Just for the sake of argument, say someone was planning on doing an internet tv show that featured man-on-the-street -type interviews.  Anything special you’d like to see?  In this hypothetical scenario? Would the calculus change if the hypothetical host was willing to put on hypothetical disguises?  Discuss. Meantime, I have to go out and find a hypothetical replacement battery for my GL-1.

Diggs Taylor: “Mustard asserts that it cannot defend its case as premier hot dog condiment without recourse to citing historical and cultural precedent. This plump and delicious Nathan’s hot dog disagrees. Mustard has, since the advent of consumerist manipulation, repeatedly been shown in advertisements for hot dogs.  Similarly, mustard is contained in the ‘street’ expression, ‘put some mustard on that hot dog, bitch.’ Consequently, the court finds Defendants’ argument that

First, here’s Mark Levin, discussing the New York Times’ framing of the strained decision.  Writes Levin: It seems to me that since the ACLU — the mother ship for the NYCLU and other affiliates — was one of the plaintiffs in the case, it would be nice if the Times would disclose this connection. But the biggest problem with the Times editorial is that is provides no serious analysis of

This time from Bryan Cunningham, who “served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush”: Whatever Judge Taylor’s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with