Proposed Blogger Censorship

I just found this Jim Boulet post on the Corner:

FOX New's Bill O'Reilly and CBS chief political writer David Paul Kuhn both agree that bloggers enjoy too much freedom of speech and suffer insufficient federal regulation.
Kuhn complains that we pajamahadeen have "no code of ethics, or even an employer, to enforce any standard." But help is coming: "Beginning next year, the F.E.C. will institute new rules on the restricted uses of the Internet as it relates to political speech."

Time for the blogosphere to fight back, given that, unlike, say, CBS and FOX., the pajamahadeen also tend to lack attorneys on retainer to defend our First Amendment rights. I have no desire to see NRO's Kathryn Lopez in the defendant's chair because an article in NRO criticized some politician three months before an election. Neither should the Bush Administration.

This is pretty ridiculous. It's like saying I couldn't send coordinated emails to my friends 3 months before an election, post a flier in a public flier-posting place or buy a full page ad in a newspaper. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and the fact that two "journalists" (or at the very least, people that work for news organizations) want to impair the free speech of the little guy is outrageous.

As the Ranger said: "I'm pretty convinced that Bill O'Reilly has lost his mind."
I agree.

UPDATE: The Kerry spot has commentary and notes from his interview with O'Reilly.

His Pet Ewok

Check out Peter's Cute Picture creation

It's all in a name...

This post from the Kerry Spot gets a think because he calls the Secretary of Defense "Rummy" :)

But it also has these important comments:

I'm sure the exchange between the troops and Rumsfeld is going to be headline news around the world. And that's not a bad thing. How many Russian troops get to ask their generals or Defense Ministers these kinds of questions? How many Syrian, or Iranian, or North Korean soldiers get to keep their bosses accountable? (Also, how many of these armies are as well equipped as U.S. troops, even on their bad days?)

The message of yesterday's Q and A session is clear - we can figure out who to blame later, but right now, we just need to get the troops all that they need as quickly as possible.

Yes, that's exactly it. This is not the time to go back and go back and analyze everything that happened and try to place blame. We are still in the middle of a battle to stabilize peace and democracy and that needs to be our focus. Rumsfeld rightly understands this and I think that is a large part of why he's staying on in the administration. The better for us and the troops, I say.

I just can't get enough of Terry McAuliffe...

...and he's just not in the press enough these days. Thankfully, Sean has found him in the article:"Dems use Pearl Harbor to slam GOP". The article quotes Terry who, as the Ranger often reminds me, has admitted to lying in public if need be and therefore should not be taken seriously in any circumstance. To that end, I encourage much non-taking seriously of the following Terry quotes:

While we as a nation are united in this fight, there are clearly deep divisions within the Republican Party, divisions that are impeding our fight against terrorism.
...
Moving forward, it is my sincere hope that the Republicans running Washington will stop playing their political games and start fighting for the American people, just as our honored veterans did 63 years ago.

Sean's response:

Democrats are convinced that, if they can just find the right way to say it, red-staters will forget that their record on defense is terrible (and that it was Republicans who backed a Democratic president after the attack on Pearl Harbor).

Democrats seem to be preparing a completely new "message." One they believe will "play" better in the red states. What they don't understand is that we already know who they are. Having John Kerry try to convince us that Dems would take the war on terror seriously didn't fool anyone. Having the whole pantheon of leftist phrase-jockeys mouthing variations on "we're the party of defense... and values, don't forget values" for the next four years, won't convince anyone.

I'm certainly not convinced. But that may be because I'm too busy laughing and not taking McAuliffe seriously.

If democrats think that this so-called new message is going to have any effect in the aftermath of this election, they are not only wasting their time, they are also delirious. All the voters they wish to reach with this "new message" are recovering from political campaign burnout and won't tune into to all of this for at least another 6 months.

Oil for _____

MikeMac plays fill in the blank with the big UN Scandal.

The Password is...

I think I might start posting based on a keyword.

Or not.

But for now, I am linking to a MattCrash! post because it is not only well-written, informative and ambitious, but it includes the word "bourgeois" which has been the subject of some discussion around here.

Seriously though, all the words in the post are well worth the read, and it's wide-ranging, covering topics like Wal-mart vs. Target, Sara Evans vs. Emmylou Harris, the alleged good points of NPR and O'Charley's Restaurant.

He additionally links to some discussion about the Groningen Protocols which I discussed last week.

Lastly, Matt has this paragraph about Bush vs. Kerry, which contains today's bonus word:

It is said that John Kerry lost votes in rural areas because he appeared too aristocratic or uppity, as a country voter might say. The Democrats are now regarded as out of touch, yet many of George W. Bush's suburban voters have tastes that are increasingly bourgeois. The President's lack of culture, as some liberals charge, has not cost him a single vote. John Kerry, apparently, had too much of it, and it did cost him votes. What is this saying about the political and social landscape in which we live? I think I shall continue to pursue this idea.

Interesting...

UPDATE: DarnFloor's Drew comments on Matt's post.
And, to be consistent, I should note that Drew had his own "bourgeois" post, and an interesting one at that.

Lawyers invade Ohio

Mike Mac comments on an AP report that Kerry-Edwards is joining the recount fight here in Ohio. Yes, the RNC dispatched people around that state earlier this week and there is a training session on Saturday for those who wish to observe the recount. The real unfortunate part is that while the Nader campaign (and I guess now Kerry/Edwards '04) are "required" to pay for this recount, the amount paid is pre-set. They pay a certain amount per county, but this amount doesn't really cover the cost. Therefore, this useless recount will be funded in part by the American Taxpayer.

I propose a recount payment reform bill wherein the state just hands a bill to the campaign requesting the recount and that campaign pays the entire bill, not some token amount to make it look like they are being financially responsible for this litigation circus.

In next year's new edition of Webster

John Derbyshire:

Neologism
I have just invented a word.

A reader wrote in with a cute story, then signed off with: "I don't have a pithy closing remark..."

I replied that those pithy closing remarks don't always come when they're needed. In my case, in fact, they generally come a fraction of a second after I've hit the "send" button.

And this fraction is called (drum roll): a PITHISECOND.

Need more coffee.

I think the pithy closing remark about the coffee is the real selling point to that post :)

Thursday quick hits...

Other interesting things from today...and...not-today :)

Back there in the past
The Ranger has returned home from the mountain and even though his research does not involve ancient Greek and Roman history, he's quite well versed in those subjects. Therefore, if he recommends a Victor Davis Hanson article on Alexander it's probably pretty good.

The U.N. and the Ukraine
Sean updates on the United Nations' rejection of the idea of a Kofi Annan resignation [though I also partially blame Kofi for not just resigning already] and the views of some congressional Democrats on the Ukraine Election.

Conventional Weapons & Judiciary Nominees
I saw this Patterico post last week and made a note of it, but never completed my own post on it. I still find the concept interesting: An alternative to the Senate "nuclear option" involving a vote on a non-binding resolution of support.

Weird Candy
As much as the Ranger doesn't like spiders, he does like strange unique candy. I think this certainly applies.

The Importance of Life

Both as a Christian and an adopted child, as well as a rational, kid-loving woman, I am adamantly pro-life. That is why this story, linked by both Hugh Hewitt and Darn Floor really angers me. The story involves the practice of euthanizing terminally ill babies by the Dutch.

Yes. Babies.

From the article:

A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

"Already begun??" It just turns my stomach. I heard Hugh talking about this on his show last night, but that was the first I heard about it. A nurse called in a said that Yes, we all feel pain in our lives, but who are we to decide how much is too much. Additionally, she said that we are tempted to praise other nations for how "humane" they are with their socialized medicine programs. But now, if we look at the Netherlands, we see that socialized medicine helps to dehumanize the process and make people less interesting in the cares and concerns and lives of the humans involved.

Drew agrees with these views about socialized medicine:

I wouldn't say we're sliding down the slippery slope toward euthanizing any inconvenient lives; I'd say that we're already there. Now it's just a question of who's next. In the Netherlands they will consider euthanasia for "terminally ill people 'with no free will,' including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident."

This is the end result of socialized medicine.

I would also add that if we are concerned about the pain and shock that babies feel, then we shouldn't even allow them to be born! Imagine going from living in a nice warm dark liquid sack essentially, to living in the air and bright lights and cold. No wonder babies cry so much at birth! Children are a blessing, and of course we all hurt when children have to suffer and we should do all we can to keep them from suffering, but we should also do all we can to protect their lives!

Update: Hugh Hewitt writes more today and Mark Sides has links, updates and thoughts about this as well.