« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
December 28, 2006
Truer Words Were Never Spoke
Regarding imam Hajji Ilgar's statement, “I am for freedom of speech but not the freedom to insult,” Cliff May responds, "You can't have one without the other."
From the Islamist imams to the Dixie Chicks, why is this concept so hard to understand? There are some on the Right who don't get it, either.
Posted at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)December 14, 2006
More On The Nifong Scandal
John Hinderaker at Power Line notes new developments in the Nifong scandal case:
A court filing in the rape prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players says that the prosecution had DNA tests done at a private laboratory, that the tests demonstrated that the accused players are innocent, and that the prosecutor failed to disclose the results to the defense:DNA testing in the Duke lacrosse rape case found genetic material from several males in the accuser's body and her underwear--but none from any team member, defense attorneys said in court papers Wednesday. The papers were filed by attorneys for the three lacrosse players charged, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. They complained that the information about DNA from other men was not disclosed in a report prosecutors provided earlier this year to the defense.It's hard to understand how this case can make it to trial.
Unfortunately, this won't help the defendants much if the case goes all the way to a jury: the same voters who reelected Nifong will be the ones asked to hear the case. And we all know how little the facts matter to some juries.
Posted at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)December 12, 2006
Obama: Hillary's Match, At Last?
John Podhortetz over at the Corner points up Tony Blankley's obervations on a potential Clinton vs. Obama presidential campaign--and the dogs of war Hillary can unleash:
Tony Blankley today, in fine fettle: "If Hillary Milhous Clinton begins to believe that Barack Obama is a threat to her inheritance of the White House, it will not be long before his own mother will not recognize the public image that Hillary's operatives will have drawn of him. He could ask Paula Jones (and all the other innocent women "her husband" attempted to seduce and abandon) or Ken Starr (one of the nation's most admired jurists before he was assigned to investigate 'her husband')."
But: beating up on powerless unknown women is a lot different than going after someone with Obama's already white-hot star power. Obama seems to have the same type of emotional appeal that her husband did does--and I wonder if the usual Clinton attack strategy will be effective against such a popular, emotion-based candidate.
Will Obama provide Hillary's Waterloo?
