ThatÂ’s the scoop from BlackFive.

For the full story, see Purple Avenger's post.

The short version is two Army snipers offed a terrorist in Afghanistan and an initial investigation showed they acted within the rules of engagement. But further up the chain of command, a Marine General and a Navy Lt. Commander got an Army Sergeant, who had no independent knowledge of the case, to press murder charges against the snipers.

Now that these two brave Special Ops Soldiers have been cleared, itÂ’s time to go after the lawyers who wanted to hang murder charges on them.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:51 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to larwyn. My Pet Jawa has more details.

Posted by: Ace at 04:02 PM | Comments (33)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm surprised there aren't more stairs-running Rosie Ruiz's like her.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Because the Dog Cheesecake was so popular.

Over on this site the guy pinkie-swears this is real; the "artist" just has little couches and poses the lizards as he likes, and they stay in that pose for a while.

Thanks to Anwyn, with a hopeful post about some Oregon counties finally checking drunk-driving arrestees for legal status -- and reporting those who are here illegally to ICE.

Posted by: Ace at 01:54 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Some good stuff if you're a fan.

Here's a good one.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

A.K.A. "Superman: Doomsday."

I got excited when I saw this cartoon advertised during an Arrested Development re-run. It seems to be by the people responsible for the very good Justice League -- Bruce Timm's involved, and the animation is similar -- but it's crap.

The only good thing is that Adam Baldwin ("Jayne Cobb" from Firefly) voices Superman.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

This is funny, but it's funny in a dark way. You have to watch the first video first to get the context -- it involves seriously-injured possibly-paralyzed Buffalo Bills player Kevin Everett.

The joke isn't about him, it's about stupid reporters. But I have to kind of warn you that you have to sort of put Everett's bad situation out of mind to find this funny.

Is Channel 12 racist?

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (25)
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

John Leo counts the ways.

Several people, myself included, suggested that if Bollinger is as interested in free speech as he keeps saying he is, then he should reschedule the Minutemen and introduce them himself, with enough security around to discourage the reappearance of last year's stormtroopers in training.

A few weeks ago, it looked as though Columbia was about to make a rare lurch in the direction of free speech. Students re-invited the two Minutemen, but after these proposed speakers bought plane tickets, Columbia's pro-censorship DNA re-asserted itself and the two men were once again disinvited. Not a peep out of Bollinger.

One of Columbia's favorite tricks is to cancel a speaker, or reduce the size of the audience, on grounds that violence might break out. Last fall most of a large crowd that gathered to hear former PLO terrorist-turned-anti-Jihadist Walid Shoebat was turned away over securities worries. Only Columbia students and 20 guests got in. The same thing happened to Dinesh D'Souza, myself and several other speakers in 1999. A large crowd, including many from other New York campuses, had tickets, but the administration (this was a pre-Bollinger year) ruled that only Columbia students could attend. This was not the deal that had been agreed on, but Columbia was adamant. Rather than speak to a tiny remnant on campus, the speakers withdrew to a park nearby. As I spoke, one student shouted "Ha-ha. We're inside. You're out here," an excellent six-word explanation of how Columbia's robust free-speech tradition actually works.

Instapudit piths:

Yes, and this hypocrisy is a problem with higher education more generally, alas. It's why people don't take claims that "we're just opening up a debate" seriously -- because, you know, they're basically lies.

I've said this before, but add another trick to their arsenal: Claims of an absolutist commitment to hearing from speakers of all sorts, no matter how repulsive, in the interest of free speech for free speech's sake. Whenever these bastards are asked to defend their decisions, they claim they made no decisions at all, because their commitment to free exchange of ideas is so perfectly absolute as to admit of no decision-making, and no boundary-drawing, and no judgment calls, whatsoever.

So they avoid the question. Ask them to defend inviting a terrorist thug like Ahmadinejad on moral or national-interest grounds and they claim such grounds are wholly irrelevant.

Of course this is all a lie and a dodge. They are not free-speech absolutists; far from it. They exercise their judgment and own sense of propriety in these matters all the time; they just don't want to admit they do, because that would then invite questions about precisely what their judgment and sense of propriety, are, precisely, and they wish to lie to the public on such matters.

A commitment to free speech would begin nicely be actually speaking the truth and admitting one's true criteria for such invitations and permissions to speak at the university. Then there could actually be robust debate -- debate! what they always claim to be in favor of! -- of those criteria.

But they don't want debate over their criteria, because they don't want any chance they might have to abandon them. So they continue making their decisions and exercising their bias in the darkness of lies.

Commitment to debate and free speech? Uh-huh. Just like Joe Stalin was. Big fan of fair debate and vigorous dissent was Uncle Joe.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 595 words, total size 4 kb.

Back in August I wrote (external link) about the recent effort by some California Republicans to switch from the current winner-take-all electoral system to a proportional award of votes. In that post, I explained why I thought it was a bad idea.

So I'm pleased to note that the attempt to change California's electoral system has flopped.

There remained a chance that the measure could be revived, but only if a major donor were to come forward to fund the petition drive. However, time is short to gather the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed by the end of November. And backers said Thursday that they believed the measure was all but dead, at least for the 2008 election.

" 'Shambles' is the wrong word," said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. "The campaign never got off the ground."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:21 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Further proof Tom Cruise is a fucking retard, RobG sluglines his email, and I can't do any better than that.

Hollywood star Tom Cruise is planning to build a bunker at his Colorado home to protect his family in the event of an intergalactic alien attack, according to new reports.

The Mission Impossible actor, who is a dedicated follower of Scientology, is reportedly fearful that deposed galactic ruler 'Xenu' is plotting an evil revenge attack on Earth.

According to American magazine Star, a source said: "Tom is planning to build a US$10 million bunker under his Telluride estate."

"It's a self-contained underground shelter with a high tech air purifying shelter."

The facility is said to have enough room for ten people - including wife Katie Holmes, 17-month-old daughter Suri and his adopted children Isabella, 14, and Connor, 12.

Now that that's out of the way, his spokesman denies the story, stating Cruise isn't building anything at all beneath the property, and I have to say I believe the spokesman.

Mostly.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.