50 to 70 people are missing. They might be on the Italian island of Giglio. It's not clear whether the ship ran into the island or whether it hit something and then pushed toward the island to save the passengers. Over 4000 were on board. High-res pictures.

More from MSNBC:

Paolillo, the coast guard official, speaking from the port captain's office in the Tuscan port of Livorno, said the vessel "hit an obstacle" -- it wasn't clear if it might have hit a rocky reef in the waters off Giglio -- "ripping a gash 50 meters (165 feet) across" on the left side of the ship, and started taking on water.

The cruise liner's captain, Paolillo said, then tried to steer his ship toward shallow waters, near Giglio's small port, to make evacuation by lifeboat easier. But after the ship started listing badly onto its right side, lifeboat evacuation was no longer feasible, Paolillo said.

I think I've located the site on Google Earth: 42°21'54.97"N, 10°55'17.47"E. Paste these coordinates into the Google Earth search field or hit satellite view in Google Maps. (Leave off the period.) You can see the harbor, the two piers, and the large rock the ship appears to be near.

Update: From The Telegraph, the captain says that they hit "a rocky spur" in waters that, according to charts, should have been safe:

"As we were navigating at cruise speed, we hit a rocky spur," he told Tgcom24 television station:

"According to the nautical chart, there should have been sufficient water underneath us," he added.

According to a report at MailOnline, the ship was four miles off course when it hit; the captain has been arrested, and right now, divers are searching for trapped passengers.

The first report I read said the ship was traveling south from Savona to Civitavecchia. The story at MailOnline indicates it was traveling north. Considering the location of the damage--on the port side--that makes more sense. There is a nice graphic at the link.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 08:42 AM | Comments (406)
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

Barely.

Football's on the docket today. First up, we have the Saints at the 49'ers (4:30pm EST), followed by the Tebows at the Patriots (8:00).

Checking the weather window, it's a little breezy in MA. 40mph wind gusts are forecast for today, and I thoroughly expect one of Tebow's wounded-duck passes to wind up in the stands. But the Pats are favored by 13.5 points, and I'm not sure they'll cover that (says the guy who barely beat DiT in the football pool).

Have a great day, morons. I'm sure Dave will be along later with a pointy-elbowed cheerleader for you.

Posted by: andy at 05:57 AM | Comments (310)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Evening y'all. Um, Friday the 13th is it? Be careful out there, if you believe in superstition. Evidently, a lot of you DO have a fear of Friday the 13th. The official names for fear of Friday the 13th are friggatriskaidekaphobia and paraskevidekatriaphobia according to this article: Friday The 13th: The Superstitions And Skeptics.

An article on the National Geographic website reports that between 17 million and 21 million people in the U.S. suffer from some degree of fear related to the day.

Some interesting Friday the 13th facts:

Fidel Castro was born on Friday, Aug. 13, 1926, in Biran, Cuba.

Celebrity twins Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen were born on Friday, June 13, 1986.

Rapper Tupac Shakur died on Friday, Sept. 13, 1996, six days after being shot in Las Vegas.

Daredevil Sam Patch died on Friday, Nov. 13, 1829. Nicknamed "the Yankee Leaper," Patch died after jumping from the top of the falls of the Genesee River in Rochester, N.Y.

Heavy metal music pioneers Black Sabbath released their self-titled debut album on Friday, Feb. 13, 1970.

Posted by: CDR M at 05:55 PM | Comments (916)
Post contains 695 words, total size 7 kb.

A commenter mentioned that FoxNews was waiting for a document dump. Among today's items to be buried:

The Obama administration knew before the 2010 election that Solyndra LLC, a solar-panel maker that received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, planned to fire workers, according to e-mails released today.

The messages donÂ’t indicate that anyone from the White House directed Solyndra to delay announcing the layoffs until after the vote. Previously released e-mails, indicating the Energy Department urged Solyndra to postpone the cuts, have been cited by House Republicans who say politics influenced SolyndraÂ’s award and last-ditch rescue bid that put taxpayers behind $75 million in private investment.

“Here’s the deal -- Solyndra is going to announce they are laying off 200 of their 1200 workers,” Heather Zichal, a White House adviser, wrote to Carol Browner, then director of the office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, and other officials on Oct. 27, 2010. “No es bueno.”

This is the closest we've gotten to proof the White House requested the layoffs be delayed until after the election, and, while we're not there yet, the paint-by-numbers picture is getting filled in one blot at a time.

Allah notes there that that AFP ad I linked earlier seems to be talking about that White House knowledge of the layoffs. Hmmmm. It's a little more muddled as far as what can be currently proved than the ad suggests, but there's a lot of smoke here. We seem to have a White House intensely interested in Solyndra's day-to-day profitablility but simultaneously claiming it knew nothing about Solyndra's day-to-day profitability.

You know who this benefits, don't you?

The pushback here from the White House, I take it, will be that not every investment succeeds and that they shouldnÂ’t be judged solely by the turkeys on their balance sheet. To which Mitt Romney, alleged cold-hearted layoff specialist, replies: Exactly.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (149)
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

This question involves the liberal media's long-running whine to itself: Why do we neutrally (ahem) report the words of both liberals and conservatives, without noting that one of them is plainly false and the other is plainly true? Why, O why, are we so neutral and objective we cannot even declare the conservatives lies to be lies and the liberal truths to be truths?

Yes, this gnaws at them.

So, the New York Times public editor asked if the newspaper should stop being so dad-burned impartial.

And you'll never guess what liberals, like Oliver Willis of Media Matters and Occupy MacDonald's, said!

Here's an example offered by the NYT public editor. It's about Obama's claim to have "saved or created" 3 million jobs.

Just kidding, of course.

One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information.

This is that whole Politifact conceit, seeking to drive the debate rather than report the facts. There are two facts in this paragraph: Thomas did not report his earnings, and he claims this to have been the result of a "misunderstanding."

What else is there to say?

By the way, if you want an easy lay-up for media bias, listen to how they introduce statements. You will hear and read that Democrats say or believe this or that. On the other hand, Republicans merely claim.

It happens a lot. When a Democrat says something the public doesn't agree with necessarily, at least the public can be contented that the Democrat actually believes it, according to the media.

But the Republicans? They merely claim to believe things. They never actually believe them. So they may be trying to snooker you with a claim that even they know is bullshit.

So they actually are doing this already, stealthily, dishonestly.

One wonders why they shouldn't just drop the mask already.

No Seriously: You guys are just too impartial, too scrupulous about only stating what you have verified as fact.

Via @jeffquinton

Posted by: Ace at 03:23 PM | Comments (139)
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Little update to RD's post: Via @jamestaranto, she says "a lot of my reasoning ended up on the cutting room floor."

...

You remember her. She's a member of the The Providence Journal's editorial board, a syndicated columnist, and she has been named president of the National Conference of Editorial Writers (hereinafter: "NCEW"), a group at least in part dedicated to "restoring civility in America's public discourse." On August 2nd last year, she wrote an editorial that contained the following:

Make no mistake: The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States--threatening to blow up the economy if they don't get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate. . . . Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but that's what Obama has been doing. . . . That the Republican leadership couldn't control a small group of ignoramuses in its ranks has brought disgrace on their party. But oddly, Obama's passivity made it hard for responsible Republicans to control their destructive children. The GOP extremists would ask Obama for his firstborn, and he'd say, 'OK.' So they think, why not ask for his second-born, to which he responds, 'Let's talk.'

(Emphasis Ace's.) Ace posted a nice take down, and the thread was effective and funny. Among other things, Ace said, "I guess the NCEW's new mission of improving civility in discourse is going gangbusters under Froma Harrop's leadership, eh?"

But in a later piece, Ms. Harrop doubled down, stating her claims were perfectly civil. And, in fact, that they were factual. (Note: This, despite a later assertion of ironic intent.*)

Well, John Oliver from The Daily Show got in on the action in a masterful and funny interview of Ms. Harrop last night. It seems that Ms. Harrop might be a little short on self-awareness and, well, the concept of irony. The interview is hilarious. It appears below the fold. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 01:44 PM | Comments (522)
Post contains 625 words, total size 5 kb.

Via ABCNews, come on, you completely are going to see a lot of stuff like this.

We're not that dumb, people. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:23 PM | Comments (120)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

This guy, Julian something. You'll remember him from lying to you every single day during the Clinton Impeachment.

He stutters here, which makes him a Stuttering Cluster**** of a MSNBC Failure.

He's got a new lie for ya. In an odd way, it's kind of similar to the old lie, because in both cases you are invited to believe the ridiculous, and also, it's primarily about a large, stinky load. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:06 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

So, Virginia will be Rombley and Ron Paul.

Oh, and Ron Paul is was selling his house, so you can live where Liberty once did. (Corrected: it's old.)

No seriously he says something like that.

I don't get it. The adoration. The hero-worship.

These are men, not ersatz deities. I don't get the whole Relic Collecting industry that has sprung up among a few charismatic political figures.

As Bruce Wayne said, a man is corruptible, only an idea is incorruptible.

We are making a big mistake when we idolize men rather than ideas.

It's not just weird when Obama is fetishized. It's weird when anyone is.

Posted by: Ace at 12:12 PM | Comments (308)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

I know people are getting frustrated that theses scandals are not bearing the fruit sought -- resignations, even impeachments.

Obama is a shifty operator whose government conceals its errors, breaking the law to do so.

People are going to vote on two main things: the economy as it stands a few months before the election, and a general sense of the candidate.

The former is more important.

However, in a close call, people are going to look at this shifty, Nixonian Stuttering Clusterf**k of a Miserable Failure and decide, I think, they are more than willing to roll the dice on a new guy.

After all, failure + defect in honesty and character are not really a winning tandem.

The stench of self-dealing here is so noxious the press will cover it, in a four hour documentary, in May 2028.

But hey! Until then, there shall be ads. Obama's arrogance, naivete, bumbling incompetence, and stealth agenda (which then forces him to govern as a hostile power, concealing everything from the public he supposedly serves) will be a major RNC (and PAC*) thrust, even if Rombley still wants to call him a nice guy.

* Updated to say "and PAC" as far as ads. The RNC is just one player in these airwars. There will be some PACs that employ a nice, moderate, gentle criticism of Obama. There will also be PACs that parade out his failures and lies.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.