters points out that this was the dick that Newt Gingrich tangled with at a debate. Gingrich thought this guy was actually sort of liberally biased.

Voters are "stupid" and "uninformed" when they don't agree with liberal opinions. Liberals love ObamaCare, so voters are "stupid" to oppose it. Even though, just as voters suspected, it will cost at least twice as much as advertised, and, as we're currently seeing with respect to the abortion mandate, it is one of the most intrusive, liberty-destroying laws ever passed.

Liberals have a funny meaning for the word "stupid." What they mean is not that you have your facts wrong (though they do claim that) but that you shouldn't care about the facts that you're talking about.

Rather than make that case, though, they claim you don't have the facts.

They're the stupid ones. They constantly resort to stupid debate tactics like deliberately playing dumb and changing the topic.

On ObamaCare, liberals were wrong, and we were right.

For that we're called stupid. And they, who were wrong, are "smart."

Posted by: Ace at 08:30 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.