The verdict is in -- the jury has acquitted the pustule known as r. Kelly in the perverted singer's child pornography trial. I was a bit aghast when I heard the news, and will continue to believe that the jury did the wrong thing. If there is anybody that should be put in jail for his sick and degrading crimes, it is r. Kelly.

The most interesting thing to note about the jury's comments on their verdict is that they acquitted Kelly because they said there was "no victim." They agreed that r. Kelly was the man on the tape urinating on and raping a 13 year old girl, but they couldn't positively identify the child, so they felt they had to acquit. Yes, you heard right - they all agreed r. Kelly was raping a child, but they voted not to convict him. What a miscarriage of justice.

From the CBS 2 Chicago website:

CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports the jury said Friday afternoon that they did believe Kelly was the man on the tape, but could not be sure the alleged victim was the girl on the tape, because she never took the witness stand, so they felt they could not convict Kelly.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

Of course, he can never be prosecuted for this particular incident ever again (except for maybe a civil suit). But it is my guess is that this isn't an isolated incident. There's got to be more video tapes floating around. If anyone ever finds one, they should turn it in immediately. There still may be a chance to nail this pervert...

The AP has gone over the top with their scheme to bill bloggers for excerpting their news stories. Throwing the concept of "fair use" in the trash, they are trying to charge bloggers, or anyone else who quotes one of their stories on a website, $2.50 per word. Of course, that's ridiculous, and I'm sure most bloggers are going to ignore their request completely. They've even gone so far as to set up a shoppingt cart with a calculator so you can pay for your quote and be "in compliance."

Michelle Malkin has more complete coverage and a lengthy list of trackbacks, so I suggest you visit her site to learn more.

I do have a question, though. It appears that in Michelle's post, she quotes some AP stories that contain quotes from her website. That got me to thinking - under AP's scurrilous pricing plan, is Michelle Malkin expected to pay AP the per word rate when the words in the AP story she's quoting are from her own website?

I suspect they would expect payment, and that just shows how completely ludicrous this is.

H. has appropriated the official Presidential seal and has made a parody of it for his own use. The fact that he does not understand how offensive that is to many Americans calls into question his overall judgment once again.

What is really ironic is that his appropriation of the image shows a complete lack of respect for the office he is seeking. If one believes that the Presidency is truly a special office of ultimate sanctity, one does not make MAD magazine style parodies of the official icon of that office.

Obviously this is the work of a promotional expert who believes that perception becomes realty. By placing H. with something that looks like the Presidential seal, it plants an image of H. looking like the President. But this just shows that H. is not a new kind of politician at all. It betrays the fact that he is a packaged politician like any other. This is pure Madison Avenue, not Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm surprised they haven't come up with a jingle.

What really burns me is the way the apologists look down their noses on those who do find this offensive. To them, it is a "non-issue," and they keep telling us so. If you find this to be the issue, you should get over it and focus on the Chicken Little mantras of the liberals, such as the sinking economy or the "mess in Iraq." if you think this is important, you're wrong. This Presidential Seal thing is not an issue, you should focus on this other stuff. It's funny that they keep having to deflect attention from issue after issue by saying that it's not really important. You would think they would get the message that maybe these things are important. Actually, they know that these are important issues and the only way they can deal with them is to remind us that we're wrong.

I saw Susan Estrich on Fox News this morning, another in a line of "What's The Matter With Kansas," liberals reinforcing the view that this isn't an issue. After hearing her spew the same tired old issue redirection, I was compelled to send her an e-mail:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:50 AM, pBlakeney wrote:

Dear Ms. Estrich,

I heard you on Fox News this morning, and I am increasingly offended by you and other liberals calling things that may be important to us as "distractions" or "non-issues." You seem to insulting a large segment of Americans with your dismissive derision. Who are you to tell us what issues we should find important?

Issues such as the underlying core sense of patriotism of the presidential candidate is an important issue to many, and just because you don't see it that way, you need to understand that others do. The judgment as to how delicately the candidate handles his campaign in regard to the very valid patriotic feelings of millions of Americans is an issue. Of course, other issues such as the economy and international relations are important to us as well, but that doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of issues of patriotism and respect for the symbols and icons of our country.

Your attitude reflects the viewpoint and enforces the perception that liberals are elitists who look down on those who don't agree with them.

pBlakeney

"These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them."

The preceding quote is a line from the classic David Mamet play, and subsequent film, Glengarry Glen Ross, a story which is pivoted around the sale of real estate. The Glengarry leads are sales leads for a new property, and to the agents who are trying to sell real estate, they are gold. The new property is valuable, and the leads are fresh; they are the names people who are interested in spending money, and would likely bear fruit and net the agents actual commissions. The problem is, the agents can't get those sales leads until they sell off worthless property to a bunch of dead sales leads.

Does this sound familiar? If you've been following the current oil crisis and the debate about offshore drilling, and drilling in Alaska, it should. The oil companies have a bunch of existing leases which are not very promising in the prospect of actually obtaining any oil. Democrats in Congress are insisting that they will not open up any new land to oil exploration and drilling until the oil companies drill on the land they already have. It doesn't matter that the actual leases the oil companies have are poor prospects, and the actuality of recovering any oil is negligible. Rather than letting them drill in areas where we know there is oil, they want to punish the oil companies by making them spend their profits in a search for fool's gold. Nobody wins.

The continental shelf and Anwar are the new leads. They're the oil-rich leads. And to the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) they are gold. And the oil companies (and the Amercian people who would like lower gas prices) don't get them.