As hard as it may be to believe, CNN reports the following about September home sales (second to last paragraph of the story):

Half the homes sold for more than the median and half for less.

It’s on the internets, I guess it must be true.

An unborn baby is a person, for certain. But I’m not so sure this lady has a shot, since the point of the HOV lane is to reduce the number of cars, and the child inside does not take up a seat. Interesting approach, but it’s a definite stretch.

A pregnant woman ticketed for driving in the carpool lane will have her day in court next month to argue that her unborn child counts as a second person in the car.

“I understand the reasoning for the HOV lane,” said Candace Dickinson, 23. “But whether my son is in a car seat versus in my stomach, I don’t get it. It’s the same thing.”

…

“He asked how many people were in the car with me, and I said, ‘Two’ and he said ‘No, one.’ I said I was nine months pregnant and had my son in the car with me,” she said. “The way the law is written, he can occupy the vehicle without occupying a seat.”

This is a long but fascinating interview with “Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq.”

Go check it out.

UPDATE: Lorie Byrd has more.

In the WSJ today, Louis Freeh writes:

The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it “was not historically significant.” This astounding conclusion–in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings–raises serious challenges to the commission’s credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.

Back in March, I decided to try a little experiment. Almost eight months later, it has succeeded.

Let’s see if I can get “define: instalanche” to return a definition via Google. Right now, no definitions are found. I also can find nowhere online which explains how to become an official source of definitions, but I have my theories, and so here goes.

Using Google’s search feature for definitions, you can now type “define: instalanche” and you get a complimentary Myopic Zeal definition.

Even more fun … define: myopic zeal!

Also, if there is anything else you want defined, I’m taking suggestions. ;-)

Joining open trackbacks at: Basil’s Blog, Everyman, THM, Euphoric Reality, Political Teen, Don Surber, bRight and Early, Choose Life, California Conservative, The Tar Pit, Cao, OTB Traffic Jam.

Hah!

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed suit earlier today with the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking an emergency injunction against the use of any audio or video tape, newspaper or magazine articles, transcripts or Congressional Records from more than one week prior from whatever the present date may happen to be at any given time by any individual, corporation, or organization in perpetuity.

In conjunction with the lawsuit, DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“We believe it is a most egregious affront to all that we as a nation hold most sacred that the enemies of freedom and democracy are permitted to use the past as a weapon against all that we have worked so long and hard to establish as the current version of the truth. It is for this reason that we feel it is of the utmost urgency that all evidence of the so-called past be expunged from the record so that it may be rewritten as we see fit at any given time to advance the goals of our party and its constituents.”

In a brief hearing before a three judge panel, the party’s lawyers argued that all past statements by Democrats and their supporters being used by the Republicans to counter their current statements about President Bush’s “misuse” of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War amount to an abuse of the Fifth Amendment Rights of Democrats against self-criminalization. In a unanimous 3-0 ruling, the Court quickly issued the injunction as sought, making it a crime to compare the past statements of any Democrat or liberal with the current statements of the same Democrat or liberal.