The Bergen Record reported (December 12, 2007) on the demands by ADC that State Senator Gerald Cardinale apologizes for his "false, malicious and defamatory" statements he has levied against ADC and his Democratic opponent during his recent campaign. (See our full coverage) ADC has given Cardinale 10 days to apologize or else face legal action.

Well, it appears that we don't have to wait ten days,  let alone for an apology. According to the article, Cardinale remains stubbornly unapologetic.

We sincerely wish ADC a decisive victory should the matter end up in court. We know the attorney who was hired to represent ADC is a well known and immensely credible and capable person. If attained, such a victory will herald another shining milestone for our  community as it marches steadfastly towards the American Dream.

We must, however, resign ourselves to the eventuality of much less than a clear victory. I am not privy to all the details of the case or the course of action being entertained. But personal experience with defamation cases compel me to question the wisdom of threatening legal action. Such a course could prove a long drawn and a very costly endeavor.  I hope to be proven wrong on this assumption. Cardinale will not be found guilty. It will be immensely difficult to proof cause in a court of law and despite all the apparent and spiteful maliciousness of his action and utterances.  The imaginary line that demarks free speech from hate speech is a very subjective divide. I have some good ideas for ADC to ponder short of a lawsuit. But dragging him into court is sufficient, I would argue, to 'teach'  him and others that our reputation and heritage are not easy targets. (Could Cardinale, if vindicated, countersue the ADC for personal defamation?)

On a lighter note, I thought it is rather comical that Cardinale does not understand the seriousness of his actions by declaring that his information came from Google. We believe the lies came straight from Daniel Pipes because he specifically named Pipes as a reference to one of his charges. See our note here).

For God's sake, does reliance on Google absolve us from making good and impartial judgment? This cannot be another "my-dog-ate-my-homework" excuse.  Google, is, after all,  a SEARCH engine and  a sane user is expected to make a value judgment on what he reads.  Cardinale was of course satisfied to locate enough biased material to validate his claims against his opponent. While we believe that Cardinale's sources are biased, his reliance on them was a deliberate and conscience decision. In our book, Cardinale is guilty as charged. If he pleads insanity, then can we safely trust this NRA guy with a gun? or a mouse for that matter?