Barack Obama has created a position called the Director of Progressive Media & Online Response. I just call it the Blog Czar.

Barack Obama has hired a new “Director of Progressive Media and Online Response” named Jesse Lee. Since Obama just created this position, there’s no telling exactly what it will entail. It seems like Lee will be patrolling the internet for stories they don’t believe to be true, while making attempts to enhance Obama’s online image. Good luck with that Jesse!

I wonder why the Obama Administration didn’t just call him a “Blog Czar.” From what I’ve read, it seems like a fitting title.

Online news sites benefit from type-in traffic and links from sites like Yahoo, Google, and the Drudge Report. Once sites require subscriptions, those links will disappear, along with the resulting traffic. What they’ll be left with is a small group of loyal readers willing to pay a reasonable fee for news that they could readily read at one of several free web sites. Let’s also remember that those links provided by news aggregators brought in visitors who clicked ads. When the traffic goes down, the ad revenue will probably follow. After all, do you want to advertise on a site that isn’t viewed much in comparison to its peers?

If you think a subscription model makes sense, and is the wave of the future, I have a scenario for you. What if every news site in the world charged, except one. That site would see a rapid increase in readership, increased ad revenue, and would have lots of interesting ways to monetize their content. The subscription sites? They would probably slowly die one-by-one, until they smartened up and moved back to a free format. Sure it’s a simple example, but it illustrates an important point: As long as there is one free source, readers will flock to it.

Despite the alleged success of the first $787 billion stimulus, we might be looking at yet another round of excessive government spending. This plan would be financed by TARP money that is being paid back by banks and a new financial transactions tax which could raise $150 billion per year.

If you haven’t been following the financial transactions tax bill, it would charge a tax of approximately 0.25% on financial transactions, such as the sale of stocks, bonds, and other securities. Many Democrats love the idea and find this idea palatable, since only the “wealthy” invest. (They must not get out much).

Fortunately, I don’t think the financial transaction tax will go anywhere. Besides having some Democrats opposed, it would also require all of the members of the G20 to pass similar laws. If they don’t, customers could just move their accounts overseas and avoid the tax. I find it unlikely that every country in the G20 will pass this tax, and think there might even be a few countries that would become safe harbors for cash.

As for the stimulus, I think it will have trouble passing. With all but one Republican opposed to the first bill, I don’t see much GOP support this time around either. Plus, Barack Obama’s falling popularity will hurt when trying to convince moderate Democrats to vote for the bill. He doesn’t have the political capital he had before, and that will be quite evident if another stimulus is suggested.

Max Baucus has defended his decision to nominate Hanes by focusing on her credentials. I have no reason to doubt Melodee Hanes’ credentials, and I wouldn’t be surprised if her qualifications met or exceeded those of other nominees. With that said, the nomination was inappropriate, to say the least.

You might be appalled by Max Baucus’ decision to nominate his girlfriend, but I’m even more disgusted by his lack of shame and attempt to rationalize this poor decision. A staffer explained the decision by saying, “Senator Baucus recommended each of the three candidates based solely on qualifications, and merit, knowing whichever one the White House selected would serve Montana well.” Again, no one is questioning Ms. Hanes qualifications. What is in question is whether her relationship with Max Baucus gave her an unfair advantage. Most rational people would agree that it was certainly a factor.

To the people of Montana: Do you really want someone so deficient in ethics representing you in the Senate?

“Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC.

“That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.”

When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.”

“I don’t think it will strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it’ll strike a lot of people as being very accurate,” Hinchey said. “All you have to do is look at the exact circumstances and see that’s exactly what happened.”

“When our military went in there, we could have captured [the Taliban],” he insisted. “But we didn’t. And we didn’t because of the need felt by the previous administration, and the previous head of the military, that need to attack Iraq.”

Democrats rarely miss an opportunity to blame George W. Bush for something, and now they are fabricating conspiracy theories. It should be rather obvious that Maurice Hinchey is a fool, but even so, I’ll take a few minutes to debunk his theory.

Think about all the criticism leveled at the Bush administration regarding Osama Bin Laden. His capture would have raised the President’s profile and quieted criticism of the war on terror. Do you remember all the press Sadam Hussein’s capture generated? That would have been nothing compared to the press surounding Bin Laden’s capture. Why would George W. Bush intentionally wreck an opportunity to achieve a major goal that would have been a huge moment in his Presidency? Oh, that’s right…to justify invading Iraq.

If you think back to the weeks and months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, it had nothing to do specifically with Osama Bin Laden. The rationale centered on Hussein ignoring U.N. resolutions, potentially having weapons of mass destruction, and possibly being a breeding ground for terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden had been captured, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Hussein had attempted to dodge weapons inspections or could have had weapons of mass destruction. Bin Laden’s quick capture might have actually energized those who wanted to invade Iraq.

I have no doubt that George W. Bush and his administration wanted to capture Osama Bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and is obviously a partisan shot.

When violent crimes of this nature occur locally, I normally check out the suspect’s criminal record. More often than not, there is a list of previous offenses with lengthy sentences that were never served. Unfortunately, this case is no different. Clemmons has a long criminal history in both Arkansas and Washington. Clemmons was recently released on bail for a pending charge of child rape, and he is also facing another 7 felony accounts. In addition to these charges, he had a lengthy criminal history in Arkansas. Here’s a summary:

In 1990, Clemmons, then 18, was sentenced in Arkansas to 60 years in prison for burglary and theft of property, according to a news account in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Newspaper stories describe a series of disturbing incidents involving Clemmons while he was being tried in Arkansas on various charges.

During one trial, Clemmons was shackled in leg irons and seated next to a uniformed officer. The presiding judge ordered the extra security because he felt Clemmons had threatened him, court records show.

Another time, Clemmons hid a hinge in his sock, and was accused of intending to use it as a weapon. Yet another time, Clemmons took a lock from a holding cell, and threw it toward the bailiff. He missed and instead hit Clemmons’ mother, who had come to bring him street clothes, according to records and published reports.

On another occasion, Clemmons had reached for a guard’s pistol during transport to the courtroom.

When Clemmons received the 60-year sentence, he was already serving 48 years on five felony convictions and facing up to 95 more years on charges of robbery, theft of property and possessing a handgun on school property. Records from Clemmons’ sentencing described him as 5-foot-7 and 108 pounds. The crimes were committed when he was 17.

Clemmons served 11 years before being released.

Maurice Clemmons was sentenced to 48 years in prison, was released, then committed more crimes, which brought and additional 60 year sentence. That adds up to 108 years, but former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee granted him clemency after just 11 years. If this isn’t enough, he allegedly rapes a child and assaults a police officer in Washington and is let out of jail. What’s wrong with the criminal justice system?

If Maurice Clemmons’ original sentence had been honored, countless people wouldn’t have been victimized. Those judges, parole boards, and officials failed miserably and ignored behavior which should have been obvious. This case is currently in the spotlight, but similar travesties are happening in every state. When will the justice system start placing more value on the lives of innocent citizens than the second chances of criminals?

Auto insurance is based on risk. The riskier a driver is, the more they pay. Insurance companies look at a myriad of demographic factors such as age, marital status, and place of residence. They also consider credit reports, driving history, and the type of car you drive. If they are going to consider all these facts, then why not take the amount of miles driven into account? Again, fewer miles would mean fewer accidents and fewer claims.

Fortunately, it looks like California might be moving to a pay-by-the-mile auto insurance structure. Basically, it would involve buying a certain amount of insured miles, and if those run out, buying more. For example, you might buy 10,000 miles for a year, but if you think you are going to go over, you can buy another 1,000 miles.

The program has the potential to save consumers a lot of money, especially if they drive sparingly. It could enable many people to purchase cars they wouldn’t other wise be able to afford because of the lower rates, and it might even encourage some people to use public transportation more often.