It's Alito

Just in time for him to go trick-or-treating on Capital Hill, Samual Alito has just been nominated to be the next Supreme Court justice.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America," the president said in announcing Alito's selection. "He's got a mastery of the law and a deep commitment to justice." Bush exhorted the Senate to confirm his choice by the end of the year.

The choice was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed Thursday by Bush's conservative allies, Alito faces opposition from Democrats.

"The Senate needs to find out if the man replacing Miers is too radical for the American people," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

In contrast to Miers, Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years," the president said.

So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement. The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

The Wall Street Journal has a good write-up on Alito. It's subscription only, but here is the relevant part:

Samuel A. Alito has been a strong conservative jurist on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court with a reputation for being among the nation's most liberal.

Dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," a play not only on his name but his opinions, Judge Alito, 55 years old, brings a hefty legal resume that belies his age. He has served on the federal appeals court for 15 years since President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1990.

Before that Judge Alito was U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987 to 1990, where his first assistant was a lawyer by the name of Michael Chertoff, now the Homeland Security secretary.

Judge Alito was the deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration from 1985 to 1987 and assistant to the solicitor general from 1981 to 1985.

His New Jersey ties run deep. Judge Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, was born in Trenton and attended Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut to receive his law degree, graduating from Yale University in 1975.
....

On the bench, Judge Alito is known to be probing, but more polite than the often-caustic Justice Antonin Scalia, to whom he is sometimes compared. In high school, he competed in debate with his younger sister Rosemary. His style is considered quiet and thoughtful.

In a May 2005 profile in the Newark Star-Ledger, Judge Alito said, "Most of the labels people use to talk about judges, and the way judges decide [cases] aren't too descriptive. ... Judges should be judges. They shouldn't be legislators, they shouldn't be administrators."

I really hope conservatives are ready for this fight. They asked for it, and now they've got it. As the guys from Powerline write:

"We're about to get the fight over Constitutional principles that conservatives have looked forward to for years."

Looks like it. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have already come out against him.

And that's a good thing.

Ronnie Earle tries to put the worms back in the can

In a move worthy of Captain Renualt, Ronnie Earle has decided to do some "investigating". On Friday he subpoenaed Eli Pariser, the director of Moveon.org. This is in response to the strange revelation that the judge presiding over Tom DeLay's court case is a doner, and that he donated right during the time period when Moveon.org had launched a campaign against DeLay.

Prosecutor Ronnie Earle on Friday subpoenaed Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal group that took an active role in the last presidential campaign and generally opposes Republicans and their policies.

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, requested the removal of state Judge Bob Perkins because the judge has made 34 contributions since 2000 to Democratic and liberal groups, including MoveOn.org, which has waged a campaign against DeLay. Perkins' largest contribution was a $1,000 donation to the Travis County Democratic Party in 2002.

DeLay, a Republican, has been accused of money laundering and conspiracy in a three-year investigation led by Earle, a Democrat. His request to have Perkins removed from his case will be decided by another judge after Tuesday's hearing.

Earle has also suboenaed the records of several judges in the county where DeLay's trial would likely be moved, no doubt to try to prove that they contributed to Republicans.

It seems this is just more smoke and mirrors on the part of Earle, checking into Moveon.org, promoting the appearance of truth where none exists. That's because the prosecutor has no case. He shopped grand juries to get his indictment. The first indictment, conspiracy, is on it's way to being thrown out. The judge will probably be replaced because of his partisanship. And DeLay and his attorney are itching to get into the courtroom for trial. Why? Because they know that when the truth comes out they're going to win.

I admit, DeLay isn't my favorite. In fact, a lot of people don't like him at all. But you can't put a man in jail just because you don't like him or the way he does business--as long as it's legal. And from everything I've read, all the campaign transactions that went on were legal. Ronnie Earle just wishes they weren't.

And that goes to the heart of the investigation and Earle's recklessness. Earle is trying to change the law with prosecutions. But that's not the way this country works. If he has a problem, sign a petition, talk to your representative, or get somebody elected. Don't abuse your own power and try to "make it so". He's not Captain Picard. He's a county prosecutor. And the guy has overstepped his bounds.

Writing the denouement on Wilson and Plame

For the entirety of the Plame leak investigation, the press has been rather derelict in it's duty of informing the public exactly what Joe Wilson found in Niger, why he went, and what conclusions the Senate Intelligence committee arrived at.

Stephen Spruiell at NRO's Media Blog has crafted an open letter to the press, asking them to stop lying correct their mischaracterizations of Wilson and the outcome of his trip.

Why do you and many other reporters persist in using the following stock description Joseph Wilson:

Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a critic of the administration's Iraq policy by disputing the possibility that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium fuel from Niger.

In his July 6, 2003 op-ed, Mr. Wilson wrote that he had been sent to Niger to check out whether Saddam had actually purchased uranium, and that "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." According the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson’s trip actually indicated that Baghdad had sought to buy uranium from Niger – he “told his CIA debriefers that during his Niger trip, he spoke to the country's former prime minister, who told him that members of an Iraqi delegation in the late 1990s expressed interest in expanded commercial contacts with Niger. The former prime minister told Wilson that he interpreted the comment to mean that Iraq was interested in buying uranium, although the word 'uranium' was not mentioned in the Iraqis' conversation, he said. The prime minister, fearful of United Nations sanctions that prevented trade with Iraq at the time, dropped the subject, Wilson reported" (Jacoby, Salon, 07/16/04). Wilson himself, in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote, “I never claimed to have ‘debunked’ the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.”

Did you write that Wilson disputed something he did not dispute because to explain the true nature of his criticism would take too many words? Why not describe Wilson as follows:

Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who became a critic of the administration's Iraq policy by disputing the possibility that Saddam Hussein's regime actually bought uranium fuel from Niger.

That description has the added benefit of using fewer words. In addition, it shows that Wilson's claim did not contradict the administration's claim that Saddam had sought to purchase uranium from Niger — a claim that Wilson's report actually bolstered. Can you please clarify why this canard, well-documented by liberal media critic Bob Somerby, has gone uncorrected for so long?

The importance of correcting the facts cannot be stressed enough. If the media had done their job from the get go and reported the facts, instead of attempting to help John Kerry by hyping a (false) vendetta against a CIA operative, the entire "Bush lied" argument would have suffered a fatal blow.

The list: (via LGF) Media contacts

Along with sending this letter to your local newspaper, TV reporters and the national media, I highly recommend reading the history of the Wilson trip to Niger. It is a quick read, a chronology of events, and it is loaded with facts you have never heard reported. A sample:

Wilson was debriefed by two CIA officials at his home on March 5, 2002. He never filed a written report. The resulting CIA report was published and disseminated in the regular intelligence stream three days later. The report included the unsurprising declaration of former Nigerien prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki that Niger had signed no contracts with rogue states while he served first as foreign minister and then prime minister, from 1996 to 1999. But Mayaki added one tantalizing detail, also included in the CIA report that resulted from Wilson's trip. An Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 to explore "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. Mayaki had met with the Iraqis and later concluded that their request for enhanced trade meant they wanted to discuss purchasing uranium. Mayaki said he had not pursued the matter because such deals were prohibited under U.N. sanctions.

Reactions to the report differed. The INR analyst believed Wilson's report supported his assessment that deals between Iraq and Niger were unlikely. Analysts at the CIA thought the Wilson report added little to the overall knowledge of the Iraq-Niger allegations but noted with particular interest the visit of the Iraqi delegation in 1999. That report may have seemed noteworthy because of the timing of the Iraqi visit. The CIA had several previous reports of Iraq seeking uranium in Africa in 1999, specifically from Congo and Somalia.

Well worth your time--and removes all doubt about the national media's disgraceful performance and outright partisanship.

It's Bush's move now

Wilson, Plame and Libby. Put them all together and we have a little lie triangle going on. And the White House needs to accept that. The special prosecuter's indictment of Libby seems incredibly strong. And of the legal analysis I have read, many have surmised that "the guy lied his ass off".

Why? Reports are conflicting. He had a bad memory, he wanted to keep the press from getting to Cheney, he actually did mention her name, he likes the idea of jail, he thinks he can beat it, he was arrogant, Rove planned all of this, etc., etc. It is a mystery, but one not so large as those on the left hope for. The special prosecutor did not charge him with violating the secret identities protection act, or with actually leaking Plame's name, and so one must conclude that either Fitzgerald cannot surmise, or cannot prove, that Plame was even covert at the time. Some have suggested that just mentioning Plame worked for the CIA was illegal. Perhaps. The CIA has not said, nor will they probably, unless compelled to in court by Libby's lawyers.

Truthfully, I find it baffling that Libby lied so blatantly. But he'll have his day in court. And perhaps then the prosecuter's case won't seem so air-tight. But I have my doubts.

What I have absolutely no doubt about though is the course of action the White House should take. And that is, stop defending Libby, cut him loose and move on. He served, he will have his day in court, wish him well--and end the relationship there. The left has tied the entire justification for the Iraq war to this leak investigation. Bush cannot do the same.

In fact, I highly recommend President Bush take the lead and clean house a bit more. I'm not saying fire anybody. But people have to identify with their elected representatives in order to feel any empathy for them at all. And Bush needs to show that he is going the extra mile to create an atmosphere of creativity, energy and above all honesty with the public. His forthright nature is his best defense against the ever-louder screeching calls of "liar" from the left. And people, above all else, want a President who is a leader. And leading means you cauterize the wounds, get some new supplies, and then you press on.

The climax of this investigation was the indictment. The press can only convict in the court of public opinion with indictments. Trials and verdicts are no good for them because then the truth outs. And the truth about Wilson and Plame is so much more dishonorable than the press has led the public to believe, it can only hurt them in the long run. The Senate Intelligence bi-partisan committee concluded Wilson was a liar. And if the press was ever forced to report on that large scale, their accusations would fall apart.

The press needed Rove. They wanted Bush's Brain, and instead they got a guy with a "bad memory" named Scooter. Doesn't have the same punch, ya know? The case against Libby is strong, and serious, but baring any startling revelations, this will not hurt Bush as badly as the left had hoped.

But now that they've shot their bolt, Bush needs to take the offensive. In fact, if one were optimistic, you could almost say that it's morning in Washington. Bush still has Rove, the war is going well, the leak investigation is about over, there is a year before mid-terms, the economy is soaring, the hurricanes are over for now, he gets to pick another nominee for the Supreme Court, and he has a base that is ready and willing to fight for him...so long as he leads like he said he would.

And now it's his move.

An indictment...and no answers

So "Scooter" Libby has been indicted for lying to investigators, and apparently nothing else. He has resigned his position.

The vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., was indicted Friday on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in the CIA leak investigation, a politically charged case that will throw a spotlight on President Bush's push to war.

Libby, 55, resigned and left the White House.
....

In each of the counts, the basic allegation against Libby is that he lied to investigators or Fitzgerald's grand jury about his conversations with reporters. He is not accused of purposely revealing the identity of a covert officer, the potential charge that Fitzgerald was initially appointed to investigate.

So as always, it's the cover-up and not the crime itself that takes everyone down.

Karl Rove, public enemy number one, as far as the media is concerned, has escaped indictment, and in the process probably saved Bush from any lasting embarrassment. He remains under investigation, but after two years of this, if Fitzgerald can't indict now he probably doesn't have anything he thinks he can get a conviction out of. That won't stop the media from convicting the administration--as they are feverishly attempting to do right now--but they're having to do it without the inquiry's raison d'etre, the leaker who named "she who must not be named".

And this gets to the heart of the press conference Fitzgerald had with reporters. Even as he slapped them down for getting ahead of themselves and, as he put it, "building facts I don't accept" into the questions, he talked ceaselessly about how "the conversation between the reporter and the official may have been the crime". Yet he has indicted no one for this charge, or for leaking the name. In fact no one has definitively stated--with the exception of some blogs quoting the musings, not facts, of The Washington Times and other papers--for the record that mentioning Plame's name was a crime in the first place. And I suspect that the CIA likes it that way.

Personally, I can't understand why Libby was so stupid as to give the prosecutor his notes, and then emphatically contradict those very notes. He didn't just mix up the facts, he presented his story in such a way as to virtually gaurantee an indictment. And this is why Fitzgerald waited out Judith Miller. Once he had her testimony about her conversation with Libby, Fitzgerald was free to move ahead with the indictment that was all but pre-determined. Now maybe Libby didn't know initially that talking about Plame wasn't allowed--and it appears that this was the case with Rove. But Rove saved himself by providing correct information. Libby should have done the same.

Libby?

The New York Times is...well, more than speculating, that Scooter Libby is going to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Lawyers in the C.I.A. leak case said Thursday that they expected I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, to be indicted on Friday, charged with making false statements to the grand jury.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

To me this seems an odd move by Fitzgerald. If he had something on Rove, even the flimsy false-statement charge, I believe he would have indicted. But if he keeps Rove under suspicion and investigation I have to wonder what else he's hoping to find. I can't believe that Rove or Libby would have been stupid enough to actually leak the name. And if the indictment against Libby is true, it just once again proves the old adage "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up". But in this case it's not even a cover-up, it's an over-protect. Libby might have been protecting his boss for all the wrong reasons, and it looks like he tried to push Plame's name back onto journalists.

The really bad thing about this is the extension of the grand jury. This means more time for speculation, more media salivating, more unknowns with which the media can run wild with. Most polls already show over 8 in 10 adults think the administration did something illegal or unethical. This is a public relations catastrophe.

It stands to reason that if the charges against Libby are feeble, he could probably beat it in court. But no one will ever hear that. Crime will be the operative word. Crime and administration--associated together ad nauseam. The only saving grace, the one that will probably stop the Democratic gloating, is if Karl Rove escapes indictment, both now and from subsequent investigations. As far as the press and Democrats were concerned, it was all supposed to build to that massive political hemorrhage. But it looks as though somebody was able to cauterize the wound.

Those rascally freedom fighters!

I suppose even Reuters' hypocrisy only goes so far. Because chronicling the "freedom fighters" probably gets a little tough when you run into stuff like this.

A Palestinian woman was found Saturday with a hand grenade under her baby during a West Bank raid, an Israeli army officer said.
....

The soldiers searched Jawabra after they became suspicious of the way she was carrying her month-old son. She was holding the grenade just under the baby's backside, Chen said.

A hand grenade was more important than a baby. Turns my stomach, how about yours?

Cindy Sheehan to the...rescue?

So as conservatives await the possible indictments of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, start to put the pieces back together again after the earthquake nomination of Harriet Miers, struggle to find a reason why the public has virtually zero interest in the utterly historic vote that happened in Iraq, and watch as the poll numbers grab shovels and poise to dig, something utterly ridiculous happened. Jeanine Pirro, the Republican candidate going after Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat, just got the most unexpected campaign boost.

Cindy Sheehan, who has crusaded nationally against the war in Iraq since her son was killed there, called on antiwar activists yesterday not to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is seeking re-election next year. "I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support," Ms. Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview. "It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."

Though Ms. Sheehan has criticized Mrs. Clinton's position on the war in the past, this is the first time she has urged people to withhold support from the senator.

Senator Clinton voted to authorize the president to wage war in Iraq, but she has been critical of the way his administration has conducted the war. Still, she has not called for either a withdrawal of American troops or a timetable for their withdrawal. Mrs. Clinton's office declined to comment on Ms. Sheehan's remarks.

Cindy Sheehan has waxed from grieving mother, to moonbat marcher, to terrorist sympathizer and back again. The cast of characters she assembled looked like the political version of The Surreal Life. I mean where else could you assemble Joe "I lied and my wife is covert" Wilson, Jane "I apologized so I could insult America again" Fonda and Al "I need something to do to stay relevant" Sharpton? Admit it, you'd pay to see that show.

The subject of Cindy's ire varied as well. First it was Bush and Iraq, then Israel, then Bush and Israel and Iraq and Afghanistan, and then somehow John McCain got caught in the crossfire while he was looking for a photo-op. And then, of all things, the Sheehan train headed to D.C., and somehow ended up going from the White House to bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton.

And like an out of control...well, moonbat, Cindy has now given the Republicans something no one ever thought they'd see, an endorsement. Okay, so not an actual endorsement. But you have to wonder what Pirro's people are thinking right about now. It has to be a mix of "How can we use this?" and "Oh god make it stop". I expect the latter to win out eventually. But for now I say sit back, relax and let the Sheehan train crash headlong into the Democrats' last best hope.

Delusions of Grand Juries

As the New York Times and other key players in the media establishment continue their cheerleading of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor tasked with getting to the bottom of the Valerie Plame leak, I have to wonder just what all their excitement is about.

The Times and other papers have retreated from claims of high treason, to the eminently less glamorous realization that panicked staffers might have sought to shield the White House from blatantly false information. In the Times' own words:

But the notes, now in Mr. Fitzgerald's possession, also indicate that Mr. Libby first heard about Ms. Wilson - who is also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame - from Mr. Cheney. That apparent discrepancy in his testimony suggests why prosecutors are weighing false statement charges against him in what they interpret as an effort by Mr. Libby to protect Mr. Cheney from scrutiny, the lawyers said.

It is not clear why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so. At the beginning of the investigation, Mr. Bush pledged the White House's full cooperation and instructed aides to provide Mr. Fitzgerald with any information he sought.

The notes do not show that Mr. Cheney knew the name of Mr. Wilson's wife. But they do show that Mr. Cheney did know and told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that she may have helped arrange her husband's trip.

Some lawyers in the case have said Mr. Fitzgerald may face obstacles in bringing a false-statement charge against Mr. Libby. They said it could be difficult to prove that he intentionally sought to mislead the grand jury.

Very difficult. Especially because in light of the situation it was perfectly understandable for the White House to be investigating and discussing the Wilson/Plame issue. And why? Because Joe Wilson outed himself and talked about the entire trip to Niger. By his own vanity and quest for fame, he layed the groundwork that caused his wife to be revealed as the person who sent him. And that leads to the next question, virtually forgotten in all media reports, and that is was it even a crime to discuss Ms. Plame? Was she even covert?--or sufficiently so to still fall under the secrecy protections act? All evidence points to no.

So will anyone be indicted? Possibly. Very possibly. Though for what reason only Mr. Fitzgerald knows. And if it's solely an obstruction charge, or anything other than a pure violation of the secrecy act, then I set the blame squarely on the media's shoulders--for creating a scandal out of nothing, for taking a proven liar and foisting him as the poster child of truth, and for abandoning all journalistic standards in their quest to damage an administration they don't like.

Oh, and for writing books laughing about the whole affair.

Judith Miller may not have a book deal just yet (much less the $1.2 million Simon & Schuster advance alleged by gadfly blogger Arianna Huffington). But when she does get to it, we can be sure that—along with Norman Pearlstine’s planned tome on the hilarious topic of anonymous sourcing—it’ll be an earnestly self-justifying take on a Very Serious Matter. Not for jolly Time reporter Matt Cooper, who testified without doing any hard time, keeping his sense of humor intact. He’s been telling friends he intends to write a comedy about the Valerie Plame Wilson affair.

Gotta love those gaffes

With a nose for anti-Americanism and a penchant for cover-ups, the U.N. seems the last organization on the planet that would express outrage at any country except Israel. Yet that's what happened today as the U.N. issued a scathing report about the death of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Though, more along the lines of typical U.N. behavior, the most damning information from the investigation did not make the final copy...but it did make a draft copy.

Thanks to the wonders of science, and more specifically, Microsoft Word, some busy beavers have discovered that the report the U.N. issued had many many revisions. Using the "tracking" feature for document corrections, it was possible to back-track the changes the U.N. made to the report. And the results are breathtaking. (via the Times online)

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.

The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Nice to know the U.N. staff is up on the latest software. Though the truth of this disturbing finding really only confirms what many suspected all along. Of course now the focus is not only on Syria, but also on the U.N. Why the revisions?

But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

General Shawkat, also among the deleted names, is married to President al-Assad’s headstrong sister, Bushra, and was appointed commander of Syrian military intelligence on February 14 this year, the day Mr Hariri was murdered. Gen- eral Shawkat’s predecessor at Military Intelligence was General Hassan Khalil, the third name on the deleted list.

General Bahjat Suleyman, the fourth Syrian on the list, was until June the head of the internal affairs section of the powerful General Security Department, the main civilian intelligence service.

The only Lebanese on the deleted list is General Jamal al-Sayyed, the former head of the General Security Department in Lebanon. General al-Sayyed features prominently in the report and is alleged to be one of the ringleaders plotting Mr Hariri’s assassination.

Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday — a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.

Gotta love that computer tracking. Because there you have it, the U.N.'s thought process. And I have to say it's pretty sad.

The way you won't see it

A while back, the Starbucks corporation, that den of geniuses that woke up one morning and thought "Hey! Why not put whipped cream on some coffee and charge six dollars for it?", decided that they were going to spread their wisdom to the world by stamping Deep Thoughts on their coffee cups. Unfortunately, for about half the voting population, most of the quoters were rather liberal and promoting their political agenda.

Oh the uproar that ensued...

Now to be fair, yes, Starbucks did then include some token conservative voices, and even opened up the forum for future cups to be graced by the very coffee-drinkers who were supposedly consuming this new wisdom. But the uproar only faded to a simmer. It's back now, but surprisingly from the party of "tolerance". It seems that the author of "The Purpose Driven Life" has contributed to the coffee cup lore, and (prepare yourself) saw fit to mention....God.

Oh the uproar that...well, you get the picture.

So, in the interest of helping us all remain sane, I have devised a plan. Yes, I think I know a way to fix this problem so that we can all just get back to drinking coffee and browsing the internet. Because I have to admit, while my feelings border on apathy towards the whole thing, I don't really want to be indoctrinated while I'm waking up in the morning either. Not that any of us actually read the side of the cup anyway. I mean aren't we all just hoping for the misprinted blank cup so we can sue McDonalds next anyway?

Anyway...for those of you who just cannot go on, or even drink properly should you see a quote on your cup (which is really the point of getting the coffee in the first place, so you need to pay attention here) follow these next few pictorals. You'll soon be back on your way to coffee bliss.

Observe:

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Repeat for each cup of coffee you drink. You're happy, I'm happy, and hopefully Starbucks will never know. And they can remain content, and just make coffee. Sort of like a dairy cow, only with cold and creamy non-fat low carb high protein homogenized milk coming out of their "udders" instead of the warm, slimy, vaguely off-white liquid it starts out as.

But I digress... The point is Starbucks can do whatever they want. And as a customer I also can do whatever I want. The beauty of capitalism. And if Starbucks wants to grace me with an om mani padme hum as I curse and race my way through traffic in the morning, ah well, it probably couldn't hurt. Though on the broader scale I'm not sure living by such means ever helped save Tibet from China's wrath.

Walk softly and carry that big stick, I say...and there's still room in the other hand for a coffee. And that's the way I see it.

The World Series is coming to Texas!

On this wild night of celebration, the Houston Astros owed it all to Roy Oswalt.

He took their dreams, hopes and gritty resolve and pitched his teammates into their first World Series, beating the St. Louis Cardinals 5-1 Wednesday night with help from Craig Biggio.

Coming off a crushing loss in Game 5 of the NL championship series at home on Albert Pujols' stunning homer, the stubborn Astros refused to be shaken. They jumped to an early lead behind Biggio and Jason Lane, got perhaps a little help from the umpires and watched Oswalt shut down St. Louis for seven innings.

Awesome!

Alaskan drilling approved

Somewhat under the radar, with minimal opposition from Democrats, a Senate committee approved a measure to include drilling in ANWR in a new spending bill.

"Now is the time," Sen.. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the committee's chairman, said of developing the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil that geologists believe likely lies beneath the tundra in the northeastern corner of Alaska.

Environmentalists argue that drilling would harm wildlife, including polar bears, caribou and migratory birds, that use the refuge's coastal strip.

The House repeatedly has approved developing the refuge's oil, but each time the measure has died in the Senate, where drilling supporters have failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Unlike regular legislation, the budget process is not subject to a filibuster.

Because of pure politics, that energy rich area has been sitting for years. And if we had drilled ten years ago and built a refinery or two, gas prices would not be near as high as they are now. And dictators like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have near the power they enjoy.

So yes, this is a good thing, and it's about time. And yes, the caribou will be fine.

However, if you enjoy making your environmentalist friends faint, it might help to show them what happened when Halliburton learned the news...

DeLay's judge donated to John Kerry?

On a slightly more serious note, the DeLay matter gets even stranger...

Apparently DeLay's judge was a big supporter of John Kerry and Moveon.org.

PERKINS, ROBERT
AUSTIN,TX 78704

STATE OF TEXAS/JUDGE

9/11/2004

$200

Moveon.org

Huh...interesting day to donate to Moveon. I wasn't really thinking about sending in money to a radical 527 group on 9-11. Were you?

The smart money still says this case will get thrown out eventually. But yet in the meantime, Republicans, DeLay foremost, have become more sympathetic figures and are having a banner contribution period right now. See? And do you still doubt Karl Rove is a genius? Okay...so maybe Democrats just aren't that smart.

Lucy Ramirez is in Karl Rove's basement

I mean really, who else but Karl Rove orchestrated the TANG memos? Who else but Karl Rove could have crafted such a masterful deception, luring in John Kerry and Dan Rather and the entirety of CBS News? Who else knew Texas well enough to send the super-secret femme fatal Lucy Ramirez to sucker poor Bill Burkett into taking the documents at the Houston Rodeo?

It really was a diabolical plan...and it's happening again. Only this time it's in the form of Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle and "the list". What list?--you ask? This list.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

And how is this related to the TANG memos? Because the list the prosecutors actually have borders on the ridiculous.

The Houston Chronicle reported that this so-called precursor list, which the DA acquired from a sweeping request for TRMPAC documents, mentions 17 candidates, not seven. The Chronicle also reported that the dollar amounts on the list totaled $230,000, not $190,000.

I spoke with John Colyandro this afternoon, and he gave me additional details about this so-called precursor list that further call into question its admissibility as evidence. First, the list has no date on it. The prosecution's case depends on proving that the list was sent to the RNC around the time that the money transactions were taking place.

Second, the list has no author. It's just a copy of a printout of an Excel spreadsheet with candidates and dollar amounts on it — candidates and dollar amounts, I remind you, that do not add up to seven or $190,000. How can Earle prove this list was even authored by Colyandro, or whether Ellis or DeLay even knew about it?

But never fear, the media is not about to be sucked in again. There is no way they are going to let Karl Rove off the hook this time. That's why they're staking out his garage. Well, they're saying it's just routine. Yeah right. I mean who's crazy enough to stake out a garage for no reason?

There was no car in the garage. And the stuff left behind turned out not to be much different from what gathers dust inside most American garages.

The inventory, seen from outside:

-Some cardboard file boxes stacked one on top of the other, labeled "Box 6," "Box 4" and what appears to be "Box 7." No sign of boxes 1, 2, 3 and 5.

-What appear to be paint cans stacked alongside a folded, folding chair.

-A rather large wood crate marked "FRAGILE" and painted with arrows indicating which way is up. On top of the crate, two coolers.

-A tall aluminum ladder.

-A snow shovel leaned in front of another cardboard box.

-Wicker baskets inside of wicker baskets on top of a shelf running the length of the rear wall. Transparent plastic storage bins crammed with indiscernible stuff. Another cardboard box.

-In one corner, the rear wheel of a bicycle sticks out, along with what appears to be a helmet.

-Another ladder, this one green, leaning sideways.

Yeah, but which way was the ladder leaning? Huh? Possibly to the...right? And what is in the mysterious "Box 7"? Could it be the list of seven names? Possibly... And could those boxes of indiscernible stuff have maybe...a leftover box of Microsoft Office in there? I mean obviously this is the "Office" caper. MS Word for the TANG memos, and now Excel for "the list". Riiiiggght...

And as one of the best political commentators reminds us about the DeLay matter:

Although, all in all, this could just be Karl Rove. He's responsible for everything, remember.

And it's true--because otherwise why would the press obsess about him so? I mean really, they've been so honest and trustworthy up to this point. We have to believe them, right?

It's like I said, my theory is that Lucy Ramirez is in Karl Rove's basement. It's wild, I know. But you'll come to see the truth of it eventually. No, you will. I have an "unimpeachable" unnamed source, who would love to be placed high in the adminstration, who has told me that a scandal involving Powerpoint slides is scheduled for next month.

Ted Kennedy to the rescue

In what is perhaps the mother of all morbid ironies, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy gets the nod for assisting in the water rescue of six stranded fishermen off a jetty off Hyannisport on Sunday. From the Cape Cod Times:

Kennedy was walking his two Portuguese waterdogs on the shore at about 11:15 a.m. when he spotted the men, all in their 20s and from off-Cape, cut off from the shore by rising waters on a jetty that begins at the tip of the Kennedy compound, Hyannis Capt. Craig Farrenkopf said.

Kennedy and a friend tried to retrieve the men in a 13-foot Whaler before rough waters forced them back. Soon after, a crew from the Hyannis Fire Department picked up the men, in three trips, and brought them back to shore. They were taken to Cape Cod Hospital with mild hypothermia, Farrenkopf said.

Now I have to give the man props for trying. But I have to wonder, if it took the fire department three trips to get the men off the jetty, just how exactly did Kennedy think to rescue six men using a 13-ft boat, that he and his friend were also taking up real estate in? I mean have you seen this guy recently? (Warning! If you click that link, do not have any food or beverages in your mouth. I cannot be responsible for any damage to your computer screen.)

Anyway, Ted Kennedy did try to help save some guys from a watery death, which I guess is a step in the right direction.

But honestly though, if I was trapped on that jetty, and I saw Ted Kennedy charging to the rescue through blowing wind and high seas in a teeny-tiny boat, I might have just swam for it.

Don't laugh, you know you would have too.

"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

So said the bandits in Blazing Saddles, hired to raze the town of Rock Ridge, yet given cover by the "law". And similarly today, so say the prosecutors of Travis County, Texas, who recently shopped for grand jury indictments against House Representative Tom DeLay and some of his associates.

See you'd think, that in a case like this (Conspiracy! Money laundering!), with so many eyes watching, with a tremendous amount of political muscle being brought to bear by both parties, that the D.A. would actually have evidence to bring against the accused. Right? I mean, I'm no judge or lawyer, but it would seem logical.

Think again.

Travis County prosecutors admitted Friday they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money-laundering indictments against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two of his associates.

The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s.

"I'll tell you what I think about this list. In the 1950s, a man named McCarthy claimed to have a list of 200 communists in the State Department, and he didn't," said J.D. Pauerstein, a lawyer for Jim Ellis, the director of DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority. "They (prosecutors) don't know what list they're talking about, even though they specify it in their indictment."

Oops...

This is going to be one spectacular implosion on the part of Ronnie Earle. The guy browbeat a jury to indict, and then has to admit he doesn't have any evidence. Stephen Spruiell of National Review's Media Blog says it--well, if not the best, at least the harshest.

To come up without this crucial piece of evidence is like Michael Jackson's prosecutors coming to court without a kid — without it there's no crime. And remember — Earle also hasn't revealed what evidence, if any, he has that would tie DeLay to the money transfer whether it was legal or not.

So wait, if Earle doesn't have anything else...in the movies, don't they call this abuse of power?

Phony fixations

A quick stroll around the headlines of the day, any day actually, displays an alarming trend. The truth has become secondary to the media spectacle, to the power play of the intellectual elite, and to their quest for personal ideological vindication. This problem has been building for a while now, ever since the Vietnam war, because that was the moment when the intelligentsia and the media in the United States went global, in the sense that they graduated into the class of moral relevance. And when that happened, no cause became just save their own.

This phenomenon has become the backdrop for the entirety of the political war that has waged since the late sixties, and as the media has shifted their allegiance into the camp of the cultural and global elite, so has the coverage and illustrations of world reality.

The media was always liberal. In fact, being liberal is not a bad thing. It's a necessary mental outlook for a healthy democracy, wanting and protecting freedoms, rights and the quest for truth. But the quest for personal ideological vindication is a new twist. And the reason it has come about is because we have reached the point in our history where political and social policy have profound effects on every aspect of our daily lives. Government in this country has never been so large, so pervasive, so present. Violence in the world directly affects our health and wellbeing. And since 9-11, people now find it impossible to just "let is alone" anymore. They feel personally involved in the course of the future, and as such, our ideology is at the core of our decisions.

And this is not just restricted to people. As they came of age, like a child with his father's gun, the media saw the power they wielded when they effectively ended the Vietnam war. And they have sought to use that power ever since.

This course of action by the media gives an inestimable amount of help to the left in this country, without which it is questionable that they could ever win an election. And the left knows it. Yet they play their cards to the hilt, spreading nasty rhetoric and stereotypes about their opponents, and going all in to capitalize on some of the most ridiculous "scandals" in recorded history.

In a recent article in the L.A. Times, "Adrift in a sea of phoniness", reporter David Galernter coined a phrase that I think quite aptly defines the current state of affairs.

Our willingness to traffic in such nonsense shows a dangerous tendency to disregard reasoning, logical context, the meaning of words. How else to understand the latest Bill Bennett story? It reads like science fiction; live from the planet Bozo, a man whose enemies know by magic that he actually means the exact opposite of what he says.

A few weeks ago, Bennett said on his radio program that X is a stupid idea; then he said that if you believe X, you might as well believe Y. But Y is "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible." One thing we know for sure: Bennett is against Y. He thinks that Y is "impossible," is "ridiculous," is "morally reprehensible." "Y" was the idea that aborting all black babies would cut the crime rate.

So the left jumped all over him. Bizarrely enough, the White House chimed in. (A Republican White House opening fire on Bennett is like the Joint Chiefs bombing their own front lines.) Yet no one who read or heard Bennett's actual statement in context could possibly have believed that Bennett is racist or had talked like a racist.

But our public life is so deeply phony that, although a few stalwarts defended him, no one pointed out the gross hypocrisy of his accusers. (No one I've heard, anyway.) Those accusers knew perfectly well that he was not promoting a racist view of American life, he was denouncing a racist view; loudly and clearly, without a shadow of ambiguity.

What part of "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible" did they not understand?

But that's just it, it's not about understanding, it's about strategy and power. The truth is secondary to the objective--especially if it's for the "greater good." And as such the media also waxes ridiculous when they craft their non-stories for the front page. The Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame matter is possibly the biggest offense.

Joe Wilson did not tell the truth. Did you know that? This is not some White House talking-points smear or a media mischaricterization. I'm talking about the conclusions of the bi-partisan Senate Select Intelligence committee report.

ON JULY 22, 2005, the New York Times published a lengthy, front-page article detailing the work of two senior Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, on the Niger-uranium story. A seemingly exhaustive timeline ran alongside the piece. In 19 bullet points, the Times provided its readers in considerable detail with what it regarded as the highlights of the story. The timeline traces events from the initial request for more information on the alleged Iraqi inquiries in Africa to Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger; from the now-famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union to the details of White House telephone logs; from Bush administration claims that Karl Rove was not involved in the leak to the naming of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and on from there to the dates that White House officials testified before the grand jury.

As I say, seemingly exhaustive. But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.

This is not a minor detail. The Senate report, which served as the source for much of the chronology in this article, is the definitive study of the events leading up to the compromising of Valerie Plame. The committee staff, both Democrats and Republicans, read all of the intelligence. They saw all of the documents. They interviewed all of the characters. And every member of the committee from both parties signed the report.

But yet the media and opportunistic Democrats continue to perpetuate the myth that the Bush Administration lied to go to war. Have we lost all semblance of decency? Apparently. Why else the lies? What possible justification is there for telling a lie so that you can get your way? The only justification there is: ideological victory.

The war of ideology has spilled out into the living room, fought through the TV set and on the internet and in the papers on a daily basis, all for your hearts and minds. And all with the intent to justify one's own convictions while demonizing their opponents'. This is what spawned the Plame scandal, the Katrina scandal, the TANG memo scandal, the "selected not elected" mantra, the "illegitimate war" mantra, our inability to name a terrorist a terrorist, and a whole host of other affronts to the President.

And while one side or the other may prevail with voters, or with the war, or even with a vision of their ideological paradise, their victory is only temporary without the truth. Because in all of history, every society built upon lies has failed in the end.

Tom DeLay defends himself...the Associated Press cries

Like the schoolyard bully scrabbling to regain power after getting tripped up by the scrawny kid and laughed at by the class, the Associated Press is crying about Tom DeLay. They devote an entire article fretting over DeLay's attempts to defend himself by telling his story on his website. Oh the humanity...

Stung by his recent indictment in Texas, Tom Delay is trying to turn his legal woes into a financial boon for his re-election. The former House majority leader is using his congressional campaign to distribute to voters derogatory information about the prosecutor who brought the charges against him and to solicit donations for his re-election.

"Help Tom fight back," reads one of the solicitations on the http://www.TomDelay.com Web site that voters are being directed to as part of an Internet-based campaign funded by DeLay's re-election committee.

Contributors, voters and others who sign up can get regular e-mails and an electronic "toolkit" from DeLay's campaign with the latest disparaging information his legal team has dug up on Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

"Derogatory information." What's he supposed to do, collect money to buy Earle a Christmas present?

No the real story here is that the AP is unhappy that Tom Delay is getting his message out, and that the prosecutor in the case is a blatant partisan. The guy has been caught going to fundraisers and talking about DeLay and the case, the grand jury members are spilling the beans about his questionable tactics, and thanks to some local reporting, even been caught jury shopping to get an indictment (which are supposed to be the easiest things in the world for a D.A. with any semblance of evidence at all to get) after one jury said no way.

This is the Democratic push for victory in 2006. And a rogue prosecutor and a sympathetic press are the only weapons they have, in a state that went Republican and is turning even more Republican, against the most effective House Majority Leader in recent times. Tom DeLay has been instrumental in helping the President get his agenda passed through the House and in using the new census information to help Texas get its rightful number of new representatives in the U.S. House. And the Democrats can't stand it. And neither can the AP, or at least it appears so, because all they do is whine and fret about DeLay corrupting jurors and telling "facts" and not facts. Or should that be the AP's "facts"?

Recipients are offered a full dossier about the Democratic prosecutor and his "baseless political indictment" with subjects like:

_"Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office," which highlights failures in Earle's career such as his unsuccessful case against Republican Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) in the 1990s.

_"Earle asks for a Do-Over," which focuses on the prosecutor's decision to seek a re-indictment of DeLay on different charges after DeLay's lawyers raised technical questions about the first indictment.

_"Coming Soon: The Ronnie Earle Movie," which highlights reports that Earle allowed a film crew to follow him during parts of the DeLay investigation.

"Technical questions." Really? I thought DeLay's lawyers moved to have the first indictment dismissed on the grounds that the crime of conspiracy to violate the election laws did not exist at that time. Would you like to challenge that fact, Associated Press?

The truth, however, is decidedly DeLay's version on the Web site.

"Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law," the Web site states as it analyzes the twists and turns in the case in the most favorable light to the congressman.

The Web site also gives readers tools to send a letter to newspaper editors in support of DeLay, to contact a radio talk show or to e-mail DeLay's carefully crafted "facts" to friends.

And, of course, the Web site wouldn't be complete without one of the oldest pitches in politics. "Make a contribution," it pleads.

Oh I see, so DeLay's "facts", which the Associated Press makes no attempt to disprove (I wonder why?), are just bad, but yet snide editorializing in a hard news story and mischaracterizing the indictment fight is okay.

The AP spends a lot of time in the article investigating whether or not it is legal for DeLay to defend himself, yet they have made no attempt to get the story about the indictments right. So it's a bit of a mystery why they're upset...unless of course they wanted to be the ones to influence the jury pool. hmm...

The new Bond is Blonde

When I was a kid growing up, the Bond of the era was Roger Moore. He was a funnier Bond, not as cold-hearted or cool as Connery's was, but it worked for him. But when I finally did getting around to seeing some of the older movies I had to admit, Connery was Bond. He owns that role.

Pierce Brosnan was a good change-up for the 90s. He brought a good attitude I thought, and women seemed to love him. But he is no more. Dropped from the cast list like an old prop and swept aside.

The 52-year-old described the decision by the Bond franchise makers to drop him as a "body blow."

"I was looking forward to making it edgier and grittier, and for all of that to go down in one phone call was highly disappointing," he told the San Francisco Chronicle.

But, out with the old (or older) and in with the new. Daniel Craig is the new Bond.

His name is Craig, Daniel Craig.

The English actor was named as the next James Bond on Friday, ending months of speculation over who would take over from Pierce Brosnan on Her Majesty's secret service.

In typically flamboyant 007 style, the 37-year-old swept up the River Thames on a power launch to a news conference, escorted by Royal Marines boats.

The first blond Bond, wearing a blue suit and red tie, posed for photos in the shadow of Tower Bridge and told reporters: "I'm kind of speechless at the moment."

And speechless he should be. He has now joined the ranks of the handful of men who are personifying the ultimate male fantasy. That's why the franchise has been so successful for almost 50 years. What guy hasn't chimed the line "Bond, James Bond" and at least wished it were true. Secret work, saving the world, getting the girl--all while wearing a tux, drinking martinis and Dom Perignon, and using the absolute coolest toys around...yeah it's all part of a guy's plan growing up.

Superman, Batman, an X-man...nah...too unrealistic. Great for fantasy, but not an aspiration. But James Bond? Yeah there was a spot open on the resume for that career. It's a highly competitive field though, and it looks like the powers that be have found their next cavalier.

So the movies will continue, with Casino Royal coming out next year. Hopefully Daniel Craig will work out, at least better than Lazenby or Dalton. They were okay, but they never owned the role. But then again, anybody following Connery is just a tough sell. The guy was it.


That is, until I can get a photo of me in my tuxedo to the casting crew at United Artists. I'm not middle aged yet, so I've got a few years to prep. But it'll happen. Like I said, it's all part of the plan.

New Orleans is ready to...party?

They may have no power, water, dry homes or even many citizens still in town to speak of, but the city planners and tourism officials of New Orleans say they're going to be ready for the annual "biggest party in the country" next year.

Come hell or high water, Mardi Gras organizers are vowing to hold the city's signature celebration in February.

Tourism officials and parade hosts appeared before the City Council to insist the annual pre-Lent celebration - part family party, part bacchanalian blowout - will return this winter.

"We have to do this," agreed Councilwoman Jacquelyn Brechtel Clarkson. "We can't afford to miss a beat."

Mardi Gras generates as much as $1 billion in economic activity, and the raucous celebration draws an estimated 1 million people each year.

"Bringing Mardi Gras back will help people to start normalizing things," said Naaman Stewart, vice president of the Zulu Social Aid and Pleasure Club, one of the largest parade organizations.

I'm all for Mardi Gras, and I admire their optimism.  I don't doubt that Mardi Gras brings in a ton of money, but I can't help but think this is another of the city's too quick, desperate attempts to get people to move back.  They tried to do this right before hurricane Rita too, and they just ended up having to evacuate the city again.  Let's at least fix the dang levees first and clean up from the second flood from Rita.

Yes, a lot of people left New Orleans and are not coming back.  They're in Houston or Baton Rouge now, and they are getting on with their lives.  Getting New Orleans back is not going to be an immediate thing.  It's going to take years.  And they had better do it right.  We can't afford anything less.    

A new video iPod?

After falling off the tree in the late 80's, Apple computer has blazed a trail back from the Microsoft juice factory to become the king of cool in digital music players and trendy laptops. The iPod came on the market in 2001, and sales have skyrocketed ever since, so much so that Apple's stock price now hinges on it. The new iPod nano was their latest creation, just over a month ago. As small as a stack of credit cards, 4 gig of memory and a color screen to boot. Demand has been through the roof.

As a guy into all things techno, I have to admit I've lusted after one of these players for a while now. And if the rumors are true about Apple's "One more thing..." event, to unveil their newest creation (Apple has historically used the "One more thing..." tag line to unveil new products), possibly a full-sized iPod, capable of playing video, along with mp3s, audio books, pictures and podcasts, I may just have to give in. Stay tuned... (ad photo via iPodLounge)



Looks like the Associated Press is running with it and market watchers and analysts are expecting it.

A new video-enabled iPod is expected to be unveiled by Apple Computer Inc. on Wednesday.

Apple last week e-mailed invitations that included the words "One more thing..." printed over a background photo that appears to depict theater curtains. The company, which has pocketed a fortune from the sales of its iPod digital music player, said nothing else in the e-mail, other than to say the press event would take place in San Jose on Wednesday.

"From our checks with industry and channel sources, we believe Apple will release a first-generation video-capable iPod," American Technology Research said in a report last Wednesday.

Bank of America analysts also are looking for Apple to launch a new video-playing iPod, saying it would help support iPod's prices and "cause investors and consumers to think about Apple's growing position in the digital home."

And the cottage industry of bloggers devoted to all things Apple seems convinced that a video iPod is on its way.

Also, I'd like to point out another new "first"...the Associated Press is listing blogger hype for the product as proof of the story's validity. Awesome.

Yep, it's official.

Apple Computer Inc.'s CEO Steve Jobs introduced the company's new video iPod on Wednesday.

That fulfills expectations many industry insiders had that Jobs would unleash yet another one of the popular iPod players to the market.

The market-leading line of iPod portable music players has boosted the company's fortunes as of late. Apple's income more than quadrupled in its last fiscal quarter.

And here is the list of new features. (via MacRumors)

New iMac, new Video iPod, new Apps.

- iMac: faster, larger disk, built in iSight. Includes FrontRow (app)
- iPod: 30GB/60GB with Video - realtime decoding of MPEG4 and H.264. 260,000 colors. Video out.
- FrontRow and PhotoBooth Apps.
- 30GB iPod: $299 - 31% thinner than current 20GB; - 60GB iPod: $399.
- New iPods avail next week. Comes with case
- iMac: $1299 for 17" model with 1.5GHz, $1799 for 20" model with 2.1GHz
- iTunes 6 to be released
- Front Row - comes with new iMacs. Lets you enjoy video/music/pictures from sofa. Everything still displayed on iMac screen. iPod-like remote. 6 button remote.
- Photobooth - appears to be slide show application.
- Music Videos. 2000 available to buy. $1.99 each.
- Can "gift" music to other people. Peer reviews and recommendation service.
- Videos have Digital Rights Management built in. Can play on up to 5 computers.
- You will be able to buy TV shows from iTunes Music Store. $1.99 per episode. ABC on board (Desperate Housewives, Lost)

And here it is... (photo via the AP)

Don't mess with Mother Nature

In a move that is sure to wreak havoc on the future of Hollywood disaster pictures such as "The Core II...Journey to the Center of the Sun", and "Armageddon II...Not!", the Associated Press now reports that in real life we're kidding ourselves. Despite all the scientific advances these past decades, despite the power and might of the major countries of the world, nature is still kicking our ass.

In a more hopeful time, buoyed by the promise of science, it was thought hurricanes could be tricked into dispersing, earthquakes could be disarmed by nuclear explosions and floodwaters held at bay by great mounds of dirt.

Such conceits are another victim of a year of destruction.

The planet's controlling forces romp over dreams like those. Usually the best that can be done is to see the danger coming long enough to run.

Rich and poor nations have taken the hit over a period so twisted in nature's assaults that one month, rich is helping poor and the next, poor is helping rich as best it can, and then the poor gets slammed once again.

The United States, giver of tsunami aid in December, accepted hurricane aid from some of those same countries in September. Now it is giving to South Asia a second time, in response to the weekend earthquakes. India is sending tents, food, blankets and medicine to its foe, Pakistan, geology briefly shoving aside geopolitics.

More than 176,000 people died in the earthquake and tsunami of December; an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 in the quake Saturday; perhaps 1,000 or more in Guatemalan landslides last week; more than 1,200 in Katrina. Asian beaches, mountainous Kashmir villages and American urban streets and casinos all were overwhelmed.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

You have got to be kidding me. This is what passes for news nowadays? It wasn't supposed to be that way? How is it supposed to be?

After World War II, nothing seemed too far-fetched for science, not once the atom was split and, again, not once men stepped on the moon.

In one of the most enduring efforts, still alive but hardly about to happen, man thought he could seed clouds, make it rain reliably and put a stop to devastating drought.

The effort continues, especially in China; there, rockets, anti- aircraft guns and aircraft regularly pelt the sky with chemicals. The results so far: China has lots of experience, but limited success, in making the rains come.

If humans are inexorably warming the globe, they've proved unable to fine-tune the megaforces to their benefit.

"Megaforces". They have no idea the forces. Mega doesn't even come close. Try unfathomable. I think these journalists have been reading too many sci-fi stories and watching too many movies. In fact, here's a mere taste of the insanity that is Hollywood and their utter lack of science basis. You've all seen the movie Armageddon. Here's what the real physics of breaking up that asteroid would be like. (via Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics)

By our calculations the asteroid was about 10 hrs away from Earth when the drillers landed on it. Allowing 8 hours to drill, the bomb could not have been detonated any more than 2 hours before the asteroid was supposed to impact. Given this detonation time, the asteroid halves need a separation velocity of 4,738 mph (2,119 m/s) to miss Earth by the 400 miles stated in the movie. Each asteroid half would acquire 6.7x10^27 joules[!] of kinetic energy when it reached the required velocity. The biggest nuclear bomb ever built was constructed in Russia and had a 100-megaton yield. To give the asteroid halves the required kinetic energy would require 64 billion of them. This assumes that no energy is needed to create the split and that about 50% of the bombs' blast energy goes into the kinetic energy of the asteroid halves. It also neglects the gravitational attraction force between the two asteroid halves, which would tend to slow their separation velocity.

Even if the bomb did split the asteroid, the halves would not translate outward as depicted in the movie. They would rotate as they moved apart since the bomb was located near the asteroid's center of mass. The force created by the bomb would create a torque or twisting action on each asteroid half. To visualize this effect, imagine splitting a peeled orange by pulling it apart on one side. The gap at the front of the orange would widen faster than the gap at the back, giving each half a slight rotational motion. For the asteroid halves, this rotational motion would add to the total kinetic energy requirement, meaning we would need an even bigger bomb.

And even if we did have a bigger bomb, we still would have died, because the gravitational forces from the asteroid would (as the moon does with tides) have pulled the oceans right over the continents. Yes, drowning us all.

So yeah, respect Mother Nature. She's got the title, forever.

A collection of the inane

UNICEF has a smurf of a good video for you, straight from the fantasy video collection of Gargamel: (via Wizbang)

The people of Belgium have been left reeling by the first adult-only episode of the Smurfs, in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes.

The short but chilling film is the work of Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, and is to be broadcast on national television next week as a campaign advertisement.

The animation was approved by the family of the Smurfs' late creator, "Peyo".

Belgian television viewers were given a preview of the 25-second film earlier this week, when it was shown on the main evening news. The reactions ranged from approval to shock and, in the case of small children who saw the episode by accident, wailing terror.
....

The short film pulls no punches. It opens with the Smurfs dancing, hand-in-hand, around a campfire and singing the Smurf song. Bluebirds flutter past and rabbits gambol around their familiar village of mushroom-shaped houses until, without warning, bombs begin to rain from the sky.

Tiny Smurfs scatter and run in vain from the whistling bombs, before being felled by blast waves and fiery explosions. The final scene shows a scorched and tattered Baby Smurf sobbing inconsolably, surrounded by prone Smurfs.

Now while I admit to a sadistic desire to hear that stupid Smurf song morph into "Laaa laaa la-la-la Ahhhh!!!!" I must question just what the heck the U.N. is doing. I mean if the purpose of this was to raise funds and awareness about child soldiers in Burundi, perhaps showing the actual situation in Burundi would be a more powerful motivator?


In other news, Britney Spears' auction for Katrina relief has ended...finally. Though ironically enough, braless.

Britney Spears stripped her charity auction of a jewel-encrusted bra, but still raised thousands of dollars for hurricane relief efforts.
....
On Saturday, she posted a message on her Web site saying she was "concerned that some of you might be confusing this bra with something that it's not."

The 23-year-old pop star said she wore the white stone bra — bids had risen to over $47,000 on the auction Web site — during her HBO special — but not during her performance of "... Baby One More Time."

"I feel the correct thing to do is remove this item from the auction because I don't want any of you to feel misled," she said.
....
It was the second time the bra had been removed from the auction. Earlier, an eBay staffer pulled it because it violated the Web site's policy of not selling used undergarments. The decision was reversed, though, because the bra fit under the category of memorabilia.

I was unaware eBay even had such a policy. Either way, I doubt anyone felt misled by the auction...except perhaps Ms. Spears.


And lastly, filed away under the "what have you been eating" category. First it was python vs. alligator, then it was python vs. cat, and now we have farmer vs. farm animals.

A Chinese man who raised bears to tap them for their bile, prized as a traditional medicine in Asia, has been killed and eaten by his animals, Xinhua news agency said on Tuesday.

Six black bears attacked keeper Han Shigen as he was cleaning their pen in the northeastern province of Jilin on Monday, Xinhua said.

"The ill-fated man died on the spot and was eaten up by the ferocious bears," it said, citing a report in the Beijing News.

Though in this case, I really am sympathizing with the bear here.

In practices decried by animal rights groups, bile is extracted through surgically implanted catheters in the bear's gall bladders, or by a "free-dripping" technique by which bile drips out through holes opened in the animals' abdomens.

Rather gross.

CBS wonders where all the terrorist coverage went

And so do I. What is the world coming to when there is a virtual media blackout on a potential terrorist attack(s) inside the United States?

Where?--do you ask.

Why here, and now possibly here as well.

As CBS muses:

Has there been more happening at the University of Oklahoma than hazing and all-nighters? The blogosphere, led by Michelle Malkin, has been chronicling the suspicious explosion at the University of Oklahoma just over a week ago, and wondering why the big media doesn’t appear interested.

According to most reports, Joel Hinrichs III was a young man with a history of depression who used a homemade explosive device to commit suicide just 100 yards or so from the school’s football stadium, which was filled with over 80,000 people at the time. Officials were quick to call the incident a suicide, but rumors and reports of Hinrichs’ attempts to buy large quantities of ammonium nitrate and ties to the Muslim community have raised a lot of questions and the answers thus far are not forthcoming.

And so far only bloggers are carrying the ball, transfering the reporting from local journalists to the world. Has the major media fallen asleep? Is the conservative infighting over Harriet Miers that much more interesting? Here's a little taste of what Michelle Malkin is on the trail of, following Drudge's call for attention to a report from WXIA in Atlanta (link provided above).

Three explosive devices found in a courtyard between two Georgia Tech dormitories on the East Campus Monday morning were part of a "terrorist act," an Atlanta police official said.

One of the devices exploded, injuring the custodian who found them inside a plastic bag. Two others were detonated by a bomb squad.

The custodian suffered ringing to the ears and was treated at a local hospital. The events led to a temporary evacuation Monday morning.

"It is a terrorist act at this point and depending on the outcome of the investigation it potentially could become a federal violation as well," said Major C.W. Moss of the Atlanta Police Department.

The custodian found the three devices about 9 a.m. in a plastic-type garbage bag, Moss said. When he picked up the bag, one exploded, as it was designed to do when handled. The explosives were made up of chemicals placed inside plastic bottles and could have seriously injured someone, officials said. Numerous agencies were on the Georgia Tech campus to search for suspects...

And if you're not sufficiently alarmed, read all of these updates Michelle has posted from the Oklahoma bombing. This is not your average ordinary kid commiting suicide...not that there ever could be such a thing. Every suicide is a tragedy. So why is the media treating it like it's nothing special?

Angela Merkel is it

The German election took place almost a month ago, but like a replay of a bad TV movie of the week, the entire thing seemed to wax "Bush/Gore 2000" all over again. But in the end the conservatives won out--mainly with the removal of Gerhard Schroeder as chancellor. The rest of the deal gets somewhat murky, though probably not to those more familiar with German politics. In any event, the coalitions that have formed are sure to set political experts tongues wagging, not the least of which is the distinction Merkel has of being the first woman German chancellor in history. Via the AFP:

Germany broke new political ground as Angela Merkel won the battle to be its first female chancellor, heading a government uniting the country's two biggest parties and ending Gerhard Schroeder's grip on power.

Schroeder, who has led Europe's biggest economy for the past seven years, will play no role in the new left-right administration, sources in his Social Democrats party said.

Merkel immediately said Monday there was no alternative to urgent reforms designed to revive the ailing economy, crippled by sluggish growth and unemployment at currently more than 11 percent.

She said the deal would pave the way for formal coalition talks and see her party take six ministries, with the SPD getting eight cabinet posts.

"We have achieved something big, we have the basis for coalition talks," a beaming Merkel told a press conference.

"We agree that we have no alternative to the reform process. We have set our aim to create a coalition that stands for new policies.

"We want to work together for the people of this country."

Let's hope it all starts to work out, though the road ahead will be tough if she wants to implement all the reforms she's promised. Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters puts it all in perspective:

Merkel may have won the battle, but clearly she has yet to win the war. Gerhard Schroeder undoubtedly lost, as he didn't even make the list of ministers, especially the foreign minister slot he reputedly offered as a settlement the last couple of days. His anti-American rabblerousing will not be missed on this side of the Atlantic.

Not at all.

Conservative bloggers underwhelmed by Miers

Right Wing News has conducted a poll of a good number of right of center bloggers, asking them questions about President Bush's pick of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. The results do not bode well for the canditate, or Bush.

Here are the questions the bloggers were asked and their responses. The percentage & number of bloggers that chose each option follow the question.

1) Do you think George Bush made:

A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)

2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:

A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)

3) Would you prefer that George Bush:

A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)

4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:

A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)

How this will all play out, I really have no idea. Inside the Beltway, tensions are running very high, and I think a lot of Senators are riding the fence between standing firm and the realization that they have a serious problem on their hands.

"...worst disaster in Pakistan's history."

"We are handling the worst disaster in Pakistan's history," chief army spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan said.

The quake was felt across a wide swath of South Asia from central Afghanistan to western Bangladesh. It swayed buildings in the capitals of three nations, with the damage spanning at least 250 miles from Jalalabad in Afghanistan to Srinagar in northern Indian territory. In Islamabad, a 10-story building collapsed, killing at least 24 people.

Late Sunday, helmeted rescuers found a survivor after hearing his cries for help. The thin man in a blue shirt, looking dazed, emerged on his own with little help and stood in front of a crowd of cheering onlookers. One rescuer patted his head, and the man waved and pumped his fist in the air.

Pakistan said the death toll ranged between 20,000 and 30,000. India reported more than 600 dead, and Afghanistan said four were killed.

"We have enough manpower but we need financial support ... to cope with the tragedy," Musharraf said in Rawalpindi, according to the state-run news agency Associated Press of Pakistan.

They are in need of some major assistance in that region. The inability to get to certain areas, the lack of tools, roads, military moving power that the U.S. and other powerful nations have will lead to further loss of life above the staggering numbers already being thrown about.

As always, the U.S. is leading the way with assistance and aid, and manpower and materials, all for the people of a region who don't seem to like us all that much. But that's what America does. We help. Because we can. And because we are a good and decent people. But, don't hold your breath waiting for anyone on TV to say that.

Say a prayer for all those who have lost their lives and the families of the victims. I haven't seen any donation drives yet, but I will update as they come online.

Michelle Malkin has the links for some charities and local quake bloggers.

Growing pains at Microsoft?

I don't usually blog on corporate activities, but I found this article interesting, particularly in light of a recent phenomenon that I haven't seen in years, and that is a new browser on the market. In fact, it's not even on the market, it's free. Mozilla's Firefox. And furthermore, it's not just a free browser, it's one that a lot of people, more than Microsoft would like, have actually heard of and are using, to rave reviews.

Now I've heard that the next version of Internet Explorer is supposed to be quite an improvement, allowing both RSS feeds and multiple windows in the header, along with hopefully being less-buggy. But still, I find it interesting that what a fleet of government lawyers and the entire European Union could not do, mere competition is. Isn't capitalism interesting?

But it isn't just Google and Yahoo that should worry Microsoft.

It's also up-and-comers big and small that offer products as Internet-based services. Salesforce.com, which manages customer relations, is a big one. Writely and gOffice, which provide Web-based word processing, and e-mail application Zimbra are among the small.

Web-based offerings give users easy online access to products and services, sometimes for free. The threat to Microsoft is that such products, by their very nature, could decrease the importance of Windows or Office.

Google and Sun Microsystems Inc. announced a partnership last week that, while still vague, could eventually yield tools that provide, cheaply or for free over the Internet, an alternative to pricey Microsoft software such as Word or Excel.

"What you've actually got going here between Google and Sun is their own personal version of the film 'Kill Bill,'" said David Garrity, director of research for Investec's U.S. operations.

Still, I wouldn't count Microsoft out. The company may be large and a little hefty right now, but they've come a long way. I mean seriously, back in the seventies, would you have invested?

America created the Internet...but how long will we control it?

Al Gore notwithstanding, the Internet was created by the Pentagon decades ago. Only recently, with the invention of the internet browser--the first one I recall put out by Mosaic--has the medium blossomed into the smorgasbord of personal, corporate and government use that it supports today. Now even as the internet has grown, the United States has maintained itself at the forefront of Internet governance, mainly because the U.S. retained control of the Internet's master directories. But all of that is now in question. As the Associated Press reports:

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development. The U.S. Commerce Department has delegated much of that responsibility to a U.S.-based private organization with international board members, but Commerce ultimately retains veto power.

Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.

They also want greater assurance that as they come to rely on the Internet more for governmental and other services, their plans won't get derailed by some future U.S. policy.

Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

So what we have forming here is the war for control over information, or the flow of information. This is a formidable power, and one that the United States should hang onto at all costs. A European intervention, and God-forbid, an International one, for control of the Internet would create a mess. The entire world would want to stick it's fingers in the U.S.'s business. That's not to say they don't have a legitimate grievance that we won't do the same. But I'll take the U.S. system of government, with checks and balances, and a free press, over some International coalition any day.

I don't know...what would Vint Cerf do?


Thankfully the Wall Street Journal is sufficiently alarmed.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Control through the backdoor is exactly the right analogy. And it's how the U.N. has operated for a while now. They are trying to claim a "right of control" for all nations, when in reality the Internet was never created for all nations in the first place. Enjoying the fruits of U.S. labor is fine. I agree with the sentiment that the Internet is a fix for a lot of censorship and a boon for growth in the world. But handing over the reigns to the U.N. would just send this promising medium down the slow road to enslavement.


Anyone interested in more stirring commentary on current events should check out Basil's blog and view the recent blog selections.

The Nobel Prize for Appeasement

And the winner is the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of course the Nobel committee is calling it the Peace Prize nowadays.

Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their drive to curb the spread of atomic weapons by using diplomacy to resolve standoffs with Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

The Nobel Committee's decision lent support to negotiations and inspections, not military action, as the best way to handle volatile nations. It also was seen as a message to the Bush administration, which invaded Iraq after claiming U.N. efforts to eradicate Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions had failed and which opposed ElBaradei's appointment to another term.

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

Gee, that's funny. Last I heard, the IAEA were the one's refusing to recommend Iran to the Security Council. That's where all the binding resolutions get passed, right?--all those diplomatic solutions.

ElBaradei, who was reappointed last month to a third term, has contended with U.S. opposition to his tenure, much of it stemming from Washington's perception he was too soft on Iran for not declaring it in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

That stance blocked a U.S. bid to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council, where it could face possible sanctions, for more than two years. The IAEA passed a resolution last month warning Tehran of such referral unless it allayed fears about its nuclear program.

ElBaradei also refused to endorse Washington's contention that Iran was working to make nuclear weapons and disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had an active atomic weapons program — both claims that remain unproven, despite growing suspicions about Tehran's nuclear agenda.

He later told the British Broadcasting Corp. he was unfazed by the U.S. opposition.

Well I'm glad to hear he's unfazed. I think Iran feels the same way. Seeing that the international community has no spine, other than blaming the U.S. for taking a stance, Iran pretty much has the run of the field. "Allayed fears" is code for "just tell us you're not building the weapons". I think this has been tried before...some guy named Hitler or something.

Under ElBaradei, the IAEA has risen from a nondescript bureaucracy monitoring nuclear sites worldwide to a pivotal institution at the vortex of efforts to disarm Iran and North Korea.

Austere and methodical, ElBaradei took a strident line as he guided the agency through the most serious troubles it faced since the end of the Cold War.

He accused North Korea, for example, of "nuclear brinkmanship" in December 2002 after it expelled two inspectors monitoring a mothballed nuclear complex. Pyongyang said the plant needed to go back on line because of an electricity shortage.

And I wonder, exactly why are there "serious troubles" in the world? Could it be because these dangers have been gathering for far too long? Could it be because North Korea lied to the Clinton administration about it's nuclear weapons? Could it be because the Mullahs in Iran know that Europe is more interested in Euros than terrorists or the rise of Islamofascism? Could it be because before the U.S. took out Afghanistan and made Pakistan see the error of it's ways, the A.Q. Khan network was churning out nuclear secrets all over the globe?

I have posted previously on the "The Fruits of Appeasement", and in it I quoted from possibly the best history tome there is, A History of the Modern World. Here is that excerpt about the appeasement of Hitler--the most apt description of a problem that plagues us still:

While dictators stormed, the Western democracies were swayed by a profound pacifism, which may be defined as an insistence on peace regardless of consequences. Many people now believed, especially in England and the United States, that the First World War had been a mistake, that little or nothing had been gained by it, that they had been deluded by wartime propaganda, that wars were really started by armaments manufacturers, that Germany had not really caused the war of 1914, that the Treaty of Versailles was too hard on the German's, that vigorous peoples like the Germans and Italians needed room for expansion, that democracy was after all not suited to all nations, that it took two to make a quarrel, and that there need be no war if one side resolutely refused to be provoked--a whole system of pacific and tolerant ideas in which there was perhaps the usual mixture of truth and misunderstanding.

And the longer we keep fooling around, the more our enemies learn how easily the world can be fooled.

Jay Tea at Wizbang has the best take so far on the abyssmal evolution of the Peace Prize:

And the "Peace Prize" has devolved into an almost Orwellian joke. In 1973, it was given to Henry Kissinger. In 1985, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War won it. They gave it to United Nations Peace Keepers in 1988. And the ultimate obscenity was in 1994, when Yassir Arafat, the godfather of modern terrorism, clutched the prize in his blood-stained hands. They tried like hell to beat that accomplishment in 2001, but Kofi Annan and the UN just can't quite match the sheer, horrific, appalling crimes of Arafat.

Yeah, it's really kinda hard to beat Arafat. But they're trying.

Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of reactions, and also agrees with calling it the Appeasement Prize.

And I'm curious...does anyone remember this? The article is old and subscription only, but I've located a small excerpt:

Bush administration officials suspect political motivation behind a letter focused on the disappearance of 377 tons of explosives sent yesterday from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council.

The letter, signed by the head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei, addressed the disappearance of the highly explosive material from a deserted military base in Iraq. The non-nuclear explosives had been monitored by the Vienna-based watchdog agency because they could be used to detonate nuclear bombs.

"The timing of this seems puzzling," the spokesman for the American U.N. mission, Richard Grenell, told The New York Sun yesterday.

The letter was brought to the attention of the council on the last full week before the American presidential elections, quickly becaming a campaign issue. It was also a week after Mr. ElBaradei announced that he would seek another term as the director general of IAEA, despite American opposition.

Bush administration officials say their opposition is not personal but in line with their demand to limit the term of the man at the helm of the agency.

"We told ElBaradei that we are not going to support an extension beyond two terms," a State Department official who asked to remain anonymous told the Sun.

Aware of Washington's opposition, Mr. ElBaradei announced last week that he would seek a third term anyway.

The Egyptian-born nuclear inspection veteran clashed with Washington in the run up to the Iraq war, and more recently when his report on Iran's nuclear program seemed too timid to officials, such as the undersecretary of state John Bolton, the Bush administration point man on non-proliferation issues...."

This was the October surprise that Kerry tried to use to put himself over the top--that is after the Fortunate Son campaign, CBS News, Joe Wilson, the Iraq War carping and the tales of the bad economy all went down in flames.

And as I recall, the information on the missing explosives was completely wrong. The 377 tons turned out to be more like 3 tons, and even that number was suspect.

Combine this with John Bolton, now our man at the U.N., then being at the heart of the campaign to deny ElBaradei a third term, and one has to conclude that the Peace Prize is nothing more than yet another award for underhanded anti-American, anti-Bush policy on the international stage.

Unbelievable...the U.S. applauds.

The American Princess had a much better choice in mind than El Baradei.

But, El Baradei is getting the Peace Prize. But, then again, Arafat got it, too. ITs just too bad that its a cash award, otherwise we could steal it and sell it for scrap metal.

Or give it to Bono.

Okay, so I know Bono is a leftist pansy, but he's a leftist pansy with a good heart.

And I suppose that we should be glad it didn't go to another communist. That one was probably worse.

Or Kofi Annan. Or Barbara Streisand.

That's probably next year.

Oh, wait! That's reserved for Kim Jong Il.

Actually, I think they do get a medal along with the cash prize. What? I'm just saying... And she was wondering about scrap metal...

Jury Swap

The indictment--make that multiple indictments--brought against former majority leader Tom DeLay are just getting murkier and murkier. It seems that the Travis County D.A., Ronnie Earle, had some trouble getting a grand jury to even indict DeLay. From the Austin American-Statesman:

A Travis County grand jury last week refused to indict former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as prosecutors raced to salvage their felony case against the Sugar Land Republican.

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

And why wasn't it released? Maybe because if the public saw indictment charges bounced back in the prosecutors' faces, they might begin to think that Ronnie Earle was up to no good.

As many in the legal community have stated, grand jury indictments are the dirty little secret of the legal world. They're easy to get, because there is no defense. The D.A. has the run of the pick and the information. And, according to one grand jury foreman, interviewed this morning on 590 KBLJ in Austin, he'd made up his mind to indict DeLay before seeing any evidence.

FOREMAN OF DELAY GRAND JURY MADE MIND UP BEFORE TESTIMONY

THE FOREMAN OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED CONGRESSMAN TOM DELAY SAYS HE FELT THERE WAS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY SURROUNDING DELAY, THE PAC TEXANS FOR A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY AND THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS LONG BEFORE HE WAS TAPPED TO SERVE ON THE GRAND JURY. WILLIAM GIBSON TOLD THE NEWSRADIO 590 KLBJ MORNING SHOW HE HIMSELF HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADS CONCERNING THE TEXAS LEGISLATIVE RACES IN 2002.

Given that Earle is going through grand juries like water right now, flailing about trying to shore up indictments, I'd say they've about shot their last bolt. He's still got the money laundering charge, but that's even flimsier than the conspiracy charge. I predict DeLay will beat this, and Earle is going to be left out in the cold. Democrats who don't live up to the party's expectations often are.

Update: It seems more information is coming out about Ronnie Earle's courtroom demeanor.

A prosecutor tried to persuade a grand jury that Rep. Tom DeLay tacitly approved illegal use of campaign money and became angry when jurors decided against an indictment, according to two sources directly familiar with the proceeding.

"The mood was unpleasant," one source said Wednesday, describing prosecutor Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle's reaction. ...

Little was previously known about the grand jury that refused to indict DeLay, who has maintained his innocence and accused Earle — a Democrat — of bringing the prosecution to politically damage him. Earle has denied the allegation and pointed out he has indicted far more Democrats than Republicans.

One source said the sole evidence Earle presented to the grand jury that declined to indict was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor in August. DeLay reportedly said he was generally aware of activities of his associates.

The source said Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay "didn't say, 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters blog has the best analysis of this revelation:

Now we have a conspiracy charge based on a failure to say "Stop it", three tries at grand-jury indictments, and a bit of intimidation tossed in on top. This case against DeLay looks more and more like a bill of attainder against Earle, one that should result in sanctions on his ability to practice law in Texas rather than anything that DeLay should have to answer in criminal court.

Absolutely.

Harriet the Spy

As the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is now turning into the impetus for a far-right meltdown, I find it necessary to try to bring a new perspective to the brilliant strategy George Bush has enacted.

Take a step back and think about the mind of George Bush and the genius of Karl Rove. The war so far has been over "will she or won't she" be a staunch conservative, overturn Roe, save religious freedoms, etc...but that battle is misplaced. That is not how George Bush thinks. And it is evident when you combine the picks of both John Roberts and now Harriet Miers.

A few years back, I was watching Bill O'Reilly, and he had a guy on who did polling studies. He was a statistician, and most of the stuff he did was the in depth stuff for political parties. And in the course of the conversation it came out that he had done previous work for Clinton's administration. And I'll never forget what he said. When Bill asked him about the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, the guy said that Clinton's people were different, that they never cared about the studies or the numbers, they only cared about the perception of the numbers, about public perception of what was going on. And that was often how they made their decisions. Bush does not make decisions that way. He didn't then, and he isn't now.

George Bush went into his selection process with two things in mind: What did I promise? And what do I have to do to the court to fulfill that promise, for the long term?

And the answers to those questions resulted in the nominees he chose. George Bush is attempting to change the court, not into a conservative activist paradise, but into an army that will protect the Constitution, will not be activist, and will not usurp the will of the people and their duly elected representatives. And to create that court he has to pick people who are within the fold of legal quality, yet outside the standard mold of the current Justices.

John Roberts, clearly brilliant and charismatic, is also a leader and someone with Executive Branch experience. Harriet Miers, someone who truly understands the workings of the legal system from the standpoint of corporations, the public, and also the Executive Branch, while unknown to those inside the Beltway, is known where it counts, with the people who selected her.

While she seems like a stealth candidate to the conservative base, that stealth is merely a byproduct of her real value. Souter, for all the man's faults, was a true unknown. As many have said, Bush 41 did not even know him. But Bush 43 knows Harriet Miers. And personal knowledge of a person, spanning years, is a good thing. Her religious background is a good thing. And the experience she does bring is a good thing.

This is the larger picture that many conservatives are not wanting to see, because for lack of a name they are familiar with in Miers, they are piling all their grievances on the President. This attack is misguided I think, and if it continues it could truly hurt the party.

I have read a lot of blogs on this subject, and everyone is talking about how Miers might not have been the best person for the job, but the President is owed his pick. I disagree. The more I think about this, the more I think she is the best person for the job. Her status gives her cover, her job experience with the Executive Branch and the private sector gives her the proper perspective for formulating opinions, her personal relations makes her known to the right people, her faith gives her the moral fiber, and her devotion to the job gives her the passion to see it through.

In Chief Justice John Roberts, George Bush selected his general. With Harriet Miers...well, she's James Bond.

The Great Bus Caper

Remember that picture of those flooded buses, sitting in a parking lot after Katrina? Well get a load of this. Wizbang, doing their own investigative reporting, has uncovered this picture.Yep. Those are buses. Unflooded buses. Just sitting in a parking lot doing nothing, just a few days after Katrina. And those are city buses.

Click here to read the rest of the Wizbang exclusive.

Nice going Mayor Nagin, blaming the President instead of rescuing people. And he laid off 3000 city workers today. He should have been one of them.

Serenity

You want to see this film. Yes, you. It's sci-fi. It's smart. It's got lots of action and a pretty wild story. It's got a kick-butt action hero, though she's mildly bi-polar. And of course, it has Joss Whedon's signature dialogue and humor.

I saw it today, and I must say I was pretty impressed. The movie is based upon a canceled TV series. How many canceled TV series get made into movies? The answer is none. So that should tell you something about how passionate Joss Whedon was about getting this thing to fly. It was an okay sci-fi TV show, but it suffered from a lackluster network and a slow influx of fans. But after the network pulled it, the show went bonkers with DVD sales.

The film is much better than the TV series. Quicker pace and more effects and action, but the dialogue is still trademark Whedon. Never a cliche, never the expected phrases. Joss goes for humor during the darkest moments, but avoids any cheesy scenes. The universe he's created is interesting. It's dark and dirty like Star Wars, but dealing mostly with humanity's quests amongst the stars.

I won't give much more away, only to say that the plot revolves around the crew of the spaceship Serenity. Think a western in space, with the ship's captain a cross between Han Solo and Clint Eastwood (take your pick of western).The enigma that launches the plot centers around the girl River. She's a child prodigy that the government is using for nefarious purposes, until she escapes--and the government wants her back. You'll have to watch it to discover the rest. Suffice to say, well worth the price of a matinee ticket, and maybe even an evening showing--if you don't splurg on the 4 dollar candy and drink.

"What's your show about?" I say, "Nothing."

So Judy's out of jail. And she testified before the Grand Jury.

Yeah, that's all I've got. Partly because this entire Valerie Plame incident is perhaps the biggest show about nothing since Jerry and George conspired together in The Pitch.

JERRY: And it's about nothing?

GEORGE: Absolutely nothing.

JERRY: So you're saying, I go in to NBC, and tell them I got this idea for a show about nothing.

GEORGE: We go into NBC.

JERRY: "We"? Since when are you a writer?

GEORGE: (Scoffs) Writer. We're talking about a sit-com.

JERRY: You want to go with me to NBC?

GEORGE: Yeah. I think we really got something here.

JERRY: What do we got?

GEORGE: An idea.

JERRY: What idea?

GEORGE: An idea for the show.

JERRY: I still don't know what the idea is.

GEORGE: It's about nothing.

JERRY: Right.

GEORGE: Everybody's doing something, we'll do nothing.

JERRY: So, we go into NBC, we tell them we've got an idea for a show about nothing.

GEORGE: Exactly.

JERRY: They say, "What's your show about?" I say, "Nothing."

GEORGE: There you go.

(A moment passes)

JERRY: (Nodding) I think you may have something there.

And they had a heck of a lot more than the special counsel has right now, that's for certain. So Judith Miller gets out of jail and we find out she's been making license plates in the pen so that she could defend the confidentiality of "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's aide. Only--ta-da!--he released her from the confidentiality agreement a year ago.

Her lawyers have claimed that she needed a personal assurance. Yeah right. Would you sit in jail, waiting for a phone call from the source to tell you that he really and truly and honestly did in fact assert to sign on the dotted line, in the presence of lawyers, that he personally released you from a verbal agreement?--or would you just take the document and get the heck out of there? I thought so.

So wherefore the jail time? What possible purpose, other than re-establishing Miller's street-cred with her miffed colleagues, could sitting in jail play? Speculation abounds, everything from the true source being Joseph Wilson himself, to some postulating that Miller was holding out for a waiver from having to speak on other charges she may be facing (ratting out FBI agents before they conducted a raid on a Muslim charity. What?--you thought reporters only got involved in one scandal at a time?).

And so this may be it. The Grand Jury comes to a close soon, unless Fitzgerald asks for an extension. He probably won't, now that Judy is out and has testified. And since her testimony covers things that everybody already knew...what are we here for again?

Exactly. The "show about nothing" just got some competition. Too bad this is not nearly as funny.