Watertown,NY– A nice day, really, if you like it warm and sunny.Quick one today because OI’m running a little behind.
- Casey Anthony: Lots of comments, today on the Anthony verdict. One such:
What is coming to this world today how could anyone find that b—- h NOT GUILTY
Another, from Billy: 
Good luck with the rest of your miserable life, woman. No decent person will ever have anything to do with you.
…which, of course, will likely play to your advantage in this Endarkenment, because the whole culture is just about as despicable as you are.
Even if I’m the only one: I see you.
Well, look, gang…. First, I sympathize with Billy here. I also sympathize with those who think justice ill served by this verdict…. but let’s not let the emotion get away from us, here. It’s as the WaPo bleats  today:
Yet for all the public loathing of Anthony that the evidence whipped up, for all the vilification she was subjected to in the talk-show arena â€” the fact is, being a lousy mother isn’t a capital offense. Not seeming to care that your child is dead isn’t punishable by lethal injection. Being seen as despicable, of course, isn’t the same as being legally guilty.
In the end, the state’s case had a giant hole. There simply was no clear evidence that Caylee was slain intentionally. It was a hole big enough for an acquittal.
This is not a case of “Jury nullification” as we saw in the case of OJ Simpson. This is a case of the jury not having anything to base a conviction on. No cause of death, no DNA evidence, etc. Look, I think she knew more, at least than she’s saying,and I agree with Billy, here. My heart tells me there’s lots going on here that the government’s case never included simply because they didn’t have it. But, how would we take a conviction of ourselves or one of our own, sans evidence, as so many seem to have been calling for here?
- DSK, ADDED DISCUSSION: It strikes me as interesting, that this subject of objective fairness should be brought up now, with the DSK case being so recent and indeed ongoing. There have been many in the sphere who have questioned the practice of trusting the word of the accuser in a sexual assult case, incidental to the DSK case, that alternately held their silence, else brandished the tar and feathers, back in the day of the Justice Thomas show trial…. errr… confirmation.I think the question needs be asked, would someone who wasn’t a socialist, have gotten so many on the left to question the way sexual assault cases have been handled for so long? You KNOW it wouldn’t go down that way. DSK gets support from the left over his sexual accuser, and gets to question the validity of the accusations in a way that, say, Justice Thomas never got to do Anita Hill, simply because he’s a leftst. We both know the left, and particularly the feminist left, would never allow such credibility questions to surface under any other condition.I should say, too, that Crystal Mangum and the Duke Lacrosse Team put the first leak in that dike. (And yes, I know, bad pun.)There’s this also: The question of where he goes to “get his reputation back”…. Sigh…. Let’s imagine that this was a set-up…. a position with some validity. What then do we have? We have a player who played DSK because she knew how he’d react. How’d she know this? The reputation of the man. She did what she did because she knew he’d play his own part. I’m sorry, gang, but I don’t see as there’s much of DSK’s rep to salvage.