Wednesday digest

- As an American-Canadian, I'd like to wish a happy Independence Day to everyone south of the border. Despite some tough times lately, you are still much admired and respected.

- You know what makes John Stossel great? It's that he reminds us what should be painfully obvious. Here, he states that government is coercive by definition, and concludes that truly freedom-loving peoples should always be skeptical of its actions. A practical example would be current drive to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. It seems that when it comes to US talk radio, the Left can't compete, so they're going to try and use the power of the state to fight their battles for them by silencing programs they don't like.

- Wouldn't it be refreshing if for once representatives of the Islamic community stopped putting words in people's mouths and started attacking radicalism - really attacked it by looking in the mirror instead of obfuscating, closing ranks and assigning blame - instead? After all, when looking at the bigger picture, they've got the most to lose.

- Stranger than fiction: Ozzy Osbourne, pro-Taiwan activist.

- I don't like the idea of politicians superseding the legal process. That said, it's their prerogative, and as far as the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence goes, the following needs to be kept in mind. The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew before Libby even appeared on the stand that the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity was Colin Powell's errand boy Richard Armitage, but that didn't stop him from going on his wild goose chase. Then, you have Libby, presumably being examined because of some kind of (non-existent) interference, stating that he couldn't remember who told him what about Plame, and for that, he gets 30 months, a quarter of a million dollar fine and a ruined career and reputation all because some sleazeball lawyer wanted to make a name for himself.

As for precedents, the spouse of the Democratic front-runner either commuted the sentence or pardoned almost 200 people, many for worse offences than this "crime". Hell, I can't even recall what I had for breakfast half the time, and I'm a guy in my early 30s who works forty hours a week rather than a guy in his 50s who works ninety, in the White House, no less.

Seriously, if we're going to give politicians the right to override the judiciary, rightly or wrongly, this is what should be expected. I think it is a power that should be used sparingly because when exercised, it just reeks of the kind of cronyism and corruption that tinpot dictatorships are known for.