Once again, it's time for an edition of Ask Popehat!  Ordinarily Derrick answers your questions, along with a guest writer, but this week Derrick is engaged in a high profile secret mission for the government, so he's asked Patrick to fill in. We're proud to welcome a recognized expert in law enforcement, Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, as this week's guest columnist. 

Welcome to ASK POPEHAT!

Dear Popehat, 

I am an editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, and have recently taken a prestigious position as lead writer of the Crime blog for the well-known web publication Slate, the Internet's leading journal of politics, business, and the arts. Recently I’ve received a lot of emails from readers asking what, exactly, you should do if you find yourself in a supposedly consensual conversation with an officer of the law. Apparently a lot of innocent, non-suspicious-looking people have been or expect to be pressured into gratuitous interactions with the police. Although I am not an attorney, I am a journalist, and my work has been endorsed by Professors of Constitutional Law. So I answered, quite sensibly, that you’re under no obligation to talk with a police officer in non-investigatory situations, and you shouldn’t be intimidated into feeling otherwise. (And to be clear, I’m not talking about those times when a cop stops you for speeding, or jaywalking, or stealing an old woman’s purse. In scenarios like these, when there’s reasonable suspicion that you’ve done something wrong, you’re obliged to cooperate, and refusal to comply may lead to your arrest.)

Recently some have complained that my considered journalistic advice, that those suspected of committing crimes should always cooperate the police, is wrong. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a lawyer, but I am a journalist, and so I feel that my opinion carries a great deal of weight in these matters. Was I wrong to advise readers under suspicion of crime that they should always cooperate with the police?
Justin Peters

New York, NY 

Justin,

I'm afraid you were wrong, and rather badly so at that. You've advised your readers that when confronted by police, they should waive their constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent when questioned by the police, and to the assistance of counsel. These rights, among others, are enshrined in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. You've probably heard of some of these rights on television, in the so-called "Miranda" warning that television policemen give to actors playing suspects on popular shows like "Adam Twelve" and "Cops!" Unfortunately, the police don't always give these warnings when they should, and even more unfortunately, many Americans are unaware that they have these rights. In your small way, you've contributed to this confusion and ignorance.

Fortunately, it's not too late to undo the damage, assuming that none of Slate's readers have followed your advice. If I were you, I'd ask my editors to take down the entire column, so that it's never found through a Google search, and replace it with an appreciation, hopefully written by a practicing criminal defense attorney rather than an academic, of great cases such as Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Escobedo v. Illinois.

Please do it soon, before the column you wrote sends someone to prison or worse.

Patrick

Justin,

I appreciate the burden you're under, writing week in and week out on the sordid subject of crime. I myself know a thing or two about crime, being the nemesis of all evil in Maricopa County. I could tell you some stories if ever you come to visit us.

But I am happy to inform you that your advice was entirely correct. I don't pretend to know much about the Constitution. I leave that to law professors and judges. But I do know that every citizen, guilty or innocent, has an absolute moral duty to cooperate at all times with the police as we seek to root out the evil of crime. If only more citizens shared your public-spirited values of honesty and openness when dealing with the authorities, our labors would be lessened, and our streets would be safer.

In fact, I'd go further. It is my personal belief that when a criminal suspect bares his soul to a law enforcement officer,  the burden on his soul is lightened as much as it would be by confession before a holy priest. After all, isn't the Sheriff's Department, from the interrogation room to the detention area, a Temple of Justice? We've all heard of the guilty man tortured by his silence, whose conscience is cleansed when he tells the truth.

In closing, I appreciate the good work you've done, Justin. I'd like you to go on spreading the good news that the policeman is here to help. And please let your readers know that in most cases, an officer of the law is a suspect's best friend. I can't tell you how many times the judges in our county have deviated a sentence downward on my word that the guilty defendant had a friendly and cooperative attitude during interrogation.

Your in Truth,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio,

Maricopa County, Arizona.

Next week, Clark and and special guest writer Paul Krugman will debate the pros and cons of eliminating the outdated constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives, at the request of reader B.

As keen observers of the national conversation know, deep thinkers have floated the idea of minting a trillion dollar coin for deposit into the United States treasury to cure the nation's deficit. This bold plan, endorsed by luminaries including New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman, and Kai Ryssdal, host of public radio's award-winning Marketplace program, has the potential to solve America's fiscal crisis overnight, with no partisan bickering and no repercussions for world currency markets.

But can the coin (or sixteen of the coins, to be precise) be struck?

For the answer to this question, we turned to legal, numismatic, and political experts. Their answers were discouraging. Fortunately, as we'll explain, American know-how will find a way. Yes, it would be legal to strike the trillion dollar coin. Yes, it would be practical to strike the trillion dollar coin. And Yes!, an end to America's fiscal nightmare is in sight.

Continue Reading »

Really!

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, without doctor's orders.

A team from Duke University Medical Center said violent crime is on the increase – and handguns are used in as many as half of all shootings. They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and an automatic pistol or revolver often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The researchers said there was no reason for handguns to be publicly available at all. They consulted police chiefs, and top sportsmen, from around the United States, and found such weapons have little practical value for self-defense and none whatsoever for hunting.

None of the sportsmen felt such guns were essential, since the point of a firearm is to hit a target at a distance with accuracy. Police officials concurred, arguing that short range weapons such as handguns are far more likely to be used in domestic assault than in prevention of crime.

The researchers said a long barreled hunting rifle or shotgun may just as easily ward off criminals in the event that police are unavailable for prompt response, due to its perceived size and greater deterrent effect.

In contrast, a so-called "cop killer" bullet, typically fired from an automatic pistol, pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of handguns is particularly worrying among adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of school shootings have been carried out with such weapons, primarily high capacity automatic pistols.

The study found links between easy access to handguns and violent assault are long established.

French laws in the 17th century decreed that muskets of barrel length less than a cubit were prohibited from the realm. A century later, shotguns were introduced in the United Kingdom in an effort to reduce injuries during hunting expeditions. In the United States, so-called "gun control" has a turbulent history due to Constitutional concerns regarding the state of the militia.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of handguns would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

The Department of Justice is actively looking for ways to reduce gun crime.

"We suggest that banning the sale of revolvers and automatic pistols is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."

A Justice Department spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of handguns, but that more controls are needed. "In most states and on Federal land the law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of guns in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of those carried for a legitimate law enforcement purpose," said Craig Talbot of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so. An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a gun, for example for hunting, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a police officer) in a public place."

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 high capacity and automatic pistols and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to automatic rifles and machine guns without a Federal permit."

A spokesperson for the National Association of District Attorneys said: "NADA supports any move to reduce the number of gun crimes, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

Troubling on a number of levels. We've all heard of doctors playing God, but doctors playing Founding Father? What will they think of next?

If I still made mix tapes, this is the one I'd have made this year.

Supremes: My Christmas Tree.

Carla Thomas: Gee Whiz It's Christmas.

Darlene Love: Christmas (Baby Please Come Home).

Elvis Presley: Blue Christmas.

Mahalia Jackson: Silent Night.

Vince Guaraldi: Christmas Time Is Here.

Eartha Kitt: Santa Baby.

Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Jordan: Baby It's Cold Outside.

Roger Miller: Old Toy Trains.

Buck Owens: Christmas Ain't Christmas.

Joey Ramone: Merry Christmas (I Don't Want To Fight Tonight).

Nat King Cole: The Christmas Song.

Feel free to play it.  Sorry about the advertising.

The Sergeant at Arms having called the Committee to order, the first speaker was Chairperson Feinstein.

Senator Feinstein: We continue our hearing on Senate Bill 13-367, the Firearms Safety Act, with today's witness Mr. Wayne Lapierre of the National Rifle Association. Mr. Lapierre, I understand you're here today on behalf of your organization, to testify on ideas for preventing future tragedies such as those which occurred at Newtown and Aurora.

Mr. Lapierre: That is correct, Madame Chair.

Senator Feinstein: Let the witness be sworn.

The witness was duly sworn.

Mr. Lapierre: Madame Chair, may it please the Committee, I would like to begin with a statement. On behalf of the National Rifle Association and its four million members, and the thirteen million active sportsmen and hunters we represent, let me say that we all deplore the breakdown in our nation's morals, and mental health care system, that led to these tragedies…

Mr. Thompson: Objection! Out of order, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous! Madame Chair, on behalf those alleged to suffer from mental health disorders, I move that the witness's last remark be struck.

Senator Feinstein: Mr. Lapierre, who is this man?

Mr. Thompson: I can answer that! May it please the Committee, and even if it may not, I am Jack Thompson. You probably know that Jack Thompson is one of the most outspoken opponents of sexuality and violence in video games. Along with other notables such as Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore, Jack Thompson has sent literally hundreds of letters, made dozens of media appearances in such respected venues as Hannity and Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor, and even filed several law suits, all attempting to restrict harmful video games from reaching the hands of youth. In addition, it is my pleasure to serve as General Counsel and Media Relations Advisor for the National Rifle Association, and the witness's counsel before this tribunal.

Mr. Lapierre: That's correct. Mr. Thompson's appointment became effective on December 20, Madame Chair. As I was saying, it has long been apparent to our members that this great nation suffers from a sickness of the soul, and that millions of Americans who suffer from mental disease go untreated…

Mr. Thompson: Objection! Sustained! I will caution this witness not to confuse this honorable committee with LIBEL SLANDERS or he shall receive NOTICE! Our Process Servers will be UNLEASHED! Let the record reflect that!

Mr. Lapierre: … and from the deadly scourge of violent and pornographic videogames, which afflict and trouble the youth who commit these rampages.

Mr. Thompson: Now we're talkin'!

Senator Franken: Madame Chairwoman, may I suggest to the witness that his counsel's antics are highly disruptive of this Committee's work, and ask that…

Mr. Thompson: I don't have to take that from a drug pusher like you, Senator!

Senator Feinstein: <gavels> Order in the hearing room!

Mr. Thompson: You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole Committee is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he'd like to do it again! He told me so! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Frank, you wanna make A Deal? I got an insane Senator who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna give me Frank, three weeks probation? You, son of a bitch, you! You're supposed to stand for something! You're supposed to protect people! But instead you rape and murder them! You killed McCullough! You killed him! Hold it! Hold it! I just completed my opening statement!

Senator Feinstein: <gavels> One more outburst from counsel and the Committee will adjourn for contempt proceedings!

Mr. Thompson: Ah hah! But the strawberries that's where I had them. They LAUGHED AT ME and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with GEOMETRIC LOGIC that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist.

Senator Feinstein:  The Committee will adjourn. Mister Sergeant!

Mr. Thompson:  And I'd have produced that key if the Florida Supreme Court hadn't put me out of action. I know now they were only trying to protect Electronic Arts and Activision!

 Whereupon the Committee adjourned.

I'll bet Duke political science professor Mike Munger's classes in political economy are a lot funnier than the political economy class I attended under Professor Whatsisname 25 years ago.

Just for fun:

You may find Professor Munger's fuller explanation of the problem of negative externalities here.

Newtown, Connecticut has just experienced the single most horrid tragedy in our nation's history. The massacre at Newtown was carried out by a deeply disturbed young man, whom we are informed was routinely exposed by his (deceased) mother to the worst sorts of violent films, such as "The Terminator" and "The Matrix," and to videogames depicting the most graphic, soulless brutality, including "Call of Duty" and "Mass Effect." Yet we are admonished, once more, that to raise the issue of violent media in the aftermath of such tragedy is untimely or even opportunistic. It is, of course, neither.

It is clear to sensible observers, in the aftermath of the Newtown tragedy, that Hollywood and Silicon Valley bear almost as much responsibility for the deaths of children as the alleged perpetrator, Adam Lanza. Consider Hollywood: of the top twenty grossing movies of all time, fourteen teach our children that violence is the solution to all problems. Consider:

Avatar, Star Wars, the Phantom Menace, Transformers, and Revenge of the Sith all show that guns are the solution to all social inequity.

The Avengers teaches our children that giant hammers solve all problems.

The Dark Knight and its sequel, Spider Man and its sequel, tell us that society's ills, those that cannot be solved through "Web-slinging" or "Batarangs," are best cured by fists.

The Hunger Games demonstrates, in all its multimillion dollar glory, that arrows are the remedy to mankind's ills.

Pirates of the Caribbean advocates conflict resolution through guns and swords. The Lord of the Rings teaches us that swords and arrows resolve all troubles that cannot be dealt with at the edge of a volcano.

In each of these films, avidly consumed by young people such as Adam Lanza and, had they lived, his victims, violence is portrayed as the best and final means by which to deal with the inconveniences of modern life.

The only film in the top twenty that an objective observer would call remotely pacifist is ET: The Extraterrestrial, which suggests that problems can be solved through love, trust, and intelligence. Yet year after year, Hollywood churns out trash which suggests to troubled youth that all of its dilemmas can be solved by violence. A failing report card? Don a costume and shoot up a theater. An insoluble war in Korea? Kill yourself. Suicide, Hollywood tells our children, is painless.

Claiming that it is somehow inappropriate politicizing to point out how our current legal climate facilitates, or at least contributes to, these horrors is offensive. More to the point, the argument against relying on such events to discuss how our understanding of the right to so-called "free speech" has run amok rests on false premises.

In the aftermath of each of the most significant mass killings – San Diego, Calif. 1984 (21 killed, 19 injured); Killeen, Texas 1991 (23 Killed, 20 wounded); Columbine, Colo. 1999 (13 killed, 21 injured); Blacksburg, Va. 2007 (32 killed, 25 injured); Fort Hood, Texas 2009 (13 killed, 29 wounded); Aurora, Colo. 2012 (12 killed, 58 injured); Newtown, Conn. 2012 (26 killed, 20 age seven or under) – supposed advocates for "free speech" have repeated that the "answer" is more speech,  rather than the most moderate form of sensible and reasonable media control. This despite a media culture that glorifies, even extols and exalts in, the deeds of such killers, inevitably encouraging more to follow in their footsteps.

The logic is simple. Any clown with a cheap digital camera and an internet account can create a movie offensive to billions, and we must accept that as fact, no matter how many are killed as a result. Because Youtube, and Xbox Live, are out there, the only way to stop such crime is to ensure the availability of cheap internet video for those who are responsible and who will therefore use them for good. If more so-called "speech" were in the hands of those who would deter such attacks, then there would be a reduced incidence of crime or, at a minimum, a possibility of stopping such massacres in action. So the answer to violent media is more "speech," not less, just as in the context of the Second Amendment, the answer to government tyranny is more guns, not less.

No doubt this argument has a certain internal logic, but it is hardly uncommon for seemingly logical arguments to rest on a false premise. The false premise here is easily identified: the First Amendment "right" to "speech" will, of its own force, allow argument by people who would use their voices to protect our children against such abominations as "The Matrix." And yet, if those who favor media control must take as given the accessibility of cameras, computers, even such quaint devices as typewriters, surely First Amendment enthusiasts must also take as given that for good reason, or just as a matter of personal sensibility, many, or even most, law abiding citizens will continue to opt against exercising this right, or consuming such media.

As a result, it cannot be assumed that more and more "speech" or "press freedom" is somehow the panacea, or even a counterweight, to the onslaught of violence in our society. At a minimum, this reality check serves as a cogent response to arguments against regulating access to the sorts of media that have no legitimate connection to art or ideas, but that led directly in Newtown, Columbine, and Blacksburg to the most horrifically violent massacres, massacres in which "the Press" spread the killers' names, and fame, to the high heavens.

The debate over media control cannot take place in two juxtaposed theoretical worlds: one in which everyone has "free speech" and the other in which no one does. The hard questions arise because we live in the real world. In that world, some choose to exercise their First Amendment right responsibly, and others carelessly. (Carelessness includes failing to curb one's talk when faced with even a remote risk that someone with the worst and most venal motives could access a film studio.) And, of course, some people are simply evil, profoundly mentally disturbed, or both.

We have read, countless times, over the past week that Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison would not have recognized today's America, nor would they have agreed to an amendment guaranteeing the freedoms of slander, lese-majeste, hate speech, and pornographic violence to any yahoo with a camera or an internet connection. We must agree. While a so-called "free press" may have sufficed for its purpose in 1776, it is delusional to think that opposition to legitimate government is either necessary, or desirable, in 2012. It is time to have a serious, and respectful, conversation on the limits of expression where that expression harms society, and kills children.

We can choose to make it more or less difficult for everyone to gain access to words and images that have no justification except in the responsible press or in the hands of highly trained and licensed journalists and professors. Arguing that individuals could protect themselves and others from the threat of tyranny with mere blogs is beside the point if many are not willing to do so based on a well-founded difference of opinion as to risks and benefits of "free speech." Even the most respectable among us can be libeled or humiliated by hate speech in the present "Wild West" internet environment. Certainly we should be able to agree on ending access, once and for all, to the sorts of pornographic images and words capable of inspiring such unimaginable violence as ending the lives of 26 innocents, including teachers and children just 6 and 7 years old.

The Popehat editors.

Spotted on Facebook.

My slight reworking.

Have a hand at it yourself. The best entry may receive a fabulous prize.

We don't like Jack Stuef.

Jack Stuef is a low level troll, a self-styled comic and self-styled journalist who was forced out of WONKETTE (think about that) for poor taste. Specifically, his taste in subjects for comedic journalism, such as handicapped children. Now Jack Stuef writes for Buzzfeed, which is sort of like Reddit without a downvote button.

So when Jack Stuef applied his talents, formerly devoted to mocking the disabled, to a hit-piece on Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, we thought Inman would shrug it off. Inman, after all, is the internet equivalent of a former samurai turned buddhist monk, living on a mountaintop, a samurai who has abandoned the sword for a life of contemplation of the idea of a sword, who can now kill with a stick, or a blade of grass, or the Shao Lin Buddha Finger. Such a man does not lower himself to street brawls with thugs like Jack Stuef.

Still, even a master swordsman must defend himself from time to time: This is the result.

You're welcome.

We (I say that cautiously, as I'm no longer really a part of "us") don't blog about games as we used to, which is sorta sad but people move on.

That said, one of the things I'd meant to be blogging about back when I was actively blogging here is Guild Wars 2, a "buy-to-play" (meaning no monthly subscription fee) massive, multiplayer online roleplaying game, which I think is the best game of 2012. I didn't, because I sorta ran out of steam on the whole blogging thing around July, but I have a few trial subscriptions for a free four day weekend trial of the game, which begins tomorrow night.

If you'd like one, say so in comments, using a real email address (in the email address field, not in the body of your comment), and as supplies last I'll provide you a free trial.  If you choose to play on the Ehmry Bay server in North America, you can even join the Popehat guild, which is pretty much just me.

Of course, if you try the game and like it, please consider buying it through the Amazon widget on the right sidebar.

Effective immediately, I'm resigning from this place. I've appreciated the many opportunities I've received here and the chance to cover some important stories, but there are too many constraints on my writing. Now don't get the wrong idea. This is an amicable parting. Readers who've enjoyed my work here are welcome to follow me at my new site, where I'll address issues that really matter, to me and I suspect to most of you. Why in the past couple of days, I've written my best work, on topics I could never have covered here. Just look at the most recent post titles!

Our planet is doomed.

That rich plutocrat is a successful businessman and inventor, but is he really qualified to be President?

Exactly what does that other rich plutocrat mean when he says he's "experiencing the nightlife of this city"?

I will not kneel before you.

I dreamt that the Sun turned red.

The iPhone 5? Not for me! When you really need it, a payphone is still the way to go.

This will be a deeply personal blog, yet one of interest to readers across the globe. I'll be applying my unique insights to problems of interest to all humanity and beyond, in the insightful and penetrating way you've come to expect from my work here, but with no holds barred and no subject out of bounds.

Won't you join me?

Links are the currency of blogging. We're fortunate these days to receive a fair number of them, for which we're thankful. But once in a while, a link stands out, a link from another blogger who takes your story, and spins it into something of his own inspiration, something you'd never think to write, or something you simply couldn't write.

I was especially thankful, therefore, to receive a link this morning from Unwashed Advocate, in which the author riffs on my trifle about yet another overbroad law aimed at the Westboro Bigot Church, to tell the little-known history of William Calley after My Lai, the disgusting fashion in which high government officials pandered to Calley's fan club, and the author's meeting with one of the jurors at Calley's court martial: I give you Calley Revisited.

Vietnamese-American protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to protest at the funerals of accused war criminals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.

According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket funerals of war criminals acquitted because military prosecutors could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after witnesses to such crimes were killed. Protesters will be barred from cemeteries two hours before or after such a service. The bill also requires protesters to be at least 300 feet away from those who mourn the deaths of accused, but acquitted, war criminals.

Van Duc Tronh, secretary of the Son My Survivors Association of Garden Grove, California, spoke on behalf of Vietnamese-Americans outraged by the bill. "We thank God, every day, that our families were able to escape to this country, where we have built new lives and found freedom. But while we are second to none in our appreciation of American soldiers who fought and died to keep Vietnam free, we do not forget that a tiny minority of those soldiers committed unspeakable crimes during the war, crimes which were swept under the rug by the American government. The worst of these crimes was the My Lai massacre, in the village of Son My, in which 500 innocent civilians were raped and murdered, their bodies mutilated, by soldiers acting under the orders of Lieutenant William Calley and Captain Ernest Medina. Only Lieutenant Calley was convicted for this atrocity, in a whitewash trial despite the fact that over 30 soldiers participated in the killings, or stood silent while the rapes and murders went on."

"Personally, I had planned to protest at Captain Medina's funeral, which will be a military funeral. I believe it is a disgrace that, when he dies, Captain Medina will be given a rifle salute and buried under the flag he dishonored, the same flag under which the men he commanded killed so many innocent people. I suppose I'll have to spit on his grave, two hours and one minute after the ceremony."

In Dearborn, Michigan, members of the "Fair Play for Haditha Committee" expressed similar concerns. "My cousin Marya was shot by trigger-happy Marines who couldn't take the time to distinguish between a woman carrying groceries and an Al Qaeda bomber," said Abdul Al Hazred, an Iraqi who volunteered as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Al Anbar province and was subsequently repatriated to the United States. "We know who did it. He has never apologized, nor has the government. We believe it is unspeakable that a war criminal will be buried under the flag of the country which fought to free us from Saddam Hussein. We plan to protest this disgrace when her killer dies, but thanks to Senator Snowe, we'll probably be jailed when that happens."

This aspect of the legislation was introduced by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who, at the urging of a teenage constituent, proposed new limitations on military funeral demonstrations as a response to a 2011 Supreme Court case that ruled such actions were protected under the First Amendment.

In the wake of that decision, many have turned to counter-protest efforts to block disruptive and insensitive funerary displays, which frequently suggest that accused war criminals have died as God's vengeance for killing innocent civilians, as at Hiroshima, My Lai, Haditha, and in the secret bombing of Cambodia.

The Japanese-American Friendship Society of Nagasaki expressed concerns regarding the law, while the Sons of Ukrainian Veterans of the War for the Liberation of Ukraine from Bolsheviks, Gypsies, Jews, and Sodomites applauded the bill and urged that its protection be extended to immigrant Americans who fought under other flags. "God bless Senator Snowe. I only pray that this law will protect the dozens of surviving Ukrainian-American veterans who fought to keep America, and Ukraine, free of the Jew taint of Leninism" said its President Yuri Demjanjuk, from his home in Cleveland.

The bill also contains a variety of measures meant to address veterans health, benefits, housing and education. Obama is expected to sign to the legislation later this month.

That day will come in two years and seven months, when Popehat reaches its (approximate) ten year anniversary.

Until that day, it will behoove us to congratulate friends who reach that milestone. One of them is our friend Mark Draughn, who blogs as Windypundit. In the dark days of 2002, all bloggers were named Something-Pundit, just as, some dark day in the future, all restaurants will be Taco Bell. But very few of the CatPundits,  DogPundits, FarmerPundits, PsychoPundits, SuperPundits, and WhatsyoursignimacapricornPundits survived and continued writing. Apart from Bill Quick and some hayseed in Tennessee, Mark is the last of a dying breed.

He's commemorating this auspicious anniversary by giving useful tips to aspiring bloggers.  I disagree with 21.6% of Mark's advice, but what do I know? I've only been doing this for seven years.