Speaking as both a lawyer and as a mother of a 10-year-old, I should point out that children this age, in every state, are considered too young to marry or to enter into binding contracts. That means, for example, if my daughter wanted to buy a car, she could sign away her life on the contract, but the entire contract would be void. Unenforceable. Meaningless. Toilet paper. Get it?

Children this age are far too young to make lifetime commitments, no matter how badly we parents want them to "choose" the right thing. A 10-year-old child is in no position to pledge chastity until marriage -- a marriage that may not happen until she's in her 40's, if at all -- and the real message of these goofball ceremonies and the like is "Daddy's love is conditional -- if you ever dare get a boyfriend, both Daddy and God are gonna be good and mad." Binding lifetime commitments should be made free of coercion and only at the proper age. I would no more subject a child to this ceremony than I would allow her to enter a convent.

I appreciate a father's need to protect his daughter, particularly through her teen years, but perhaps it would be better to make sure the lines of communication remain open and love remains unconditional and nonjudgmental.

Maybe the issue is really this: if the MSM is claiming the "audience" didn't find Colbert's speech to be funny, then they themselves didn't get the audience. We are the audience. The press, and the president, were merely part of the show.

On that basis, one would have to conclude that Colbert was, indeed, funny. Brilliant, in fact.

I've been following this story as it unfolds on a number of sites, and I do have one observation: The closer a commentator is to the "MSM", the more likely they'll come up with some finely nuanced view that demonstrates clear cultural superiority to those of us who make up the rabble of the "blogosphere". The gentle chiding always reminds us that, while the "Bush Twins" skit managed to be both entertaining and tasteful, Colbert was simply unfunny and inappropriate.

As many others have pointed out before me, the occasion seems to be the key here: it's an opportunity for those in power (and those in favor) to poke fun at those whose influence is waning. Hence, Colbert is "inappropriate" -- unlike Imus' wisecrack about Dan Rather, which is itself so vulgar as to be unprintable in the very same MSM outlets who now complain about Colbert.

We are, of course, led to believe that the true hit of the evening was the "Bush Twin" skit. Remind me again -- how many posts on Salon has it generated? How many posts did it generate on WaPo, or NY Times, or NPR, or Time? How many times was it linked, downloaded, spammed to friends? Does it show up on anybody's "most e-mailed" list?

I would point out that the numbers speak for themselves, but that doesn't seem to have impressed anybody on the MSM side. Apparently reality really DOES have a well-known liberal bias.

Reporters aren't the only people who should be concerned. As a lawyer, I have to maintain strict client confidentiality. This goes beyond the substance of attorney-client discussions: often the very existence of the attorney-client relationship is, in itself, a matter the client wishes to keep confidential. That means confidentiality is violated when the phone numbers are disclosed to the NSA -- not, as NSA argues, when the NSA "listens in" on the call. The NSA's actions place the attorney-client relationship at risk, no less than if they staked out my office and took down the license plates of every person who visited the office, just to "build a database". I would imagine doctors have the same concerns.

Kip Attaway "Lovin You's the Dumbest Fuckin Thing I Ever Done"

Okay, it's not rock, it's country western, but it works. ANYTHING but "Let The Eagle Soar".

If the William Jefferson story isn't the weirdest one in Washington just now, we don't know what is. As the Louisiana Democrat becomes a less and less sympathetic victim -- as the Washington Post reports today, the FBI claims that Jefferson tried to hide documents in a bag even as agents were searching his home last year -- Republicans in the House continue to amp up their rhetoric in protesting the FBI's search of Jefferson's House office.

Maybe they're looking for Jimmy Hoffa?

I'm guessing the tags need to stay in because the bridesmaid intends to return the dress as soon as she's worn it.

When did a pharmacist's religion become his employer's responsibility? Face it, if this issue involved ANYTHING but women's reproductive freedom, there would be no debate whatsoever. Let's say I'm a Muslim and my religion forbids consumption of alcohol. Could I get hired as a waitress or bartender, but insist somebody else would have to serve the alcohol? If I were a Mormon and couldn't drink coffee, could I get a job at Starbuck's but insist that any customer who wanted coffee had to wait for someone else to serve them? If I'm an orthodox Jew, would it be reasonable for me to demand the right to work at a strip club, and insist on being allowed to remain covered from head to toe? Let's face it: if you have religious objections to a job, it should be your responsibility to find another line of work.

I'd be willing to bet that the only time an employee is entitled to "demand" the right not to do his or her job, is when the employee's job involves allowing women access to contraception and/or abortion. I can't think of any other instance in which an employee can simply refuse to perform the job for which he was hired, and claim religious discrimination if the employer penalizes him.

Lisa Simpson!

And even though Harry Potter was himself a nominee, I am confident that if he could vote, his first nominee would be Hermione Grainger.