[Guest post by DRJ]

A Lubbock, Texas, man’s claim that Texas Tech basketball Coach Bob Knight intentionally shot at him, hitting him in the back, was declared unfounded by the Lubbock police department:

“Lubbock police say a claim made by a south Lubbock man that Texas Tech coach Bob Knight shot at him during a hunting outing is unfounded.

James Simpson, 51, said he believes Knight or a member of his hunting party shot at him after he told them to stop hunting dove near his property near south University Avenue Oct. 21. Simpson said bird shot struck his residence while he was cleaning his pool, and he was later shot in the back and neck after he confronted Knight.”

The hunting party, which was in an open field next to Simpson’s house, included PGA golfer Larry Ziegler and a Texas Tech booster:

“Simpson lives inside the Lubbock city limits, but adjacent to a field were it’s legal to hunt. Simpson said he told Knight and other hunters to stop shooting so close to his house, and as he walked away, two more shots were fired in his direction, striking him in the back.

“It scared the hell out of me,” said Simpson, who filed a complaint with police two days later but met with investigators for the first time Tuesday. “I couldn’t work for two days. He shot me on purpose.”

Knight told The Associated Press Simpson’s claims were “ridiculous” but declined to comment further because he didn’t want to give the press and other media outlets more to report, his attorney said. But two others who were hunting with Knight that day – Tech athletic booster Bob Curtis and former PGA golfer Larry Ziegler – refuted Simpson’s claims. “If he said someone shot at him, that’s a joke,” Ziegler said. “That didn’t happen.”

Said Curtis: “If anybody shot over there, it was probably me. If anybody had done it.”

A local station reports that Simpson has a home video from that day:

“Just to summarize: no pellets, no injuries, no property damage and no access to the video tape while the case was being investigated. Police closed the case and no charges will be filed.

Meanwhile the video taped argument between Simpson and Knight sheds some light on what might have happened. First it shows that Knight was pretty well restrained. There was some yelling back & forth but Knight never used any foul language… not even a single cuss word.

Here is part of the Simpson tape as played during our simulcast of News Channel 11:

Simpson: “Move down. You’re too close to my house. Pellets fell on my house.”

Knight: “I didn’t shoot once in that direction.”

Simpson: “Pellets fell on my house. You’re the two. I’m filming you.”

Knight: “You do whatever you want.”

Simpson: “I’m filming you, Bob. I told you move down farther where the pellets don’t land at my house.”

Knight: “I didn’t shoot at your house.”

Simpson: “Bob, I’m telling you now the pellets landed in my swimming pool.”

Knight: “I didn’t shoot at it. I can’t help that.”

Simpson: “I’m asking you to move down farther.”

Later in the tape, Knight’s hunting partner Bob Curtis is heard saying he might have been the guy who shot too close to Simpson’s house. But Simpson ignores Curtis and continues to yell at Bob Knight.”

Simpson has a history of run-ins with the police department:

“It’s not like Mr. Simpson is a complete stranger to police. He has a lengthy history with the department. In some cases he claims to be the victim of harassment, retaliation and death threats. But in at least one case, Mr. Simpson went to jail on accusations of aggravated assault. We were not able to locate the police report on that aggravated assault case from the Lubbock police department web site overnight. So, we’ll try again today during daylight hours, hopefully with a little help from the officer assigned to media relations.”

I bet a lot of people would be surprised that there are places where you can hunt inside the city limits. Texas Senate Bill 734 that became effective 9/1/2006 generally allows property owners to permit hunting on annexed private property of a minimum 10 acres (shotguns) or 50 acres (rifles and pistols) within the city limits.

— DRJ

Posted by WLS:

I know I’m last in the pool on this here, but I had this caption floating around in my head and it seemed too good to let it get away without using it.

To differentiate myself a little from Patterico and DRJ below, I’m going to expound a little on points raised yesterday by Hugh Hewitt and this morning by Glenn Beck about the fiasco that was CNN’s decision-making process on which videos to select.

The biggest indictment of CNN and the YouTube “format” is the apparent fact that the 33 chosen videos — including 4 6 8 obvious plants (and maybe some not yet so obvious):

1) in any way represented the best of the 5000 video questions they claimed were submitted, and

2) that the selections, in the view of the Clinton News Network, represented questions about issues that presented anything remotely resembling an intellectually honest effort to bring about a debate by GOP candidates for the benefit of GOP voters.

Imagine the reaction of Hillary Clinton and her “Gotcha” sensibilities if in the Dem YouTube debate, an “undecided voter” had posed a question like this:

Mrs. Clinton, as an advocate of womens’ rights, including a women’s right to choose, please explain the clear legal threat to those rights by an extremist Supreme Court majority that finds it proper for Congress to outlaw a procedure where the mother is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation, and the doctor inserts grasping forceps through the mother’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the baby, gripping a body part with the forceps, and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even if resistance causes the baby to tear apart — for example, a leg might be ripped off the baby as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the mother — with the process of removing the baby piece by piece continuing until it has been completely removed, with the doctor making as many as 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to remove the baby in its entirety (or at least in pieces) though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes.

If elected, how would you guarantee a woman’s right to have a baby within her uterus carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey?”

So yesterday’s debate was supposed to address issues of concern to GOP voters?? And not to spotlight issues that divide GOP voters and appeal to advocates of certain points of view in the Dem. party?

More specifically, the questions that were picked with respect to immigration were meant to highlight WEAKNESSES of each candidate to whom they were directed:

Question One — To Giuliani about “sanctuary cities”

Question Two — To Thompson about amnesty in immigration reform

Question Three — To Tancredo about need for guest workers

Question Four — To Huckabee about tuition breaks for children of illegals.

(more…)

[posted by Justin Levine]

Is ‘reamage’ even a word? Whatever. I like the sound of it.

Anyway, check out this dismissal of an appeal [PDF link] –

Sekiya’s opening brief is so deficient that we are compelled to strike it in its entirety and dismiss the appeal.
…
The brief fails to provide the applicable standard of review…makes virtually no legal arguments…lacks a table of contents…a table of authorities…citations to authority…and accurate citations to the record.
…
Sekiya challenges the district court’s conclusion on summary judgment that she failed to present evidence that would support a finding of discrimination or establish that she was constructively discharged. She does so by asserting that “Plaintiff-Appellant disagrees” and by providing this court with a list of asserted facts without adequate citation to the record and without any argument or authority on how these facts, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, would support or establish the finding that Sekiya seeks. Bare assertions and lists of facts unaccompanied by analysis and completely devoid of caselaw fall far short of the requirement that counsel present “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them.”
…
Furthermore, the sarcastic comments made by her supervisor about her foot, though insensitive, do not rise to the level of a constructive discharge under our caselaw.

[Guest post by DRJ]

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the drug smuggler whose testimony convicted Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, has been connected to at least two more smuggling attempts after he was shot in the 2005 smuggling incident:

“Months after being shot by a pair of U.S. Border Patrol agents, an admitted Mexican drug smuggler was back in the United States driving loads of marijuana, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration investigator said today.

DEA Agent Robert Holguin testified at a bond hearing that Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, the smuggler shot during a failed smuggling attempt in 2005, has been connected to at least two more smuggling attempts. Aldrete is facing drug charges after his arrest at the border this month.”

The allegations against Aldrete-Davila are based on the statement of Cipriano Ortiz Hernandez and corroborated by an unidentified man:

“Holguin testified that an El Paso County man, Cipriano Ortiz Hernandez, first identified Aldrete as the driver of one of those loads in October 2005, after agents found 750 pounds of marijuana at his house. Ortiz has pleaded guilty to drug charges and is awaiting sentencing. Details of Ortiz’s plea agreement have been sealed.

Another man, who has not been identified, later told agents about the September 2005 incident, Holguin testified.”

Holguin also confirmed Aldrete-Davila was lured back into the US so he could be arrested:

“Aldrete was indicted last month on charges of conspiracy and possession of controlled substance with intent to distribute. He was arrested earlier this month at the border after being lured to the border by federal agents, Holguin said.

“It was a ruse,” Holguin said, adding that he didn’t know what agents promised Aldrete.”

Aldrete-Davila’s request for bond was apparently denied.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Nat Worden of TheStreet thinks the last great newspaper war in New York City is imminent and The New York Times may be moving closer to surrender:

“With News Corp. (NWS) poised to swallow Dow Jones (DJ) , New York Times (NYT) looks vulnerable on the eve of what could be the last great newspaper war in New York City.

Shares of the Gray Lady hit 10-year lows Wednesday after a Wall Street analyst downgraded the stock to a sell, citing the potential for a recession to weigh on advertising from luxury goods retailers, which make up 28% of the company’s national advertising revenue.

In another sign of weakness, a memo to staff members at the company’s flagship newspaper said the publication is cutting newsroom jobs amid a hiring freeze. This at a time when its chief rival, The Wall Street Journal, is hiring as its publisher prepares to duck under the News Corp. umbrella.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who struck a deal to acquire The Journal’s publisher this year, has said he plans to beef up its political coverage, signaling that the right-wing media mogul, who makes no secret of his disdain for the Times and its perceived liberal bias, is hell-bent on burying the Gray Lady on her own turf.”

Analysts see more bad news ahead for The Times:

“In addition to weakness in the luxury goods sector, Bank of America analyst Joe Arns said in a research note that The Times is also vulnerable to the pain in financial services wrought by the subprime lending debacle, because roughly half the company’s revenue comes from finance towns New York City and Boston. Banks like Citigroup (C) and Merrill Lynch (MER) have taken gigantic writedowns, and many observers say that more trouble for the industry is in store.

Arns said a recession could result in a 20% gap or more between the company’s forecast for 2008 earnings before taxes, depreciation and amortization and Wall Street’s expectations.”

In an effort to cut costs, management previously imposed a freeze on hiring and now laid off about a dozen support staff, but no journalists:

“For now, the Times is cutting about a dozen support positions in its newsrooms, according to media reports.

“This staff reduction does not include any journalists, nor any widespread buyouts, as has happened in the past,” Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote in the memo, according to Reuters. “We put into place a hiring freeze several weeks ago, and except for those jobs that are critically important to our future ambitions, we will be trying to fill their positions internally.”

It’s never good news to hear that people have lost their jobs, especially around the holidays, and I hope they find employment quickly. They might try the Wall Street Journal.

— DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

First it’s possible Democratic plants at debates.

Then it’s GOP mug shots at the New York Public Library.

‘Tis the Season for Democratic dirty tricks.

— DRJ

Back in July, I had a post that asked: Should Republicans Participate in the YouTube Debate? I said:

I read the transcript of the Democrat version, and I understand the reluctance. The Democrat debate was dominated by questioners asking: “Why can’t you be more leftist?” And the Republican debate will be dominated by questioners asking: “Why can’t you be more leftist?”

That prediction was more obvious than it was bold. But it turned out to be worse than even I realized. Remember that the Democrat debate was filled with questions from folks with undisclosed affiliations to Democrat candidates, as this Hot Air video cleverly documented:

And as I noted last night in an update to this post, the Republican debate was filled with questions from folks with undisclosed affiliations to Democrat candidates.

Everyone knows about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell questioner with an undisclosed affiliation to the Hillary campaign. But the blogosphere immediately picked up on several more connections, which were first documented (as far as I saw) in a Michelle Malkin post that Drudge has linked on his front page. (I just accessed her post seconds ago, but apparently she has had trouble keeping up the site due to the Drudge link. If you have trouble pulling up Michelle’s post, you can see a summary of some of the other questioners’ undisclosed ties to Democrats in this Hot Air post.) There’s a woman in an Edwards ’08 T-shirt complaining about how Republicans didn’t answer her question right — and her support for Edwards was easily discoverable before the debate. And there’s another guy who has a blog at Obama ’08.

And Christoph tells us that there’s even more evidence than that, being developed here and here.

I’d caution folks not to overstate the case. Unless there is clear evidence that the campaigns themselves were involved, I’m reluctant to call these “plants” by the campaigns. The clear truth is bad enough: many of these folks had clear ties to Democrat campaigns that CNN should have discovered and disclosed, but didn’t. It’s now happened, not once, but twice. It should be a terrific embarrassment to CNN.

As usual, the lumber-footed Big Media appears slow to discover all this. The L.A. Times has a story about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell guy, but nothing (as far as I can tell) on the other undisclosed connections. Will such a story be forthcoming? One hopes. If not, we can always leave a comment complaining about the omission on the Readers’ Representative blog.

Of course, our comment may not be published . . .

I recently did a post that says, in relevant part:

The blog of the L.A. Times‘s “Readers’ Representative” is now online.

. . . .

I suggest you go to the introductory post and leave a comment, if you are so inclined, and have any unanswered questions about the paper’s recent performance.

You might find fertile ground for comments in my recent post on Tim Rutten — in particular my unanswered e-mail about the difference between making an error and “concocting” a story. Or maybe you’re curious about Rutten’s violation of the paper’s policy on using anonymous sources, and when this issue will be raised on the blog.

You might even have questions that have nothing to do with Tim Rutten!

Go forth and leave a comment!

Well, as I noted here, very few comments have been posted, and I know of at least one comment (by reader nk) that was never posted.

Amy Alkon notes here that this “conversation” between the paper and its readers is intended to be very restricted. Amy’s sharp eye picked up this crucial qualification in the blog’s introductory post:

All comments will be read and forwarded to the appropriate Times staffers. Those that touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation will be posted.

And those that Jamie Gold deems uninteresting or insufficiently “new” . . . will not be posted. In other words, they aren’t going to post all comments. Just the ones they choose to post.

Amy Alkon says:

I think their error was in calling this a blog not a publicity campaign with a faux comments section.

Ouch. That hurts — but mostly because it may be true.

Let’s find out.

I reiterate my call for my readers to go post a comment. Be polite, and raise an interesting issue about the paper.

And save your comment before you post it.

If the paper does not post your comment, send it to me, and I will publish it in a post.

I’d really like to see wide participation on this, folks. Let’s see what they’ll post and what they won’t. Leave your comment in the blog’s introductory post.