Long Weekends

Just a quick note to CQ readers: I am working all weekend on a major project at work, the culmination of four months of planning. I'm actually staying at a nearby hotel rather than traveling home, so blogging may be limited. In the meantime, don't forget that the Northern Alliance Radio Network will air as usual on Saturday between noon and 3 pm CDT, this time unfortunately without me. Please forgive me if I can't get to your e-mails right away, but I promise to read them all eventually.

Thank you, and have a great weekend!

Belarus President Runs To Putin

After Condoleezza Rice announced that she would meet with dissidents from Belarus to encourage an end to Europe's last dictatorship, the longtime ruler of the former Soviet republic did his best to prove Rice correct by running to the Kremlin for support:

The presidents of Russia and Belarus are meeting in Moscow a day after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for political change in Minsk.

Ms Rice's comments and her decision to meet Belarussian dissidents during a Nato summit in Lithuania prompted strong criticism.

Belarus and Russia accused her of meddling in the country's affairs.

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, arriving in Moscow, quipped that Ms Rice's comments left him "indifferent".

"But it is heartening that she is aware this country, Belarus, does exist and that she knows its location," he added.

Lukashenko makes a joke, no? But notice where he makes his joke: Moscow. I'd say that Lukashenko took a look around Belarus and suddenly saw Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine, with the latter about to join a defensive military alliance with the other two that would surround him on three sides, and all three now democratized. A steady diet of Rice for his opposition might fortify it to follow in the same direction.

Perhaps he went to Moscow for Putin's help, or perhaps he went to check on Askar Akayev for advice. Either way, he's clearly heard the message from Rice and the US.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 6:55 AM | TrackBack

Dodgers Roar To Life

After an off-season marked by odd moves, stranger negotiations, and the dismantling of what appeared to be a pretty good 2004 team, Dodger fans could be forgiven for anticipating a meltdown in the first few games as the new squad found its way around the clubhouse and the field together. After having won its first playoff game since 1988, we figured we might well have to wait another couple of years for the next one after that.

However, Paul DiPodesta has delivered a real team to Dodger Stadium -- one that has gone on a historic rip for the first two weeks of the season, much to the delight of Dodger Blue fans:

And so they have rolled, through nutty deficits and nerve-rattling errors, with five different first basemen and a couple of different Jose Valentins and only one solid, steady, smiling Milton Bradley.

And so they have rolled, nameless shirts and faceless players, through the increasingly outstretched arms of stunned fans along the prettiest first mile in Los Angeles Dodger history.

"I know, people are saying, it's early, it doesn't matter," said Phillips. "But you get this kind of start, this kind of lead on people, you bet it matters."

Especially in this town, under this ownership, in this season, the Dodger players providing the stability that the front office could not, overcoming a winter of communication problems, filling the headlines with the only baseball language that matters.

Wins, 12 in their first 15 games.

Drama, with five wins in their final at-bat in only the first two weeks.

Hope, with their best starting pitcher scheduled to show up for the first time on Sunday.

I love living in Minnesota, but I can't pretend I don't miss the excitement of the baseball season in Los Angeles, and this year will prove most difficult if the Dodgers keep winning like this. So far, they've managed all this without their starting ace and their celebrated closer (Eric Gagne). Imagine what they will be like when both return to full health, and if the team can maintain this chemistry. They already lead the West by three games after two weeks and at 12-3 have an opportunity to build up a lot of momentum before summer.

I know it's early ... but Dodger fans are used to consoling themselves with that thought, not attempt to stop hyperventilating.

Commitee Approves Owens, Brown; Filibuster Fight (Almost) Ready

The GOP finally addressed the issue of judicial nominations yesterday by getting two of President Bush's nominees out of commitee and onto the Senate schedule for full confirmation. Democrats, who filibustered both Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown in the last session of Congress, plan on doing so again -- and will force the Republicans to change the filibuster rule after more than three months of dawdling:

Moving the Senate closer to a historic confrontation, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee yesterday endorsed two of President Bush's most controversial nominees to federal appellate court, and Democrats vowed once again to use the filibuster to block their confirmation.

The committee, voting 10 to 8 along party lines, endorsed Janice Rogers Brown of California for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Priscilla Richman Owen of Texas for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Both were nominated, endorsed by the Judiciary Committee and ultimately blocked by the Democrats in Bush's first term, along with eight other appeals court nominees.

The big question, of course, is whether Frist can still round up 50 votes for his rule change. That's what he needs to get future nominations to get through the Senate, especially the inevitable Supreme Court nominations that everyone expects to start once the nomination process is secured. At least Rehnquist will assuredly retire at the end of this SCOTUS session, as ill as he's been, and other justices have hinted that they'd like to leave if their replacements can be made without a complete political meltdown.

Three months ago, Frist had these votes locked up, fresh off a resounding win in November 2004 and the eight-seat swing to the GOP it produced in the Senate. The Senate Democrats had started the session badly, enhancing their reputation as radical loonies as they embarassed themselves by challenging Ohio's electors for no good reason except to bitch about losing the election and to complain about supposed voting irregularities in cities and precincts controlled by Democrats. After the ever-courageous Mark Dayton made a rare public appearance in DC to blow all precedents of courtesy and call Condoleezza Rice a liar during a Senate debate on her nomination, the American electorate understood that Democrats planned on simple-minded obstructionism for its own sake and for a few cheap headlines.

A funny thing happened on the way to restoring the Constitutional process, however; the GOP sat on the ball, a tactic well known by Minnesota Vikings fans, and one that practically guarantees a loss. This allowed the media to get back into the game, pushing the GOP around the field by constantly referring to their efforts as "radical", "extremist", and their nominees as "out of the mainstream" -- even though Brown, for one, overwhelmingly won re-election to her Supreme Court post in California, hardly a bastion of conservative electors. Now the more moderate Republicans in the caucus have lost their intestinal fortitude for standing up for due process and the reputations of their nominees, or at least they had up to now.

Unfortunately, this vote will not take place now. The GOP had to schedule more pressing business before the recess in the first week of May. The emergency? The new highway bill. You all recall when we fought to expand the GOP majority in the Senate to get that highway bill passed, right? That legislation inspired all of us to donate money that could have gone to family vacations and to assist others in our community to the NRSC instead in 2002 and 2004 ... right?

That's what Frist and the GOP leadership expects you to believe now, apparently.

The Latest In Publication Bans: Protecting Released Gang Members

CQ reader Ed in Canada points out the latest in publication bans north of the 49th, in the case of a suspected gang ringleader who violated his bail agreement. Not only did the Canadian judge release Michael Kim, Marlene Graham refused to allow the Canadian media to report why Kim was freed from custody:

Suspected high-ranking gang member Mark Kim received a belated 21st birthday present yesterday -- freedom pending his trial on weapons offences. Provincial court Judge Marlene Graham refused a Crown request to revoke Kim's bail on the charges after he was picked up for allegedly breaching his bail conditions.

Kim, who spent his birthday Wednesday behind bars, was arrested April 13 on a charge of violating an 8 p.m. curfew imposed as a condition of his release. But Graham agreed with defence lawyer Charlie Stewart's assertion his client should not have to remain in custody as a result of the allegation.

A publication ban was imposed on submissions at the hearing and Graham's reasons for releasing Kim.

The city man was initially arrested April 8, along with two other alleged gang members, after police stopped an SUV at 16 Ave. and Stoney Tr. N.W. Police said a fully loaded Glock pistol and a collapsible baton similar to ones used by officers were seized.

Any court action involves at least two parties, a plaintiff and a defendant. In torts, these people are easily identified. However, in criminal cases, the fact that the People of the community have standing as a plaintiff, represented by the district attorney or an equivalent, is often overlooked. The People have an interest in ensuring that Kim does not have an opportunity to do more harm to the community, especially since Kim does not seem amenable to following the rules even on his own bail. Someone who rides around with illegal weaponry, and then who defy a court order after charges are filed, sounds like someone who could do significant harm to the People.

Continuing bail sounds foolish in this instance, but it certanly falls within Graham's purview to make that decision. However, she owes the People an explanation as to why she does not feel Kim presents any imminent danger to the community. That means in a public court proceeding, the Canadian media should have the right to publish her decision. Surely Graham cannot argue that a favorable ruling for Kim would spoil a jury pool and impact Kim's right to a fair trial. It looks more like Graham herself does not want to be held accountable for her decision, which makes the question of why she released Kim even more pressing.

In the meantime, now we have gang leaders violating bail on weapons charges being freed under publication bans, while Jan Vahey -- who never committed a crime or has even been accused of committing one -- sits under a gag order which would put her in jail if she even comments on her own legal status in public. There's something Lewis Carrollish about Canada and free speech these days.

That Fickle Finger Of Fate

Anna Ayala set off a nationwide hunt for an answer to whose finger ended up in her Wendy's chili bowl in San Jose last month. After sales dropped all over Northern California when Wendy's customers became rather reluctant to find the rest of the body, Ayala filed suit for emotional distress against the fast-food giant. Now, however, Ayala finds herself in a different arena in the justice system as Las Vegas police have arrested her in connection to the claim:

The woman who claimed she found a finger in her bowl of Wendy's chili last month has been arrested, the latest twist in a bizarre case about how the 1 1/2-inch finger tip ended up in a bowl of fast food.

Anna Ayala was taken into custody late Thursday at her Las Vegas home, police said.

Authorities would not provide details until a news conference Friday in San Jose, Calif. — the city where Ayala claimed she bit down on the finger in a mouthful of her steamy stew.

No one has provided any details of the charges Ayala faces, but recent information has proven that Ayala either has the worst luck at drive-through restaurants or likes to file lurid claims against them and others on a frequent basis:

Ayala's claim that she found the finger tip, complete with a well-manicured nail, on March 22 initially drew sympathy. But when police and health officials failed to find any missing digits among the workers involved in the restaurant's supply chain, suspicion fell on Ayala, and her story has become a late-night punch line. ...

As it turns out, Ayala has a litigious history. She has filed claims against several corporations, including a former employer and General Motors, though it is unclear from court records whether she received any money. She said she got $30,000 from El Pollo Loco after her 13-year-old daughter got sick at one of the chain's Las Vegas-area restaurants. El Pollo Loco officials say she did not get a dime.

It appears that Wendy's customers in Redwood Country can return to their chili bowls without fear of cannibalism. Ayala may have made this last claim just too sensational for her own good. Instead of shaming Wendy's into coughing up a five-figure settlement, her charges went national and forced Wendy's to defend itself vigorously, something corporations should do more often. When no one at Wendy's won the Frodo Baggins Look-Alike Contest, the notoriety forced a look at Ayala's litigious history, which pointed to fraud as the most likely answer.

The question still remains, though, as to where the finger came from, regardless of who put it in the chili. If Ayala set the entire case up, where did she get it?

Martin Offers Elections ... In December

Paul Martin's political collapse may have turned from tragedy to farce tonight as he appealed to Canadians to allow his government to continue for another eight months, even as new allegations of corruption call into question the impartiality of the Canadian judicial system. Martin insisted tonight that he has acted to uncover the truth and deserves time to uproot the corruption in his own party:

"I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let [Mr. Justice John] Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say," Mr. Martin said from the desk in his office, in a taped televised address in both French and English.

Mr. Martin said he takes responsibility for the actions of his party and is prepared to let Canadians judge his response to this test of his leadership. "I will be politically accountable. But I believe that before there is an election, you are entitled to answers — to the answers that [Mr. Justice John] Gomery is working toward," he said.

The final report from Mr. Justice John Gomery is expected to be released in mid-December.

Not surprisingly, the request was not well received by Stephen Harper, the Conservative leader who had to fight this week to keep the Liberals from taking away scheduled Opposition Days away from the Tories in order to keep them from tabling a no-confidence vote:

Opposition Leader Stephen Harper did not respond positively to Mr. Martin's plea to wait until December to hold an election.

In a speech in the foyer of the House of Commons immediately following Mr. Martin's speech, Mr. Harper said Mr. Martin is the leader who called an election last year, before the Gomery commission had heard a single witness.

"We have all just witnessed a sad spectacle — a Prime Minister so burdened with corruption in his own party that he is unable to do his job and lead the country, a party leader playing for time, begging for another chance," Mr. Harper said.

I predict that this plea will do more damage than good for the Liberals, especially in light of their parliamentary actions this week. Martin and his party appear to be grasping at every last straw to remain in power, regardless of how it looks or what effect it has on democratic processes. Asking for the justice system to work before having voters make their decisions on the day that they find out the Liberals gave away judgeships for political favors is somewhat akin to murdering your parents and asking for mercy as a poor orphan. It not only looks terribly cynical, but it insults the intelligence of the audience.

Perhaps Martin has nothing left to say other than this pathetic plea. If so, he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut.

Liberals Handed Out Judgeships For Political Favors: Witness

Paul Martin may have even more corruption to explain in his extraordinary televised speech tonight, as new allegations that his Liberal Party handed out positions on the judicial bench in exchange for political favors has rocked Canada this afternoon (via NealeNews):

A former senior Liberal organizer fingered as the man who demanded cash payments from the ad firm Groupaction has fired back with explosive allegations that a small network of party chieftains doled out contracts, sponsorship deals and judicial appointments to Liberal stalwarts in exchange for their work on election campaigns.

The new claims, which threaten to inflame an already tense Parliament Hill, were broadcast last night on Radio-Canada even as Prime Minister Paul Martin's aides worked on a statement that is to be delivered on national television tonight.

Benoît Corbeil, who served as executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec wing in the late 1990s, told Radio-Canada that of the 20 or so lawyers who volunteered for the party during the 2000 federal election, some "seven or eight" were appointed to the judicial bench.

"Anyone who wanted to be a judge or win mandates needed to have friendly relations with those people," he told the network.

Corbeil also said he received his marching orders from "a senior Liberal" who was neither an MP nor a cabinet minister, and whose identity he plans to reveal when he testifies at the Gomery inquiry in the coming weeks.

Corbeil, identified by former Groupaction president Jean Brault as a Liberal insider who sought $400,000 to cover party bills during the 2000 election, insists he didn't keep a set of secret books for the party, even if he admitted during the interview to accepting a cash-stuffed envelope from Brault on one occasion.

Asked whether his political masters, who included former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, knew about the illicit donation, Corbeil said "everyone knew what was happening."

Now on top of money laundering, the Liberal Party also had a scheme that could have protected it from prosecution for its misdeeds. After all, if the Liberals handed these positions out so blithely to party operatives, it would behoove the judges to help keep a lid on any other political corruption, lest their own appointments come under scrutiny. The Gomery Inquiry has managed to squeeze hard enough in other areas, though, that the guilty now want to play a little misdirection. If you think I'm bad, the strategy seems to be, you should see what So-and-So was doing.

The news could hardly come at a worse time for the Liberals. Already reeling from the effects of the previous Gomery testimony, the new scandal comes right on top of their efforts to handcuff the opposition from calling new elections. Martin is supposed to go on television tonight and ask Canadians for patience while the judicial system goes through its process. Now Canadians will have to ask themselves if they can trust a judicial system that apparently has been corrupted by Liberal politicians using bench appointments as political payoffs.

What does Martin have left to offer Canadians at this point? His resignation?

The Price Of Dithering, Part II

The Senate Republicans have managed to do the improbable, if Alexander Bolton's report in The Hill today is to be believed. They have taken a significant mandate from the November 2004 election to break the unprecedented filibusters on judicial nominations and turned it into a liability -- or so Senator Rick Santorum supposedly believes:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the “nuclear option” to end the Democrats’ filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Details of the polling numbers remain under wraps, but Santorum and other Senate sources concede that, while a majority of Americans oppose the filibuster, the figures show that most also accept the Democratic message that Republicans are trying to destroy the tradition of debate in the Senate.

The Republicans are keeping the “nuclear” poll numbers secret, whereas they have often in the past been keen to release internal survey results that favor the party. David Winston, head of the Winston Group, which conducts Senate GOP polls, did return phone calls seeking comment.

This is the product of allowing the debate to drag out for three months of the new session. After the opening round of unprecedented attacks on Condoleezza Rice's character by such notably sturdy fellows such as Mark Dayton, the GOP had a golden opportunity to ride voter disgust to an easy win on the filibuster rule change. The voters stood behind them, the press remained focus on the supposed disaster that awaited the Iraqi elections, and the Democrats looked like radical lunatics after holding up Ohio's slate of electors -- the first time since 1876 that any electors had ever been debated in the Senate.

Instead, Bill Frist and the rest of the GOP decided to play nice with Harry Reid, a rather unilateral commitment as it turned out. They allowed the Democrats to get out front and define this mundane rule change -- Byrd changed it four times in fifteen years -- as some sort of radical takeover that endangered free speech and dissent. Instead of treating this like the highest domestic priority that they claimed for the election, and instead of treating the nominees like the valued members of the bench that they are, the GOP went AWOL on the issue and have allowed Reid, Byrd, Boxer, and the rest to portray the nominees as dangerous fringe-right nutcases just itching to strip away every last right from the people.

Now perhaps people will understand why patience is not a virtue for some issues. The GOP leadership lost the initiative and the mandate, or at least they believe that they have, and want to further postpone the battle to re-invigorate their rank and file. Unfortunately, we may already have lost that battle, thanks to the dithering of Bill Frist and the senior leadership of the Republicans, and this group may not have the capability of regaining it.

Once again, I will not further support this leadership group until they can start demonstrating some basic competence. If the majority of the Republican caucus insists on maintaining mediocrity as the standard, then they can suffer along. When either Frist & Co. demonstrate a will to act and the skills to win, then I will give willingly and happily to the NRSC and the RNC. Until then or until the caucus gives us leaders that can, Not. One. Dime.

Boulay Made Money From All Sides

Adscam figure Claude Boulay continued his testimony to the Gomery Inquiry yesterday, while a bit more of Jean Brault's embargoed testimony made it through the publication ban. Brault insisted that Boulay gave $50,000 in a secret donation to provincial Liberals in Quebec, a development that the BQ will certainly see as further provocation for immediate elections:

The controversial Ottawa bureaucrat in charge of the federal sponsorship program allegedly directed a $50,000 secret donation to Jean Charest's provincial Liberals, the Gomery inquiry was told in testimony that could not be reported until now.

The damaging accusation made during the testimony of ad executive Jean Brault had been under a publication ban but was made public during an exchange at the inquiry yesterday. ...

The allegation that the provincial Liberals got a covert donation from Mr. Brault in 1998 had been reported before but it is only now that the media can reveal that he allegedly was acting at the request of a federal bureaucrat.

According to the account Mr. Brault gave on April 1, the head of Groupaction Marketing Inc. got a call in 1998 from Chuck Guité, head of the sponsorship program, telling him that Mr. Charest needed money.

Mr. Charest at the time had just moved to provincial politics to face then Parti Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard in a tightly fought Quebec election.

Mr. Brault said in his testimony that he did not know on whose behalf Mr. Guité was acting when he called him.

Mr. Brault said he then made an illicit $50,000 contribution to the Charest campaign, disguising it as a payment for professional services from Mr. Boulay's agency, Groupe Everest.

Now we not only have a money-laundering scheme for federal campaign money, but the Adscam efforts now have been shown to extend to provincial elections as well. Boulay denied the allegation, but his own credibility took some pounding as he tried to talk his way around evidence that he took commissions from all parties on several Sponsorship Program contracts, pocketing large sums of government money for himself:

Yesterday, the inquiry heard of several instances of dubious invoicing, including a 67-per-cent profit margin he made when he resold promotional sportswear to thew federal government as part of a sponsorship to promote tourism called Attractions Canada. ...

As part of the Attractions Canada project, one of Mr. Boulay's firms, Sensas Inc., paid $80,693 for golf gloves, polo shirts, backpacks and windbreakers. The gear was sold to Everest, which added agency fees, commissions and other charges, and then resold to the Public Works department for $243,313.

The inquiry heard of another area where Mr. Boulay benefited handsomely:

In several files, in addition to the standard 12-per-cent commission he got from the government for handling a sponsorship, he asked the sponsorship recipient for a commission too.

For the 1997 Quebec Summer Games, he got 12 per cent on a $220,000 sponsorship. However, he also pocketed a hefty 20-per-cent cut from the organizers of the event.

In another case, he pocketed a 10-per-cent fee off a $75,000 sponsorship given to publishing house Hibou éditeurs Inc. for a catalogue of the works of the painter and sculptor Jean-Paul Riopelle. Already, his agency would have received a 12-per-cent commission for handling the sponsorship.

M. Boulay apparently had a good thing going on at Sensas. Double commissions, hefty markups on goods and services, and expensive yet essentially meaningless invoicing made up the bulk of his good fortune from the Sponsorship Program. Yet despite the high costs associated with Boulay, all he had to to renew a $27M contract was write one letter to Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano -- despite the fact that Boulay's efforts competed directly with another government agency, the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Boulay couldn't even convince Justice Gomery to buy his explanation of separate transactions for all of the money flowing into his pockets. Gomery pointed out that despite Boulay's pretenses of common business practices, he never told anyone that he had collected his fees from the other parties involved, putting his actions within the broad definition of fraud, if not the legal sense of the term.

How will Paul Martin address all of this in tonight's speech?

Frist Ready To Pull The Trigger?

CQ reader Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the AP believes that Senator Bill Frist might finally bring some of the embargoed judicial nominations to the Senate floor next week, if he can get them out of committee:

The Republican-controlled Senate is moving closer to a showdown over whether Democrats can continue filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees now that two of the White House's favored court appointees are scheduled for final committee approval.

Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judge Janice Rogers Brown, who were blocked by Democrats during Bush's first term, were up for approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Owen, nominated by Bush for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and Brown, seeking a lifetime slot on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, secured committee approval during Bush's first term.

However, they were blocked from confirmation by Democratic filibuster threats and were renominated by the president after he won a second term in November. Democrats consider the nominees too conservative.

Frist and the GOP want to key a filibuster rule change on either Owens or Brown, and sources say especially Janice Rogers Brown due to her inspiring life story and solid body of judicial work in California. The key will be whether any Democrats attend the committee hearing today. Most Democrats have quietly boycotted the hearings to deprive the GOP of a quorum which would enable the committee to move the nominations to the full Senate.

They have been quiet about their boycott -- and the GOP have been almost as silent as the Democrats, for reasons which defy explanation. The Democrats want their obstructionism to remain as covert as possible, having seen what overt heel-dragging cost them in the last election. Why the GOP has obliged them until this week remains a mystery. Until pressure came from the grass roots to start doing something about the filibuster over the past two weeks, the Republicans never publicized this childish Democrat strategy of taking the ball and going home with it. Why not? Why hasn't Arlen Specter held press conferences at each Judiciary Committee meeting to announce who didn't bother to show up for work that day? Why don't we have attendance reports flying into every e-mail inbox?

Let's hope that this really does mean that Frist and Specter have decided that Brown and Owen have been left dangling for long enough and that the GOP finally will act to defend their reputations and their nominations, as well as over 200 years of Constitutional practice. Until I see it, however ...

Rice Pushes Ukraine For NATO, Looks Towards Belarus Next

The Bush administration has quite obviously decided to counter the increasingly autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin by combining an old encirclement strategy with the new theme of democratization. One key part of this new effort will be the application of newly-democratic Ukraine to join NATO, a process which Condoleezza Rice will start and promote in Vilnius this week:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other NATO foreign ministers held the alliance's first major meeting on former Soviet soil on Thursday, planning to offer Ukraine fast-track membership talks. ...

"NATO is an important forum for transatlantic dialogue on political issues, it is the premier forum," Rice told reporters on Wednesday, after visiting Moscow where she criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin for having too much personal power.

But Russia will take part in the Vilnius talks and NATO officials said they saw Moscow as a partner. The meeting in Lithuania, a former Soviet republic which joined NATO last year, underlines how the world has changed since the Cold War ended.

While Russia moved towards democracy, the West took more care with extending NATO membership, although at one point NATO did contemplate including Russia itself. With Putin gathering increasing power back to the Kremlin executive, however, Europe and the US want to keep as many of the old Soviet satellites out of Putin's grip. He tried to undermine democracy movements in both Ukraine and Georgia, unsuccessfully on both occasions, probably due to their proximity to the recently liberated former Warsaw Pact nations. Having NATO in the Baltics is nettlesome enough for Putin, but expanding into Ukraine and other Russian-language provinces may be intolerable for his strongman plans.

The next battleground has already been selected, apparently. Rice also announced that she will meet with key Belarussian opposition figures in an attempt to undermine the autocracy of Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko:

After criticizing Russia, Rice turned her attention to Belarus on Wednesday, saying "it was time for change" in the former Soviet republic in an effort to stoke opposition against what she called President Alexander Lukashenko's dictatorship.

She plans to meet Belarussian opposition academics and politicians in Lithuania on Thursday.

Belarus sits to Ukraine's north, between Lithuania and Russia, and also borders old Warsaw Pact nations Poland and Latvia. The conversion of Belarus from Moscow-leaning autocracy to independent democracy would create a buffer zone between traditional Europe and Russia and create more pressure for democratization within Russia itself from its western borders. It's a clever strategy, designed to remain low-key to allow Putin to ignore it publicly, while getting a clear private message from George Bush about the direction in which Putin has steered Russia the last two years.

Where Is Jan Vahey? Where Is The Canadian Press

It has been twelve days since the Calgary Police Chif, Jack Beaton, used an Anton Piller order from a local court to silence an internal critic under the guise of a slander civil case. Beaton conducted a raid on her and her husband's house, confiscated computer equipment, and most chillingly has forced her to remain silent about her own case under threat of imprisonment. Vahey could go to prison indefinitely because she dared to air critisim about the police chief on the Internet.

The Canadian media rightfully complained about the publication ban on the Jean Brault testimony at the Gomery Inquiry. Why have we not seen any follow-up reporting on Vahey's oppressed status since the raid on her house? Have Canadian journalists reconciled themselves to Calgary's police state?

Stand Alone Journalists?

Jay Rosen at Pressthink publishes an article from Chris Nolan which attempts to distinguish between bloggers and those who use the blogging mechanism to act as self-publishing journalists. Nolan calls the latter "stand alone journalists" and argues for a distinction between the two:

These are not bloggers. They are people who are using blogging technology--software that allows them to quickly publish their work and broadcast it on the Internet--to find and attract users. They understand that the barrier to entry in this new business isn't getting published; anyone can do that. The barrier to entry is finding an audience. That's why their editorial product is consistent, reliable and known. Readers have expectations and stand alone journalists understand this and put that understanding into practice.

So what--exactly--is a stand alone journalist? That's a definition that's going to vary with the person, of course, just as no group or reporters can really agree on what makes a "journalist." For me, a stand alone journalist is someone who works to get the stories they find interesting told in an honest and forthright manner without the benefit of working for a larger news outlet. That doesn't mean they're objective or impartial; it means they're honest about their points of view or assumptions. A stand alone journalist understands that the main job is to inform readers; and the ethics that salaried journalists have when it comes to fairness, accuracy and honesty aren't just phrases. They're a discipline for doing the work that needs to be done: getting your facts right, your assumptions validated, your arguments well grounded.

Chris makes an interesting argument, and perhaps a distinction needs to be made between on-line diarists and those who want to work in the information business. The former would involve those who use services like LiveJournal for the purpose intended -- to keep their friends informed of personal events, discuss likes and dislikes, and post pictures of their kids, cats, and work environs. The latter would be people like Chris Nolan, Joshua Michah Marshall, Glenn Reynolds, and perhaps me, as Jay commented to me in an e-mail.

The only problem is that the SAJs that use the blogging mechanism tend to blur the line themselves between the two. I sometimes write about the First Mate, the Little Admiral, and my personal likes and dislikes apart from any real impulse to provide news or analysis to my readers, and the same can be said of Glenn, who under Chris' definition would at least qualify as a stand-alone wire service to the blogosphere. Marshall and Nolan probably do less of it than Glenn and I, while others do more but still get good blog scoops on a regular basis.

Perhaps the better way to create distinctions isn't by labelling the blog or the blogger but the post or the thread. There are times when I perform stand-alone journalism; other times, I'm a self-published pundit; the small amount left amounts to a very poorly secured diary. The revolution in newsroom thinking won't be an acknowledgement that a handful of bloggers are stand-alone journalists. It will come when people finally realize that all bloggers can be stand-alone journalists if and when they choose to be.

UN Investigators Resign In Protest Over Annan's Claim Of Exoneration

Kofi Annan claimed that the preliminary report from the Volcker Inquiry exonerated him from any indication of corruption, and used the report to lay the blame for the massive corruption in the Oil-For-Food program at the two countries who didn't use it to buy off Saddam Hussein -- the US and UK. Tonight, however, two of the Volcker investigators have resigned in protest, reportedly because they believed that the report went too easy on the Secretary-General:

Two senior investigators with the committee probing corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have resigned in protest, saying they believe a report that cleared Kofi Annan of meddling in the $64 billion operation was too soft on the secretary-general, a panel member confirmed Wednesday.

The investigators felt the Independent Inquiry Committee, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, played down findings critical of Annan when it released an interim report in late March related to his son, said Mark Pieth, one of three leaders of the committee.

"You follow a trail and you want to see people pick it up," Pieth told The Associated Press, referring to the two top investigators who left. The committee "told the story" that the investigators presented, "but we made different conclusions than they would have."

The investigators were identified as Robert Parton and Miranda Duncan.

For now, Parton and Duncan haven't spoken to the press. However, Pieth's confirmation shows that the two people who collated and analyzed the evidence came to the conclusion that we all suspected -- that Annan had some part in the corruption or its cover-up, more directly than Volcker was willing to state. It also points out that the Volcker Commission has no problem watering down the findings of its own investigative staff. Why? Remember that Paul Volcker reports directly to Kofi Annan and serves at his pleasure.

Perhaps Senator Norm Coleman can find a place for Parton and Duncan on his Senate investigative subcommittee, which seems to be the only place honest assessments can be made of the evidence.

Not. One. Dime. Continued

Two days ago, Hugh Hewitt mentioned on the air that his sources have it that Bill Frist will schedule a vote for one of Bush's embargoed judicial nominees, which will allow Frist to push for the rule change on filibusters. So far, however, I have yet to see this confirmed in any news report. In fact, Frist has remained silent so far on any upcoming move; the only statement he made was yesterday's reiteration of his general opposition to filibusters:

"It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to block up-or-down votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, thereby keeping the Senate from doing its constitutional duty," Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday in a written statement.

Now we have Frist losing another nomination battle with the Democrats when the Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee failed to do any timely research on the one witness to come forward to claim that John Bolton was mean to her in public. That allegation caused George Voinovich to lose his nerve, even though a small bit of research would have made clear that Melody Townsel has a big axe to grind against the GOP:

The latest accusations of abuse aimed at the president's nominee to be America's ambassador to the United Nations come from a self-described "liberal Democrat" who in 2004 helped organize the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Opposing Bush."

The woman, Melody Townsel, alleged that John Bolton chased her through the halls of a Moscow hotel throwing objects and screaming threats at her in August 1994, according to a letter circulated Saturday by the spokesman for the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden of Delaware.

The New York Sun published this on April 18th, the day before Voinovich lost his nerve. Why didn't the GOP leadership distribute this information to FRC members? Frist and the Republicans instead allowed Voinovich to back away from Bolton and postpone for several weeks any reconsideration of his nomination, once again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This fits a pattern of failed leadership in the Senate GOP, one which needs immediate addressing by the Republican caucus. My good friends in the GOP disagree with my form of protest and motivation to get some immediate improvement. They point out, correctly, that the Not. One. Dime. campaign will hurt all 55 Republicans in the Senate when 45 or more may well be in solid agreement with me -- and that's very true. However, 45 members is an overwhelming majority in the caucus, and if they truly felt like change was needed, that kind of number would make it happen. Obviously, they have not received the right kind of motivation yet to address the fact that Harry Reid has outfoxed them for the first 90 days of this session.

In all fairness, I want to hear from Senator Frist directly on this issue of leadership. I left a message with his press office yesterday asking for one of his staff to call me or e-mail me for an interview, in order to allow them to respond to my criticisms on this blog. If they have a good reason for abandoning the filibustered judicial nominees for the first three months of their session, I'd be pleased to post the explanation and rescind my call to stop donations to the RNC and NRSC until the filibuster rule change gets its vote.

When I hear from them, I will let you know. Until then, and until the Republican leadership in the Senate starts showing some effectiveness, I plan on continuing to withhold any funding for their efforts in 2005. Not. One. Dime.

Martin To Plead Case On Television

Having exhausted every other possibility to keep his Liberal government from collapsing and facing a ruinous election as early as June, Paul Martin plans on making a speech on Canadian television tonight to convince voters to pressure Parliament to postpone a no-confidence vote:

"He'll address the sponsorship issue and the current parliamentary context," Amy Butcher, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office, told globeandmail.com.

She indicated the gravity of the address.

"He'll speak directly to what he thinks to address the current political deadlock in the House of Commons," Ms. Butcher said.
But she said the Prime Minister is not making a move toward calling an election.

"He will not prorogue the House, nor dissolve Parliament."

She would not say whether Mr. Martin would urge Canadians to wait until Mr. Justice John Gomery comes out with his report on the sponsorship inquiry, as his MPs have been doing during weeks of oppositon attacks.

"I'll leave it to him [to address that]." The Liberals have been battling to save their minority government for weeks now as more shocking revelations from the sponsorship inquiry, such as allegations of Liberal kickbacks, come out during testimony.

Mr. Martin will make the address from his office, speaking to Canadians for five to six minutes in both French and English, Ms. Butcher said.

I find the use of the term "deadlock" rather odd, since what has happened over the past two days amounts to more of a meltdown. The Liberals attempted to lock themselves into power for several months with their cancellation of Opposition Days. The Conservatives somehow found a parliamentary procedure to gain one back -- and one will be all that's needed. In fact, the deadlock never existed; all that has happened from the failed Liberal manuever is an assurance that the Tories will table a no-confidence motion on May 19th, as they know now that they will have no further opportunity to do so.

It is a measure of how far Martin has fallen that he has to now beg Canadian voters for assistance to hang onto his job by asking them to wait for the results of an inquiry he himself delayed earlier by closing a Commons case down. Four weeks ago, new elections so soon appeared unthinkable, and a no-confidence vote supported by all three opposition parties even more unlikely. Martin's collapse will reach its nadir at 7:45 PM ET, if he's lucky, and can inspire a resurgence of support. Otherwise, his televised plea for a second chance may instead be seen as a particularly pathetic chapter in one of the quickest political collapses in the recent history of North America.

Stay tuned ...

UPDATE: My many Canadian friends remind me that Martin could attempt to prorogue Parliament. Somehow I doubt that the Oliver Cromwell approach will win the Liberals any more votes and could seriously damage their long-term prospects, especially given their money laundering in Adscam. The Tories will point out that stealing a few extra months in office only allows for other thefts to continue unabated.

Be An Angel

Beth at My VRWC reminds me today that Soldiers Angels, a charity devoted to giving assistance to our brave men and women standing guard over America and liberating the oppressed, has started their annual fundraising drive. Here's a description of what this group does to support the troops:

The Soldiers' Angels was started by a self-described "ordinary mother" of an ordinary young man turned hero, Corporal Brandon Varn. Brandon was deployed in Iraq and has since honorably completed his mission and has returned back to his proud and loving family.

In the summer of 2003, he wrote home expressing his concern that some soldiers did not receive any mail or support from home. Being a caring and loving mother, she decided not to allow a situation like that to continue. She contacted a few friends and extended family to ask if they would write to a soldier or two.

Within a few short months, The Soldiers'Angels Foundation went from a mother writing a few extra letters to an Internet Community with thousands of angels worldwide and growing stronger with the addition of new members daily. With more and more merchants donating services, money and items for packages, the Angels reorganized as a 501 c 3 non-profit foundation. On February 26, 2004, Soldiers' Angels formed the Alliance of Angels, proving with our allies we find new strength that better enables us to complete our mission of providing tangible caring support for our military.

Let's make sure all of our men and women in the military know how special they are to us. Drop a bit of cash in their tipjar.

The Petty Scams Of TSA

After watching the corruption scandals of the Canadians and now the French, new allegations of abuse and theft at the Transportation Security Administration seem almost amatuerish and strangely unambitious. However, as CNN reports, it also demonstrates an agency that bloated almost overnight into a poorly-managed mess, with deep implications for national security:

A Transportation Security Administration official spent $500,000 on art, silk plants and other decorations for a new operations center and then went to work for the vendor after leaving the agency, according to a report from the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general. ...

The inspector general found that the project manager and other TSA employees routinely violated agency policies to buy furniture, leather briefcases, coffee pots and other items.

They concealed purchases of more than $2,500, including one for $47,449, by splitting them into several credit card transactions, the report said.

The report said that higher-ups at the TSA "quashed" efforts by procurement managers to exercise control.

Coffee pots? Leather briefcases? So these issues are what the agency cares about after 9/11. This kind of petty larceny occurs in all organizations, governmental or private sector, but the key difference is that management is supposed to stop it, not grease the skids for it. If this is what has occupied management's time, no wonder the auditors have found little or no improvement in transportation security since 9/11.

Liberals Fail To Secure May 19th Opposition Day

The Liberals gambled everything they had left on stripping Parliament of any opportunity to introduce a no-confidence vote that would topple the Martin regime -- their credibility, any hope of an alliance with the NDP, and what remained of public sympathy regarding their predicament. The naked power play designed to shut up the opposition and delay elections failed, however, as the Tories got a single Opposition Day back on the calendar for May 19th:

One day after the government postponed the Conservatives' opposition day scheduled for today and attempted to push back all the opposition days that had been set for the first three weeks of May, the Tories managed to use a backdoor route to salvage one of them.

On that day, May 19, the Conservatives can bring forward a no-confidence motion.

The firm date, coupled with signals from all three opposition parties that they are willing to defeat the government, suggests the minority Parliament is in its final days.

Prior to their heavy-handed attempt to prorogue Parliament without allowing another Opposition Day, the Liberals had a chance of retaining enough votes to keep the elections at bay until possibly late fall. However, Martin lost any hope of alliance with other parties after this last-ditch effort to retain his premiership. Even so, had the Liberals made it stick, they could have postponed new elections until autumn and hoped for better issues on which to run.

Now, thanks to the timing of the final opportunity allowed to the Tories, the other parties will certainly take the opportunity to remove the Liberals from their minority government. Martin has left Harper no choice but to table the no-confidence motion on that date, which will result in new elections on June 27th. And frankly, that timing could not possibly be worse for the Liberals.

The Gomery Inquiry will just be ready to hear testimony from Paul Coffin, likely under a publication ban, the week after the no-confidence motion. The same dynamic that applied to Jean Brault's testimony will once again raise public interest in the Gomery proceedings, especially if the ban gets broken either here at CQ or elsewhere. Even if the ban remains effective, the essence of Coffin's story will play out in banner headlines during the entire campaign, driving home over and over again the Liberal money-laundering scheme that essentially kept them in power for years, bypassing electoral rules and spending limits. By the time June 27th rolls around, the fact that Justice Gomery has not yet issued a written report will be moot.

The Liberals just lost the election yesterday in Parliament, and they know it. If more MPs have been thinking about switching parties, expect them to move within the next two weeks. Even in Ontario, few Liberal seats are likely to be safe bets by June 27th.

WaPo: We Shouldn't Tell Catholics What To Believe (But We Will)

Today's Washington Post editorial on the ascension of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI contains an embarassing and intellectually dishonest streak that feigns at respect for the Catholic Church while treating us like idiots. I had actually expected this from the New York Times, but on this rare occasion, they wrote a far more artful missive than the Post, finding specifics outside of Catholic doctrine for criticism.

The Post starts out by noting the final homily given by Benedict before his pontificate where he objected to moral relativism, but leaves out the exact phrase and leaves the point about an "adult faith" somewhat ambiguous. It then makes this statement.

It is not for us to comment upon matters of Catholic doctrine, or indeed upon the internal deliberations of any religious institution.

How long do you suppose it takes for them to disprove that statment? One imagines that the cursor barely had time to pause until, two paragraphs later, this appeared:

Certainly we hope that the pope's admirable profession of "adult faith" does not mean that the church must continue to impede the distribution of condoms in Africa and in other developing countries, where greater use could inhibit the spread of AIDS and prevent thousands of premature deaths.

So the Post's position on non-criticism of Catholic doctrine doesn't extend to its position on contraception and pre-marital sex. It also doesn't extend to killing embryos to harvest tissue for medical experiments, although the Post doesn't have the guts to even admit that's what they mean:

And we hope he'll weigh the possible benefits of new medical technologies, and not dismiss them out of hand.

It's a good thing that the Post claims it shouldn't criticize Catholic beliefs. Lord knows what they would have written if they didn't believe that.

Reading this dishonest and somewhat cowardly editorial, it becomes obvious that the editors did not read or did not comprehend what Benedict meant by "adult faith". Benedict aimed that speech as an attack at the very moral relativism that the Post espouses here. The Catholic Church considers premarital sex a sin, as well as contraception, for religious reasons that we acknowledge not everyone shares. However, it should be rather obvious that had people behaved in accordance with that tenet all along, AIDS would have never been the epidemic it is now. That's not to claim it as a punishment from God, which is a ludicrous notion, but simply to point out the fact that communicable diseases don't spread when you eliminate the transfer contact between afflicted and healthy people. In other words, abstinence would have severely limited its spread. Condoms might too -- but they are not 100% effective, and never have been, not even for contraception.

The "new medical technologies" that promise miracle cures but have yet to deliver even one are based on unstable embryonic stem cells, relying on the destruction of human embryos for harvesting. Since Catholic belief has taught against abortion for the entirety of its existence and that life begins at conception -- a view supported by science as well -- we find grinding up our children for questionable medical experiments highly objectionable.

Those are the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and had the Post understood what Benedict meant earlier this month, they would not have expressed hope that his homily indicated an openness to abandoning truth for the fads of the day. In fact, he argued against this exact line of thinking, arguing decisively that the Church stands for universal and eternal truths, and must continue to do so, even during the times that we as an organization suffer from our fallibility. The Post makes clear that it only stands for popularity, the truth of the moment. With their contradictory and dishonest approach even within two paragraphs of the same editorial, they make clear that these moments of relativistic truth are extremely short indeed.

More Republican Disarray In Senate

As if the constant retreat on judicial nominations didn't demonstrate the lack of effective GOP leadership in the Senate clearly enough, today's embarassment at the Foreign Relations Committee certainly underscored the fecklessness of the Republicans in garnering effective support for the President's agenda and nominees. Today's victim left twisting in the wind was played by John Bolton, and the role of Brutus was filled by George Voinovich (R-OH):

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed a scheduled vote Tuesday on President Bush's pick for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations when a Republican member balked at voting during a contentious hearing.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the committee's Republican chairman, had pushed for a vote on John Bolton's nomination Tuesday afternoon.

That plan was derailed after a member of the panel's Republican majority joined Democrats in seeking a delay so the committee could consider new allegations about Bolton's conduct. "I've heard enough today that I don't feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio.

Voinovich may have played Brutus in this little drama, but the author of the play is Bill Frist. How difficult can the Republicans make the confirmation process? Frist knew that Bolton would get heavily scrutinized, and this shows that either the GOP leadership failed to properly prepare even the committee members for the predictable attacks of the Democrats or did not inform the White House of the lack of will that would be shown Bolton by FRC Republicans.

Don't get me wrong. Bolton makes an excellent candidate for a sick and dysfunctional United Nations. Turtle Bay does not need another milquetoast diplomat uttering soothing, why-can't-we-just-get-along cliches and excusing the corruption and incompetence of the Annan regime. The UN badly needs immediate reform, and it will only get it if Western nations start sending no-nonsense, tough-minded and tough-mouthed representatives to the UN like John Bolton.

Frist should have ensured that the Republican FRC members knew this, and also knew the slime that Democrats would throw to resist Bolton's candidacy. That's part of the leadership's responsibilities, as well as preparing for waverers and keeping them in line. Frist managed to keep Chafee from flopping, but apparently no one checked in with Voinovich. He didn't check in with Chuck Hagel either, who told reporters that he might not vote for Bolton once he gets to the full Senate.

Ohio Republicans should send a message to Voinovich to get him back on board to approve Bolton's nomination. The rest of the party should ask themselves if this Senate majority has any hope of keeping the caucus in line, or if Frist plans on continuing to make Harry Reid look like a political genius.

Le Scam Francaise

Arthur Chrenkoff notes that France has quietly surpassed the Canadians in graft, with a corruption trial involving high-level aides of Jacques Chirac that has received surprisingly little attention so far:

A major corruption trial has begun in France involving allies of President Jacques Chirac from his time as Paris mayor in the 1980s and 1990s.

Among the 47 accused are former Sports Minister Guy Drut, who is currently on Paris' Olympic bid committee.

The trial centres on a system alleged to have been initiated by President Chirac's Rally for the Republic (RPR).

Companies are accused of paying major political parties to win contracts to renovate schools around Paris.

Prosecutors argue that the RPR and its ally, the Republican Party, received donations worth 1.2% of awarded contracts, while the Socialists got 0.8%.

This clever little money-laundering scheme bears a strong resemblance to the Adscam scandal in Canada, except that the French corruption involves multiple political parties instead of just the ruling party, and the kickbacks were more blatant. The structure of the con revolved around a government program, just like in Canada, which awarded millions of Euros for works to support a public good -- in this case, renovating Parisian schools. Jacques Chirac initiated the Rally for the Republic program in 1989, and it ran for eight years, almost exactly the same amount of time as Adscam.

The French twist shows up in the contracts that the winners had to accept. Each contract contained a "voluntary" 2% kickback to the political parties, which eventually got split on a 3-2 ratio between the Republican and Socialist parties, respectively. This did not mean that contractors could not "voluntarily" make life easier on Chirac's aides as well in order to win these multi-Euro contracts, and the trials of several Chirac cronies allege that they reaped significant personal benefits from these contractors.

So why does this scandal get so much less play than its Canadian counterpart? Probably because we have so much lower expectations of ethics and integrity of the French. Perhaps, though, the French might surprise us with their own expectations of their leaders. (via CQ reader Bruce Chang and Media Lies)

Stalin Making A Comeback, As A Facade For Putin

A measure of the degradation of the Russians under Vladimir Putin is the new resurgence of nostalgia for their former genocidal dictator, Joseph Stalin. The London Telegraph reports that several Russian communities have begun erecting new monuments to the man who killed millions of their countrymen in purges and famines as a paean to the days when Stalin made the Soviet Union a world power:

The cult of Joseph Stalin, once worshipped as a near deity but later reviled as one of history's worst monsters, is enjoying a revival across Russia and beyond.

To the dismay of many, proposals to erect new monuments to the tyrant for what apologists see as his "outstanding" war leadership have won support from figures close to President Vladimir Putin's Kremlin.

A shiny effigy of the Communist dictator in a prominent position might even put uppity foreign powers in their place, said one senior politician.

"They never miss a chance in the West to rewrite history and diminish our country's role in the victory over fascism, so that's even more reason not to forget Stalin now," said Lyubov Slizka, a parliamentary vice-speaker.

If the current crop of Putin cronies believe that a bust of Stalin would engender awe on the part of visiting dignitaries, it demonstrates not only a stunning ignorance of Stalin's reputation outside of Russia but a vast miscalculation as to what Western diplomats will read into this fad. Having senior Putin aides pushing this rehabilitation of a mass murderer infers that Putin may be building a new personality cult, with Stalin as a Trojan horse in order to give Putin an excuse to transform himself into the absolute ruler for which he thinks the Russians pine.

Unfortunately, the Islamist terror campaign has accelerated this process, thanks to the Beslan massacre and the ongoing Chechen conflict. The Russians see only that their once-feared military and security apparatus has failed repeatedly to protect Russians from outsiders. Always more than a bit xenophobic anyway, aome Russians now see Stalin not as a man who ordered the purge and execution of thousands of his best officers on the eve of World War II based on deliberate deceptions by Hitler and the Nazis -- almost fatally leaving Russia unprotected against Germany -- but as the prototypical strong man who eventually drove the Germans out.

This nostalgia, Putin may well calculate, will prepare the Russian population for a putsch that puts him outside the reach of the Duma as long as he can promise and deliver better security. He can then finish the process of making himself president for life, and make it look as if he is doing little more than respond to the will of Russia while doing so. In fact, that might even be the truth, although the demand will have been created by Putin and his own cronies.

The Bush administration obviously has its concerns about these developments, although perhaps not specifically about the rise of a new pseudo-Stalin cult. Condoleezza Rice issued a warning today to Russia calling for a new commitment to democracy and the rule of law as a member of the G-8, the New York Times reports in tomorrow's edition:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterating American concerns about authoritarian trends in the Kremlin under President Vladimir V. Putin, said Tuesday that Russia's coming leadership of the Group of 8 industrial nations next year gave it "certain responsibilities" to guarantee economic and political freedoms. ...

Ms. Rice's comments were the latest in an increased tempo of criticism of Russia, reflecting what some officials say is mounting concern by President Bush and his close aides about Mr. Putin.

But American attempts to raise these concerns have met with an icy response from Russian leaders. For example, Mr. Bush's talk in February in Bratislava, Slovakia, about Russian democracy was said by some American officials to have prompted a Russian lecture in return about Moscow's policies and even about supposed American problems with democracy at home.

As examples of Russian "setbacks," Ms. Rice cited Mr. Putin's decision last year to have state governors chosen in Moscow rather than elected by local legislators, and what she described as a "virtual absence" of independent broadcast media.

She made no reference to Russia's arrest and prosecution of independent business executives for financial irregularities, actions that administration analysts have said are intended to stifle dissent. She also strongly suggested, without saying so directly, that Russia needed to get rid of "inconsistencies" in its treatment of foreign oil companies.

Bush and Rice have to tread carefully with Putin and Russia. They can still provide tremendous assistance in the war, and the size and power of the Russian nation always requires a steady and consistent diplomatic approach. If Russia becomes more belligerent and less cooperative, the former Sovietologist who now heads the American diplomatic corps will prove herself even more valuable to face the threat, but avoiding that outcome and stopping the damage to democracy will be Rice's main priority if this continues. Here's hoping the Russian people wake up from Stalin Fever and realize that freedom may slip away with each monument they erect to one of history's worst tyrants.

Ratzinger Transforms To Benedict XVI

The conclave of cardinals at the Vatican has determined the successor to John Paul II -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who has taken the name Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, who has a reputation for hard-line insistence on traditional Catholic dogma, had worked with John Paul II for many years, and had been considered the inside bet for elevation to the Papacy. His first remarks to the crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square, however, reflected his humility and care:

"Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard," according to a translation of remarks he made in Italian. "I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.

"In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help. And Mary, his most beloved mother, stands on our side."

For both Catholics and outsiders, the selection of Ratzinger should be easily recognized as an endorsement of John Paul II's direction and a strong desire to continue in their current path. Two old sayings about the selection of popes would have counseled against Ratzinger's elevation. The first proverb is that a fat Pope follows a skinny pope, meaning that either the conclave (if you don't believe in Catholicism) or the Holy Spirit (if you do) uses the election of a new Pope to balance out the perceived issues of the last. The other, that one who goes into the conclave a Pope comes out a Cardinal, refers to the usual obscurity of purpose to papal selection.

Neither of these applied this time. Ratzinger had long been seen as a successor in every manner to John Paul II. Even though his age will likely preclude the lengthy Papacy of his predecessor, whatever term he serves will in all likelihood serve as an extension of the previous pontificate. His elevation gives a stunningly clear endorsement of the work of John Paul II -- and for those of us who believe in Roman Catholocism, that endorsement comes from the Holy Spirit and should serve as a lesson to all of us.

Overall, Benedict XVI's elevation pleases me. I believe that Benedict's previous strong stands against moral relativism holds a special lesson in today's world. It means the Church will take stands on what we see as eternal truths, even if those positions cause others to complain about old-fashioned values in a modern world. As he said as Cardinal Ratzinger, "[Relativism] is letting oneself be 'swept along by every wind of teaching.' (It) looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."

An impressive Cardinal has become an impressive Pope. I will pray for his health and success, and ask all of you to join me.

UPDATE: Some people at the usual places have reacted with their foul-mouth, hate-filled rants, claiming that Benedict XVI was a Nazi even though the Jerusalem Post rebuts any such thinking. If you want more intelligent commentary, you could go anywhere else on the Internet -- but you'll be better off visiting one my favorites, The Anchoress. Start here and scroll up.

Adscam Middleman Netted $1.7M Without Catching A Fish

New Gomery Inquiry testimony shows that while the people who actually performed work on government contracts received appropriate compensation for their efforts, the middlemen tied to Liberal politicians made almost twenty times as much without lifting a finger. The Sponsorship Program bought advertising at ten hunting and fishing shows from Gaetan Mondou for $100,000, who discovered yesterday that the man who bought them, Luc Lemay, told the government that they had cost over $1.8 million. The difference disappeared into the pockets of Jacques Corriveau, longtime pal of Jean Chrétien and a man who doesn't even fish:

An events promoter who bought the exclusive federal government sponsorship rights to two small hunting and fishing shows for $100,000 turned around and billed taxpayers more than 10 times that amount to display the Canada wordmark.

Luc Lemay, president of Expour Inc., charged the government more than $1.8 million over five years to sponsor annual hunting and fishing shows in the Quebec cities of Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivieres that he bought the rights to for $10,000 each.

"I think it's f---ing bullshit," Gaetan Mondou, the small-town promoter who sold the shows to Mr. Lemay, testified yesterday at the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship program.

"I don't know what's happening with the government and why they pay like that for my show, that's too much. ... Two million (dollars) to have some Canadian flags in the show, that's crazy."

But Mr. Mondou was particularly upset to discover most of the remaining $1.7 million didn't even go to Mr. Lemay, it went to another sponsorship middleman, Jacques Corriveau, a Liberal loyalist and good friend of former prime minister Jean Chretien.

Mr. Corriveau, who subcontracted for Mr. Lemay's Expour Inc., was paid $1 million for work that Mr. Mondou actually did.

Not only did Lemay direct most of the funds into Corriveau's pockets, he justified the expenditure with false information about the reach of Mondou's events. Lemay told the government that each of the shows attracted 25,000 people or more, while Mondou told Gomery that 6,000 was about as good as it ever got, if the weather stayed nice. Moreover, Mondou insists that he did all the promotional work on his shows, and never received any assistance at all from Corriveau.

It might be a bit clichéd to say that there's something fishy going on with Corriveau, especially since the urbane man of culture never got close to baiting a hook -- except when landing fat, no-work government contracts from his cronies in Ottawa. This latest testimony shows the level of corruption and the depth of greed involved in skimming government funds from fishing shows, of all things.

Two Lines Of Inquiry Approaching Martin

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin may have serious trouble on his hands on two separate fronts. Both the Gomery Inquiry and the Commons investigation into Earnscliffe produced testimony that placed the Liberal party leader squarely within the corruption of both cases, leading to a Liberal panic in Parliament late last night.

First, the Gomery inquiry heard that despite Martin's insistence that he never knew key Adscam player Claude Boulay, the PM wrote gushy notes to him nonetheless:

A Quebec ad executive and his wife, who was known as the "queen of ticket sellers" for Liberal fundraisers, declared more than $6.5-million in revenues after they reaped huge federal contracts at the time of the sponsorship program, documents filed yesterday at the Gomery inquiry indicate.

The documents, which set the stage today for the testimony of Claude Boulay, include a gushy "Dear Claude" letter that Prime Minister Paul Martin sent when he was finance minister in 2001, congratulating Mr. Boulay on his 50th birthday and praising his wife, Diane Deslauriers, for her "grace and beauty." ...

Mr. Harper said the letter betrays a closer relationship than what Mr. Martin has revealed.

"What the Prime Minister said here and also said under oath is that he did not know the Boulays very well. But his greetings, written on Claude Boulay's 50th birthday, are intimate. He tells Claude Boulay how good looking his wife is. He jokes that he wishes Mr. Boulay would age as well. He kids Claude Boulay about his golf game."

"Who writes a letter like that to someone he says he does not know?" Mr. Harper said.

And on another front, Martin's involvement in steering government contracts to Earnscliffe Strategy Group became clearer when his former aide, Warren Kinsella, testified that Martin took a personal interest in the contracts. The partner of his chief of staff ran Earnscliffe and Kinsella told the Commons that Martin knew their contracts did not adhere to legal policy:

Prime Minister Paul Martin Monday was drawn into the sponsorship scandal spotlight Monday with damaging testimony from a disgruntled former Liberal aide at a Commons public accounts committee hearing.

Warren Kinsella told the committee that Mr. Martin took a personal interest as finance minister in federal contracts that went to a communications firm with close political ties to him.

Mr. Kinsella, a former cabinet aide, said Mr. Martin had to know the Finance Department was skirting cabinet contracting guidelines in some of the work it awarded to Earnscliffe Strategy Group in the 1990s.

"In my opinion Mr. Martin was aware of the situation," said Mr. Kinsella, who served at the time as an aide to then-public works minister David Dingwall. "He knew of the problems with regard to contracts." ...

Ms. O'Leary told the Commons public accounts committee Monday that as Mr. Martin's chief of staff when he was finance minister, she had no role in decisions on contracts — something she has said before.

The committee is examining contracts for public opinion research awarded to Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a firm with close political ties to Mr. Martin during his time as finance minister. Among the senior partners in the company was Mr. Herle — Ms. O'Leary's companion and a long-time Martin adviser.

Martin has been personally unaffected by the Gomery inquiry up to now, and the Liberals have had the ability to argue that the corruption only occurred under previous PM Jean Chrétien. Martin, one of Chrétien's close aides, somehow has sold that approach despite his ties to the former PM's government as Finance Minister. But the two inquiries now have started to air testimony that demonstrates Martin may well have participated in the same schemes as his former boss as well as parallel corruption supporting his chief of staff's boyfriend.

It's these developments that pushed the Liberals into the desperate move of blocking Harper from controlling Parliamentary business on Opposition Days as scheduled yesterday in order to gain time to recover (see below). However, as these inquiries continue, it only appears more and more likely that the news will not improve for Martin and the Liberals and likely will get exponentially worse.

Liberals Panic, Cancel Opposition Days

Two parallel investigations into political corruption got close enough to the current Liberal Prime Minister to scare Canada's ruling party to the point that their parliamentarians canceled a previously-scheduled Opposition Day -- an action seen as an attempt to deny the Conservatives a chance at tabling a no-confidence vote and toppling the government:

The Liberals choked off an opposition attempt to control the timetable for possibly bringing down the government. They postponed a so-called parliamentary opposition day on Wednesday in a move foes called a desperate attempt to retain power.

The Conservatives hinted they would no longer help the Liberal government remain afloat.

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern," said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. ...

The Tories were preparing to use one of their allotted opposition days on Wednesday to arm themselves with a potent political tool.

They tabled a motion which would have allowed opposition parties to set the timing of future opposition days - and by extension the timing of a confidence vote that could bring down the government.

But just moments before a six o'clock deadline Monday, Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri rose in the Commons to cancel Wednesday's opposition day.

"It was an attempt to hijack the House and the operation of the House," Valeri said of the opposition motion.

"I could not risk this motion going forward."

Valeri was in such a hurry that he leaped up to interrupt a Tory who was speaking in mid-sentence.

The government has to provide for a certain number of Opposition Days in every session, but can usually schedule them themselves. Stable governments spread them out on a regular basis, but those which have significant trouble staying afloat could reschedule them for later to avoid no-confidence motions and to get a chance to gain more support later. Harper and the other opposition leaders wanted to strip the Liberals of that power in order for the opposition to control the schedule of these days.

This move allows the Liberals to push all remaining eight days to the end of June, the last month of this session. They then can prorogue Parliament -- in effect, adjourn prior to any Opposition Day, cutting off the ability of the Tories to bring down the government by a no-confidence vote. It's a legal but desperate move. The Liberals have bet that that Harper can't get a majority to defeat the Liberals on the budget or another issue that would cause the government to collapse and trigger elections, except on a no-confidence vote based on the Gomery Inquiry and the Commons investigation into Earnscliffe. Harper cannot schedule such a vote without control of Parliament, which he only has on Opposition Days. It would mean that elections would be unlikely until late summer at the earliest, and more likely autumn.

This move will probably backfire on the Liberals. The NDP, which had wavered on joining the Tories in recent days, now may join with BQ and the Conservatives in forcing an election on any issue as early as next month. Even worse, it portrays the Liberals in a grasping, desperate light that only underscores the testimony in the Gomery Inquiry. It shows the Liberals as a party willing to do anything to hold onto power, no matter how backhanded or arcane, rather than face the voters and be held accountable for its actions.

Does Anyone Like Al-Jazeera?

Arabian satellite news service Al-Jazeera has taken an enormous amount of criticism for airing hostage videos, biased news reporting, and fomenting trouble by deliberately broadcasting false or misleading information. And apparently that's just the Iranian mullahcracy's complaints:

Iran said Monday some 200 people were arrested in ethnic unrest in its southwest in recent days and closed the offices of the Arab language Al Jazeera television channel, accusing it stirring up trouble.

At least one person died after Arab-Iranians went on the rampage in the city of Ahvaz, near the border with Iraq, on Friday and Saturday, smashing and setting fire to police cars, banks and government buildings and clashing with police.

Government officials have said the violence in Iran's traditional oil-producing heartland was sparked by a forged letter, supposedly penned by a senior government official, discussing the idea of relocating ethnic Arabs from the area.

"Many of those arrested are young, innocent people. The real criminals are those who provoked them," the official IRNA news agency quoted Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi as saying.

"We have arrested many of those behind the scenes and it became evident that they have ties to anti-government (television) channels," he said.

The executives of AJ may respond to criticisms from Americans by pointing out that their reporting causes as many complaints from Muslim tyrannies, and claim that therefore their product has balance. On the other hand, it's much more likely that their reporters and editors are broadly incompetent, giving everyone cause for irritation or worse.

However, the more useful information from this event is the news that Iran has had significant internal political turmoil, a rare admission of such from the Islamist government in Teheran. The location of the demonstration may have meaning as well. The proximity to Iraq, and the introduction of true multiparty democracy, may have inspired people in their oil-production region to consider the opportunities their Arab cousins next door have and which are denied to Iranians. After all, we only have Teheran's word on the cause and motivation of the rioting; Reuters reports that a regional opposition group put the death toll much higher and the violence in Ahvaz at a much higher level than the mullahcracy admits.

The Iranians have spent their time trying to infiltrate the Iraqi political process, but they may want to focus more on defending their creaky tyranny from the influences of democratization instead. Otherwise, they will soon know how the Shah felt when the Iranians decided they'd had enough of his authoritarian rule.

North Korean Brinksmanship Redux

The DPRK has ominously shut down or scaled back its power production from a nuclear reactor at its main weapons complex, raising the possibility that the NoKos will harvest more plutonium to make more weapons. It also could be nothing more than a bluff intended to make the US back down and engage in the same kind of bilateral talks that wound up going nowhere during the Clinton administration:

The suspected shutdown of a reactor at North Korea's main nuclear weapons complex has raised concern at the White House that the country could be preparing to make good on its recent threat to harvest a new load of nuclear fuel, potentially increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal.

The White House's concern over the past week arises from two developments. An American scholar with unusual access to North Korea's leaders, Selig S. Harrison, a longtime specialist on North Korea at the Center for International Policy in Washington, said after visiting the country two weeks ago that he was told by a very senior North Korean that there were plans "to unload the reactor to create a situation" to force President Bush to negotiate on terms more favorable to North Korea.

That focused new attention on spy satellite photographs of the reactor, which has been watched intensively in recent months. While American officials would not discuss what the spy satellites had seen, commercial satellite photographs of the plant, taken by DigitalGlobe and interpreted by the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, show that the plant was apparently shut down or shifted to a very low power level at least 10 days ago, around the time of Mr. Harrison's visit.

Mr. Harrison's message and the satellite photographs present a mystery that has underscored how difficult it is for intelligence officials to decipher the state of the nuclear program in North Korea. The signs could mean that preparations are beginning to extract fuel rods from the aging five-megawatt reactor, the first step in the elaborate process of reprocessing the rods into weapons-grade plutonium. But there could also be more innocent explanations, among them maintenance - or a diplomatic bluff.

The Times mentions that Harrison isn't exactly a neutral analyst in this issue, either. He has frequently criticized the Bush policy on North Korea and favored bilateral negotiations instead of applying regional pressures on the Kim regime:

Though administration officials strike a public pose of little concern about North Korea's threats, the message brought back by Mr. Harrison has seized the attention of senior American officials as they are debating internally whether the diplomatic approach they have taken for the past two years should be declared a failure. White House officials are a bit skeptical of Mr. Harrison, who has been critical of Mr. Bush's refusal to negotiate one on one with North Korea, and who is often warmly received in Pyongyang, the capital.

In other words, this appears to be a bluff. How convenient that a Bush critic, one "often warmly received" by North Korea's tyrant, shows up at the same time as this rather ostentatious power fluctuation. Kim has tried everything to unbox himself from the regional stranglehold that Bush is using to pin Kim down to an agreement on disarmament. Now he wants to rattle regional nerves by appearing to add to his arsenal.

Unfortunately, the size of the arsenal is not especially relevant, at least not on this scale. The only relevant point is that Kim has nukes, not whether he has eight or sixteen. Predictably, the NY Times fails to consider this in its analysis, but I suspect that the Bush administration will show considerably less panic than Pinch Sulzberger's crew.

Hostage Drama, Without The Hostages

Yesterda afternoon, the news services began reporting on a huge story coming out of the Sunni Triangle -- that as many as 200 hostages had been taken at once in a major offensive by an insurgency that had appeared to lose momentum. American and Iraqi security forces descended in force on Madain to rescue the farmers and their families while the terrorists demanded that all Shi'ites leave the area. It appeared perfectly suited for the American evening news.

Of course, it would have been perfect, had it been true:

Iraqi security forces searched this small farming town on Monday after reports that Sunni militants had kidnapped as many as 100 Shiite residents and were threatening to kill them unless the entire Shiite population left town — a display of sectarian violence brazen even by Iraqi standards.

But by late in the day, officials had produced no hostages and there were growing indications the incident had been grossly exaggerated and was perhaps an outgrowth of a tribal dispute or political maneuvering. ...

But inside the cordon, the town was calm. The cameraman, who toured the town Sunday morning, said people were going about their business normally, shops were open and tea houses were full. Residents contacted by telephone also said everything was normal in Madain.

American military officials said they were unaware of any U.S. role in what had been described as a tense sectarian standoff.

Can you imagine the consternation and the amusement of the people of Madain as all of these people suddenly appeared in the middle of a normal business day, looking for non-existent hostages? In fact, the reporters and the soldiers must have been equally flabbergasted to find these supposedly terrorized people doing their marketing and sipping tea in cafes.

The AP notes dryly in its report that the military sources that produced the initial story "could not be reached for further details" now. However, I think we can all assume that PFC Emily Litella now says, "Never mind."

UPDATE: The New York Times has more here, including some of the origins of the story and the breathlessness of the coverage.

Painfully Slow Audits At Elections Canada? Mon Dieu!

The Hill Times reports today that Canadian MPs from all parties have begun to panic as a new election looks increasingly certain in the near future, because the Canadian government has not yet paid MPs for their last contest. Canadians running for Parliament receive public funds for their campaigns, but the audits for last year's elections still have not been completed -- meaning the politicians still have yet to be reimbursed for their expenses:

MPs from all parties say they are worried about their sparse war chests as a possible spring election draws closer, and are also in a panic because they still haven't received their final refunds from Elections Canada for election expenses incurred during the last federal campaign a year ago that hobbled the Liberals to minority status.

Some consider the matter so "urgent" that they have summoned Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley to appear before the House Procedure and House Affairs Committee this Tuesday, April 19, to explain the holdup behind the refund. ...

After the meeting, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, N.B.), who also sits on the powerful committee that handles all election matters related to MPs, told The Hill Times that "Elections Canada has been painfully slow" in auditing the campaign expenses of candidates.

"We're going to have this bizarre situation where you may have an election called with some of this stuff not released and available. This would be a rather untenable situation," added Mr. LeBlanc who also serves as his party's deputy House leader.

Under normal circumstances, this would make a great argument for the inefficiency of government bureaucracies and the wisdom of avoiding public financing of political campaigns. After all, the government has a responsibility to safeguard the people's money and should heavily audit the finances. However, the agencies involved should have enough resources to do so efficiently and quickly, especially in the Parliamentary system where elections can occur quickly and without much warning.

These, however, are not normal circumstances. Thanks to the ruling party's treatment of government money over the past ten years, the lines between government funds and campaign funds have not just been made fuzzy but erased altogether. In a system where Sponsorship Program cash paid ad agencies to hire Liberal Party activists to do nothing but campaign work, I imagine the audit process at Elections Canada has transformed into a much more complicated process than anything they might have imagined before the scandal broke open. Many of the records might have to be reviewed by the Gomery Inquiry (or prosecutors, in some cases) either before or in conjunction with EC's audits.

In the meantime, Canadian politicians may have to make do without rembursements for the next election cycle, which could come as soon as mid-June. If that timing makes for tough financial planning, at least Canadians can be assured that all parties will have the same handicap this time around.

The Politics Of Impatience

In the ongoing debate about the lengthy GOP hesitation in forcing a vote on the filibuster rule change, many people have written about politics being the art of the possible, and the unreasonableness of expectation that legislation can get passed in the first 90 days of a new session. Mark Noonan at GOP Bloggers probably wrote it best:

Now, what do we conservatives (many of whom are highly upset right now) want? We want taxes reduced massively; we want the War on Terrorism won; we want Social Security privatised; we want abortion at least highly restricted if not banned outright; we want prayer back in public schools; we want tort reform; we want regulatory reform; we want increased nuclear power and oil drilling; we want our borders secured; we want illegal immigrants deported; we want government spending to be heavily cut; we want conservative judges to be approved yesterday...pretty simple, right? The President and the GOP leadership in Congress should just be able to whistle up the implementation of all this tomorrow, right?

Of course that is wrong; and you all know its wrong. Politics doesn't work that way. To get incensed that in April of 2005 (ie, not three months into the second term in which President Bush said that Social Security would be the main domestic priority) that the borders aren't airtight against illegals is absurd; to get incensed that President Bush hasn't managed to push through reform on a 60 year old American political icon (Social Security) in 60 days is absurd; to get incensed that the GOP Senate leadership hasn't successfully concluded the battle over judicial filibusters in 60 days is absurd...things take time; and in politics, they generally take a lot of time.

I would agree with most of what Mark writes here. Most legislative priorities don't even take written form until the session opens, as prmary sponsors look for partners across the aisle first to hammer out language that will gain bipartisan support. (Of course, this usually happens at the staff level.) It takes time to get through leadership of both parties, debate over tactics, and so on. Social Security reform is an excellent example. First identified as a serious legislative priority during the presidential campaign, the bill has yet to take form because the President wants a debate first on (almost) all possibilities for reform first. The border situation provides a less-understandable example; the 9/11 Commission identified the US-Mexico border as a gaping security issue, and for years prior to that, the GOP has demanded the tightening of security and better enforcement against illegal immigration.

However, the point missed by Noonan and others is that the filibuster isn't legislation at all -- it's a rule change. It doesn't require a legislative draft or process, it does not need committee hearings, and GOP leadership hardly needs to consult with Harry Reid to see if he'll support it. No better example of the difference can be found than the first 90 minutes of the 1995 Congress, when Newt Gingrich and his new Republican majority in the House pushed through not just one but several significant rule changes designed to reform Congress, most of which are still in place, if not all. It took Newt 90 minutes and a spine to make these changes.

The filibuster rule change is just the same. It doesn't take 90 days to think about, send through subcommittee and committee, and schedule for a vote weeks or months into the future. This change had a mandate from the electorate equivalent to the Contract with America in 1994, as the 2004 election resulted in an eight-seat swing to the GOP, whose national campaign for Senators relied heavily on voter anger on obstructionism.

Now, 90 days later, Frist and the GOP leadership has allowed that mandate to dissipate -- and they risk further erosion by pushing it off further into the summer or even later. In the meantime, the courts with the empty appellate seats continue to sit empty, further clogging the court system (and amplifying the influence of previous appointees), as well as leaving the currently embargoed nominees twisting in the wind. And with the GOP acting as if they're ashamed of their own selections for the bench, these fine jurists will eventually get the message and walk away with disgust -- and the entire exercise will have to start from scratch.

Compromise and middle ground have become a fantasy for the weak-kneed in the GOP leadership. The only preparation needed to move this question is to schedule Vice President Cheney's appearance in the Senate to handle the motion. True leadership results in creating the environment needed for success, not just laying back and waiting for the stars to align properly. If Frist can provide leadership, let this be the test. If he can't, he needs to step aside and let someone else handle the job -- perhaps George Allen or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. But let's quit pretending that delay buys anything but retreat on this rule change.

Judiciary -- The Harm In Waiting

One of the results of the posts I've written about the lack of effort on the part of the Senate GOP in resolving the obstructionism of the Democrats on judicial nominations is a tremendous debate on the right about strategy and consequences of action and non-action, by both politicians and voters alike. The debate has resulted in well-written arguments on all sides, and even those criticizing me make excellent points well worth considering. For the small amount of time I've had in front of the computer tonight, I've spent it reading the rebuttals as well as the agreements, which has given me food for thought.

One of the questions many have asked on their own blogs as well as in their comments is why I feel that the time for patience has run out. Some argue that waiting a few more weeks or even months -- or even until next year's election -- will not make much of a difference and may convince more waverers to support the rule change. I feel this is incorrect. The Senate GOP received a tremendous mandate for the end of Democratic obstructionism in November 2004, and the more time that elapses between then and an eventual rule-change attempt, the less likely the centrists will keep that mandate in mind. The Exempt Media will work over the proposal to make it sound more and more extreme, as it already did this week when Bill Frist discussed it with religious leaders like James Dobson. The more that happens, the more trepidation centrists will feel about ending filibusters and being seen as siding with so-called "extremists".

Strategy doesn't account for all of my impatience, either. Earlier I alluded to the harm done to the nominees themselves. One of the reasons I have not posted much tonight is because of a long phone conversation I had tonight with a state appellate court justice with a personal connection to one of Bush's nominees. This well-regarded jurist spent over an hour with me tonight recounting the personal toll that this process has taken on the nominee and his/her family. And this jurist does not blame the Democrats for this, at least not exclusively.

The judge does fault the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a lack of ethics and common courtesy on their behavior towards the Bush nominees. However, he reserves special criticism for the GOP for abandoning these unfortunate pawns in this petty power game. Each nominee has been given specific instructions not to defend themselves against the character assassinations coming from Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, et al, with assurances that the GOP would move quickly to resolve the impasse and restore their public reputations. Instead, even with the votes to remove the filibuster reportedly in Frist's pocket, the GOP has gone silent and allowed these judges to twist slowly and silently in the wind while the last shred of dignity and honor has been stripped from them.

The hearings have been bad enough. Normally, nominees would have family members attend hearings as support and a demonstration of the comity expected in the proceedings. That practice has begun to die in direct proportion to the invective hurled at these jurists -- every one of which has been found qualified by the ABA, which prior to Bush taking office was considered the gold standard by Democrats for confirmation. Quite frankly, the spectacle has proven too painful for families to watch in person, and that's just in the hearings. Afterwards, they have to listen to their spouse, or parent, or grandparent, insulted and vilified by the likes of Nan Aron or Ralph Neas, with nary a peep from Frist, Specter, or any of the other GOP members of what used to be the world's greatest deliberative body.

Given this humiliating process, the motivation for accepting a nomination to the federal bench has dimmed considerably. The Democrats have the knives out for everyone proposed for federal appellate seats, and the GOP won't lift a finger to defend them. Three of the ten nominees blocked by the unprecedented filibusters have withdrawn, and more will likely follow soon. The one known to this jurist plans to stick it out for personal reasons, seeking victory as the only redemption left in the process. How many more qualified and honorable jurists will decline now to have their names placed in consideration knowing that not only will the Democrats sling mud incessantly at them, but that the GOP will insist that they remain silent while the party that nominated them abandons them to ridicule?

Not many, I'll bet.

In the next few days, this jurist will be sharing more of his thoughts and experiences with me in the two-and-a-half year nightmare with the filibuster debacle, as well as insights into the Senators involved. I decided to keep his name and his connection to any nominees confidential, only because revealing it might impact the process even further. As an appellate justice, this person has impeccable credentials and a long and distinguished record of service. Starting on Monday, I plan a series of posts on how the GOP has allowed this process to mistreat others who have spent years trying their best to support justice and the rule of law while our Senators wait, McClelland-like, for a mythical "perfect opportunity" to call the vote.

In the meantime, however, I commend the blogosphere for giving us what the Senate can no longer provide: a sincere and heartfelt debate on complex issues that allow for the dignity of all who disagree. If the Senate at one time was the world's greatest deliberative body, the blogosphere may now have eclipsed them, mostly by their default.

UPDATE: Bump to the top for Sunday, April 17.

The Diminshing Returns Of Trackback Pings

Michelle Malkin notes the depressing regularity of having to de-spam trackback pings, as more and more online casinos and p0rn sites insist on loading old blogposts with trackback spam in order to raise their Google scores. I am fighting this daily, because I think TBs are an essential tool of the blogosphere in directing readers to other opinions in the debate. A great example of this is the ongoing discussion over judicial nominations and the filibuster -- I use my own TBs to see how others have reacted to my arguments.

On the other hand, folks, the clean-up has gotten very tiresome. Power Line suspended theirs for a time, although they're trying them out again for a while. I'm throwing this thread open for your feedback. Do you see value in the trackbacks, or am I cleaning up the crap for little reward?

Adscam Defender Has Cash Issues Of His Own

Kate at Small Dead Animals discovered that Scott Brison, the former Tory MP who defected to the Liberals in 2003 and has passionately defended them during the Adscam crisis, has his own small contribution scandal brewing. Friday's Toronto Sun notes that a $4400 check sent to Brison in July from a contributor did not get cashed until the day after Brison's defection to the Liberals, and didn't ever get disclosed in campaign documents as required:

The cabinet minister who has mounted the vigorous defence of the Liberal government over Adscam is himself snared in a nasty money dispute with his old Conservative riding association that prompted a complaint to the RCMP, Sun Media has learned. For more than a year, Public Works Minister Scott Brison has been asked to provide receipts or invoices to the King-Hants Conservative riding association to account for a $4,400 cheque given to him in 2003, while he was a Tory MP.

"It's still not properly accounted for," said Debbie Janzen, who sat on the board of Brison's old Progressive Conservative Party riding association.

The cheque, which Brison assistant Dale Palmeter says was used to help pay down debts from his failed bid for the PC leadership in 2003, was made out to Brison on July 31 that year.

But it wasn't cashed until Dec. 11 - the day after he defected to Paul Martin's Liberals.

The money was deposited into Brison's personal bank account in Wolfville, N.S., and the contribution does not show up on the list of contributors to his campaign.

Kate has a scan of both sides of the cancelled check showing the contribution from Kings-Hants PC, dated July 31 but endorsed December 11. Note also the low check number: 099. It almost looks as though the account had barely been in existence. In the US, anything below usually comes from temporary checks.

I'm not sure what it means, but holding the check for five months and only cashing it after defecting looks very strange indeed.

Adscam: Canadians Probably Won't Get Much Satisfaction

For those who have followed the explosive developments in Canada's Sponsorship Program corruption case and the spectacular testimony, an expectation that the money-laundering conspiracy would result in wholesale criminal convictions across a wide swath of the political class would be reasonable. However, as Greg Weston points out in today's Ottawa Sun, most of the crimes committed no longer qualify for prosecution -- meaning that the con men at the middle of Adscam will likely escape any punishment at all:

Don't expect a parade of Adscam players being marched off to jail, either. While Brault and two others are facing criminal fraud charges, time has wiped out any chance of nailing others with violations of election and lobbying laws.

The Gomery inquiry has so far heard from a dozen witnesses who broke election laws -- passing political cash around in brown paper bags does not exactly conform to federal political financing rules.

But an official at Elections Canada indicates there is nothing the government can do to prosecute the Adscammers -- under the old election financing laws in place during the sponsorship program, violators had to be prosecuted within 18 months.

The same applies to the numerous Gomery witnesses who have admitted they broke federal lobbying laws while they were out twisting arms in government for sponsorship cash.

A joke at the best of times, the lobbying laws don't even apply to AdScam -- the statute of limitations is two years.

This may become an issue during the next election. The original investigations into Adscam started a couple of years ago, but were halted when the Liberals switched tactics and demanded an independent inquiry instead of the Commons hearings. If that delay helped protect the guilty from criminal prosecution -- and I'm not clear that it did or didn't -- expect Stephen Harper and the Tories to point that out during the campaign.

Weston believes that much more promise may come from an independent financial audit from the same forensic accounting team that plumbed the depths of the Enron scandal. Insiders have told Weston that after going through the financial records of everyone involved in Adscam, including the front businesses and the subcontractors, the bagmen and the recipients of their cash, and of course the Liberal Party, they have a good idea who wound up with the lion's share of the money.

They promise that the audit contains "pure political dynamite" -- and that report will come to the Gomery Inquiry in the next few weeks. Canadians might even see some of the money returned, if it still exists in liquid form, but more likely will be tax-fraud charges that might survive the statute of limitations that prevent Adscammers from facing the consequences of their graft.

If that doesn't work, however, expect to see an enraged electorate become even more disenchanted with the current Liberal government, whether or not Gomery finds direct connections between current PM Paul Martin and the Adscammers. Their delay may well have allowed Liberal cronies to escape any legal consequences for their money-laundering on behalf of the Liberals, old guard or new, and Canadian voters may still have enough outrage in reserve to punish them further for manipulating the system to that effect.

The Prince Of Clubs Gets Pinched

The nephew of the highest-ranking ex-Saddamite still left on the wanted list, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, has been captured by Iraqi security forces. Hashim Hussein Radhan al-Jabouri worked directly for his uncle and set up his own terrorist network in northeastern Iraq, mostly focusing on attacking the same Iraqi security forces that now host him:

Jabouri, a former officer in Saddam Hussein's intelligence services, received funding from Ibrahim to set up his network and carry out insurgent operations, according to the statement.

Ibrahim, one of Saddam's top aides, is the most senior member of the former regime still at large. He is number six on the U.S. military's list of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis, with a $10 million reward offered for his capture. ...

Over the past year, U.S. and Iraqi forces have also detained several members of Ibrahim's extended family, and claimed at one point to have captured Ibrahim himself, but he remains on the run.

Ibrahim reportedly works under the protection of the Syrian army, or at least he did until recently. The Syrians have backpedaled away from their open assistance to ex-Ba'athist remnants as the American army gets closer to disengaging its mission for internal Iraqi security. Having 135,000 troops on Iraq's western border with lots of spare time will convince Bashar Assad to eventually cut all ties with the obvious losers of the Iraq War. Ibrahim may well get expelled then, or even before, if necessary to curry favor with the US or the new Iraqi government.

Even without an amnesty program, though, the new Iraqi government and its security forces look increasingly more effective at rooting out the insurgents and their leadership. Small wonder the native insurgents are looking for the exit strategies once demanded by American politicians of President Bush.

A New Power Rises In The Mideast, But It's Just A Coincidence: Post

The Washington Post publishes a long article today by Scott Wilson and Daniel Williams about the rise of democracy in the Middle East for the first time in history, and the transformative power it has had in the region. But instead of the liberation of 50 million people from two of the worst tyrannies in the world as an inspiration, the Post humbly submits that journalists have freed the region, as well as George Soros:

[A]cross the region, political reformers are benefiting from the unifying forces of technology and mass media. Digital channels outside the control of states are carrying anything from a Kuwaiti woman's call for voting rights in her country to a Lebanese Christian's demands to drive Syrian troops out from his. The foot soldiers are Islamic political activists in some cases, Bob Dylan disciples, communists or Arab secular nationalists in others. Many are united only in their common desire for fair elections, free speech and political rights.

In his second inaugural address, President Bush said that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." But many democracy advocates in the region are skeptical of U.S. intentions here, and truly free elections in such countries as Egypt and Saudi Arabia could usher in parties sharply at odds with the United States. At the same time, Bush's message has offered a measure of comfort to street activists, who believe that crackdowns will be harder to carry out now that the United States is watching.

A powerful influence on the region has been televised imagery of Georgia's street uprising, called the Rose Revolution, which resulted in the ousting of a president after a flawed election. Then came Ukraine's potent Orange Revolution, which also followed elections seen as rigged. These mass movements have helped inspire political strategies playing out today on the streets in Beirut and Bahrain.

The Iraq experience, by contrast, has had a mixed effect. Some democracy activists in the region have been inspired by the recent elections but remain concerned by the continuing violence there. In Egypt, outrage over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and American policy toward the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians spurred some reformers to take to the streets to protest against President Hosni Mubarak, whom they view as a U.S. ally.

The Arab movements are, in many cases, increasingly tethered by the work of U.S.-funded democracy programs, international anti-corruption groups and Arab satellite television. Seminars funded by groups such as Transparency International and the philanthropist George Soros have brought together novice parliamentarians, activist journalists and human rights advocates from Morocco to the Persian Gulf region.

What do you suppose the journalists started broadcasting and writing about just before all of these demonstrations started happening? Afghanistan's elections, and the Purple Fingers of Iraq. Neither of those developments were initiated or even supported by George Soros or the Exempt Media, who spent tons of ink, paper, and cash telling us how we would lose both wars, how the Brits had been humiliated in both places -- in the 1870s and 1920s, respectively -- and the folly of bringing democracy at gunpoint. Now they want credit for inspiring people to become democratic activists?

Some satires are best left in their native state.

NYT Continues Its Offensive On GOP And Judicial Nominations

Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today's New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign to the rule of corporations. This lengthy and tedious essay goes on interminably about the Constitution in Exile movement and a supposed network of jurists standing by to take us back to its "glory days".

David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy notes several issues with Rosen's scholarship, however:

Jeff Rosen is a learned guy who has written some rather perceptive things about the so-called Lochner era in his law review scholarhip. See 66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1241. Unfortunately, in his journalistic piece in the Times magazine, he simply regurgitates Progressive myths when recounting constitutional history.

You can read all of Bernstein's rebuttals on one page here.

This piece didn't just appear by accident in the NYT. This article coordinates with a campaign under way by the Democrats to paint GOP judicial nominees as dangerously extremist and out of the mainstream. As the GOP drags its feet on resolving the confirmation filibusters, we can expect more of this kind of historical revisionism trumpeted full blast by the Exempt Media. Its aim will be to undermine the centrists in the Republican caucus and split them off in sufficient numbers to uphold the extortion of the minority that has been the status quo for over two years. (Volokh link via Instapundit)

UPDATE: While we're poaching from Instapundit, this comment by Richard Relph at Tom G Palmer's site makes Rosen's sleazy analysis plainly clear:

I see where the country gets its "cult of personality" from. According to the NYT, the "Constitution in Exile" is about the radical views of a few individuals with guilt-by-association financial backing. One need not bother to read, much less understand, the Constitution itself. The actual ideas of Article I, Section 8 and Amendments 9 and 10 are no where near as important or interesting as which potential nominees are suspected sympathizers. Sad. Truly sad.

Palestinian Amnesty Backfires, MPs On The Run

President Mahmoud Abbas' new amnesty program for fugitive militants has resulted in incentivizing new attacks, and the latest has put Palestinian parliamentarians on the run from Fatah's own al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorists:

Armed Palestinian militants shut down a government building in the West Bank on Sunday and threatened to kill members of the Palestinian parliament, demanding the Palestinian Authority provide jobs to former prisoners and to relatives of people killed in fighting. ...

In the West Bank city of Jenin, about 40 militants gathered in the main intersection, firing into the air as several hundred sympathizers encouraged them. The armed men were led by Zakariye Zubeydi, the head of Jenin's branch of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades — a militant group linked to Abbas' Fatah movement.

Zubeydi told the crowd he was ready to march on the offices of local parliamentarians. "In half an hour, if we find any of them in their offices there will be blood and then our only language will be the bullet," he said.

Zubeydi sent two of his armed henchmen over to the government building to make good on his threat, but the building manager had already sent the parliamentarians fleeing ahead of the attack. Zubeydi's men confiscated the keys to the facility.

Last month, Abbas created a program granting amnesty, jobs, and money to those AAMB members who turned themselves in to the Palestinian Authority if they have fugitive status from Israel. On its face, this works, and it's similar to the amnesty programs that have been successful in Afghanistan. However, it creates new divisions among the terrorist groups as to the qualifications and limitations of the program. And in a region where terror and crime has created a huge unemployment problem already (25% by World Bank estimates), handing out jobs to only the most desperate of terrorists creates an obvious incentive to improve one's standing in the AAMB through attacks.

Whether or not it happened as a side effect of this amnesty program, the rate of lawlessness has increased since its inception. Last week, as the AP notes in its report, the AAMB went on a rampage in Ramallah, destroying businesses and shooting at Abbas' own headquarters. And bear in mind that these people come from Abbas' own faction of the PA. The amnesty, at least so far, doesn't apply to Islamic Jihad or Hamas terrorists.

The security situation in the territories shows that Abbas has no mandate to transform the West Bank and Gaza into a stable state based on democratic processes. Abbas cannot even gain control of his own faction's guns, let alone compel the competing terror networks to disarm sufficiently to ensure a cease-fire. His own parliamentarians have to run from their offices to hide from AAMB gunmen who want to burnish their credentials to qualify for the dole. As I have warned before, without a mandate for peace, Abbas can never hope to control the people who will give the Palestinians what they want: war. Until the Palestinians want peace, this Keystone Kops version of a state will be the only result.