Mike Nifong filed for bankruptcy today, listing a debt of $180.3 million.

Nifong lists David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, as well as three other members of Duke University's 2006 men's lacrosse team — Breck Archer, Ryan McFadyen and Matthew Wilson, who named Nifong in a separate federal lawsuit in December — as unsecured creditors, each owed $30 million.

More 30 other lacrosse players from that team are also listed as creditors, each owed $1, the North Carolina State Bar, owed $8,397.71, and nearly 70 other people involved in the nearly yearlong investigation of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping claims by an exotic dancer.

He still faces civil suits from the exonerated players and from players who were forced to submit to DNA tests and privacy invasions during the investigation.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:12 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

I know it's such a knee-jerk lefty thing to claim that anyone who opposes any part of the gay agenda is secretly a panicked homosexual rebelling violently against his true desires, but...

These guys? Total fags and dykes, man. They seem to have children, but I can only assume they are the result of some polymorphously perverse dogpile of backfat, failure, and pansexual snowballing.

Seriously, dudes, I'm told it only hurts a little, and only the first few times. After that it's just a smorgasbord of of rainbow flags and shame.

Posted by: Ace at 02:14 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, not actually directly in response to Sister Huckabee's statement, but his take on politics vis a vis religious belief:

A woman asked him if he would “as a Christian, as a conservative” continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS.

“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.

“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.”

He received a round of applause for his answer, and went on to expand on the role of government in fighting AIDS and other diseases.

“I’m not going to go around the state and the country with regards to a serious problem and say that I’m going to prioritize that,” he said.

“With people dying of cancer, and heart disease, and children dying of leukemia still, I got to tell you – we’ve got a lot of problems here, and we all may have our one that’s affected us the most, but it’s a broad array. And a president who will tell you the truth is that we have to look across the board and do what we can and what we should based upon the severity of the problem and the chances that our research money will do some good in these areas.”

The other night when I was out in NYC with some morons I floated the idea that Fred was attempting to preserve his "Good Guy" image so that if his candidacy fell through, his lucrative Hollywood career wouldn't suffer.

Well, with Fred stating straight-up-no-chaser he's not going to "prioritize" fighting AIDS in Africa, I think I can scotch that theory. Blacks with AIDS? Black foreigners with AIDS? I can't think of a cohort closer to the hearts of the Hollywood elite, save the Hollywood elite themselves, and their personal managers, and people who can get them jobs, and their personal trainers-slash-Ecstacy-dealers, and their mistresses and call girls, and, Charlie Sheen, who they've all for reasons unfathomable conspired together to grant an inexplicably long-lived career.

That seems to me to show a fair amount of dedication to keeping the ambition of government in check, as well as its spending. It's definitely not going to win Thompson the title of Miss Congeniality during the general election. It's a nice idea, stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. Even if it costs billions. Hard to say no to.

But Fred did. That takes a certain amount of commitment to principle.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

Conservative Belle talked to some people in the know, as they say.

You probably know that some states will only have half of their delegates counted for the nomination, as a penalty for moving their primaries up.

Here's a surprise twist: The party may end up deciding to count all those delegates, if it chooses, at the end of the process.

But that's not really Conservative Belle's scoop; I've read that before.

Her scoop is this: Only half of the delegates are to be counted, as the rules currently say, but which half? Don't assume the half chosen to attend the convention will be proportionate to each candidate's performance. The party could choose to, say, seat all of Fred Thompson's delegates and only a small fraction of, say, Rudy Giuliani's. Thus transforming a (hypothetical) Giuliani win at the polls into a Thompson win as regards actual delegates allowed to vote at the convention.

This seems to make no sense whatsoever, and I suspect Conservative Belle may have misunderstood or missed something... but then, she does have actual sources, and she is not, as far as I can tell, a mutant.

Bonus: Also from Conservative Belle, Jay Cost on that brokered convention we've been hearing about for forty years... and which might actually happen.

Update: Conservative Belle dug up the rules, and it does seem, based on her reading (and mine), that, in a state which can only seat half of its usual amount of delegates due to penalty, the state party gets to decide which of its delegates gets to go to the convention.

"Proportionate to actual delegates selected" would seem to be the common sense and fair rule here... but it's not necessarily the required rule.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

At Exurban League.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
— Mike Huckabee, campaigning in Michigan last night.

This statement should shock every American to their very core. It is theocracy, pure and simple.

To those evangelical Christians supporting Huckabee, ask yourself this: What if Hillary or Obama said this line while speaking in a left-of-center church? Or Mitt said it to an LDS ward? Rudy to a Catholic assembly, or a Muslim congressman to a mosque? How would you feel if a presidential candidate was promising to revise the Constitution — the foundational legal document of this nation — to comply with the theological dictates of Rome, Salt Lake City or Mecca?

I don't have much of a problem with religion-based policy impulses. All of our impulses come from somewhere, after all, and I don't see why a religious person's core beliefs should affect his worldview less than my own secularist/humanist worldview. The left's insistence that only secular beliefs should impel policy stances is inconsistent but convenient in that it would, if accepted, lead to a secularist-only public polity.

However, I prefer such prescriptions to be couched in secularist terms. There are numerous reasons to be pro-life or pro-traditional-marriage that don't have much to do with religion. It's not deceptive, I don't think, to argue in terms of sound policy, without mention of God, even if, at root, it is a belief in God's will that ultimately leads one to embrace those non-religious rationales for one's positions.

I have little doubt that most pro-lifers believe as they do because God, they think, and not 18th century Jeffersonian political thinking, supports the pro-life position. And yet when arguing about this I strongly prefer arguments which do not explicitly invoke an appeal to the ultimate authority, God Himself.

Is this a distinction without a difference? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think it isn't. An argument based on the physical and moral, and not the metaphysical, can appeal to or possibly persuade all, not only those who believe in a certain interpretation of a particular holy text.

I find Huckabee's express reliance on the What Would Jesus Do style of policymaking 1) alienating, 2) a crass attempt at identity politics, 3) self-defeating, as it loses as many supporters as it gains, and 4) characteristically glib and shallow and lazy. I hope I do not offend any religious readers when I say of all possible policy arguments, "Well this is what God wants and that's all there is to it," is the easiest and laziest of all.

I don't know if this is theocracy per se, but it does seem walking up to that line. I don't mind, not at all, sharing a party with those whose politics are shaped greatly by a belief in God (and a particular belief in what God would deem the Just and Good Society). I have a bit of problem with those who nakedly offer only God's vision of the Just and Good Society (as they see it, at least) as a reason for supporting a policy.

It's also a bit disquieting. As they say, you can't reason someone out of a position he wasn't reasoned into in the first place, that is, you can't use fact, logic, or likelihood to argue someone out of a position that is accepted purely on faith, whether of the religious or quasi-religious sort (global warming, etc.) With Mike Huckabee admitting that his belief as to what God wants is such an outsized part of his political thinking, how on earth would you argue a man out of wrongheaded policy? If it's really what God wants, what have piddling earthly arguments to do with it?

Color me a bit skeptical that Mike Huckabee is now anti-amnesty. After all, just a year or two ago it was What God Wanted to offer illegals in-state tuition and other benefits. I can't imagine that God Himself has changed his mind on this, even though Mike Huckabee claims that he himself, and God Himself, apparently did.

Posted by: Ace at 12:18 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 741 words, total size 4 kb.

.16 to .76 inches thick, depending on options and accessories.

Regardless of how you feel about Macs vs. PCs (we have both in my home), I will admit Apple has had a pretty remarkable run over the past 7 years or so. My only preference is based on what I'm used to, which is the Windows interface, so futzing around on the Mac is a little tedious to me, but that doesn't make it wrong or worse IMHO.

No optical drive, cause they're pushing their on-line media stuff (and making it really thin), but so what? A little pricey (which doesn't seem to bother them much) but not absurdly so.

No pics yet (none I've found) except for this artist's rendering:

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 11:50 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Carl Cameron blogs:

3 to 6 inches of snow fell around Detroit overnight.

GOP officials say light turnout so far is in keeping with forecasts of about a million votes cast today in the republican primary.

In 2000 when John McCain won, 1.3 million votes were cast- 17 percent of McCainÂ’s votes were from indies and dems.

Light turnout and weather this time could mean fewer non-GOP votes. That could be good news for Romney.

If polls are to be believed ALL the trend lines are in RomneyÂ’s directionÂ…albeit within the margin of error.

Posted by: Ace at 11:39 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

For your safety, I have compiled a list of noted-troll Tom's favorite phrases for sodomy. He often deploys them against the unwary. Seeing as how the following entry contains a subject near and dear to his heart, i thought it only prudent to alert you in the event he shows up. If you ever hear Tom say any of the following in casual conversation, run morons run.

10. "Salad Tossing"

9. "Ass Darts"

8. "Wanna come over and watch the game?"

7. "Rump Jockey"

6. "Who do you think won the Democratic debate?"

5. "Wonketting"

4. "Butthole Surfing"

3. "No. Really, dude. I am asking if it's ok if I plunge my cock into your butt. Or, alternatively, inviting you to fully probe my colon with the appendage of your choice."

2. "Ring around the Rosetta"

and, Tom's number one euphemism for sodomy:

1. "I'm voting for John Edwards."

This has been a safety warning from Jack M., official sponsor of better living thru the AoS Lifestyle.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:35 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

From the sidebar, an awful story. The rough justice aspect doesn't make it less awful, though it does at least provide a bit of catharsis.

When the Arlington father caught his teenage stepson sexually assaulting his 8-year-old daughter late Jan. 2, investigators say the 32-year-old man did the right thing -- he called police.

The 18-year-old was arrested by Arlington police on suspicion of aggravated sexual assault. The girl was taken to the hospital, where an examination revealed she'd been raped anally. And the father issued a stern warning to his wife.

"He didn't want anybody to help (the teen)," said Sgt. Cheryl Johnson, supervisor of the Fort Worth sex crimes unit, adding that the man also stated that he would hurt his stepson.

But unbeknownst to the father, police say, the man's wife posted bond for her son's release from the Arlington jail. When the teen called home for a ride on the early afternoon of Jan. 3, it was his stepfather who answered the phone and arrived at the jail to pick up the teen.

But the pair didn't go home, investigators say.

Instead, the Arlington man drove his stepson to an abandoned house in east Fort Worth where he delivered his own brand of justice. He severely beat the teen with a baseball bat, then anally raped him with a wrench-like metal tool.

On Friday, the father turned himself into the Tarrant County Jail on a warrant for aggravated sexual assault. He was released Saturday after posting a $17,500 bond.

"This is a very unique case, but we have a criminal justice system in place, and no one can take the law into their own hands," Johnson said. "They need to allow the criminal justice system to work for them and although the process may seem long, it is the process that works."

"The process" includes a Texas jury trial for the avenging dad, which I'm guessing will be less than eager to convict him.

Temporary insanity? Yeah sure, that works.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Ross Douthat notes how stupid this all is.

Incidentally, as regards Aladdin, who precisely could have served as the villain and his minions in an Arab land? Who else was there?

Oh yeah -- Jews. They should have featured Arabs as the good guys and Jews as the heavies.

Gotta love featuring Cannonball Run 2 (2!) as a recent example of high-profile Hollywood Arab-bashing.

CJ again.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.