Thursday's Highlights

Here are some of today's biggest stories and best commentary.  Check back for updates!

NEWS

NEW!  SwissInfo, Lebanon Seizes Explosives from Pro-Syrian Group  Syrian Social Nationalist Party has some explaining to do

Michelle Malkin, Tracing "Jamil Hussein's" Footsteps and Ignoring Anti-Blog Hatred  Does a key source for at least 61 AP stories about Iraq even exist?  At a mininum the AP seems to be violating its own policy

NEW!  Michelle Malkin, The AP (Non-)Responds and Another Search Comes up Empty  The AP is suddenly awfully quiet when asked simple questions that should be easy to answer

Newsweek, Iraq's Economy is Growing Strong, Even Booming in Places  Freedom will do that

NEW!  Telegraph, Top British Army aide accused of spying  Accused is Cpl Daniel James, 44, an interpreter for Gen. David Richards, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. James is of Iranian descent and his mother speaks only Farsi 

Telegraph, Mohammed Overtakes George in List of Most Popular Names  England turning Muslim due to immigration and higher birth rate

MyWay, Report Says Berger Hid Archive Documents  Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger not only stuffed classified National Archives documents about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in his pants, but then hid them under a construction trailer

NEW!  Toronto Star, Video Games Keep You Young: Study  Now this makes retirement sound like fun

NEW!  Yahoo! News, Mirror Gives Italian Village its Place in the Sun (via Thinkin'boutstuff)

COMMENTARY

Alan Dershowitz, Why Won't Carter Debate His Book?  Jimmy Carter says he wrote his book beating up on Israel to stimulate debate. So why won't he debate Dershowitz?

Wall Street Journal, Who's Tough on Tehran?  Iranian voters are tougher than the U.N. Security Council

John Stossel, What Will They Ban Next?  As New York ban trans fats, your personal freedom of choice is vanishing

That's all for now!  Leave a comment if you wish and check back later!

Comments

[jack]

Hello Gina,

I read your blog daily and find it to be very enlightening. I came across this story and really have no idea why GoDaddy.com must pay this man/muslim.

Being a lawyer can you spread some light on this case if possible?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1219biz-godaddy1219.html

Thanks,
Jack

[DemocracyRules]

THE AP WILL NEVER APOLOGIZE RE "JAMIL HUSSEIN"

–They will simply DROP the story, as when they dropped Qana, the Red Cross bus ambulance “bombings”, Israeli attacks on UNIFIL, or Paliwood
– Stunningly, after proof appeared that Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake Uranium Oxide in storage when he was invaded (enough for 148 nuclear bombs), the MSM simply DROPPED the “Iraq Had No WMD” stories, with no corrections, no clarifications, apologies, nothing
– They are now hammering on the “We’re Losing” theme
– When they drop a particular story, that means you WON – it’s all you get
– I have not seen them admit to any significant falsehood, no matter how egregious
– E.G., Waiting for the MSM retract their inverted reporting of the US victory in the Vietnam Tet offensive, which they still describe as a defeat
– (Tet 1968, was key because the US and South Vietnam DESTROYED the Viet Cong, leaving the war to the invading regular North Vietnam army. Thereafter, there were no significant populist socialist Vietnamese “resistance freedom fighters” left – only millions of Communist invaders, dying rapidly as the US and South Vietnamese won every significant battle)
– No one nailed the MSM hard enough, then or now, and they continue simplistically falsifying Vietnam as a defeat, with Tet as a “turning point”

Footnote: Ever wonder what happened to MSM catastrophizing about Acid Rain? Same story: proven false, dropped

[Gina Cobb]

Jack, I'll do my best.

Based on skimming the article, it appears that damages were awarded solely because the jury concluded that Go Daddy fired the man for making a discrimination complaint.

The jury did not think that the company fired the man or refused to promote him because he was Muslim.

The laws provide that a company cannot retaliate against a worker for making a discrimination complaint, even one that turns out not to have been well founded. This is intended to protect workers so that they can report discrimination and seek corrective action without fear of retaliation.

What it means is that companies not only have to avoid dicrimination to begin with and document the reasons for their decisions, but also that they have to proceed very carefully before taking any action against a worker who has made a discrimination complaint. They need to document that the reasons for any termination or other action are completely unrelated to the discrimination complaint.

I hope that answers your question. I know it may seem strange, but that's the way current law works in this area.

- Gina