One more and I’m outta here:

Drudge is running this headline, with no link.

HUFFINGTON SET TO LAUNCH SUPER-SITE OF CELEB OPINION… DEVELOPING…

Hee hee hee…Venture Capitalists, take heed! All the credibility of blogs, combined with all the penetrating insight and analysis of celebrities! Where else can you log on and catch the sort of finely crafted writing that made Ashlee Simpson famous? Tune in to see what Martin Sheen and Babs Streisand say about indexing capital gains. Guest blogger Dr. Dre will bring the truth–tonight only!

UPDATE! before Patterico’s cane settles around my neck to yank me from my virtual stage…The article Drudge hinted at is now up at the New York Times. As suspected, mostly lefties, though slightly more newsy than showbiz, seen as a direct challenge to Drudgemony:

Having prominent people join the blogosphere, Ms. Huffington said in an interview, “is an affirmation of its success and will only enrich and strengthen its impact on the national conversation.” Among those signed up to contribute are Walter Cronkite, David Mamet, Nora Ephron, Warren Beatty, James Fallows, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Maggie Gyllenhaal, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Diane Keaton, Norman Mailer and Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

David Frum and Tony Blankley will chip in from the right.

They acknowledge up front that fragile celebrity egos may be bruised by the brutal frankness of the blogosphere:

Another trick will be balancing the bloggers’ ability to put forth their ideas with their desire for protection from abusive comments. Jonah Peretti, who is overseeing the site’s technology, said the bloggers would decide for themselves whether to engage with readers. “It’s something we’ll experiment with,” he said. “We want to make sure there’s a productive, interesting dialogue and not just people ranting.”

No ranting. These celebloggers are much too important to have commenters ranting at them, wasting their precious time. No one challenges them all the doo-dah day as they spout their goofy aphorisms to squadrons of doe-eyed yes-men and sycophants. Why should their blogging be any different?

I think this site, the ‘Huffington Post”, will be the Air America of the blog world, in more ways than one. This has train wreck written all over it. For one thing, I have absolutely no reason to expect Warren Beatty is capable of producing more compelling online content than, say, Oliver Willis. And as for star power, I think it wears pretty thin in this medium. Look, right now you’re reading a pseudonymous guest blogger on a pseudonymous blog instead of Barbara Streisand’s site. It’s not because I can sing better.

But I for one am thrilled to see this catastrophe looming. As commenter Buckley F. Williams observed below about John Bolton’s latest gossamer-winged accuser, “It’s stuff like this that threatens to render all conservative satirists without jobs.” Well, take heart, Buckley! To arms, Frank J.! Come back, AllahPundit! Scrappleface, gird your loins! Ace, hoist the black flag! Your talents are needed now more than ever!

See-Dubya, over and out.

Recently, someone rarely acquainted with the truth accused me of disagreeing with every lawyer in the country about the Schiavo case. Rather than debate the issue with him, I thought I’d make my position clear here.

First, as regards the initial (pre-Congressional involvement) litigation, I have expressed serious doubts regarding the soundness of the factfinding done by the probate judge — in particular on the topic of Terri Schiavo’s wishes. I have documented one specific and crucial error he made in the factfinding process. Even putting that aside, I just don’t see how the quality of the evidence presented to the probate judge rises to the level of “clear and convincing” — especially given the conflicts of interest Michael Schiavo had.

The state appellate judges simply deferred to the probate judge on that issue, as appellate courts generally do.

As regards the law passed by Congress, I believe that the federal courts were wrong not to re-insert the tube while they considered a constitutional argument that I believe to be strong. I have explained at length my reasons that I believe the courts got it wrong, here. I am joined in this view by two judges from the 11th Circuit, including a highly respected judge named Gerald Tjoflat. I may also be joined in that view by several Supreme Court Justices, since the Court’s decision not to grant certiorari indicates nothing about the Justices’ view of the merits.

My views on the Schiavo case are well-documented. Any honest person who disagrees with my legal analysis of the federal courts’ rulings is welcome to weigh in on the relevant thread (linked above), which has garnered almost 200 comments so far — not one of which has raised a convincing argument that my analysis is wrong. I’m still waiting . . .