I’d just like to take a moment to say “thanks!” to all who have voted for this blog so far in the “Best Large Blog” category. It’s an uphill battle, as we’ve got some stiff competition (there are other bloggers in that category who I really dig!), but there’s still plenty of time left, so make sure not to forget to vote once every 24 hours. It’s all in good fun, but there’s a competitive streak in all of us bloggers that spurs us on to want to win Remember, voting ends on January 13th at 5 pm ET, so make sure you get in all the votes you can before then (or as the saying goes, vote often! ).  They’re going to be rolling out the embeddable links soon, and I will post that for you on the right side column when it becomes available.

I’ve got some endorsements to announce as well - if you don’t see a category here that is listed at the main weblog awards poll links page that means I either didn’t care for the category or didn’t know enough about the category and/or those nominated to cast a vote. Here goes:

Best Blog - Hot Air (Andrew Sullivan’s in that category and … he’s winning!)
Best Individual Blogger - Between The Anchoress and Jules Crittenden
Best Humor Blog - Mother May I Sleep With Treacher
Best Comic Strip - Day By Day
Best Conservative Blog - Michelle Malkin
Best Political Coverage - Townhall
Best Celebrity Blogger - Wil Wheaton
Best Military Blog - Blackfive and Michael Yon
Best Law Blog - Volokh Conspiracy
Best LGBT Blog - Gay Patriot
Best Gossip Blog - The Superficial
Best Podcast - Pundit Review Radio
Best Video Blog - MsUnderestimated
Best Canadian Blog - five feet of fury
Best UK Blog - Melanie Phillips
Best European Blog (Non UK) - Davids Medienkritik (Germany)
Best Middle East or Africa Blog - Michael J. Totten
Best Australia or New Zealand Blog - Tim Blair
Best Major Blog (Authority over 1001) - Instapundit
Best Very Large Blog (Authority between 501 and 1000) - This was a toughie, but I voted for Patterico’s Pontifications.  There are some other very worthy blogs in that category as well.
Best Large Blog (Authority between 301 and 500) - Ahem!
Best Midsize Blog (Authority between 201 and 300) - Betsy’s Page
Best Small Blog (Authority between 101 and 200) - Pirate’s Cove and A Blog for All
Best Up And Coming Blog (Authority between 51 and 100) - The Sundries Shack

Happy voting!

The AFP reported earlier today on the case of a Muslim man who was awarded $240,000 from an airline (JetBlue) that made him cover up a T-shirt that apparently had a provacative Arabic message on it:

NEW YORK (AFP) – An airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script has been awarded 240,000 dollars in compensation, campaigners said Monday.

Raed Jarrar received the pay out on Friday from two US Transportation Security Authority officials and from JetBlue Airways following the August 2006 incident at New York’s JFK Airport, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced.

“The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling,” said Aden Fine, a lawyer with ACLU.

Jarrar, a US resident, was apprehended as he waited to board a JetBlue flight from New York to Oakland, California, and told to remove his shirt, which had written on it in Arabic: “We will not be silent.”

He was told other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt in an airport was like “wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber,’” the ACLU said.

Jarrar eventually agreed to cover his shirt with another provided by JetBlue. He was allowed aboard but his seat was changed from the front to the back of the aircraft.

There is a lot more to this story, which the AFP - of course - leaves out. Tigerhawk’s got the background on Jarrar’s case and emphasizes why this was no “victory” for free speech, nor is Jarrar any kind of “hero” for the “stand” he took against the airline.

Think about it this way: You and I both know that when the ACLU gets involved, rarely does any good come out of it. This case is no exception.

Watch/listen to the video below - about 45 seconds from the end is where he gets started:

And via CNN:

(CNN) – Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the new vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Tuesday President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat should not viewed as ‘the black seat.’

“Mr. Burris will be seated or won’t be seated on the basis of what happens in a court. I don’t think it’s in the people of Illinois’ interests for us to color that seat,” Cleaver told reporters on Capitol Hill. “That seat can’t be the black seat. If that happens we begin to lose the progress we made.”

Those comments appear at odds with views of Rep. Bobby Rush, who has implored Senate Democrats to seat Burris because there are currently no African-American members of the Senate, and called the currently all-white chamber the “the last bastion of plantation politics.”

Once again, another race-baiting Democrat gets away with making racially charged remarks (more here) that would get a Republican grilled, broiled, flamed, basted, and fileted from all corners. Race clearly isn’t the issue at all here, but leave it to an opportunistic jerk like Rush to make a mountain out of something that isn’t even a molehill. But I’m sure this issue plays well to many of his constituents back home, eh?

We’ll never move forward on the issue of race as long as people in positions of power like Rep. Rush continue living in the past. Maybe he’s a close friend of Rev. Wright’s?

Hehe:

Original caption: Vice President-elect, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., left, has a word with Vice President Dick Cheney during ceremonial swearing-in, Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009, in the Old Senate Chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, before Cheney administered a re-enactment of the Senate oath.(AP/Charles Dharapak)

Have at it, ya’ll!

Story: VP-elect Biden sworn in for 7th Senate term

Flashback:

• 12/22/08 - Biden has some sympathy for Bush — but none for Cheney

The Minnesota bloggers over at Power Line remind everyone that the Senate race in their state is not over in spite of the fact that Franken was “declared” the winner yesterday, and argue pursuasively that Norm Coleman has legitimate legal challenges that need to be resolved. Even the liberal Star Tribune supports Coleman’s legal challenges in the interest that every vote is counted.

Unsurprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disagrees and believes that Coleman should throw in the towel. For whatever you feel about Coleman, and I know there are a lot of conservatives out there who aren’t crazy about him, the embarassment alone of having Al “I like try to physically intimidate people I disagree with” Franken sitting in the US Senate is worth Coleman’s continued persistence, if nothing else. I know Minnesotans are known for sending off the wall figures to serve in government (former pro-wrestler/governor Jesse Ventura comes to mind), but I hope this time around that doesn’t happen.

And just how the hell did they get to this point in the first place? Yeah, I know Coleman’s a weak candidate, but to be neck and neck with Franken? Once upon a time I figured he’d never be popular enough to be appointed dog catcher, much less come thisclose to winning a US Senate seat. Seriously. Is this another example of the ignorance of a certain segment of the American populace or do you think most Minnesotans knew exactly what they were doing when they voted for him?

Related/Flashback:

• 10/16/08 - Al Franken gets in Norm Coleman’s face post-debate

It’s another busy day for me, but I wanted to start an open thread for those of you keeping an eye on what’s happening in the Senate today, as Roland Burris has insisted he will try and enter onto the Senate floor as the junior Senator from Illinois:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 (UPI) — Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris plans to try to enter the U.S. Senate chamber Tuesday to be sworn in with the other new senators.

Senate Democratic leaders said they will not allow the 71-year-old Burris to be seated because he was appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Leaders say his appointment is tainted because, among other things, Blagojevich was accused by federal prosecutors of trying to sell Obama’s seat to the highest bidder.

Both sides are determined to hold their ground, and the stand-off is expected to be somewhat staged, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Burris said his staff let his intentions be known to Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance Gainer, one-time director of the Illinois State Police, who knows Burris.

“We will only go as far as the sergeant-at-arms permits us to go,” Burris said. “We will then retreat and meet with our legal team.”

If you’re able to watch the goings on on CSPAN (or wherever) today, please post in the comments what happens. Michelle Malkin will probably liveblog events as well.

Should be interesting, especially if Franken shows up as well.

I’ll check back in when I can.

Update - 10:57 AM: Burris arrived on Capitol Hill this morning. Here’s the latest:

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama’s appointed successor is heading to the Senate to be sworn in as a member of the 111th Congress, but it isn’t clear whether he’ll get to take the oath of office.

That wasn’t stopping Roland Burris, who was in tense negotiations at mid-morning Tuesday with Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer.

Burris arrived on Capitol Hill in late morning and was escorted to the secretary of the Senate’s office — but no further. He also was expected to hold a news conference.

Fox will be carrying it live. Click here to watch.

Oh - and Franken is not in DC today.

Update 2 - 11:10 AM: MSNBC has this blaring across the top of their website: “BREAKING NEWS: Secretary of the Senate turns away Roland Burris, won’t let him be seated” (LINK).

Mark Silva’s liveblogging the Burris/Senate goings-on today (via Memeo).

I can’t add much to Jennifer Rubin’s commentary on what looks like a blatantly political pick.

It’s so bad that even two prominent Dem Senators, Rockefeller and Feinstein, have expressed serious reservations about Panetta’s level of experience … or should I say “lack thereof”?

President-elect Barack Obama has tapped former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta to head the CIA, a Democratic official confirmed Monday, but he may face some resistance on Capitol Hill.

The incoming and outgoing chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee immediately signaled concerns about the pick, primarily because of Panetta’s thin resume on intelligence.

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director. I know nothing about this, other than what I’ve read,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif., who will chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 111th Congress, in a written statement. “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best-served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

An aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV , D-W.Va., who served as chairman of the committee in the 110th Congress, said, “I think, based on press reporting if it proves correct, Sen. Rockefeller has some concerns about his selection. Not because he has any concerns about Panetta, whom he thinks very highly of, but because [Panetta] has no intelligence experience and because he has believed this has always been a position that should be outside of the political realm.”

The AP piles on, but only to make it clear that St. Obama is only doing this so he can clear out those dirty no-good Bush-era intelligence chiefs:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to fill the nation’s top intelligence jobs with two men short on direct experience in intelligence gathering surprised the spy community and signaled the Democrat’s intention for a clean break from Bush administration policies.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, an eight-term congressional veteran and administrative expert, is being tapped to head the CIA. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair is Obama’s choice to be director of national intelligence, a selection expected for weeks, according to two Democrats who spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama has not officially announced the choices.

The Obama transition team’s long delay in selecting CIA and national intelligence directors is a reflection of the complicated demands of the jobs and Obama’s own policies and priorities.

Obama is sending an unequivocal message that controversial administration policies approving harsh interrogations, waterboarding and extraordinary renditions — the secret transfer of prisoners to other governments with a history of torture — and warrantless wiretapping are over, said several officials.

The search for Obama’s new CIA chief had been stalled since November, when John Brennan, Obama’s transition intelligence adviser, abruptly withdrew his name from consideration. Brennan said his potential nomination had sparked outrage among civil rights and human rights groups, who argued that he had not been outspoken enough in his condemnation of President George W. Bush’s policies.

And despite an internal list of former and current CIA officials who had impressive administrative credentials, all either worked in intelligence during the Bush administration’s development of controversial policies on interrogation and torture or earlier, during the months leading up to the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Neither Panetta nor Blair are tainted by associations with Bush administration policies, in large part because they both come from outside the intelligence world. Blair was posted at the CIA for about a year.

So lemme see here: We’ve got an inexperienced president-elect who has appointed a woman with scant foreign policy experience to the Sec. of State position, and shortly after that, picked two people with virtually no intelligence experience (save a year) as the head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively. Sounds like Blair has had a distinguished military career, but just one year experience in the CIA?

Dunno about you, but this gives me so much hope about our future foreign affairs/counterterrorism efforts that I could just burst. /sarc

Yes, the news about loony Al Franken being certified (or as ST reader Anthony quips, “certifiable“) the winner in the MN Senate race is depressing, but countering that is the intriguing drama unfolding over Barry Oh!’s old seat, which disgraced Gov. Blago has tried to give to former Illinois AG Roland Burris. Last week, CNN reported on the possiblity that Burris would be physically restrained from entering onto the Senate floor on Tuesday if he tried to “report for duty.” Today, we learn that that scenario may be more likely than initially thought:

(CNN) – The secretary of the U.S. Senate on Monday rejected the certificiate of appointment for Roland Burris, named by Illinois’ controversial governor to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, according to an aide to the secretary.

The aide said Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris’ appointment because it does not conform with the Senate rule requiring that the secretary of state — in this case, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White — must sign the certificate of appointment along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat.

According to a Democratic source and a Democratic Senate leadership aide, without the signed certificate Burris will be denied access to the Senate floor.

What’s Burris have to say about that?

But Burris insists he has the legal right to serve as senator, and has said he will appear at the Senate’s door Tuesday.

“I am going (to Washington) to be seated. I am the junior senator from the state of Illinois — that’s all I can say,” he said Monday at an airport news conference in Chicago before leaving for Washington.

He said he is not bothered by controversy surrounding his appointment by Blagojevich because “the appointment is legal. What has been done here is legal.”

Pressed by reporters on what he would do if he is refused admission to the Senate floor, Burris said, “If I am turned away, my lawyers will take it from there and we’ll see what happens.”

And how much do you wanna bet we’ll get treated to the inevitable “outrage” of America’s most notorious race hustlers, the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton? Not to mention Rep. Bobby “[don’t hang or lynch the appointee” Rush?

Along with the uncertainty as to what will happen tomorrow if Burris tries to access the Senate floor, there’s also the uncertainty over whether or not Sen. Cornyn will carry through with his threat to filibuster seating Al Franken until the results of Norm Coleman’s upcoming legal challenges are known.

We could find out tomorrow about both …