Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Airbus A-380 Lands In America: NY, Chicago, LAX

The 580-seat Airbus A380 Superjumbo Jet landed in America this week, touching wheels first at JFK, then heading for Chicago and finally LAX. You can get an idea of the sheer size of the airplane in the videos below:


At Chicago:

At LAX (best video):

A-380 Exterior:

A-380 Interior for test flight at LAX (no passenger seats):

A-380 Interior:

Brianna Keilar Gets More CNN Air Time WIth Don Lemon

Brianna Keilar, whom I met at the 2005 NFL Draft and who became a featured lookup on my online report on the event, and got discovered by a broadcast agent as a result, has gotten more air time at CNN recently.

Today, Brianna Keilar's filling in for Kyra Phillips and next to Don Lemon. She's doing a great job and a contrast to her first debut where she was obviously nervous about hitting the really big time.

I just hope she doens't leave her mic on in the ladies room.

UPDATE: Brianna Keilar is on CNN Regularly Now!

Brianna Keilar Gets More Airtime | Brianna Keilar and Kyra Phillips | Brianna Keilar On CNN Saturday | Brianna Keilar Now CNN Anchor | Brianna Keilar At 2005 NFL Draft

Redskins Trade Archuleta to the Chicago Bears

AP: Redskins Trade Archuleta to Bears- see my comment below
AP Sports Writer

ASHBURN, Va. -- Adam Archuleta's tumultuous time with the Washington Redskins ended Tuesday night when he was traded to the Chicago Bears for a sixth-round draft pick, The Associated Press has learned.

Archuleta, who languished on the bench most of last season despite having the richest contract ever given a safety, will be reunited in Chicago with coach Lovie Smith, his former defensive coordinator with the St. Louis Rams.

The trade was confirmed by an official within the league who spoke on condition of anonymity because the teams do not plan to announce it until Wednesday. The deal came one day before Archuleta was due to paid a guaranteed $5 million bonus.

The Redskins lured Archuleta to Washington a year ago with a seven-year, $35 million contract that included $10 million in bonuses, a signing that quickly became one of the biggest free agents blunders in the league.

It soon became apparent that assistant coach Gregg Williams would try to use the hard-hitting converted linebacker more as a coverage safety. When Archuleta struggled, he landed firmly in Williams' doghouse.

Archuleta lost the starting job in preseason and regained it for the first seven regular-season games only because of a knee injury to Pierson Prioleau. Archuleta's liabilities were one of the reasons the Redskins were especially vulnerable against long passes as they slumped to a 5-11 record. Eventually, the Redskins took Archuleta out of the defense altogether, using him only on special teams for most of the second half of the season.

The subject was clearly embarrassing to both Williams and coach Joe Gibbs, and neither ever gave an explanation for Archuleta's demotion. Once the season ended, Gibbs indicated Archuleta was still in the team's plans, but those remarks were mostly seen as posturing before a possible trade.

Getting rid of Archuleta wasn't easy because of his mammoth contract. The Redskins didn't want to cut him outright because of the huge cost on this year's salary cap. The $5 million bonus was already postponed once as the Redskins worked to make a trade, and any deal was expected to include a renegotiation of Archuleta's salaries and bonuses.

The Bears were the only likely destination because of Archuleta's relationship with Smith. Archuleta was hoping to sign with Chicago as a free agent last year, but he decided on Washington after the Redskins offered the big contract.


So the Archuleta Experiment is over in D.C.
Not surprising as he never really fit into the 'Skins real long term plans anyway. The Bears get the saftey they have needed, which could have been the piece they missed last season on their "D" the Skins get another late round Pick they can waste on a player who will make the NFL minimum for 2 or three years and then be coaching at some H.S. in his hometown.

Hillary Clinton Voted Twice For The Iraq War - Technorati WTF

I just saw this great post which states:

While the media covers the news on Hillary Clinton as to why she voted to support for the war in Iraq from the beginning, they are forgetting that in June of 2006 she also voted to ''stay the course'' along with 42 other Democrats-much to my displeasure. While the 42 votes that day would not have been enough to beat the Republicans in order to change the course, Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to correct herself back then. That was 7 months ago.

After her vote in June 2006, learning that her supporters were watching closely and were astonished by her actions, she immediately bashed Rumsfeld at the very first opportunity she had calling the current administration ''incompetent''. Rumsfeld looked at her , curiously enough, as to say, ''I thought you were on our side?''

The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been on the current administration's side since the beginning and stamped her approval in June of 2006. Her votes are fact. Her actions now are that of a politician who now wants to ''start a conversation with the American people..'' and promises to end the war with no plan to present on how. Barack Obama reminds us of how he voted against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning and has a plan here… . Barack Obama says that whether they voted for or against the war in Iraq the first time, that the issue now is to take responsibility and challenges his fellow Democrats to present a plan that will bring our troops home.

I could not have said it better myself.

"1984" - Hillary Clinton Video / Fictional Video Of Mit Romney With Paris Hilton?

I was talking with a person who's been following the story behind the now famous "1984" Hillary Clinton video and had some questions for me regarding it's impact on the 2008 Presidential Race. One of the questions was what this watershed video meant for the future of political campaigns.

My response was that the real concern is that we're in an era where someone can create a video that in effect "distorts history" by showing a political candidate doing something that in point of fact they never even did. Say a video showing Mit Romney grouping Paris Hilton in Las Vegas. The question is should such a video be removed from the video distribution system -- say, YouTube or -- it was uploaded to?

My answer is yes it should. But I think we should have a public discussion on this matter before it happens.

Hillary Clinton's Sounding A Lot Like President Bush

I'm reading an article in the New York Post with the title "HILL REDRAWING HER BATTLE LINE" and which reports the following...

After recently vowing to quickly end the Iraq war if she becomes president, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now stressing a plan to keep some U.S. forces there indefinitely - a shift that analysts say shows she's feeling heat from both Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani.
Sen. Clinton's new tough stance is an attempt to convince voters she has the gravitas to be the first female commander in chief, political pros say.

Someone has to explain to me why Iraq's the center of terrorism. I view the 9-11 crisis -- which started this -- as a criminal act on the part of individuals, and not by troops under the direction of heads of state. So this entire approach is illogical. I can't understand why she's buying into this.

But her stance is one more reason I support Barack Obama for President.

The Post goes on to report that...

Political strategists say Clinton's harder-line posture - and acknowledgment that Iraq is vital in winning the broader war on terror and America's security - is a two-pronged approach. She aims to prove to primary voters that she has the seriousness and intellectual depth to overshadow less experienced rivals Obama and John Edwards, as well as the toughness to match up with GOP front-runner Giuliani.
Some of her claims mirrored those of the Bush administration. She told The New York Times, for instance, that a failed Iraqi state could serve "as a petri dish for insurgents and al Qaeda" and spiral into a wider conflict.

So realistically the best we can expect from "Hill" as the NYPost calls her is more of the same of what we got from George W. Bush?