Tag Archives: Breaking News

Glenn Beck Told He Can’t Lead Audience In Prayer At Kennedy Center

Conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck was told by officials at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts that he can’t lead his audience in prayer at his August 27 Divine Destiny event. Beck has rented out the facility the night before his “Restoring Honor” celebration at the Lincoln Memorial for “an eye-opening evening…that will help heal your soul.” As Beck relayed to his radio audience Monday, his religious plans during the festivities were a serious point of contention before the powers that be came to their senses (video follows with transcript and commentary): GLENN BECK: They have told people on the steps of the Supreme Court that they cannot pray there. They have told students on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial they can’t sing the National Anthem there. And last week I was told by the Kennedy Center that we could not pray there. We were told by the Kennedy Center in no uncertain terms that we could hold our event there, sure we had a contract. But they weren’t told that we were going to have an opening prayer. The program is has the word divine in it, our divine destiny. We couldn’t pray at the Kennedy Center. So my attorneys came to me and said, Glenn, are you willing to compromise on it? And I said, I sure am. You tell them that not only will I do an opening prayer, I’ll do a closing prayer, and the entire program may be a prayer. In fact, take this down. It is a night of prayer. You’ll see if you are lucky enough to get a ticket to the Kennedy Center, and they are not for sale. You will see in the program how I described it. I described it that way. So they could print that in their program at the Kennedy Center which they insisted on having after they told us we couldn’t pray. I said, let me dictate this one. Friday night I was supposed to have a meeting today at 1:00 with their attorneys and I had already talked to my attorneys. Zero compromise. We asked them, where is that in your I didn’t see that in your rules and regulations. “It’s not written down.” No prayer at a federally funded building. Friday night I think they got a hold of Common Sense. They alerted me Friday night that they will allow prayer to happen on the stage of the Kennedy Center. I told them, thank you so much for your graciousness. I appreciate the scrap from the table. America, our religion and our faith is under attack and whether people care to realize it or not, it is. Ironically as our friends at The Right Scoop noted , prayer isn’t allowed in government buildings, but the current President “can still have a Ramadan dinner at the White House.” That said, Beck informed his readers of this event Wednesday: Glenn Beck’s Divine Destiny is an eye-opening evening at the historic Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C that will help heal your soul. Guided by uplifting music, nationally-known religious figures from all faiths will unite to deliver messages reminiscent to those given during the struggles of America’s earliest days. The event will leave you with a renewed determination to look past the partisan differences and petty problems that fill our airwaves and instead focus our shared values, principles and strong belief that faith can play an essential role in reuniting the country.  Those interested can read more about Restoring Honor here .

Link:
Glenn Beck Told He Can’t Lead Audience In Prayer At Kennedy Center

Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

Richard Epstein disowned the New York Times today. ” Adios, Gray Lady ,” he proclaimed at the Weekly Standard’s website. “She’s become a bit – perhaps more than a bit – of a slut,” Epstein claimed, “whoring after youth through pretending to be with-it.” Epstein, a prominent libertarian author and law school professor, hysterically decried the Times’s ongoing descent into pomposity and cultural irrelevance. And Epstein would know – he claims he’s been a subscriber for 50 years. Chief among Epstein’s grievances was the contents of the Times’s opinion pages. Though he praised David Brooks, longtime token conservative of the Times’s commentators (and by many measures hardly a conservative at all), as not being “locked into a Pavlovian political response,” Epstein claimed that “I find no need to read any of the Times’s regular columnists.” Every so often I check to remind myself that Maureen Dowd isn’t amusing, though she is an improvement, I suppose, over the termagantial Anna Quindlen, whom I used to read with the trepidation of a drunken husband mounting the stairs knowing his wife awaits with a rolling pin. I’d sooner read the fine print in my insurance policies than the paper’s perfectly predictable editorials. Laughter, an elegant phrase, a surprising sentiment-the New York Times op-ed and editorial pages are the last place to look for any of these things…. I could go on about the artificial rage of Frank Rich-the liberals’ Glenn Beck-or the forced gaiety of “Sunday Styles,” but the main feeling I have as I rise from having wasted an hour or so with the Sunday New York Times is of what wretched shape the country is in if it is engaged in such boringly trivial pursuits, elevating to eminence such dim cultural and political figures, writing so muddledly about ostensibly significant subjects. Ouch. Epstein’s grievances, though, went far beyond the paper’s columnists, to other, less ostensibly political sections. I sometimes glimpse the Arts section to see which wrong people are being praised or have been awarded large cash prizes or recognized for years of mediocre achievement by election to the American Academy of Arts & Letters. Arts, of course, are no longer quite The Arts, at least in the New York Times, which features hard rock and rap music and video games and graphic novels under the rubric The Arts. Only the photographs of dancers lend an aesthetic dimension to the shabby section. I lift the Sunday New York Times from the hallway outside our apartment with a heart twice the weight of the hefty paper itself. From it I extract the Book Review, the magazine, “Sunday Styles,” the “Week in Review.” For decades now the New York Times Book Review has been devoted to reinforcing received (and mostly wrong) literary opinions and doing so in impressively undistinguished prose. The New York Times Magazine has always been dull, but earlier it erred on the side of seriousness. Now it is dull on the side of ersatz hipness. The other Sunday I put myself through a long article on the dangers of leaving a record of one’s minor misdeeds on the Internet. The article’s last sentence instructed that “we need to learn new forms of empathy, new ways of defining ourselves without reference to what others say about us and new ways of forgiving one another for the digital trails that will follow us forever.” Yes, I thought, and wet birds never fly at night. Epstein ends his jeremiad with a simple request: “Cancel my subscription, please.”

Link:
Author Richard Epstein Renounces Gray Lady: ‘She’s Become a Bit…of a Slut’

Cenk Suggests The 70% Of Americans Who Oppose Ground Zero Mosque Are ‘Ignorant’

Different host, same liberal bias . . . Subbing for Ed Schultz on MSNBC this evening, Cenk Ugyur suggested that the roughly 70% of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque are “ignorant.”  Ugyur was debating the mosque matter with Republican strategist and former Newt staffer David Winston.  Winston suggested that the people behind the mosque could, in light of the overwhelming oppposition of Americans to the plan, show sensitivity by agreeing to site it elsewhere. That provoked Cenk’s snide insult, which, as you’ll see, actually revealed his own lack of knowledge on the subject . . . DAVID WINSTON: What I’m saying is, 70% of this country doesn’t like this idea. There’s a unique opportunity for Muslims to show, look, we understand Americans have difficulty with this, and we’re willing to have, to move somewhere else.  There’s just a sense of like, look, if we’re going to cooperate and get along, and things are going to work, people are going to have to understand the concerns that other folks have — CENK UGYUR: So you’re saying, you’re saying two things from what I’m hearing. One is, if 70% of the country is ignorant, we should back that up. If they don’t know the Constitution or they think Muslims are the same as al Qaeda, we should back that up.  Cenk suggests that those “ignorant” Americans “don’t know the Constitution.”  But if he had taken the time to inform himself of the poll question that CNN had put to people, and which generated the overwhelming response, he would have found that it read [emphasis added]: “As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan? ” So that 70% [68% to be precise] weren’t asked, and weren’t opining, that they thought Muslims didn’t have a right to build the mosque. They were simply expressing their personal opinion to the effect that they “oppose the plan.”  And that is their constitutional right.  So who’s ignorant now?

Read the original post:
Cenk Suggests The 70% Of Americans Who Oppose Ground Zero Mosque Are ‘Ignorant’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss President Obama showing support for a controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer agreed with the President’s sentiment but lamented the political fallout: “The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time.”   Schieffer began by outlining White House talking points on the issue to substitute co-host Erica Hill: “The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country.” Schieffer later added: “I would agree with the White House.” At the same time, both Hill and Schieffer fretted over the political fallout, particularly Republican criticism. Hill teased the segment at the top of show by declaring that Obama’s “apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling.” Schieffer remarked: “Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can.” Continuing to worry about the political impact of the President’s comments, Hill asked: “And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing?” Schieffer replied: “Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention.”    Earlier, Schieffer described the anxiety of Democratic candidates: “But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?'” He later added: “…a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.'” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE ERICA HILL: Political firestorm. President Obama launches a five-state political blitz today but his apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling. ED ROLLINS: First, Bob, it was probably the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag. 7:01AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get you to this. President Obama heading to Wisconsin this morning. The purpose of his trip, though, could end up taking a backseat to the controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the details. CHIP REID: The President heads out this morning on a three-day cross-country trip. He’ll be talking about the economy and raising money for fellow Democrats. The White House hopes this trip will help change the topic after a weekend of controversy over the President’s comments about building a mosque near Ground Zero. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; President’s Comments Could Derail Economic Message] The First Family spent a quick weekend on the Gulf coast of Florida, swimming, mini-golfing and boating. The visit was intended to highlight the fact that on most of the Gulf Coast, the water is clean and the beaches are open. But the President’s own comments over the weekend overshadowed the trip. Speaking at a White House dinner Friday celebrating Ramadan, the President waded into the already deepening political controversy over whether to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. BARACK OBAMA: Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Saturday, the President seemed to back off from his initial comments, saying that while Muslims have the right to build the mosque, that doesn’t mean they should. OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. REID: White House officials insist the President is not backing down from his original statement, but some Republicans say the White House is trying to have it both ways. PETER KING [REP. R-NY]: The inference or the clear impression everyone came away with is that he was saying he was supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. And he can parse it later on, and sort of back away, but the fact is, that is clearly the impression, I believe, he wanted to leave. REID: The White House says the President has no regrets about his comments even though they turned a local issue into a national debate. Traveling with the President, Chip Reid, CBS News, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.          HILL: And joining us from Washington now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, always good to have you with us. BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Erica. HILL: We know and you know, of course, from talking about this on your show yesterday morning, the firestorm that these comments have ignited, and really, shots coming from both sides. So, why would the President, especially in this time when Democrats are really fighting to hold control of Congress in November, why make these comments at this point? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; Will Comments Impact Midterm Elections?] SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s just the question I asked White House officials and some people in the administration last night. The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country. But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?’ And clearly, Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can. Now, what White House officials say is, ‘look, this next election is going to be about the economy. It’s not going to be about whether they should build a mosque at Ground Zero.’ But a lot of – a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.’ The White House will say, ‘if you do the right thing, the politics will take care of itself.’ Clearly, there are some Democrats who are worried about that, though. HILL: They are a little worried. And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing? SCHIEFFER: Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention. What really bothers some Democrats, though, is that when the President gets into something like this, when he makes a statement like this, it elevates it to a national issue and every single Democratic candidate running for office is now going to be asked about it and will now have to take a position on something that they were hoping they would be able to say, ‘this is just a local issue. It’s up to the folks in New York to decide what to do about this.’ Yes, I would agree with the White House. The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time. HILL: Bob Schieffer, always good to have you here. Thanks. SCHIEFFER: Thanks, Erica.

Read more:
CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Will Obama’s Defense of the Ground Zero Mosque Aid or Hinder the Project?

See more here:
Will Obama’s Defense of the Ground Zero Mosque Aid or Hinder the Project?

AP Writers Package Months-Old Polling Data As Currently Relevant News

Memo to Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson of the Associated Press and two other writers who contributed to this report (“AP-GfK polls show Obama losing independents”): You should have taken the weekend off. When I saw a shorter, earlier version of the referenced AP report this morning, it didn’t mention when AP’s polling arm AP-GfK Roper had done their work. When I went to the polling home page and found that the most recent entries were from June 9-14, I figured I’d come back later and give the group time to post fresh underlying details. Little did I know that AP’s gaggle of writers were treating the June 9-14 “Poll Politics Topline” as fresh. It gets worse. It turns out that Fram, Tompson et al wasted about 875 words on a report based on polling data that gave equal weights to results from mid-June, mid-May, and mid-April. Considering the primary topic of discussion, independents’ take on the Obama presidency and performance of Congress, this AP report is laughably irrelevant — unless its primary purpose, especially given that earlier versions of the story didn’t identify when the polling took place, was to present data designed to make readers and listeners think that things are better than they really are right now for Democrats heading into the midterm elections. Here are selected paragraph from the bylined AP pair’s non-punctual piece : Independents who embraced President Barack Obama’s call for change in 2008 are ready for a shift again, and that’s worrisome news for Democrats. Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November’s elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That’s way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters. Independents voice especially strong concerns about the economy, with 9 in 10 calling it a top problem and no other issue coming close, the analysis of the AP-GfK polls shows. While Democrats and Republicans rank the economy the No. 1 problem in similar numbers, they are nearly as worried about their No. 2 issues, health care for Democrats and terrorism for Republicans. Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent. That’s bad news for the party that controls the White House and Congress at a time of near 10 percent unemployment and the slow economic recovery. … Both parties court independents for obvious reasons. Besides their sheer number – 4 in 10 describe themselves as independents in combined AP-GfK polling for April, May and June – they are a crucial swing group. To try winning them over, Republicans say they will contrast Obama’s campaign promises of change with the huge spending programs he’s approved. Democrats say they will warn independents that a GOP victory will revive that party’s efforts to cut taxes for the rich and transform Social Security into risky private investment accounts. … Independents trust Republicans far more than Democrats for handling national security, but give Democrats a 42 percent to 36 percent edge for dealing with health care – a potential sign that distrust over Obama’s signature issue is receding. Hope is not lost for Democrats. The AP-GfK polls show a narrow 44 percent to 41 percent overall preference for a Democratic Congress. The party is holding its 2008 edge among women and urban residents, and still splitting the vote of pivotal suburbanites and people earning $50,000 to $100,000. Let’s look at just a few relatively current data points from elsewhere relating to the Fram’s and Tompson’s topics: Trust on health care — The antiquated AP-GfK report cites a 49-39 average Democratic edge among all voters across April, May and June (at Page 26 of detailed report; not in AP’s story). A Rasmussen report based on late June polling data shows Republicans with a 51-40 edge. Even that was six weeks ago. Since then we have learned that Team Obama is arguing in court that ObamaCare’s health insurance purchase mandate is a tax after telling the country for months before the legislation’s passage that it wasn’t. There have also been instances where abortion coverage was found in high-risk pool plans in several states, which were only eliminated when the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations doing so. This exercise proved, as if proof was really needed, that the pro-life Executive Order that supposedly won over the Stupak Stooges — er, the Stupak Six — was nothing but a charade. Trust on the economy — AP-GfK shows a 45-42 average Democratic advantage (again at Page 26 of detailed report). The same Rasmussen report noted previously is 48-39, advantage GOP . Given the wave of weak economic news in the past six weeks, it would notbe surprising to see that the Republican advantage here has increased since then. Preference in who controls Congress — AP-GfK cites a 44-41 Democratic edge. This question has been a virtual dead heat in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll all year . The latest result based on August 5-9 polling showing a one-point Democratic lead. No AP poll would be complete without a bit of cooking. In this instance, the AP-GfK poll’s average Democratic ingredient outweighed the GOP’s by 44. Gallup’s most recent poll on the topic, admittedly a reversal from most of its results during the past several months, shows the GOP with a 2% edge in party affiliation, including “leaners.” It appears that AP-GfK polls on the topics presented every month. It would thus be reasonable to assume that it has data for July, and that in a few days it will have data for August. Thus, it’s odd that the wire service wouldn’t have simply waited a few days to give us fresher information. Or maybe someone has seen that info, and would prefer not to have to report it at all. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See original here:
AP Writers Package Months-Old Polling Data As Currently Relevant News

Charlie Whitehurst NFL draft 2010

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Charlie Whitehurst passes as Tennessee Titans#39; Derrick Morgan defends in the first half of an NFL preseason football game, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010, in Seattle. Charlie Whitehurst threw two touchdown passes Saturday and the Seattle Seahawks opened their pre-season campaign by holding off Tennessee 20-18. After starter Matt Hasselbeck threw 10 passes and completed four of them, Whitehurst came on to go 14-of-22 for 214 yards. Whitehurst gave Seattle a 10-7 halfti

Originally posted here:
Charlie Whitehurst NFL draft 2010

Stafon Johnson injury picture

Tennessee Titans#39; Stafon Johnson points skyward as he is taken off field after an injury in the second half of an NFL preseason football game against the Seattle Seahawks, Saturday, Aug. 14, 2010, in Seattle. Stafon Johnson, the Tennessee Titans rookie who was badly injured in a weightlifting accident at USC last year, suffered a major ankle injury Saturday night in his first NFL preseason game. Johnson was carted off the field in Seattle with a dislocated right ankle and is likely to miss

More:
Stafon Johnson injury picture

Tila Tequila Attacked picture 2010

When Tila Tequila left the stage with her bodyguard and other security personnel, she said a large crowd of people followed them to her trailer, surrounded it and broke the trailer’s windows. Tequila recounted the incident to TMZ. “I went onstage and immediately, before I even got on stage, DUDES were throwing HUGE STONE ROCKS in my face, beer bottles that slit my eye open, almost burnt my hair on fire cuz they threw firecrackers on stage,” she wrote. Police confirmed that they responded to t

Read more:
Tila Tequila Attacked picture 2010