The best part of blogging is just taking something someone else wrote and posting it. You get traffic and praise, and yet you did absolutely no work whatsoever in creating the post.

Aaron affords me an opportunity to cut and paste my way to a book deal:

Media Rules of Evidence

Rule 401: Relevance Defined

All evidence that President Bush is an idiot, incompetent, corrupt, a religious zealot, favoring the rich, or leading the worst economy in the history of the world is relevant, no matter the news story you're ostensibly reporting on. Evidence contradicting such a worldview is irrelevant for all purposes.

Rule 402: Relevant evidence admissible and to be beaten to death

(1) Unless otherwise provided for in these Rules or in the personal agenda of your editor-in-chief, all relevant evidence is admissible, no matter what the news story.

(2) Irrelevant evidence is to be ignored, and if mentioned by lunatic right-wing conspiracy theorists who think that sarin in Iraq is evidence of sarin in Iraq, that irrelevant evidence shall be admissible as evidence of the lunacy of those same right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Rule 403: Relevant evidence admissible in spite of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or later contradiction

The possibility of unfair prejudice or confusion of issues shall have no impact on the relevance of the evidence, or on the admissibility of same. Later contradiction of relevant evidence, even if well-documented and incontrovetible, is to be rigorously ignored as irrelevant.

Rule 404: Evidence of prior crimes relevant when they refer to Republicans, irrelevant when the refer to Democrats

(a)(1) All evidence of prior crimes, bad acts, mistakes, changes of opinion, bad haircuts, humiliating moments, gaffes, or stuff that people just made up is both relevant and admissible against Republicans, under all circumstances, no matter how dubious the reliability or probative value of that evidence.

(2) All evidence of prior crimes, bad acts, mistakes, changes of opinion, bad haircuts, falling off of snowboards or bicycles, war crimes, letting girls drown while contemplating future political career, membership in the Ku Klux Klan, accusing Latinos of being racist white men, lying to Congress under oath, or general douchebaggery is neither relevant nor admissible as against Democrats, although the same shall be admissible in all cases against the right-wing fanatics to demonstrate their fanaticism and fascism.

Rule 405: Reputation and Character evidence

Evidence of reputation in the community shall be inadmissible as against Democrats, because the ghastly poor can't reasonably be expected to come into contact with John Kerry enough to really understand his depth and nuance anyway. All evidence of reputation or character, when it tends to demonstrate ordinary human weaknesses or mistakes, shall be admissible against Republicans, and shall be conclusive proof that they are, in fact, worse than Hitler.

....

I'd just add Rule 408, the so-called "Rape Shield Rule," stating that Evidence of a Prior Rape Shall Not Admissible Against Bill Clinton, and Rule 408 (b), which states, when it comes to Democratic scandal, it's always high time to "move on."