tonight on WPTF and tomorrow morning on 850 The Buzz.

NC State loses 20-17....to AKRON?  AT HOME?????

And straight up:  he'll deserve every single bit of it.  NC State was talking about having a chance to get a ACC title game berth.  Now they'll be happy if they can salvage a bowl game from this season.

NC State's defense was absolutely pathetic, especially on that winning Akron drive, which saw them put it in the endzone on the last play of the game.  They should have simply stepped aside and let them score; at least they would have had a chance for a last drive, rather than Akron sucking up the rest of the clock. 

And what in the HELL was State thinking when they called an option on 4th and 1 inside the 5???  They were in the lead by a field goal at that time....why didn't they kick the field goal?  Or at the very least, if you're going to go for it, punch it up the middle??  There's no excuse for that play AT ALL.  You're in a tight game in the 4th quarter, you take the points.

I agreed with the Buzz guys a few weeks ago that the catcalls from the peanut gallery that Amato should go were premature, and he's doing a relatively decent job at State.  However, this loss to Akron will make even more noise, and if Amato is run out of Raleigh as unceremoniously as Herb Sendek was in backetball, people will point to today's loss, and how terrible every fascet of the game was; offense, defense, and coaching.

But as a Carolina fan, and despite seeing my Tarheels get smoked by Va Tech today, I revel in it.

It sure sounds like it.

According to a new article by the Associated Press, the officer that shot San Diego Chargers linebacker Steve Foley was off-duty, in civilian clothes, followed Foley all the way home from off the interstate, and Foley was unarmed.

Here's more:

"To my knowledge, I don't believe Foley did have a weapon, even though I was told he reached into his waistband with his right hand," said San Diego County sheriff's Lt. Dennis Brugos.

According to the Sheriff"s Department's initial report Sunday, Foley was shot after he reached into his pants with his right hand while approaching the policeman, who was in civilian clothes and driving his own car.

[Officer Aaron] Mansker has been placed on paid administrative leave, said Leah Corbin, a police spokeswoman in Coronado, a wealthy peninsular enclave across the bay from downtown San Diego. She declined to release any other details about the officer.

According to official reports, Mansker noticed a car swerving on the freeway while driving at speeds of 90mph and almost collided with several cars.  He decided to follow the car, thought to be Foley, which had stopped at three lights on the way to the residence.  Mansker had ordered Foley to pull over before the shooting incident, but Foley ignored it.

It's not even known if Mansker even showed Foley his badge, and considering that he was behind some bushes when he confronted Foley and his girlfriend (who promptly tried to run him over), he more than likely didn't.

But even if he did, it's irrelevant.  We're talking about an officer that was off-duty and out of uniform trying to pull someone over on a traffic violation.  When the person didn't comply, the officer then followed him to his residence, which resulted in an altercation and the driver being shot.  And note:  all of this is happening in the middle of the night in a large city.  If I see a person that is off-duty, and in civilian clothes trying to get me to pull over, I would think I'm about to be carjacked.

Why didn't Mansker call headquarters for backup and allowed them to make the proper arrest?  An off-duty cop is precisely that:  off-duty.  Particularly since troopers are often required to be in proper uniform and go through proper protocol when pulling over vehicles, you'd think cops would be careful about getting in altercations off-duty and out of uniform.

If the AP's article is accurate, and we aren't missing anything significant, I'd say that Foley has a good chance of winning a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of San Diego and against Aaron Mansker.  Mansker's handling of this incident was over the top, and he should have called for backup instead of trying to handle it himself.  This resulted in an incident that 1. possibly could have been avoided  2.  resulted in Foley getting shot, and almost got Mansker ran over  3.  will cost Foley the entire NFL season, and will make every team think twice before they pick him up....if a team will ever take him again.  The loss of the season, along with the time taken for rehab, and the public airing of this incident could end Foley's career.

I normally give the cops the benefit of the doubt, but not in this case.

If Republican congressional candidates want to know how to get back on the ball despite the odds being against them, they shouldn't look no further than Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who essentially made his opponent, Bob Casey, look lost and not even close to being on his level.

The debate, which aired on Meet the Press, was simply a breath of fresh air.  Santorum proved why he is one of the best senators in America, bar none.  Santorum was considered to surely lose this election, as Casey once led Santorum by as much as 15 points in the Rasmussen and Quinnipac polls, which his support hovering around only 35%.  Just after Memorial Day, Santorum trailed in the Rasmussen poll by 23 points.

However, he's fought back, and now Quinnipac has him behind by a 6-point margin, and Rasmussen has him down by 8.  This past week hasn't been kind to Casey, starting with the quasi-endorsement given to Santorum by Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.  After the Meet The Press debacle, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Santorum has made this race a toss-up, moving the race into the margin of error.

On MTP, Russert threw everything but the kitchen sink at Santorum, but Santorum batted it right back.  He was a little defensive at first, but Santorum laid out his beliefs and was totally unapologetic for what he supports, and most importantly, who he supports. 

Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about (via transcript):

SEN. SANTORUM: What I would say is that we have found weapons of mass destruction, they were older weapons, but we have found chemical weapons. The report was just released not too long ago that, that said that there were over 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, the president has accepted the report of his two task force and said, "That the chief weapons inspector has issued his report. Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there."

SEN. SANTORUM: Well, there were all sorts of weapons that our intelligence believed were there. They thought that they were new weapons. So far we, we did not—we have not found any new weapons. But we have found old weapons, weapons from the Iran/Iraq conflict, and we found over 500 and the report says that there were more.

This marks a key difference between Santorum and most of the congressional Republicans running for reelection.  Santorum did not back down from Russert's assertions; instead he confronted them with the facts.  I hope RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman was paying attention and taking notes, because this should become gospel to Republican candidates throughout the country:  stand your ground, and hit them with the facts.

Here's another one:

Do you believe you should have the same standard for President Bush? He should give a defined objective, he should give an exit strategy, he should give a cost, and he should give a timeline for Iraq, just as you were demanding President Clinton give for Kosovo?

SEN. SANTORUM: No. Because, because Kosovo and, and Slobodan Milosevic were never a security threat to the United State of America. No way. There—I mean, it wasn't even close.

MR. RUSSERT: But these are men and women at war.

SEN. SANTORUM: We had, we had—excuse me—we had no business, in my opinion—and I felt this today—we had no business going in—into that area.  We had no national security interest. We are up against an enemy that every single day in the streets of Iran they're out talking about how they want to destroy the United States, how they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Once again, this is one of those "gotcha" questions that Russert pulled on Santorum, and he adamantly defended his position and booted that right out of the park.  Once Russert pulled this card, Santorum became really passionate about what he believes in.

Meanwhile, Bob Casey came in and spouted the usual talking points from the DNC.  Here's Casey on fiscal responsibility:

MR. RUSSERT: Over 10 years.

MR. CASEY: Over 10 years, that's right.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, but, but if you rolled back the top 1 percent, it's about $56 billion in a year. Our deficit is 200...

MR. CASEY: That's true, Tim, absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: How you going to balance the budget? Which, which programs you going to cut?

MR. CASEY: Tim, you can't, you can't balance a budget in one year. They've put us in such a fiscal hole, it will take many years. I hope it doesn't take 10 years, it took...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, but give me a couple ideas. Which programs would you cut?

MR. CASEY: Tim, there are a lot of things. I—in, in state government, I've already done this. Sometimes you, you try to limit the number of, of consultants, that's one idea. Sometimes you limit the size of, of, of the federal government. I've already done that in state government. There are a lot of ways. Especially some, some tax loopholes, off-shore tax loopholes that are in there right now.

There are lots of ways to cut. But the first thing you have to do, I think, is—and let me just outline these quickly. First of all, the tax cut. Over 10 years, if you repealed it for 200,000 and up, you could get $730 billion.  The second thing, on the estate tax, if we set the general estate tax exemption level at $3.5 million for an individual, 7 million for a couple, maybe even carve out a $5 million exemption for family farms and businesses, you could get a savings just on that alone of $300 billion over 10 years.  You're already at a trillion. It's a step along the way. A corporate welfare commission, over—conservatively over 10 years could get you 200 billion. And finally, you've got to make sure that we have a pay as you go strategy, just like a family has.

Out of that long, convoluted speech - which, ironically, Casey criticized Santorum twice during the debate for - there wasn't one thing within what he stated, that actually sounded anything like fiscal discipline.  Everything consisted of either repealing tax cuts, restoring taxes, closing loopholes, and raising revenue; none of which actually addresses the problem of runaway government spending.  I wished Santorum would have jumped on Casey about this; but his response was still good.

Casey had the nerve to attempt to criticize Santorum for his virtually unwavering support of President Bush and his policies, but it's very clear after Sunday morning that Casey will essentially be a clear supporter of the Senate Democratic leadership on an overwhelming majority of issues, if not more than Santorum's support of Bush.  It showed whether he was talking about abortion, or Social Security, or the debt.  At least Santorum supports a number of Bush policies because he actually believes in most of them, while Casey came off as another voice of the Democratic machine.

It's no wonder that Casey refused to have ten debates with Santorum (he did agree to four), as he got his clock cleaned on Sunday morning, and there isn't any reason for him not to get it again in the next debate.  I think there are some Democrats are starting to panick, because the Senate seat of one of their hated rivals thought months ago to possibly be a relatively easy pickup has possibly made this a neck-and-neck race that will be decided down the finish.

Whenever a hurricane is remotely seen in the Atlantic Ocean moving westward, you can guarantee the alarms will sound from the local and national news and there will be nonstop coverage from hour-to-hour.

Tropical Storm Ernesto, which is approaching my house as we speak and I can feel it's winds out of my window (don't worry....you sneeze harder than those winds will blow) has been covered every second since Wednesday.  CNN has their meterologists on it, so does Fox.  Hell; even Sean Hannity dragged Accuweather's Joe Bastardi onto his radio show just to talk about it.  One of our local news stations in the Triangle, WRAL, used up two extra hours of news - going from their normal 5-7 to 5-9pm - to provide extra coverage of a storm that barely made top wind speeds of 70mph.

Maybe that's exciting news to people that live inland, or further up the eastern seaboard, as they rarely get to experience full hurricane winds, but it's nothing to those that have experience the brunt of real storms.  Diana, Gloria, Charlie, Floyd, Dennis, Fran, Bertha...I've seen them all.  This one?  It's nothing.

As a kid, I used to love watching the local weather and see this large storm approaching the Outer Banks.  Considering where I lived, there really wasn't much to look forward to.  I would liken it to midwesterners in Kansas or Missouri being amazed by tornadoes and eventually become storm chasers. 

I remember, over 10 years ago...this LARGE hurricane approached the Outer Banks, and got up to 100 or so miles off of the coast of NC, and SAT there for two days.  They evacuated the whole coast of NC, because the National Weather Service expected a "direct hit", which meant the hurricane was going to slam into North Carolina through Cape Hatteras, the easternmost point in NC.  However, it finally rolled out and back into the Atlantic, slapping Bermuda again for good measure.

UPDATE:  I found the hurricane.  It was Felix in 1995.   Wow. 

Events like that, I'll never forget.  However, anytime a storm even thinks about approaching the U.S., we can expect the news to blow it out of proportion or hope the hurricane would just disintegrate in the ocean (and they have done that before) just so the media will stop talking about it.  I'd rather go back to my smaller, coastal local stations that I grew up with as a kid (particularly Skip Waters of WCTI 12), rather than these ridiculous 5 day coverages done by the networks and news wires that ridiculously hype up storms that anyone with a bit of common sense knows have no chance of doing significant damage.

That's what we're getting from this one-sentence article from the AP:


I hope it's true.

Now, is it just me, or did dude look like he's ready to gnaw on that cop's arm like it was a drumstick?

Just sayin.

I'm quite surprised that the ad published last week in the L.A. Times denouncing terror and signed by a number of top Hollywood celebrities didn't garner much attention.  Considering the names listed, you would have thought the media paid more attention other than a passing glance.

It states:


Not bad.  It was straightfoward, yet not condemning enough for my tastes.  But they're in the popularity business, so you can't expect more than this.

Of course, the names listed are the white hollywood stars, notably Nicole Kidman and Michael Douglas, Bruce Willis, and Sylvester Stallone.  But there were a handful of black entertainers that signed this ad:


Those were the only four I recognized.  If there are more, feel free to let me know.

While they should be commended for standing up against terror, and specifically blaming Hezbollah and Hamas for starting the mess in Lebanon, it's sad that only a handful of black entertainers would sign it.  For these four, they won't suffer any serious repercussions to their entertaiment careers.  Mac's show on Fox has already been cancelled, and he might have a few movie roles left in his career.  Elder would only go so far in his, as he's a conservative and not an entertainer in the traditional sense, and Serena (Where's Venus?) will only have some cameos and sponsorships, because she can't act (trust me on this one).  And Vivica, well....can you name the last thing she's done in entertainment (No; 50 Cent does not qualify as an answer here.  What, not who.)?  Thought so.

The same ones that do whatever they can to kill Israelis, will kill black people in America and Africa without a second thought.  It's time for not only black entertainers, but black people of all stripes to wake up to the threat that could destroy the core of civilization if allowed to manifest.

In one stroke of the pen, the United Nations, with the help of the supposed terrorist-fighting Bush Administration, has created another Yassir Arafat in the Middle East.  This time it's Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The resolution that passed Friday made Hezbollah a legit power broker in Middle Eastern politics, all through killing eight Israeli soliders and kidnapping two.  The United Nations, with the help of the Bush Administration, have shown that while they're not willing to witness Hezbollah's defeat and they're not willing to allow Israel to do it either.  So what's the result?  Hezbollah wins.  A terrorist organization becomes a legitimate organization.  If they weren't before, they definitely are now.

What is the message in this month-long affair that the Bush Administration has shown us?  TERRORISM WORKS.  Plain and simple.  If done properly, if a terrorist organization, no matter how many people they kill and how many incidents they start, can stay organized for a matter of time and endure any kind of operation taken to defeat them, they will be recognized by the "international community" and become a political entity.  The "international community" simply wants peace at all costs, even to the level of appeasement. 

Does anyone actually believe that Lebanon will take steps to disarm Hezbollah?  Lebanon is just as much at fault for this conflict as Hezbollah is, because they were ordered by the U.N. to disarm Hezbollah once Israel pulled out.  Not only did they fail to do it, but they gave every excuse in the book not to do so.

And then there's this by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, in an interview with Speigel Magazine Online:

SPIEGEL: United Nations Resolution 1559 demands that the army should control the whole country -- up to the border with Israel.

Lahoud: It (the army) does that. But it wasn't the army that freed the occupied south of the country, rather it was the resistance which achieved that. Without this resistance Lebanon would still be occupied today.

and this:

SPIEGEL: Please explain your relationship to Hezbollah. What do you think of Hassan Nasrallah?

Lahoud: Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect.

That interview was done on July 25th, almost a week into the offensive.  This wasn't three or four years ago.  Thus, what would make anyone feel as if the Lebanese government will do anything that would be considered against Hezbollah's wishes?  If Lebanon's head of state would say this so freely, what do you think others in Lebanon are saying? 

And even if Lebanon wanted to do something about Hezbollah, 1.  They'd have a hard time getting the army to do something about it, as a significant amount of them are Hezbollah supporters, and probably fighters as well, and 2.  Doing so would risk another civil war.  Thus, the only chance that Hezbollah would ever be disarmed or destroyed is up to Israel.  The Bush Administration's idea that Lebanon would do so is completely naive, short-sighted, and ignorant.

Instead, the U.N. does not order an immediate demand of Hezbollah activities within Lebanon, and it does not call for the immediate return of the kidnapped soldiers, which was why the invasion was done in the first place.  The bulk of the resolution is placed on Israel, and there are no safeguards in place in order to make sure that Hezbollah won't attack Israel again, or that it will disarm.

The more I read about this, the more it makes me sick.  We are about to sell out the Israelis for this ridiculously convoluted notion of "peace".  This isn't peace; it's appeasement.

More later.

That's what sources tell Rich Lowry.

If they do, they're stupid.  This resolution does not call for either the dismantling of Hezbollah, nor will it make the return of the kidnapped soldiers mandatory. 

All it calls for is a UN force - 15,000 - to regain control of the region until Lebanese forces are strong enough to do so.

If Lowry is correct, this is soooo stupid it doesn't make sense.  It will allow more time for Hezbollah to regroup and restart their terrorist activities.  Lebanon won't do a thing to stop Hezbollah; in fact they'll help make them stronger.  And when Israel is attacked again, it's going to make it that much harder to retaliate.

In effect, if Olmert agrees to this, all he's done is placed Israel in a worse situation than before.

Not to mention, the intrapolitical repercussions, as predicted by John Podhoretz:


And if he agrees to this garbage, he deserves it.  Rice, Bolton, and Bush ought to be ashamed of themselves for going along with this.

I'll have more later tonight.

But these have two legs:

A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.

Police are searching premises after 21 people were arrested. Home Secretary John Reid said they believed the "main players" were accounted for.

New stories are popping up by the minute.  US and UK airport security officials have banned all liquids on planes.  Airlines have taken it a step further, and have banned all carry-ons from UK passengers.  London's Heathrow Airport, where the planes were to take off from, has been virtually shut down, due to airlines cancelling arrival and destination flights.  And there has already been some hints that Al Qaeda could have been behind this.

In other words, this isn't a good day to be travelling.

This is in the wake of an arrest in Ohio of two men from Dearborn, Michigan - a well known Arab enclave:

MARIETTA, Ohio - Two men were charged Wednesday with money laundering in support of terrorism after authorities said they found airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car.

Deputies stopped Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, 20, and Ali Houssaiky, 20, both of Dearborn, Mich., on a traffic violation Tuesday. They found the flight documents along with $11,000 cash and 12 phones in the car, said Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks.

Prosecutor Susan Vessels declined to say how the phones, cash or flight information involved terrorism.

Abulhassan and Houssaiky admitted buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, said sheriff's Maj. John Winstanley. The men said they sold the phones to someone in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb.

Investigators going through the car after the pair were pulled over in Marietta, about 90 miles southeast of Columbus, also found a map that showed locations of Wal-Mart stores from Ohio through Kentucky, Tennessee and into North and South Carolina, Vessels said.

UK officials stated they had been investigating the plotters for a few months.  Did the Dearborn arrest have any connection with the plotters, and possibly accelerated their plans?  Right now, nobody's really talking about that possibility.  And what about the Egyptian students that disappeared yesterday?  They've found three, but eight are still missing.  Any link?

Malkin, as usual, is all over it.  So is Hot Air, who's been keeping up with coverage since the Dearborn arrests were made public last night.  I'll be around the house today, so I'll keep up with this as well.

---

The Blinking idiots over at Kos, namely "punditron", blame Bush, as usual (hat tip: Kathryn Lopez at Corner, because you know I rarely go over there):

Today, we can see again what Britain gets for being a staunch ally of Bush. They get home-grown terrorists, bombings, and more terrorist plots.

You have to wonder what exactly are the benefits of hitching yourself to George W. It's like when you consider making an investment or major purchase. You look at the pros and the cons. We all know what the cons are: your people become a target for terrorists, and you breed your own terrorist cells.

So, what are the benefits? Ummmmm, well, uhhhh, okay not many. Blair has sold out his people so he can cozy up on Bush's lap. Tony is like any other man in power, he wants to more power himself, and be closer to those who have even more power.

Yeah.  Lamont has to be proud to be supported by Kos.

Connecticut, these are the people you want to represent you?