Term Limits... for the Supreme Court?

An idea I've been in favor of for the past few years is getting some consideration over at the Volokh Conspiracy. For the record, I'm lukewarm on whether this is a good idea for the Supreme Court, but I think it's a great idea for the lower courts.

O'Reilly Takes on the Jedi Master

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. (hat tip: Vodkapundit) I particularly liked it when he gave Yoda a copy of his book.

At Least They Have a Nice Aquarium

Apparently, the readers of this blog have a pretty good idea of the material I enjoy reading. Both the Lord of Truth and RB sent along this wonderful article, which probably will not be endorsed by the Baltimore City Chamber of Commerce...

Baltimore has made other national news recently--none of it good--in journalism's disproportionately favored arena of media and politics. Tiny Town has just one newspaper, the Baltimore Sun--a once-prestigious daily now owned by the Tribune Co.--and it's currently embroiled in a self-aggrandizing First Amendment battle with Maryland's Gov. Robert Ehrlich. (Mr. Ehrlich, who defeated Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, whom the Sun and the Washington Post endorsed, in 2002, was the first Republican elected to the post since Spiro Agnew in 1966.)

At issue is Gov. Ehrlich's edict last November that no state employees talk to Sun reporter David Nitkin and columnist Michael Olesker, citing what he perceived as biased articles about his administration. The Sun's editor, Timothy Franklin, immediately seized the opportunity to wage war with Gov. Ehrlich, explaining in a Dec. 3 letter to readers that the newspaper was filing suit against the governor because of the "dangerous precedent for all citizens." Never mind that the two journalists continued to write about the governor, as did the Sun's battery of political reporters and editorialists. It was a matter of principle, Mr. Franklin said, an assault upon freedom of the press. More likely, in my view, it was a desperate plea for attention.

Not surprisingly, the Sun's ginned-up plight drew sympathy from liberal journalists and Democrats who reflexively blow out of proportion any imagined infringement of liberties by conservative politicians like Gov. Ehrlich and President Bush. Last month, for example, the New York Times entered the provincial fray, editorializing that the Sun was "obliged" to muck up the judicial calendar and protect the First Amendment.

Given the hysteria whipped up by the Sun's editorial staff, one might think that Gov. Ehrlich had actually closed the paper down, rather than exercise his prerogative to withhold comment from two Sun employees.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles dismissed the lawsuit, saying, "The Sun seeks a privileged status beyond that of the private citizen." The newspaper escalated the skirmish yesterday with an editorial claiming that Judge Quarles gave Gov. Ehrlich's "foolish and undemocratic notion a legitimacy it never deserved." The editorial's opening sentence--"These are sad days for those us who cherish the First Amendment."--summed up just how melodramatic this "controversy" has become.

As a longtime journalist, I also "cherish" the First Amendment; but it's distressing when a newspaper cheapens its value by echoing the ongoing cries of left-wing Americans who interpret every decision by a conservative administration--at the federal and state level--as "shredding the Constitution."

The Sun hasn't recovered from Gov. Ehrlich's election--Maryland is a reliably "blue" state with two Democratic U.S. senators--and his agenda of tax-cutting and reductions in aid to government-sponsored social programs has left its editors in a state of elitist meltdown. In fact, Mr. Ehrlich has proved to be a popular governor. Despite butting heads with the Democratic-controlled legislature, his approval ratings are consistently above 50%. And unless there's a sudden recession in Maryland, he's likely to win re-election next year--which bothers the Baltimore Sun greatly.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Sun's suit is entirely without merit. Someone should consider Rule 11 sanctions for wasting the court's time with a claim this silly.

The arrogance of the MSM continues unabated, but this is particularly pathetic. The Sun does not have guaranteed access to Governor Ehrlich's aides any more than anyone else in Maryland, or for that matter, anyone else anywhere. Someone should smack Franklin in the head with a copy of the First Amendment so he can actually read what it says. You could also smack him with a copy of his own paper -- hey, it's better than reading it.

Go, Freddie, Go!

For all the Eagles fans who feel the need to express their beliefs regarding Fred Ex, JK sends us the latest creative use of free time by a fellow Birds fan (at least he's trying to market it to -- check out the merchandise). In the meantime, maybe we can all hope Fred will leave town... and take Pink with him.

Something Stinks in the Garden State

The Lord of Truth lets us in on some of the shenanigans by the Democrats in his home state...

A state grand jury is hearing testimony into allegations that former State Police officials and a former state senator conducted a covert operation that used confidential files in an effort to smear Republicans and help James E. McGreevey run for governor four years ago.

The grand jury investigation began in September, 10 months after the accusations were detailed in The Star-Ledger and only weeks after McGreevey announced he would resign as governor because of a sex scandal. The probe, which has been conducted in secret so far, is focusing on the alleged theft and misuse of confidential State Police records, according to two state officials with direct knowledge of the case.

A key witness in the investigation, retired State Police Lt. Vincent Bellaran, said in an interview this week he has testified three times before the grand jury in Trenton. In return for his testimony, Bellaran said, prosecutors who report to state Attorney General Peter Harvey agreed not to charge him for his role in the operation.

"They granted me immunity," Bellaran said. "I testified three times. Once they asked me a question, I started spewing. ... These people (on the grand jury) had their mouths agape."

Bellaran said he took grand jurors through the key points he had already made both in sworn statements and in interviews with The Star-Ledger. Bellaran said that between 1999 and early 2002, he and Lt. Col. Cajetan "Tommy" DeFeo took confidential information, including personnel orders and medical records stored under lock and key, from State Police files, with the aim of damaging state Republicans and helping McGreevey, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, in the 2001 race.

Bellaran said the operation was orchestrated by McGreevey's longtime mentor and ally, then-state Sen. John Lynch (D-Middlesex). Some of the information was passed to Lynch for use in legislative hearings into the State Police practice of racial profiling, Bellaran said. Other information was passed to newspapers in an attempt to generate stories aimed at humiliating people close to then-Gov. Christie Whitman.

If true, these allegations are worse than Governor McGreevey's later dalliance with Golan Cipel, or the assorted sordid fundraising activities of the Torch (or the questionable decision that let Dems replace Torricelli on the Senate ballot in 2002 after the deadline when it became clear that his ethical transgressions would kill his campaign). Digging up dirt on your opponents is one thing, but using confidential police records, including medical files, to embarass or defeat your political opponents would have the left screaming about Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. Of course, the voters in New Jersey have yet to punish the Demcorats for their various transgressions, so I'm not expecting anything to happen now.

I'd say that this marks a low point for New Jersey politics, but maybe we should withhold judgment. Give them time, and they'll do something even worse.

Defend This, McCainiacs

Ryan Segar has a terrific article at TCS about one piece of legislation we're better off without...

The war on free speech continues in Congress. The crew that did its darndest to repeal the First Amendment back in 2002 -- Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold and Reps. Chris Shays and Marty Meehan - is back, and now its looking to clean up the mess left by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

That mess: insidious "527" groups, like MoveOn.org's Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of course.

The problem, it seems, is that there are still just too darn many independent groups allowed to go shooting their mouths off about any darn thing any darn time they want -- and they can accept pretty much any amount of money from pretty much anyone.

There should be a law.

And there will be, since free-speech looks to have no defenders left in Congress. In 2002 some conservative stalwarts --people who believed that money and speech couldn't be distinguished, since it takes money to make speech heard -- tried to hold out against the McCain-Feingold mania to get money out of politics.

But this time there are far fewer brave souls.

Last week, a bill was introduced in the Senate that would force 527s to register with the Federal Election Commission and restrict the groups' ability to raise and spend money.

The bill enjoys the support of Trent Lott, who had been one of 41 senators to vote against McCain-Feingold. Now, however, he's decided that any money given by wealthy individuals is "sewer money."

And why is this money so dirty suddenly?

"It was an unintended consequence of McCain-Feingold. Instead of going to the parties, rich people are putting money into these 527s in the dark of night," Lott told the Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss.

In other words, some of those rich people might be trying to throw out incumbents.

McCain is even more blatant about the incumbent-protection angle. As The Washington Times reported last week, "McCain said lawmakers should support the bill out of self-interest, because it would prevent a rich activist from trying to defeat an incumbent by directing money into a political race through a 527 organization."

Understand, I appreciate McCain's service to his country, and even more so his often blunt manner of speaking, which is rare for a politician. Some of his policy views are okay by me, some are not. I think he's a terrific leader and a good man.

But on this issue, he's dead wrong. And I'm sick of his crusade against money in politics.

As Willie Sutton once observed, he robbed banks because that's where the money was. People spend money on politics because it matters. Winning elections is important. We spend plenty of money on things that aren't so important in the grand scheme (see music, movies and sports), so people choosing to expend cash to influence politics is not some terrible omen we should dread.

McCain's intentions may be good (although that quote tends to make me doubt it), but his legislation is basically a tool to protect incumbents. For a guy who's a political maverick, he's doing a whole lot to help perpetuate the power of the two major political parties.

Yeah, rich people financed MoveOn, the Swift Boat Veterans, and God knows how many other 527 organizations. But their charges only stuck when they had some air of legitimacy to them. You can't bar negative campaigning, much as some people would like to do so.

In the end, the solution to misinformation is the correct information, not some misguided attempt to suppress free speech. I'd just appreciate it if a few more McCain fans acknowledged the error of their hero's ways.

Smackdown on Harry Reid

Texas Senator John Cornyn takes the opportunity to slap Harry Reid silly...

At his stakeout today, the Minority Leader, Harry Reid, made some interesting, if inaccurate comments about judicial nominations.

In particular, he said:

“Renomination is not the key. I think the question is, those judges that have already been turned down in the Senate. And unless there's something that is new that I'm not aware of with each of these men and women, we will vote the same way we did in the past.”

That charge, though, is inaccurate. NONE of President Bush’s judicial nominees have “been turned down in the Senate.” None. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether—despite the fact that they all had (and have) bipartisan majority support. ALL would be confirmed if a partisan minority of the Senate would allow an up-or-down vote. It’s a little difficult to “turn down” a nominee if he or she never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Reid also mentioned what he characterized as Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees. In particular, he singled out Judge Richard Paez. But there’s just one problem: Richard Paez was confirmed by the Senate; he had an up-or-down vote and is now a sitting judge.

The 10 nominees filibustered by Sen. Reid and others during President Bush’s term, however, are still waiting to be treated as “poorly” as Judge Paez.

Sen. Reid also claimed that there has “always been” a 60-vote threshold for judicial nominations:

“It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is --nothing change. Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.”

But we did “go back decades” and look. It hasn’t always been that way. Many nominees, including Paez, were confirmed with less than 60 votes. In fact the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed majority but not 60-vote support — including Clinton appointees Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway, and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L. T. Senter.

Someone should tell Reid to quit embarrassing himself on the issue of judicial nominations. His comments about Clarence Thomas were crazy enough, but now he's making up history.

Actually, maybe he should keep trying that tack. He could try convincing people that Kerry won in November.

The Wildcats On a Roll

ESPN's Andy Katz has a terrific prediction for Villanova fans...

5. Which team will come out of nowhere to make the Elite Eight?

This was Xavier's category a year ago. The Musketeers were left for dead in January (10-9 on Jan. 31). They were a question for the NIT, let alone the NCAA, but Thad Matta and Sean Miller got this group believing in itself, the seniors led like they hadn't before in the season and the Musketeers earned a bid by going 9-1 in their last 10, beating Saint Joseph's in the A-10 tournament and winning the A-10 title.

Who fits that profile this season? Villanova. The Wildcats were 9-4 (2-3 Big East) after losing to Boston College on the road on Jan. 19. Villanova is now 15-6 overall (5-5) after a non-conference win over Bucknell Tuesday night.

Villanova crushed Kansas during this stretch and won at home against Notre Dame. The only stinker was a home loss by 15 to Syracuse. The Wildcats have the guard play -- Mike Nardi, Allan Ray, Randy Foye -- and the inside duo of Curtis Sumpter and Jason Fraser to make a deep run.

As Johnny Goblin noted, we have a great chance to make a run this year without much pressure on the team. However, some bad news for us Wildcat fans in this prediction, which has Old Dominion in the tournament. Try not to have flashbacks, people.

Hopefully, the Sub Will Not Suffer From a Malaise

The hysterical cartoon "Day by Day" captures my own reaction upon hearing about the Navy's latest attack submarine, the Jimmy Carter. (hat tip: The Corner)

Yes, you read that last sentance right. A man who was once attacked in a swamp by a crazed rabbit now has a submarine named after him. My first thought is that the Navy figures the sub will be underrated by the enemy, which will be too busy laughing at the name to defend itself.

No, Seriously, This Won't Be Mocked on a VH-1 Special in Ten Years

I'd comment on this story, but I'm trying not to get in trouble...

Lindsay Lohan, the red-haired "Mean Girls" star, is getting the Barbie treatment with a new doll made in her likeness. The doll is dressed in full red-carpet splendor, wearing a beige dress and a faux fur-trimmed coat.

The Mattel doll comes complete with a director's chair and her very own velvet rope, the company announced recently. Part of the toy maker's "My Scene" line, the Lohan doll is due out in June and will retail for about $30.

The most disturbing thing about this story will be the guys lining up to buy the doll. Shudder.

This is Sad, Whether They Make a Deal or Not

We're on the verge of cancellation of the NHL season, and I'm too sad about it. I can't even mock Canada. The Lord of Truth sends along this article, which nails the story, regardless of whether there's a deal or not...

"We might be better off to stop chasing growth and revenue and play just high-quality hockey and let its popularity take care of itself,'' Peter Karmanos Jr., owner of the Carolina Hurricanes, told the New York Times.

"We're not a public corporation,'' he added. "We don't have to have compounded annual growth.''

They won't have to worry about that, at least not for the foreseeable future. No matter when, or in what form the NHL returns, it wont find people clamoring to get back under the tent.

"You hear how certain people believe that the hardcore fan will definitely return, that the damage isn't irreparable,'' Flyers captain Keith Primeau said in Philadelphia.

"I think that's a huge miscalculation or judgment in error of who and what your fan base is. That, I think, is going to alarm a lot of people when the doors are reopened.''

I think they can make a deal. But I also think they're just dumb enough to screw it up.

The Truth About Jordan

You know, they just don't get it.

Eason Jordan's resignation is a big story. And the mainstream media (MSM) is willing to cover it, albeit with a twist that we'll discuss in a moment. But his comments at the Davos conference, which provided the reason for his departure from CNN, received little in the way of coverage from the MSM. Even the news outlet that had the story originally, the Wall Street Journal, thought that this wasn't a story, and still felt that way Monday when it penned this rather odd editorial...

None of this does Mr. Jordan credit. Yet the worst that can reasonably be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting. This may have been dumb but it wasn't a journalistic felony.

It is for this reason that we were not inclined to write further about the episode after our first report. For this we have since been accused of conspiring on Mr. Jordan's behalf. One Web accusation is that Mr. Stephens is--with 2,000 others--a fellow of the World Economic Forum, thereby implying a collusive relationship with Mr. Jordan, who sits on one of the WEF's boards. If this is a "conflict of interest," the phrase has ceased to mean anything at all.

More troubling to us is that Mr. Jordan seems to have "resigned," if in fact he wasn't forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense. It is true that Mr. Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense. But CNN stood by Mr. Jordan back then--in part, one suspects, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing Mr. Jordan overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service through his entire adult career.

In the end, I don't agree with the idea that this wasn't newsworthy, or that Jordan didn't deserve to be canned. But those are opinions, not the facts themselves. The facts show that the chief news executive at CNN made an apparently slanderous comment about the U.S. military, and retracted it in some part when asked to substantiate it, during a conference attended by a number of journalists. To decide that this is not newsworthy seems fantastic to me, but I guess it's one point of view.

But the fact that the MSM seemed to hold this view as a whole seems to reflect a level of groupthink that's pretty damning. The blogs didn't make this into a story out of thin air -- they wrote about it and other blogs picked it up, and the story drew attention from those who read it, who began to talk about it and wonder why the story wasn't on the evening news or in their daily paper. In the end, some folks probably could care less about this story, while others think it's a huge story. That reflects a differnece of opinion, but it should be alarming to the MSM that it collectively deemed it "non-news" with nary a peep. I don't know that we need news networks to cater entirely to our viewing or reading habits, but I also don't believe that a group of journalistic elites should decide what people should or should not know.

What's even more ridiculous than the WSJ's point of view on Jordan's actual comments is the hilariously alarmed response of the MSM to the Jordan resignation. Most of the focus from the MSM has now moved onto the issue of whether Jordan was forced to leave by a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarian bloggers storming the regal news citadel of CNN. The Lovelady quote I posted earlier this week reflects it...

"The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only -- caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians."

Maybe it says a lot that he doesn't know where Jimmy Stewart is. Okay, just kidding. But Eugene Volokh has a reasoned response that tears apart Lovelady's logic and provides a far better definition for the blogosphere...

Now I realize that "lynch mob" is figurative, and hyperbole at that. Still, figurative references and analogies (even hyperbolic ones) only make sense to the extent that the analogy is apt -- to the extent that the figurative usage, while literally false, reflects a deeper truth.

The trouble is that here the analogy is extremely weak. What's wrong with lynch mobs? It's that the mob itself has the power to kill. They could be completely wrong, and entirely unpersuasive to reasonable people or to the rest of the public. Yet by their physical power, they can impose their will without regard to the law.

But bloggers, or critics generally, have power only to the extent that they are persuasive. Jordan's resignation didn't come because he was afraid that bloggers will fire him. They can't fire him. I assume that to the extent the bloggers' speech led him to resign, it did so by persuading the public that he wasn't trustworthy.

So Jordan's critics (bloggers or not) aren't a lynch mob: If they're a mob, they're at most a "persuasion mob." What's more, since they're generally a very small group, they're really a "persuasion bunch."

Maybe if a persuasion bunch tries to persuade people by using factual falsehoods, they could be faulted on those grounds (though that too has little to do with lynch mobs). But I've seen no evidence that their criticisms were factually unfounded, or that Jordan quit because of any factual errors in the criticisms. (Plus presumably releasing the video of the panel would have been the best way to fight the factual errors.)

We should love persuasion bunches, who operate through peaceful persuasion, while hating lynch mobs, who operate through violence and coercion. What's more, journalists -- to the extent that they love the First Amendment's premise that broad public debate helps discover the truth, and improve society -- ought to love persuasion bunches, too. When the only power you wield is the power to speak, and persuade others through the force of your arguments (and not through the force of your guns, clubs, or fists), that's just fine. Come to think of it, isn't that the power that opinion journalists themselves wield?

It's too bad Mike Moran at "Hardblogger" didn't read this before making a fool of himself...

While it remains unclear if Jordan jumped or was pushed from his Atlantan heights, what is clear is that CNN is a lesser place without him, and the quality of political debate in the United States will likely deteriorate further, as well.

And what of his “crime?” With all the interest in “truth” shown by the Gang of Four, unabashedly partisan bloggers browbeat CNN's senior editorial figure into resigning because of a controversial (but hardly blasphemous) statement he made during in an off-the-record journalism panel. He allegedly (that's a word that we used in journalism to imply that we're not so damned sure of everything) asserted during the Davos panel that the American military had deliberately targeted journalists during the Iraq war.

That probably sounds outrageous to the public, who, thanks to the bang up job the mainstream media has done reporting what happened in Iraq, know little about the still unresolved questions surrounding the precision bombing of al-Jazeera's offices during the war, or the tank rounds fired into the hotel that housed the international press corps in Baghdad.

Here's the problem with Moran -- he's basically blaming the MSM for failing to report facts that would substantiate Jordan's alleged claim, and believes the bloggers brought about his downfall. If Jordan's comments were not as bad as people such as Barney Frank and Rony Abovitz have claimed, he (and CNN) should have forced the WEF to release the videotape. If he believed his comments were correct, he should have stood by them and substantiated them -- because if his claim is true, that's a huge news story, no matter what these terrible partisan bloggers think.

As for the quality of political debate deteriorating, I love snobby comments like this that miss the point of the blogosphere, talk radio and cable news programming. Political debate has always been nasty; the only difference now is that more people participate in it. There's no high cabal of journalists and politicians deciding what the masses should or should not know about the government and the news surrounding it. That makes our system more democratic. And I'd argue that more information is better than less -- there may be more disinformation out there, but there's more sources available to disprove false stories. Hey, who knows if CBS faked any stories back in the days before the Internet?

Perhaps the Lord of Truth put it best in an e-mail to me...

Seems to me that the Establishment Media is angry that they are finally being held accountable by the viewing public. It's like their reaction is "What, we suddenly can't make unfoudned statements and provide stories with no backing evidence?"

Perhaps this will motivate news organizations to actually pursue news stories and real journalism, rather than just going for ratings and sensationalism. Yeah, right. Like that will happen.

It will probably do both, eventually. And the new media will keep them straight until then.

Why Didn't They Have Teresa Finance It?

Sometimes, you really have to appreciate how idiotic politics can get...

Two investors have sued a filmmaker for allegedly misleading them about plans for a documentary on the life of presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites).

The federal lawsuit filed Monday says brothers Marc Abrams and Russell Abrams were misled into thinking that George Butler, a longtime Kerry friend, and the film's producers were trying to make a commercially successful film.

Instead, the brothers allege that "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry" was intended primarily to influence the 2004 presidential election in favor of the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

Wait a second, they thought this would be commercially successful? Had they seen John Kerry on the campaign trail? He's one of the few men capable of taking a reasonably exciting lifestory into utter dreck. That takes real talent, I guess.

But seriously, what idiot thinks a ton of people will go out to watch a documentary about a political candidate? Although I'm guessing Girls Gone Wild: The Clinton White House would have been a smash hit.

It's Time to Kill the Rooster

I'm trying to figure out if this is worse than the weird neighbors who pranced around naked in their garage when I was a kid...

Before leaving on vacation, a German couple set up a loudspeaker and timer with the sound of a crowing cock to blast their neighbors every morning.

After complaints, police in the northern town of Itzehoe obtained a warrant to enter the house and discovered the gear with the speakers aimed at the neighbors and rigged to a timer.

"The apparatus switched on between 2 and 4 o'clock in the morning and produced a cock crowing at an enormous volume. This would last for 20 minutes with breaks in between," police said.

To quote South Park (Bigger, Longer and Uncut), "What the f--- is wrong with German people?"

Time to Kill the Hockey

You know, it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. But apparently, it's over now...

With its do-or-die deadline come and gone and no deal in sight, the NHL circled Wednesday as the day it would call off what little was left of a decimated season, The Associated Press learned Monday.

Despite a last-gasp meeting Monday between the league and the players' union, commissioner Gary Bettman still planned to cancel the remaining games, a source close to the negotiations said on condition of anonymity.

The NHL announced that Bettman would speak at a news conference Wednesday in New York, but declined to give details.

It would become the first major professional league in North America to lose an entire season because of a labor dispute. The Stanley Cup has been awarded every year since 1919, when a flu epidemic canceled the finals.

I expect Canada to erupt into a full-scale riot any moment now, complete with the burning of Bryan Adams CDs.

Dammit, I love ice hockey, almost as much as football. And this is depressing beyond belief. I personally think Bettman, a former NBA official, is trying to force me to watch the NBA playoffs. At least baseball in 1994 managed to wait until August to cancel games, which left us with the NFL to keep us sane. An April and May spent with early season baseball and the NBA playoffs may force us to watch reality TV, for crying out loud. And then, we would all lose.

Things Not to Do in Japan

The Lord of Truth sent this to me last week, but I neglected to post it...

A record 2,201 cases of groping on Tokyo commuter trains were reported to police last year, with more than half committed during the jam-packed morning rush hour, police said Tuesday.

The complaints, the largest number since police started the tracking the problem more than 40 years ago, led to 1,897 arrests for groping in 2004, police said.

Groping has long been a problem on Tokyo's crowded subways and other commuter trains, particularly during the morning and late-night rush hours. Passengers are often tightly pressed against each other, an inviting environment for potential offenders.

Teenage girls, many of them in miniskirt school uniforms, were the most frequent targets, and accounted for about one-third of the victims, police said.

...While train authorities began to encourage women to report groping to authorities, many still call it a "nuisance" rather than a crime. Gropers can be imprisoned for up to seven years.

You know, I didn't think Bill Clinton visited Japan last year.

Seriously, I doubt anyone is shocked by the schoolgirls in uniforms getting groped. But you'd think the prospect of seven years in jail would deter some would-be gropers.

Award Shows Are Crap, Unless Hosted by Chris Rock

Chris Rock rules. I was already looking forward to the Oscars before these comments, which were noted by good friend NC. What a fun show this will be now...

Veteran members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have grown concerned over the choice of Chris Rock as host of this month's awards show, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Concern deepened after Rock claimed only gays watch the Oscars!

"I never watched the Oscars. Come on, it's a fashion show," Rock recently declared.

"What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one!"

Rock added: "Awards for art are f---ing idiotic."

Most of Hollywood and the entertainment industry is so full of themselves that I can't stand watching awards shows. Since Alli enjoys watching these shows, I inevitabley see a few minutes regardless, like last night's Grammy Awards. By the way, at some point when I wasn't watching, which would be anytime in the last fifteen years, the Grammys became a little less pathetic. I say this because even I have to admit that Usher and James Brown on the same stage was pretty cool, because James Brown is still the man. Granted, the only way it would have been perfect was if the Godfather got arrested on stage, but at least he declared Usher the "Godson of Soul." High comedy at least. But apparently many Americans agree with me that the Grammys ain't that entertaining.

What's not high comedy is finding out that our tax dollars went to subsidizing last night's Grammy telecast. For that much money, Congress could have hired Chris Rock to do three hours on the Senate floor, which would have at least entertained us. And people wonder why I don't trust the government to spend my money.