Today is the beginning of a new era. A time of change. A glorious new beginning… Politics aside, we now have a President who understands the power of the internet. As of 12:01 p.m. EST, White House dot gov has a new look.

Powered by some form of ASP, it’s a valid XHTML site. Getting a Microsoft based site to validate is an impressive feat all by itself, but this one is done with style. As well as the usual stuff you’d expect on a government site, they’ve included a blog and photo galleries. Not only included the blog and galleries, but made them the face of the site. Rotating imagery, dynamic content, and enough RSS feeds to satisfy even… me.

I have to admit, I’m rather impressed. Who really knows how the Presidency will go, but I like the start. Neat, clean and very professional looking.  You could almost say, Presidential.

My hat is tipped to the designer. Beautifully done.

This looks interesting. Google is jumping into the browser game with a browser called “Chrome”. They have some good ideas, I hope their product stands up to their hype. This has been in the works for quite a while, but I for one never thought they’d ever release it. I’ll be happy to be wrong if this is released as expected.

Google Ignites a New Browser War With Microsoft By Unveiling One of its Own

In its most frontal and aggressive attack on Microsoft yet, sources with knowledge of the project said Google is preparing to unveil a new browser – ready for download to users as early as tomorrow – to try to loosen Microsoft’s iron grip on the most important piece of software to navigate the Internet.

Also interesting is their form of news release… a comic book. Didn’t see that coming.

Update: The beta is available – Google Chrome

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. – Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Sent to me via e-mail, source unknown.

An email from Ireland to the brethren in the States… a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:

We, in Ireland, can’t figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States. On one side, you have a pants wearing lawyer, married to a lawyer who can’t keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer who goes to the wrong church who is married to yet another lawyer who doesn’t even like the country her husband wants to run.

Now…On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.

What in Lords name are ye lads thinking over there in the colonies?

Filed under both humor and politics… is that redundant?

Punished first, acquitted later – Ezra Levant

But I’ve read the dismissal letter three times now, and each time it makes me more angry. Because I haven’t been given my freedom of the press. I’ve simply had the government censor approve what I said. That’s a completely different thing.

This would be most of my problem with the Al Gore and his position on global warming.

Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat

I’m all for decreasing our need for oil (foreign or otherwise), and most anything else that would improve our environment. I’m a big fan of the great outdoors, and I want my children to see the same beautiful scenery I’ve seen. My problem with the global warming crowd is that most of the big names you associate with the political side of the movement are getting rich off of it. And they’re spending this money on things like a “new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina”. Grand total, probably somewhere between $500,000 to 1,000,000. If the most important thing we can do is to support Al Gore’s environmental causes, then why is his money going to something like this?

h/t Instapundit.com

I’ve keeping my eye on newspapers and online commenting for a while. Letting people comment on the newspaper like a blog seemed like an interesting idea. My interest was that I thought that newspapers wouldn’t stay on top of controlling spam comments. I was wrong. Where they lost control was with the actual commenters. Without some sort of accountability, apparently people feel free to say anything they want in this sort of forum. Threatening and abusive language, insults, random and profane comments… Apparently it’s all OK, as long as nobody knows who you are. It’s time somebody with a brain took control. This sort of thing doesn’t help anything. You need a moderator, and you need some accountability.

My first thought was that requiring accounts would be my first suggestion. Putting a name to that filth would stamp most of it out pretty quickly. While I came up with one idea, Derek Powazek has has come up with 10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments.

Here are ten things newspapers could do, right now, to improve the quality of the comments on their sites. (There are lots more, but you know how newspaper editors can’t resist a top ten list.)

How long before newspapers start taking these sort of measures? I’m betting it’s going to go downhill quite a bit further at most papers before it gets better. I don’t think the newspapers grasp the negative effects of this sort of thing. Sure their site numbers are going up, but is this the sort of traffic that’s going to make you money? I don’t think so.

Larry Godwin and the City of Memphis have issued AOL with a subpoena to reveal the owners of the blog MPD Enforcer 2.0. This police whistle-blower blog is of course making plans to fight this subpoena.

In what could be a landmark case of privacy and the 1st Amendment, GODwin has illegally used his position and the City of Memphis as a ram to ruin the Constitution of the United States! Some members of the Enforcer 2.0 have contacted their attorneys and we are in the process of filing a lawsuit against Larry and the City of Memphis.

A quick look at comments on a local news story suggest, that Mr. Godwin isn’t getting much public sympathy. I somehow doubt the increase in the traffic at MPD Enforcer 2.0 due to this subpoena is going to put him in a better mood.

h/t Instapundit.com

D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down

The court ruled that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other Washington officials want to keep in place a prohibition on semiautomatic handguns — those in which a bullet clip is inserted into the gun’s grip.

What part of handgun are they not understanding? They seem to be confused by the fact that they have redefined a semiautomatic as an “machine gun”.

Current city law defines a “machine gun” to mean “any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot: a) Automatically, more than one shot by a single function of the trigger; b) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading.”

Makes me curious what I could redefine… How about money as “any pretty rock I find in my yard”? How many rocks would it take to buy myself a new “machine gun”?

h/t Instapundit.com – Make sure to follow his link to “Because, you know, revolvers don’t shoot quickly.”

The ruling is in! In a 5-4 ruling, the DC gun ban has been struck down. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, had several interesting things to say.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

“…the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

I was happy to see that the historically traditional definition of “militia” was reiterated quite early in syllabus of the document. Both Majority and Minority opinions seem to be using this same definition as far as I can tell.

“…comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

It’s nice to see that clarified. It seemed quite obvious to me that the writers of the Bill of Rights would have used that definition of militia, but you often see it confused with a more modern interpretation in modern political discourse.

Th legal language is, at times, difficult to follow, but impressive none the less. The legal history and documentation presented on both sides of the argument are fascinating to read. I’m looking forward to finishing it.

SCOTUSblog has the opinion in it’s entirety.

From The Frontlines, Ustream.TV.

Melanie Morgan and Michelle Malkin are hosting a fund raising effort to send care packages to troops in Iraq. If they live up to their own hype, it should be quite spectacular.

We’ve got a star-studded line-up of troops, military charities, celebs, and talk radio stars — from Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin to Dr. Laura and Laura Ingraham to musician John Ondrasik and “Lone Survivor” author and Navy SEAL hero Marcus Luttrell — who’ll be joining us in our eight-hour marathon fund-raising drive to help send the largest number of care packages in history to our men and women in uniform serving overseas. – Michelle Malkin

Go check it out.

Senate to honor last living U.S. vet of WWI, at 107 – CNN.com

Buckles is the last survivor of the more than 2 million U.S. military men sent overseas to fight in what was called the Great War.

Buckles, who turned 107 in February, lied about his age to join the U.S. Army at the age of 16.

D.C.’s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment’s meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

I’ve always been fascinated by people’s various views on the second amendment, and in particular people’s views on the DC gun ban.

Art. II . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Maybe my viewpoint was defined because as a child, and an avid reader of history, I understood the concept of militia before I learned of the Second Amendment. I have always understood the word militia to mean essentially every able-bodied person. So I’ve always understood it to be an individual right. It seems to me to be counter intuitive to read it otherwise.

Militia – Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

2. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

I’ve heard the “it’s a group right” take on the subject a couple of times, but I’ve never understood that interpretation. The First and Fourth Amendments apply to individuals, so why wouldn’t the Second?

There’s also the “it’s a military right” viewpoint, but that one’s always sounded a little weak to me too. Why would the government define a “right” for itself to give it’s soldiers weapons? Governments don’t have rights, people have rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights in all other contexts was essentially to define what rights “people” had. This protected people, individual people, from the government. Why would the Second Amendment be different?

The case is complicated by the District’s secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia. – washingtonpost.com

This is one of my favorite arguments, just for plain audacity. They essentially admit an individual right, but state that it doesn’t apply to the District of Columbia… City of New York, Chicago, whoever. So the “people” have a fundamental right, but the District, State, City, or County can take it away? How’s that work? If the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the citizens of DC, does the First Amendment? It’s my understanding that the US Constitution, and the Bill or Rights, applies to all citizens. I look forward to seeing these issues debated in the news, and in the courts.

Disabled Iraqi children get wheelchairs, big smiles – CNN.com

Blauser points to one of his favorite photographs, of a father carrying his son in his arms, an endless desert road behind him. He had carried his son more than 6 miles to get a wheelchair. “In August 2006 we had a distribution in northern Iraq,” Blauser remembered. “We watched him [the father] come forward, and people rushed to take the boy from his arms. And he said, ‘No, I’ve been carrying this child all my life. I can carry him the last 100 yards to receive his wheelchair.’ ” – Brad Blauser

Here’s something to think about. The Gun Free Zone Bill.

A. Any person, organization or entity, or any agency of government that creates a gun-free zone shall be liable for damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in such gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct…

I’ll be giving this some thought. At first glance I’d have to agree with the concept. I’ve always thought that posted gun-free zones were a bad idea. I have no problem with a lack of guns, but by defining an area or business as gun-free, you’re defining a safe target for someone who is interested in committing crime. Who in their right mind would put a sign on their house that said “This home safe to burglarize, even if we’re home!” That’s essentially what a gun-free zone does.

A hat-tip to Instapundit.com.

I look forward to seeing how this turns out.

“While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false,” Kerry wrote to Pickens. “I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.”

“When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans’ causes,” Pickens wrote.

I personally think Mr. Kerry will be eating crow here, but I may be wrong. I find it heard to think that Mr. Picket would put himself in the position to loose a public bet like this. He seems like a betting man to me, one that doesn’t loose much, or often.

Roay Pearson, who I’ve mentioned once or twice, is in the news again.

US trousers-claim judge loses job

Roy Pearson’s term as an administrative law judge in Washington DC expired on 2 May and the selection commission voted not to reappoint him.

In 2005, Mr Pearson sued his cleaners after they refused to pay for a pair of lost trousers.

He said they had failed to honour a pledge of “satisfaction guaranteed”.

Apparently, the selection commission wasn’t satisfied. Don’t you love irony?

“I see stupid strikes, and I see less stupid strikes. I see smart strikes,” Eisner said in the keynote, which was structured as a conversation with Neil P. Cavuto, senior vice president and managing editor of Fox Business News. “This is a stupid strike.”

The problem, Eisner said, is that the Writer’s Guild is lobbying for a bigger cut of the profits from digital distribution–and according to the former Disney chief, those profits simply aren’t there. – Michael Eisner

You can agree or disagree with Mr. Eisner on the stupidity of this strike. He lost what little credibility his argument might have had though, when his attention turned to Apple.

The studios “make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners. They make all these kinds of things, and who’s making money? Apple! They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I’d be striking up wherever he is.”

I don’t really follow either point he’s trying to make. Writers should strike at Apple? Where did that come from? His first argument, that I quoted in part, is the one that really stuck with me. He seems to be suggesting that since the business of online content doesn’t make any money, studios shouldn’t have to pay the writers… Do you think he uses this policy in his own business? The article mentions that his current company’s first venture with online content “didn’t make money”. How much do you want to bet that Mr. Eisner got paid despite this lack of profits?

For everything you need to know about the writers strike, go see what Ze has to say about strike day. It’s not actually a news story, it’s much more coherent. Did I mention that it was funny? Well, this is Ze, so that could be assumed I suppose.

Blogger News Network is linking to What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?

“Illegal” is accurate insofar as it describes a person’s immigration status. About 60 percent of the people it applies to entered the country unlawfully. The rest are those who entered legally but did not leave when they were supposed to. The statutory penalties associated with their misdeeds are not insignificant, but neither are they criminal. You get caught, you get sent home.

Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.

Good blog, good post. Go read it.