Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified documents from the National Archives, Fox News is reporting. Although he “inadvertently” took some papers, he “knowingly” crammed others down his pants. So he meant to steal only a few things. OK. Too bad it’s only a misdemeanor.
As I wrote back in July 2004, Samuel “Sandy” Berger Won’t Go To Jail…
What did I tell you?
Michelle Malkin has a great post.
Update (4/1): Power Line says Another Successful Cover-Up.
Scrappleface: “Ex-Clinton administration national security advisor Samuel ‘Sandy’ Berger entered a Virginia hospital today suffering from an “acute skin inflammation on his wrists” minutes after learning of the punishment he’ll face for smuggling top-secret documents out of the National Archives.”
More from Malkin.
There are documents still missing! Bunch of crooks.
Liberal blogger Kevin Drum on Sandy Berger: “Bizarre and inexplicable.”
Lorie Byrd: “When I first read of the Berger theft of documents I was amazed that such a thing could happen in a facility that is responsible for classified documents. Now I am amazed that a former NSA appears likely to get away with pilfering and destroying classified documents with a slap on the wrist.”
by La Shawn on March 31, 2005
in Schiavo
It’s all over.
Around the web: Confederate Yankee, Reformed Politics, Pajama Hadin, Outside the Beltway, Captain’s Quarters, Wizbang, Sierra Faith, GOP Bloggers, The Political Teen (video), Michael King, Alternaview, Michelle Malkin, HyScience, JackLewis.net, Mudville Gazette, ARGGHHH!, The Anchoress…
More bloggers: Three Bad Fingers, Jackson’s Junction, Blogical Conclusions, Polipundit (and here), Jeff Jarvis, Right Wing News, Don Singleton, Scott Ott, Wittenberg Gate, Bird’s Eye View, HCS and Gen’s Pad, Double Toothpicks, Kobayashi Maru, Biblical Christianity, Chaos Central, Adrian Warnock, Air Force Voices, My Sandmen, Sisu, Jerry McClellan, Baldilocks, Lifelike Pundits, MartiniPundit…
Previous obituaries: Johnnie Cochran, Ossie Davis, Johnny Carson, Shirley Chisholm, Rick James, Ronald Reagan and Superman.
Update: Hating the “Religious Right”
Update II: Kate Adamson, a woman once diagnosed as being in a Persistent Vegetative State, will be on Larry King Live tonight. Dory at Wittenberg Gate interviewed her.
Update III (4/1): James White, my favorite Christian apologist, travels across the country debating on such topics as the doctrine of the trinity, solo scriptura, predestination, papal infallibility, etc. He also won Best Overall Evangelical Blog in the 2005 Evangelical Blog Awards. Yesterday he blogged about Terri Schiavo. It’s a must-read.
Check out the Blogs4God round-up.
David Limbaugh:
Significant numbers of people were outraged in 1973, when the Supreme Court placed its “holy” imprimatur on the murder of babies in the womb and overstepped its bounds by tying up states on the issue through a constitutional right it manufactured.
But over the last several decades, despite a virtual monopoly by leftist forces in academia, the major media and Hollywood, the public’s sentiment toward protecting babies in utero has matured, and its aversion to judicial activism has grown.
People have a sense, if not any particular sophistication in constitutional analysis, that there is something radically wrong with the Orwellian propaganda that “social change” ought to emanate from the courts rather than legislative bodies.
My segment on MSNBC today is tentative. The Michael Jackson/Jesse Jackson radio interview has turned into old news. I may appear to discuss something else or not at all. I’ll keep you posted.
Update: Looks like I’ll do a blogosphere round-up (including posts about Michael Jackson) today at 5:00 p.m. EST. It will probably be closer to 5:20, but once again, I’ll keep you posted. Leave your tips in the comment section.
On Monday I wrote about blog envy, one of my favorite topics. I don’t think bloggers and journalists have to be enemies, however. I believe there’s enough common ground between us to benefit both. There’s nothing to be afraid of, MSM. 
Glenn Reynolds makes a similar observation here. Jeff Jarvis says, “Journalism is a verb, not a noun.”
I say, “Get that man some trackbacks!”
Update: Hey now. I should do one of these. LBC’s top 20 favorite blogs?
Update II (3:49 p.m.): See you kids later when I return with the MSNBC after-report.
Update III (6:07 p.m.): The Political Teen (Media Player) and Trey Jackson (Media Player and Quicktime) both have video of today’s blog round-up. Featured today were about twenty too many “Ahs” (Got to work on that) and my new laptop. 
I briefly mentioned the GOP Talking Points Memo scandal, border issues and FrankJ’s proposal to SarahK.
LBC was featured today on CNN’s new blog report segment (Trey Jackson’s video). They quoted from the post below this one, Blogger Gets Burned:
[E]ditors are invaluable. Journalists have that advantage over bloggers. If a reporter gets wind of hot story, he has to confirm sources before the story goes to press. Sometimes the editors goof as well, but at that point the blame also falls on the editor, too. Misery (in being duped by anonymous sources) loves company…[I]f bloggers want to be journalists, we should strive to be better than journalists. Joshua retracted, but the so-called journalists have not.
Catch Michelle Malkin on O’Reilly tonight discussing the ACLU’s opposition to the Minuteman Project volunteers. Trey “Action” Jackson has the video.
Update IV (3/31): I don’t know what to think. Good?
It happens. You stumble upon a juicy bit of information that can’t be confirmed. You want to post it but hesitate. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You blog it anyway, and it turns out to be wrong.
It happens to journalists, especially journalists who hate George Bush. CBS producers could not authenticate memos they said proved Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard. On top of that, their star witness had been caught lying to them. But they still ran with the story. Journalists were recently duped again. Back on March 20, the Washington Post made reference to “a memo distributed only to Republican senators” regarding Terri Schiavo. No one can verify where the memo came from or whether it’s authentic, but for days afterward MSM wrote about it as if it were genuine.
I wrote about the whole mess on Saturday, citing Joshua Claybourn’s efforts. Well, it turns out Joshua was duped, too. I wrote that he talked to “Senate staffers who claim that an aide to Democratic senator Harry Reid distributed to memo.” He even named the Reid staffer in his post. Joshua has retracted the post because he’s been unable to confirm the accusations, and the Senate staffers are “nowhere to be found.”
What most of us didn’t know was that the so-called staffers didn’t tell Joshua their names. Not even alias, I presume. He writes:
I’m disturbed and upset, both with those who anonymously made the accusation and myself for posting it without more judicious restraint. Inevitably someone will accuse me of hypocrisy and that’s a fair criticism. But I have retracted the sloppy reporting on my part and am willing to note the errors; that is much more than ABC or the Washington Post can say.
When things like this happen, editors are invaluable. Journalists have that advantage over bloggers. If a reporter gets wind of hot story, he has to confirm sources before the story goes to press. Sometimes the editors goof as well, but at that point the blame also falls on the editor, too. Misery (in being duped by anonymous sources) loves company.
Michelle Malkin, journalist and blogger, knows both worlds, and she offers Joshua some advice:
For obvious reasons, claims made by a completely anonymous source must be regarded as far less reliable than those made by a source who is willing to disclose his or her identity to a reporter or blogger.
I often use sources who don’t want their names published, but I never publish information provided by anonymous tipsters unless I can independently verify the information.
Claybourn was careless. He had better hope that the Reid aide he accused of wrongdoing doesn’t sue him for libel.
That’s what it all comes down to. If bloggers want to be journalists, we should strive to be better than journalists. Joshua retracted, but the so-called journalists have not.
Addendum: Michelle has been all over media critic Howard Kurtz for not doing his job: criticizing the media. He finally bites (reg. req.). Michelle also does an excellent job calling out so-called journalists who have not retracted their stories about the “GOP memo.”
Ed Morrissey: “Kurtz once again acts as an apologist rather than an objective news critic, yet another disappointment he can add to his non-coverage of the Eason Jordan scandal.”
Update (2:26 p.m.): I just read Howard Kurtz’s column in its entirety. I have three words for the journalists who first reported on the so-called GOP Talking Points Memo: Sloppy, sloppy and sloppy!
by La Shawn on March 29, 2005
in General
I thought his client was guilty. Got away with the murder of two people. But no one can say Johnnie Cochran didn’t zealously represent him. Johnnie Cochran is dead at 67:
Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., the charismatic attorney who became famous in the successful defense of football star O.J. Simpson on murder charges, died on Tuesday in Los Angeles of a brain tumor, spokespeople said.
Cochran began his career as a crusader against police abuses, often in cases involving black clients, but is best known for the trial that won a controversial acquittal for Simpson on murder charges in 1995.
More from My Way News.
Previous obituaries: Ossie Davis, Johnny Carson, Shirley Chisholm, Rick James, Ronald Reagan and Superman.
Other bloggers: Wizbang…
Update (3/30): I think former cop Mark Fuhrman got a raw deal, but he had only himself to blame. While testifying for the prosecution in O.J. Simpson’s trial, Furhman was asked if he ever used the word “nigger,” and he lied. “No.”
Who hasn’t ever used that word? It was a needless lie that ruined his career and reputation. It was much worse than the truth. Regardless, I think Fuhrman is doing a great job with his independent investigations and books. I highly recommend Murder in Greenwich: Who Killed Martha Moxley? and Murder in Brentwood.
John Lott discusses some of the pros and cons of using different standards for hiring police officers. His assessment is much more balanced than one I would give, but he makes a few good points. For instance, women and blacks are important for certain types of undercover work. And female victims may feel more comfortable talking to female officers.
Here’s where things get sticky: “The problem is that because of large differences in strength and size between men and women, different standards are applied to ensure that there are more female officers,” Lott writes. If anyone told me that men and women had to meet the same physical requirements while training at a police academy, I’d have to call that person a liar.
Lott wisely or unwisely, depending on your point of view, glosses over the exam pass rates between blacks and whites and focuses on the relatively weaker physical strength of women compared to men. Thankfully and rationally, he acknowledges that men and women are indeed different, despite PC rhetoric to the contrary.
I, personally, like being a woman, don’t want to be a man, and acknowledge that the average man is stronger than I am. I also contend that a dangerous criminal, especially one accused of raping a woman, would probably be delighted that my superiors were stupid enough to leave me alone with him even if I were carrying a rifle.
This is where things can turn deadly in a hurry:
Female officers are more likely to accidentally shoot people. Each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers [Why white women specifically are a factor in the increase of shootings, I find interesting.] in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. Because of their weaker physical strength, female officers have less time to decide on whether to fire their weapon. If a man makes a mistake and waits too long to shoot a suspect who is attacking him, the male officer still has a chance of using his strength to subdue the attacker. Female officers (as was the case in Atlanta) will lose control of the situation at that point.
Again, common sense is the key here. Sadly, the people running things don’t seem to have any.
Update: John Lott responded to my e-mail. I asked in part, “Why does the number of shootings increase with the number of white female officers specifically?”
His reply: “If you look at page 21 in the pdf file that you can link to from the op-ed, you will see that black males have the lowest rate of accidental shootings, followed by white males, then black females. White females have the highest rate. These four rankings follow closely the relative physical strength of the officers in the four groups.”
To read the study, click on one of the PDF links on this page.
I know I shouldn’t accuse every journalist of blog envy just because they don’t like blogs. But it’s more fun than whining, “Maybe they just don’t understand us.” Let’s see if that’s the case.
Ken Fuson, a columnist at the Des Moines Register writes, “Perhaps you have not heard of blogs. The name derives from a combination of “blather” and “logorrhea.”
Hmm…sounds like envy to me.
Apparently upset that the pajamahadeen are stealing his press, so to speak, Fuson doesn’t (or can’t) disguise his contempt for us blatherers:
This [blogging] has proved to be a boon to people who apparently are (A) unemployed, (B) independently wealthy, or (C ) no longer content to wait on hold to get their daily fix of attention from a radio talk-show host.
Let’s put it another way: You know those people who like to write letters to the editor? A blog allows them to write letters all day long, on any subject they choose, without worrying about having the profanity removed or having any of their lunatic rants checked for accuracy. (Source)
Well, I’ll tell you this. At least our “lunatic rants” are more honest than the thinly veiled editorializing reporters used to get away with. And Fuson knows that not all bloggers rant. Some are actually good writers who do real reporting. But if he wrote about blogs fairly, he wouldn’t get to unleash his own rant. In spite of himself, however, Fuson has a point here:
But the great thing is, if you’re a blogger, you get your rants linked to by other bloggers who agree with you, or other bloggers who disagree with you. Before you know it…you will achieve your dream goal: Being invited to appear on a Mainstream Media news show to explain why the Mainstream Media no longer matter.
Guilty!
Blogs have been getting a lot of press lately. CNN has a new segment called “Blog Report.” Blogs have been featured on “Reliable Sources” and “Inside Politics.” MSNBC covers blogs almost everyday. Media critic Howard Kurtz frequently includes blog links in his column. Journalists are writing about bloggers, columnists are covering bloggers, radio talk show hosts are talking about bloggers, and the Federal Election Commission is trying to regulate bloggers. Mainstream media (MSM) and others seem to get it. Their monopoly on information is D-E-A-D.
I understand Fuson’s frustration, but he has only his fellow journalists to blame. If they weren’t such biased leftists pretending to be “moderate” or “centrist,” perhaps bloggers would not have been able to invade their territory. Blame it on Big Media Man, Dan Rather. For that matter, blame it on the rain. Who cares? All I know is MSM’s reign of error is over.
If Fuson would condescend to accept unsolicited advice from a blogger, I’d tell him how he could cure his blog envy in no time.
He should start blogging.
Update: Speaking of MSM (Guilty!), I’ll be on Connected Coast to Coast on Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. to talk about Michael Jackson and his radio interview with Jesse Jackson yesterday. That means I have to actually listen to the two of them talking, which I’m doing now. No comment.
Also, check out Jeff Harrell’s post about another blog-envious journalist.
Update II: Upcoming events – 1) I will speak at the Spring Conference for African-American Journalists of Faith in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 29-30. I will discuss how blogging has impacted journalism and the role of Christian bloggers in general.
2) I’ve been invited to speak at BlogNashville, a three-day blogging conference in Nashville, Tennessee, May 5-7 (My birthday weekend!). I will lead the faith-based blogging session. Other session leaders/speakers: Glenn Reynolds, Henry Copeland of Blogads, Rebecca MacKinnon (of Easongate fame), Robin Burk and others. Registration is limited to 300 people, so sign up now if you’d like to attend.
Update III (3/29): Mr. Fuson, Don’t Fear The Blogger!
Check out John Hawkins’s top 40 favorite blogs.
What a sadly stupid yet freakishly entertaining story this is. Requires registration.
Update: If you’re wondering why your comment disappeared, read this. Disagreement is one thing; sarcasm is quite another. I can’t stand it. Change your tone, and your comment might not be deleted next time.
You may have heard that a gang of thugs called Mara Salvatrucha will be on hand to conduct criminal activity (Do you like that euphemism?) in Arizona next month against law-abiding patriots known as the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers ready and willing to protect America’s southern border.
Jim Gilchrist, the group’s founder and the epitome of courage, said, “We’re not worried because half of our recruits are retired trained combat soldiers. And those guys are just a bunch of punks.” (Source)
That’s manly man talk. I wish our president would say it, but instead, he utters tripe like this: “I’m against vigilantes in the United States of America. I’m for enforcing law in a rational way. That’s why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.”
Shameful! I wonder what George Bush has to say to MS-13? “Welcome to our border, boys!” He knows what that band of outlaws is capable of, but he acts as though his countrymen are the outlaws. Read this, Mr. Bush:
Many of the Minuteman volunteers are expected to be armed, although organizers of the border vigil have prohibited them from carrying rifles. Only those people with a license to carry a handgun will be allowed to do so, Mr. Gilchrist said.
An operational plan calls for teams of four to eight volunteers to be deployed along the targeted 20-mile stretch of border at intervals of 200 to 300 yards, along with observation posts and a command center.
Mr. Gilchrist said some of the patrols and posts will be right on the U.S.-Mexico border, while others will be located farther north. The volunteers also have been told to “make lots of noise and burn campfires at night to be very visible.”
The Minuteman volunteers are within their rights, unlike the millions of illegal aliens in our country. The president sits idly by while America is burdened to the breaking point. What is wrong with him???
Michelle Malkin is one American who’s dead serious about doing something to raise awareness. In addition to her own blog, she’s started The Immigration Blog. Michelle writes:
Readers ask me “What can I do?” and express frustration with their inability to make a difference in the immigration debate. Quit complaining. Support one of these citizen efforts. Or start your own. Read up on what made the Prop. 200 campaign in Arizona a winner. Then start your own. Read our blog. Or start your own.
Your country’s sovereignty and security are in your hands.
Update: How to report illegal aliens.
Bryan Preston: “MS-13 constitutes a clear and present danger to the United States.”
Fausta comments on a New York Times op-ed about the deadly MS-13.
Update II: Read this Newsweek article on MS-13 – The Most Dangerous Gang in America.
Update III (3/29): More news about the gang of witness slayers. These thugs picked up right where DC’s black gangs left off.
by La Shawn on March 28, 2005
in Bloggers
Blogs have crashed the gates of the information keepers, effectively dismantling mainstream media’s monopoly on what is or isn’t news. It was only a matter of time before the so-called professional gossip columnist felt the sting.
I ran across this article in the New York Times (registration req.) about gossip columnist Liz Smith and other professional gossips complaining about the saturated and “ruthless” gossip market:
Gone too are the days when columnists had individual identities. Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, who created their own celebrity brands with their trademark chapeaux, have been replaced by interchangeable mass market magazines and faceless blogs.
But what sets Ms. Smith apart is that she doesn’t trash her subjects. This helps her maintain access, but it also means her column often lacks the prerequisite of the day: edge….
In today’s gossip world, being kind is hardly an option. “The Internet and blogs have returned gossip to its earliest human roots – the kind of gossip that the priests told you was a venal sin,” said Ms. Gerhart. “You can make it up. You can speculate wildly. You can accuse people of the most taboo practices, all in this sort of merry way.”
Yes, bloggers are implicated. I guess Smith and the other paid peddlers are discovering what journalists reluctantly found out some time ago about their profession: “Anybody can be a gossip.” There are blogs for just about everything else, so why not gossip? Some bloggers even get paid to spread gossip. Wonkette comes to mind, as well as other Nick Denton blogs like Gawker and Defamer. (Can’t be more explicit than that!)
“Gone are the days when a single powerful columnist could make or break a career,” writes Katharine Q. Seelye. Back in the day, professional gossips Hedda Hopper (pictured) and Walter Winchell had a lot of power, but what about today’s gossip writers? Some call Matt Drudge a gossip mongerer, and I think he has the power to make or break careers. Of course the Drudge-is-gossip meme was most often uttered by liberals during Bill Clinton’s impeachment scandal.
Wherever two or three are gathered, gossip will be in the midst of them. How many of you engage in gossip by listening to it, spreading it or both? I confess that on occasion I listen. I think it’s natural for us to want to hear dirt being dished out, especially about someone we don’t like. But we Christians know that gossip is a sin brought on by an idle tongue:
- Exodus 23:1 – Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
- Proverbs 16:28 – A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends. And so on.
- Proverbs 25:18 – Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.
- II Thessalonians 3:11-12 – We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
- 1 Timothy 5:13 – Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.
Like anything else, blogs can be used for good, evil or everything in between.
———————————————————————————————————-
Interesting links: Kevin Drum on Washington Post reporters who monitor Wonkette all day: “Wonkette isn’t even a very good gossip writer, let alone someone worth monitoring continuously. Is that really the best the Post newsroom can do?”
by La Shawn on March 27, 2005
in Faith
From April 11, 2004:
“Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’” And they remembered His words. (Luke 24:6-8)
To an unbelieving world, the saving power of the cross of Jesus Christ is foolishness; but for those who’ve been saved by His grace, it is the power of the living God! That saving power comes through the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The foundation of Christianity rises or falls on the truthfulness of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. His death on the cross is the basis for salvation and the power of the resurrected Christ lives in all believers. He’s sitting at the right hand of God as our High Priest, making intercession on our behalf.
[click to continue…]
In what’s supposed to be a victory for black people, a federal judge has ruled that a 1995 Chicago firefighters entrance exam is biased because too many black applicants failed it. As a result, taxpayers may have to shell out $80 million in “damages.” The applicants may not have the cognitive abilities to fight fires (unlike blacks applicants who are able to meet the department’s requirements), but they’re smart enough to know that black skin and a sob story reap financial rewards:
A lawsuit filed by black applicants alleged the exam’s cutoff point for “well-qualified” applicants created a pool of 1,782 candidates that had five times more whites than blacks.
U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall said in her ruling Tuesday that the city knew the cutoff point was meaningless and would disproportionately exclude blacks from the pool of candidates most likely to be hired. She said the test “could not distinguish between those who were qualified for the position of (firefighter) and those who were not.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that Chicago was “twice as likely to hire white applicants than black applicants.” Ironically, blacks are overrepresented in the EEOC by 625 percent, but I don’t think the bloated agency has to worry about being sued.
What sort of entrance exam the Chicago Fire Department requires these days, if any, I’m trying to find out. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is “None.”
Once again, I’m embarrassed and appalled that lowered standards based on skin color are cause for celebration.
Related post: Firehouse Diversity
Addendum: Another unanswered question – Why do black applicants consistently score lower on these tests anyway? That’s an important subject people are too PC to talk about.
Update: This post will probably incur the wrath of black liberals. When I write about my distaste for race preferences, they get angry at me for daring to complain. I must be made of different stuff because I don’t understand why they’re not angry at whites for even suggesting that standards should be lowered or tests eliminated or requirements dropped because blacks aren’t up to par. Where’s the outrage over that?
Update II (3/27): In a perverse way, it’s kind of cool that black liberals who hate me still read my blog even though I don’t read theirs. I guess that means I’m…important? Dangerous? Out of my mind? Whatever the reason, thanks for visiting.
Blog swarms are usually exciting and always tiring. Doing round-ups is often less taxing and sometimes just as valuable as original reporting. I’m playing catch-up today on a swarm that began last Sunday about a memo supposedly distributed at a meeting of Republican senators. It’s purported to show that Republicans viewed the Terri Schiavo case as politically beneficial. According to a story in last Sunday’s Washington Post (March 20):
In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as “a great political issue” that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.
Schiavo, 41, spent a full day off of nourishment and fluids yesterday at a hospice in the Gulf Coast suburb of Pinellas Park, Fla. Her feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon after a state judge ignored subpoenas from Congress and enforced a deadline that lawmakers had thought they could thwart by declaring her a witness who must be protected for a future hearing they would conduct at her bedside. Late Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied an emergency request from the House committee that had issued the subpoenas.
[click to continue…]
by La Shawn on March 25, 2005
in Schiavo
Update IV (3/26 @ 12:22 p.m.) Judge Greer rejects emergency appeal.
————————————————————————————————-
I’ve learned from FOX News that the Schindler’s have made an emergency appeal to Judge Greer (trial judge) tonight to order reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. I can’t find a link to the story, though. Greta Van Susteren is standing by for Judge Greer’s ruling, which may come tonight. Check Yahoo! full coverage for updates.
A man has been arrested for making threats against Michael Schiavo via the Internet. In that case, he shouldn’t be the only one. How many people have said or written such things about Schiavo in the past week out of emotion? Should they all be arrested?
Greta’s interviewing a nurse who claims Michael Schiavo told her (and cried) that he didn’t know what to do about Terri. “We never talked about it,” she claims he said.
Update: From CNN: “In a separate, emergency motion, on which a Florida state judge is expected to rule by noon Saturday, the Schindlers contend that their daughter has expressed the wish to live.”
They say Terri was trying to say, “I want to live.” I’m doubtful about this.
It’s 10:47 p.m., and I’m going to bed. We’ll see what tomorrow brings.
Update II (3/26): FOX finally updated its site. Also see LifeNews.
Update III (12:05 p.m.): Still awaiting Judge Greer’s response to their emergency motion, the Schindler’s say they won’t seek additional appeals.
How appropriate that I chose to invoke the First Amendment (see post below) on the very day the Federal Election Commission (FEC) held a hearing on regulation of the Internet. You may recall that a few weeks ago FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith warned us that the FEC was considering applying campaign finance reform laws to “online political activity,” including political writing in the blogosphere.
The result was a blog swarm that united liberal and conservative bloggers (Also see this post). This unity led to the drafting of a bipartisan online petition, which has been signed by 3,239 people at this writing. The opinion storm got the attention of cable and broadcast news networks.
Yesterday FEC commissioners discussed how far to extend its burdensome regulations. According to the AP:
The Federal Election Commission took its first step Thursday in extending campaign finance controls to political activity on the Internet, asking for public input on limited regulations for the freewheeling medium.
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who took the lead on drafting proposals with vice chairman Michael Toner, described the steps as “restrained.” The commission emphasized a hands-off approach to bloggers, or authors of Web logs, among the loudest and unruliest voices online.
“We are not the speech police,” said Weintraub, a Democrat. “The FEC does not tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet, or elsewhere.
That’s the kind of Democrat I like. We have the same interest in protecting each other’s right to express ourselves.
Once again I’m a bit late on this, but other bloggers are on top of things. Kevin of Wizbang writes: “The Federal Election Commission held hearings on their proposed rules for the application of campaign finance rules to blogs and websites. Even with the rules currently being discussed group sites like Wizbang, The Volokh Conspiracy, and thousands of others might not be exempt. Incorporated sites like DailyKos, Gawker Media, RedState, RawStory, etc. would have to qualify for a government cleared media exemption on case-by-case basis.”
RedState has a whole section dedicated to FEC news, and Winfield Myers at the Democracy Project has a series of informative posts (also see Michelle Malkin, Polipundit and ThoughtsOnline).
A site called Personal Democracy Forum has been doing an admirable job (via Richard Hasen) analyzing the draft regulations and asking some intriguing questions: Hasen writes:
[T]he greater danger of the FEC’s proposals, if enacted as they are, is the additional uncertainty that they would create. For example, consider someone who has a private website or blog that contains occasional political commentary. Suppose the blogger owns the site as a corporation. Corporations cannot engage in certain election-related activities except through a separate political action committee subject to numerous reporting and disclosure requirements. Can the blogger post commentaries calling for the election or defeat of a candidate for President? The draft rules extend the media exemption to news stories, commentaries and editorials appearing over the Internet, but written materials in this category must appear in a “newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication.” It is not clear that a blogger fits into this category, particularly if the blogger does not post regularly.
Regarding the media exemption to the FEC’s regulations, it’s arguable that blogs are media. According to the Library of Congress’s definition of serial publications (print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers and/or dates), blogs are indeed serial publications, just like magazines, newspapers, etc. If that’s the case, blogs should be exempt from regulation. The freedom of the press could easily extend to us.
Let’s say I really do qualify as a “blogosphere reporter” for MSNBC and drop the quotation marks. As someone reporting news, I am a member of the press, right? What I report on MSNBC would be considered news. In the same vein, my blog is a news column, where I generate reports for MSNBC and my audience. Along with any straight reporting I may do, I may also write editorials in support of a political candidate.
I could be extending this too far, but I wanted you to see the problems arising out of any regulation of the blogosphere. Some bloggers consider themselves hobbyists; others call themselves “the media.” I don’t think a government bureaucrat is qualified to make the call. Bloggers shouldn’t have to worry about any of this stuff in the first place. The FEC needs to keep its unwanted groping hands off.
America’s great selling point is freedom of expression. I implore the government not to play communist dictator and start controlling something as free-flowing, creative and expansive as the Internet. Let it continue to shape-shift and flourish unimpeded. Those with evil intent will make it harder on the rest of us, but the unencumbered exchange of ideas is priceless.
The power of the Internet is the same kind that propelled adventurers and risk-takers to experiment, create and fight for something magnificent: the United States of America.
