This came up when the investigation initially broke, so it's not a huge surprise. Altanta believes Vick's guilty plea on federal dogfighting charges violates his 10-year, $130 million dollar contract, and as such are going after part of his bonuses.

They also filed a grievance to be heard by the league's non-injury grievance arbitrator, seeking damages in excess of $22 million, according to sources at ESPN.

h/t James

UPDATE: Canadian bank says Vick defaulted on a $2.5MM loan.

It was probably in Canadian dollars though. That's not even like, real money, is it?

Also from James, who I like to call "Freaky Streaky Texas Marathon Gorilla"

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 10:03 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Adding to the irony is the fact that Eve Fairbanks -- caught making up meaningless details for her stories -- is the blogger given the task of delivering the TNR view on all this.

Posted by: Ace at 09:54 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Sgt. Seavey, who tips a lot and comments here under that name, and also blogs at The Sniper, will be appearing on MSNBC this afternoon to debate some antiwar jagoffs. Not sure about what. Probably Rush Limbaugh/"phony soldiers," I'm guessing.

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Or at least one writer does. I'll make you go to LGF for the link to the full article, since I swiped it from there.

The article's headline is "Mission Accomplished," by the way. And he doesn't mean that ironically.

The question of what to do in Iraq today must be separated from the decision to topple Saddam Hussein four and a half years ago. That decision is a matter for historians. By any normal ethical standard, the coalitionÂ’s current project in Iraq is a just one. Britain, America and IraqÂ’s other allies are there as the guests of an elected government given a huge mandate by Iraqi voters under a legitimate constitution. The UN approved the coalitionÂ’s role in May 2003, and the mandate has been renewed annually since then, most recently this August. Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in IslamÂ’s struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran. Ethically, causes do not come much clearer than this one.

Some just wars, however, are not worth fighting. There are countries that do not matter very much to the rest of the world. Rwanda is one tragic example; and its case illustrates the immorality of a completely pragmatic foreign policy. But Iraq, the worldÂ’s axial country since the beginning of history and all the more important in the current era for probably possessing the worldÂ’s largest reserves of oil, is no Rwanda. Nor do two or three improvised explosive devices a day, for all the personal tragedy involved in each casualty, make a Vietnam.

The great question in deciding whether to keep fighting in Iraq is not about the morality and self-interest of supporting a struggling democracy that is also one of the most important countries in the world. The question is whether the war is winnable and whether we can help the winning of it. The answer is made much easier by the fact that three and a half years after the start of the insurgency, most of the big questions in Iraq have been resolved. Moreover, they have been resolved in ways that are mostly towards the positive end of the range of outcomes imagined at the start of the project. The country is whole. It has embraced the ballot box. It has created a fair and popular constitution. It has avoided all-out civil war. It has not been taken over by Iran. It has put an end to Kurdish and marsh Arab genocide, and anti-Shia apartheid. It has rejected mass revenge against the Sunnis.... The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region. The only neighbours threatened by its status today are the leaders in Damascus, Riyadh and Tehran.

...

Understanding this expensive victory is a matter of understanding the remaining violence. Now that Iraq's big questions have been resolved—break-up? No. Shia victory? Yes. Will violence make the Americans go home? No. Do Iraqis like voting? Yes. Do they like Iraq? Yes—Iraq's violence has largely become local and criminal. The biggest fact about Iraq today is that the violence, while tragic, has ceased being political, and is therefore no longer nearly as important as it was.

Some of the violence—that paid for by foreigners or motivated by Islam's crazed fringes—will not recede in a hurry. Iraq has a lot of Islam and long, soft borders. But the rest of Iraq's violence is local: factionalism, revenge cycles, crime, power plays. It will largely cease once Iraq has had a few more years to build up its security apparatus.

What I find less shocking than the finding that the war is just, winnable, and crucial is this (presumably left-leaning) writer's clear-eyed recognition that yes, some countries matter than others. Not people, but countries. I'm so weary of the left's furiously contradictory careenings between soft-headed but vindictive idealism as regards any war we're not fighting and claims to support a neo-Kissingerian foreign policy -- "Let Allah sort 'em out" -- as regards any war we're actually fighting. This conveniently principle-free guide to foreign policy is entirely outcome-oriented: No matter what the situation, no matter if we're intervening, embargoing, or treating a regime perfectly peaceably, we're always wrong.

Posted by: Ace at 09:16 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

No surprise, just more political gamesmanship. Bush killed the stealth expansion of government-controlled health care, and Democrats took to the floor to denounce his hatred of children.

Just another shot at Republicans prior to next year's elections. We'll get to listen to "children children children" for the next few months.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

It was only his 4th veto.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 09:03 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

The former president is in Sudan trying to use kind words to disarm the genocidal militias. He got in a decidedly un-presidential shouting match with his security monitor when the monitor told Carter to stick with the agreed-upon program. Said Carter:

"We're going to anyway! You don't have the power to stop me."

Carter is part of a group calling themselves "The Elders" which wants to insert themselves into the peace process which will begin soon in Libya. I was particularly amused by this portion of The Elders' mission statement:

We do not want to raise anyoneÂ’s hopes by this visit. Over long lives, we have come to understand that we cannot make all the things happen that we want, but we have also learned that if we work together and if we have moral force at our back, that we can sometimes do more than we think.

Mission accomplished.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:00 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't have anything to add to Allah's analysis of this train wreck, except to note that Jon Stewart, being an on-the-media representative of the Fightin' Fightin' Netroots, is all but required to savage Matthews.

See, as the Nutroots has it, Chris Matthews is an establishment archconservative.

Posted by: Ace at 08:22 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

This was on most of the tv news and radio talk shows yesterday, so if you're a newsphile like me you've already heard it. For those who havent, or who want to kvetch about it in the comments, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has proposed a war surtax so that everyone will have to "sacrifice for the war." He was backed up by Jim McGovern and John Murtha.

"If this war is important enough to fight, it's important enough to pay for. If you don't like the cost, shut down the war," he said, noting the United States spends $10 billion a month on Iraq.

Less radical Democrats immediately freaked. Nancy Pelosi said that no such tax will happen and Harry Reid said the Senate would not be considering it.

Even Charlie "Let's Bring Back The Draft" Rangel was against it, although he did get a little tripped up by reporters who are pissed that they have to pay more for smokes:

“Politically it’s the third rail,” House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. told reporters late Tuesday. ... “Don’t even use that ‘T’ word.”

What goes to the president’s desk for signature will be determined by what Republican senators will allow to get past the 60-vote threshold, Rangel said, implying that the initiative must come from them. Referring to a possible tax increase he said, “I want to leave it alone.”

But, one reporter asked Rangel, just last week hadn’t the House voted to raise taxes on smokers? Wasn’t that tax increase? “The SCHIP bill was a bill for the children,” he said.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:21 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

In addition to the Rolex Submariner watch that Simpson was seen wearing in Las Vegas, the judge ruled that royalties from a video game which uses Simpson's likeness must be turned over to Fred Goldman.

Simpson must also surrender any of the disputed memorabilia items recently seized by Las Vegas authorities that are found to be legally his.

The items would then be auctioned by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the money they bring in given to Goldman. His attorney David Cook estimated the watch's value between $5,000 and more than $20,000.

On the other hand, Simpson's attorney claims he got the watch for $125. Also, Goldman can't get the sports memorabilia since it's not in Simpson's possession and there is no word on when the video game will start paying royalties for Simpson's contribution (if ever).

UPDATE: On this day in 1995, O.J. was found not guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman by a jury composed of the most gullible people on earth.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:36 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Shutting down television stations, nationalizing the oil fields, giving himself the power to rule by decree and now this.

Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has threatened to nationalize any educational institution that does not adopt his socialist government’s new curriculum.

“All of the schools in the nation must apply this curriculum,” Mr. Chávez said this week during his regular call-in show, Hello, President. “Any school which does not comply — to be nationalized! Any university which does not comply — to be nationalized!”

Mr. Chávez also said that if the director of any “educational center … is very stubborn and resists — he goes to jail, and that’s it! That’s the law.”

[Update PA - pics of the new school uniforms after the fold] more...

Posted by: Slublog at 06:10 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.