Here's a New York Times article about it.

Why does this all look so familiar?...

Православие, Самодержавие, и Народность
(Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality)

Russia's reverting to the old tsarist code.

if the pro-Obama posters on dKos showed a little more selectivity in what they push onto the rec list.

The front pagers make sloppy arguments against Hillary too, although their tone is generally a bit more elevated than the diaries.

He's never let the truth stand in the way of a good smear himself.  He's the left-wing mirror image of the American-Spectator-esque smear merchants of the right wing IMO.  

Davefromqueens once had a diary that made me defend Sean Hannity , it was such a lying diary . 

Not exactly my go-to guy when I'm looking for the truth... 

My opinion is that being non-religious, if done properly, involves reading nothing on the subject.  If the existence of a higher power is at best unknowable, what is there really to be said further about it?  I'm just happy that my Sundays are free and I've never to my knowledge contributed money to pay for a steeple or a stained-glass window.  The activist atheists are just turning their brand of atheism into another religion, seems like. And that might be about as many words as I will ever say about my views on religious matters. 

They want to say that my online poker winnings from 2006 are "self employment income" and that I have to pay social security and medicare and all that good stuff on it.

Total fishing expedition on their part.  I guess with the war and all, they're coming up a bit short in the treasury, so they have to come after law-abiding citizens like me.  The irony of this is that there are scores of people who simply don't report this kind of income because there aren't any 1099's since the the online poker sites are all offshore, and the IRS doesn't do anything about those people.  But when you report it, you get rewarded with a big ol audit.  

I'm quite sure I won't have to pay it in the end, but it's going to be a hassle cutting thru all the red tape.  I might be able to use a Fukitol at some point in the process :-p

I mean, an unarmed guy gets shot to death, 50 bullets fired, the officers testify that one of the targets "made a sudden move" (no weapon found) and that they believed *they* were under fire as they kept shooting (even pausing to reload!)... and that's a good enough defense?

Doesn't sound like justice to me.

Both before and during the trial the victims were attacked, as if their past were somehow relevant to whether the police used unnecessary force.

None of the officers even testified -- the judge listened to their grand jury statements.

I hope the city loses the lawsuits. There needs to be some consequences somewhere to make this sort of thing less likely to occur in future.