The WSJ chickened out of debating NRO, but, thanks to an intrepid NYT photographer using his digital video function in backwater Gerogia, we have this lively exchange of views, using the ancient Greek debate format called "dueling banjos."

I think the mutant acquitted himself well -- as well as he could, I mean -- but there can be no doubt the clean-cut Northeastern Ivy-looking chap won on points.

Posted by: Ace at 02:28 PM | Comments (16)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!

Thanks to Dave, formerly at Garfield Ridge.

Posted by: Ace at 01:58 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

New York Times photographers, fair and balanced. How the New York Times sees the world -- and, more importantly, how the New York Times presents its view of the world to the public.

Amnesty supporters:

Amnesty opponents:

Even liberal writer Nicholas Von Hoffman noticed:

The other day The New York Times did a piece on the grass-roots opponents of the great compromise immigration bill. The accompanying photos showed a bunch of snaggletoothed retards living in trailers on the outskirts of town near the dump.

Thus the message is conveyed that if you want to identify yourself with right-thinking mainstreamers, you will be in favor of this bill. Episcopalians are, Harvard-educated reform Jews are, Roman Catholics who favor a womanÂ’s right to choose are, so get with the respectables and let your legislator know you love this bill.

Amusingly (and ironically -- mostly), he then begins referring to immigration opponents as "snaggle people," lampooning the NYT's editorial position.

How liberal is Von Hoffman, by the way? Pretty liberal -- so liberal that Andrew Sullivan named his "Von Hoffman Award" for him, due to his prediction of a crushing Taliban victory in Afghanistan made just before they were routed.

His article is well-worth reading, though -- he's calling for an immigration pause, something that few except Nixon-goes-to-China lefties feel comfortable calling for, lest we be called "racist" by Lindsay Graham.

The NYT's brave new public editor (i.e., shill apologist) of course denies any editorial intent by illustrating opposition of to the bill as coming entirely from corncob-smokin' chicken-chokin' banjo-strokin' cousin-pokin' lynch-ropin' inbred hillbilly racist mutants:

I asked Michele McNally, the assistant managing editor in charge of photography, why her editors would choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill. She said there had indeed been a discussion about MurphyÂ’s appearance: how not to show his missing eye, which looked less flattering.

“I think it is discriminatory to say all toothless people who represent controversial positions shouldn’t be used,” she said. “This is a very big country that has a variety of styles and types.”

...

I think all those people who have been complaining about MurphyÂ’s photo owe him an apology. They assumed that, because he was missing a tooth, he was missing a brain. They also assumed that editors at The Times shared their prejudices and were attempting to ridicule opponents of the immigration bill.

They were wrong on both counts.

What bullshit. I've seen some illegal immigrants, and let me tell you, they're not all comely. Some are pretty rough-looking, as a matter of fact. And yet New York Times photographers have this knack of presenting only the most telegenic and pull-the-hearstrings illegals to illustrate its pieces.

I suppose the NYT's public editor will rebut that that little guy doesn't have all of his teeth, either.

Amidst the gloriously red white and blue of the many big flags, is that a wheelchair-bound victim I see back there...?

The New York Times says it will correct this visual bias by next conducting an interview with amnesty-opponent and cannibal mutant redneck "Pluto" from schlock horror classic The Hills Have Eyes.

"No on amnesty. Illegals just sorta taste funny.
I think it's all those fried bananas they eat or somthin'."

The New York Times public editor writes "shame on you" for thinking that just because Berryman kidnaps, murders, and eats lost college students that this in anyway suggests he lacks education or culture.

The Height Of Hypocrisy and Self-Righteousness: I should have noted the public editor's opinion on this obvious bias was "The Ugly Thing Wasn't His Face," a self-righteous attack on the "lookism" of all those who complained about the photograph.

And commenters point out that while this jackass scolds us, he admits in his own piece that the possibility that this photo might -- might! -- reinforce "stereotypes" against those who oppose amnesty-without-security was discussed by the NYT's own photo editors.

So how is it that we're to be scolded for our lookism when the NYT itself had a debate (supposedly; I think it was more of a high-five session) over running the photo?

Viva Los Male Models!

"Amnestia, si!"

Vs.

"Illegal aliens keep stealing my pirate treasures!"

Hmmm... I'm having trouble deciding who I ought to side with!

Thanks to LauraW for that.

Correction: I wrote that the character from The Hills Have Eyes was named "Berryman." The character's name is Pluto; the actor is named Michael Berryman. I never saw the film, so when the picture identified him as "Berryman," I assumed that was the character's name.

Richard McEnroe corrected me and tells me Berryman is a nice guy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (68)
Post contains 810 words, total size 6 kb.

Putting me off amusement parks:

A girl's feet were cut off Thursday when a free-fall thrill ride malfunctioned at the Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom Amusement Park in Louisville, Kentucky, police said.

A cord wrapped around the 16-year-old's feet and severed them at her ankles while she was on the "Superman Tower of Power," a police dispatcher said. The girl was taken to a local hospital.

An unidentified witness told CNN affiliate WLKY she saw a cable on the ride snap.

"The people on the ride just came and hit the ground," she said. "When I got up there, the lady she was just sitting there, and she didn't have no legs. ... And she was just there, calm, probably in shock from everything."

...

During the ride, passengers are lifted to 177 feet, suspended momentarily and then dropped, according to the park's Web site.

Passengers drop 154 feet at 54 mph, stopping "just 20 terrifying feet above the pavement," it adds.

High-tension cables, terminal velocity, rides operated by ex-carney meth-dealers and 16 year old stoners... what could possibly go wrong?

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 12:08 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Trading places:

Beleaguered and disbarred former District Attorney Mike Nifong, who prosecuted the Duke University lacrosse rape case, could wind up in jail if a motion is granted asking that criminal charges be filed against him, FOX News has learned.

The three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape by a stripper plan to file the motion Friday against the ex-Durham County district attorney who built the case against them.

If the motion asking for criminal sanctions against Nifong is granted, the prosecutor could land in prison.

The players, who have been exonerated, are also asking for financial reimbursement.

Nifong finally has his legacy -- the Nifong Law.

On Thursday, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley signed legislation that grants him the authority to remove any district attorneys or judges who lose their law license. While the law was crafted partially because of Nifong, it will likely be moot in his case.

I kind of doubt this will ever come to pass, but I also doubted the Duke 3 would be declared "innocent" and that Nifong would be disbarred. The nice surprises keep coming, so who knows?

KC Johnson has been posting almost all the video from the disbarment proceding. Viewed without context, it's disappointing that Nifong often sounds reasonable and credible in claiming he just made a mistake. But that's without context. In discussing the contempt motion, Johnson once again underscores Nifong's plainly-contradictory defenses as regard his failure to disclose the DNA results. From the Duke 3's motion, Nifong...

told three diametrically opposed stories about his knowledge of the exculpatory DNA test results, which can accurately be paraphrased as follows:

First Story: Ignorance Defense

I did not know about the potentially exculpatory results or that the Defendants had not been provided with the results until December 13, 2006, when I received their Motion, and I immediately took steps to clear it up by having Dr. Meehan here to testify.

Second Story: Knowing/Privacy Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, and I knew the Defendants did not have those results, because I agreed with Dr. Meehan to produce a report that would exclude those results under a theory that it protected the privacy of the players; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

Third Story: Knowing/Negligence Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, but I did not realize that I had failed to disclose them to the Defendants; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

The fact that those stories are so diametrically opposed demonstrates that Mr. Nifong was simply continuing a pattern of deception about the DNA evidence in this case that he began nearly nine months earlier, on March 29, 2006, when he first began to suggest to the public that the failure to find a DNA link between the lacrosse players and the accuserÂ’s rape kit items was because condoms were used (when he knew the accuser said they were not) or because there was no DNA on those items sufficient for comparison purposes (when he knew DNA Security had found DNA on items that did not match the players). That pattern continued through the spring, summer, and fall, when he engaged in the repeated misrepresentations and violations detailed in this Motion.

Nifong's attempt to do the impossible -- reconcile these mutually contradictory statements, technically called, in the legal world, "lies" -- on the stand at his hearing, while under oath, might just be considered perjury.

Johnson also notes that one of the few previous felony cases Nifong handled was a rape as well. And as soon as the DNA results came back with another man's profile, he dropped the charges against the accused.

So his claim that he did not find five or so (who's counting?) different DNA profiles, none of which matching any Duke lacrosse player, nevermind the Duke 3 themselves, on Mangum's body "probative" in any direction is dishonest. He certainly found it "probative" in the past. That's not to say he was obligated to treat the Duke 3 case precisely as he treated the earlier case; but it does put lie to the claim he didn't consider the DNA in the Duke 3 case "probative" in any way at all.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 722 words, total size 5 kb.

Now Gordon Smith, another wobbler, tips over to "no" on cloture.

Have I missed any of the wobblers tipping the other way yet?

Can I hope for a cascade here? Many Democrats politicians are conflicted about this bill, a little due to the negative effects of on the wages of American workers they're supposed to be oh-so-concerned about, but mostly because they fear that if they vote for this without sufficient bipartisan cover from Republicans they'll have this immensely unpopular bill hung 'round their necks for the next three or four or ten election cycles.

With so many of the cover-providing Republicans announcing their intent to vote against cloture, will the wobbling Dems have the stones to push the bill through?

Perhaps they're content to let the Republicans do the dirty work of killing the bill by voting against cloture, so they can say they were all in favor of voting for the bill had it reached the floor (assuming the bill could be sufficiently "improved" to be even more generous towards illegals, of course!).

In news I'm sure will shock you all, the highly-technological "virtual fence" has been delayed yet again due to... um, technological problems. And to the open borders crowd that pushes this nonsense on us, of course, those technological problems aren't a bug, they're a feature!

Technical issues are delaying the completion of a multibillion-dollar high-tech fence intended to reduce illegal entry along the nation's southern border, the government said Thursday.

Some lawmakers are questioning why Boeing Co., the lead contractor, and staff at the Department of Homeland Security waited until a day after a hearing earlier this month to update Congress on the delay.

The first phase of the project involves building nine towers that are dotted along 28 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, and bracket the Sasabe, Ariz., port of entry.

Nine towers... for 28 miles of border.

Err, exactly how tall are these towers supposed to be? Each tower would have to be pretty tall to command a view of of, what, about 1.5 miles in each direction, right?

Yes, they're supposed to have radar. And of course we all know that radar can easily discriminate between four-legged coyotes and two-legged coyotes without the need for visual confirmation. Especially radar scanning the ground. Not as if there are terrain features that might block or spoof radar signals or anything like that.

Correction: Tall Enough? A commenter says they're supposed to be 98 feet tall, and another commenter says -- I feel a little dumb -- that a 4 foot child can easily see 1.5 miles. Well, yeah -- I guess I got a little carried away there. I guess I did sort of forget that I have little problem seeing that far.

...

At the hearing on June 7, no problems or delays on so-called Project 28 were mentioned. But the next day DHS officials notified congressional staff of a one-week lag due to radar problems, according to a letter questioning how and when Congress was informed.

The letter was sent Tuesday to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., chair of subcommittee that held the hearing.

"It is unacceptable that the department chose to disclose this information via telephone to committee staff, rather than providing a thorough assessment of the project's status directly to committee members at the hearing," the letter says.

Loretta Sanchez is more concerned about border enforcement than the Bush Administration. Think on that.

Why The Virtual Fence Won't Work: I believe I already linked this, but See-Dub tears up the "virtual fence" worse than Trent Lott's goats.

Posted by: Ace at 11:17 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

A history of violating its charter, though I sorta think that violating its charter was its charter. Don't expect the left to mind this all that much:

Physical surveillance of muckraker Jack Anderson and his associates, including current Fox News anchor Brit Hume.

I look forward to Hume's cocked eyebrow on tonight's broadcast. He's acheived what so many on the ineffectual left dream of -- actually mattering to the CIA.

In another revelation, Bobby Kennedy "personally managed" the assassination schemes against Fidel Castro, which should keep us ass-deep in conspiracy theories for, oh, about another three thousand years.

I Question The Timing: Regarding Hume's cocked eyebrow on tonight's broadcast, type7 writes:

Silly Ace, Hume takes Friday off.

Well, isn't that convenient for him then.

Posted by: Ace at 11:02 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

NRO gets a response from Alexander's office:

I will vote against cloture to end debate on the current immigration bill when it comes before us next week. Other than the war on terror, there is nothing more important than fixing our broken immigration system, and we must keep working on it for as long as it takes to get it right, but right must include a process that earns the confidence of the American people, and this bill does not do that.

This problem has been years in the making and will take time to fix. We must secure the border first once and for all, verified by credible sources, without amnesty – you are here legally or you are not here.

McConnell -- who had been twisting arms to get this piece of shit passed -- sounds a bit like he's re-evaluating the stituation.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has long called for an immigration overhaul, saying the current situation is deeply flawed. And as the Senate minority leader, McConnell is central to shepherding legislation the president wants.

But in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, McConnell said he would not decide how to vote on the measure until a long series of amendments are disposed of next week.

"The bill on the merits is a mixed bag," said McConnell, who had brushed aside reporters' questions on immigration Tuesday and Wednesday. "I'm not uniformly enthusiastic about it."

"At the end of the process," he said, "we're going to have to make a call as to whether this is an improvement over the status quo. I'm not ready to make that call yet."

This is pretty much bullshit. The manuever he's cooperating with Reid on would deny any consideration of any amendments that might improve the bill, so if he finds it currently lacking, "the process" isn't going to improve it any.

...

McConnell's ambivalence has been known to colleagues, but Thursday's comments about his misgivings were especially blunt and specific.

Also on Thursday, Texas' two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, said they would vote against bringing the bill back to the Senate floor.

...

The immigration debate has squeezed many politicians, but perhaps none more so than McConnell, a strong White House ally. Some see the legislation as Bush's last hope for a major domestic achievement, and McConnell himself has repeatedly said an immigration revision is one of the "big things" a divided government can achieve.

But most Senate Republicans thus far have refused to embrace the bill. And some party strategists think voters in 2008 will reward those who oppose giving illegal immigrants lawful status.

McConnell is "not riding two horses, he's trying to decide which horse to ride," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a bill supporter, said in an interview. "He has a very difficult role, with the caucus so badly split. He has a duty to represent the caucus."

This is pretty infuriating: video of immigration lawyers explaining to employers how they can post fake job ads to technically satisfy the law's demand before hiring the cheaper foreign worker they always wanted. The lawyers state flat-out that employers can just look for reasons to disqualify American applicants, and go through the charade of staging an interview if they can't find anything disqualifying on the resume, before claiming the person just isn't a good fit. This, the video's maker notes, constitutes a "good faith" job search for an American worker under current law.

RWN runs down the inside story of where the bill is now-- it's about on the edge. A lot of Republicans are frightened (as they should be) of Reid's proposed clay pigeon strategy; if this manuever works, why shouldn't Reid use it on every bill?

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

Yes, really.

The Senate immigration bill could mean reparations for German Nazis. No, I’m not making this up. Look at Title IX, the “Study of War Time Treatment of Certain People,” also cited as the “Wartime Treatment Study Act,” Sections 901-916, pages 409-415 available through the Heritage Foundation.

Let me offer some background: When fascist Germany and Italy declared war on the United States two days after the Pearl Harbor attack, German and Italian citizens living in the United States became enemy aliens. Likewise, American citizens living in Germany and Italy became enemy aliens. The Americans and the two Axis powers repatriated and exchanged many of each otherÂ’s citizens, but some enemy aliens were interned in all three countries. In the United States, the vast majority of Italian and German citizens were not interned.

The Senate immigration bill would establishes a Commission on Wartime Treatment of European Americans to investigate U.S. policies that the bill describes as “devastating to the Italian American and German American communities.”

Section 903 declares that, the “term German Americans” includes “resident aliens of German ancestry” who numbered about 300,000 in total. The same definition is used for the term Italian American.

Let us say there was a man named Helmut Goering, nephew of Herman, and let’s also imagine Helmut was a German citizen and fervent member of the Nazi party, but also a legal resident alien working in the United States in December, 1941. According to the immigration bill’s sponsors, Herr Goering is a “German American” who, apparently, has suffered “discrimination.”

Also stuck in the bill is Section 713, which would "award scholarships to eligible individuals to enable such individuals to pursue associate, undergraduate, or graduate level degrees in mathematics, engineering, health care, or computer science."

And in Section 616, this gem:

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that of a lawful permanent resident under this title, or who is a probationary Z or Z nonimmigrant under this title and who meets the eligibility criteria set forth in section 614(a)(1)(A), (B), and (F), shall be eligible for the following assistance under such title IV:

(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), subject to the requirements of such parts.

(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of such part.

(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.

So scholarships and financial aid for illegal immigrants and a "path to reparations" for former Nazis. They weren't kidding when they called this bill "comprehensive," where they?

Posted by: Slublog at 05:27 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 523 words, total size 4 kb.

And she just got elected, so she could roll the dice and figure no one's going to care in five years about this.

But apparently she decided that six years wouldn't be enough to repair the damage from this vote.

The wobblers seem to be tipping over in the "no" direction.

Bonus: Too busy with the Die Hard quiz to have noticed that wobblers Sununu and Cornyn and joined the no-on-cloture tide.

Posted by: Ace at 05:11 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.