Yeah, she's a cute little thing with an infectious grin. And yes, she has a powerful voice. So congratulations to this year's winner.

Jordin Sparks, the perky 17-year-old high school student from Glendale, Ariz., won the sixth round of "American Idol" last night, beating out 11 other finalists, including several who were better singers, but none with her winning package of big voice, big smile and teetering-on-womanhood.

Did we mention she's only 17, as the show's three judges reminded viewers at every possible moment in the four-month-long competition? That makes her the youngest "Idol" winner ever.

My problem with the outcome? First, she seems more like a host on the Disney Channel than a real American idol. Second -- does anyone really believe that either of the two finalists was better than Melinda Doolittle, who was eliminated last week? It all feels like the outcome has been scripted for the last few weeks, even up to the surprise elimination of the odds-on favorite to set up a final taht was designed to produce a run-away result.

But regardless, I think we will see at least three hit-makers come out of this season -- and can't help but remind folks that the only winner previous winner who has really left a mark as a successful artist has been Kelly Clarkson, while any number of runners up have seen more success. I do hope that changes.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Because in the end, the birth of a baby is to be celebrated.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a grandfather for the sixth time.

According to the vice president's office, Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, 37, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, welcomed 8 lbs., 6 oz. Samuel David Cheney into the world at 9:46 this morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Now some conservatives did themselves great discredit with negative responses to the announcement of the pregnancy some months ago. Even if one accepts the notion that the best environment for a child is a two-parent family with a married father and mother (and that is my view), and even if one believes that encouraging such families is proper policy, once there is a pregnancy we are morally obliged as a society to give support to th mother and a joyous welcome to the new child among us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Sponsored Post
Hey -- we've all seen the dating "reality" shows on television. You know, Joe Millionaire, The Bachelor, and all the rest. Frankly, there isn't a whole lot of reality to the reality that you watch on them -- but lots of folks try to participate. heck, we even had one local teacher on one of the shows recently.

But would YOU want to get into the act? Would you want to win a date with -- perhaps even seduce -- a celebrity? Come on, folks -- be honest.

That's the premise of the new online reality show Seduce a Celeb. It is one of the Free videos at GoFish.com, and features actress Mirelly Taylor, who you have seen on shows like “Las Vegas”, “Punk’d”, and “Numb3rs”. You can submit videos at GoFish.com and try to win yourself a date with the lovely Mirelly, who is a real Latin hottie!

Now I'll be honest -- Mirelly is cute. I suppose that in my younger days I might have even been willing to give this game a shot. But you know what – I think that the next celebrity they bring into this should not be an actor or actress, but instead alone of the hot young country music artists who are just breaking into the industry. Or maybe former reality show contestants – could you imagine this with Sanjaya as the celebrity?

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

A little candor on the immigration bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, speaking to a private gathering of Republican activists last night, called the Senate’s immigration compromise bill a “piece of shit” but said that he had promised President Bush earlier in the day that he would let his teeth be a barrier to such thoughts in public.

Boehner spoke last night at a small reception for the Republican Rapid Responders on Capitol Hill.

“I promised the President today that I wouldn’t say anything bad about … this piece of shit bill,” he said, according to two attendees.

Now if heÂ’ll just start saying this stuff publicly, to keep this piece of shit bill from becoming a piece of shit law!

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 08:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a death sentence for the rape of an eight-year-old girl yesterday, setting up a real interesting constitutional challenge.

Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man may be executed for raping an 8-year-old girl, and lawyers say his case may become the test for whether the nation's highest court upholds the death penalty for someone who rapes a child.
Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.
Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.
Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.
"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Given the 1977 ruling, which effectively held that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution had evolved to prohibit capital punishment for rape, the Louisiana statute and this decision would appear to be in direct contradiction of the controlling legal authority on the matter. However, as we all know, there exists the notion that the Constitution evolves and grows and changes over time, making it a rather fluid standard by which to determine the constitutionality of any state action. Indeed, that 1977 decision itself was a part of a series of “evolving standard” decisions related to the death penalty – for certainly the Framers of the Bill of Rights and those who ratified it did not view capital punishment as something to be reserved for homicide cases alone.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If one concedes the legitimacy of the 1977 decision, then one must admit that the Constitution grows and changes over time. But if that is the case, then there is no legitimate basis for striking down the Louisiana statute and overruling the Louisiana high court. After all, one can legitimately argue that the Eighth Amendment has evolved again, and now allows capital punishment for some, if not all, sex crimes. After all, society’s attitudes towards and experiences with sex criminals over the last three decades have resulted in an entirely new way of viewing predatory perverts who sexually victimize children. A new consensus has emerged in our society about the need to harshly punish such individuals, and the Louisiana law is one example of that trend (at least six state have similar laws on the books or will shortly). If the standard can evolve and change in a liberal direction to protect violent child abusers from a just punishment, why can it not transform back to the original intent of those who wrote and adopted it? To argue that it cannot is to expose the illegitimacy of the “living Constitution” theory of “evolving standards” – and expose it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to impose liberal dogma that would never be accepted by We the People.

On the other hand, an originalist understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would surely allow the state of Louisiana to impose death as a just punishment for violent pedophiles like Patrick Kennedy – and any other sex criminal as well.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason for the Supreme Court not to overturn the 1977 decision – other than a raw judicial arrogance that places the rights of rapists above justice for their victims.

Interestingly enough, Jonah Goldberg takes on the same philosophical issue in a pair of posts (related to a different context) at NRO’s The Corner.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 5 kb.

Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a death sentence for the rape of an eight-year-old girl yesterday, setting up a real interesting constitutional challenge.

Louisiana's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a man may be executed for raping an 8-year-old girl, and lawyers say his case may become the test for whether the nation's highest court upholds the death penalty for someone who rapes a child.
Both sides say the sentence for Patrick Kennedy, 42, could expand a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held the death penalty for rape violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The high court said then that its ruling applied only to adult victims.
Attorney Jelpi Picou, director of the New Orleans-based Capital Appeals Project, said he will ask the Louisiana Supreme Court for a rehearing and, if rejected, will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"As horrid as (rape) is and as harshly as we believe it should be condemned, death is inappropriate in this case," Picou said.
Louisiana law allows the death penalty for the aggravated rape of someone less than 12 years old.
"He's the only person in the United States on death row for non-homicide rape," Picou said.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. Given the 1977 ruling, which effectively held that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution had evolved to prohibit capital punishment for rape, the Louisiana statute and this decision would appear to be in direct contradiction of the controlling legal authority on the matter. However, as we all know, there exists the notion that the Constitution evolves and grows and changes over time, making it a rather fluid standard by which to determine the constitutionality of any state action. Indeed, that 1977 decision itself was a part of a series of “evolving standard” decisions related to the death penalty – for certainly the Framers of the Bill of Rights and those who ratified it did not view capital punishment as something to be reserved for homicide cases alone.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If one concedes the legitimacy of the 1977 decision, then one must admit that the Constitution grows and changes over time. But if that is the case, then there is no legitimate basis for striking down the Louisiana statute and overruling the Louisiana high court. After all, one can legitimately argue that the Eighth Amendment has evolved again, and now allows capital punishment for some, if not all, sex crimes. After all, society’s attitudes towards and experiences with sex criminals over the last three decades have resulted in an entirely new way of viewing predatory perverts who sexually victimize children. A new consensus has emerged in our society about the need to harshly punish such individuals, and the Louisiana law is one example of that trend (at least six state have similar laws on the books or will shortly). If the standard can evolve and change in a liberal direction to protect violent child abusers from a just punishment, why can it not transform back to the original intent of those who wrote and adopted it? To argue that it cannot is to expose the illegitimacy of the “living Constitution” theory of “evolving standards” – and expose it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to impose liberal dogma that would never be accepted by We the People.

On the other hand, an originalist understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would surely allow the state of Louisiana to impose death as a just punishment for violent pedophiles like Patrick Kennedy – and any other sex criminal as well.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason for the Supreme Court not to overturn the 1977 decision – other than a raw judicial arrogance that places the rights of rapists above justice for their victims.

Interestingly enough, Jonah Goldberg takes on the same philosophical issue in a pair of posts (related to a different context) at NROÂ’s The Corner.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 5 kb.

Liberals tried to make a scandal out of the fact that the president wasnÂ’t wearing a seatbelt while driving on his ranch in Texas.

Guess what – his actions were legal.

President Bush found himself in a flap Tuesday about seat-belt use, a day after a federal agency began a campaign to encourage drivers to buckle up.

Video cameras caught Bush without his seat belt while driving a pickup on his Texas ranch last weekend, giving a tour to NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment in detail on Bush's driving habits but said, "We encourage everybody to wear their seat belts." He noted Bush was driving slowly at his ranch when the incident was taped.

On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began its annual "Click it or Ticket" seat-belt campaign, which runs through June 3.

Bush did not violate Texas law. "On private property, you're not required to wear your seat belt," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. She said "it's fairly common" in the ranchlands of Texas.

Mind you, I’m opposed to the nanny-statism that legally mandates seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and believe such laws should be repealed. That said, I also know the requirements of Texas law – and recognized immediately that there was no scandal here, because all such private farm and ranch roads are exempt under Texas law.

Posted by: Greg at 08:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

But then again, what else is new? Unfortunately, the US and world media seem to be ignoring this new hostage crisis in Iran.

Swiss diplomats seeking to visit Haleh Esfandiari, a leading Iranian-American academic jailed in Iran, have not been given access to her, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said yesterday.

In addition, Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and lawyer who has taken on Ms. EsfandiariÂ’s defense, confirmed yesterday that two lawyers from her office had been denied permission to visit their client but she said that they would continue their efforts.

Iran announced Monday that Ms. Esfandiari was being accused of trying to foment a velvet revolution there. The Wilson Center and her family had avoided asking the United States or other governments to intervene until she was sent to Evin prison two weeks ago.

The Swiss government, which runs the American Interests Section in Tehran in the absence of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, requested that a consular official be allowed to visit Ms. Esfandiari but no such visit was granted, Lee H. Hamilton, the director of the Wilson Center in Washington, said at a news conference there.

He said other governments had intervened on Ms. EsfandiariÂ’s behalf since she was jailed on May 8, but declined to say which ones. The Swiss Embassy in Washington referred questions to the State DepartmentÂ’s Office of Iranian Affairs, which said the United States government has made repeated requests about Ms. Esfandiari.

This is just as egregious as the taking of hostages in 1979 by Iranian militants (including, it is believed, the current Iranian president). Will the US government have the guts to take a firm stand against this rogue regime, and demand freedom for this American citizen, backing that demand up with serious action if the proper response is not forthcoming? or will it simply be a replay of Jimmy Carter's weak-kneed response to an act of war by the Islamists n charge there?

I think Senator McCain unintentionally got it right recently

Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb, bomb Iran!

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

The Houston Chronicle is right -- defeating this bill for technical reasons is wrong. However, i'd argue that defeating it because it is a bad idea is a better thing.

One of the most egregious and undignified maneuvers occurred on Monday, when a lawmaker used a minor omission in a bill analysis to waylay legislation at the last minute that would have provided limited protections for journalists seeking to keep their sources confidential.

The bill, titled "The Free Flow of Information Act and sponsored by Houston's Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, and Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, a Republican, had already passed the Senate and was headed for its final legislative hurdle in the House.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, acting on behalf of district attorneys who opposed the law, seized on the insertion of a sentence into the bill by committee counsel that was not referenced in the legislative analysis. As a result, the shield law was ruled out of order. Although its supporters have not yet given up on finding an alternate route to consideration, time is running out.

The bill would provide journalists with protections against being subpoenaed by prosecutors to reveal confidential sources except in limited circumstances. It would also require a court hearing where the evidence and necessity for divulging the information would be weighed by a judge and would set out guidelines for jurists to use in reaching their decision. Thirty-three other states and the District of Columbia have similar statutes.

Sen. Ellis expressed disappointment that the effort to pass the shield law had been undercut by such a trivial objection.

"To fight for so long and to move this bill so far and to have it snatched away on something that is completely nonsubstantive is neither good government, nor good for the people of Texas," he said.

Texas media representatives have argued that a shield law is necessary to make it possible for whistleblowers to share information with journalists without the fear that their identity will later be revealed.

However, this bill really only serves the special interests of Big Media (you know, companies like the Houston Chronicle), as it is pretty clear that corporate media will be the only folks that qualify as reportesr under this bill.

\And as I pointed out yesterday, it is the definitions and exclusions that make such laws either dangerously broad or arbitrarily and capriciously narrow -- and in reality serve no public interest at all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

NOT! After all, what sovereign country will abide by the decision of some federal court judge? After all, that is what OPEC is. Would NATO have followed the decision of a Soviet court during the height of the Cold War? The members of OPEC will simply keep their quotas and just quit selling oil to the US.

Decrying near-record high gasoline prices, the House voted Tuesday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas.

The White House objected, saying that might disrupt supplies and lead to even higher costs at the pump. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is the cartel that accounts for 40 percent of the world's oil production.

"We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of gas," Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the bill's chief sponsor, declared, reflecting the frustration lawmakers have felt over their inability to address people's worries about high summer fuel costs.

The measure passed 345-72. A similar bill awaits action in the Senate.

Why don't we deal with the real issues in the gas price crisis and allow for more exploration and drilling in areas closed by law, encourage the building of more refineries and the upgrading of older ones, and do away with all the special blends of gas required by government fiat. Those things would do more to end the upward spike than getting a non-enforceable judgment from a federal court.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Who knows -- maybe the Democrats will be forced to let the troops win this one if the White House remains firm.

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had moved ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.

The netroots are, of course, frothing, as are assorted moonbats doing fly-bys on radio and television broadcasts.

I just wish they would remember -- there is no substitute for victory.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 rude, wpxxblbi, , dprremxj, 594, usluidui, 8-DDD,

Posted by: Qipwvpfy at Wed Oct 7 14:50:12 2009 (duSQr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I mean, really -- treating lawbreakers like lawbreakers! What could they have been thinking?

By the time he tugged on a pair of jeans and walked toward the living room, he could hear nearby voices shouting. He saw his mother on the couch, being peppered with questions by four immigration agents — questions about her papers, questions about his, questions about two single men who rented rooms from them. In his entire life, all 18 years, Alex had never seen her so close to crying.

In the end, the agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement accepted the proof that Alex and his mother, who has permanent resident status, were legal. The two renters, Roberto and Augustine, were led away in handcuffs, Roberto wearing only his boxer shorts.

Then Ms. Sorto discovered how the agents had apparently entered her apartment; the window of the locked side door, intact the previous night, was now broken.

Even after all the tumult, Ms. Sorto insisted that Alex go to school. Even though it was 8:30, and he had no classes for another hour, she drove him there. He watched her hands quake as she tried to steer. In art class, his favorite, he could not get his pencil to move. All he could think about was what would become of him if his mother were taken away.

Such was the triumph of Operation Cross Check, the federal raid against illegal immigrants that went on for four days last month in this community of about 18,500 people. To the Department of Homeland Security, the operation was a success, catching a convicted sex offender and several welfare cheats among its 49 arrests. In a news release announcing the toll, an immigration enforcement director for Minnesota said, “Our job is to help protect the public from those who commit crimes.”

Yet more than half of those arrested had committed no crime other than being in the United States illegally, doing the jobs at Jennie-O that prop up the local economy. And, as the experience of Alex Sorto demonstrates, the aggressive, invasive style of the sweep instilled lasting fear among WillmarÂ’s 3,000 Hispanics, many of them students born or naturalized in the United States. These young people are the political football in AmericaÂ’s bitter, unresolved battle about immigration.

“All of us are scared,” said Andrea Gallegos, a junior at the high school. “When you go to school, you don’t know if your parents will be there when you come home. I don’t feel safe anywhere — walking to the school bus, walking outside the school building.”

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of all these sob-stories about the poor persecuted border-jumpers and their kin, forced to live with the threat of having the law enforced. What next? Articles about how the children of drug dealers live with the daily threat of their parents being arrested?

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

1 call of duty, Watch free pamela anderson sex tape
, > ,

Posted by: Nick12 at Mon Jan 19 03:43:11 2009 (htE7l)

2 comment2, pamela anderson sex tape
, 3421, Pictures of knock off coach purses
, 58709, Paris Hilton Sex Tape All Kinds
, 313, Groping Train All Kinds
, %[[[, Cheapest no credit check loans
, bhfe,

Posted by: paul at Tue Feb 10 12:20:44 2009 (1f6S3)

3 comment6, Cheapest ray j sex tape
, mstdp, First dirt cheap airline tickets
, ), knock off coach purses
, > ((, Buy kim kardashian sex tape
, iber, Very Short Skirts Photos
, 051,

Posted by: foryou at Fri Feb 20 16:38:08 2009 (BVxme)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sponsored Post

Derek Bok once said, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

Education used to be the way to ensure that you were on the path to making good money. It often still is -- but now it is also the way to making yourself indebted. But you don't have to deal with your debt in ignorant way -- a Student Loan Consolidation Program is an option for many individuals. In fact, you are probably one of those individuals if you are still paying on your college loan debt – especially if that debt is a heavy burden.

And there are lots of programs out there for student loan consolidation, if you know where to look. That is where FinancialAid.com comes into the picture. They offer many programs to help you get that college debt under control and paid off, so that you are running your life, not your student loans. So click on in and take a look -- they can save you money on those student loans! And everybody can certainly stand to have a few extra dollars in their pocket each month – and some programs can make a considerable cut in your monthly payments.

If you need help with student loan debt consolidation, visit FinancialAid.com. You'd be ignorant not to.

Posted by: Greg at 06:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

Taxpayers will pick up the legal tabs of the border-jumping immigration criminals seeking their reward of permanent residency for their crimes.

Ken Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), today criticized the immigration bill crafted in secret by Senators led by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Boehm said, "If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing."

John Carlisle, NLPC's Director of Policy, said, "Many taxpayers will be chagrined to learn they may soon have to provide a lawyer for illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. Activist lawyers, illegal aliens and government money are a bad mix."

The federally-funded Legal Services Corporation (LSC) supports s a network of lawyers in hundreds of communities in the country to provide civil (not criminal) day-to-day legal help to poor people. This year, LSC will receive $330 million. Since it was founded in 1974, LSC has received over $6 billion.

The authorizing language states: Section 504(a)(11) of Public Law 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321 et seq.) shall not be construed to prevent a recipient of funds under the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.) from providing legal assistance directly related to an application for a Z-A visa under subsection (b) or an adjustment of status under subsection (j).

This negates a provision approved by Congress in 1996, with NLPC's input, that prevents LSC-funded lawyers from representing illegal aliens. The restriction was necessary because legal services lawyers have a long history of promoting illegal immigration and showing contempt for the ban on representing illegals.

The proposed amnesty law started bad – now it looks even worse. It must be defeated, and its supporters driven from office.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, first she got the porn stars – now she’s getting the pimps. Will the group mentioned above be next?

First, we learned that adult movie star Jenna Jameson supports Sen. Hillary ClintonÂ’s run for president of the United States.

Now, we learn that another, um, Taboo Titleholder backs the New York senator’s White House ambitions: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, aka, the “D.C. Madam.”

Yeas & Nays tracked down Palfrey following her appearance at Nathans of Georgetown’s “Q&A Cafe” Tuesday (where she told Nathans owner Carol Joynt that she's a “conservative Democrat”) and inquired into the politics of this former escort service owner.

Palfrey admitted that she’s pulling for Hillary in 2008. “I think she’s great,” she said. “She’s bright and articulate.”

IÂ’m sure that Bill is out rounding up support and contributions from such supporters with great vigor.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

I don’t agree with everything that Bob Kerrey has to say in this column – but I do believe that there is significant truth contained within it.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

Well stated and absolutely correct.

But it is this point that is even more essential to Kerrey’s argument – and is the one overlooked by the cut-&-run-&-surrender advocates of today’s neo-Copperhead movement.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

And that is precisely what those of us who support the war continue to argue – and what maligned patriots like Joe Lieberman have been attacked for saying by those who support a policy of defeat.

American patriots can take only one position. No surrender, no retreat in the War on Terror. IÂ’m proud to count Bob Kerrey among our number.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, once you exempt “the press” from the laws that apply to the rest of us, you then get into the question of who qualifies as a “journalist”. Take this case here.

A lawyer trying to get an Internet writer to testify and turn over notes for a court case says Web bloggers shouldn't have the same rights as mainstream reporters.

Attorney William McCorriston, in a lawsuit brought by landowner James Pflueger over the failure of the Kaloko Dam, claims that Malia Zimmerman of Hawaiireporter.com is a blogger who isn't entitled to withhold her sources of information.

But Zimmerman, an editor and reporter for the Web site, says she is a legitimate journalist, not just some hack who offers half-baked commentary on the news of the day.

"Any journalist who gives their word that they'll protect somebody's information or keep them in confidence, you have to abide by that," Zimmerman said. "It's not the medium you publish in, it's what you do with that information."

Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Gary Chang has ordered Zimmerman to submit to questioning under oath by McCorriston, likely in June. She can refuse to answer questions, but she must explain her reasons for doing so, and the judge would later rule on whether she's justified.

Hawaii does not have a journalist shield law like those enacted in 31 states to protect reporters' rights to keep their sources confidential.

That means there will be two issues for Chang to decide: whether Zimmerman is a bona fide journalist, and whether reporters have a qualified privilege to refuse providing confidential information to lawyers in a civil case.

Now letÂ’s be real honest about this website here -- Hawaiireporter.com posts lots of news, including original content, along with commentary. Zimmermann tries to differentiate herself from bloggers in tone and content and does not consider her site to be a blog. Furthermore, she has worked with major media on stories in the past in her capacity as a journalist covering stories like the one that is at the heart of this matter.

But that really begs the question. In a day and age in which anyone can set up a website and establish themselves as proprietor and publisher of a news/opinion site, does the distinction between blogger and journalist really make sense – or is it purely arbitrary? This leads to the great conflict at the heat of this case involving the newest form of information media.

On the one hand, the plaintiffÂ’s attorney raises the specter of anyone being able to flout a subpoena if bloggers qualify as journalists.

"It seems to me that if a blogger is a journalist, everyone can produce a blog and never be subject to a subpoena," McCorriston said. "Are all bloggers journalists? It's a question that's never been answered anywhere."

On the other hand, if there is some legitimate basis for a reporterÂ’s privilege, why shouldnÂ’t bloggers and internet journalists like Zimmermann qualify?

"She's far more than a blogger. She's got an institutional publication. It just happens to come out on a computer," said Zimmerman's attorney, Jeff Portnoy. "She's not just sitting at home and every couple of days writing a note to people."

One constitutional law professor sees the case as having serious implications.

The courts will have to weigh how press freedom extends to the realm of the Internet, said Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawaii constitutional law professor.

"How does she differentiate herself from the zillions of other people who use the Internet, posting things on MySpace or whatever?" he asked. "If we're going to give special protection to the press, we should have some idea of who's in it and who's not."

And therein is precisely the heart of the issue – if such a privilege is created, who is in and who is out? How does one differentiate between Zimmermann and A reporter for the New York Times? Between a news and commentary blogger like myself and a “serious journalist” like Robert Novak? Where does one draw the line – and how – without being fully arbitrary in the process?

Frankly, I there can be only two legitimate outcome. Either every blogger qualifies as a journalist/reporter for purposes of press shield laws – or press shield laws must fall on the basis that they do not provide equal protection of the law to all citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

Bet he wouldn’t have dared make such comments about Islam – out of fear for his life.

“And it’s easy to start a religion! Watch, I'll do it for you: I had a vision last night! A vision! The Blessed Virgin Mary came to me—I don’t know how she got past the guards—and she told me it’s high time to take the high ground from the Seventh Day Adventists and give it to the 24-hour party people. And what happens in the confessional stays in the confessional. Gay men, don’t say you’re life partners, say you’re a nunnery of two. ‘We weren’t having sex, officer, I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, [our emphasis] for this is my roommate Barry. And for all those who believe there is a special place for you in Kevin.”

The Catholic League is starting a campaign to protest this blasphemous treatment of those things that Catholics hold sacred. Somehow, though, I doubt the Imus rules will be applied here – and I further doubt that we will see a single act of terrorism committed by Catholics in protest.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

May 21, 2007

Backup Services

Sponsored Post

You folks may remember the computer tragedy I had last spring. My darling wife and I lost everything in a moment of electronic infamy as my hard drive crashed, taking with it 120 GB of data that literally could not be replaced because I had not taken the time to back it up. Ouch!

Now I had bought a backup storage device, but i hadn't gotten it hooked up and running yet. But the truth is that I didn't really need it -- Online Storage is available at reasonable rates through iBackup.com. The nice thing is that the data would have been easily available to me, because the online data maps as a drive from your computer. So drop by and check out the solution to your backup needs -- iBackup.com.

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 20, 2007