Simple answer: attempt to censor it.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have been heavily criticized in the media and on numerous fan and discussion sites for their decision to resign tight end Jerramy Stevens. Stevens has had a history of encounters with law enforcement, mostly related to being drunk. He is already going to be suspended for the first 2 games of the 2008 season for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy. Stevens was previously dropped by the Seattle Seahawks and signed a one year contract with the Buccaneers for the 2007 season.
The criticism continues, but it seemingly will not be allowed to continue on the club's fan site, as explained here by Mike Florio in Pro Football Talk.. A sternly-worded admonition from the monitors can be perused here.
My working assumption is that the Buccaneers are clamping down on discussion on the club site because of fears that they might be vulnerable to libel action from Stevens if fans start mentioning or discussing allegations made against Stevens in his past lives.
This is the sort of pointless CYA that will merely perpetuate the controversy. This sort of heavy-handed censorship risks undermining the credibility of the fan forum, and does nothing to prevent the discussion in other forums. It is utterly pointless and its very nature draws further attention to the decision to re-sign Stevens, which was always going to be difficult to justify, given his checkered past and the fact that he has not exactly been a great player on the field. He is unlikely to be giving any of the other upper-echelon NFL tight ends any cause to worry in the near future.
The Bucs signed a turd, have re-signed him and now they do not want to hear about their error. No surprise there. However, the means by which they are attempting to shut down debate and comment are pointless, petty and bound to fail.

Link: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/permalink/c06b850ca858a88864268d5d3be1d359.html

From commenter Mike Sulzer over at Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon:

The LoRTC (loss of respect time constant) for a President is about six years and one reelection for lying about matters of national security, starting wars, and killing many thousands. It is instantaneous for sexual indiscretions.

Link: http://streetwiseprofessor.com/

Over at his blog, Craig Pirrong has another article dealing with an old canard - that speculators are responsible for driving up the price of commodities (in this case, crude oil). He previously wrote about this back in 2006.
As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the way speculation works is to buy up inventory and store it, thus creating a shortage and causing prices to rise that way. That was the approach taken by the Hunt brothers when they tried to manipulate the world silver market. At the peak of their activity, the Hunts were rumored to own or hold buy options on a third of the world's supplies of silver. The market manipulation attempt failed, as partly documented in this Wikipedia entry.
The problem with the idea of speculation driving up oil prices is that there is no evidence that crude oil inventories are increasing. The current price increase is being caused by the oldest reality of capitalism, too much demand and too little supply.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/30/theairlineindustry

Another European niche airline ceased operations yesterday. This adds to the considerable tale of woe in the airline industry, as high fuel prices and a spreading economic recession combine to place airlines under enormous financial pressure.
The ominous statement in the Guardian article comes at the very end:

Aviation analyst Wyn Ellis at the stock brokers Numis Securities warned that the industry was fast approaching a crisis point.

"There are likely to be a number of spectacular casualties," he said.

There is also this rather sobering article which pretty much predicts further airline business failures, partly because the airlines, instead of reducing capacity, which would allow them to increase fares, are mainly engaging in a war of attrition against each other.

(Rant On)
I do get really frustrated when I find myself in a discussion/argument with a person who appears to be unable to tell the difference between the following:

facts vs. opinions
assertions vs. arguments

I am in a frustrating exchange with a work colleague who, presented with a statement that the US National Debt has steadily increased over the last few years, accused me of engaging in interpretation of the facts because the national debt as a percentage of GDP has not increased.
I said nothing about the debt as a percentage of GDP in my original statement. The fact is that the debt has steadily increased and is still increasing. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation as he suggested. His response is irrelevant and is really a disguised variant of the strawman fallacy. However, he appears to think that he has somehow "won" the argument. The reality is that he hasn't constructed an argument. He has merely provided a list of assertions, most of which are incorrect or fallacious. He appears to be ignoring my reminders to him that an assertion is not an argument, and constantly repeating it does not convert it to any higher level of fidelity or validity.
(rant off)
The sad fact is that this is not the first time I have engaged in these types of frustrating exchanges, and it will almost certainly not be the last. There are a lot of folks out therein many different places in the world who appear to be unable or unwilling to engage in any form of sound discussion based on the use of argument and facts. Most normally they repeat assertions in an increasingly repetitive and shrill manner, and then become angry and dismissive when it is pointed out that those assertions are not arguments. I recall being invited to "go back to my own damn country" not long after 9/11 when I got into a similarly frustrating exchange of views with a co-worker. The irony was that he was married to a woman from Germany, so one would think he would have appreciated more than most people the intellectual bankruptcy of the "go back to your own country" response. However, we were in the period immediately following 9/11, when at least 2 work colleagues of mine stopped speaking to me because I disagreed with them on the appropriate US response to 9/11.

Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/gibson/index.html

I wrote this letter in Salon in response to Gleen Greenwald's evisceration of early media reaction to some of the criticisms of their performance by Scott McClellan in his upcoming memoir. Unsurprisingly, two media figures interviewed on CBS today by Katie Couric seemed to think that the media had (to use an old British expression) done "a bloody good job". Their astonishing apparent lack of self-awareness boggles the mind, and reminds me of the Onion satirical article where Bill Gates of Microsoft awarded himself high marks for dexterity and charisma. One has to assume that the media members in question would prefer to write their own job performance appraisals...
UPDATE - Greenwald has another article here which reveals the extent of the war cheerleading mindset within media company leadership immediately after 9/11. Covered in this article is the case of Ashleigh Banfield, who was demoted and fired after making comments at a conference critical of the media's war cheerleading, and also covered is the firing of Phil Donahue.

Link: http://ideas.4brad.com/citizenre-real-or-imagined-challenge

A new corporation named CitizenRe appeared last year in a blaze of publicity, seemingly offering a solar power selling method based on a complex rental/lease model, plus elements of what appears to be Multi-Level Marketing (MLM).
CitizenRe made some fairly expansive claims about its business model, yet appeared to have no financing at the time. This blog posting examines some of the aspects of the CitizenRe business model and asks some questions about the viability of the model.

As in this comment in a discussion on Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon, which touches on the age-old debate of how much the original principles on which the USA was founded (as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, codified in the Constitution and discussed in the Federalist Papers) are still applicable today. Depending on their philosophy, different folks tend to adopt different positions. Chris Sinnard's comment acerbicly questions how the modern USA can be any more complex than the USA at the beginning of its life as a nation. Responding to a statement in an earlier comment that the founders of the USA lived in simpler times, he has this to say:

Simpler compared to what? The intricacies of American Idol and Lost? How much more complicated is the life of Joe Lunchbox, or any other American, compared to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin? Really. You really think that the issues that the founders dealt with, issues like tyranny, are somehow irrelevant in these "deeply complicated modern times"? You're fooling yourself with such a fallacy if you really believe that to be the case.

A point of view with which I agree. As a transplanted person from Europe reading the Constitution, I am struck by its elegance and pragmatism as it seeks to define a governance system free from the tyrannies and arbitrary injustices from which many of the founders had escaped. I am unimpressed by the tendency of many people to regard the Constitution as a pesky piece of paper that can apparently be ignored by the Executive Branch whenever it feels like it.
Over at The New Republic, a dense pile of comments greeted an essay by Stephen Pinker concering the concept of dignity and how he feels it has been distorted and abused by members of the President's Council on Bioethics. As one might expect, a lot of the comments coalesced on the age-old question of whether a foetus is a human being. As somebody who studied Biology in high school, and has a skeletal knowledge of human reproduction and genetics, I find this debate perplexing, since it often ends up with people talking themselves into fallacious and inaccurate dead-ends without even noticing.
Here is commenter Sullydog eloquently demolishing the whole "foetus as human being" argument (comment #37, I cannot link directly to comments alas):

"In that sense, being a human being is a biological status." Who says so? You? It is rather difficult for me to afford a fertilized egg (a zygote) with the status of a human being. It has no brain. It has no spinal cord. It has no nerves. It has no eyes. It does obtain its own nourishment. It is incapable of independent movement. It has no autonomy. It is incapable of reproduction. Now, IF it were implanted and allowed to come to term, it MIGHT become a human being. But that is not the same as saying it IS a human being. Potentiality is not actuality.

There is a lot more, including his pointing out that if a blueprint is not a building, why some people regard a fertilized egg as a human makes no sense. His conclusion is that the viewpoint is bound up with the idea that a human has a soul, and I think he is correct. Since the soul is regarded as beyond the realm of the physical, it should not be necessary to posit a foetus as a human, but that is what seems to occur somewhere along the line.

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/1846/55736/505/512073

Here is a sample of the proposals in the letter:

For each member of Congress, I propose we set up a collective internet site. This site will allow interested members of the public to, in realtime, monitor your every activity to assure ourselves that none of you are committing illegal or terrorist-enabling acts at any given moment of the day.

The primary feature will be the ability to listen in to any conversation you may be having, whether it be on your work phone, your home phone, your cell phone, text messages, email -- whatever. These conversations will be streamed to the internet, so that they may be monitored by responsible members of the public. The contact information of whoever it is you are talking to at that moment at time will also be displayed and tracked -- whether it be your wife or husband, child, doctor, secret mistress, whoever -- so that we can monitor them as well. You know, just to be safe.

You can trust us, as members of the public, to be discreet. We will only listen and watch, and will not abuse the information. After all, what could any of you possibly have to hide? Only someone intent on criminal acts objects to being monitored proactively. On the contrary, you should be grateful to us: by listening to your every phone call and reading your every communication, we can only help you to prove that you have nothing to hide. I am unfamiliar with the vagaries of American law these days, but my understanding is that this ongoing surveillance will make you even more innocent than you were before. Perhaps you will even be twice as innocent as before, or four times as innocent -- what patriot could resist?

There is also a final sting in the tail:

There is another matter that needs addressing, which is that it may be necessary at some point to torture one or two of you, just to make very, very certain that you do not know something about terrorists that you perhaps might be hiding. No need to worry about that now; we can address that in separate legislation.

I laughed so much when I read this, that I was originally going to categorize it here under Comedy. Then I realized that we are in an era where (as The Onion has proved) it is becoming very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction in the governance of modern America.
Sadly, this is another one of the "sad, unbelieveable but stupid" governance events. I hope that the letter was sent to Messrs. Hoyer and Rockefeller...

UPDATE - Some of the comments are priceless. Examples:

I've already got a name picked out:

Governmental Oversight Delegation

And then we can send them text messages from time to time, just as a courtesy reminder, that says:

G.O.D. is watching you.

I have here in my hands a list of 535 - a list of names that were made known to the general public as being members of the United States Congress and who nevertheless are still working and subverting the Constitution of the American government.

Have they no shame? We shall see.

Some constructive criticism here...
This is quite good, Hunter, but I think that maybe you should go back to writing satire.

Link: http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~heth/funnies/coleman.html

The ex-BBC sports commentator David Coleman found his name (not 100% fairly) appropriated in the 1970's to describe an example of nonsense speech by commentators. They were dubbed "Colemanballs". Example follows:

For those of you with the black-and-white sets, Liverpool are the team in the all-red strip

This site lists a whole bunch of other examples of malapropism, garbled, and in some cases nonsensical speech from the world of British soccer.
Here is another collection of similar stuff.
There will be overlaps.