More Discredited Leftist Whining

From opinionjournal.com


Murphy's Law?

Left-wing blogs have been abuzz for a couple of days over a post by Mark Graber, a professor of law and government at the University of Maryland. Graber prints a story he received from Walter F. Murphy, a professor emeritus of jurisprudence at Princeton who now lives in New Mexico, about a bad experience Murphy had last month with airport security in Albuquerque. Murphy alleges that the treatment he received was politically motivated.

How credible is this claim? As luck would have it, Kip Hawley, administrator of the Transportation Security Administration visited The Wall Street Journal's office this morning, so we showed him a copy of Graber's post. Here is Murphy's story, as reprinted by Graber, with Hawley's explanation of what happened:

On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving.

When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years.

According to Hawley, the only list a passenger might be on that would prevent him from boarding a plane is the "no fly" list. Since Murphy did ultimately get on the plane, he self-evidently was not on that list. Hawley says it is possible that someone with the same name was on the list; such an error befell Ted Kennedy in 2004.

More likely, though, Murphy was a "selectee"--chosen for heightened security by a process that is part random, part based on a variety of factors, most of which are not publicly disclosed, but which are known to include holding a one-way ticket and purchasing a ticket in cash.

This has happened to us on numerous occasions. If you have ever had a row of S's appear on your boarding pass, and been taken out of the main line at the security checkpoint to have your bags searched, it has happened to you as well. Selectees, Hawley explained to us, are not allowed to check in at curbside but must go to the ticket counter, as in Murphy's case.
Murphy's tale continues:

I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.

There are two problems with this. First, federal terrorist watch lists are compiled not by political appointees but by career professionals at the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, who, according to Hawley, would balk at any effort to list people for political reasons. Second, airline clerks have no way of knowing why a passenger is a selectee or on the no-fly list; they know only that he is. If the clerk actually said what Murphy claims he did, he was either joking or expressing his own (ill-informed) political opinion.

As we said, Murphy was allowed on the plane:

After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re [sic] going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical.


It is true, Hawley said, that TSA agents open the luggage of all selectees (the word "ransack" seems another case of the clerk editorializing). As for Murphy's suspicion that his lost bag on the otherwise trouble-free return flight was taken as some sort of political retaliation, Hawley says: "Give me a break."

Hawley added that if Murphy wishes to file a complaint about the treatment he received, he can do so online through the Homeland Security Department's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program.

But if Murphy's account of the facts is accurate, what happened here was out of the ordinary only inasmuch as the airline clerk--not a government employee--made a sensational and untrue claim, a claim that Murphy himself was eager to believe:

I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could.

Murphy isn't the only one who was eager to believe it. Here are some other comments:

Andrew Sullivan: "Just a heads up about what these people [the Bush administration] are up to."

Josh Marshall: "Given who Professor Murphy is, I have no doubt this is an accurate account of his particular experience. And it would seem that the people who actually work with the list on a daily basis treat it as a given that the most innocuous and obviously protected forms of criticism of the Bush administration routinely get you on the watch list. That pretty much confirms the truth of what most of us would probably have thought was a harebrained conspiracy theory. Doesn't this deserve more scrutiny?"

Matt Stoller: "This Murphy chap sounds like a smart fellow, but he also sounds like someone who profoundly lacks empathy for the situation of others. And those that are shocked by his situation, and at this point there shouldn't be very many of us reading this blog that are, should open our eyes and begin to wake up to what other cavalier violations of civil rights go on around us every day."

Rod Dreher: "If this account is true, and if it's true that just going to a peace march puts you at risk for being on the terrorism 'no-fly' list, I'd say Congress had damn well better hold hearings about this at once, and find out just exactly what powers the federal government are exercising against law-abiding citizens who happen to oppose administration policy. We could be deep into Nixon territory."

Now, stop and think about this: We are expected to believe that Murphy was "singled out" for his political views. But this credulous chorus of concurrence proves there is nothing singular about those views. Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, Matt Stoller and Rod Dreher are among many thousands upon thousands of people who have given speeches, written articles or otherwise publicly declaimed against President Bush.

If the Bush administration were trying to stifle dissent, Murphy's experience would be typical, and Bush's harshest critics would be offering their own stories of airport-security woe--or they would be silenced. Instead, they rush to affirm Murphy's interpretation of his own experience. It is what they want to believe, even though it runs counter to their own experience.

Some people are so blinded by hatred, they're gullible enough to believe anything.

All sorts of people read blogs.

For example:

There’ve been some interesting posts picking up this sub-thread. Here’s another historical perspective from Your Official Old Fart.

As it happened, I was one of the lucky scientist/engineers at the foremost acoustics consultancy of those days, Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. of Cambridge MA, in whose lab the famous “18-and-a-half-minute gap” tape was analyzed at the behest of Judge John Sirica.

It was our ironclad and incontrovertible finding, which we backed up publicly, that the erasure had been done deliberately by hand (not footpedal) — using the FWD, BACKWD, RECORD, and STOP pushbuttons on a particular Uher-brand tape recorder (one accessible only to Nixon and his Executive Assistant, the haplessly loyal Rose Mary Woods), that constituted the first proof that there was evidence tampering by “someone” (never proven who) at the White House.

Fred Anyone?

Now that Fred(he calls me "you're who?") has shifted gears and is now moving into the yep, I'm almost ready to announce that I'm looking at the run for the presidency a little stronger, things are picking up. This is a brilliant strategy! He's got many people from all over the spectrum pushing him to run and he hasn't spent a penny. I think there are almost 10,000 people who have signed up on the internet to help him already. That's stout. What are y'all's thoughts on the man?

Democrats doing everything wrong?

Right, Gonz. Whatever you say.

If the Democratic ascendance on Capitol Hill was supposed to usher in dark days for Republicans, it is hard to tell from talking to moderate ones like Mike Ferguson, who represents a suburban district in central New Jersey.

As the new Democrat-led House rushed to complete its business before adjourning for spring break this week, Representative Ferguson was marveling at the many bills that had been passed in Congress’s first 100 days, including one that would make it easier for unions to organize and another that would increase the minimum wage.

“Under the Republican majority, those bills would have never gotten to the floor,” he explained before heading back to his district. “Now they have been brought to the floor, and I’ve voted for them.”

Mr. Ferguson’s enthusiasm captures a peculiar political reality in the Capitol: many Republicans from swing districts in the Northeast are finding that life under Democratic rule has its advantages.

Is Fox's appointment illegal?

This letter to the GAO raises an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

Under 5 U.S.C. § 5503, in order for Mr. Fox to be paid for his services as Ambassador, his nomination would have to have been pending before the Senate on March 29th, when the Senate went into recess. Moreover, according to a separate statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1342, the U.S. Government cannot accept "voluntary services" from individuals except in an emergency....

In the case of Mr. Fox, however, it appears that the "voluntary services" prohibition would still apply because the position in question is a statutory entitlement with a fixed rate of pay that cannot be waived (Section 401 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 mandates a fixed rate of pay for the position of Ambassador).

There appears to be a clear conflict between the pay restrictions as enumerated in Title 5 of the United States Code, which prevent Mr. Fox from being paid due to the circumstances of his recess appointment, and the "voluntary services" provision of Title 31 of the United States Code, which mandates that the United States Department of State cannot accept "voluntary services" for the position to which Mr. Fox has been recess appointed.

Guess we know why this US Attorney still has a job...

In a stunning reversal, a federal court of appeals struck down a state worker's fraud conviction that Wisconsin Republicans used in efforts to paint Gov. Jim Doyle's administration as corrupt.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said the three-judge panel likely overruled the trial jury's conviction of former state purchasing officer Georgia Thompson within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence....

Michelle Jacobs, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic in Milwaukee, said it was difficult to comment without seeing the written decision.

But she agreed it would be difficult to ask the court to rehear the case - the next step for any appeal by prosecutors. That's because the decision appeared to hinge on the facts presented at trial, which wouldn't change, she said.

"We convinced a . . . jury, and we convinced (U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph T.) Randa but I think we're going to see that we didn't convince the three-judge court of appeals," Jacobs said. "I think it's very unlikely that we'll petition for a rehearing."

In a statement, Biskupic himself said simply: "We commend the work of Thompson's lawyers."

Tammy Jones, spokeswoman for the federal prison in Pekin, about 230 miles south of Madison, said Thursday afternoon that Thompson "will be released shortly."

Michael O'Hear, a law professor at Marquette University, said the Court of Appeals decision is unusual.

First, he said appeals court judges typically issue decisions weeks or months after hearing oral arguments, rather than on the same day. Second, instead of ordering a new trial - typically how appeals panels rule in favor of defendants - the judges acquitted Thompson.

End-runs around the President

But probably not the one you're thinking of.

At the same time [May 1997] Congress was attaching human rights conditions to U.S. security assistance programs and negotiating a formal end-use monitoring agreement with the Colombian defense ministry, other lawmakers were secretly assuring Colombian officials that they felt such restrictions were unwarranted, and would work to either remove the conditions or limit their effectiveness.

One example of this was a congressional delegation led by Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) which met with Colombian military officials, promising to “remove conditions on assistance” and complaining about “leftist-dominated” U.S. congresses of years past that “used human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries.” Hastert said he would to correct this situation and expedite aid to countries allied in the war on drugs and also encouraged Colombian military officials to “bypass the U.S. executive branch and communicate directly with Congress.”

In another cable (See Document 54) U.S. Ambassador Myles Frechette decries the fact that a shipment of items destined for the military – which had been held up pending negotiation of an end-use monitoring agreement – arrived in Colombia while the Hastert delegation was in country, undermining Frechette’s leverage with the Colombian military leadership.

Florida Political Polls

This is sort of related to my post a few weeks back about how popular our new Governor is. Well, Quinnipiac has released a new poll about the Governor, the legislature, and our two Senators: Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez.

Astoundingly, Crists numbers went up: 73-9 approval rating, stratospheric according to Quinnipiac.

But here's another interesting thing: Both Democrats and Republicans give strongly favorable ratings to Crist, the legislature, and Nelson (D) and Martinez (R).

How often do you see that?

The Amateur Diplomat

The Washington Post has a scathing editorial criticizing Pelosi's trip to Syria. The salient points:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Blogging from Baghdad

It's certainly come a long way since the heyday of Salam Pax.

I introduced myself to the Washington Post reporter and his Iraqi colleague, before the interview. I was asked various questions about culture in general and INLA in particular. We talked frankly about the security situation and impact on the INLA and its staff, etc.

As we were talking, a huge explosion shook the INLA's building around 11.35. We, the three of us, ran to the nearest window, and we saw a big and thick grey smoke rising from the direction of al-Mutanabi Street, which is less than 500 meter away from the INLA. I learnt later that the explosion was a result of a car bomb attack. Tens of thousands of papers were flying high, as if the sky was raining books, tears and blood. The view was surreal. Some of the papers were burning in the sky. Many burning pieces of papers fell on the INLA's building. Al-Mutanabi Street is named after one of the greatest Arab poets, who lived in Iraq in the middle ages. The Street is one of well-known areas of Baghdad and where many publishing houses, printing companies and bookstores have their main offices and storages. Its old cafes are the most favorite place for the impoverished intellectuals, who get their inspirations and ideas form this very old quarter of Baghdad. The Street is also famous for its Friday's book market, where secondhand, new and rear books are sold and purchased. The INLA purchases about 95% of new publications from al-Mutanabi Street. I also buy my own books from the same street. It was extremely sad to learn that a number of the publishers and book sellers, whom we knew very well, were among the dead, including Mr. Adnan, who was supposed to deliver a consignment of new publications to the INLA. According to an early estimation, more than 30 people were killed and 100 more injured. Four brothers were killed in their office.

Immediately after the explosion, I ordered the guards to prevent all my staff from leaving the building, as there was a possibility of another bomb attack. My staff and I were watching the movement of a number civilian and military ambulances, carrying killed and injured people. It was a heartbreaking view.

Almost ten minutes after the explosion, the Washington Post's reporter and his Iraqi colleague left the building. Their destination was unsurprisingly al-Mutanabi Street, the site of the massacre. Before the end of the meeting, we agreed to meet again next morning to continue the interview. After I arrived to my home, my wife told me that a big bomb blast shook our house at 11.30 and that dust and smoke covered our neighborhood. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

At 18.10, I was the guest of a Spanish radio that broadcasts to Spain and Latin America. I answered by phone series of questions about the INLA, its staff and the security challenges. The interview lasted 15 minutes.

Almost one hour later, the Reuters reporter in Baghdad rang me, asking me some question about the al-Mutanabi Street's car bomb attack, its history and cultural importance.

I watched the night news bulletin. The car bomb attack against Al-Mutanabia shocked all Iraqis regardless of their religious and ethnic background. The President, the Prime Minster and some other high-rank officials condemned the attack. Our political leaders are the best when it comes to the 'extremely difficult' task of issuing condemnation statements, while the annihilation of our culture and intellectual class goes on before their very eyes everyday.

Superlegality

This comment just came through on a Kos post about Goodling's refusal to testify.

We can either sort delicts and torts (crimes and suits) via public institutions, or by private means.

In the latter instance, there are no rules of evidence or telling or adjudication. None whatsoever.

In that world, quibbles over things like Miranda, modes of interrogation and incarceration as a suspect just aren't very important anymore.

Perhaps Miss Goodling would prefer that world.

So far, it's just been a world where certain execrable persons can be declared outlaws in the Norse sense -- outside the protection of law -- by executive fiat.

Now we see the other side of extralegality -- super-legality -- that certain exalted persons can be declared outside the prosecution of law.

The first goes inextricably with the last. We are in Monica Goodling seing the tentative beginning of a claim that due process is only valid if undertaken by persons deemed impartial and just not by the accused, but by the person called for testimony, on the grounds they don't like the people asking for answers to their questions.

Of course, when persons deemed acceptable are in control, that's different.

That, ultimately, is the basis for Miss Goodling's discomfiture. For whatever motive, she declares that any cooperation with Congress is a threat to her person, that this threat is illegitimate, and that she will not comply...the suggestion being that the administration will back her up should Congress seek to compel her appearance.

That might not happen. Then again, it might.

If so, we are far, far closer to a breakdown in not just this current investigation, but in our system of government.

Like I said at the top; either we resolve disputes -- delicts and torts - via the institutions that were trusted (more or less), regardless of who is in control, or we throw away twelve hundred years of experience reaching back to the Magna Carta, and look to old-school Sicily and modern-day Russia for idea on how to best take the law into our own hands, when resolving conflicts between persons and parties.

Sam Fox recess-appointed

You know, I really don't think the Founding Fathers meant that a one-week Congressional recess was a valid reason for appointing ambassadors that the Senate had all but rejected...

Those Damn Barbeques!

UPDATE: This has been confirmed to be an April Fools hoax. Apparently, the Belgians really pull some serious pranks on April 1. Those fun-loving Belgians!

From opinionjournal.com

Grill Scouts

From Novosti, a Russian news service:

The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters,
whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Good thing helicopters don't emit any CO2!

Tweaking

I just color-coded the posters: I decided to go with just two colors, rather than figuring out a different one for each person. :-)

Also, since I was tired of not being able to review just my own posts, I went through and added a "Posted by" tag to all the old posts (I think).

Any comments, or good as it stands?

Captains Quarters and selective statistics

Per John's suggestion, I'm reposting this here, having touched on it in comment threads and on my own blog.

---

The Captain's Quarters blog claims that Halliburton made 95% of its contract dollars from full and open competition, and gives a link to prove it. The link, indeed, states that Halliburton made $5.6B out of $5.9B through open, competitive bidding.

In 2005.

In 2004, almost 15% of their 6.8B was non-competitive.

And in 2003, over $2,000,000,000 came from non-competed contracts: over 43% of the total.

Nice try, guys.

Median wages stagnating

Hmmm. Interesting.

Presidential candidates with no understanding of the Constitution

From the National Review:

Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Corruption, Democratic-Style

An unbelievable conflict-of-interest story from CaptainsQuarters

The new Congress has barely made it past its start before a new face has been put on lobbyist influence. Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, has resigned her leadership position on a subcommittee which put billions of dollars into her family's business (via QandO):

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp. ...

As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum's financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:

* Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.

* Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.

* CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.

Wasn't it the Democrats who insisted that the Republicans jumped into bed with lobbyists and special interests? Well, now we have a senior Democrat who made sure that over a billion dollars of federal money got routed through her own checkbook, with her husband as proxy. When can we expect to see a Democratic investigation into this brand of corruption?

During the 2006 election, Feinstein's party made a lot of hay out of non-competitve contracting by the government. Democrats railed especially about Halliburton, even though Halliburton won 95% of its contract dollars by full and open competition. Now we see that Feinstein herself had no problem with non-competitive practices, as long as it meant stuffing her own pockets with taxpayer money. Take a look at the percentages in the above. In 2005, CB Richard Ellis made $100 million in federal contracts, only half of which had been part of full and open competitive bidding.

When we talk about political corruption, this is exactly what we mean. Politicians who use their power and assignments to fill their own pockets with federal dollars corrupt our system and deserve to be tried in court for violating the public trust.

Feinstein never should have sat on subcommittees that hand out federal contracts for markets in which her own family businesses compete. If the Democrats meant what they said in 2006, Feinstein provides an excellent test case for their new sense of ethics. They should expel her from the Senate and have California hold a special election to replace her. If they do nothing, then they have exposed themselves as the party of self-enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.

A little East Coast voter fraud for balance

In Florida's 13th Congressional race in 2006 Democrat Christine Jennings lost by fewer than 400 votes to Republican Vern Buchanan. read about it at wired

Washington State Election Fraud

From soundpolitics.com. If Marshall has contrary evidence this well documented, then post a link. Got tired of you deniers blathering without knowing what you're talking about.

No evidence of election crimes?

Today's Seattle Times reports that John McKay insists that there was no evidence of election crimes in Washington's November 2004 election. Granted, he appears to have relied solely on what the Republican legal team presented in the contest trial. And we now know that King County sandbagged discovery requests and stonewalled public records requests, and the schedule simply didn't permit the litigants to force King County to produce all of the evidence in time for the trial. Here is a summary of what I've found in the 21 months after the trial ended:

Category of suspected illegal vote Expected Documented More Info Sample

Provisional ballots counted
from unregistered "fatal pend" voter 170 170 here photo
Provisional ballots counted from
other unregistered voters 60 32 here photo
Federal write-in ballot counted from
unregistered voter who had not
requested a ballot by the deadline 113 113 here PDF
Two absentee ballots counted
from the same voter 80 30 here photo
Absentee ballot and provisional ballot
counted from the same voter 50 11 here photo
In-state absentee ballots postmarked
after election day (Nov. 2) >5 5 photo


Total suspected illegal votes 478 361

*Notes: These are all cases of ballots that were unlawfully accepted for tabulation by elections officials. Therefore it's only a partial list of what could reasonably be considered fraud. (I've excluded other varieties of illegal votes that could not have been prevented as easily by the elections staff during the canvassing period, e.g. felons, deceased, the provisional ballots that were shoved into polling place Accuvotes, people who voted both at the polls and by mail and votes cast by voters who were registered more than once.

And I'm not even exploring whether all of the ballots were lawfully handled and counted after they were separated from their envelopes). The "expected" column indicates the number of such ballots that data records and other documents indicate one should expect to find if one were to perform an exhaustive search of the ballot envelopes and other physical records. The "documented" column indicates the number that have been corroborated by other King County records and/or by physical records that have been found and photographed after a partial search of the physical evidence.

Again, none of this specific evidence was presented or even known during the trial. But we were all tippped off that something wasn't right when King County counted more votes than voters and admitted to fabricating the reconciliation reports. I would like to ask McKay the following: has he looked for and/or seen any of the funny votes listed above? Does he consider them to be sufficient evidence of unlawful vote counting to at least prompt a more comprehensive investigation?

Has he conducted an investigation and concluded that all of these unlawful votes were caused solely by innocent human error? On what basis? If the answers to the first 3 questions are NO, YES and NO, would he be willing to assist in drafting a formal complaint that could lead to an investigation?

If anybody reading this knows how to reach John McKay, please help me get in touch with him.

‘Wash Post’ Publishes Rare Op-Ed by ‘Anonymous’ On FBI Abuse

By E&P Staff
Published: March 23, 2007 9:30 AM ET

NEW YORK “It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces,” the newspaper declares on page A17 of today’s edition. “In this case, an exception has been made because the author — who would have preferred to be named — is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter.

“The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author’s attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.”

What follows … is the submission by “John Doe.” The entire piece is available at www.washingtonpost.com.

The Justice Department’s inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue “national security letters.” It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision … without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval — to obtain … sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access … business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone … that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand … I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

… I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and … filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information … and … the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with … the national security letter that was served on my company. …

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case …. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to … lie.

I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.

Quoted under Fair Use; for complete item and/or copyright info go to http://tinyurl.com/22f5vd

McGrain v. Daugherty

As the Supreme Court pointed out in 1927:

We are of opinion that the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. Both houses of Congress took this view of it early in their history-the House of Representatives with the approving votes of Mr. Madison and other members whose service in the convention which framed the Constitution gives special significance to their action-and both houses have employed the power accordingly up to the present time. . . .

Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.

Freaking hypocrites

From Hoyer's speech on the Iraq Accountability Act:

Others assert that inclusion of a timeline for responsible redeployment is tantamount to capitulation. Mr. Hobson spoke on this floor just a few minutes ago. He voted to set a time line in Bosnia. Mr. Lewis sits as the ranking member of this committee; he voted on June 24, 1997, to set a timeline. Mr. Hastert, Speaker of the House, set a timeline. Mr. Delay voted for a timeline. Mr. Blunt voted for a timeline. Mr. Boehner voted for a timeline.

Every one of them voted for a timeline, and what were the circumstances? We hadn't lost a single troop, not one. We had spent $7 billion, not $379 billion. We had brought genocide to a stop, ethnic cleansing to a stop, and we were not losing people and we had a stable environment, yet they voted for a timeline.

Josh Marshall on USA case

Full post here, but I've quoted most of it.

...Kinsley is still mulling over whether this is comparable to Bill Clinton's entirely normal dismissal of US Attorneys when he came into office. Would it be as big a deal if the Bush White House had fired all the US Attorneys at the start of the second term, as folks at the White House first seemed to have considered?

The firings were not the offense. They were the clue that suggested the offense. As the Congressional Research Service has shown, over the last twenty-five years only ten US Attorneys have been dismissed other than at the beginning of a new president's term of office. And of those eight were for clear cause. For instance, one of them bit a stripper on the arm in a night club. And that, not surprisingly, led to his ouster....

In any case, ten times over twenty five years and in eight of those cases for clear and publicly aired reasons.

And then on one day, secretly and with no explanation, seven get canned. And several are involved in corruption investigations targetting Republicans. The first public explanation is that they were fired for poor performance. But then it turns most were among the highest performing US Attorneys in the country. Add in the fact that one of the eight was overseeing one of the broadest ranging and historic public corruption cases in US history and ... well, it all got our attention.

Then, only a little digging revealed clear evidence that two of the US Attorneys were dismissed for not pursuing bogus claims of Democratic 'voter fraud'.

Now, Kinsley seems to have bought in to David Brooks artfully laddled line that some of the firings seem to have been for partisan political reasons (bad) while others were for policy political reasons (not necessarily bad). But with all due respect, like history repeating itself, it only looks that way to those who don't know the details....

With Carol Lam, looking closely even at the emails the White House has allowed the Justice Department to release and it's clear that most of the Justice Department's dealings with Lam were coordinating with her on defending the policies she was pursuing against outside criticism. Given that this is being proferred as the after-the-fact excuse for her firing it is surpassingly curious that there appears not to be a single email showing anybody at the Justice Department or the White House asking her to change anything she was doing. The emails that show DOJ and White House officials brainstorming after the fact to come up with reasons for why they fired different prosecutors.

It's not that Lam was fired for not following administration policies on immigration. It's simply the one instance where the Attorney General and the White House are trying hardest to make that case. And it's just not convincing.

There are many people in this conversation trying to avoid the issues, confuse the issues or just ignore them. And more than a few people are just plain confused. But it's not that complicated. Administration officials have repeatedly and demonstrably lied about the firings. And there is now abundant evidence of a pattern of using the president's power to hire and fire US Attorneys to stymie public corruption investigations of Republicans and use the Justice Department to harass Democrats by mounting investigations of demonstrably bogus 'voter fraud' claims. It's really that simple.

The Edwards Problem

Not good.

I have a family member with that form of cancer that has been fighting it for about 4 years successfully. It is incurable because it lurks in the bone and then attacks somewhere else in the body as a new malignancy. They have new types of treatments involving hormones, though, that can really lengthen life expectancy beyond the (I think) 3-4 years it was just a few years ago.

I don't like John Edwards. He's a glorified ambulance chaser who practices class warfare, but no one should have to put up with the tragedies that have befallen him in his personal life.

He and Elizabeth Edwards have a long, difficult road ahead of them as it is even without his continued campaigning. I pray that they defy the odds and have a long and happy personal life.

P.S. I think a nice gesture would be for anyone donating to any of the 2008 candidates also make a donation to the American Cancer Society in Mrs. Edwards name or the name of anyone you know who has suffered from cancer.

Parliamentary smackdowns

How not to impress the guy with the gavel. :-)

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the contents of this legislation. Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Under the rule that was adopted, no amendment is in order at this time.

Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has asked the parliamentary inquiry, and he has received the answer.

Mr. McHENRY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Further parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes. The gentleman may state the inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. So the Chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa from this legislation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is making a speech and will suspend.

Mr. McHENRY. If the Chair will let me finish my question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has answered the gentleman's question, not by the Chair's own decision but by the rule. The rule does not provide for amendments. That is the answer to the gentleman's question.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is the rule that we are operating under coming out of the Rules Committee?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has not stated a point of order, but rather a parliamentary inquiry. The House has adopted procedures which do not allow amendments. Therefore, Members will now proceed, and the Chair will recognize anyone who wishes to yield time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Another point of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the point of order.

Mr. BARTON. How many times----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. ``How many times'' could not conceivably be a point of order. It could be a parliamentary inquiry, but it could not conceivably be a point of order.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state it.

Mr. McHENRY. Is American Samoa exempted from this bill before us on the House floor?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will respond to the gentleman: that is not a parliamentary inquiry; that is an inquiry about the substance of a bill. Questions about substance of legislation are not parliamentary inquiries. Parliamentary inquiries pertain to the procedures.

Mr. McHENRY. Additional inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will not recognize the gentleman.

Mr. McHENRY. So the gentleman will not recognize me for an additional parliamentary inquiry?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. No. The Chair will say that having heard several parliamentary inquiries which were not parliamentary inquiries----

Mr. McHENRY. Well, the Chair will not answer my question.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will not interrupt. The gentleman asked several, he said, parliamentary inquiries; the Chair answered them. The gentleman has tried to respond by making speeches which are not in order at this point. If the gentleman wishes to get time from the manager of the time to make his remarks----

Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the nature of the parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Is there a way by which I can derive whether or not American Samoa, like the minimum wage bill, is exempted from this legislation?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair is presiding, the gentleman will not make speeches in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. He has asked a legitimate one, can he find out, how does he find out that information?

The answer is as follows: he asks the gentleman on his side who controls debate time to yield him time. He may then with that time under the rule make the question.

The other way I could say the gentleman could find out would be by reading the bill. Read the bill and it will tell you. But the gentleman may get debate time and then may propound any question to the other side that he wishes.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. My point of order is, the distinguished Speaker when he was in the minority numerous times made points of order that were----

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. Comments on the past behavior of the Speaker might be interesting, but they are not points of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Point of order. Then the distinguished Speaker was out of order in the past.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized to yield time for someone who might actually want to debate the bill. The gentleman is recognized for yielding time.

Executive privilege

Name that author.

...wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Double-Take on a Book and Author

From amazon:

Barbeque'N With Bobby (Paperback) by Bobby Seale (Author)

Yes, that Bobby Seale. And it is about BBQ.

Sick and Tired of Half-Truths

From soundpolitics.com in Seattle:

Sick and tired of getting half-truths
National News
by Stefan Sharkansky, 03:51 PM

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy is "sick and tired of getting half-truths" about the fired U.S. Attorneys. Tell me about it.

Meanwhile, I'm told (fired AUSA - Gonz ed.) John McKay said this on the Mike Siegel Show, May 26, 2005:

The Federal Government has an important historic role in elections ... if there's a Federal crime in the election - if there's bribery, if there's extortion, if there is ballot stuffing - then, if it involves a Federal election, the Federal Government's involved. So that's the basic outline of where we are. But the bottom line is if there is a crime, somebody goes to jail.

That's certainly the right sentiment.

Is it "ballot stuffing" when election officials toss hundreds of ineligible votes into the do-count pile, and then cover it up and prevent that information from being presented in court during a trial about the election? I'm just asking.

Quotes from the Past

Garrett got me started on this, researching historical wartime presidential quotes because some Kos dipshit wanted to compare Bush's speeches with wartime casualties.

What Garrett fails to realize or wishes to overlook is that war is a traumatic event that requires strength and resolve to be radiated from the CinC and that need is irrespective of whether or not one believes or supports the war itself.

If we lived in the same town I dunno whether I'd frog march you into a civics class or beat you over the head with a tome from American Heritage. Because, obviously, you and a number of the Kos overgrown children have a lot to remember in both areas.

So here we go:

Woodrow Wilson, US entry into WWI:

"It is a fearful thing to lead this great peaceful people into war, into the most terrible and disastrous of all wars, civilization itself seeming to be in the balance. But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. "

Woodrow Wilson, 1918, "Peace Without Victory"

"The present war must first be ended; but we owe it to candor and to a just regard for the opinion of mankind to say that, so far as our participation in guarantees of future peace is concerned, it makes a great deal of difference in what way and upon what terms it is ended. The treaties and agreements which bring it to an end must embody terms which will create a peace that is worth guaranteeing and preserving, a peace that will win the approval of mankind, not merely a peace that will serve the several interests and immediate aims of the nations engaged."

Abe Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address

"Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'"

Fitzgerald had "not distinguished himself".

Oh, this is priceless.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show....

The March 2005 chart ranking Fitzgerald and other prosecutors was drawn up by Gonzales aide D. Kyle Sampson and sent to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. The reference to Fitzgerald is in a portion of the memo that Justice has refused to turn over to Congress, officials told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity because Fitzgerald's ranking has not been made public....

Fitzgerald has been widely recognized for his pursuit of criminal cases against al-Qaeda's terrorist network before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and he drew up the official U.S. indictment against Osama bin Laden. He was named as special counsel in the CIA leak case in December 2003 after then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself.

Fitzgerald also won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002 under Ashcroft.

DBD Hits It

Heh.

Love them Hybrids

Whenever the subject of hybrid or electric cars comes up, I've always said that there are hidden environmental factors that don't make them very clean at all. Well, someone finally broke it down better than I have:

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Read the rest here.

The Secret of Freemasonry

Yeah, yeah, it has nothing to do with politics. So impeach me. :-)

Ouch.

BarbinMD over at Kos gives a brilliant breakdown of White House quotes over the past four years, coupled with the casualtyfatality figures at the time.

Edit: Casualty figures are much higher. Fatality figures are the ones listed here.

Mickey Kaus on NYT News Spinning

From Mickey Kaus, who I normally have no use for:

U.S. military deaths in Iraq have apparently declined by about 20% since the "surge" began. It would be a caricature of MSM behavior if the New York Times, instead of simply reporting this potentially good news, first constructed some bad news to swaddle it in, right? From today's Times:

The heightened American street presence may already have contributed to an increase in the percentage of American deaths that occur in Baghdad.
Over all, the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq from hostilities since Feb. 14, the start of the new Baghdad security plan, fell to 66, from 87 in the previous four weeks.

But with more soldiers in the capital on patrol and in the neighborhood garrisons, a higher proportion of the American deaths have occurred in Baghdad — 36 percent after Feb. 14 compared with 24 percent in the previous four weeks. Also over the past four weeks, a higher proportion of military deaths from roadside bombs have occurred in Baghdad — 45 percent compared with 39 percent. [E.A.]

Soldiers presumably get attacked where they are, not where they aren't. If we deploy more soldiers in Baghdad more soldiers will presumably be attacked, and killed, in Baghdad. I don't see why that in itself is bad news, or even news news, if the overall casualty level is declining. ... There will probably be genuine bad military news to report from Baghdad soon enough. Does the NYT have to make some up before then?

New Republic and Cheney

Michelle Cottle of the New Republic thinks Cheney is demented. Charles Krauthammer, the former chief resident of psychiatric consultation for a major hospital, takes her behind the woodshed.

Wilson hearing

Ok, are there any remaining questions about whether she was covert or not? That statement from the director of the CIA was pretty clear.

Hannity, thy name is Hypocrisy

commentary on some stuff Hannity said the other day. Comments?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/i-finally-agree-with-hann_b_43471.html

(Edit by Garrett - linkified)

Departures of US Attorneys, 1981-2006

The Congressional Research Service did a report on when and why U.S. Attorneys who served less than 4 years left. Interesting results.

Not politics, exactly, but...

...still pretty disgusting. (h/t BoingBoing)

At online pharmacy walgreens.com, for instance, the price for 30 tablets of a 20-milligram dose of Merck & Co.'s Zocor is $149.99, compared with $89.99 for simvastatin, the generic version. And last week, the same dose of simvastatin cost $108.99 at CVS's Web site, compared with $154.99 for Zocor. After a call from a reporter, CVS said it would drop its simvastatin price to $79.99, as part of an "ongoing price analysis."...

To be sure, even for the uninsured, generics still typically cost less than their branded counterparts. And at big clubs such as Costco Wholesale and Sam's Club, out-of-pocket prices for generics do generally plummet. Simvastatin costs $6.97 for 30 pills of the 20-milligram dose at a Sam's Club for which the company provided price information....

Charles Burnett, senior vice president of pharmacy at Costco, says the company can acquire the 30-tablet, 20-milligram dose of simvastatin for $2.71.

Biden asks where the plan for a political solution is

Why resignation is not enough

KagroX@Kos lays out the reasoning.

...You may rest assured that apologists for Gonzales, Bush and Rove (whose involvement also seems obvious) will insist that there is no "crime" here, because the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys is within the president's prerogative. True, as far as it goes. But what clearly ought not to be is the political manipulation of federal investigations to bolster the electoral prospects of Republicans, and damage those of Democrats and other rivals. This is the sort of activity that's so obviously and fundamentally wrong that nobody has yet taken the time to devise a statute to address it. Instead, it occupies the space of a general crime against the Constitution, a subversion of our very system of government, and precisely the sort of crime for which the founders gave us the remedy of impeachment. That's what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are all about. It's not about lawbreaking at altitude.

Dovetailing Into the "Sunday" Post

From The Hill:

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the Democratic Caucus chairman, has told new Democratic members of Congress to steer clear of Stephen Colbert, or at least his satirical Comedy Central program, “The Colbert Report.”“He said don’t do it … it’s a risk and it’s probably safer not to do it,” said Rep. Steve Cohen. But the freshman lawmaker from Tennessee taped a segment that last week was featured in the 32nd installment of the “Better Know a District” series. Colbert asked Cohen whether he was a black woman. He isn’t.

WTF?? Doesn't Emanuel realize that Colbert actually makes fun of conservative hosts? Also, since when is hiding from a national audience a good thing for elected officials?

Settings change

I just switched it from 7 posts to 7 days on the front page. If you don't like it that way, fix it, or comment here and I will.

In Tallahassee, They Love The Governor

To paraphrase Lynyrd Skynyrd. One thing this State has been blessed with for many years is good governors who were very popular. Bob Graham (D), Lawton Chiles (D), Jeb Bush (R), and now Charlie Crist (R).

Here are the astoundingly high poll numbers for Crist from Quinnipac poll:


30. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Charlie Crist is handling his job as Governor?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Approve 69% 77% 65% 70% 72% 67%
Disapprove 6 4 7 5 4 8
DK/NA 25 19 28 25 24 25

This is a true "get 'er done" type of guy. Don't be surprised if you see him in national office within the next 10 years.

Sunday Talk Shows Slant Conservative

I'm really suprised Susie didn't bring up this. It's a suprisingly methodical report by Media Matters about conservatives being more prevalent on Sunday TV talk shows. I was VERY surprised that they allude to the fact that some leading Democrats won't ever go on Fox so that may skew the numbers a bit - MM is not known for being terribly self-critical.

Of course, they have to go ruin it by trying to get Congress involved to enforce balance. Socialism at it's best.

There is a theory I have that plays into the equation: Progressives simply aren't that interesting to watch or listen to unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool progressive to begin with. And if you are trying to sell a TV show, you want to maximize your audience. Plus, some progressive/liberal politicians seem to avoid any confrontational or panel show like the plague. Hillary Clinton comes to mind - she rarely does unscripted interviews and I can't imagine her going toe-to-toe with Bill O'Reilly, for example.

A lot of time, money, and effort has gone into promoting left-leaning TV and radio shows and it either falls flat or grabs a niche audience.

On TV, O'Reilly destroys Olbermann in the ratings. Wipes the floor with him. You libs don't like bad news and won't believe it so here's the latest ratings from Neilsen by way of Mediabistro. Aside: Can anyone tell me why Greta Vansusteren is so popular? Me neither.

On radio, the top five syndicated shows are Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, and Savage. All are conservative with Beck being more humorous and Savage being errr.. insane.

Also, if Sunday morning slants conservative, what about all those daytime talk shows the rest of the week? Certainly no one can claim that Oprah and The View are conservative.

But I digress.

My main point is that progressively slanted talk shows have been given ample oppoertunity to succeed and failed. So why would ostensibly neutral shows want to slant in that direction?

Documentation is a good thing...

Jay Carney in January:

It's all very suspicious-sounding. The provision smacks of a power-grab, an attempt to put a leash on federal prosecutors in the name of efficiency. It looks even worse when it turns out one of the "interim" US attorneys appointed by Alberto Gonzales is Tim Griffin, a veteran GOP operative who worked in Karl Rove's shop at the White House and as director of research (i.e., chief dirt digger) at the Republican National Committee. Not only that, but Griffin was appointed to be the USA in his home state of Arkansas, which can only mean he's being sent by Rove, armed with subpoena power, to dig up fresh dirt on the Clintons in time for the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.

Of course! It all makes perfect conspiratorial sense!

Except for one thing: in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist.

Jay Carney in March:

Twelve days ago, after David Iglesias went public, I said that if there turned out to be a broad conspiracy behind the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, "I will take my hat off to Marshall and others in the blogosphere and congratulate them for having been right in their suspicions about this story from the beginning."

My hat is off. Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo and everyone else out there whose instincts told them there was something deeply wrong and even sinister about the firings, and who dug around and kept writing about them while Iglesias decided whether to talk to the press or go quietly on to his next job, deserve tremendous credit.

When this story first surfaced, I thought the Bush White House and Justice Department were guilty of poorly executed acts of crass political patronage. I called some Democrats on the Hill; they were "concerned", but this was not a priority. The blogosphere was the engine on this story, pulling the Hill and the MSM along. As the document dump proves, what happened was much worse than I'd first thought. I was wrong. Very nice work, and thanks for holding my feet to the fire.

How to fire USAs

Drat, I can't upload the picture. Oh, well. Check this PDF, and see what it says on pages 16-18.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJdocsPt2070313.pdf

Gonzales and the Anklebiters

So, Schummer amd fellow Dems are screaming for Alberto Gonzales to resign because of the firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys.

Yet no one raised an eyebrow when Janet Reno fired all 93 of them in 1993.

Reno to U.S. attorneys: Hand in your resignations, please Date: March 24, 1993 Publication: The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution Page Number: A/11 Word Count: 752
Attorney General Janet Reno on Tuesday asked all of the country's U.S. attorneys, including the three in Georgia, to submit their resignations, saying the Clinton administration wants to build its own team of federal prosecutors. U.S. Attorneys Joe Whitley in Atlanta, Edgar Ennis in Macon and Jay D. Gardner in Savannah said Tuesday that they will comply.

Typical Democratic tactic of screaming about something perfectly acceptable and hope that no one notices their own far more aggregious behavior in the same area in the past.

Update

I guess my analysis is not unique. From the Wall Street Journal:

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons....

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.

It Sucks to be Al Sharpton

From Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk show host based in Atlanta:

Imagine you're Al Sharpton. OK ... I know, you might find it hard to imagine that you're a fat, bigoted lying blowhard who's irresponsible rants have more than likely led to the deaths of innocents in New York City ... but try to imagine you're Al Sharpton anyway. You know you have absolutely nothing working for you other than your ability to manipulate the pandering media into giving you some face time on TV by simply spouting the dogma of black victimization.

Now .. here you are, standing as little more than an object of amusement for many, and an example of a depraved race pimp to most, trying to compete with someone who carries himself with the dignity of Barack Obama. What can you do? Get rid of the pompadour hairstyle? Suddenly develop an aura of respectability? Hardly. You really only have one option ... either you manage to get Barack Obama to legitimize you and elevate you to something close to his level by begging you for your endorsement; or you start ripping into Obama in the faint hope that you can somehow bring him down to play with you in the sty.

Yup .. .it sucks to be Al Sharpton. Finally Americans have seen what a bona-fide black candidate for the presidency looks like and talks like --- and he bears no resemblance whatsoever to you.

And if sucks to be Al Sharpton, think about how much it sucks to be Jesse Jackson right now. Why, this Obama upstart hasn't even established his credentials by blackmailing a major corporation ... and here he is being taken seriously! Life's tough, Jesse! How ya gonna keep the money flowing into your secret coffers when you aren't the leader of the pack any more?

Washington Post on the Pelosi Iraq Plan

Blasted as vote-mongering at the expense of geopolitical reality. Unusual for the WaPo to go after the Dems but...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201198.html

A Classic

South Park.....pseudo-conservative humor for 10 years

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/south_park_still_sick_still_wrong/page/1

Michael Moore and Honesty

Turning the tables on Michael Moore

By Michelle Malkin · March 10, 2007 04:42 PM

What goes around, comes around. A new documentary unmasking Michael Moore debuts today at the South by Southwest film festival:

The cameras get turned on Michael Moore for a change at the South by Southwest film festival, where the documentary Manufacturing Dissent will have its world premiere.
The film from directors Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk, playing March 10 at the Austin festival, follows Moore during the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 and questions many of his tactics.
Among its revelations: that the confrontational documentarian did interview former General Motors Chairman Roger Smith, the elusive subject of his 1989 debut Roger & Me, and simply chose to leave it out of the finished cut.

Moore, who won an Academy Award for 2002's Bowling for Columbine, has not responded to e-mail and phone requests for comment.

"The people who can attest to this are extremely credible and do attest to this in the film," said John Pierson, the independent film veteran who helped sell Roger & Me to Warner Bros. and now teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. "I've always loved Roger & Me. I loved working on it. I really believed in it, and that's really bad. The fundamental core of the film is how his mission to get Roger Smith fails and, P.S., Michael spent 18 years since then swearing he never interviewed Roger Smith."

More details:
In "Manufacturing Dissent" Caine and Melnyk — whose previous films include "Junket Whore," about movie journalists, and "Citizen Black," about Conrad Black — note that the scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" in which President George W. Bush greets "the haves, and the have-mores" took place at the annual Al Smith Dinner, where politicians traditionally make sport of themselves. Melnyk and Caine received a video of the speeches from the dinner's sponsor, the Archdiocese of New York. "Al Gore later answers a question by saying, 'I invented the Internet,'" Caine said. "It's all about them making jokes at their own expense."

For once, Michael Moore has no comment.

Fitz on slow boil?

Is he waiting until February 2009 to make sure his work isn't wasted?

My head hurts

Let's recap: a corrupt Israeli PM - has a stake in a corrupt Israeli bank- owned by a corrupt Wall Street global hedge fund - which owns a corrupt US defense contractor - which contributes to corrupt GOP Congressmen - who also receive money from another corrupt defense contractor - that defense contractor produced faulty intel under contract to a corrupt CIA Assn't Director - that faulty intel was used to justify a corrupt US Administration's case for invading Iraq - that was planned and executed by corrupt neocons inside DoD who had written a proposal years earlier to wage wars to privatize the Israeli economy.

More Than a Feeling

Brad Delp is dead at 55. Nooooo!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17543043/

Liberal overreaction

No, really. This is just stupid, if that's all there was to it...

Boggles the Mind

Literally. First, from Dr. Robert Lanza

Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is perceived further influences that reality. Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness.

Find the rest of this article here

You want experimental proofs? Check this out (here's an excerpt)

The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality.

Congress back on duty

Oversight. Gotta love it.

Within a week it emerged that as many as a half-dozen other U.S. attorneys had been forced out under similarly unexplained circumstances at roughly the same time. That was enough to get Bush administration critics asking questions. But the story might well have languished there, in the netherworld of Bush White House quasi-scandals, had it not been for questions asked of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty at a Senate hearing early last month.

The eight fired U.S. attorneys seemed inclined to go quietly until McNulty told the Senate that they’d been let go for “performance-related” problems. A review of the attorneys’ performance evaluations quickly cast doubt on that explanation. And it was also enough to get the fired attorneys talking.

The Last Flight of Lieut. Landaker

From the blog post on BlackFive...

On board, 0600: "Good morning folks this is the Captain. This morning we have been attending to some additional duties and I apologize for being 10 minutes late for pushback but believe me we will be early to LAX. This morning it is my sad pleasure to announce that 1st LT Jared Landaker USMC will be flying with us to his Big Bear home in Southern California . Jared lost his life over the sky's of Iraq earlier this month and today we have the honor of returning him home along with his Mother, Father, Brother and uncles. Please join me in making the journey comfortable for the Landaker family and their uniformed escort. Now sit back and enjoy our ride, we are not expecting any turbulence until we reach the Rocky Mountains and at that time we will do what we can to ensure a smooth ride. For those interested you can listen in to our progress on button 9."

Anatomy of a Botched Joke

A good perspective, for once. From opinionjournal.com

Anatomy of a Botched Joke

Remember when John Kerry made disparaging comments about the U.S. military and then claimed, with an absurd self-righteousness, that it was all a "botched joke"? Now, thanks to Ann Coulter, we know what an actual botched joke looks like.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, Coulter said:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I--so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.

This joke failed, for three reasons:

The pop culture reference is too obscure for most people to get. We knew about it only because Kathryn Lopez linked to an article about it: It seems Isaiah Washington, a TV actor, checked into a "residential treatment facility" after a dispute with a fellow cast member in which Washington used the word "faggot."

Although Edwards has what people back in 2003 used to call a "metrosexual" demeanor, as well as a history of gay-baiting, it is not clear why implying that he is gay would be funny.

"Faggot" is an ugly word, redolent of hatred even if employed without hateful intent.

Of course, every time Coulter says something outrageous, the reaction is Pavlovian all around: Liberals get outraged, conservatives get outraged, and liberals get outraged that conservatives aren't outraged, even though they are. Our favorite conservative reaction came from blogger Rick Moran, who wrote:

I urge everyone--right and left--to take the following actions:

1. Never write another blog post about Ann Coulter no matter how outrageous, cruel, or bigoted her language. . . .

I will no longer be a willing cog in her publicity machine.

Well, OK, I will write this 700-word post, and I will update it twice, to the tune of more than 500 words. But once I'm done with that, I will no longer be a willing cog in her publicity machine! Really!

Our favorite liberal response came from the Edwards campaign itself, which sent out a ridiculously over-the-top email attributed to pro-Saddam ex-Rep. David Bonior:

Did you hear about Anne [sic] Coulter's speech this afternoon attacking John? A friend just forwarded me the video and it's one of the worst moments in American politics I've seen. I can't bring myself to even repeat her comments. Her shameless display of bigotry is so outrageous you actually have to see for yourself to believe it. This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us.

So it's both "one of the worst moments in American politics" and "just a taste of the filth" to come? The Associated Press reports that Edwards himself "said a remark about him by conservative author Ann Coulter reminded him of hateful speech against blacks he heard while growing up in the segregated South." And if you want to show your disgust with Coulter, go here to donate "Coulter cash" to the Edwards campaign.

Edwards seems to be striking a self-pitying tone similar to the one Kerry struck last year when he was the one who gave offense. It's funny how liberal politicians are always the victims, whether someone else says something outrageous about them or they say something outrageous about others.

In any case, you can tell Coulter's botched joke really was a botched joke by the light touch she used when the New York Times asked her about it:

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

Now that gave us a chuckle.

Great Book: World War Z

How did I ever miss this one? This book is a mockumentary that takes place a few years after humanity has defeated a "Night of the Living Dead" style zombie attack. It is very insightful on how various factions of society would react to such a thing even if the premise is fantasy. Both left and right are skewered for different reasons.

Highly recommended

http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Z-History-Zombie/dp/0307346609

Deconstructing D'Souza

This Kos diary does a good job of showing the danger of the "violent right".

By defining liberals as a "hidden" second front of terrorism, D'Souza's book invokes a very simple, widely held idea in America: that "War on Terror" means first and foremost, "kill terrorists." Thus, The Enemy at Home gives intellectual legitimacy to a widely accepted, rapidly growing Republican tendency to frame national security in terms of killing Democrats....

But D'Souza is a different kind of voice to emerge in the violent right. Neither angry nor animated, D'Souza cuts a media image similar to that of a boring, middle school substitute teacher. He is a quiet, unassuming man using soft tones as he both writes and speaks about the need to battle and destroy liberals with the same ferocity as we kill terrorists....

Americans who dismiss the power and danger of D'Souza's argument do so at great risk to the public sphere of free debate in this country. By the time the arena of public ideas is overtaken by D'Souza's toxic and contagious language of violence, it will be too late to turn it back.

Argument by anecdote

There are those here who need to take note of this point.

UPDATE II: This whole issue raises a broader point: the reliance by idiots and deceivers on the fallacy of argument by anecdote, one of the lowest (and most commonly invoked) forms of fallacious reasoning.

It is hard to overstate how pervasive this lowly and manipulative weapon is wielded by right-wing demagogues to shape our political debates. LGF's simplistic trick, for instance, is to post individual stories every day of Muslims who engage in violent acts ("hey, look - I proved that Muslims are inferior and dangerous!"). Michelle Malkin repeatedly posts individual stories of supposed leftists engaging in illegal or violent acts ("hey, look -- I proved that liberals are unhinged"). Or the right finds a single obscure college professor nobody ever heard of who referred to 9/11 victims as "Little Eichmanns" ("hey, look - we proved that 'the Left' hates America and believes that the 9/11 victims deserved it!").

Those who rely on that cheap, tawdry tactic are really indistinguishable -- just in terms of the methods -- from, say, websites run by white supremacists who, every day, troll the news wires and post individual stories of crimes committed by African-Americans and then think that they've made a broader point. In that context, most people can see how transparently fallacious the tactic is, but in other contexts, they are blind to it.

In fact, because such sloppy, illogical shorthand -- when used against "liberals" -- is easy to both convey and ingest, journalists love it. They use it themselves and are easily manipulated into passing such arguments along (just fathom how quickly this story is going to make the usual rounds -- "'liberals' hate Bush and Cheney so much that they actually expressed sorrow that Cheney wasn't killed in the explosion today").

Glenn Beck Rips On Olbermann

Well deserved, I might add. Beck does show restraint, but he's generally a class act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvQ7Slfo-A

The Gore "Pile-On"

This is what happens when your sanctimonious ass gets caught saying one thing and doing another. And Suz, not one word about going after the messengers - in this case they broke a story that the mainstream media should have been all over before anyone else.

From opinionjournal.com (The Wall Street Journal), partially quoted:

The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . .

But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .

Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.) ...

So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.

Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this?

Update:

Heh. Gets even better. From BillHobbs.com

Gore's huge electric power usage at his Nashville home isn't the only example of how the prophet profit of environmental doom hasn't always lived as if he believes his message. During the eight years Gore was vice president, he voted in four national elections. Every single time, he and his entourage and security detail and accompanying media flew to Nashville on a large government jet, burning thousands of gallons of fossil fuels and pumping huge amounts of carbon emissions directly into the earth's atmosphere, and then drove in a caravan of fossil fuel-burning vehicles from Nashville International Airport east on I-40 to Carthage, Tennessee, so the local and national TV cameras could get video of him at the voting booth. And then the whole caravan headed back to Nashville for the plane ride back to DC. Traffic had to be halted on Nashville's interstates and side streets every time - sometimes during rush hour - idling thousand of vehicles that just sat there, burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon pollution, just so Gore could create a media photo-op.

He could have instead voted by mailing in an absentee ballot

Comments on the "liberal" media here?

In his February 28 appearance on CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, during which he announced his intention to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that "Americans are very frustrated" with the situation in Iraq and that "they have every right to be." McCain then added: "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure [in Iraq], which is American lives." The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all published March 1 articles reporting McCain's announcement on the Late Show, with The New York Times and the Post directly quoting McCain from the program -- but none of these articles noted his claim that "we've wasted" American lives in Iraq. Yet when Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made similar comments in Iowa on February 11, the Post and the Los Angeles Times reported the remarks the following day. The New York Times, meanwhile, devoted a February 13 article to Obama's subsequent apology and clarification.

McCain has since said he'd change the word "wasted" to "sacrificed", so let's see if there is a full article on it tomorrow in the NYT.