crime

The Post Editorial Board tell us how serious, high-minded people should talk about Presidential law-breaking

But at long last, the Post Editorial Board has finally found something to be outraged about -- the fact that the judicial opinion issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor yesterday isn't scholarly and "complex" enough for the intellectual tastes of Fred Hiatt. What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness.

This is some good stuff. I like the way Greenwald builds his arguments, even though it does seem like he slides a little into very common anti-Bush/Iraq war rhetoric at one point. At least it's all connected together. I kind of like this post about discourse here in the Nation's Capital.

And now for a word from the "other side"...

Police arrest pretend zombies for possessing pretend weapons

In Minneapolis, it is apparently against the law to pretend to look like an undead ghoul carrying a bag "with wires sticking out."

Enterprising soldiers take the internet into their own hands